Sitting of 25 November 1975

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

    Changing of the Guard Ceremony
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to ensure that the Changing of the Guard ceremony at Buckingham Palace can be fully maintained on a daily basis during 1976.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): Regrettably, the level of operational and other unavoidable commitments falling on the Guards Division and other troops will not permit the Changing of the Guard ceremony at Buckingham Palace to take place daily throughout the year. However, every effort will be made to ensure that the ceremony takes place daily from April to September, which is of course the main tourist season.
    Mr. Hunt: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the intense disappointment that is caused to tourists and many other visitors to London who go to the Palace only to find that there is no ceremony on that day? Surely our defences must be in an even more parlous state than we had imagined if we cannot muster a handful of men just once a day to perform this ceremony, which is such a major tourist attraction for our country.
    Mr. Brown: I think that the hon. Gentleman underestimates the effort that goes into the Changing of the Guard ceremony. While the primary role of the Household Troops in London is the performance of public duties, it is necessary to train for operational duty and to allow for periodic leave. Additionally, there
    640
    is a commitment in respect of security duties, particularly in Northern Ireland, and for duty with the United Nations force.
    Mr. Lipton: How much does it cost to put on this ceremony, which is one of the main tourist attractions in London? My hon. Friend's rather indecisive reply, that we shall have the ceremony for one month, or on alternate days, or at odd times, when the public are not informed beforehand, will cause a lot of disappointment to children and adults.
    Mr. Brown: Offhand, I could not give an answer on how much the ceremony costs. I should need notice of that question. However, I believe that whatever the cost, it is well worth it. I believe that the majority of the people of this country would agree with me. I think that my hon. Friend is being less than fair in suggesting that we shall simply have the Changing of the Guard ceremony at odd intervals. I have already indicated that it will be carried on throughout the summer tourist season.
    Mr. Townsend: I recognise the importance of this ceremony at Buckingham Palace, but may I try to persuade the Minister to review the whole situation? Is he aware that no fewer than 100 Regular soldiers are employed on guard duty at London and Windsor on an average day? Is it not time that some of these duties, particularly at Windsor, were taken over by such personnel as Beefeaters? Does the Minister not agree that it is high time that such fit, experienced and well-trained soldiers were employed on operational duties and not simply on static ceremonial sentry duty?
    Mr. Brown: It seems that confusion reigns on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) talked of a handful of men, and now the hon. Gentleman is talking about 100 men at a time. Bearing in mind the need for reliefs, that figure becomes about 300 men. I think that we have got it just about right.

    Civilian Employment (Scotland)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the causes of delay in setting up civilian defence jobs in Scotland.
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): If my hon. Friend is referring to dispersal, there is no delay.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is not the reality of this situation that the Civil Service unions have seen the example of the Forestry Commission, which uprooted itself from Basingstoke to go to headquarters in Edinburgh and now, faced with a demand that the Scottish forests be the responsibility of a Scottish Assembly, has to find other headquarters for those responsible for the English forests? If they pick up The Scotsman newspaper these days, is it any small wonder that the unions are extremely reluctant to move to a part of Britain which they may think may be separate in a few years' time?
    Mr. Rodgers: As my hon. Friend will guess, I do not think that I can involve myself in the question of Scottish forests, which is the issue he raises. However, in so far as he makes a very serious reference to the experience of Civil Service staffs, I can only repeat that consideration of devolution will not affect the Government's plans for dispersal.
    Mrs. Bain: Does the Minister accept that many of us on the SNP Bench often believe that Cabinet Ministers cannot see the wood for the trees? Beyond that, however, will he accept that many people in my constituency are gravely concerned about the dispersal of defence jobs in view of the fact that the nature and the types of jobs being brought to the area have not been disclosed and discussed with the local community?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady wants or does not want defence jobs. I can only repeat that a decision has been made by the Government and we propose to honour it.
    Mr. Cartwright: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is very serious concern in my constituency about the possibility of transferring thousands of Quality Assurance jobs from Woolwich to Glasgow? As this would involve the expenditure of millions of pounds and add seriously to the many employment problems in South-East London, and as many of the key professional and technical staff involved have already indicated their unwillingness to move to Glasgow
    642
    would not this impair the whole operation?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am aware that there are some issues upon which the Government cannot win. My hon. Friend has been very forthcoming in rightly drawing my attention to the problems which would arise for his constituents were a decision made which would affect them. But the Government's intentions on dispersal, very carefully considered and announced last year, cannot be carried out unless some of those who have previously found jobs in the south of the United Kingdom find jobs in future in development areas and areas of high unemployment.

    Private Davidson
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete his inquiries into the circumstances in which Private Davidson, a soldier from Fife, met his death several months ago.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: I have now completed my inquiries and I shall be writing to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Hamilton: That answer is acceptable so far as it goes, but is my hon. Friend aware that it is highly unsatisfactory that the parents of this dead boy should have had to suffer such anxiety for several months, despite my repeated representations to him, personally, in this House and in correspondence? Can my hon. Friend assure me that his reply will contain adequate reasons for this inordinate delay?
    Mr. Brown: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am sorry that it has taken so long to give him a full report on the situation, but he must understand that following the manslaughter trial there was an appeal, and we could not do anything until that had been concluded. It was also necessary to examine fully the evidence, given at the trial, concerning Private Davidson's unfortunate death.

    Iran (Minister's Visit)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his visit to Iran.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Roy Mason): I visited Iran two weeks ago at the invitation of the Iranian Minister of War. During the visit I had discussions with the Shah, the Iranian Prime Minister and other Ministers and Service chiefs, on a wide range of subjects of mutual interest. I also met British Service personnel who help train the Iranian armed forces.
    Mr. Onslow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he was able to give the Iranian Government a promise of the British Government's full co-operation with Iran in its desire to equip itself against possible aggression? Specifically, will he confirm that he gave positive backing to the Vosper Thorneycroft Harrier-carrier project, in which the Iranian Government is interested? Will he also confirm that there is no understanding with the American Government which might inhibit Vickers from competing for the Iranian submarine order, with the result that the business might land in the lap of the French, instead? The importance of this, politically and industrially, in terms of defence sales in Iran and elsewhere, is such that many people believe that the confidentiality which has applied hitherto is no longer applicable.
    Mr. Mason: I am not prepared to break the confidentiality that exists between the Government, our defence sales organisation, and the overseas customers with whom we make defence contracts. It is at their request that confidentiality remains. I discussed equipment matters with the Shah of Iran and his Chiefs of Defence Staffs. They are expressing an interest—I put it no higher than that—in the Harrier-carrier.
    Mr. Newens: Did my right hon. Friend discuss the deplorable use of Iranian troops, together with British troops, to suppress a genuine national liberation movement in Oman? Did he make any representations or have discussions about the necessity to withdraw these troops and allow the people of Oman to decide their affairs for themselves?
    Mr. Mason: We are members of CENTO, and so is Iran. We have a responsibility to maintain stability in the Gulf. Iran, Jordan and ourselves are
    644
    playing a part in the Dhofar, with a view to stemming the rebels crossing the South Yemen frontier to cause disruptions in the Gulf.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Did the right hon. Gentleman give the Iranian Government any indication whether there would be further cuts in British defence expenditure? If not, will he give us such an indication?
    Mr. Mason: I did not give such an indication there; neither can I give it here. That exercise is not far enough down the road for me to give the House any information.

    NATO (Standardisation of Weapons)
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the progress being made towards greater standardisation of weapons systems within NATO.
    Mr. Mason: I think everyone appreciates that progress will be gradual but alliance members fully understand the need to advance through stronger cooperation within Europe and via the "two-way street" with North America. At a very successful Eurogroup meeting in The Hague on 5th November it was decided to explore further the potential for extending European co-operation between all European members of the alliance. I have arranged for a copy of The Hague communiqué to be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Arnold: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that while it is highly desirable that the new secretariat should be set up and be seen to be working efficiently, that of itself will not provide reciprocal benefits to our defence industries unless they can be sustained by a high level of research and development? Has the time not come for the Government to reverse their policy of seeking to cut such expenditure?
    Mr. Mason: The Eurogroup meeting which discussed how best to traverse the path of sharing research and development within European countries agreed in principle to the establishment of a European defence procurement secretariat. At our next meeting, on 8th December, we hope to be able to flesh out that proposal.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of widespread Press reports, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether he has been considering the British commitment to the development and purchase of MRCA, with a view to reducing either?
    Mr. Mason:I cannot oblige my hon. Friend at this stage. As far as I am concerned, the MRCA is firmly in our programme. We have indicated how many we want, but have not yet decided on the production figures That decision will not be necessary until early next year, when we come to an agreement with our co-operative partners.
    Mr. Goodhew: As Labour Governments cancelled the TSR2, the F111A and the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft, and as the MRCA is a prime example of co-operation between NATO allies, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is not yet firm in the minds of the Government? If so, the sooner he is an ex-Defence Minister, the better.
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Member could not have listened to my supplementary answer. As far as the Government are concerned, the MRCA is going ahead, but we cannot yet agree on production figures. It is not yet time to do so. That will be decided in the early part of next year, with our co-operative partners.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the operation of this secretariat there is a danger that if there is standardisation in the production of certain weapons they will be manufactured principally in German plants? Will my right hon. Friend take account of the need to protect this country against any substantial loss of employment in this matter?
    Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I keep this problem in mind when discussing these matters with my Eurogroup colleagues.

    Service Men (Injuries on Duty)
    Mr. Ovendenasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will appoint a committee to review the working of the Crown Proceedings Act as it affects Service men injured on duty.
    Mr. William Rodgers: Not unless there is a case for doing so, of which I am at present unaware.
    Mr. Ovenden: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that there is a case for ascertaining whether his Department is properly using an Act which was designed to uphold Service discipline, by preventing Service men making claims in respect of negligence by the Department?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am aware of my hon. Friend's deep concern with the problems involving one of his constituents, and of the manner in which he has pursued this case with great tenacity. Though, at his request, I am prepared to consider the matter, the question has been examined many times and no satisfactory solution has been found to the problem as my hon. Friend sees it.

    Naval Stores Depot, Bandeath
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a decision about the future of the naval stores depot at Bandeath.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd): A decision will follow a detailed assessment of all the implications, taking account of the views of the staff and trade union sides. This is likely to take several months.
    Mr. Canavan: Is my hon. Friend aware that a week ago today I attended a meeting of trade union representatives at Bandeath, at which a resolution was unanimously passed rejecting the ill-thought-out closure proposals presented by the so-called specialists? In view of the fact that about 170 jobs are at stake in an area where male unemployment is at least 7 per cent., will my hon. Friend give an assurance that careful consideration will be given to every alternative proposal for the continued use of Ban-death, especially as it has the advantage of being centrally situated and is easily accessible by road, rail and sea.
    Mr. Judd: The closure of Bandeath is one of a series of proposals by management consultants which the Ministry of Defence has yet to assess. In assessing them the views of trade unionists will be taken fully into account. The consultants consider that the depot is unsuited to its task, in terms of buildings, acreage and distance from Rosyth. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is impossible to implement the defence review and its

    647
    consequences without adjustments to support services which involve manpower.
    Mr. Tebbit: Does the Minister agree that it is a healthy sign that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is now, at last, taking an interest in defence matters, that he is pressing for defence establishments to be kept open, and that he is concerned, on behalf of his constituents, about the effects, on unemployment, of the defence cuts already announced? Will the Minister tell him that he had better await those cuts still to come?
    Mr. Judd: I assure the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that I always take most seriously my hon. Friend's views—both past and present—on defence.

    British Army of the Rhine
    Mr. Wellbelovedasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the suitability of current exercises in the BAOR.
    Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Did these exercises include a test of the capability of reinforcement, from the United Kingdom, of the British Army of the Rhine? Did they also take into account the possibility of reinforcing troops in Northern Ireland from BAOR?
    Mr. Mason: We have just completed a very successful exercise of calling up 10,000 TAVR personnel in a joint exercise with the Regular Army. It has been extremely successful. Although the position of Northern Ireland does not arise out of this Question, I can say that we have reduced the troops there to 13 units, rotation is satisfactory, and we can deploy more if necessary.
    Mr. Blaker: Have any exercises been conducted to test the removal of the brigade level of command both in respect of the efficiency of our own forces and the effect on co-operation with our allies?
    Mr. Mason: On restructuring trials, not yet, but some are planned.
    Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Following the Helsinki accord there was an agreement that each side would notify the other of major manœuvres. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that this part
    648
    of the accord was honoured, and will he say whether the Russians have notified him of any manœuvres that they intend to take in the next few months?
    Mr. Mason: There is a later Question on this specific matter. I hope to deal with it more fully then.
    Mr. Onslow: Why was no use made of the opportunity of this autumn's exercises to test the command structure that will be applied when the brigade group is abolished? Is it not a matter of grave importance that this should be fully evaluated in time for the Defence White Paper and that the suitability of current wireless equipment to the new structure should be looked at now, and not in a year or two?
    Mr. Mason: The opportunity was not taken, because it has been necessary to overcome some of the problems which are worrying BAOR commanders on some of the major trials and exercises that we should be having. Those are now being overcome, and restructuring trials will take place in due course.

    Fuel Conservation ("Save It" Appeal)
    Mr. Tominsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what part the Army is playing in the "Save It" campaign.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Brynmor John): During 1974–75 the Army more than achieved its objective in the United Kingdom of reducing 1972–73 levels of consumption by 10 per cent. in the case of liquid fuels and by 6 per cent. in the case of other forms of energy. The Army also expects to achieve these objectives during the current year. Substantial savings are also being achieved overseas.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I welcomed that statement about the Army. What is the position with regard to the other branches of the Armed Services?
    Mr. John: The other two Armed Services have also met their targets, so that the total overall saving is considerable.
    Miss Fookes: Is the Minister sure that in making these savings he is not impairing the efficiency of the Armed Forces?
    Mr. John: We are satisfied that the present level of savings can be achieved without unacceptable operational detriment.

    Ex-Service Men (Housing)
    Mr. Douglas-Mannasked the Secretary of State for Defence what provision is made for housing members of Her Majesty's Forces on leaving the Services; and whether he considers the provision to be satisfactory.
    Mr. William Rodgers: In addition to providing advice on housing matters, the Services operate schemes which are designed to help men and women nearing the end of their service to purchase a house for their retirement. As for renting, we have recently once again drawn the attention of local authorities to the special difficulties of ex-Service men. These arrangements are not ideal, but I think are the best attainable in present circumstances.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Far from not being ideal, the arrangements are quite inadequate. Does the Minister accept that there is considerable hardship among a large number of Service men leaving the forces, particularly those with short service? Will he initiate discussions with the local authority associations and his right hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment, with a view to creating a special list system or some other proposals along the lines indicated in the Shelter publication on tied housing?
    Mr. Rodgers: I agree that there is hardship, and I very much regret it. It was for that precise reason that a circular was sent to local authorities earlier this year. I am certainly willing to discuss the matter further with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I must make it clear that under the present statutes there are limits to what the Government can tell local authorities to do, in terms of the disposal of local authority housing assets.
    Mr. Boscawen: The Minister has not given a satisfactory reply. Is he aware that one of the things troubling Service men is the protection given to tenants of furnished lettings, which means that Service men coming out of the forces cannot get back their own homes when they need them most?
    Mr. Rodgers:I think that the hon. Member is misinformed about the provisions of the Act. I have investigated this question when cases have been drawn to my attention. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind I shall be happy to look into it.
    Mr. Woodall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have had the utmost cooperation from the Labour-controlled councils in Yorkshire over the rehousing of ex-Service men?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Member for Hems-worth (Mr. Woodall) said. Many local authorities are co-operative, but a minority are not. I hope that every hon. Member who has influence locally will take note of what has been said today and try to make local authorities more flexible in dealing with a real social issue.
    Mr. Farr: The arrangements are inadequate in circumstances in which, as occasionally happens, a marriage breaks up when a family is serving overseas and is living in married quarters. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in those circumstances it is often very difficult for the wife and children to be found accommodation anywhere, and the military authorities seem most unwilling to help in any way? Will the right hon. Gentleman please look into that point?
    Mr. Rodgers: I shall be happy to do so.

    Dockyards (Civilian Apprentices)
    Mr. Smallasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian apprentices are currently serving in RN dockyards.
    Mr. Judd: 3,096, Sir.
    Mr. Small: I appreciate the quality of training which is afforded to civilian apprentices, but can my hon. Friend say whether the formula recently adopted for giving financial aid to encourage training in the private sector is adopted in respect of civilian apprentices in Royal Navy dockyards? Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to this point, since it would help to improve recruitment in the dockyards?
    Mr. Judd: That question is primarily for my right hon. Friend the Secretary

    651
    of State for Employment. The present entry of apprentices to dockyards is fully taken up. There is no capacity either in the apprentice training centres or in the ships and shops where more than half the apprenticeships have to be served. There is little scope at present for training additional young people, but we shall always act sympathetically in terms of our responsibilities in this area.

    Nimrod Aircraft
    Mr. Terry Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future of the Nimrod aircraft.
    Mr. William Rodgers: The Nimrod is an excellent long-range maritime patrol aircraft, which we plan to improve still further to maintain its effectiveness into the 1990s.
    Mr. Walker: Is the Nimrod's existence in any way jeopardised by the fact that it has a Boeing rival?
    Mr. Rodgers:I think that my hon. Friend was referring to a decision which the Government may in due course have to take between what is known as the Boeing AWACS system and the Nimrod alternative. I cannot anticipate the decision, and I cannot say when we might have to take it, but with current pressures on the defence budget the cost of the alternatives will have to be taken fully into account.
    Mr. Warren:Bearing in mind that there are at least six Nimrod aircraft surplus to the requirements of the Royal Air Force, will the Minister recall Air Commodore Scrimgeour from NATO, where he is chairman of the committee examining the future NATO airborne early warning requirement, and tell him that it is about time his committee looked at the British Nimrod as well as its American rival?
    Mr. Rodgers:I think that there is no doubt in the minds of those principally involved in NATO that there is a Nimrod alternative, and we are very anxious that it should be fully considered.
    Mr. Younger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are anxiously looking for concrete evidence that there will be a two-way street in defence procurement? Will he bring home to our friends in other
    652
    countries that when we have bought expensive equipment from them we expect them to give a fair chance to British equipment, which in many respects is better?
    Mr. Rodgers: On this matter there is nothing between the hon. Gentleman and the Government. The hon. Gentleman's point of view has been forcefully expressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on a number of important occasions.

    Iceland (Fishing Limits)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Defence what naval protection is being given to British trawlers fishing in the high seas off Iceland.
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the arrangements to defend British fishing vessels off the coast of Iceland.
    Mr. Speaker: I understand that these Questions are to be answered at the end of Question Time.

    Low-Flying Aircraft
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the complaints sent to him by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles of low-flying aircraft over Peel Hospital.
    Mr. John: The hon. Member will be aware from previous correspondence that Peel Hospital lies within an extensive area that is regularly used by military aircraft for low-level training, but that it is clearly laid down in the regulations that, in recognition of the special needs of Peel Hospital, no flying below 2,000 feet should take place within one nautical mile of the hospital. I have called for an investigation into the most recent complaints and I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as the results are available.
    Mr. Steel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what concerns me is that after he extended the protected area in response to complaints back in February there were subsequent complaints in April, when he wrote to me saying that the new instructions had not yet percolated through? We are now in November, and there have been further complaints. Surely the instruction should

    653
    have percolated through by this time? I shall be grateful if the Minister will look into the matter thoroughly, and I look forward to hearing his explanation why the instructions do not seem to reach the people flying the aeroplanes.
    Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman is making an assumption about the results of the investigation which is not justified at this stage. Of the complaints in April, one was about an incident that came about because the instructions had not yet percolated through. The other aircraft were revealed, on investigation, to have been conforming to the regulations, but because of climatic difficulties, or because of the surrounding countryside, the sound was magnified so as to make the aircraft appear to be breaking regulations when they were not.
    Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the correspondence that I have had from him about low-flying aircraft in the south of Scotland. Does he agree that there is still a great deal of unhappiness about the frequency of low flying, which I accept must be undertaken by the Royal Air Force to some extent? Will he reconsider the matter before the spring, when low flying affects farming, and particularly lambing?
    Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if I tell him that the matter is under almost constant review because of his own and other hon. Members' representations. As he realises, we have to fly low, and low flying must be done where it will cause minimum disruption to people's lives. That means that it must be done in the more rural areas. Within that restriction, we try to share it out as fairly as possible. There is no evidence that Scotland is having an undue share of low flying.
    Mr. Gwynfor Evans: In view of the distress caused throughout the Carmarthen constituency by low-flying aircraft, will the Minister press for the rerouting of the exercise "Advent Express?" Perhaps the people of Pontypridd would enjoy a visit.
    Mr. John: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's prescription for low flying, which is that it should be directed over urban areas. If that is what his party is saying, I am sure that the people
    654
    of Pontypridd and industrial South Wales will welcome that news!
    We carry out only the minimum of low flying necessary for operational efficiency, and we take infinite pains to try to avoid all sensitive routes. We take as much care as we can to avoid disrupting people's lives. Low flying gives us no pleasure. We realise that it causes some heartache to people, but it is unavoidable. We hope that the benefits of the Services' presence in, for example, Carmarthen, outweigh the disruption that we must cause to people's lives.
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures are followed before permission is given for low flying by RAF aircraft over land areas where the agricultural industry may suffer adverse effects from such activities.
    Mr. John: We carry out only the minimum amount of low-level training which is essential for operational reasons. In order to affect the least number of people by such flying, we aim to distribute this training evenly over the most sparsely populated areas. When major low-flying exercises are being planned we inform the National Farmers' Union in advance, so that it has an opportunity to make representations and give advance warning to its members. Claims for compensation from farmers, which tend to be relatively few in number, are dealt with sympathetically.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that even in rural areas with relatively sparse populations the damage inflicted may be infinitely greater, in terms of the disruption of agriculture and other activities, than in some urban areas? Will he accept that the people of Caernarvon, Merioneth and Carmarthen will see a remarkable correlation in any development of low-flying aircraft?
    Mr. John: This is a matter of such burning importance to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that he has waited until today to raise the matter with me either in letter or Question form. The fact is that we accept that low flying cannot take place without some disruption to the local communities. We hope to minimise this activity, and particularly its effects on agriculture. The hon. Gentleman referred to the people of Merioneth. I hope that he will have a word with his

    655
    hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and his neighbour in the north about the benefits conferred on local economies by the presence of one or more of the Services.

    Security and Co-operation in Europe (Troop Movements)
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the extent to which the obligation on all signatories of the documents signed following the CSCE to report all manœuvres involving over 25,000 men within 155 miles of another country has been implemented in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Mason: The United Kingdom has not carried out a major military manœuvre, involving over 25,000 troops which is notifiable under the terms of the CSCE Final Act. As I made clear to the House on 31st October, the United Kingdom gave prior notification of the participation of 6,000–7,000 British troops in Exercise "Deep Express", in accordance with that part of the CSCE Final Act which allows States discretion to notify military manœuvres involving fewer than 25,000 men.
    Mr. Sproat: The House will welcome the fact that the United Kingdom and NATO as a whole are fulfilling their obligations, including their voluntary obligations, under the Helsinki agreements. Has any notification of manœuvres—voluntary or obligatory notification—been received from the Warsaw Pact forces? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any evidence that Warsaw Pact forces have carried out notifiable manœuvres without notifying them? What consideration is NATO giving to what it will do if the Soviet Union continues flagrantly and consistently to breach the obligations about notification of manœuvres?
    Mr. Mason: NATO has given prior notification of seven military manœuvres, three of them involving more than 25,000 men. West Germany also invited observers to one of its exercises. The Warsaw Pact has not notified us of any manœuvres to date, but we are not aware that it has carried out any military manœuvres involving more than 25,000 men.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the obligation concerning manœuvres was one of the most valuable outcomes of Helsinki? Is it not helping to prevent a false and even a fatal conclusion being made by a military commander on either side about the intentions of military manœuvres by the other?
    Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I must inform him that it is all voluntary and not mandatory. He will therefore appreciate, from my first supplementary reply, that we have been affording the Warsaw Pact Powers a great deal of information about our military manœuvres. They have not yet informed us of any of theirs. Certainly it will be to the advantage of NATO and the Warsaw Pact if both sides honour the CSCE agreement. I am hopeful that the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union will do so.

    Air Trooping (Sri Lanka)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for using air trooping facilities through Sri Lanka.
    Mr. John: The future air trooping routes to Hong Kong are still under consideration. A Ministry of Defence team leaves tomorrow to study possible staging points, and Sri Lanka is one of the countries that it will be visiting. We have already had preliminary discussions with the Sri Lankan authorities.
    Mr. Blaker: Are the Government satisfied that if arrangements are made for air trooping facilities through Sri Lanka or other countries in the area we shall still be able to continue to use those facilities in the event of a disagreement on policy between the British Government and the Government concerned—for example, about the demilitarisation of the Indian Ocean?
    Mr. John: As only preliminary discussions have so far taken place, and as the defence team is leaving tomorrow, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that, amongst other things, is what we are trying to find out, in order to come to an agreement that is acceptable to both Governments.
    Mr. Amery: Is the Minister aware that, on the information at present available to

    657
    the House and subject to what the delegation reports, staging troops through Sri Lanka does not seem so very much cheaper than maintaining existing facilities at Gan? There must be a difference between the security of a route firmly under our control and one that is not under our control. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that, if we should commit what I would regard as the folly of withdrawing from Gan altogether, the staging posts and anchorage facilities will not be taken over by an unfriendly Power?
    Mr. John: We believe that the frequency of flights using Sri Lanka would be relatively low. Sri Lanka will be required for the replenishment and rotation of the reduced Hong Kong garrison. On preliminary findings, we are satisfied that the retention of Gan is not justified by the continuation of that task, but we are going into these matters in more detail, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will await the conclusion of the talks.

    Exports
    Mr. Stanleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries on defence exports.
    Mr. William Rodgers: In contributing towards the long-term viability of the aircraft industry and in helping British shipbuilding to prosper in the competitive markets of the world, nationalisation should be good for exports.
    Mr. Stanley: Does the Minister agree that among the list of aircraft and shipbuilding companies to be nationalised are included many defence production specialist companies whose export records are among the best in the entire spectrum of British industry? Can the Minister give a single tangible piece of evidence to suggest that nationalisation will increase the export prospects of those companies when, on all the historical evidence of nationalisation, exports are likely to suffer as a result?
    Mr. Rodgers: I do not wish to cast doubt on the performance of a number of firms, and, indeed, I should be happy to pay them credit where credit is due. But the hon. Gentleman is not totally in touch
    658
    with the state and prospects of either the aircraft or shipbuilding industry if he believes that we do not have to think hard again about its organisation. For that reason we shall shortly bring in a Bill providing for the nationalisation of those industries, and it will be given a Second Reading.
    Mr. Cronin: Is my hon. Friend aware that in view of the confusion caused by having 125 different shipyards, and the lack of co-ordination between BAC and Hawker Siddeley, nearly all responsible senior officers of the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy look forward to nationalisation with considerable relief?
    Mr. Rodgers: It would be wrong of me to comment on my hon. Friend's remarks, but if I had been in his position I should have said precisely the same thing.
    Mr. Pattie: Why does the Minister talk about the long-term viability of the aircraft industry when the aircraft industry is viable now?
    Mr. Rodgers: I can only say that that is not the view of management or trade unions, as expressed to my right hon. Friends and me.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Will my hon. Friend give some estimate of the way in which these very profitable concerns in shipbuilding, ship repairing and in the aircraft industry have managed to take so many hundreds of millions of pounds worth of charity from every Government in power since 1945?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am tempted to respond to my right hon. Friend's helpful remarks, but his question will be better dealt with in the Second Reading debate. No doubt it will be answered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on security operations in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to South Armagh.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Northern Ireland told the House yesterday, Army operations continue throughout Northern Ireland, supporting the

    659
    police in the task of combating violence and terrorism. Extra security measures are in force in South Armagh following recent terrorist incidents and, in particular, the killing of three young soldiers, and the wounding of a fourth, on Saturday. I know that the House will join me in condemning these outrages in the strongest possible terms; in expressing our admiration of the outstanding courage of these soldiers; and in conveying our deepest sympathy to their families and friends. The Security Forces will make every effort possible to bring to justice those responsible for these despicable outrages.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: I join the Minister in his expression of sympathy and admiration, but may I ask what progress has been made in gaining from the Eire Army the same good co-operation as exists between the RUC and the Garda? If that co-operation is not given, will our troops be authorised to fire on terrorists and hotly to pursue terrorists across the border, as they are fully entitled to do under international law?
    Mr. Brown: I must emphasise, as did my right hon. Friend the Minister of State yesterday, that we are receiving excellent co-operation from the security forces of the Republic. I do not want to go any further than that, because it would be foolish to imperil the type of cooperation that we are now receiving.

  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  Mr. Stottasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to take the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): While, as my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is Chairman of the NEDC, I like to chair the council about once a quarter, as I did at the last meeting, on 5th November. I hope to chair NEDC again quite early in the New Year.
  Mr. Stott: In view of the vital importance of the new industrial strategy linked with our economic recovery, is it possible for this House to have a progress report
  660
  on the strategy, and any developments? If that is the case, when may we expect such a report?
  The Prime Minister: I understand that the next meeting NEDC is likely to discuss the follow-up to decisions taken at Chequers on 5th November. I also understand that in January there will be a full document raising this subject in terms of about 30 industries, including the work of the EDCs. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is right that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should report to the House on NEDC, in the follow-up to the meeting of 5th November.
  Mr. Budgen: May I ask the Prime Minister to reflect on his last great attempt at a selective regeneration of British industry through the medium of the IRC? Is not the IRC best remembered by the merger between Leyland and BMC, and did not that merger bring great sadness and misery to countless thousands of our fellow citizens?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Bill to set up the IRC was fought by the Conservatives with great vigour and venom, but after it passed into law it received the fullest possible co-operation from industry. The board of the IRC consists, to a large extent, of top industrialists. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, immediately after the change of Government in 1970 the IRC was abolished, but I understand that there have been statements since that time suggesting that Conservatives regretted the decision to abolish the corporation. If the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the IRC, I suggest that he is not speaking for industry.
  Mr. Skinner: Before my right hon. Friend chairs the next NEDC meeting, will he announce that the Government will introduce a fairly wide-ranging set of import controls, and will he make a concurrent announcement that those import controls will be introduced as a facet of Socialist planning, but will not be used as a device to lure certain trade union leaders into accepting a continuation of an incomes policy in 1976 and 1977?
  The Prime Minister: On the latter point, the trade union leaders speak with more authority on behalf of the trade union movement than does my hon. Friend.

  661
  With regard to import controls, I have repeatedly told the House—and I repeated at Rambouillet exactly what I said in the House—that we reject a generalised system of import controls, whether to help our balance of payments, which is rapidly improving, or for any other reason.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Has the Prime Minister got the figures right this time?
  The Prime Minister: We have said that where abnormal imports—quite apart from whether dumping can be proved—threaten industries that are vital and needed in our economy for many years to come, and where those imports supplement the effect of world depression, we reserve the right to introduce selective import controls, following the procedure laid down in Article 19 of GATT but not as a general policy. I explained all this at Rambouillet.
  Mrs. Thatcher: When the Prime Minister next meets the NEDC will he be able to tell it which ministerial voice on Government economic policy he proposes to follow? Will he follow the voice of the Secretary of State for Energy, who, over the weekend, seemed to want more nationalisation, or that of the Secretary of State for the Environment, who argues that State collectivism is incompatible with liberty and democracy?
  The Prime Minister: I thought that that was rather pathetic. I thought that in the last few weeks of the last Session the right hon. Lady did better by speaking only on Thursdays.
  The policy of Her Majesty's Government was explained in the Gracious Speech, in my own speech and in the White Paper on the regeneration of industry.
  Mrs. Thatcher: On the Gracious Speech, the Prime Minister addressed no part of his speech to the future. The right hon. Gentleman has become a complete memoirs man. Will he now tell us exactly what he proposes to do in the future?
  The Prime Minister: It sounds as though the right hon. Lady's public relations department was working overtime this morning.
  I spent most of my time on the Gracious Speech talking about our policies for the future. I spent much time talking about
  662
  the present policy on inflation—on which the right hon. Lady could not even vote. I also looked forward on the matter of public expenditure, in respect of which the right hon. Lady has not yet told us what cuts she would make.

  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister when he next hopes to visit Scotland.
  The Prime Minister: As the House knows, I was in Scotland on 3rd November to attend the ceremony to mark the inauguration of BP's Forties Field, but I have no plans for a further visit this year.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Prime Minister apply all his powers of scepticism to the recent over-simplistic approach of certain polls purporting to give the views of the Scottish people? Does he agree that if we are asked in the vaguest terms whether we want more say in our own affairs, we naturally say "Yes"? Does he agree that if one of the real questions is put—namely, do we want to pay more rates and taxes for yet another centralised bureaucracy in Edinburgh—the answer may be different?
  The Prime Minister: Yes.
  Mr. Thorpe: If the Prime Minister has no plans to visit Scotland, will he at least satisfy the curiosity of people in Scotland, and indeed those outside, on the question whether it is a fact that television commentators and newspaper reporters this morning received copies of the report on devolution? Is it not incredible that on Thursday night hon. Members in all parts of the House will be asked to make an instant judgment on a highly complicated document, which the Press and the media have been able to study in depth?
  The Prime Minister: I shall inquire into what the right hon. Gentleman said. I do not know the answer. It is a serious question. There is the question of the rule on confidential early revises, which has been in force for many years, under successive Governments. I have sometimes been critical of it, for the reason mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. I shall inquire into it, as I

  663
  know that there is concern in the House about it—not least because some of these revises find their way into the hands of some hon. Members and not others, which creates unfairness and inequity.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Prime Minister accept that the worst advice that he could take is that of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who is out of step with the Labour Party—which is out of step with Scottish opinion? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will be his alibi on his next visit to Scotland for the sell-out of his promise on a devolution Bill?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, I shall do that without even asking for the hon. Gentleman's alibi for voting with the Conservatives tonight. That will take some explaining in Scotland.
  There has been no sell-out on devolution. The White Paper will be published on Thursday. The House will have the opportunity of an early debate on it, especially by those who, as a result of their study of it, form views, but who did not have preconceived notions before they had even read it. We want the House to have that debate. We also want a great national debate in Scotland, in Wales, in England—in Britain as a whole. We want a full debate. We propose to introduce in this Session a Bill which reflects our decisions in the light of that debate. I hope that we can make some progress with it. I cannot be certain. The progress we make depends on the House. But we intend at the beginning of next Session to introduce a Bill and see that it becomes law.
  Mr. Gourlay: Is the Prime Minister aware that his words in last Thursday's debate about devolution created a great deal of disappointment among Labour Party members and other parts of the electorate in Scotland? Will he therefore make an early visit to Scotland to announce the date of the elections for the Assembly?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. That does not arise. I understand that there was a productive and fruitful meeting between my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends in Glasgow last Saturday, which dealt with the whole question of the timetable. I do not believe that the people of Scotland, or the members of the Labour
  664
  Party in Scotland, want to see the matter rushed without proper consultation with them, so that they can express a view on what will be a full and complicated White Paper. Nor would they wish to deny to the people of Wales or England the right to express their views on this. We shall at the earliest possible moment, with no avoidable delay, introduce the legislation. I hope that it will be debated this Session. We hope, with the good will of the House, that it will become law in the next parliamentary Session.
  Mr. Monro: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the County of Dumfries unemployment has doubled in the past 13 months of Socialism? What steps will the right hon. Gentleman take, other than to issue platitudes from Chequers? Is he aware that, so far, unfortunately, his scheme to help school leavers has had no practical effect, and seems unlikely to have an effect in the next few months?
  The Prime Minister: The downward phase in the cycle began under the Conservative Government even before we felt the effect of increased oil prices on this country. The hon. Gentleman knows what is happening all over the advanced industrial word in exactly the same degree. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is 8·4 per cent."] The hon. Gentleman referred to unemployment. The figure is nothing like 8·4 per cent. In Germany the increase is a great deal more. The Opposition will be interested to know that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in Scotland, expressed as a percentage of the Great Britain rate, which was 157 per cent. when we took office, has now fallen to 122 per cent.
  Mr. Buchan: When my right hon. Friend visits Scotland, will be consider paying a visit to Linwood, so that the workers can thank him for saving the jobs of those at present employed in the Chrysler organisation in Linwood and the Midlands? In the meantime, will he take steps to ensure that warm welcome?
  The Prime Minister: The whole House appreciates the deep concern of my hon. Friend and of other hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have a long way to go in the negotiations before anyone can hope to save any part of the Chrysler empire, in view of the negotiations with which we have been presented.

  665
  We are striving might and main to save the whole operation, if that is possible, and certainly to save Linwood, because of the high level of unemployment there. There are powerful difficulties in concentrating production on one area. [Interruption.] That would not be the answer, because this is a heavy loss-making sector of the motor car industry, which suffers because no new models have been produced for many years. It will be a very costly operation. It would not help for me to go further in this direction, except to say that I regard it as imperative that Mr. Riccardo returns to this country tomorrow to hear the result of the Government's consideration of these matters.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Does the Prime Minister accept that we on the Conservative Benches believe that he is right to have a major debate on the whole devolution prospect, and that there should be a long and proper debate on the whole issue? Does he appreciate that during that debate two tests will be applied to the Government's proposals, as put forward on Thursday? The first is whether they will ensure the unity of the United Kingdom in the future or will lead to its disruption. The second is whether they will lead to more attractive and more efficient government for people in all parts of the United Kingdom. Will those two tests be met by the Government's proposals?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in welcoming the great debate, which is extremely helpful. I felt that he did better than I did in dealing with his hon. Friend who was talking of weeks rather than months. This is a very important subject, which must be fully examined. The unity of the United Kingdom is the whole essence and inspiration of the White Paper, as the right hon. Gentleman will discover. On the question whether it provides effective and efficient organisation in the interests of all the people who are governed within these islands—
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: What about Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: Scotland is part of one of these islands. I knew that the hon. Gentleman did not know history; it is about time he learnt geography. I thought that Scotland was within these
  666
  islands. There are the Orkneys and Shetlands, which cause trouble to certain hon. Gentlemen.
  Dealing with the much more serious question—not the interruption—it will be for the House to decide, when it sees the White Paper, whether the criteria set out by the right hon. Gentlemen are met. I hope that they are. The White Paper is based on the unity of our country, with a maximum possible devolution of control over their own affairs to Scotland and Wales.

  ICELAND (FISHING LIMITS)
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 14 and 31.
  Yesterday, in reply to a Private Notice Question from the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), I said that protection measures for our trawlers fishing off Iceland would be amongst questions to be discussed at a meeting with representatives of the industry later in the day. In the light of these discussions, the Government have now decided to provide naval protection, and an announcement to this effect was issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at 11.30 this morning. A copy is in the Library. HMS "Leopard" should be arriving at the fishing grounds about now and further Royal Navy ships are being deployed. RAF flights will continue as necessary.
  Today's decision follows months of abortive negotiation with the Icelandic Government. Last year the International Court of Justice ruled that even Iceland's 50-mile zone was not enforceable against British fishermen. But Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly stated their willingness to show flexibility on the amount of fish caught, on conservation areas and on a number of other matters, as was once again made clear to the Icelandic Foreign Minister in a message last weekend. Her Majesty's Government remain ready to resume negotiations at any time.
  The Government have taken the decision to provide naval protection regretfully and with reluctance. We had hoped that such action could be avoided. But, in the absence of any sign from the Icelandic Government that they were willing

  667
  to talk, we had no alternative to providing the means whereby British trawlers can exercise their legitimate right to fish in international waters.
  Mr. Wall: Is the Minister aware that his statement will be greatly welcomed by the trawler fleets? Is it not surprising that the announcement was made at 11.30 a.m. and not first to the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear to the Icelandic Government that this is purely a defensive measure and that there will be no escalation unless there is aggression from Icelandic gunboats? Will the Minister give the House the assurance that commanding officers of Her Majesty's ships will be given clear orders as to their responsibilities?
  Mr. Rodgers: To the second and third of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions the answer is "Yes". On the first, no discourtesy to the House was intended, but, as I think the House will be aware—it was so aware at Question Time yesterday—we have been anxious that the skippers should remain on the fishing grounds, and an early announcement was necessary to ensure that they did.
  Mr. Brorherton: Is the Minister aware that his statement will be greeted with great satisfaction on the south bank of the Humber, although it is a week too late? Now that the Minister realises the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government to our fishermen who are going about their lawful occasions on the high seas, might I ask him whether the captains of the ships involved will be inhibited in their actions to protect our fishing fleet? Secondly, will the Minister assure the House that ships of the Royal Navy will remain on station for as long as necessary to protect our fishing fleet?
  Mr. Rodgers: I think that the hon. Gentleman will regret his opening, ungenerous remarks. The answer to his two supplementary questions is "Yes".
  Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision of Her Majesty's Government to protect our constituents who work on the fishing fleets will be greatly welcomed by their families on Humberside who have displayed considerable concern about the safety of their men? Nevertheless, they, like the whole
  668
  House, will regret the necessity for taking this action. Will my hon. Friend say what further diplomatic moves the Government intend to take to try to bring this terrible confrontation to an end, and whether we shall use any of the international organisations to which we belong to facilitate talks so that both sides can reach an honourable settlement?
  Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who fairly summed up the nature of this decision. We believed that it was necessary and we took it, but we regret that these events have occurred. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made plain, as he did in his statement to the House last Thursday, that we should welcome a reopening of negotiations any time, anywhere.
  Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that whenever there is trouble in Icelandic waters it results in added pressure upon other fishing grounds? Will he give an undertaking that there will be adequate fishery protection on other fishing grounds? Secondly, will he bear in mind that the fishing community is more than ever determined that the utmost speed should be shown in extending our limits and protecting our waters?
  Mr. Rodgers: Yes, we are all fully aware of the second point made by the right hon. Gentleman. As for the first, we shall continue to do what we can to protect British fishermen wherever they are.
  Mr. Clegg: May I simply thank the Minister for the action he has taken? Many families in Fleetwood will be sleeping soundly tonight after hearing that news. In all fishing ports there is a desire to reach agreement on conservation. Our future, just as much as the future of Iceland, lies in conservation.
  Mr. Rodgers: Everyone who is involved in this difficult decision will appreciate the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. I welcome his wish to see these matters settled by negotiation as soon as possible.
  Mr. Prescott: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this military intervention and conflict are about a difference in catch allowance to the value of only £6 million? Is he not concerned

  669
  that he is establishing a precedent of military protection at a time when trawlers are looking for new grounds within 200 miles in areas to which 40 countries have claimed a right, and that we may be establishing the principle of military protection in the United States and 40 other countries?
  Mr. Rodgers:No. Although I respect my hon. Friend's views, I think that on this occasion he does not reflect those of the great majority of hon. Members or of those affected outside. This step has been taken with regret—in sorrow, not in anger. I hope that it will not establish a precedent involving the use of naval forces rather than negotiations in solving international disputes of this kind.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Government, through the International Court, claim damages for the severance of trawl cables carried out in international waters? This is surely the minimum that the Government should do for their own citizens.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the orders given to the captains of the naval vessels protecting our fishing fleet are significantly different from those they received from the Conservative Government in the last dispute, or whether they are the same?
  Mr. Rodgers: I think that it would be wise for me to say that they are not significantly different but not to discuss more fully in the House now the operational characteristics of our decision. I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, but I will look into it.
  Mr. Watt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while we are all busy watching cod-fishing off Iceland, vast over-fishing is going on just off the Clyde, where a large number of boats are scooping up the last fish in the North-East Atlantic? When will the Government recognise that only an early extension of our own limits to 200 miles will solve the conservation problem in the North Sea?
  Mr. Rodgers: The important thing to remember is that on this issue we have wanted, and still want, international agreement by negotiation. That is where the Government rest. They have made a reluctant decision. Now I hope there will be a response and that we shall be able
  670
  to settle this matter in an adult way round the conference table.
  Mr. Younger: We warmly welcome the Government's decision to send in the Royal Navy to protect our fishermen in their legitimate activities in following their trade. Will the right hon. Gentleman, in consultation with the Foreign Secretary, take the greatest trouble to get across to our friends and allies throughout the world that what we are doing is supporting international law which is to allow honest fishermen to carry out their normal business in accordance with international law?
  Mr. Rodgers: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said and am happy to endorse it. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who is present, has taken note of the precise terms expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR THURSDAY 11TH DECEMBER
  Members successful in the Ballot were:

  Mr. Ivan Lawrence.

  Mr. Stanley Newens.

  Mr. John Tomlinson.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  Ordered,
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport Undertakings and their Employees) (Hungary) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Incomes) (Faroe Islands) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That if, at this day's sitting, an Amendment proposed to the Motion for an Address in answer to Her Majesty's Speech shall have been disposed of at or after Ten o'clock, the Amendment in the name of Mr. Jeremy Thorpe relating to the National Dock Labour Scheme may thereupon be moved, and the Question thereon shall be put forthwith.—[Mr. Edward Short.]
Mr. Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret rising

671
to oppose this motion, but first may I say on behalf of my hon. Friends how much we welcome your practice of selecting more than one amendment for debate and voting tonight? But I regret that the second amendment selected, that standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and the names of his right hon. and hon. Friends, is one which has the support of only 13 Members of the House, whereas my hon. Friends and I of the Scottish National Party have tabled six amendments, in two of which we are supported by our hon. Friends from Plaid Cymru. The SNP and Plaid Cymru between us represent 14 Members. I rise to make this protest in some sense of sorrow and in no sense of hostility to the Liberals, but I feel that in the circumstances we are obliged to oppose the motion.
Mr. Crawford: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson). It is essential that certain things should be made plain. So far in the debate on the Gracious Speech, no Minister has answered any of the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), South Angus (Mr. Welsh), Galloway (Mr. Thompson), Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) or Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). It is necessary that Ministers should have a chance to answer so that the people of Scotland and Wales may know what is happening in this House. Unfortunately, the amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles have not been selected for vote tonight. It is important, therefore, that the people of Scotland and Wales should know that tonight if we vote with the Conservatives we are in fact voting against the Government.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can now have the discussion which will no doubt take place later on the amendments.
Mr. Thorpe: Whilst accepting the spirit in which this matter has been raised, Mr. Speaker, am I not right in saying that you announced yesterday which amendments would be called today? To the best of my recollection, no objection was raised then.
Mr. Speaker: This is not a great encouragement to the Chair to make experiments in introducing innovations. I have gone some way to meeting the feeling that Standing Orders unduly restricted the possibility of moving amendments formally at the end of the debate. I have tried to meet that feeling. But if a business motion following a recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure is to be debated at length, I do not think that the Chair will follow this experiment very often in future.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is it not possible for the House itself to decide this matter on a Division, Mr. Speaker? If a motion has been presented, not by you but in the name of a Minister, is it not open to hon. Members to oppose it?
Mr. Speaker: Certainly it is in order to do so.
Mr. Powell: Without wishing to detain the House for more than a moment, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there are two distinct issues here, one of which is entirely a course for yourself in your decision on selection and the second of which is the provision of time or opportunity, which is for the House itself and which is debatable.
I think it will be recognised that it was quite right for hon. Members in the Scottish National Party to raise as a point of debate that we are still very much in an experimental stage in regard to the problem with which you and the rest of the House are confronted, and that it is inherently undesirable that two amendments should be selected and divided upon, upon only one of which debate in the normal orderly way can take place. The only point, therefore, that I would wish to leave on the record is that we recognise that this is very much an experimental procedure and that in no way is this motion—which no doubt will be passed in a moment—a precedent or a solution to the problem which we have.
Mr. Wellbeloved: As it is an experimental motion giving space to an experiment, can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who moved it, explain whether it is his intention to have the whole situation referred to the Select Committee on Procedure so that proper and deep consideration may be given to it?

673
I want to put a particular point to my right hon. Friend. If it is to be possible for two amendments to be called, it will be quite wrong if that privilege is confined to Opposition parties and not extended to groups within parties which have also put down amendments to the Loyal Address or amendments to other motions. For a long time now, it has been customary to put down amendments without serious intent, the sponsors being secure in the knowledge that they could not and would not be called.
Mr. Heffer: That is not true.
Mr. Wellbeloved: If my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) thinks that it is not true, perhaps he will join the debate and give the House the benefit of his wisdom as he has done on so many other occasions. I contend that it would be wrong if this experiment applied only to Opposition parties and did not extend to the whole House and to groups within the parties.
The second point on which I should like some information from the Leader of the House is whether this experiment might cause a change in the Standing Orders so that Members who had already spoken in the debate on the Queen's Speech would be able to speak again on an amendment which had been selected. If that were the position, I am afraid it would cause a great deal of discontent in the House. If, say, on the occasion of this first experiment we were to suffer listening to a Liberal speaker who has already spoken in the debate, that would be highly wrong.
I therefore hope that the Lord President will take this short debate seriously and will honour the House with a reply to some of the points which have been raised.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I should have thought the position was much simpler than has been made out. The debate on the Address is the most wide-ranging debate that our procedures allow, to the best of my knowledge. Anybody can discuss anything, in effect, whether or not an amendment is called. This is a debate which is in no way gagged or restricted by the Chair's selection or any selection of amendments. What we are discussing now has nothing at all to do with the
674
selection by the Chair. It is to do with an exception which the Leader of the House quite properly is making to our Standing Orders, and he can be approached through the normal channels on that matter. If some Members feel that they would like to have a vote, which, of course, is quite different from a debate, they are at liberty through the normal channels to make representations to the Leader of the House.
It would be wrong to represent what is a negotiation through the normal channels as being in some way a criticism of the Chair's selection. This is not to do with the Chair's selection. It would be if it were a normal debate, in which what hon. Members may say is closely circumscribed by the Chair's selection, but this is not the case. If hon. Members have not taken part in the debate and said what is burning them up, it is more likely to be because they could not be bothered to sit through five days of debate than that they have been restricted by the Chair.
Mr. Skinner: When you consider this matter, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will take into account the fact that one reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) rose to his feet to make that rather inane point about Members putting down amendments about which they are not too serious is the fact that one of the things that have motivated him lately during the current series of attempts to catch your eye is not unconnected with the fact that he is touting for votes on the Liaison Committee.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, when amendments have been put down to the Address or to any other Government proposals during the past 18 months, and perhaps on other occasions, some of my hon. Friends, usually the chairman of the Tribune Group, have made serious representations to you, not merely to remind you that amendments are on the Order Paper, but also, if possible, to try to instruct you to call those amendments—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As I have repeatedly said, I always welcome the hon. Member's help but I do not think I would be prepared to take his instructions.
Mr. Wigley: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), may I mention two matters which are pertinent to the situation? First it is the right of Members who have participated in the debate in the course of five days to have the points which have been raised by them answered. This is a very relevant matter. In the debate which we have had, many of the points raised from the benches in my part of the House have not been answered and, indeed, could not be answered.
Secondly, the interpretation of votes, as we have seen earlier, is based on voting with Labour or with the Conservatives. Unless amendments are allowed to be called, little opportunity is provided for third opinions to get through.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): What all this is about is an attempt to implement a recommendation of the Select Committee. You made your selection yesterday, Mr. Speaker. The reason why I put the motion down is to enable the House to vote on the amendments which have been selected by you, Mr. Speaker. It is as simple as that. It is an attempt to help the House. No doubt you, and certainly I, will watch this experiment to see how it goes.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 11.

Division No. 2.]

AYES

[3.57 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Adley, Robert

Corbett, Robin

Graham, Ted

Allaun, Frank

Corrie, John

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Archer, Peter

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Gray, Hamish

Armstrong, Ernest

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Ashley, Jack

Crawshaw, Richard

Grocott, Bruce

Ashton, Joe

Cryer, Bob

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Atkinson, Norman

Dalyell, Tam

Hardy, Peter

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefleld)

Bates, Alf

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Bean, R. E.

Deakins, Eric

Hatton, Frank

Beith, A. J.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Havers, Sir Michael

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Dempsey, James

Hayhoe, Barney

Benyon, W.

Doig, Peter

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Bidwell, Sydney

Dormand, J. D.

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Biggs-Davison, John

Duffy, A. E. P.

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Bishop, E. S.

Dunlop, John

Heffer, Eric S.

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Dunn, James A.

Hicks, Robert

Boardman, H.

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Higgins, Terence L.

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Edge, Geoff

Horam. John

Bottomley, Peter

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hordern, Peter

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Elliott, Sir William

Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes(Brent)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Bradford, Rev Robert

English, Michael

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Huckfield, Les

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Evans, John (Newton)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Brown, Hugh D (Provan)

Eyre, Reginald

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Hunter, Adam

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Farr, John

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Buchan, Norman

Faulds, Andrew

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Buchanan, Richard

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Budgen, Nick

Flannery, Martin

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

James, David

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Janner, Greville

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Canavan, Dennis

Fookes, Miss Janet

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Cant, R. B.

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Carmichael, Neil

Forrester, John

Jessel, Toby

Carter, Ray

Freeson, Reginald

John, Brynmor

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Freud, Clement

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Cartwright, John

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Clemitson, Ivor

George, Bruce

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Ginsburg, David

Jopling, Michael

Cohen, Stanley

Glyn, Dr Alan

Kelley, Richard

Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Kerr, Russell

Concannon, J. D.

Gourlay, Harry

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Kinnock, Neil

Neubert, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Newens, Stanley

Stanley, John

Knight, Mrs Jill

Newton, Tony

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Lamborn, Harry

Noble, Mike

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Lamond, James

Nott, John

Stoddart, David

Lamont, Norman

Ogden, Eric

Stokes, John

Lawrence, Ivan

Onslow, Cranley

Stonehouse Rt Hon John

Leadbitter, Ted

Orbach, Maurice

Stott, Roger

Lee, John

Ovenden, John

Stradling Thomas, J.

Le Marchant, Spencer

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Strang, Gavin

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Pardoe, John

Summerskill, Hon D Shirley

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Park, George

Swain, Thomas

Lipton, Marcus

Parker, John

Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)

Litterick, Tom

Parry, Robert

Tebbit, Norman

Loveridge, John

Pattie, Geoffrey

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Loyden, Eddie

Pavitt, Laurie

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Luard, Evan

Perry, Ernest

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Tierney, Sydney

McCrindle, Robert

Prescott, John

Tinn, James

McCusker, H.

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Tomlinson, John

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Price, David (Eastlelgh)

Tomney, Frank

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Torney, Tom

Mackenzie, Gregor

Radice, Giles

Townsend, Cyril D.

Mackintosh, John P.

Raison, Timothy

Tuck, Raphael

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Rathbone, Tim

Urwin, T. W.

McNamara, Kevin

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Mahon, Simon

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Marks, Kenneth

Richardson, Miss Jo

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Marquand, David

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Wall, Patrick

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Walters, Dennis

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Ward, Michael

Mates, Michael

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, NW)

Watkins, David

Mather, Carol

Roderick, Caerwyn

Watkinson, John

Mawby, Ray

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Weetch, Ken

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Weitzman, David

Mayhew, Patrick

Rooker, J. W.

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Rose, Paul B.

White, James (Pollok)

Meacher, Michael

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Whitehead, Phillip

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Mendelson, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Whitlock, William

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Selby, Harry

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Millan, Bruce

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)

Short. Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

Molyneaux, James

Short, Mrs Renee(Wolv NE)

Winterton, Nicholas

Monro, Hector

Sillars, James

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Montgomery, Fergus

Sims, Roger

Woodall, Alec

Moonman, Eric

Skinner, Dennis

Woof, Robert

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Small, William

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Younger, Hon George

Mudd, David

Snape, Peter

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Spearing, Nigel

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Spriggs, Leslie

Mr. Donald Coleman and

Neave, Airey

Sproat, Iain

Mr. Joseph Harper.

Nelson, Anthony

Stallard, A. W.

NOES

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Reid, George

Crawford, Douglas

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Thompson, George

Mr. Douglas Henderson and

Kilfedder, James

Welsh, Andrew

Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

Watt, Hamish

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

MacCormick, Iain

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That if, at this day's sitting, an Amendment proposed to the Motion for an Address in answer to Her Majesty's Speech shall have been disposed of at or after Ten o'clock, the Amendment in the name of Mr. Jeremy Thorpe relating to the National Dock Labour Scheme may thereupon be moved, and the Question thereon shall be put forthwith.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (DOCUMENTS)
Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within the recollection of the House that the Leader of the House, in accordance with the

679
recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee, recommended that we consider Documents R/2102 and R/2447 of 1975 from the European Community as part of the debate today. This is understandable, particularly in view of the Scrutiny Committee's recommendation. The second document concerns Community economic guidelines for 1976, and it has been debated in this House twice before for an hour and a half.
However, this is the first time when the record of such documents being part of the debate has neither been part of the Question nor part of the rubric on the Order Paper. I hope that this difficulty may be got over in some way, otherwise there will be no record in the official Journal or in this debate that the documents have been dealt with in this way.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I announced in the Business Statement last Thursday that these two EEC documents were relevant to the debate. I did this in accordance with two recommendations from the Scrutiny Committee. The first recommendation was with regard to Document R/2102. In its 33rd Report the Scrutiny Committee recommended that the document, which dealt with measures necessary to combat a recession, should be taken into account in any debate concerning economic matters in general. In the Scrutiny Committee's 38th Report it made a similar recommendation with regard to Document R/2447, to the effect that it should be taken into account in the context of any future debate on the economy.
I looked into the possibility of putting them on the Order Paper today but was advised that this is never done during
680
the debate on the Address. I announced them last Thursday, they appeared in Hansard, and I confirm today that they are relevant to the debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) notified me in advance of the point of order he wished to raise. I have been into the matter and I confirm what the Leader of the House has said. It is not the practice to publish this information in the form of a rubric on the Order Paper. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, it is on record in Hansard that these documents would be considered today.

DEVOLUTION (WHITE PAPER)
Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned about the exchange that took place at Question Time between my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister about the pre-circulation of the White Paper on devolution. The Prime Minister gave a clear reply that he would be looking into the question. May I submit that this is a matter for the House as a whole and not just the Government? May I ask whether you will undertake to look into this issue, because if it is correct that the White Paper is circulating in advance among Press and television commentators, what it means is that Members of this House of all parties—including Labour Back-Bench Members—will be put in the position on Thursday of having to give instant comment on a long and complicated document. This will not show Parliament in a very good light, especially when we shall be answering questions from those who have had ample time to study the matter.
Mr. Speaker: This is a matter for the Government, not for me. I am, however, keeping my eye on it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
  [FIFTH DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [19th November]:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Roderick.]
  Question again proposed.

  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Mr. Speaker: I have announced the amendments which I have selected. I know already of over 40 right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak in this debate and I have a pile of correspondence here in which every one of them seems to have an equal right to be called. Many of them will be disappointed. The way in which right hon. and hon. Members can help is by making as few interruptions as possible, by giving way as little as possible and by making speeches as concise as is reasonable.
  The second amendment I have selected is that standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and his hon. Friends:
  But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains proposals for the docks which, if carried out by an extention of the areas covered by the National Dock Labour Scheme, will lead to further unemployment in those areas, further strangulation of Great Britain's successful ports and higher costs and inefficiency.
  4.15 p.m.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
  But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains no practical policies to solve the United Kingdom's serious financial and economic problems, but proposes measures which only increase the powers of a centralised bureaucracy and diminish the freedom of the citizen
  682
  I wish to draw attention immediately to the inadequacy of the economic policies foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech. If anything was needed to make that inadequacy clear, it was the confusion and complacency of the Prime Minister's backward-looking speech in the debate last Wednesday. His speech was one that he must have made so many times before in and out of office that I sometimes wonder how Shakespeare ever came to conclude that "Old men forget". In the Prime Minister's case the hardening of the intellectual arteries that is taking place is assuming a particularly unfortunate form. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten nothing, to have learned nothing and yet still seems to believe that the people of this country have managed to forget everything that he has said. Many of them sometimes wish that they could.
  The Prime Minister's speech reflected only too accurately the content of the Gracious Speech. This was, first, because of its total failure to recognise, let alone spell out, the appalling gravity of the economic situation, which is still facing us and which is increasingly perceived by those whom we represent and who look to the Government to give a much firmer lead in solving our problems. In human terms, the most striking and yet quite inescapable feature of our situation must be the high and rising level of unemployment. Today's figures, seasonally adjusted, show that in the United Kingdom as a whole unemployment has risen by 36,800 to a total of 1,125,300 while vacancies have fallen by about 9,000.
  We also face continuing stagnation of production and inescapable reductions in the nation's living standards imposed by the continuing rise in oil prices. The Prime Minister made some reference to this. It is a pity that he was not prepared to do so 21 months ago. We also have a continuing substantial deficit in our balance of trade at a time when other countries have long since ceased to be content with meeting just their non-oil deficit. Our deficit of £2,000 million is now almost exactly equal to the expected deficit for all of the OECD countries taken together.
  Next there is the gross imbalance of a situation in which the State is taking and spending more than 60 per cent. of the nation's total wealth. This is a state

  683
  of affairs which makes the recovery of industry impossible and which places on the shoulders of our people a burden of taxation and control which is and which will be seen to be absolutely intolerable. The Prime Minister failed entirely to spell out the continuing and overwhelming gravity of our inflation, not just at its present pace, but even if—and one must be doubtful about this—the Government succeed in reducing the level to anything near their target.
  All of these factors add up to a formidable threat to the survival of civilised existence in a democratic society. Britain is still very close to the brink and there is little prospect of our moving away from that brink without leadership of a quite different order from that which the Prime Minister sought to display last week—still less if we have to face the kind of programme foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech.
  I shall not say much about what the Prime Minister had to say about the past. He spoke as though he bore no responsibility whatever for our present situation. There was a time when he seemed glad to take the credit for almost everything from clearing the beaches of oil to the success of England in a football match abroad: but not today. He once had the confidence of an impresario of a television quiz show. He has now assumed the mantle of a Soviet historian—anxious only to expunge large tracts of the past from the record.
  I take just one example. The Prime Minister was asserting at one point last week that
  "the die was cast on inflation".—[Official Report, 19th November, 1975; Vol. 901, c. 42.]
  and that the die was cast equally in relation to unemployment as long ago as March 1974. What did the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have to say about that 13 months ago? Six months after the time when they now say that the die had been cast, so that the problems now facing them were inescapable, in a Press conference on 9th October 1974 the Prime Minister said—and it is scarcely credible now:
  "Unemployment…is beginning to fall;…the pace of inflation and price rises is moderating".
  684
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer inevitably found a chance of claiming credit for himself when he said on "Panorama" on 23rd September 1974:
  "I have cut the inflation rate I inherited by half".
  So much for the argument that the die was cast as long ago as March 1974.
  Whatever became of the social contract? In the Queen's Speech last year it was described as an essential element in the Government's
  "strategy for curbing inflation, reducing the balance of payments deficit, encouraging industrial investment, maintaining employment…and promoting social and economic justice."—[Official Report, 29th October 1974; Vol. 880, cols. 49–50.]
  Since then, what have we seen? We have had roaring inflation, sagging investment, soaring unemployment, and growing social and economic injustice. No wonder we did not hear a word last week about the social contract, for in the whole history of agreements between man and man no contract has ever been more totally unfulfilled than that.
  There is no escape for the Government from their responsibility for the present situation, and it is high time that they faced up to it. Tragically, the Prime Minister's speech contained example after example of self-deception, and there is not possibly time to deal with them all. He said that we were facing the same problems of inflation and depression as other countries: not so; the United Kingdom almost alone faces a situation in which industrial production is at levels below those of five years ago. Our inflation remains twice as high as that of our competitors and looks like continuing to do so.
  The Prime Minister suggested that inflation was worse when he took office than it is today: not so. In March 1974 the annual rate was just over 13 per cent. and in September 1974, if we are to believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it had been reduced to 8·4 per cent. Today it is up again, on the annual basis, to 26 per cent. What is more, in contrast with other countries, we are still moving into further substantial depression, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking to others—who were more courageous and more honest years ago—to help us by moving out of their own depression as well. It is time for the Prime Minister

  685
  and the Government to stop deceiving themselves and to stop deceiving the nation.
  What are we to make of the policies actually foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech? We all took some comfort—perhaps unwisely—from the fact of the meeting at Chequers. We noted with some satisfaction that the Government, elected to office on the claim that they had found an industrial strategy which would create something close to a new Jerusalem, had at last recognised the need to set out in search of a new industrial strategy. Some of us were sceptical about the prospect, if only because the meeting was timed to take place, with characteristic sense of timing, on Guy Fawkes' day. It turns out that the scepticism has been wholly justified.
  I ask the House to consider for a moment the contrast between the Chequers document and the contents of the Gracious Speech. We were glad to see a statement from Chequers to the effect that the public sector had been pre-empting too large a share of our resources; glad to see it being said that it was essential to restore the profitability of industry, glad to see it being said, above all, that it was for the Government to set about restoring an atmosphere of confidence between Government and industry.
  A new spirit seemed to be abroad in the land when the Leader of the House, of all people, said a word or two in praise of profits, but those words turned out to be about as sincere as a recitation of the Beatitudes by Beelzebub—perhaps Beelzebub would have said it a great deal more cheerfully than the Leader of the House. What we find now is a series of measures that have shattered whatever confidence has been implanted as a result of the Chequers statement, a series of measures that, far from doing any good, will do nothing but damage in our desperate situation.
  First, the nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries will serve only to add to the size of a grossly mismanaged and flatulent public sector and add to the size of the public debt. Secondly, the extension of the dock labour scheme—literally for miles beyond anything that anyone would recognise as a dock—is a charter for the extension of anarchy and blackmail.
  686
  Thirdly, there is the final removal, if the Government have their way, of any right for a trade unionist to have an independent right of appeal against expulsion or exclusion from his union, a right proposed by the last Labour Government and now to be taken away. This is an absolute licence for tyranny. Fourthly, instead of anything to comfort and encourage industry, we have the maintenance and extension of price control, a prescription for the extinction of profits, and a prescription for the destruction of jobs.
  Why, in Heaven's name, do we have to face this when we have, as my right hon. Friend pointed out during Questions this afternoon, a Government deeply divided amongst themselves. Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but let them listen to the case that I am going to make.
  I begin with the Paymaster-General. The Paymaster-General in speech after speech genuinely argues the case for profits and profitability. On the other hand, there are those, like the Secretary of State for Energy, who argue precisely the opposite.
  In a speech on 15th October to the Aluminium Federation—[Interruption.]—I invite hon. Members opposite to listen and to say whether they agree. The Paymaster-General said that what industry wanted from the Government was a recognition of the importance of profitability to the private sector, greater continuity in the policies of the Government, and, above all, a conviction in the Government that the success of the private sector was essential to the success of our mixed economy.
  He went on to ask himself why the case for profit had not yet got across. He said that the problem was that many people
  "have not been persuaded by the statements either of Government or employers."
  No wonder, when we compare the totally different case being put forward in speech after speech, day after day and month after month by the Secretary of State for Energy.
  These deep divisions surfaced yesterday in the two speeches by the Secretary of State for Energy and the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Secretary of State for Energy was addressing,

  687
  not surprisingly, the Greater London Labour Party Young Workers' Forum. The Secretary of State for the Environment was arguing precisely the opposite case. He was apparently in such despair of ever getting sympathy for his views within the Cabinet Room in this country that he chose to expose his thoughts to, of all people, members of the Costa Rican Government.
  Where does the Chancellor of the Exchequer stand in all this? He often seeks to present himself as a bluff, robust exponent of harsh economic truth, but even he speaks with a most uncertain voice. If we look at what was reported in the national Press on 2nd October—[Interruption]—it is serious enough—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. Hon. Members heard Mr. Speaker's appeal earlier. Almost every Member shouting wishes to take part in the debate. Hon. Members will help themselves if they will be quiet for a moment.
  Sir G. Howe: Government supporters must remember that they are not now taking part in a Tribune Group rally. I wish to quote from a report in the national Press of the uproar at the Tribune Group rally at Blackpool on 1st October. It is interesting that one headline carried on the following day said in bold print:
  "Healey attack over 'torrent of abuse'."
  The report went on in The Times:
  "With advance knowledge of Mr. Mikardo's speech, Mr. Healey, speaking at Bolton, delivered a devastating counterblast."
  So the national Press has that picture of the heroic Chancellor charging into the breach. When we study the headline in the Bolton Evening News for the same day we see it reported that 200 expectant members of the Labour Party turned up at the Bolton Labour club in order to hear the Chancellor make this great pronouncement. We see the report by the only reporter who was able to be there. He writes:
  "Mr. Healey, who came from Labour's conference at Blackpool, did speak briefly about the movement's unity—but the words he is reported to have said never crossed his lips…Instead of launching his counter attack on the Left, Mr. Healey told a joke about his days in the Army, said thank you for being invited to open the club and drank a pint of bitter."
  688
  There is an inescapable ring of truth about that last sentence. So the brave Chancellor, facing 200 comrades, turned tail and declined to tell them the truth. It is no wonder that he has had so little success in saving the nation from the disastrous diet of Socialism that his colleagues are thrusting upon it.
  Let me tell the Chancellor something of the policies that he and the Government should be adopting in face of the grave dangers threatening the nation. Let them begin first by abandoning many of the measures foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech which are expensive, provocative and wholly irrelevant to the nation's needs.
  Secondly, let the Chancellor and the Government adopt in their place policies which give some substance to the Chequers declaration. If profits, jobs and confidence are to be restored, industry is entitled to look to the Government for practical measures, for prompt acceptance of the Sandilands Report, for relaxation instead of tightening of price control, for deeds instead of words, and for deeds of the right kind.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Higher prices.
  Sir G. Howe: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) shouts, "Higher prices". Higher prices are part of the policy that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking credit for wishing upon us. He is claiming credit for the elimination of nationalised industry deficits. That is right. But the inescapable fact that the hon. Gentleman must recognise is that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves today living standards cannot be maintained—the Government say so from time to time. For a time prices are bound to have to rise faster than wages. Otherwise, there is no escape.
  That is why, thirdly, there must be a plain recognition of the continuing menace of inflation. Even if everything else were to come right, the Chancellor's target figures until the end of the year would still be much too high. Let the Prime Minister and other members of the Government stop speaking, as they do, of only a few months of hardship and of the need only to give a year for Britain. It will be a much longer haul than that. It is time for members of the Government

  689
  to stop raising false expectations and to stop looking for a false dawn.
  We welcomed the Prime Minister's recognition last week that an old-fashioned Keynesian reflation would be disastrous. If that message really has sunk in, we should be prepared to look more sympathetically at more selective measures. If the Chancellor remains absolutely resolute in opposition to any general reflation, he can count on our support—
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): Like we got it in July.
  Sir G. Howe: Let the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the discreditable record of the Labour Party during the years when he and his right hon. and hon. Friends did nothing but oppose the fight against inflation by the previous administration.
  Fourthly, it is time for the Chancellor and his colleagues to come clean about public expenditure and to tell us something about his discussions with the International Monetary Fund and about the conditions that he expects it to require if and when he applies for a further tranche of the funds available.
  Substantial cuts are inescapable. Speaking on 19th November, the Chief Secretary said that cuts in public expenditure were "absolutely vital". About a month before, the Paymaster-General described them as "imperative". So they are. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that only too well. He has even said as much to the Parliamentary Labour Party. So he should stop denouncing those of us who have been urging this course on him for months and he should start today to tell the House and the people the truth about what is inescapable.
  I want now to comment on the Chancellor's strategy for the timing and scale of public expenditure cuts and for the handling of the public sector borrowing requirement. The right hon. Gentleman advances two defences of this present inaction. First, he says that the public sector deficit is no bigger than that of some countries in a comparable position. When he made the original claim on 6th November, he was very confident about it. Since then, I have been following this up in correspondence with him, and I
  690
  have asked him to spell out the basis on which he reached that conclusion.
  This morning, I received a letter hedged about with qualifications making very clear the fragility of the foundation upon which that assertion has been repeated. I shall not weary the House with the entire text of the right hon. Gentleman's letter. But he says that for various statistical and other reasons it is very difficult to make adequate international comparison of public sector deficits.
  Mr. Healey: Of course it is.
  Sir G. Howe: There is a sharp contrast between that and his confident assertions at the Mansion House and in this House. On two occasions in the course of replying to Questions to Treasury Ministers the right hon. Gentleman said clearly that he gained confidence from the comparability of our position with that of other countries. In his letter he goes on to say that comparable figures for 1975 were obviously not yet available for any country, but that it was possible to get some idea of the orders of magnitude likely to be emerging by using past experience to adjust these tentatively to a general Government basis.
  The Chancellor's conclusion is quite important. It is that, broadly speaking, therefore, on the basis of official forecasts it seems likely that the financial deficits on a general Government basis of all three countries mentioned in the letter will fall within the range of 5 to 8 per cent. of GNP. This is also expected to encompass the general Government deficit of the United Kingdom.
  What follows from that? The right hon. Gentleman is talking about a general Government deficit ranging between 5 and 8 per cent. of the GNP. We put that at about £5 billion to £8 billion for the general or central Government deficit. We have to add to that a further £3·5 billion for the deficit of local authorities and nationalised industries, and a further £1·5 billion for the additional financial transactions to arrive at a total public sector borrowing requirement. So if the GNP is taken at about £100 billion, 5 to 8 per cent. is a general Government deficit of £5 billion to £8 billion. If we add in the other figures, we arrive at a public sector borrowing requirement of £10 billion to £13 billion.

  691
  We get some support for that from what the Chancellor is supposed to have said at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party. He is reported to have said that the public sector borrowing requirement amounted to about 20p in the pound of public spending. If we accept that the public expenditure total is, as set out in the Red Book, £53·5 billion, the Chancellor is implying a borrowing requirement of about £10·7 billion. If we assume that total spending is now £58 billion, the implied borrowing requirement is now about £11·5 billion.
  What a ridiculous way to deal with these matters this is. The Chancellor makes generalised assertions at the Mansion House and in reply to questions by the Parliamentary Labour Party, but refuses to substantiate them to the House. It is time that he came clean about this if his policy is to have any credibility.
  In fact, the whole basis of his international comparison is gravely misleading. Public expenditure here is a dangerously high proportion of our GNP. Our deficit should be less than that of other countries because the recession, according to the Chancellor, is less deep here, and the tax loss should be lower. Again, as the Chancellor said, to the extent that other economies are reflating, their deficits should be higher. Therefore, the defence is inadequate and conceals rather than clarifies the danger of our economic situation.
  The second argument advanced by the Chancellor is that the time is not yet right for lowering the public sector borrowing requirement. He suggests that we should wait until the upturn begins. But he is wrong, because it will not and cannot work like that. We are now dangerously close to the situation where there is no room for an upturn to start. Investment and stocks have reached a dangerously low level. As they begin to pick up, where and how on earth is industry to find the necessary finance?
  The Secretary of State for Energy puts his estimate of what is necessary at £6 billion. So how does the Chancellor propose on his time scale to stop the threat of the destruction of still further jobs? It clearly follows that he cannot go on indefinitely deferring inescapable
  692
  cuts in public expenditure. The £900 billion in constant price terms proposed for the next financial year will not be enough.
  Indeed, the Chancellor told the Parliamentary Labour Party what would be necessary. According to reports on the following day, he said that even to hold next year's level of public spending over the following two years would mean that the average worker would have to pay about 50p in tax and contributions from every extra pound he earned. If that is the situation, the burden of taxes will be intolerable. Indeed, it is already. As we saw last week, widows—the poorest members of the community—just drawing their pension at the age of 60 find that they have immediately risen above the tax threshold. Is that the kind of situation for which Labour Members voted? It is inconceivable.
  If we try to take the arithmetic through, we find that the present marginal rate, including national insurance, is just over 40p in the pound. If the Chancellor sees a prospect of contributions of 50p in the situation to which he looks forward, the difference between 40p and 50p—10p extra in income tax—is about £3,600 million. That is the additional burden of public spending to require that level of taxes a year or two ahead.
  It would be folly for the Chancellor to believe that he could postpone further action in the direction of public spending cuts for another 18 months. The present situation is the consequence of the incontinence of the Government. In the two years since the Conservative Government left office total public expenditure has increased from £32 billion to £53 billion—an increase of 67 per cent.—while prices went up by only 47 per cent. In each of the last two years for which the Chancellor has been responsible, public spending has been 10 per cent. in real terms above that laid down in the plans left by the previous Government. The incontinence and failure on the Chancellor's part to control the programme for the Government have landed this country in its present desperate serious plight.
  The Government must cease pretending. Why do they remain so coy about the realities of the situation that even the increase in prescription charges, about which we heard last week, was announced

  693
  in a Written Answer on Thursday rather than disclosed to and discussed in the House during the speech by the Secretary of State for Social Services on Friday? That kind of equivocation will not do.
  That is why we urge the Government to drop further nationalisation, and to drop it now, to start now on the reduction of subsidies, to begin now to explain the widespread nature of the cuts, as painless as possible, which will be necessary across a large section of public spending, and to spell out and implement the manpower ceilings for public services about which the Chancellor told the House as long ago as last July. We can no longer go on running into deficit at the rate of £500 per annum per family without continuing to hurtle on a course towards disaster.
  The Government must continue to stand firm in their resistance to pay claims in the public sector which are not justified. However much we may sympathise with particular cases, they must have the courage to stand on the policy which they have put forward, which can be criticised in detail, and, instead of misrepresenting the position of the Conservative Party, as the Chancellor tried to do a few minutes ago, to give full credit to our repeated statements both inside and outside this House that we shall support them in that essential task.
  The most remarkable contrast of all is that today we find the Secretaries of State for Social Services and Employment, unharried by contrary arguments from this side of the House, never ceasing to argue the proposition that there can be no special cases, that any exception to the policy would destroy it, and that any alternative would be unfair to the 2 million workers who have settled within the policy. This is a question not of an incomes policy or not, on which there are as many opinions in Fleet Street as on both sides of this House, but of how the Government are to recover control of their own wages bill and expenditure.
  One cannot help asking the Secretary of State for Employment, for example, whether there is no echo in his mind of the same propositions we hear him mouthing week after week throughout the country, quite rightly, being advanced by members of the previous Government, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Is
  694
  there no recollection in his mind of his repeated support for claim after claim, for industrial action after industrial action, from the postmen to the miners? Is there no recollection in his mind of the Labour Party's repeated attacks and votes against the attempts of the previous Government to grapple with this same problem? In short, has the Labour Party no sense of shame whatever?
  The Prime Minister should cease suggesting that there is any disunity in the Conservative Party, for which I speak. We shall give firm support to any attempt that the Government may make to adopt and follow policies in the interests of this nation. Indeed, we stand ready to implement those policies ourselves.
  We call for the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House in condemning the measures now proposed, because the measures foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech totally fail to measure up to the appalling perils facing all the people of this country from price inflation at rates far higher than those of our competitors. They show no understanding of the immense threat to investment and employment in the continued uncontrolled growth of public spending and the vast dependence on borrowed money. They propose nothing to make room, through lower State spending, for lightening tax burdens, which are now bearing down even on the poorest sections of our community and on working people in general. They contain no measures to halt the growth of centralised bureaucracy and the burden of administrative overheads upon industry and commerce.
  It is high time for the Government to abandon their partisan dogma, to give up their pursuit of selfish minority interests, and to bring forward economic policies which will help to restore monetary stability and industrial confidence and so encourage the creation of wealth and job opportunities for all the peoples of these islands.
  4.50 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): The official Opposition have asked for practical policies for dealing with our country's economic problems. Given the build-up earlier in the summer about the way in which the Opposition would reconcile their differences and come out with a clear decision

  695
  on all the major issues that have divided them for the past year, one might have expected to hear some of the Opposition's practical policies this afternoon, but all that we had from the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) was a flaccid mumbling of Central Office propaganda handouts studded with more irrelevant quotations than we have had since the dear days of Konni Zilliacus. I shall deal with the few points of substance that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East raised, but I want to start by saying something of what has been happening to the economy since we last debated it in July, about the prospects for the coming year, and about our policies for dealing with them.
  In the short term, the key to the solution of all our problems remains the control of inflation, and here the record is encouraging. Between June and October the retail price index rose by only 3·9 per cent. This means that inflation has been running at well under half the rate that we had to endure during the first half of this year, and, as I predicted in my Budget speech, the annual rate of inflation in the second half of the year will be between 12 per cent. and 16 per cent.
  So far the £6 limit on pay increases has not had a marked impact on the rate of inflation, but if we had not reached agreement on that limit in July we should have seen inflation taking off again at the beginning of next year. As it is, the year-on-year rate of inflation should drop steadily throughout 1976, to under 10 per cent. by the end of the year, provided of course, that there is no unexpected major increase in our import prices in the meantime.
  We shall achieve that objective only if the £6 limit is observed as universally in the next eight months as it has been to date. The response of both our industrial workers and our salaried employees has been magnificent, and I think it has demonstrated to the world that whenever it comes to the crunch the sense of unity in the British Isles is far stronger than the disagreements on minor issues. Now that the policy of a £6 limit has been launched so successfully I have every confidence that it will be maintained throughout the year and that the dividend it will bring in terms of a slow-down in inflation will
  696
  help in carrying it forward in future years.
  Settlements covering about 2 million workers have been notified direct to the Department of Employment, and all are within the pay limit. About 1,000 settlements have been notified through the new procedures, for example in the course of price applications. These cover more than 500,000 workers, some of whom are included in the 2 million whom I have mentioned. Of these settlements, a few were originally outside the policy, and all but two, which are still under consideration, have since been brought within it. In addition, 750,000 workers have been covered by Wages Council proposals for increases in statutory minimum remuneration within the policy. About 3 million people have already settled for £6 or less, and I think the House will agree that this is a most impressive record and a tribute to the Government's wisdom in seeking a voluntary agreement with the trade unions rather than relying on legal sanctions against working people.
  The House will have noted that the executive of the NUM has voted to limit its claim next year to £6, and this makes it all the more important that the junior doctors should accept the same sacrifice as the rest of the country is prepared to make for the sake of mastering inflation. Incidentally, if the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East is sincere in offering support for this policy I hope that we shall hear him speaking in the country on this matter in these terms to the junior doctors.
  The record on the balance of payments is also encouraging. It now seems probable that our current deficit in 1975 will be about half that of 1974. In other words, we shall not only have eliminated the whole of the massive deficit on non-oil trade that we inherited in March 1974 but we shall also have covered one-third of the £3,000 million increase in the cost of our oil this year.
  Some of that improvement is, of course, due to the recession, and particularly to the running down of stocks in industry, but we can take pride in the fact that we have at least maintained our share of world trade at a time when competition is fiercer than ever before, and we may even have increased it. It will, however, be difficult to maintain this rate of progress in the next 12 months as the

  697
  expected recovery in our output leads to increased imports and the rebuilding of stocks. Moreover, the terms of trade could begin to move against us, and our invisible earnings will be reduced by the payment of interest on past borrowings.
  That is one reason why I decided that it would be right to apply to the International Monetary Fund for a loan of £975 million through the first credit tranche and the oil facility. This money is available at substantially lower rates of interest than we could hope to obtain elsewhere, and, as I explained to the House the other day, if we had not decided to apply now, the oil facility might have been exhausted by the time we did so. On inflation and the balance of payments, the record is encouraging.
  The position is much less satisfactory on output and employment. It looks as though our GDP may have fallen by nearly 5 per cent. over the past 12 months, the biggest fall that we have seen at any time since the war, but smaller than the fall that most of our major competitors have suffered. There are some signs that the recession in Britain may now be bottoming out. Whereas many of the indicators were falling sharply until May or June, the past three or four months have shown approximate stability in, for example, the trend in industrial production and retail sales. Car registrations also, while erratic from month to month, no longer reveal a declining trend. House building is continuing to increase, and the October CBI inquiry showed an improvement in most of the key indicators, including the general state of confidence and prospects for investment.
  An improvement in confidence could herald an end of the massive destocking that has been a major cause of this year's recession in Britain. Next year we should see a modest but accelerating recovery in output, the pace depending in part on the extent of the recovery in world trade. As the Prime Minister told the House last week our major partners at the Rambouillet summit were all confident that the measures they have already taken will produce a steady increase in economic activity over the next 12 months, and they have all stated that they are ready to take further measures if their confidence proves to be misplaced.
  698
  Unfortunately, the increase in output on which we can now count will take at least six months to reduce the level of unemployment, and it may be that the lag between output and employment will be somewhat longer this time than at the same stage in earlier cycles. This is even more likely to be true of some of our competitors. In Germany, for example, there is an exceptionally high proportion of short-time working, and in Italy and Japan many workers are carried on the company pay roll even when there is no work at all for them. The unemployment register is unlikely to fall significantly in those countries until all those now on company pay rolls are working full time. Unemployment in Britain is unlikely to be above 1,200,000 by the end of this year—and today's figures confirm this—as I predicted some months ago, and the rate of increase has been falling in recent months. Nevertheless, unemployment is likely to continue increasing for some months into 1976 as a consequence of the fall in output in the second half of 1975.
  At Rambouillet the Heads of Government were all unanimous that the most urgent task was
  "to ensure the recovery of their economies and reduce the waste of human resources involved in unemployment."
  The same view is taken by the authors of the two Community documents of which we are invited to take account in today's debate.
  So far as Britain is concerned, I have made it clear on many occasions that we cannot plan to reduce the level of employment by a general reflation at this time. That would involve an unacceptable increase both in our balance of payments deficit and in our public sector borrowing requirement. We could not expect to finance either of those increases at a time when our inflation rate is still running so far above that of our competitors, except in ways that would be destructive to the economy—[Interruption.] That is the way that Mr. Barber financed the increase in 1973, by printing money. I have no intention of following that road.
  The aim of avoiding a general reflation at this time was endorsed by the recent Trades Union Congress and by the Labour Party conference. In any case,

  699
  given the lags to which I have referred, a reflation of demand could not be expected to reduce the level of unemployment before it is in any case likely to be turned down.
  I have no intention of making the mistake here which was made by Mr. Barber in 1972. Broadly speaking, experience suggests that £1,000 million-worth of extra demand, achieved for example through a reduction in taxation, generates between 30,000 and 50,000 jobs only after an interval of 12 months. In current circumstances, it is possible to save jobs and reduce the expected level of unemployment much faster and more cheaply by selective measures directed at sectors of the economy which are particularly vulnerable to unemployment in the trough of a recession.
  The £75 million-worth of such selective measures which the Government announced in September are likely to save as many jobs in about three months as £1,000 million-worth of demand reflation can save in a year. The temporary employment subsidy, which involves almost no net addition to public expenditure, has already saved 7,500 jobs. Similar methods have been particularly effective for school-leavers. About 3,000 applications were made in the first fortnight after the introduction of the recruitment subsidy on 13th October and I have little doubt that this has contributed to the dramatic fall in unemployment among school leavers from 65,000 a month ago to 40,000 announced today. The fall has been twice as great as is normal in this month. Those figures compare with 158,000 unemployed school leavers in August, so we have reduced that total already by three-quarters.
  A total of 93 projects of work creation have already been approved and 13 started, and the £20 million extra for training in the September package excludes provision for another 8,000 places, mostly for young people. Similarly, the selective measures taken to encourage new investment have prompted a substantial increase in private investment. For example, about £12 million has already been committed out of the funds made available to bring forward investment projects which would otherwise have been delayed or gone abroad, and this has generated £69 million-worth of new investment—a ratio of six to one.
  700
  The Government are now considering further selective measures intended to save or create jobs during the recession. We have made it clear that we are prepared to seek agreement to limit imports in selected areas, so as to protect firms or industries which will be viable when world recovery arrives but might otherwise suffer crippling damage during the recession.
  The Government are also discussing with both sides of industry the means of avoiding in 1977 those bottlenecks which have previously frustrated trade and recovery when output is rising rapidly, as they did in 1973. The £25 million scheme for restructuring the ferrous foundry industry is an example. A substantial further expansion of training facilities will also be required, and we are considering means by which those who become redundant in certain industries, may be helped to move to vacancies in other industries, particularly engineering, when the upturn comes.
  All these measures at the micro-economic level are designed to produce a more rapid effect on employment more cheaply than a demand reflation of the traditional type.
  I turn to the question of public expenditure and the public sector borrowing requirement. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry made clear last Thursday, while in the short term the control of inflation is the key to our very survival, in the longer term we must aim at improving our industrial performance relative to that of other countries. We must transform our economy into one based on high output, high earnings and full employment and we can achieve this only if we secure a significant improvement in the performance of our manufacturing industry.
  This, in turn, depends primarily on what we do about investment in three fields. First, we must improve the rate of investment in manufacturing industry. Second, we have to direct that investment more wisely. Third, and above all, we have to achieve a better return in productivity per unit of investment through better management and labour practices.
  I hope that no one will imagine that there is a simple or single answer to the problems of our manufacturing industry. The decline in its relative performance

  701
  has been pretty continuous since at least the Second World War, irrespective of the rate of inflation, the rate of return on capital and the decline in profitability. This is not the time to discuss the problems of British industry in detail—we debated them last Thursday—but I hope that both sides of the House will agree on at least one fundamental syllogism.
  We could increase the productivity of our industry without any new investment if we could make as good use of our existing plant and equipment as many of our overseas competitors. Indeed, in theory, that would be by far the easiest and quickest way to increase our output and reduce our unit costs. It would have dramatic consequences both in reducing inflation and in cutting the balance of payments deficit. But in so far as the better use of existing capital depends on more economic manning levels, working people will be slow to accept its implications, particularly during a recession, unless they can see new investment taking place to create new jobs.
  At the same time, industrialists will be reluctant to undertake new investment unless they are satisfied that it will be fully used. In other words, more investment depends on the better use of investment and the better use of investment depends on more investment. I believe that both sides of industry are nearing the point at which they could strike a bargain for breaking into that vicious circle. I certainly hope so, and I shall do everything in my power to make it possible.
  But if we are to get the new investment which all of us so dearly want, the Government must ensure that the economy is managed so that the resources required for this new investment are not pre-empted by either private or public consumption. The central problem here is timing. I will deal now with some of the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East.
  All over the industrial world, Governments are now, quite rightly, running public sector deficits higher than at any time since the war—for the obvious reason that the current recession is deeper than any since the war. I hope that the House will forgive me if I demonstrate this fact in detail, particularly as the right hon. and learned Gentleman sought to
  702
  obscure some of the facts which I sent him in a letter that he received this morning.
  As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury pointed out in a Written Answer to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) on 12th November, the central Government forecast at the time of the May 1975 Budget was 11·8 per cent. of GNP for Ireland, 6·3 per cent. for Italy, 4·7 per cent. for the United States, 4·5 per cent. for Denmark, 4 per cent. for the United Kingdom and 2·5 per cent. for Germany. But we can make a closer and more up-to-date comparison by taking the concept of a general Government deficit as defined in United Nations and OECD national accounts, which, broadly speaking, measures the deficits of central, State and local governments. Information on this basis is available for some countries in 1974 from the official sources quoted in the Paymaster-General's reply to the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) on 26th June.
  Comparable figures for 1975 are obviously not yet available for any country, but it is possible to get some idea of the orders of magnitude likely to be involved—this was the passage that the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted—by taking the most recent official forecasts of central Government deficits on national definitions and using past experience to adjust these tentatively to a general Government basis. It is not a perfect way of doing it, but there is no perfect way and I made it clear in my Mansion House speech that there were difficulties in doing this other than in broad orders of magnitude.
  However, on this basis, the German general Government deficit was officially forecast last summer as 7·2 per cent. of GNP, and that was taking a July forecast of GNP which may well prove too optimistic. It could be higher. In the United States, the Federal deficit in the financial year beginning 1st July 1975 was forecast at $75 billion to $90 billion. An independent forecast by Data Resources Incorporated gives the figure of $74 billion for the Federal deficit in calendar year 1975. On the OECD basis this would be over 5 per cent. of GNP.
  The Italian general Government deficit calculated by similar methods would be around 7½ per cent. of GNP in calendar

  703
  year 1975. Our general Government deficit in this calendar year would be some 5·5 per cent. of GNP on the basis of the Budget forecast, and even if it turned out that the PSBR was as high as the £12 billion often quoted in the newspapers, that would represent as a general Government deficit 6·5 per cent. of gross national product. In other words, high as it is, our general Government deficit this year is running at a rate well within the range of other major industrial countries.
  Let me return to the more familiar concept of the public sector borrowing requirement which, so far as I know, is unique to Britain, since it covers all spending and lending by all public authorities, not only central and local government, but also the nationalised industries—a much bigger aggregate than the central or general Government deficit.
  The size of the PSBR is likely to be somewhat higher this financial year than I forecast last April, partly because the recession had been deeper than we then expected, and that means less tax take and higher expenditure on benefits. However, there has been no significant addition flowing from policy changes, nor is any addition foreseen. We can finance this exceptionally high PSBR at present without fuelling inflation or producing unacceptable increases in the money supply, because companies are investing less than normal and private individuals are saving a much higher proportion of their earnings than in normal times.
  Perhaps I should interpolate here that all over the developed world Governments have been baffled by the exceptionally high increase in the savings ratio. It is running at 13 per cent. to 14 per cent. in Britain as against under 10 per cent. in normal times. One of the many uncertainties which bedevil forecasting at present is our ignorance about the precise reasons for this very high savings ratio and our consequent inability to predict whether and to what extent it will fall as inflation and unemployment fall. [HON. MEMBERS: "Inflation."] It is no good saying that it is just inflation because the savings ratio is much higher in Germany than it is in Britain although the inflation there is lower. There is no secure ground for believing that it necessarily depends on inflation. It is not clear
  704
  to what extent it depends on employment either. The plain fact is—the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition must accept this—that no one knows why this is so. No one expected it on this scale and, therefore, no one knows precisely how or when it will cease.
  Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that the savings ratio will not fall to some extent as recovery gets under way. It must be our intention to ensure that investment rises. When this time comes, and only then, there will be a danger that the PSBR will crowd out investment if it remains at its present level. A significant part of our current PSBR results directly from the recession and can be expected to disappear when we return to full employment. Even in normal times a substantial PSBR should be expected so that surplus private sector savings can be offset against public sector investment. How large it should be is very difficult to estimate, but it could well be of the order of 4 per cent. of GNP.
  However, there remains a substantial gap which the Government must plan to close as recovery resumes, by increasing their revenue, by reducing their expenditure or by a mixture of the two. There is no doubt in my mind that the emphasis must be put on reductions in the planned level of expenditure, as there is little scope for increasing taxation without unacceptable consequences in other areas of the economy.
  Mr. Norman Atkinson: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be influenced by the noises opposite in the sense that he is now taking an apologetic posture for the size of the public sector borrowing requirement when, in his own words, it is not exceptionally high. If it is only 6·5 per cent. of GNP, he has no reason to apologise to the House. He has certainly no reason to start talking about cuts in the public sector.
  Mr. Healey:I dare say that one of my weaknesses as a parliamentarian is that I am not, perhaps, sufficiently apologetic to the party that happens to be sitting on the Benches confronting me. I do not think that any of my hon. Friends would believe that my attitude on these matters was ever calculated to inspire cheers from the Opposition. I assure my hon. Friend

  705
  that cheers embarrass me more than they help me. With respect, my hon. Friend did not listen to what I was saying. I was talking about the size of the general Government deficit which is well in line with those of other countries. However, like other countries, we must plan drastically to reduce both the general Government deficit and the public sector borrowing requirement once recovery gets under way. Other countries are planning to do so and so must we. I warn my hon. Friend that if we do not, that big increase in investment, on which he counts as much as I do, will be physically impossible. There just will not be room in the economy for it. This was accepted by the Labour Party conference unanimously because the point was made in the policy document, which was presented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
  As I pointed out at the Labour Party conference in Blackpool, if all income after tax above £6,000 a year were completely confiscated, the additional yield would be only £450 million—one twentieth of this year's PSBR as I estimated it in the Budget speech. So, if we try to reduce the PSBR by increasing taxation, the main burden would have to fall on average and below average earners who already carry a heavy load.
  Moreover, the tax system has become seriously distorted in recent years under successive Governments. I am particularly concerned by the extent to which the balance of taxation has shifted from indirect to direct taxes. Yet at a time when the fight against inflation must take priority, it is difficult to increase indirect taxes, even by what is required to take account of inflation because of the effect on the cost of living. That is why, for example, in my first Budget last year, although I increased the specific duties on drink and tobacco, I did not feel able to increase them sufficiently to take account of the increase in inflation in the last increase. The plain fact is that one always has to strike balances in the light of the priorities of the moment.
  The scope for increasing company taxation is equally limited, since much of this would feed through into prices unless it reduced company liquidity and the return on investment. If it did that it would jeopardise the foundation of our industrial policy.
  706
  Capital taxes can make a useful contribution towards reducing the PSBR without reducing employment as their resource content is low. But, by the same token, they cannot help significantly to achieve a better distribution of resources inside the economy. This is one of the major objectives that we must seek to achieve in reducing the public sector borrowing requirement. Therefore, there is no escape from it—income tax must be the main source of additional revenue if we seek to reduce the PSBR by increasing taxation.
  But income tax is already bearing heavily, not only on the average worker but also on the low paid. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East about this, but it has been happening under Governments of his colour as well as mine. There are now significant numbers of men and women whose earnings are below the level for supplementary benefit, but who are now being taxed on those earnings. Yet to have kept such people out of tax by further increasing the personal allowances again would have thrown even heavier burdens on the average man and woman. If I had fully restored the real value of personal allowances in my last Budget to the level I fixed in my first, in March 1974, I would have had to increase the basic rate of income tax by a further 3p, to 38p in the pound.
  For all these reasons I believe that the Government must plan on reducing substantially the planned level of public expenditure in the years when recovery is assured and the pressure on resources is bound to reach its peak. That is why I warned the House in July that public expenditure programmes could not be allowed any significant increase in the two years beyond the reduced level planned for 1976–77. The precise size and distribution of the required cuts in programmes will of course be announced as usual in the annual public expenditure White Paper. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] When it is completed.
  Equally important, we must devise more effective ways of ensuring that programmes, once published, are not exceeded in the event. Local authorities in particular, under successive Governments—this happened particularly in the last two years of the previous Conservative Government—have been regularly

  707
  spending far more in constant prices than central Government laid down for them. This problem has been made far worse by the exceptionally high rates of inflation in the last few years.
  For these reasons the Government have decided, as I told the House in July, to introduce cash limits for those programmes which are appropriate for them. These limits will initially cover approximately half of the public expenditure programmes, on the definition used in the public expenditure White Paper—not the whole. It would be ridiculous to apply cash limits to all programmes, as the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East proposed at his party conference the other day, because that would mean cutting the old-age pension if people lived longer and reducing unemployment benefit if more people lost their jobs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to have thought of that when he proposed doing that.
  But the programmes which do not depend on such variable factors will be subject to cash limits in the next financial year. In particular, the local authorities, as my right hon. Friend made clear on Friday, will not only have cash limits imposed on much of their capital spending, which was always subject to Government control, but will also have cash limits fixed for the rate support grant—and at a slightly lower percentage of their total planned expenditure than last year. This should mean that, provided they stick to the planned programmes, there should on average be little increase in the rates or in rate poundage next spring over the country as a whole.
  Mr. Graham Page: Is the limit entirely on the rate support grant and not on the expenditure of local government, however it is raised? Am I to understand that it is not an overall limit on local authority expenditure?
  Mr. Healey: We have debated this matter many times. If the local authorities stick to their planned programmes, there should be no significant increase in the rates or rate poundage next spring, and cash limits will then be applying to about 75 per cent. of local authority expenditure—that is, to capital expenditure and to two-thirds of current expen-
  708
  diture. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wands-worth?"] With great respect, I should love to know more about Wandsworth in the future, but I am trying to explain an important and complex point.
  As I say, if the central Government attempted to control all local authority expenditure, we would not have local government. One must give local government some freedom to decide how to spend its money. But the fact is that, roughly speaking, three-quarters will be directly controlled by cash limits and the rest will be controlled by the political consequences of exceeding limits and then having to raise the rates so as to pay for the excess.
  I believe—and I hope that both sides of the House can agree about this—that the Government have taken steps over the last few months, both in applying cash limits and in setting up the consultative council between central Government and local authorities, which give us the best chance we have had in our history to bring local authority spending under some effective sort of control. I hope that we shall not have any unnecessary party arguments about this because my own experience of local officials and councils is that they are desperately anxious to co-operate with central Government in getting some control over a thing which has been getting totally out of control over the recent years, notably in the last two years of the previous Conservative Government and the first year of our Government, when the increase in local authority expenditure was precisely twice that which had been laid down by central Government.
  Details on the application of cash limits to central Government Departments will be published around the beginning of the financial year and the Government will then welcome the opportunity of debating them.
  I now turn to the alternative policies put forward by the Conservative Front Bench—if they really justify the name of policies, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech presented the usual spectacle of confusion and contradiction—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—combined with a complacency in the face of his own record which almost baffles the imagination. Having listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman

  709
  on many occasions, I had no problem whatever in preparing to comment on his speech before I have actually heard it. There never was a spokesman the style and content of whose speeches was more predictable.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: We are all very grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not only for giving way but for adopting many of the things that he has been told to adopt by the Opposition Front Bench. However, what is the virtue now in reading out a written castigation which was prepared before he ever knew he was going to adopt these measures?
  Mr. Healey: I have known of the measures that I am going to adopt for a long time. The difficulty has been in knowing what views expressed by individuals on the Conservative Benches and groups of Conservative Members I should regard as the policy of the Conservative Party, because there is no single major issue of economic policy on which the Conservative leadership is not deeply divided. Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made clear in a notable speech in Rome last week—not Costa Rica—the strident defence of the crude values of popular capitalism proclaimed by the new leader of the Conservative Party have already alienated millions of those who previously supported it.
  Incidentally, if Conservative leaders are determined to carry their party political battles into foreign countries I suppose it is better, like the rt. hon. Member for Sidcup, that they confine themselves to attacking one another rather than attacking their country, like the rt. hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition and the rt. hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), still playing Rasputin to his hockey stick Tsarina.
  The right hon. and learned Member now claims to support the Government's policy for incomes. He claimed it this afternoon, and "firm support" were his words. But only four months ago he and his hon. Friends voted to deny a Second Reading to the Bill to implement it. They tabled a motion declining to give the Bill a Second Reading. But when the right hon. and learned Gentleman
  710
  had a chance actually to vote against the Second Reading, he and his hon. Friends preferred to skulk in their tent. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I shall never go to him for lessons in courage, after watching his behaviour on that night in July when he and his party dodged giving any view whatever on the most important problem facing the nation. Meanwhile, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East—
  Mr. Peter Tapsell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Healey: No. I was specifically asked by Mr. Speaker not to give way.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East—
  Sir G. Howe: The Chancellor must desist from this pattern of falsehood. He knows that the Opposition tabled an amendment setting out precisely their view of the Government's policy, urging the Government to adopt controls on public expenditure and urging them to adopt cash limits and to adopt many of the policies that he is now claiming as his own. Our views are on record. We voted in support of them on that amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman should cease denouncing them.
  Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is too good a lawyer to use the word "falsehood" so lightly. The statement that I made is literally true.
  Sir G. Howe: We voted for our amendment.
  Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman tabled a motion declining to give a Second Reading to the Bill which made a reality of our counter-inflation policy. That having been defeated, he abstained and persuaded the bulk of his right hon. and hon. Friends to abstain on the Second Reading of the Bill. Nothing can erase the memory of that cowardly night.
  On unemployment the Conservative Party is even more divided. Half of the Conservatives tried to win votes by weeping crocodile tears over a level of unemployment which their own policies would double. But the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East—bless his heart—continues to claim that unemployment

  711
  is only half as high as it appears and that between September and October it was actually falling.
  When the Government took steps in September to moderate the rise in unemployment we were fiercely attacked by spokesmen of the Conservative Party in one of their fits of instant opposition. Yet the main target of their attack, the work creation scheme, had been specifically recommended by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) in a speech a few weeks earlier.
  But the conclusive demonstration of their unfitness to form an Opposition, still less to present themselves as potential leaders of a Government, is their position on public expenditure. When they were in office, public expenditure rose over 3 per cent. as a percentage of our gross domestic product. It was 6 per cent. higher in their last year of office than the year before. They fought two General Elections last year on promises to increase public expenditure by amounts of up to and beyond £3,000 million. They have consistently voted, even in opposition, for increases in public expenditure and against reductions made by the present Government—on defence, on Maplin, the Channel Tunnel, as my right hon. Friend pointed out last week. The hon. Member for St Ives, one of their official spokesmen and the high priest of fiscal probity, attacked me only the other day for cutting capital expenditure in the public sector too far.
  At the same time they promise to cut taxes. They are going to abolish the capital transfer tax and the land development tax. They are going to reduce the highest rate of income tax to 50 per cent. Incidentally, it is comforting to see that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey East has abandoned his campaign for flooding the United Kingdom with thousands of Bay City Rollers and is concentrating on managers and professional people who have left the United Kingdom. But once again his mathematics is as unreliable as his judgement. There would be an immediate loss in yield of £200 million if the highest rate of income tax was reduced to 50 per cent.—something which could not conceivably be made up by the return of his well-heeled prodigals.
  712
  Yet in face of all these commitments to increases in public expenditure and cuts in taxation, he still claims that he wants to cut the public sector borrowing requirement and cut it now. He had the neck to lecture me about it today. Yet he will not tell us by how much or at what cost in employment or where the cuts in public expenditure must fall.
  I am going to do it when the levels of employment are increasing and the cuts are being taken up by demand in the private sector. The right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to cut the borrowing requirement this year and to make savage cuts next year when there is no chance of the slack being taken by a general increase in activity.
  He will not tell us where the increases in taxation must come. Until he answers some of these questions and renounces some of the follies he has committed himself to in recent months, his posture will remain one of self-evident and undignified hypocrisy.
  The Conservative Party's policies are confused and contradictory because its leadership is deeply divided on every issue of importance to the nation. Rampant opportunism is the only factor that keeps them together and similar opportunism has led the Liberal Party and other fringe groups to join their quarrelling ranks—an attraction which will play for one night only.
  I ask all hon. Members who take the country's problems seriously to unite and rout the most unholy alliance ever seen in the history of British politics.
  5.33 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: Because of the shortage of time, I shall not endeavour to follow all the points made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I ask the House to turn for a moment to the relationship between the Government and local government and its effect on the economic state of the nation.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer just touched on the question of local government expenditure and the Prime Minister referred to it fairly substantially in his speech on Wednesday. Today's debate will concentrate on economic affairs, but a vital factor in that is the level and trend of public expenditure, and in one year of this Government total public expenditure has gone up by more than 50 per

  713
  cent. The Prime Minister said in his speech last week:
  "The House knows that a significant part of the increase in public expenditure over the past two or three years has been in local government. Comparing 1974–75 with 1973–74, the increase in local authority expenditure is about 25 per cent. of the total increase in public expenditure which the Conservatives attack and criticise."
  That figure of 25 per cent. of total public expenditure is not surprising. The spending of local government accounts for 30 per cent. of total public spending, and the fact that it accounts for only 25 per cent. of the increase in total public expenditure might be a cause for congratulations to local government.
  There are two reasons for increases in local government expenditure. First, there are the increased functions placed on it by this House. That was recognised by the Prime Minister in his speech, but he appears to be doing nothing about it in the policy outlined in the Gracious Speech. The speech says:
  "My Ministers will pursue vigorously their programmes of social reform by legislative and other means, within available resources."
  That is imposing more responsibilities and duties on local government.
  The Speech goes on:
  "They will take energetic action to encourage the provision of more houses in both public and private sectors; and following from a comprehensive review they will bring forward recommendations for future housing finance policy."
  Again, further duties are being laid on local government. Houses are being transferred from new town corporations to local authorities and there is to be legislation to abolish tied cottages. These actions, together with those stated in other paragraphs in the Gracious Speech, show that local authorities will have yet more duties to carry out.
  We must add to that the abolition of direct grant schools, the refusal of the Government to adopt the simplified town and country planning procedures set out by Mr. Dobry in his report and the tens of thousands of people who will have to be employed by local authorities as a result of the Community Land Act. Furthermore, I understand the House is to deal with a Bill from the Labour-controlled West Midlands local authority which wishes to give every conceivable retail trade and service to the local council to carry out.
  714
  The second reason for increased local government expenditure is the increase in national wage rates, and the Prime Minister did not acknowledge this in his speech. Local government is labour intensive—teachers and typists, builders and bin men, road menders and the rest. Local government expenditure is greatly affected by national wage increases which are quite out of its control.
  The Prime Minister discovered two other reasons for increases in local authority expenditure. The first was expressed in this mixed metaphor:
  "My one criticism—and not of the party opposite in what I am about to say—is that in recent years in particular there has been in some areas of local government a big increase in the ratio between chiefs and Indians—or, perhaps better, between teeth and tail—between those engaged in administration and those at the sharp end providing help for those in need, and so on."
  That is a pretty fantastic picture of a mass of chiefs with bureaucratically-bared teeth autocratically lording it over a handful of Indians with sharp-ended tails! If he really believes this, what is he going to do about it? His only suggestion to local authority representatives at Eastbourne was to create more chiefs by setting up a watchdog committee, for every council, consisting of unelected busybodies. This would be totally undemocratic and wholly impracticable. I do not know who on earth thought that one up for him. I cannot believe it was Ministers in the Department of the Environment.
  More chiefs, and this time with no teeth—that has been the only suggestion to emerge since the Prime Minister's speech last Wednesday. This is the only solution offered to control local authorities in their possible overmanning at the top as against those whom the Prime Minister described as being as the sharp end.
  I do not think that this overbalance is universal, but I am ready to admit that in some places there is overmanning at the top such as in some places in Yorkshire and Leicestershire. Any Government must appreciate that no one takes the trouble to stand for his local council without the determination to see that his council does a good job and provides the services for which the public ask. That is our democratic form of local government. But our current national economic circumstances impose a duty on Ministers

  715
  to curb the natural enthusiasm of local councillors.
  Late in 1973 it was obvious to me in my then position as Minister for Local Government and Development that the new councils, even before they had started their work, were in many cases building empires. I set up an inquiry to look into the new establishment of local authorities and the salaries being offered. It was obvious that some authorities were poaching the staffs of others by offering attractive salaries and were building up establishments which were unnecessary for the functions being transferred to them. That report was to be put before the Pay Board, but there was a General Election before the report was made. A Labour Government took office, the Pay Board disappeared and I think that the report, too, disappeared without trace.
  Mr. John Evans: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that during the course of 1973 when the new authorities were forming upon amalgamation they were following the lines recommended by the Bains Report which he and his Government endorsed and put before the local authorities? If there are too many chiefs it is because they followed the Bains Report.
  Mr. Page: I completely deny that that was the tenor of the Report. It was a very good Report which, properly followed, would have meant that the local authorities did not increase their establishments or pay the sort of salaries which some of them were doing at that time. What action do the Government intend to take now on that Report? The Prime Minister complains of the situation, but he has given no indication of the action he might take to deal with it.
  There must be a partnership between central and local government, particularly in the present circumstances, in the use of total national resources. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned the consultative committee. I fear that it is about as effective in bringing about this partnership as a kitten would be. We have heard not even a squeak from it. The Government should, while allowing freedom to local authorities within an overall limit, fix that limit on the total expenditure of authorities, however raised, whether through the rate support grant
  716
  or by means of the rates, but not by the rate support grant alone.
  The Chancellor admitted that in the past we have failed to contain local government expenditure merely by fixing the rate support grant. If we squeeze the balloon in one place it merely bulges out elsewhere, and the local authorities collect the difference through the rates. Central Government have a right to put a strict limit on the establishment of local authorities and to be firm in negotiating wage scale rates.
  Actually, the figures of local government staff might well show that the increase in employment levels is due to a significant rise in the number not of chiefs but of Indians. It is Labour policy to encourage local councils to employ more and more direct labour, not only on building, and this is where the increases are occurring at present.
  One of the best ways to reduce local government expenditure is to make local councillors directors rather than operatives, and by that I mean that local government functions should be let out to private contract. House building, road making and maintenance, refuse collection and disposal, libraries, parks upkeep swimming baths, and so on should be let to outside contractors. By that means the staff of local government could be reduced substantially and the work would be done at competitive prices.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is outrageous. In Keighley the house repairs contract was given out to private enterprise and it proved a total disaster. The Conservative-controlled local authority had to rescue the position by setting up its own direct works department.
  Mr. Page: That is not so in other areas. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman represents a failure in local government.
  I want to turn now to the prime Prime Ministerial red herring. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "But the biggest single factor in this wide area of our national life, extending from local government to water supplies and the Health Service—I say this to anyone who talks about the increase in public expenditure—is in the drastically misconceived policies which led to the reorganisation carried through in local government—duplication, double banking, a vastly increased bureaucracy, superchiefs taken

  717
  on to supervise existing chiefs, and divided responsibility."—[Official Report, 19th November 1975; Vol. 901, c. 47.]
  The Prime Minister did not complain about duplication when, during the course of local government reorganisation, he led a deputation to me asking that I should divide a district which I had intended should be one, to divide St. Helens from Huyton, which is in his own area. By his reference to duplication and double banking, I assume that he means the two-tier system of local government reform. Labour Government policy at the time was set out in White Paper Cmnd. 4276 in February 1970. It was Labour policy to leave Greater London with the two-tier system, a county with 32 districts. Maud also recommended three metropolitan counties with 20 districts. The Labour Government accepted that recommendation. It did not say "This far and no further". Labour policy created two more metropolitan counties—West Yorkshire and Hampshire—with eight districts. I think that the duplication was merely in the Prime Minister's speech and not in local government reorganisation. Labour policy put half the population of the country into the two-tier system yet the right hon. Gentleman claims that the duplication and double banking have caused this great increase. He did not say that at the time.
  Then Labour policy went crazy in the rest of the country. The rest of the country was to be governed by 51 unitary authorities. That would have resulted in disastrous remoteness of local government from the people and an enormous bureaucracy for these large authorities. Our reduction from 1,300 to about 300 local authorities brought them down to the right figure.
  I admit there is possible overlapping in functions at present in the transitional arrangements provided for in the Act. These arrangements were to cover the situation where an authority had a good team, say in planning or in road engineering, which it would have been foolish to break up at once. There were therefore arrangements between the counties and the districts to carry out each other's functions.
  These have not all proved successful and the Secretary of State has the power to remedy that. He should give careful consideration to the transitional arrange-
  718
  ments. I am not advocating a Big Brother attitude by central Government to local authorities except on these selected points. It was always intended that the Secretary of State should take another look at the transitional arrangements.
  One of the main purposes of local government reorganisation was to reduce the nit-picking by Whitehall over what local authorities were doing in their town halls, particularly on individual capital projects. The desire was to reduce the number of civil servants overlording the local authorities. Indeed, we abolished many supervisory acts by central Government. Why then has the number of civil servants increased by 32,000 in one year since the Labour Government came to office? Why was the number not reduced as a result of local government reorganisation? To take the main Department concerned, why has the cost of the staff of the Department of the Environment increased by £45 million in the year that the Labour Government have been in office? That cost should have been substantially reduced by dealing with local government reorganisation as was intended.
  There was nothing wrong with the policies of local government reorganisation. What has gone wrong in some respects is that the Labour Government have failed to enter into the right partnership with local authorities. The Prime Minister's disclosure of his ignorance of local government and its system since last Wednesday has served only to make matters much worse.
  5.51 p.m.
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) was not impressed by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Eastbourne last week. I was heartened by it, seeing it as reflecting a more realistic approach to economic and financial matters.
  All the proposals in the Queen's Speech, foreign as well as domestic, are based on the success of the Government's economic and financial policies. That is acknowledged explicitly in the Gracious Speech and in the necessary qualification, "within available resources", tacked on to several proposals.
  The real test of the Government, and therefore the real political battle, will not

  719
  come from anything specifically in the Gracious Speech. They will arise from the Government's management of the economy between now and next summer. None of us can be in any doubt about the Government's prime economic objectives. They are: first, ensuring recovery in industrial activity and investment, and thus limiting the rise in unemployment; secondly, bringing about an improvement in the balance of payments; and, at the same time, thirdly, establishing a permanently lower level of inflation. But those objectives will not be achieved unless certain preconditions are met.
  For example, the Government must set about strategy-making in the right way. The recently-announced policy following the Chequers conference, of diverting resources to the most promising sectors, suggests that Government economic policy is at long last swinging round in the right direction.
  The Government must follow that strategy and cling to it. They perhaps have only just enough time to do so between now and the next General Election. What will impress public opinion is the Government's ability to carry through a coherent economic strategy in the face of all temptations to bow to sectional pressure of one sort or another. Otherwise, the necessary changes to reverse our long-term industrial decline cannot begin.
  There is no virtue in going on producing goods for which there is a declining market, or perhaps no market at all. I have the utmost sympathy for those who become unemployed, but goods must sell. Economic well-being lies in producing goods and services that people want and will pay for. Thus, the strengthening of the country's industrial base must take priority over all other aims.
  That calls for investment, as we hear on all sides. I was glad to hear from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon that what is needed is not necessarily a greater volume of investment but, as recent research suggests, a change in its direction. Investment implies a higher level of profitability in both the private and public sectors. None of us on the Government Benches need shrink from that, although I think that profitability is a misleading
  720
  word. Rather, we should talk of internally-generated cash flow. I know that that sounds forbidding, because it is a technical expression, but it is perfectly understood by those trade union representatives who will negotiate only when there is money on the table. I want to see all trade unionists understand it and look for it in their firms. I want them to think more and more in money terms, to want to see as much of it as possible generated by themselves and their firms, and to ask questions, preferably the right questions, when it is not. Without internally-generated cash flow, no business can grow.
  It will not be enough to pursue the various objectives of Government economic policy by themselves. They must be reconciled. That will be very difficult. For example, none of us should minimise the complex dilemma which faces the Government when jobs are threatened. It is too easy in a debate of this kind to gloss over the fears and the sheer human misery caused by unemployment. I suspect that tens of thousands of workers are scared stiff of losing their jobs. I hope that we are all fully sensitive to those fears.
  Presumably the IMF loan is intended, in addition to the explanation offered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, to reconcile the limited rise in unemployment with the limited improvement in the balance of payments until the Government feel that they can hold public and private consumption to a level within our means. But, live within our means we must, and preferably at the earliest possible date. That is an argument that no one understands more readily than a working-class household, because every head of a working-class household has been brought up in the belief that above all one lives within one's means, and one has nothing but contempt for other families that do not.
  That is not the only argument. If we do not live within our means our problems will only multiply—not least unemployment, contrary to what I suspect some people believe. Further public expenditure increases will not reduce unemployment but increase it.
  Therefore, as my right hon. Friend acknowledged this afternoon, the Government are bound to give the highest

  721
  priority to bringing their own expenditure under control. My right hon. Friend said a week or so ago that Government borrowing was now running at about 20p in the pound. The public sector borrowing requirement is consequently running at a level that I cannot bring myself to quantify and my right hon. Friend cannot bring himself to reveal. When Parliament is confronted next month with the figures in the public expenditure White Paper and the consequences, we shall all be well aware of the country's predicament. If we have to have resort once again to the IMF, it will be on quite different terms to those for the recent loan. No hon. Member will resent those terms more than I and my hon. Friends shall. That is why I want to avoid that situation.
  However, the axe should not be swung indiscriminately. Public expenditure cuts should be undertaken only with the greatest care and selectivity. Personal services rather than productive skills should be a target. Our burgeoning bureaucracy has been nominated as a target by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  Cuts in defence contracts in the aerospace industry are to be avoided. I am mindful of an article in the Financial Times on 17th November this year by Michael Donne, its aerospace correspondent, who stressed the value of our aerospace industry to the country as a whole, to our balance of payments situation, and also in terms of the employment created by that industry. Mr. Donne went on to justify the claims of the aerospace industry with its exceptionally high conversion ratio, and wrote of the industry:
  "Every poundsworth of raw materials it imports is turned by engineering skills into aircraft, engines and other products worth up to 26 times more, while maintaining employment of over 200,000 workers."
  Therefore, we should be extremely careful not to make men with such skills redundant.
  Similarly the temptation to impose temporary import restrictions might be regretted by the Government. Such a policy is bound adversely to affect the domestic price level and will run counter to the Government's policy on inflation. Action on these lines is sure to bring retaliation and a queue at the door of the Department of my right hon. Friend the Secre-
  722
  tary of State for Trade. There will be scarcely a Member of this House who will not wish to take refuge under the protective cloak of any restrictions in respect of any local industry that finds itself in trouble. I have already hinted as much to the Secretary of State for Trade. I informed him that recently I saw a deputation on behalf of Sheffield's special steels. That delegation feared loss of jobs because of competition from the dumping of cheap Japanese steel. We are well aware of the difficulty of trying to limit the number of "special cases".
  Perhaps the highest priority this Session should be awarded not to legislation, or even to any proposal in the Queen's Speech—apart from the important paragraph on economic policy—but to the education of parliamentary opinion in the realities of our economic problems. Members of Parliament need to be given a much deeper understanding of the realities of our economic situation. Without that knowledge, as I know all too well from recent personal experience, we are unlikely to have an honest debate of our real problems and there will be an unwillingness to utter or indeed to accept uncomfortable truths.
  I have no doubt that hon. Members are lagging behind the public at present. Ordinary people know that it is no use arguing about the distribution of wealth until we find more effective ways of creating it. The mood of the nation is now very different from the mood only two years ago. People are very worried indeed about unemployment and also about inflation, especially the latter. Yet although the political, social and economic problems faced by the Government are menacing and seemingly intractable, they can be transformed by a modest economic recovery.
  Therefore, that is the key to the situation. The Government may have a modest parliamentary majority, but they govern an orderly country which, though weak, is still relatively prosperous. If only Britain can be kept from dissolution and persists with its more relevant and realistic economic policies, a harsh winter may yet give way to a more hopeful future.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. John Pardoe: I shall not follow the tenor of the speech

  723
  of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) because I wish to move an amendment that stands on the Order Paper in the names of my right hon. Friend and other Liberal Members—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot move an amendment now. The opportunity for him to do so will come later in the proceedings.
  Mr. Pardoe: It is most important that I get the message across to the House that we intend to move the amendment at a later stage, otherwise it might be left out of consideration. It is gratifying to know that the procedures of the House have now been changed to enable us to move a second amendment, as we intend to move it in due course.
  I wish to direct attention to our amendment, which deals with the Dock Labour Scheme. I am glad to see in his place the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment since I wish to say a few words about the scheme. I do not wish to debate the subject by the use of political slogans. I can appreciate that there might be some advantages in extending the scheme to non-scheme ports, but the advantages have to be stated and proved.
  There is a commitment in the Queen's Speech to extend the Dock Labour Scheme to non-scheme ports and places of work that are not even ports at all. So far we have had no indication why the Government believe that these advantages exist. The facts appear to boil down to two only. The first is the fact that freight traffic in those ports covered by the scheme has been falling. Those ports have lost out from competition by foreign ports and also in competition with non-scheme ports. Secondly, productivity in ports covered by the scheme is low—very much lower than in most European ports with which we are competing and certainly not as high as in non-scheme ports.
  This does not necessarily point to the failure of the whole scheme, but it is obvious that the Government must answer these points and come forward with other positive advantages that may show why we are being asked to extend the scheme to non-scheme ports.
  724
  The second part of the proposal is infinitely worse. It seeks to pretend that something is a port when manifestly it is not. It must be obvious to any reasonable person that a port requires some kind of access to water. The Secretary of State for Employment is a lover of the English language and he will understand my meaning when I say that this is indulging in Orwellian fantasy.
  The proposal arises out of the 1972 dock strike when the dockers claimed the right to jobs in the new cold stores and container bases.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: The hon. Gentleman so far has displayed unparalleled ignorance about the dock industry, and particularly the history of the container bases. He has not attempted to analyse the situation in the dock industry that prevailed before any scheme came into existence. He has failed to inform the House—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Member that there is great competition among hon. Members to speak in this debate. He must not make an intervention of that length.
  Mr. Pardoe: I thought the hon. Gentleman would realise that in view of the indication given by Mr. Speaker at the outset of the debate, I am trying to compress my remarks on this subject. Although I should be most happy to go into the whole history of the dock scheme and to debate the matter with the hon. Gentleman all day and all night if he wishes, I do not now intend to take up the time of the House in doing so.
  I was saying that the proposals arise out of the 1972 dock strike. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) might not agree with that statement, but the dockers claimed the right to jobs in the new cold stores and container bases. That may have been a reasonable course for the dockers to take because they saw warehouses, container bases and cold stores being set up on the very edge of areas in which they had been working. Understandably those dockers felt them to be an extension of the port in which they worked and claimed a right to a job when work in the ports was declining. But it is a different matter when the Government now step in and seek to claim that any warehouse,

  725
  cold store or container base five miles from any port or navigable waters is to be regarded as a port. It is a most extraordinary proposition to be put forward by the Secretary of State for Employment.
  In 1972 a compromise was reached at the cost of £30 million of public money. I repeat that we paid £30 million in good faith under the leadership of the then Conservative Government as a result of a compromise solution between Lord Aldington and Mr. Jack Jones. We thought that we had met the dockers' demands, and indeed I am sure that most people in the country thought that to be the case. Probably they thought that the £30 million was well spent. Now we find that that money did not buy off that demand. Apparently the money was entirely wasted. The demand remains. The dockers still want those jobs and presumably they want to keep the £30 million. I should like to hear what the Secretary of State will do to get the money back. Apparently the Government intend to surrender.
  We can afford to take a humane attitude.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: rose—
  Mr. Pardoe: I shall not give way. Mr. Speaker asked for short speeches. He specifically warned at the outset against interventions and giving way.
  Whatever the economic problems of this country, we can afford to be humane and generous to men and women who are employed in what is inevitably a declining industry. It is the kind of industry to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe referred. We can afford to compensate those workers for the loss of their jobs and to pour large sums of money into retraining them for new kinds of jobs. I even agree—some members of the Conservative Party would not agree—that the Government can put money legitimately into the creation of new jobs to replace the jobs lost in the declining industries. We should take those steps which will lead to a more efficient and humane society.
  We cannot afford to guarantee to every man and woman in this country that they can stay in their present jobs for the rest of their lives. That way lies economic degradation and desolation. That is what
  726
  the Secretary of State is proposing to do. We shall be faced, as will any industrial society, with a series of such situations. We must prepare for future shock. People will not like the pace of change that will affect their lives over the next 15 to 20 years. However, change must occur in this country: and faster than in many other countries.
  I would have thought that the Secretary of State at some stage in his career was a radical; and that he would then have said that change was his ally. In fact he stands shouting and proclaiming to all the world the words of the title of Anthony Newley's musical show
  "Stop the world, I want to get off".
  The right hon. Gentleman cannot face the problems of change; he cannot face the problems of future shock.
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): I intervene as this is an important matter. It is right that this important proposal in the Government's programme should be discussed in the House of Commons. Indeed, the Government decided that the matter must be brought to the House of Commons instead of being dealt with under the inquiry system which was set up under the 1947 Act. Therefore, I do not complain about the matter being discussed here. We shall produce our proposals with the Bill, which can be discussed in detail.
  However, the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to contain his criticisms until he has seen our proposals. That is the great danger in the course which the Liberal Party appear to be embarked upon in the proposed vote on this matter, if that is what they intend to do tonight.
  Some of us have visited the docks in Liverpool, London and elsewhere. We say this to the dockers: we think it is right that the difficult question of the docks should be settled by Parliament and by legislation. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which helped to end the appalling dock strike in London a few months ago, recommended early legislation. That is what we propose to do. We appeal to the dockers to respect Parliament and to agree that Parliament should settle the matter. If the Liberal Party now opposes the introduction of a measure into the House of Commons to deal with the

  727
  matter, that is inviting trouble of a different character. I invite Liberal Members to reserve the question whether they will vote on this matter until they have heard the proposals.
  Mr. Pardoe: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. He made a long intervention. I understand his wish to answer the point I made. I am grateful to him for attending this debate. However, I hope that the time taken by that intervention will not be deducted from my entitlement.
  It is all very well to say that the Government will introduce the legislation proposed in the Queen's Speech but that we must not discuss it this afternoon—indeed that we must postpone our discussion until the whole matter is debated, when a fait accompli, a printed Bill, is placed in front of us. That is not parliamentary democracy.
  The House knew the issues involved before the right hon. Gentleman rose to the Dispatch Box. The right hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten some of the lessons in parliamentary democracy which I thought he learned under the mantle of Aneurin Bevan in his constituency.
  Mr. Foot: I suggest that before Liberal Members vote on the proposals they should know what the proposals are.
  Mr. Pardoe: The general outline of what the Government propose is clear. Will the Secretary of State say that he is not proposing to extend the Dock Labour Scheme to non-dock-labour-scheme ports, or that he is not proposing to extend it to inland warehouses? No. We know what the general outlines of the scheme are. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he and some of his colleagues have traipsed up and down the country talking to dock workers, but has he spoken to the warehousemen and to the people whose jobs he will take away? Has he spoken to the workers in the cold stores? He should visit some of the cold stores and face the music. He should speak to them.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: They are just as good members of the Transport and General Workers' Union as are the dockers.
  Mr. Pardoe: The first effect of this scheme will be the creation of a monopoly situation. Only registered dockers will be able to handle the work in all our ports. That will create an inevitable potential for disruption in the train of monopoly. That is the first principle which we oppose.
  The Secretary of State should see what effect this scheme will have on the prices of imported food. Will the Government say "This is having a disastrous effect on our pay policies. The trade unions will not accept the £6 limit because our Dock Labour Scheme has put up the cost of imported food. Therefore we must ask the Treasury for more money for subsidies with which to hold down the price of food."
  The Government are putting forward an extremely conservative solution. They have already indicated that the registered dockers will virtually be guaranteed jobs for their lifetime regardless of the work situation in the ports. The hon. Member for Attercliffe drew attention to the problem of shoring up industries where change is required. We cannot continue to do that. We must find other ways which do not include a guarantee of a job for life.
  Has the Secretary of State visited the small ports? Has he talked to many of the dockers in those small ports which are not part of the scheme but which will become so? They do not want the scheme to be extended to their operations. They are not crying out for it either through their trade union structure or through their Members of Parliament.
  It is legitimate for the House to consider this important matter in this final debate on the Queen's Speech. This is an appropriate moment to do so. It is time that the House fired a shot across the bows of the Government's scheme long before it receives every full stop and comma, or crossed T and dotted I, long before all the details are filled in.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: Is my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) aware of the fact—as the Minister certainly is, as I wrote to him on this matter a month ago—that I met in the House of Commons 34 shop stewards, including three branch secretaries, all of them members of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and the General and Municipal Workers'

  729
  Union, from the perimeter area of the Port of London, who are totally opposed to the Government's plans for the extension of the dock labour scheme? Those people told me that they represented 15,000 members of trade unions who were opposed to the Government's scheme. I asked the Secretary of State whether he was prepared to meet a deputation from those trade unions—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am almost forgetting who is addressing the House. Mr. Pardoe.
  Mr. Pardoe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, which bears out my point that while the right hon. Gentleman may be concerned to secure the jobs of certain people he is supporting he has entirely neglected the jobs of those who work in warehouses and cold stores—the jobs which the dockers will take over. What will the right hon. Gentleman do when these workers knock on his door? I know what he will do. He will do what he has already done. Presumably he will draw another line, an inner circle, another five miles inland. He will say that all the workers in the warehouses and cold stores within that five-mile limit can have the jobs within that inner limit. Sooner or later he will get to the centre of Britain and will be unable to go any further!
  I make no apologies to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter at this time. The cacophony it has raised on the Labour Benches shows that Labour Members are extremely anxious about the opposition to the scheme which stems from many of their own supporters. The Liberal Party intends to speak out about the people whose jobs are being endangered by the right hon. Gentleman even though the Labour Party has forgotten where its duty to them lies.
  I wish to speak briefly on the economic debate and to answer the arguments put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In a typically bombastic outburst at the end of his speech he said that the Liberals would indulge in a terrible alliance by supporting the Opposition motion. He is right in that we shall support the Opposition motion, and we hope that the Conservative Opposition will support our motion as a quid pro quo, but that is not an alliance. If it so happens that we are
  730
  allied in believing that the proposals contained in the Queen's Speech are less than are required, either for the present or for the future, so be it, but we are certainly not allied in believing that the Conservative Party has any better answers to these problems than has the Labour Party. It clearly has not.
  In the general economic discussion on the opening day of our debate on the Queen's Speech two points emerge from the speeches made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Each side seems to be saying that what it has done is a little less awful than what the other side did last time. The Conservative Party has a new twist. It seems to be saying that what it will do next time is a little less awful than what it did last time. That prospect does not thrill me with confidence for the future.
  The second point which emerges is the pretence that our economic problems are the same as or no worse than those of other countries and stem entirely from what the other side did last year, last week or last month. Nothing could do greater disservice to the country than to pretend that what is happening to the British economy is due to what was done by the previous Conservative Government or what this Government are doing. All right, of course there are short-term effects but this country of ours is in fundamental long-term decline, and the trifling remedies proposed in the Queen's Speech will not help matters.
  Before the Chancellor congratulates himself on the success of his pay policy he might at least have the good grace to admit that in the last two General Election campaigns he told the nation and everyone who would listen that no pay policy could work. The Liberals were going round the country saying that the nation needed a pay policy. We told him that he would have to have one. Now he has one, and he claims credit for its success. I am glad that it has succeeded, and I say only that I told him that it would. Had he listened to me and my colleagues he might have achieved a better pay policy.
  Now that will have to come in August. According to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor is responsible for the extension of the pay policy in August, when the present pay policy ends. The country cannot afford £6 per week from August

  731
  1976 to July 1977. Someone will have to shoulder the burden of telling the nation that. It is time we started preparing our fellow countrymen for the shock of that realisation.
  I do not believe that the measures that have been proposed either on the incomes policy and its continuation or on cuts in public expenditure will solve the fundamental long-term problems of the British economy. The only thing that will solve that is a new political settlement. From the evidence which the House has received in Select Committees, particularly on the regional development schemes, and the evidence which emerged from a recent report published by the National Economic Development Office about the major constraints that existed up to 1973 on manufacturing investment in Britain, it can be seen that the reasons given for the lack of investment by industrialists are not economic, not industrial and not financial. A survey was conducted by the National Economic Development Office into industrial attitudes in the manufacturing sector. The survey tried to find out why companies had not invested in the years up to 1973.
  The conclusion of the report on that survey for the larger companies reads as follows:
  "In general, companies did not see themselves as having been constrained, in their investment, by lack or cost of finance.… The availability or cost of finance was not a significant contraint for most companies prior to 1973.… Clearly factors such as uncertainty about continuity of Government economic policies applied to a considerable extent throughout the 1960s and the early 1970s."
  Coming to the smaller companies the conclusion was as follows:
  "The comparatively low level of investment of small companies since the mid-1960s has not been caused by a shortage of funds. Instead, the prime constraining factors for these smaller companies seem to have been; a lack of confidence in the consistency of Government economic policies."
  That is the issue which we all have to face. We have to find a solution to that problem. British industry will never regain the confidence it needs under either Government until we have abolished a political settlement which constantly works against stability, consistency and continuity.
  I end by quoting some words which I hope will strike a chord in the hearts of
  732
  some Conservative Members at least. They come from a pamphlet published recently by an ex-Conservative Member of Parliament, a much respected lawyer and an ex-Minister—Sir John Foster. He said:
  "Britain, the country with the most primitive electoral system"—
  [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen must listen to an argument even if they do not agree with it. Sir John Foster said:
  "Britain, the country with the most primitive electoral system is also the country suffering the greatest economic problems in the industrialised West. The link is clear for all to see. That clear and unhappy link makes electoral reform an essential element in the regeneration of Britain".
  That and a new political settlement are the only way to solve this country's long-term economic decline.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Atkinson: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not go into the depths of Liberal philosophy. I look forward to the time when my colleagues from the dock areas are able to participate in the debate and put the record right. None of my hon. Friends, apart from Ministers, has a clear idea of the proposals, so I do not see how we can discuss them in advance of the announcement that is to come. I have read the document but the Government still have to make their decision and their announcement. I have a suspicion that this will be the last of the experimental intrusions. Other recommendations will be made to Mr. Speaker after our experience this afternoon.
  During my intervention when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking I mentioned the borrowing requirement when I should have been talking about the Government deficit. I wish to put that right to avoid confusion. I was then arguing that the Government should not be embarrassed in any way by the 6·5 per cent. figure—if that is what it ultimately is as a proportion of the gross national product. That is a very different thing, of course, from the borrowing requirement.
  The amendment standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends is not, unfortunately, to be called. It sets out succinctly and powerfully the alternative case and alternative policy which we believe the Government

  733
  should now be pursuing to put right the problems from which the people Labour Members represent are suffering. By the amendment we direct the attention of the House to our argument for an immediate reflation of the economy, but we have taken a great deal of trouble to qualify that blunt statement, recognising all the problems inherent within our system and that there are major difficulties in terms of immediate reflation. Our case is based on the necessity for the Government to control our imports and external trade and, as the amendment says, to re-define the criteria of price control regulations.
  We believe that these things are essential to our case because we recognise that by immediate reflation it is possible to worsen the situation and to make money supply difficulties even greater in certain circumstances. It is possible to defeat the Government's policy of bringing down the rate of inflation to single figures by this time next year—a policy to which we subscribe totally—and we do not wish in any way to inhibit that policy. We must find ways of modifying the system to prevent the conversion of reflation into either a higher date of price inflation, or a sucking in of additional imports, which the country cannot stand in the present situation.
  We therefore qualify our argument by saying that some modification in the system must take place if we are to implement the conditions that we lay down. We think that that is a total and convincing argument for taking the steps now necessary to reflate the economy and to reduce the level of unemployment. In the amendment we also mention the £6 a week agreement. We do so because we believe that following next August we shall argue the case for the return of free collective bargaining but set against new price criteria. We believe that in that situation it is much more necessary that ever to start free wage bargaining against price maxima. Therefore, we have tried to set out our case in that regard.
  We also recognise that the amendment is in no way inhibited by our membership of the European Economic Community, or by the recent IMF loan, or by the terms of our membership of GATT. The Government use these reasons for not accepting the terms we have set out in the amendment calling for the imme-
  734
  reflation of the economy. The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) said that we were to have a longer haul than months and that substantial cuts were inevitable. He spoke of cuts in the social services and Government expenditure generally. He reiterated that there would be cuts in living standards as a result of decisions already taken by the Government.
  I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had some problems with his collar, but he seemed to be nodding his head. He did not intervene. He did not object to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying. I am sorry that he is not here, because otherwise we could discuss the matter and get a clear understanding from him of the Government's intention.
  It is a very serious business indeed, and one of some sadness to the whole of the Labour movement, if the leadership is now saying that the movement has no answers to the unemployment problem and no policy to remedy this situation. If the leadership is saying that we are in a very serious situation, that is an immense challenge to the organised workers.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at least seemed to confirm the suspicions of many of us by saying that now was not the time to reflate the economy. By hints and suggestions he has said what he has said before—that the Government could not intervene in the sense of reflating the economy until such time as the rate of price inflation was down to single figures, on the assumption that this would be by this time next year or later. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently said that this would possibly be a much longer period than the Government expected three or four months ago. If that is so we could be well into 1977 before the Government start to take the necessary initiatives that will not only arrest the rise in unemployment, but do something positive about implementing remedial measures to bring it down.
  That is an intolerable situation. The TUC, the General Council, and most of my hon. Friends would not go along with such a policy. I think that there is unanimity about the view that we could not possibly survive politically if we tried to ride out this typhoon in that way.

  735
  I remember my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment saying we had to batten down the hatches, face the problems head on and ride through the storm. If that is to take us on to 1977, certainly the crew will not be going through the storm in that fashion. There will be storms of a different kind altogether. The Labour movement will be faced with self-destruction long before we get to that stage unless the Government intensify the measures necessary to put matters right.
  I see that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now returned. He referred in his speech to the 1,200,000 unemployed, recognising that the figure was likely to increase to over 1,500,000.
  Mr. Healey: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is once again totally misrepresenting what I said. I said nothing about the figures rising to 1,500,000. I said that the rate of increase had been declining in recent months, but that there would be some increase in the early months of next year.
  Mr. Atkinson: I certainly do not want to misquote my right hon. Friend. I have never done so before. I have been most precise in referring to whatever statements he has made. I have no desire to do him an injustice, but let us look very clearly at what has been said. We are faced with an extremely serious situation. I hope that my right hon. Friend understands that. We are not nit-picking at all. These are major issues and so we have to get them right.
  Am I to take it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said this afternoon that the British Labour movement does not know the answer to this situation and that we cannot start the reflationary process long before the figures rise well above the 1,200,000 unemployed workers mentioned by my right hon. Friend? Is it being said that we cannot take immediate steps to reflate the economy? If that is the situation, our credibility has gone. Our credibility has gone if we are to tell workers that we are sorry but we cannot solve the problem of unemployment in this country before other things happen.
  If that is what is being said, it is very different from 12 months ago when the
  736
  Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the Labour Party conference that he was not there to preside over rising unemployment, over massive unemployment, and that it was not the function of the Labour movement to use unemployment as an economic regulator. If we are now to use unemployed people as a means of decelerating the rise in inflation, so that we are down to single figures by this time next year, that is a very serious situation.
  Is the message to go out to our movement that, after all we have said for 30 years, after claiming that we understand clearly the remedial measures necessary in a situation like this, we are now completely bankrupt of initiatives, so that we have to ride through the storm, batten down the hatches, make the best way we can, and hope that we can arrive in 1977 intact as a political movement? I do not think that it is on. I do not think that we can possibly do that. I do not think that we can maintain the unity of the Labour movement over that period with the pressure that such a policy is bound to create for those who represent organised workers in this country. Therefore, I hope that we shall have some very serious discussion about the situation now facing us.
  I do not think that our industrial strategy was adequately debated on Thursday. I take it, by the way, that the Treasury has won, in the sense that we are to have the publication of the document on public expenditure before we get the Government's statement on industrial strategy—in other words, that the document intended to fix the guidelines is to come first and then the industrial strategy, which presumably will be manœuvred to fit the guidelines laid down in the earlier White Paper. I hope that that situation will be reversed so that we can really talk about the regeneration of British industry.
  Mr. John Watkinson: I have been following my hon. Friend's argument closely. He seems to be arguing for increased consumption, increased public expenditure and increased investment. Given that the economy is not growing at the present time, how does he intend to finance all these at once?
  Mr. Atkinson: I was talking not about increased consumption but about

  737
  increased capital investment. I was talking about maintaining living standards,. not increasing them. I do not think that anyone on this side of the House would consistently argue the case for increasing living standards at the moment. I do not believe that we can consume more in this situation, but I do not accept that of necessity we must consume less. That is why we have drafted the amendment as we have.
  One of the tragedies of our post-war experience has been the price we have had to pay for the behaviour and performance of the City of London and the influence it has had on the British economy. The fact that the City has made a tremendous contribution in making up the deficit that has always existed in visible trade has put us at the mercy of the very criteria that have been constantly accepted and used by the City. When the City has allocated resources, it has been against our interests, but we have always been in that inescapable dilemma, because our invisible earnings have made up the deficit on our visible account. We have always been at the mercy, therefore, of methods and techniques quite contrary to our own needs as a Labour movement.
  This is the price that we have paid over the post-war years for the dominance of the City's monetary policies. This is why we have consistently argued that we must try to get our visible trade balance right. We have to get our manufacturing right so that we can escape from the clutches of the City and the disastrous consequence it has had for us over the years, with all the implications of international borrowing and the effect that has had on our economy. These are the reasons for our placing so much emphasis on getting the manufacturing sector right.
  I should like briefly to mention import controls, which are central to our thesis and to every aspect of the argument. Some people say that we cannot use import control in any way because it is a protective device and against the interests of world trade.
  The Third World comes into this argument. It is in no way a benefit to Indian workers for us to import goods which have been manufactured in the conditions prevailing there. There is a lot more that could be said about aid programmes.
  738
  The problems of some of these countries could be solved by a very different sort of aid programme if it ran alongside a policy of planned imports on our part, rather than the importing of cheap products made in very bad conditions of exploitation.
  It is not always in the interests of workers in the Third World for the developed countries to import unlimited quantities of cheap goods. We know that in some of the under-developed areas of the world there are places like Hong Kong or countries like Taiwan which are highly capitalised in the manufacture of large quantities of cheap goods. But that is another aspect.
  The only way in which a modern industrial country can retaliate against import controls is by itself introducing import controls, by itself introducing planning into its external trade. There is no other way in which it can retaliate in a market economy, whether we are speaking of West Germany, the United States, or any country of the EEC.
  Such countries can retaliate only by adopting the same policies as ourselves, and in combination this is an instrument for the growth of world trade.
  Even if the retaliation were purely destructive, it would be in the interests of British external trade, because it so happens that we have a massive deficit not only with the EEC, but with the United States, West Germany and Japan. That being so, retaliation—even in the crudest sense—must be to the good of world trade if our deficit is causing us to use these deflationary policies and to cut back the growth of our trade generally.
  The arguments against import controls do not wash. They are not constructive arguments at all. Let me suggest one or two more seductive arguments about import planning, which is what we mean when we talk about imports.
  If Richard Marsh, the Chairman of British Rail, said suddenly that British Railways would be going German tomorrow and that all our engines and rolling stock would come from Germany, there would be uproar here and so many Early Day Motions that it would be impossible to see daylight on the Order Paper. But if Arnold Weinstock of GEC decided to go German for certain machinery and if a number of other

  739
  major British companies went German, there would be no notices of motion on the Order Paper. No one would object. But why is it good for Dick Marsh to say "British engines" but not for others to say "British engines" in their planning? Why is there this difference between the private and the public sectors?
  I remind the House that it was the Government who took the biggest-ever import control decision when they decided to go British and to have only British-built nuclear power stations. We turned down American nuclear power. That was the biggest-ever import control imposed anywhere in the world. It was a massive decision to build British power stations. We did it in the interests of our nuclear technology and in our manufacturing interests.
  The reason why Dick Marsh and others are applauded for refusing to go German is that it makes good planning sense and is good for British industry. In the same way, in every other sector there should be planning agreements giving our people a chance, whether they be in machine tools, the ferrous foundry industry, or wherever. We should say to them "You can have a long, uninterrupted run with no pressure from the world." Let us plan our own store to put right our manufacturing problems. If that is the key to our difficulties, we should have the guts to take these planning decisions.
  In getting out of the situation, in reflating the economy, in doing something about reducing the level of unemployment and in doing something about putting right the problems of the private sector about which we have known for years, I hope that we can depend on the Labour Government. Capitalism and the free market economy can never solve these problems. Therefore, we depend on the Government to intervene in the ways that we suggest in our amendment. By this means, we believe that the British Government and the Labour movement can survive.
  6.53 p.m.
  Mr. William Clark: I hesitate to interfere in the internal wranglings of the Labour Party about the economic situation.
  740
  After the Chequers meeting, most people thought that the Government were at last seeing a little sense. Not to put it too highly, the message coming from Chequers was encouraging. Now we have the Gracious Speech, and we have to ask ourselves whether it carries out the spirit of the Chequers report, or whether it helps the country's economic situation.
  If nothing else, the House welcomes the conversion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the view that there is something in profits and that it is economic madness to try to tax people out of existence. We also welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comment that it is impossible at the moment to reflate, irrespective of what the Tribune Group says, and impossible to confiscate the income of anyone earning more than £6,000 a year, which would be only a "one off" job and produce £450 million.
  But we should look at the present scene as the backcloth to the Queen's Speech. We have a record number of bankruptcies. We have record high unemployment, with the possibility, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said, that it will increase when the £6 limit comes in, since there are many firms in the private sector which cannot afford £6 a week across the board.
  There is a lack of cash flow in many companies. That does not apply to the public sector as much as we should wish, but it does apply to the private sector. We have dividend limitation, rigid price controls, ever-increasing taxation and the attack over the past 15 or 20 months on initiative. That is the backcloth to any view that we may take of the Gracious Speech.
  It is a speech which offers more nationalisation and more monopolies. I do not think that anyone would be against nationalisation if it could be proved that it would give consumers lower prices. However, no one in his senses would advocate that nationalisation has reduced any price. In fact, the reverse has happened. Nationalisation is not a panacea. It is all very well for Government supporters to say, "Hear, hear" when they hear talk of nationalisation. The general public want no more nationalisation.

  741
  To their credit, Labour Governments have always spoken up against monopolies, and they have been right to do so. But in the Gracious Speech they are proposing to create two more monopolies, one with regard to the Press, and the other in terms of the Dock Labour Scheme. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North said about this. I applaud his ingenuity in starting his remarks on dock labour, mentioning in passing the economy, and ending up with a rousing speech on proportional representation. In any event, with the Dock Labour Scheme a monopoly is being created.
  From an economic point of view I can see no incentive in the Gracious Speech to the private sector. The reverse is in fact true. But whether Government supporters like it or not, the private sector produces 97 per cent. of our exports, and it is on our exports that we live. It is on exports that the standard of living of every working man and woman depends, and 97 per cent. come from the private sector. The Gracious Speech does precisely nothing for the private sector, and the only conclusion about it that we can reach is that it is irrelevant, irresponsible and divisive.
  The country needs more incentives, and they are long overdue. The capitalist system is vilified and castigated by Government supporters for not investing. But what incentive is there for the private sector to invest—and I repeat that it produces 97 per cent. of our exports? Investment will come not, as the Chancellor said, from increased productivity. Investment will come only from profitability. That is the key to investment, and we shall not get investment if we have price control and limitations on dividends and profitability. If we want investment, there is no point in offering the industrialist only doctrinaire Socialism based on the lowest common denominator.
  In the Gracious Speech, what has a certain influence on the economy is the question of choice. If the Government of the day control investment, dividends, prices and the rest and they go on to control choice, whether it be in terms of pay beds or education, psychologically this has an effect on our investment potential. I cannot understand why the
  742
  Labour Government, the Labour Party and particularly the Tribune Group, which always claims to look after the underdog, should not say to a taxpayer "Whatever you earn, at the end of the week you will pay your tax, your PAYE, and your national insurance contribution and whatever you have left, albeit a small amount, you have the freedom to spend as you wish." No Government have the right to say whether a man should spend his net income on bingo or BUPA.
  Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman speaks as though business men in this country are bursting with efficiency and enterprise and are being frustrated only by the activities of the Government. Does he not think that we might suffer even more from our business men than from the Government over the years?
  Mr. Clark: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman realises what I have been saying. The business man in this country is a good business man. He is prepared to invest, he is able to manufacture and, despite castigations about the City, he can produce the invisibles on which our standard of living depends. If the hon. Gentleman wants a clear answer, the business man is being hamstrung by this Government because of restrictions and controls.
  The Government pay lip service to a mixed economy. It appeared that in his speech the Chancellor was coming round to the idea that possibly the public sector was large enough. However, I believe that the Government merely pay lip service to a mixed economy, because year after year, whenever we have a Labour Government, we have more State control.
  Can the Government's policy succeed? It is obvious that we shall have more civil servants and more bureaucracy. There is the continuous cosseting of State enterprises and less understanding on the Government Back Benches of the profit motive. The profit motive applies not only to business, but to every person in this country, whether he be in business or selling his labour. The profit motive should be encouraged. More help should be given to the private sector. Again I ask whether the Government's policy can succeed. I should think the answer is anything but satisfactory.

  743
  One matter has been slightly glossed over. When comparing our borrowing requirements and overspending with other countries, the Chancellor glossed over the fact that our rate of inflation is higher than that of other countries. The frightening thing is that our borrowing requirement—the Chancellor has not denied this; in fact, he tacitly agreed—is about £12,000 million per year. That is £1,000 million per month.
  We have been to the IMF and borrowed one month's money. The next time we go to borrow another month's money presumably the IMF will want to look at the books. Following the arithmetic through, £1,000 million a month means that we are overspending by £230 million a week, or £33 million per day. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should not shake their heads. That is the arithmetic. I have had it checked. We are overspending to the extent of £1·4 million per hour. That works out at £23,000 per minute, and each second we are overspending to the extent of £380. We cannot laugh that off. That is a frightening amount to have to borrow.
  One thing which worries me and some of my hon. Friends and many industrialists and others is that unless we grasp hold of the nettle of doing unpopular things and telling the public, as one Minister did, that the party is over, we shall run ourselves into economic chaos. The only party that thrives and prospers on economic chaos is the Communist Party. Some members of the Government who would like to see the demise of the capitalist system are on record as having said so. We do not think that it would be right for the capitalist system to be buried. But some hon. Members opposite—in fact, some members of the Government—are absolutely determined on their records to get rid of the capitalist system. It is essential that all moderates should realise the precarious position in which we find ourselves. We must stop this profligate spending.
  The Conservative Party is often asked where it would cut Government expenditure. It is stupid to spend nearly £1,000 million on food subsidies when many people do not need them. I do not need food subsidies for my bread. Nor do many other people. However, there are some who need double the subsidy on bread and milk. It is stupid to give
  744
  blanket subsidies for food or housing. The Conservative Party and any member of any party must have compassion, but overall blanket compassion is a waste. Compassion should be directed to the people who really need it.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: Means tests.
  Mr. Clark: Means tests, call them what we like. No Government, whether Labour or Conservative, have the right to spend the taxpayer's, not the Government's, money unless the taxpayer gets full value for it. There is no point in taking money from the taxpayer and giving it to somebody who does not need it. That is merely creating a two-tier social structure.
  The Queen's Speech, despite the glimmer of hope that we had from Chequers, does nothing to help the economic revival of this country. The sooner the Prime Minister and his colleagues resign, the better it will be for this country.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. John Horam: I support the present direction of the Government's policy and I want to suggest that my right hon. and hon. Friends should press it even more forcefully than they have so far. The situation demands boldness, not timidity. The people of this country will welcome boldness. Indeed, the natural inclination of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is towards boldness. If we do not have this kind of resolution from the Government, despite the successes which they may enjoy, they may ultimately fail in the task to which they have set their hand.
  A clear strand in the strategy being pursued by the Government is to push additional resources into industry and commerce. I should like them to do even more than they are doing now. I want them to cut public expenditure more quickly than they intend—I mean in the next financial year 1976–77, not 1977–78—and simultaneously to stimulate demand for industrial and commercial products by approximately the same amount as they cut public expenditure.
  Some of my hon. Friends have put down an amendment calling for reflation. I partly agree with that, but not entirely, because they do not simultaneously suggest cuts in public expenditure, except

  745
  in defence. I do not wholly disagree with their objective, but I simply cannot understand their arithmetic. Such demands on the economy are bound to lead to further inflationary pressure. Indeed, in the present situation it would be inflationary disaster.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: I hope that my hon. Friend will spell out the economic logic behind his last statement. As the Chancellor pointed out, one of the main reasons for the high public sector borrowing requirement is the high level of unemployment. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that a cut in public expenditure will increase unemployment and the public sector borrowing requirement?
  Mr. Horam: On the contrary, what I am suggesting will decrease the level of unemployment, and my last remark before I was interrupted was that I do not agree with my hon. Friends on this issue. The consequence of their policy would be further unemployment, because it would lead to further inflation. That is the logical consequence of what they are proposing. I am suggesting a compromise between the two arguments whereby we cut public expenditure and fill that hole by an additional demand for consumer products, which would reduce unemployment.
  From the Conservatives we get an equally fallacious argument: they want to cut public expenditure and leave it at that. If we were to do that alone, we should dig a deflationary hole that would take many mountains to fill and result in many thousands being unemployed. I do not see how one can follow that road without disastrous consequences for the economy and the social fabric of this country.
  Instead, we should continue with the general approach towards which the Government are working, but we should do so more resolutely and forcefully, and with more imagination than the Government have so far shown. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done a lot to help industry. Last November he put through a controversial Budget which was attacked by many of my hon. Friends, but he was right because fundamentally what he did helped industry where it needed helping.
  Since then, my right hon. Friend has brought forward further micro-economic
  746
  measures to assist industry, but I am more sceptical than he is about the effects of these measures. I do not believe that they will create employment on the scale that he imagines and at the small cost that he thinks will be necessary. More important, my right hon. Friend's measures are essentially on the supply side. They give more resources to industry if it wants to invest but they do not stoke up demand for industrial products, which is the other essential criterion for industrial investment.
  What is the situation which faces industry at the moment? My right hon. Friend said that the industrial cycle had possibly reached bottom, but it may not have done. There may be a further fall during the next six months. We cannot be sure about it. But even if it has reached bottom here and is recovering in other countries—we see some expansion in America and some in West Germany and Japan—the process is bound to be slow, and it will continue to proceed slowly over the next year.
  Also, how much of that expansion shall we get? We face strong competition from West Germany and Japan, with a low utilisation of their capacity. Our prices are increasing considerably faster than theirs. We are thus at a competitive disadvantage. I fear that we may not get much of a stimulus during the next 12 months from the foreign trade sector.
  On the contrary, there could be a net decline in our foreign trade balance, because although we may improve our export position, imports will begin to flow in faster. A major part of the decline in our imports over the last 12 months has been due to destocking. If we are bottoming out and going up again, there will be restocking and that will undermine the foreign trade balance. Equally, if we have to depreciate the pound to allow for an inferior price performance, that, too, will add to the cost of our imports. I therefore argue that, in addition to cutting public expenditure to allow for additional demand in the industrial and commercial sectors, we should consider the case for import controls.
  I know that I am entering into a controversial and hotly topical subject, and I am aware of the argument against import

  747
  controls. I think that there is a possibility of retaliation by some countries, though I do not think that the case for import controls can be made strongly by our major competitive trading partners. I do not think that they would retaliate. I think, too, that import controls would to some extent add to inflation, but so will devaluation of the pound, which is the likely alternative.
  In addition, and this is perhaps the most important argument against them, import controls would not help the efficiency of our industry in those sectors where they are imposed. The history of industrial and economic progress over the years has been the history of reducing trade barriers so that competition can flow freely, and it would be a step back to re-erect trade barriers, even in some small way.
  What worries me is that we may have reached the situation where we, in the United Kingdom are too weak to take the exposed position of having no clear trade strategy and no element of protection in this area. Indeed, I fear that we may not take the positive measures that alone will secure our continued industrial improvement, if we are not more secure in this quarter and we shall be frozen into an attitude where we dare not take those measures because they will have too many consequences. To use a military term, it may be that we need to retreat a little before we advance again. That would help us to move strongly and purposefully towards the industrial strategy to which we have set our hands.
  Professor Nield has made the case for this strategy, and as the months have gone by I have become more impressed by it than I was at the beginning. We are told that the Government will shortly introduce selective import controls. There is a danger in their present approach because they are being selective. As one of my hon. Friends said, if there is a selective approach, there will immediately be a queue of people at the Department of Trade asking for protection for their industry.
  I would rather that the Government aimed for the total balance of payments affect which they want from import controls and then allowed particular industries to argue the matter out within that
  748
  effect, so that if one industry got more protection, another would get less. Nevertheless, much though I regret it in many ways, there is a lot to be said for some form of protection for British industry.
  Import controls by themselves would be reflationary, and I would rely on them for part of the effect in making up the gap that I would create by cutting public expenditure more than the Government intend to do. But I would also stimulate home demand, because that is now the bigger part of the problem in terms of total demand deficiency.
  The Conservatives will object that if we do that we shall not change the total public sector borrowing requirement. They will say that that will be left untouched if on the one hand we cut public expenditure and on the other reflate a little. That is true, but, none the less, we are improving one important element of the policy, namely, that within the total we are shifting resources away from the Government towards the industrial sector, and that is a shift in the right direction. Equally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North-West (Mr. Thomas) said, part of the huge size of the public sector borrowing requirement is due to the slump and these measures would reduce that and thereby reduce the public sector borrowing requirement.
  On the question of inflation, the kind of the advance on the Government position that I am suggesting would have beneficial effects in terms of an incomes policy. If we try systematically to help the industrial and commercial sectors more than it appears to be the present intention to help them, and if we go for a clear and understood strategy for import controls we shall, I hope, achieve a better rapport with the TUC than might otherwise be the case. The TUC would not like cuts in public expenditure, but it cannot have everything. The CBI would not like import controls. What I have suggested is the way in which the Government should advance on their present strategy.
  I want to say one thing on a totally different subject but one which is, none the less, in a way related to what I have been saying. I am becoming increasingly concerned—and reference has been made to this topic by a number of hon. Members—about the effect of tax and inflation on

  749
  the lower income groups. I have pressed my right hon. Friend about this before and he has said that there is a Cabinet sub-committee monitoring the effect of these evils—a necessary evil, perhaps, in the case of taxation—on the lower income groups. But so far we have heard nothing from it.
  The statistics are truly terrifying. For example, we are raising £750 million a year from people earning less than the supplementary benefit level, plus an addition for rent and rates. That is a staggering fact. We are taking 10 per cent. now in taxation from people who are earning only two-thirds of the national average wage, while 10 years ago we were taking nothing from them.
  I know that my right hon. Friends have done a great deal to help those who are not working, with a 70 per cent. increase in the pension and, most recently, a new benefit for the totally disabled. I should like them now to consider seriously those who are in work, for it is on them that we ultimately depend for this country's salvation.
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I hope that I shall do no harm to the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) if I say that I am glad to follow a speech which was not only courageous but in many respects clear sighted. I do not agree, for reasons which will presently appear, with his point of view upon import controls, but as a whole I feel that his was an important contribution to this debate.
  It may be helpful if, at the outset, I relieve any anxieties which the Government Whips may still have after last night's Division, and destroy any residual hopes of the Whips on the Opposition Front Bench, by saying that my hon. Friends on this Bench and I do not feel called upon to support a motion of economic censure upon the Government moved by an Opposition whose past administration is still a major factor in the inflationary difficulties from which this country suffers—and, moreover, an Opposition who have still not reached the point of being able to answer in an incisive and intelligible manner questions as to the course of action which they are pressing upon the Government.
  750
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose absence during most of this debate we have regretted, was more frank than he or any previous Chancellor has been in examining the problem of the public sector borrowing requirement and exposing quite candidly the criteria which he takes into account in deciding how large a requirement it is wise to tolerate in the coming financial year.
  The right hon. Gentleman certainly recognised plainly that that figure, that datum, is the crucial and pivotal point in economic policy, but I want to approach it from a different point of view by quoting a sentence from the early part of the Gracious Speech. It was in the foreign affairs part of the Gracious Speech, in fact, in which Her Majesty was advised to say that her Government would
  "maintain their full support of international efforts to…reduce…imbalances of payments."
  The most remarkable aspect of that statement is that hardly anyone who heard it or read it would regard it as in any way remarkable. Yet it is upon the face of it plain nonsense—nonsense to which we have become so used that our critical faculties have ceased to operate.
  There are no imbalances of payments, for the simple reason that a deficit or a surplus on the balance of payments cannot exist, and for the most simple of all reasons: that is, that a balance of payments is not two things, but one. What we are pleased to call the balance of payments is the total of pounds sterling which have been relinquished to acquire other currencies and which have been acquired by the relinquishment of other currencies. It is, in fact, one total which we are pleased, for certain purposes, to analyse into two columns, and then we torment ourselves when, for various reasons, we do not get the figures on either side quite to add up. However, thanks to a most gracious dispensation of Providence, the number of pounds relinquished in any given period in exchange for foreign currencies is exactly the same as the number of pounds which are acquired by relinquishing foreign currencies—for, indeed, they are the same pounds.
  If it be objected that I am being too captious in treating the balance of payments as referring to the overall balance

  751
  of payments, in which, as aforesaid, there never can be, by definition, either surplus or deficit, but that, clearly, the meaning here was deficit or surplus on current account, then the statement is just as absurd and the aspiration to reduce such imbalances equally irrelevant.
  Of course it is true that if one compiles figures in two columns by analysing the motives with which sterling is relinquished or obtained, and if one then proceeds to draw a horizontal line across these two columns and denote the part above as the current account and the part below as the capital account, then it will be an extraordinary accident if the totals balance above and below the line. Except by a freak, there is bound to be a deficit on current account and a surplus on capital account or vice versa.
  However, by another and even more gracious dispensation of Providence, the deficit or surplus upon what we are pleased to call current account is always exactly equal, though in the opposite direcction, to the surplus or deficit upon capital account, and there is no reason in the world why any particular country should not at any particular time have a deficit or a surplus on one part of its analysis of payments, confident in the assured knowledge that there is a corresponding surplus or deficit, as the case may be, on the remainder. Indeed, the great countries of the western hemisphere—the United States, Canada—would literally not exist as nations today unless, for a great part of the nineteenth and a a good deal of the twentieth centuries, they had had howling deficits on their current account; for a deficit on the current account is the necessary condition of a surplus on the capital account—it is the necessary condition of an inflow of capital.
  So we might say to ourselves, applying this cheerful doctrine: if we have a deficit on our current account, that means that the rest of the world is investing in Britain, and what an excellent thing; and on the other hand, if we should happen to have a surplus on current account, then that would mean that Britain was investing in the rest of the world, and what an excellent thing that, too, would be!
  Mr. Frank Tomney: What is the right hon. Gentleman's own position?
  Mr. Powell: I can understand the anxiety of the hon. Member, and, perhaps, of other hon. Members, that I should resume my seat, but I am intending presently to apply these general propositions, which are not widely understood—otherwise, statements like this would not be placed in the mouth of Her Most Gracious Majesty.
  Mr. Tomney: But what is the right hon. Gentleman's view?
  Mr. Powell: I shall hope to carry the hon. Gentleman and others with me in inquiring, as I now proceed to do, why then it is that we are so feverishly anxious about what we call the deficit on our balance of payments, by which we mean our deficit on trade, or sometimes even only our deficit on visible trade? Why is it that we have proposals from all sectors or many sectors of the party opposite for controls upon imports in order to—I am sure that I am quoting—
  "rectify the deficit on the balance of payments"
  as though that were an evil? Why do we have the Government going round the world—in fact, I do not think they go much farther than the Middle East; at any rate, going to the Middle East and to the International Monetary Fund—to borrow huge sums of money in order, we are told, to pay for the deficit on the balance of payments; that is to say, to ensure, since a deficit on the current account is always equal to a surplus on the capital account, an even larger surplus on the capital account than we would otherwise have? [Interruption.] That is indeed the meaning of borrowing from abroad and of Government borrowing in particular. The Government are increasing the capital surplus in order to counterbalance a current deficit.
  In fact, there is a certain sardonic irony in the very same Government, who would not be able to increase net borrowing unless there were a corresponding deficit on the current balance of payments, treating that very deficit which enables them to carry out their borrowing as though it were a most undesirable and regrettable phenomenon.

  753
  So, proceeding, I hope, in the direction in which the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) wishes me to proceed, I inquire again why it is that these proposals are constantly made and these steps are constantly taken. For I fear we have had indications that the Government may, indeed, be contemplating proceeding to direct intervention in our current account by arbitrarily controlling imports. Why are these steps so constantly taken or advocated in order to deal with what, on the face of it, is no problem at all, with something which, as the ship's steward in Punch said of seasickness many years ago, "Does itself"?
  There are two causes; for when men behave irrationally they may not do so for reasons but at least they always have causes for doing so. Both of the causes are bad and, therefore, dangerous. The first cause is to avoid payments balancing at a lower exchange rate than that which prevails at the moment, or, to put it conversely, to ensure by intervention that the balance which will take place anyhow takes place at a slightly higher or, indeed, substantially higher—my argument does not depend upon degree—rate of exchange for sterling in terms of other currencies than it otherwise would.
  It is a profound fallacy to suppose that there is anything to be regretted in a fall in the exchange rate. A fall in the exchange rate mirrors one or both of two things. It either mirrors a decline in our real terms of trade, or else, or also, it mirrors differential inflation in this country compared with inflation in the other countries with whose currencies we are comparing the exchange value of our own. On neither of those grounds is a fall, if there be a fall, in the exchange rate a sign that something is wrong with us or that the fall ought to be suppressed and forcibly reversed.
  If a fall in the exchange rate reflects a fall in the real terms of trade—if it really means that an item we are producing at the moment exchanges in Toronto or Timbuctoo for less than it formerly did—that is due to an alteration in the economic pattern of the world as a whole. The sooner and the more accurately we know about it, the sooner and the more accurately we shall adapt and alter our behaviour and productive efforts to fit those changes in the real world of which,
  754
  in the end, we are the servants and not the masters, whether under a Labour Government or under any other sort of Government in this country.
  However, for the most part a fall in the exchange rate, certainly in our recent experience, mirrors not a real deterioration in our terms of trade or an alteration in world supply and demand for those items which our brains and hands produce for export, but differential inflation. But the fact that differential inflation is mirrored by a falling exchange rate does not make us any the worse off.
  One can prove that by simple experiment. Suppose that the quantity of money in circulation in this country were multiplied by 10 overnight. Everyone knows what the exchange rate, if free, would be in the morning. The decimal point would be moved one place to the left. Yet a given quantity of British goods, tourist attractions in this country or anything else you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like to specify, would exchange in exactly the same way as the day before for the same quantities of what we wish to procure from the rest of the world.
  Thus, to suppress or distort alterations in the exchange rate is pure evil. It is simply denying ourselves the knowledge of what is happening in the real world or denying ourselves the knowledge, so far as it is worth having, of the differential rate at which inflation is proceeding here and elsewhere. The fall in the rate is, in short, either harmless or beneficial.
  It is a misconception to suppose, as has been said at least once or twice in this debate, that a fall in the exchange rate is inflationary. A fall in the exchange rate increases the price of imports relative to everything else and the profitability of exports relative to everything else, but it does not cause all prices to rise. It simply shifts the internal price schedule in the country, making some items dearer and others, therefore, cheaper in real terms, in such a way that we can adjust ourselves—indeed, it is the mechanism by which we do continuously adjust ourselves—to the changes and demands of the real world.
  However, there is another reason which prompts the attempt of Government by the use of their power and resources, to intervene in what is called the balance of payments. Certainly it is one of the

  755
  motives with which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes a borrowing. Here we come at last to the one really deplorable aspect of the British deficit on the balance of payments or, if we like so to describe it, the British surplus on capital account. It is that so much of the inflow of capital into this country—so large a part of the capital surplus which balances the current deficit—is not inward investment by the rest of the world in British industry. It is not even voluntary lending by the rest of the world to British borrowers, because the rest of the world has decided that this is the best place to put its money. It is a forced or politically-contrived loan from the rest of the world in order to sustain the level of public expenditure in this country at a point which constantly exposes this country to the risk of a recurrence of runaway inflation.
  And so I return to the key point in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that with a net borrowing requirement of £9,000 million or £12,000 million, he is walking a knife edge. That might not matter—some of us might be so callous as not particularly to mind whether the right hon. Gentleman was walking a knife edge, but he is leading the country along the knife edge. A brief period in which he fails to do what he would have us believe he is substantially doing at present, namely, covering that deficit from internal savings or external borrowings, would plunge us back into a higher rate of inflation than we have yet experienced. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. A great many right hon. and hon. Members know that perfectly well. We are gambling with a risk of inflation far more severe than what we have experienced. We are gambling with all that that would mean not merely to our economic but to our social structure when we envisage the continuation of the public sector borrowing requirement at the sort of level which the right hon. Gentleman is apparently still prepared to contemplate for the coming financial year.
  The situation is still malleable. Unless habits in the Treasury have altered in a way that I do not believe that they have, there is still time for a major influence upon the shape of public spending—
  756
  capital, I think, much more than current—to be exercised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government in the months immediately ahead. The Chancellor has the duty—it is an overriding duty—to diminish the scale of risk which he is taking by the size of the net borrowing requirement he maintains. In asking him this I ask neither of him nor of Labour Members that they should abate one jot of their political aspirations. I am not arguing for or against a transfer of more or less of the national wealth or national resources to or from public or private control. I am only saying that it is the Chancellor's duty—and he knows that it is—to ensure that that transfer, if it is the political will of the Labour Party that it should take place, takes place at such a rate that it does not bring with it the risk of financial and social chaos.
  At the beginning of this Parliament, a year ago, my hon. Friends and I said that we recognised that in making any advances in that direction the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find himself bereft of some of his fairweather friends and would need all the understanding and support which this House and the country can give him. I say again this evening that as this is the overriding duty of the Chancellor and the Government, the overriding national requirement, in so far as the Government and the Chancellor fulfil it, he shall have what support we can give to him.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The whole House will agree that once again we have had a very important and interesting speech from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Some of us have been treated to his logic for many years. At times we have agreed with much of what he has said, but at other times we have found ourselves in fundamental conflict with him.
  I remember the right hon. Gentleman advocating in the House in many past economic debates that we must have the floating pound. He seemed to imply that if there were a floating pound this would, not entirely but within reason, solve most of our economic problems. We have the floating pound now, and our economic problems remain.

  757
  Of course, if we cut public expenditure in the way the right hon. Gentleman suggests, no doubt we could balance our national budget—although he seems to argue that it is of no consequence to be concerned with the deficit on our balance of payments. However, something that apparently does not concern the right hon. Gentleman seems to concern just about everyone else in the House. For many years we have heard about almost nothing else but efforts to deal with the deficit on the balance of payments, and the great agonies that we have gone through in the House were precisely because of efforts made in that direction.
  We can, of course, cut public expenditure to the bone. We can then have mass unemployment. But surely no one in the House is suggesting that for one moment. It is true that it would solve the problems in one sense, but do we want to solve our problems in that way? I should have thought that no hon. Member who was concerned with ordinary people and their lives would ever suggest a policy which would lead to misery and poverty among masses of people who are in any case, already suffering much too much from the present high level of unemployment.
  Mr. Powell: The hon. Member has been very courteous and I apologise for interrupting him. It is only to say that surely he appreciates that the transfer of a block of resources from private to public control or vice versa does not diminish the quantity of them.
  Mr. Heffer: I accept that absolutely—if it means just that and that only. But I am not certain that that is precisely what is meant in relation to the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
  I did not come to the Chamber purely to debate with the right hon. Gentleman, obviously, and I want to turn to other matters. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are in the most serious economic crisis that this country has known since before the Second World War. We have, as it were, two crises in one. On the one hand, there is the world crisis, which affects us. On the other hand, we have the peculiar British crisis grafted on to the world crisis.
  The British crisis is very much due to the fact that our capitalists, as capitalists, have actually failed. Whereas capitalists
  758
  in other countries were not taking the maximum out in profit and were putting a great deal back into their companies and industries in the form of investment, machinery and growth in technology, our capitalists were taking a maximum out without putting very much back. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish.") Hon. Members may say "Rubbish", but it is a fact that we are now taking out of Cammell Laird, for example, machinery that was installed in 1904. That is pretty outdated, and I should have thought that if we went to Japanese, American or continental shipyards we should find that they had got rid of that sort of machinery years ago. That is one of the reasons why we are in our present situation.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Can the hon. Gentleman guarantee that if new machinery is put in it will be operated by the unions concerned, unlike some of the steel plant and unlike the grain terminal not far from his home?
  Mr. Ridley: Answer.
  Mr. Heffer: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not keep interrupting me. If there are to be these interruptions there will not be much opportunity for other hon. Members to speak in the debate. The answer is very simple. The hon. Lady knows that the grain terminal is now working. If there were problems with the terminal, they were caused by the intransigence not only of the dockers but of the employers who were not prepared to get round a table to solve the problem. Some of us argued for a solution at the very beginning of the argument. The men are not holding up the grain terminal and new technology is being used.
  In her speech to the Conservative Party Conference, the Leader of the Opposition said that this country's problems were caused not by too much capitalism but by too much Socialism and that Socialism had been intervening and ruining the economy. In that case, the Governments she has supported have been first-class Socialists. They have intervened as much in economic matters as any Governments we have ever had and, in some respects, even more. We have not had Socialism, we have had controlled capitalism. That is what we have now, and it is much closer to the corporate State than to

  759
  Socialism. We have to decide whether to go back to the type of society for which the Leader of the Opposition has been arguing, or to go forward to a genuinely planned Socialist economic system.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: Communism.
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member is like a little pip-squeak. Every time you push him with your finger, he shouts, "Communist". Some hon. Members expect more than that sort of nonsense in arguments.
  I am trying to argue a very serious case in relation to this country's problems. One hon. Member opposite has said that the motive force in a capitalist society is profit. If we have restraints on dividends and profits, together with price controls, then sooner or later the capitalist will not invest because his profit has been removed. The logical answer is not to go back to the system which has failed us up to now anyway, but to advance beyond that to a society with planned investment where we put our industries where they are required in a planned way and create a system of full employment. Unlike the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), I do not believe that our economic problems will be solved by proportional representation. It will need much more than that.
  I believe that we have to move stage by stage towards a national planned Socialist policy. I must say to my colleagues on the Front Bench that the Chequers statement was a retreat from what we said at the Labour Party Conference. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is very keen on selectively quoting the part of the document "Labour and Industry" which says that we cannot have a general reflation. I will quote to him another part, typical of many, in the document. It says:
  "The Government must also, we believe, give much greater emphasis to planning Britain needs a new economic and industrial plan."
  The Chequers statement says:
  "One response to the problem might be for the Government to get in hand a new National Plan. The likelihood is that any plan which erected a single complete and mutually consistent set of industrial forecasts and targets would rapidly be falsified by events and have to be discarded."
  760
  etcetera, etcetera. On the one hand we have members of the Government in the NEC endorsing a document calling for a national plan while, on the other hand, the Chequers statement says we are not to have a national plan. I just point this out to Ministers because they ought to know that there is an inconsistency in this matter.
  Import controls are a matter of great importance, and although I do not think they are a Socialist solution to our problems, we must realise that in our transition to a policy of planned investment and growth and the development of the National Enterprise Board, which, I fear, will not be used as effectively as we had hoped, we shall need some immediate, concrete policies to deal with the rising level of unemployment. Import controls, selective up to a point, are an immediate way of, if not bringing down the level of unemployment, at least stopping it from rising. We ought to have a 15 per cent. surcharge on about three-quarters of the imports of manufactured and semi-manufactured goods and there should be quota controls in relation to other sectors such as textiles, footwear and television tubes.
  Some hon Members may say that this will lead to retaliation, but in America in 1971 they had a 10 per cent. import surcharge for a number of months. Denmark has had a similar surcharge and Sweden had a 15 per cent. surcharge. Even Japan, which has never suggested that it has import controls, has environmental and safety regulations through which it has controlled imports since the Second World War. There are plenty of examples of countries which have controlled imports for a period as a necessary measure to deal with an immediate problem.
  We should be doing that now. We should have had a statement about it from the Government today, and I am sorry that we have not. Import controls could be imposed even within the GATT and EEC provisions. In one respect I agree with the CBI for once. It said that if other countries were operating import controls for a temporary period Britain should do something similar. The TUC has the right approach, too, but I would go further than the TUC in order to save more jobs and create more work.
  I am absolutely horrified at the complacency which seems to have developed

  761
  on the Government Front Bench over the growth of unemployment. I upset one of my hon. Friends the other day when I said that a period of unemployment for the Front Bench would do it the world of good. It would clarify the minds of my right hon. Friends about unemployment. There would be nothing better than a bout of unemployment to drive home to them what unemployment really means. Most hon. Members have never been unemployed, although I konw that some of my hon. Friends have experienced it. It is a tragedy for the individual and the family. The Labour Government and the Labour Party have always been dedicated to a policy of full employment. We therefore argue against public expenditure cuts because we do not want unemployment to go up.
  Our amendment says that we want no cuts in essential public expenditure, apart from defence where we would like to see less spending. We do not say that all public expenditure is necessary, and it is not. There has been an enormous growth in local authority public expenditure, and much of it totally unnecessary. We do not want cuts which are likely to throw people out of work. I must tell my right hon. Friends that if such cuts are proposed they will not go through this House easily. We shall not sit idly back and watch unemployment grow.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends have an enormously difficult job to do, and I sympathise with them. It would not be a bad idea if one or two of them were moved around so that they could have a rest, as well as for other reasons. To be in that sort of job for a long time does no one any good, and it is not good for the country.
  I believe that the Government could take more positive action to deal with the situation in the construction industry. On Mersey side alone, 10,000 building and construction workers are unemployed. Of that number 3,000 are highly skilled craftsmen. The Chancellor said that in the future when the upturn comes perhaps there will be financial aid to get these people to move to other parts of their country. What does he expect them to do? Are they to take their homes on their backs? It is all very well talking along those lines—
  Mr. Loyden: Is my hon. Friend aware that out-of-work building and construction workers on Merseyside represent more than 50 per cent. of total unemployment in the construction industry in the North-West? Does he realise that the figure is running at about 13,500, yet there are 22,000 people on the waiting list for houses?
  Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend has made precisely the point I had intended to make about the housing situation. The Government must look very closely at the construction industry and at the need to pump more money into it in order that more houses can be built and work provided.
  We do not criticise the Queen's Speech for what is in it but for what has been left out. We support all the proposals which will advance us along the road towards the type of egalitarian Socialist society in which we believe. We shall support the measures that were promised in the manifesto. But we deplore the fact that the Government basically are not getting to grips with the economic crisis and are not dealing with it in a Socialist fashion. That is why we tabled our amendment, and that is why, had we been given the opportunity, we would have voted for it this evening.
  8.6 p.m.
  Mr. David Price: I thought that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was at his best tonight. I accept that he is a full-blooded Socialist, but I think that much of what he said followed logically. Not being a Socialist myself, however, I propose to move in a different direction from the hon. Member, but I think that at least we understand each other. I appreciate his deep feelings and anxiety about the employment situation. Many of us who are not Socialists share those anxieties. Equally, I hope he understands that inflation at 26 per cent. a year brings its own personal agonies, which include growing unemployment. In many ways unemployment and inflation are two sides of the same coin.
  I do not intend to attempt my own tour d'horizon of our economic situation. Instead I shall take up only three points from the Gracious Speech which I hope will tie up with what has been

  763
  said by other hon. Members. The Gracious Speech says:
  "Proposals will be put forward for a major review of the practice and procedure of Parliament."
  In the context of our economic performance and of seeking a better and more effective control of public expenditure through the economic, social and political objectives of Parliament, our present time scale of events is a total nonsense.
  In a normal Session, Parliament is opened and the Government present the Queen's Speech at the end of October, laying before us all the Government's proposals and general aspirations. We then have to wait until the early New Year for the Estimates, the details of how the proposals will be paid for. The White Paper on public expenditure, the key document, which looks five years ahead on a rolling average, appears at the end of February or in early March. The Budget, which sets out how we pay for all these measures, does not appear until April. It would be far more convenient all round if these four events happened more or less simultaneously.
  I suggest, therefore, that when we set up a committee to look at these matters, very urgent attention should be given to this matter. Then we should have a much more meaningful and intelligent discussion in the House. This is a non-party point which I hope will appeal as much to those on the far Left as to those on the Right.
  My second point concerns planning agreements. The Gracious Speech says:
  "My Government will also embark on a series of Planning Agreements with large companies in selected key sectors of industry".
  I believe that the hon. Member for Walton praised that idea.
  As a seeker after truth, I ask the Government what they mean by "planning agreements". The Secretary of State for Industry said last Thursday:
  "Sectoral planning is, of course, a key component in our approach to an industrial strategy, but a sector cannot make, cannot keep and cannot deliver an agreement. Only a company can do that, and only a company can benefit from the relationship with Government that a planning agreement entails, and from the stable framework that planning agreements can provide—and, incidentally, from the reciprocal information provisions".—[Official Report, 20th November 1975: Vol. 901, c. 187–8.]
  764
  What do the Government mean by that? Any investment decision maker, whether in the public or the private sector, naturally looks at the potential return on capital before deciding to make an investment. Are the Government proposing to guarantee a minimum return on capital to those firms which make planning agreements with them?
  Let us look at the sort of factors that are considered by a would-be investor in deciding whether to invest. He obviously considers the market projections at home and abroad. Do the Government think that they can contribute to that? The would-be investor considers the projections of world trade and domestic economic trends, the probable rates of inflation, trends in the exchange rates of sterling, changes in British and other countries' tariff policies, changes in world commodity prices, and what is likely to happen to wages. Can the Government offer any guarantee on any of those factors? I suggest that they cannot, and therefore I wonder where is the reciprocity in the proposed planning agreements.
  I cannot see how the Government can even pretend to do it unless they return to the old illusion of a detailed national plan in the style of Lord George-Brown. But the idea of a return to that style of planning has been rejected by the Government, as came out very clearly in paragraph 10 of the White Paper on the Chequers talks. What will the planning agreements contain? Above all, what is the reciprocity the Government claim to be able to offer to firms which make company agreements, no doubt with the Department of Industry in most cases? We should know, because Minister after Minister keeps returning to the importance of these agreements.
  The third feature of the Gracious Speech to which I wish to draw attention relates to industrial democracy. We read:
  "My Ministers will continue to encourage the development of industrial democracy in both public and private sectors."
  Ministers have been using the phrase a great deal in recent months. What do they mean by it? It can mean many different things to different people. Many of us are by no means unsympathetic to some of the ideas that can be contained in that broad expression, but I hope that the Government do not simply mean, as they

  765
  appear to mean, two-tier boards on the German pattern and worker directors on the supervisory board. It is a grave mistake to put the two issues together.
  The question whether it would be right to change our company law and have two-tier boards and the question whether by law there should be worker directors should each be examined in its own right. Perhaps those questions come together eventually, but they should not do so in the first instance. There are substantial objections to both which do not come entirely from management or the Conservative Party. I know quite a number of trade unionists who would object to worker directors. I counsel the Government to move carefully in both areas, and at least to try a few experiments before embarking on general legislation.
  If by their use of the phrase "industrial democracy" the Government are trying to say that all is not well in human relations in industry and that we must try to find ways to improve those relationships, to make them more meaningful, I am entirely with them. I have been saying so in a quiet way for the past 30 years. My maiden speech more than 20 years ago was on precisely that theme.
  Although the problem in industry remains, I believe that it is no longer limited to industry and that it covers much of our national life. There is an increasing alienation of ordinary people of all types from our emerging society and from what they consider to be the Establishment. The feeling of "them" and "us" is no longer a peculiarity of the shop floor in a large engineering works. It is more and more the normal feeling of ordinary people throughout the country about that amorphous thing, the Establishment, the "them" who are increasingly impersonal. People feel more and more remote from them, whether "they" are making decisions about the rates, the problem of the doctors, or the self-employed.
  That is why we as Members of Parliament have so many constituents coming to see us or writing to us on matters which are well outside our jurisdiction. They come to us because they do not know to whom else to go. We appear in a curious and vague way to represent authority, or at least to have access to
  766
  authority. A measure of the alienation in our society is the vast increase in the problem cases which we have and which we did not have 20 years ago, because people then recognised that they were not within our province.
  There is also the problem of the revolution of rising expectations. That expression used to be applied to the underdeveloped countries, but it now applies even more to the developed countries. The public have been unprepared for economic setbacks. They have expectations of affluence unrelated to past or present performance. There seems to be an assumption that it is one's right, by virtue of citizenship and nothing else, each year to be materially a bit better off than one was the year before, irrespective of one's own efforts or the efforts of one's company or organisation, or one's country's efforts. The old cry of "Jam yesterday; jam tomorrow; but never jam today" has been replaced by the cry of "Tomorrow's jam today, and we'll strike if we don't get it".
  It follows that the heart of our inflationary problem lies not in economics, but in people's attitudes. There is the allied problem of how to re-establish legitimate authority, the power to say "No" and the certainty that the decision "No" will stick. To my mind that is largely what the vague phrase "industrial democracy" is about—re-establishing legitimate and acceptable—I emphasise "acceptable"—authority.
  Therefore, we must try to strike a new bargain—a new social contract, in the language of the present Government—but it must be with all the people and not just with the TUC or the CBI. I disagree with the Government's putting too much emphasis on the machinery of the trade union movement in discussion about industrial democracy. I hope that the Government realise that in people's minds the machinery—the Germans would call it the "apparat"—of the trade unions is as much "they" as the "apparat", of big business or the "apparat" of central Government; and they are alienated by all of them.
  I suggest that the answer to this difficult problem is not to be found in a new social contract between Government and TUC. I am in no way opposed to good relations between Government and TUC. I believe that the social contract must be

  767
  firmly based on realities and not merely on expectations. But those realities must include the satisfaction of people's innate needs.
  I suggest three dominant innate needs in all of us that must be accommodated in any effective social contract, needs that are denied in our present arrangements. I refer first to identity, the opposite of anonymity; secondly, to stimulation, the opposite of boredom; thirdly, to security, the opposite of anxiety. Unless a new social contract satisfies these three innate needs, it will not stick. Alienation will continue to grow. Legitimate and acceptable authority will not be restored.
  To my mind this new approach—which is rather more fundamental than the approach of the Liberal spokesman, who sees these things in terms of electoral arrangements—is basic to our problems. It must be seen on the shop floor as well as in the villages in which people live. If the present alienation of rulers from ruled continues its downward course, the days of parliamentary democracy could well be numbered.
  There is no inevitability about the demise of parliamentary democracy. But with a 26 per cent. annual rate of inflation, time is running short. I beg the Government to realise that these matters are urgent and that the problem is wider even than the problems of industry. The national problem is even larger, but in many ways it is similar.
  Having said all this, I remain an incorrigible optimist. I could not have survived 20 years in this House unless I were an optimist.
  8.22 p.m.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: I wish I could deal with many of the points raised in a thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), but I wish to keep my remarks brief. However, I recommend the hon. Gentleman to go to the Library tomorrow and to obtain a copy of a book by Aneurin Bevan called "In Place of Fear". He will find in that volume answers to some of the problems he posed.
  The Conservative amendment was moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). The amendment dares to say that the Conservatives
  768
  "humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains no practical policies to solve the United Kingdom's serious financial and economic problems, but proposes measures which only increase the powers of a centralised bureaucracy and diminish the freedom of the citizen."
  But we must remember that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was one of the major pilots of the EEC legislation. He and his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) told us what a wonderful transformation would take place in the whole of our economic and financial circumstances once we were part of this great brotherhood. Never before have two former Ministers so misled this House.
  We are now grappling with a balance of payments problem, the largest part of which derives from our relationship with the EEC. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said today that in general we had reached a balance in our trade and had reduced our oil deficit by a third. But what my right hon. Friend must know is the fact that in the first nine months of this year our trade deficit with the EEC was £280 million more than it was in the first nine months of last year. Our deficit with the EEC amounted to £1,900 million. Unless we can drastically reduce that figure and unless the rest of the Nine are prepared to play ball with us, we must back hook, line and sinker those of my hon. Friends who suggest that we should introduce import controls.
  When I examine the trade figures of the EEC compared with the United Kingdom figures, I become a little upset when I see the difference in the amount of trade that we undertake with China, for example, and the trade which the other eight countries in the EEC carry out with that country. That also applies to our respective trade with the Comecon countries. The other eight members of the EEC, without us, do 10 times more trade with COMECON than we do; they likewise do seven times more trade with China than we do. It is a fantastic situation that in pursuing the cold war we are turning up our noses at trade with Eastern countries. The Germans, the French and the Italians spend a great deal of time in obtaining trade agreements in Peking, Moscow, Sofia, and in almost any other Communist capital. Such trade would afford substantial help to our Exchequer.

  769
  I hope that from now on we shall make the same attempts as our EEC colleagues to get into Communist markets. Germany for many years has taken great advantage of the situation. We must remember that initially West Germany said that it would have no communication with Eastern countries, but they have always done more trade with Eastern countries than the rest of the so-called free nations in Europe put together.
  I now wish to turn to the proposals to nationalise the shipbuilding, ship-repairing and the aircraft industries. Some Conservative Members have stressed the point that the aircraft industry has had a marvellous export record. But we all know that, if it had not been for Government investment, there would be no aircraft industry. Since the end of the war hundreds of millions of pounds of public money have been ploughed into that industry. If the industry produced a plane that could fly, it claimed that aircraft as its own. But if the aircraft was unsuccessful, the industry put it on the Government's plate. Surely in view of all the money we have poured into the aircraft industry, we now have a right to take it over.
  I am particularly pleased that we are taking over the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry. I believe that risk capital cannot provide the funds necessary if the industry is to be updated and made really competitive so as to be in a position to compete effectively in a world where our percentage of gross annual shipbuilding tonnage is becoming lower and lower.
  The men working in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries were disappointed that the Bill was not dealt with in the last Session. I am sure that they will be delighted that it will be dealt with this Session. They will welcome the Bill with every enthusiasm. It is important that a few of the principals in the shipbuilding industry have already indicated that they will be prepared to co-operate in ensuring the success of the nationalised industries.
  No one represents a constituency with more experience of unemployment than I do. For 29 years I have dealt with this problem, which we have never overcome. I reiterate this warning: we can discuss democracy as much as we like. We can
  770
  say that our people are peaceable and responsible. But if we take from men and women the dignity and self-respect which come from earning a living, they will become discontented and dangerous.
  This is what hurts me. If this country was at war we would mobilise all these people. We would put them in factories to make shells, bombs, torpedoes and blockbusters. We would then give those arms away. The people we gave them to would not want them. Nevertheless, we would insist on giving them away. The more we gave away the happier we would be. The country with which we were at war would do the same. Why, then, when there are so many human needs unsatisfied throughout the world can we not organise our economic affairs so that men and materials are brought together, so that the unsatisfied desires of millions can at last be met?
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. George Reid: I shall confine my remarks to the situation in Scotland, as my country has been poorly served by both the Government and the Conservative Opposition in the past week.
  Ever since my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) won the Hamilton constituency in 1967, the response of Government, whether Conservative or Labour, to the needs of the Scottish people has been cynical, enforced and dilatory. Even today, when the great devolution debate in Scotland has been argued at all levels for 10 years, there are those in the House who would further delay, castrate and render ineffective the Scottish Assembly.
  The fact that there are now only to be legislative proposals, and not a firm and guaranteed Assembly this Session, lends credence to the charge that London does not know what Scotland wants. It confirms what The Sunday Times said in a recent leader:
  "Most English politicians do not understand Scotland; care little for it; have neglected to find out about it; rarely visit it; and never debate it."
  That being so, hon. Members may not appreciate why Scotland has been on the warpath for the past week. They may not know of the carefully orchestrated interviews which have appeared with full ministerial blessing in the Scottish Press

  771
  over the past year. I shall quote three of them.
  First, I quote the words of the Undersecretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for devolution. On 31st January he said:
  "It is wrong to say that there has been a slippage. We are bang on target, and if anything we are ahead of schedule. I see nothing to suggest we will not publish the Devolution Bill by the beginning of November".
  The Minister went on to stand by a timetable that would put the Bill on the statute book by July 1976, with the first elections to the Assembly by the end of 1976 or early 1977.
  Next I quote the words of the Lord President of the Council on 30th April, when he was reported as saying:
  "The Assembly Bill will be the major bill of the new session". He subsequently confirmed to the Scottish Labour Executive on 21st July that a White Paper would be published in October, that the Bill would be out by the end of the year, and that legislation should go through in the 1975–6 session.
  Against that background is it surprising that the people of Scotland should feel that their patience and trust have been cynically abused?
  By dragging their feet on devolution, the major parties have made their pledges now worthless and have deepened the disillusion with Government from Westminster. The Scots are shrewd enough to appreciate that devolution would never come this far without the Scottish National Party. The corollary is that the pressure will now be maintained, and the most effective way will be to strengthen the SNP.
  I now turn to the reason why these Benches want a strong Assembly, and why we wish to build on whatever devolution comes down to us. There are three main reasons. First, there is a fundamental need for self-control over our own national life. Secondly, there is a need for control over our own economy, both to stimulate indigenous growth and to eradicate the appalling problems of poverty. Thirdly, there is a need, given the shift of power towards Brussels, for a corresponding growth of political power on the periphery, in Scotland.
  Devolution concerns not only a transfer of powers, but
  "how we adjust the relationship between Scotland and England, England and Wales.
  772
  It is the process by which two minority peoples—the Scots and the Welsh—adjust their relations with the majority, the English."
  I am glad to see such percipience on the Labour Benches, for those words are contained in an article by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars).
  The real problem is the repeated refusal of English Members of Parliament to recognise that the United Kingdom is not a nation but a multinational State. The Union of 1707 may have created one Parliament, but it did not create an indivisible people. The pervasive Scots consciousness remains unchanged. The traditional carriers of nationalism—our institutions—have given us a prickly pride against alien domination. In law, English methods and concepts are profoundly foreign.
  Put bluntly, we need self-government to satisfy our people's belief in their own identity, to ensure external recognition as a full and dignified member of world society, and to satisfy a fundamental need for self-control over our national life. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may say that that is disgraceful. Yes, the problems of poverty in Scotland—our legacy from London—are indeed disgraceful. If we take the supplementary benefit level as the qualifying point for poverty, 1,200,000 Scots are currently living in poverty. Scotland has 77 per cent. of the 5 per cent. most deprived areas in the United Kingdom.
  Scotland has 97·5 per cent. of the 1 per cent. of worst multiple deprivation. Our incomes are 10 per cent. below the United Kingdom level. The percentage employed in low-paid jobs is 26 per cent. above the United Kingdom level. One child in 10 in Scotland is born to fail compared with one in 47 in the home counties of England. Our overcrowding is twice the United Kingdom average, our infant mortality is 12 per cent. higher, our sickness rate for men is 25 per cent. higher.
  Yet we are rich in primary products—in agriculture, in fish, in forestry. We have surpluses in invisibles, in tourism and in financial services. We export 14 per cent. more per manufacturing worker than does the rest of the United Kingdom, and we possess £200,000 million worth of oil.
  This is the central question. Will devolution create conditions in which

  773
  indigenous growth will flourish? Will it create the new wealth in Scotland to wipe out the old poverty? That is the dilemma which the Secretary of State, during his long tenure of office, has had to face unceasingly. Given the centralisers at the Treasury and in his own party, if the United Kingdom is booming, there is no need for a regional policy. If the United Kingdom is stagnant, all the incentives in the world will not move industry from the South-East to Scotland. How can Scotland expand when the centre is contracting or resisting expansion?
  I say this quite bluntly: devolution itself will be unstable if it remains subject to central Keynesian management. If the Keynesians remain at the Treasury, still taking a single aggregate view of the British economy, there is no question of the Assembly having any meaningful economic autonomy.
  Mr. Loyden: No one would argue with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the problems in Scotland. Does he agree that it is not where the decisions are made but what decisions are made that will alter the situation?
  Mr. Reid: Scottish decisions should be made in Edinburgh. Let the hon. Gentleman follow that argument.
  There is an alternative way of promoting the movement of Scotland's unemployed resources, which is to compare the Scotland-England economic relationship with the Britain-West Germany relationship. If the situation is considered in these international terms, current Treasury policy is difficult to understand. When one country starts a deliberate boom, creating excess demand in a neighbouring country, the second country need only release for export the resources which the reflating country requires. That is the case which the Treasury argued with West Germany. Why not a similar Scotland-England relationship, with exported growth for England as Scotland moves towards the full employment of her resources? That implies a fully devolved Government in Edinburgh—with a Scottish Treasury and a Scottish Consolidated Fund—willing and able to finance their own balance of payments.
  774
  Lastly, I shall briefly refer to the European connection. Although for England joining the EEC probably meant the final, formal abdication of imperial pretensions, in Scotland it has brought a reawakened appreciation of our rôle as a small North European nation. As power grows at the centre, so does the need for corresponding power on the periphery. It is significant that Lord Kilbrandon, who sat through the proceedings of the Royal Commission on the Constitution for five years, should now give it as his opinion that Westminster will gradually wither away, with power being concentrated in Edinburgh and Brussels. The words "separatism" has no meaning within the Community.
  Many hon. Members have prated endlessly about economic, social and religious freedom. Can they not now consider that most basic of all freedoms, the freedom of a distinctive people to take up again the reins of their national life? They talk unceasingly about too much government. That has been our experience in Scotland—too much misgovernment, too much London government. The House has ample experience of rewriting statutes for nations which have gained their freedom. The events of the past week have brought that process much closer for Scotland.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. John Evans: I trust that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) will not mind if I do not follow him down the Scottish path which he pursued. I am a Tynesider with Welsh grandparents and I represent a Merseyside constituency. Many of the economic problems of Scotland apply equally to North-West and North-East England, but we English do not advocate the division of England into two parts. The problems of the United Kingdom, North England, Scotland and Wales are similar.
  I am a member of the European Parliament. There is much that the European Parliament can learn from the House of Commons, but there is one respect in which the House can learn from the European Parliament. In the European Parliament when a Member puts his name down to take part in a debate he knows at the beginning of the debate whether

  775
  he will be called. A list is published and he is able to find out when he will take part in the debate. If this practice were adopted in the House, it would save hon. Members having to sit for many hours trying to get into the debate before realising that they will not be able to do so.
  I add my voice of protest in the strongest possible terms at the lack of a clear programme or clear statement by thse Government in the Queen's Speech that they intend to tackle the evils of unemployment which pervade our society. I represent a large constituency in the North-East and I have lived for most of my life on Tyneside. I had personal experience of a great deal of unemployment when I worked in the shipyards on Tyneside. Not many hon. Members appreciate just what employment means, particularly to a man with a wife and young family to support. Unemployment as an economic weapon is unacceptable to me and to my constituency party.
  The use of unemployment as an economic weapon is also unacceptable to Socialist parties in the European Parliament. A document called "Towards a Social Europe", produced by the Ninth Congress of Socialist Parties of the European Community, on page 4, paragraph 10, reads as follows:
  "The European Community and its member States must pursue a policy that guarantees the right to work. The right to work involves three basic requirements:

  (a) Full employment, i.e. creation and maintenance of secure jobs.

  (b) Equality of occupational opportunity hand in hand with the elimination of discrimination.

  (c) Employment opportunities in keeping with the abilities and preference of workers throughout their working life thus providing the basis for social mobility.

  This includes the provision in regional policy of alternative employment opportunities for workers.
  Unemployment is not spread equally across the United Kingdom and to use terms such as "national average figure", of 4·4 or 4·5 per cent., is meaningless to areas such as mine.
  If we got anywhere near to 4·5 per cent., we should believe that the millenium had arrived and that we had full employment, because our figures reach 12 or 14 per cent.—and higher for males. The
  776
  problem is not simply the number of men and women who are unemployed. There is also the much greater social evil of the number of school leavers unable to obtain any sort of employment and, more particularly, any employment that will provide them with training to become the highly skilled workers Britain will need in the future.
  I say to the Government that we neglect training of our young people at our peril. A recurring theme in areas such as the North-West is that of declining industry, lack of skilled job opportunities, poor environment, poor educational facilities and the emigration of our best young people to the more prosperous parts of the country. This leads to a vicious circle of a further decline in industry, fewer skilled job opportunities and increasingly poor environment and greater emigration of our most able young people. There is also the ever-increasing problem of the effect of continuing unemployment on the minds and attitudes of our youngsters, and the hysterical and hypocritical braying of well-heeled sections of the community that our young people will not and do not want to work is bitter music indeed to young people in the dole queue waiting to claim their pittance.
  The Government should also deal with the problem of working-class youngsters who cannot obtain skilled job apprenticeships, and I remind my right hon. Friend that if youngsters do not obtain apprenticeships in the first year after leaving school, the vast majority of them will be doomed to spend the rest of their working lives as unskilled labourers, with little opportunity of ever obtaining steady, worthwhile, well-paid jobs. The Government should seriously consider that the State should take on completely, through the network of industrial training boards, the entire responsibility of employing and training all apprentices and guarantee every boy and girl the right to learn a skill, trade or profession. It makes a nonsense of the education system which we are striving so hard to achieve and which would guarantee every child equality of opportunity, if, at the end of their school days, many children on Merseyside face unemployment and a desolate future, whereas the children in more prosperous areas face a bright and prosperous future.

  777
  This socially just policy should be implemented by utilising to the full the considerable amount of spare capacity in industry and the spare capacity available in technical colleges and polytechnics. This would have the added advantage of employing more school teachers. It is a scandal that in Britain, which is so short of those who can pass on skills, so many of our teachers should be unemployed.
  I ask the Government and the TUC in the longer term, to give consideration to the amount of overtime being worked in our society. It is a scandal and it brings bitterness to people in areas such as mine, where there are many thousands unemployed, that some firms are working far too much overtime. We all appreciate that it is cheaper for the employer to have his workers on overtime than to employ more labour, but it creates bitterness, and I suggest that the Labour movement, particularly the trade union movement, should dwell upon it.
  We recognise that there will be fewer job opportunities in future and fewer jobs to go round for the working population. Is it not time that we started to examine reducing the retirement age progressively from 65 towards 60? I have always regarded it as strange that the professional classes retire much earlier than 65 whereas those doing hard manual work retire at 65. I have always thought that it should be the other way round. Those who do jobs involving hard manual work should have the benefit of early retirement.
  In the recent past the pro-Marketeers were telling those who took a contrary view about the EEC that Britain was at the bottom of the holiday league table. We are still bottom, and there has been no progress whatever towards increasing the holidays enjoyed by the British worker. Such a policy would also assist in the sharing of job opportunities.
  I recognise that the NEB and planning agreements will affect our future beneficially, but I put it to my right hon. Friends that there is growing concern, and deep and increasingly bitter feeling, in areas such as the North-West, which in many ways were responsible for returning Labour to office in the February and October elections last year, about the level of unemployment from which we
  778
  are now suffering. The people in the North-West are making it clear to me and to other hon. Members from the area that they did not help to return a Labour Government in order that not only they but their children should suffer unemployment. I beg my right hon. Friends to appreciate that we must re-kindle the spirit and feeling of our people and prove to them that we are the party of full employment, and to ensure that full employment plays a leading part in all our future policies.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hordem: In the short time available to me I shall not be able to follow very closely the remarks of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), except to say that I am convinced that there can be no real cure of unemployment other than with the revival of the private sector and of private industry in particular. That is what concerns me most in our present position. I cannot envisage any possible revival in the private sector during the course of the coming year.
  The Prime Minister, who opened this debate on the Gracious Speech, was very optimistic, but one would never have thought, in listening to him, that we face a position today in which sterling, in relation to the dollar, has been declining in the last four months at an annual rate of some 20 per cent. One would never have thought, in listening to him, that the volume of imports is growing while the volume of exports is declining.
  I hope the Leader of the House will say how we are to handle the situation when there is a revival of world trade, for, if things go on as they are, there will be an even larger increase in imports, while there is no guarantee that our exports will rise commensurately unless there is room for them to do so—and there cannot be unless room is made by reductions in the public sector.
  The Government have said that they will introduce selective import controls. I am against these in principle, and I also ask the House not to think that they provide any short-term solution. They are, in effect, nothing more than a further devaluation of the pound in terms of the value of the particular commodity.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer said a good deal about the financial deficit

  779
  and the borrowing requirements. He made a comparison with West Germany. It is true that the West German deficit is expected to be some 75,000 billion deutschemarks this year—about 7½ per cent. of their GNP.
  I thought that I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that even if our borrowing requirement were £12,000 million, that would represent only 6·5 per cent. of the GNP. In the first six months of this year, the GNP was running at an annual rate of £86,000 million. Taking an inflation rate of 21 per cent. and going to the end of the financial year, that would mean a GNP of £89,000 million. If the borrowing requirement is £12,000 million and it represents only 6·5 per cent. of the GNP, that suggests a GNP in the nature of £150,000 million. That is an unconscionable figure, and we shall have to read the right hon. Gentleman's speech carefully when it appears in print.
  In relation to £150,000 million, what do the proposed cuts in public expenditure next year of £1,200 million mean? They are chicken feed. What room will they leave for the investment required if we are to have an industrial revival to cure the unemployment of which Government supporters complain? What room is there for any increase in personal expenditure? There is none at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that personal savings were running at a high ratio at the moment. It is just as well that they are. They are running at an annual rate of £800 million a year. If the public sector borrowing requirement is £12,000 million, that still leaves a lot to borrow from the market, and there is no room for any revival of investment or for any increase in puersonal expenditure. Of course, the Government should have cut public expenditure a year ago to make room for the increase in private sector investment that we need so sorely. But at that time they were more intent on winning the General Election.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a comparison with West Germany. I saw a report today from the West German Council of Economic Advisers. The Germans are cutting what they call "the structural component" of the public sector deficit by half—which represents 35,500 million deutschemarks of their total ex-
  780
  pected deficit—by 1978. This Goverment have no proposals of that kind. This is the competition that we are up against, and we should be aware of it.
  I refer next to the Sandilands Report. I hope that the Government will publish their recommendations about it very soon. The accountancy profession is ready for it. I hope, too, that the Government will respond favourably to the Report and accept its broad conclusions. If they do, they must bear in mind that the terms of reference of the Price Commission will have to be altered to take account of the effect of inflation on stocks—
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Rising prices.
  Mr. Hordern: Inevitably it will mean some price increases. But we cannot expect a revival in private investment, thus creating the jobs that we want, unless we revise the terms of reference of the Price Commission.
  The past few years have demonstrated beyond belief the fault in the whole Plowden approach to public expenditure. When inflation was at a low level, it seemed a reasonable way to control public expenditure. But even now the Chancellor says that, with the cash limits proposed for next year, he knows that only 50 per cent. of public expenditure will be covered.
  When the CBI negotiates with the Government it is rather like negotiating with an avalanche. The Government do not know what the public expenditure deficit will be, and they do not know by how much public expenditure is rising. Even if they did, they have no means of controlling it. The situation is not only an unknown quantity, but it will clearly get worse.
  We have been served very badly by advice from the Treasury for far too long. It is not the fault of Ministers in this or the previous Government. Successive Governments have suffered too long from inadequate advice from the Treasury. However, that is a personal view.
  I am certain that unless the Government make room next year for a reduction in public expenditure, we shall not be able to achieve the kind of economic revival that this country sorely needs.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Peyton: We have now had five days of debate on the Gracious Speech. Many hon. Members who have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been unsuccessful. Many speeches have been thoughtful and sensible. However, it is unhappily true that they will not receive their just deserts or share of public attention. I wonder how many of those who took part in our debate feel in these times that their words will receive the attention which they warrant or make any impact at all upon events or, indeed, upon the thoughts of the Government.
  The present plight of Parliament, which seems to have lost so much in prestige, power and influence, must be a matter of concern to all of us.
  Mr. Canavan: Nostalgic nonsense.
  Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman describes himself when he talks about nostalgic nonsense. That is the state of his mind, and I will not intrude into it in any depth.
  Not even the most devoted admirer of this administration could possibly claim that the Gracious Speech has been received with rapture; nor, indeed, have Ministers in the parts that they have played at the Dispatch Box done anything to garnish it with enthusiasm.
  On Wednesday the Prime Minister, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) said this afternoon, turned on his talent for history. Indeed, he touched it up as he went along. But during the course of his remarks he made little reference either to the contents of the Gracious Speech or to what was to happen in future. One hoped that he did not talk like that when he was at Rambouillet.
  The next day the Secretary of State for Industry issued one of those now conventional laments about the state of British industry. It is a pity that the Labour Government do not sometimes remember that they have been in power for eight of the last 12 years. Perhaps the time is coming when they might accept some responsibility for the state of British industry instead of always blaming it upon others.
  782
  The Secretary of State for Industry, on the nationalisation of the shipbuilding and aircraft industries—unwanted, I think—contented himself with the rather bland remark:
  "Each of these industries has problems and weaknesses, which can best be tackled through public ownership."—[Official Report, 20th November 1975; Vol. 901, c. 188.]
  The right hon. Gentleman's speech had the merit of being honest enough to show that he had no heart for the job at all.
  On Monday—I leave out the Secretary of State for Social Services, because 1 was not here on Friday—the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in quite a long speech, hardly referred at all to the problems of education and was almost totally opaque as to his future intentions.
  Today, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I recognise is always embarrassed by support from these benches and I therefore would not wish to give him too much support because this must be very difficult for him—[Interruption.]—The Chancellor blows me a kiss. That is one of the most eloquent things he has done today. The right hon. Gentleman started by placating the serried ranks behind him in his normal role of bruiser, but what he said later began seriously to worry his hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson).
  The right hon. Gentleman said four things of interest. First, he recognised that the reduction in our balance of payments deficit was partly due, so he said very modestly, to the recession that we now have. Secondly, he recognised the need, at long last, to make good use of plant and machinery, as do our competitors. This is a lesson which I hope he will preach far and wide, and I hope that he will be listened to with more than usual attention.
  The right hon. Gentleman put the dilemma very neatly. He said that what happens will depend upon work people seeing that more investment is being made, but in turn that investment will depend upon resources not being preempted by public or private use. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Clark) pointed out very clearly and firmly how necessary it was that investment should be encouraged. I pause for a moment to ask right hon. and

  783
  hon. Members on the Government Front Bench how much time or trouble they have taken while they have been in office to give encouragement to anyone whose political ideas they do not share.
  Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman recognised that it was important that the Government should close the gap between income and expenditure—something which I think I can modestly claim has been urged on him fairly frequently from these benches—but he seems to put off the need until such time as recovery begins. I begin to wonder whether it will begin at all if he does not grasp the nettle and grasp it early enough.
  There is a further point that I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will pay attention to it. If and when recovery does start, many firms that have been living with reasonable comfort off the shelf, off existing stocks, will be hard hit by the new price of restocking and will find themselves short of working capital. Many of the hopes which the right hon. Gentleman expressed to himself with some comfort are likely to be wrecked on that rock.
  The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that he understands the difficulties of bringing income and expenditure into balance. He said fairly clearly that he could not resort to indirect taxation because this would increase the cost of living. He could not go for companies because that would have a damaging effect upon the investment which he recognises we desperately need.
  Lastly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to say that increased income tax, the main source to which he could look for some reduction of the borrowing requirement, would place an excessive burden on individuals who already carry enough.
  As I said at the beginning of that little passage, I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman excessively but he does deserve at least some commendation for those remarks and I desperately hope that for the sake of us all he will carry those lessons into practice. However, we were ready for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman could not go too far on that sensible theme, and we were not unduly surprised when he reverted to his more natural rôle of thug.
  784
  It is sad to have to say it, but the content of the Queen's Speech is a lot of dull, indigestible fare—from which, however, there clearly emerge a few facts. The first is that Parliament will be kept busy, although the attention of the House will be diverted to a large extent to things which, though important in themselves, will have little serious impact on the way in which we get through our present crisis—the tied cottage, dock labour, the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, harassment of private practice and a development land tax. Neither I nor any outsider can believe that these things will make a major contribution to our country's welfare. We are also told that the working of Parliament will be reviewed. If past experience is any guide, this will mean simply that the power, prestige and influence of the House of Commons will be further curtailed to make life more comfortable for the Executive.
  The third fact which emerges clearly is that there will be more control, more taxes and more bureaucracy. In fact, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, there will be more power to the Government and less to the citizen. However, I recognise that, far though the Government have gone, they will not go far enough to satisfy the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
  One does not have to look far through the Gracious Speech to find a series of fairly empty pieties. First, we are told that the attack—so-called—on inflation will receive the highest priority. The Government should remember that they have been in office for many years since 1964, and that they share a large part of the responsibility for the troubles for which they seek to blame others. It is time that they admitted this. They have yet to tell us in this fight, as they call it, against inflation, whether there is any limit at all in their view, either in time or in amount, to the extent to which they can borrow their way out of trouble.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern), in a speech which was much curtailed, made several important points to which I hope the Chancellor will give his careful attention. He said that over the past four months the pound has been declining against the dollar at an annual rate of

  785
  over 20 per cent., and that the volume of our imports is increasing while the volume of our exports is falling. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give his attention and call the attention of the Prime Minister to these matters. In his public speeches at any rate, he appears to neglect them altogether.
  The Gracious Speech goes on to say that the Government will continue to strive for a constitutional settlement to the problem of Northern Ireland. The Government have had and have acknowledged, considerable support from this side of the House in dealing with this agonising problem, but they should not ignore the deep anxiety which now exists about security in the Province.
  The motion in the name of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), couched, as it is, in restrained terms, must command the support of all thoughtful people throughout this country.
  I take note of what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) had to say. I must sadly observe that recent experience has taught me that I have no grounds whatever to hope—not even, as the right hon. Gentleman said, "a residual hope"—that he would find himself in the Opposition Lobby tonight.
  The third point which arises in the Gracious Speech is the announcement by the Government that there will be comprehensive employment safeguards for dock workers. We are entitled to ask the Secretary of State for Employment—I am sorry to see that he is not here, although we welcomed his arrival earlier—what safeguards dock workers now lack which are available to the generality of workers.
  We have reached a time when we should cease to conduct our affairs against a background that has long passed away. The old and barbaric arrangements for dock labour are gone. We now have other problems. As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) pointed out, those problems are of low productivity leading to loss of trade. Yet the Government declare their intention to press on in their determination to extend not only the Dock Labour Scheme but also its physical boundaries and thus to present to one more section the power to bring the nation to its knees. No one
  786
  should ignore the fact that the impact of a strike on imported food supplies would be both immediate and total.
  For those reasons we give our support to the amendment tabled in the name of the Liberal Party on this subject. Hon. Gentleman may laugh, as they always do when anyone does not agree with them, but this will not help our country to solve its problems.
  I turn to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). I want to cite four points that he made. They should be borne in mind, not merely in this House but throughout the land. He honestly attempted to touch upon our difficulties, not in any emotional way but with understanding, sympathy and intelligence. He said, first, that there was no future in Britain continuing to produce goods for which there was either a declining market or no market at all. He said that it was too easy to gloss over the fear and misery caused by unemployment. I beg Labour Members to accept that the miseries of unemployment are understood elsewhere than on their Benches and that there is deep sympathy for those miseries. We are concerned that failure by the Government to show courage in time will multiply the penalty and will make the miseries even worse than they would otherwise be.
  The hon. Member for Attercliffe referred to the need to live within our means, preferably at the earliest moment. He added that if we do not, our problems will multiply, including that of unemployment. Labour Members cannot ignore the logic of what the hon. Gentleman said. He said it in a very powerful speech. I have heard him make a number of speeches. Whether or not I agree with him, he never fails to match up to the standards of courage and intelligence which we very badly need at these times.
  The hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that one matter of the highest priority was that Members of Parliament should have a deeper understanding of the issues which confront us today. Looking at some right hon. and hon. Members, I echo that most deeply. There are many people in the world as a whole who are watching this country and wondering whether we shall ever emerge from our

  787
  problems. They are hoping for some signs of realism and resolution to replace the dissension and disarray which they now associate with our affairs. These people are watching this House hoping that the barren ritual argument which colours so much of our affairs will be replaced—
  Mr. Ted Lead bitter: Like the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
  Mr. Peyton: —by some sense of clear national purpose. The hon. Gentleman's interventions are distinguished always for one thing—the self-revelation. If, surprisingly and exceptionally, the hon. Gentleman has anything to say, I shall gladly give way.
  Mr. Leadbitter: Yes, give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am helping the right hon. Gentleman out, because he has been boring for 20 minutes. When the right hon. Gentleman starts to talk about what other countries think of Britain, he should consider the comments he has made tonight, because he has made the greatest contribution of all towards other people's points of view. The Government side of the House does not share his argument about other countries.
  Mr. Peyton: As I understood that remark, what the hon. Gentleman said was that he thought that I had made the greatest contribution myself tonight. For that I am grateful, I suppose—in a way, because one's reception of compliments always has to be conditioned by the source.
  Mr. Leadbitter: Knocking Britain.
  Mr. Peyton: I am not knocking Britain. This is just the kind of cheap—
  Mr. Leadbitter: The right hon. Gentleman is knocking Britain. I am helping him out.
  Mr. Peyton: Let me just mention, for the education of those right hon. and hon. Members of the Labour Party who are content to listen to their opponents for a moment, an article which appeared the other day and which was written by the London correspondent of a Swiss newspaper. He suggested that this country, since the war, had suffered from the continuation of too many stuffy attitudes. Whether or not hon. Members will accept
  788
  it, he said that there was too much class arrogance on both sides of the class barrier. Interestingly enough, at the end of the article he said—it might be an oversimplification to say this—that the upper classes in this country had produced since the war only officials, no entrepreneurs; the working class had produced no labour leaders, only strike organisers.
  That is the view of an outsider to this country, a fairly shrewd observer. I think it is a reasonably painful one. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman the Patronage Secretary is, as I have said before, one of the most voluble Chief Whips we have ever had. We long to hear him back making speeches again, but his utterances from a sedentary position do him no credit.
  The Government, facing perhaps the most serious state of affairs that has ever confronted this country in peace time, are still pretending to the majority of the nation that there is an easy way out. I do not believe there is and I do not believe that the Government will be forgiven for the lax and sloppy way in which they have shunned their duty and run away from their obligations.
  Hon. Members: The right hon. Gentleman has finished five minutes early.
  9.25 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): It is not like the right hon. Gentleman to run out of words, but on this occasion he has clearly done so. I shall come back to him in a moment.
  I think the House would wish me to say something about devolution, which has occupied a fair amount of time during the debate. I want to make absolutely clear that we have no intention of going back on our commitment to devolution. We said in the White Paper in September last year that we should set up Scottish and Welsh Assemblies and we repeated that in the October General Election. We mean it. Some people still seem to think that we are just going through the motions. I ask them to read the White Paper on Thursday and think again.
  Mr. Donald Stewart rose—
  Mr. Short: Perhaps the hon. Member will contain himself for a few moments. We are not devoting all this time and

  789
  effort to something we do not intend to happen.
  I flatly reject any accusation that we are going slow on the legislative timetable for devolution. The general drift of some comments has been that the Government are deferring action on devolution and dragging the matter out as much as possible in the hope that it will go away. That is ridiculous, as anybody who reads the White Paper will see. We are not deferring action or dragging the matter out.
  Mr. Donald Stewart rose—
  Mr. Short: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait until I have finished this section of my speech. If I have not covered his point, I shall give way.
  The work programme of officials and Ministers has been far more intense than anything I have previously encountered. I should like to pay tribute to my officials, who have had to endure the almost killing pace that I have forced upon them. We neither hope nor believe that devolution will simply go away, and nobody should believe that the status quo is any longer an option in Scotland. This has to go ahead.
  However much hon. Members may protest, they must recognise that devolution is a tremendously complicated matter involving many different aspects of Government, and it cannot be rushed. Work on the drafting of the Bill started some time ago, and a great deal of progress has been made on drafting the constitutional arrangements involved.
  However, the drafting of the legislation on the functions and powers of the Assemblies has proved an enormously complex job, involving searching and, where necessary, amending United Kingdom legislation going back to the Act of Union. This section of the Bill will probably not be finished until the spring. Reluctantly, we have come to the view that its passage will inevitably take us into the next Session. There are several reasons for this, including the complications that I have just mentioned.
  For example, a whole range of problems arises out of the treatment of Scottish private law. This is a candidate for devolution if anything is. It covers a wide field that interacts at many points with commercial matters such as the law
  790
  of contract, consumer protection and bankruptcies, which, within a single United Kingdom market, inevitably affect people and firms outside Scotland.
  The interface between Scottish private law and United Kingdom law presents peculiarly difficult problems on which we are still carrying out an intensive study. I do not suppose that nationalist Members have given so much as a moment's thought to that aspect. When hon. Members read the White Paper on Thursday, they will readily appreciate that there are a number of similar problems, which cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet.
  There is then the need for consultations with organisations that will be affected by our proposals. I do not mean general talk, because there has been plenty of that already. I mean detailed comments on the nuts and bolts of our scheme. We cannot ride roughshod over all the bodies and individuals who will be affected. They must see what is proposed and have the opportunity to say what they think of it.
  We are concerned with the whole range of government. This will take time, following publication of the White Paper. Upon publication of the Bill, we expect that in the spring there will be a second stage of more definitive public consultation directed towards the specific legislative proposals.
  I understand that our timetable is a great disappointment to some people. It is a disappointment to me, too. I know, however, that many of the criticisms of it come from those whose aim is not devolution but separatism. They seem not to want a completely researched proposal for devolution which has received public endorsement by consultation and debate. That would not suit their book.
  They would rather see a half-baked scheme introduced immediately, one which would prove completely unsatisfactory, an unstable arrangement which they could exploit because of its deficiencies. No doubt they would then claim that devolution did not work and that the only complete solution was separation from the United Kingdom. They can pursue that course if they wish, but I am sure that the vast majority of people in Scotland and Wales will not

  791
  be deceived by their tactics. We shall not be drawn into this trap. We do not want devolution to fail. We are determined that it shall work, and work well.
  Since virtually all the parties in the House have committed themselves in terms to devolution in Scotland at any rate, I trust that our future debates will be concerned not with whether there should be devolution, but with the best way of implementing it.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman is one of the great obstacles in the Cabinet to devolution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary and others have been the niggers in the woodpile, if to say that is not an offence against the race relations laws. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, regardless of the difficulties set out in the White Paper, that his time scale on his promises to the House has fallen behind? Is he not on record as saying that the Bill would start its progress through the House in November 1975?
  Mr. Short: The Bill will be published next spring. I have said that the fact that it cannot get on the statute book in this Session is a great disappointment to me.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: As the White Paper has quite clearly been made available to members of the Press and to others connected with the media, will the Leader of the House consider advancing its publication date to tomorrow?
  Mr. Short: I am not prepared to do that. The same procedure has been followed on this as on other occasions with other White Papers. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Question Time today that he was looking into this matter.
  Mr. John Mendelson: My right hon. Friend said that he hoped that the debate from now on would centre not on whether there should be devolution, but on how it should come. Does he not agree, however, that there must be an opportunity for people in the country generally to consider the grave implications of these proposals for the unity of the United Kingdom? Does he accept that there can be no restriction whatever on the debate which must now begin?
  Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we want a big national debate on the matter. The timetable will make that possible in two stages—a general debate on the White Paper and then a more definitive debate when the Bill is published in the spring.
  I turn to the Opposition amendment. I find it hard to believe that it can possibly provide the basis for united opposition to the Government's policies among the Opposition parties. The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) admirably summed up the feelings of many of us about the first part of the amendment in his comments on the speech made by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on the second day of the debate.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Henley, who does not seem to be present, will not think me churlish if I point out that, apart from one vague reference to the repayment of tax to the successful, there were no practical suggestions of alternative policies. Nor were there any such suggestions in the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), who opened the debate today, except for one to which I shall come. The right hon. and learned Gentleman showed himself today to be the pedlar of trifles that we have always known him to be. I very much hope that Liberal Members will follow the logic of their leader's comments by rejecting the Conservative amendment in the Division Lobby.
  The truth is that the Conservative Party has no practical proposals, to use its own phrase, to solve our serious financial and economic problems. Not a glimmer of a policy has emerged in the whole five-day debate. Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) tonight, I felt that a certain section of my party was doing much better than the Opposition in proposing alternative policies. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will be grateful to the members of that section for doing her job for her, as she is not doing it.
  The only policy, if one can call it that, of the Conservatives is immediate savage cuts in public expenditure. Calls for such cuts were made in every speech. Nothing could make less economic sense than immediate savage cuts in public

  793
  expenditure, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has consistently pointed out. If industry were in a position to employ those released from public service, if investment were high and productivity were rising, it could be argued that there was a case for such cuts. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has made it clear that, looking ahead to the prospects of an upturn in world trade, we shall bear that case in mind in considering public expenditure from 1977–78 onwards. We have already announced expenditure reductions for 1976–77, and my right hon. Friend made clear again today, in a speech which I understand had the approbation of the right hon. Member for Yeovil—
  Mr. Peyton: Only the middle bit.
  Mr. Short: It is the bit that I am talking about.
  My right hon. Friend made it clear that substantial economies would be necessary in 1977–78 and 1978–79. That will be the time to make resources available for exports and investment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) said in a very good speech this evening [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is my friend as well.
  If we cut public expenditure now, at a time of high unemployment, in the trough of the worst world recession since the early 1930s, we should be digging a hole in our economy that nothing could fill, and so adding to unemployment and therefore to the public sector borrowing requirement. Therefore, I believe that such a course would be utterly unproductive.
  Mr. Hordern: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I think that there must be some confusion of identity. I do not recognise my speech from the words the Lord President just read out.
  Mr. Short: I left the hon. Gentleman's contribution some time ago. He was talking about the need to make expenditure cuts in the years to which I referred.
  Perhaps the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, who constantly advocates cuts that would lead to high unemployment, would like to go off the country house circuit that she frequents and go to Merseyside. She will find in that area
  794
  12·1 per cent. male unemployment. Perhaps she will tell the people there about the effect of her policies on employment.
  I know that the right hon. Lady is very concerned about the public sector deficit, but I would remind her that the recession hits twice—first, through the loss of tax revenues and, secondly, through claims in terms of benefits. Her policies would do nothing whatever to decrease that deficit on both grounds, or to avoid the deepening recession that we are now experiencing.
  The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) always comes up with an interesting Press comment. He obviously reads all the papers and he quoted some extracts today. Did he read the Observer last Sunday with his usual diligence? If so, I would remind the House what the Observer said:
  "We should establish an environment of courage and self-restraint by not talking cuts and acting expenditure."
  I commend that thought to the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
  Perhaps they would cast their minds back to 29th January this year. On that day on the earnings rule they and their Conservative colleagues voted for increased expenditure at a cost to the Government of £60 million this year and a further £325 million over the next two years. That is what the Observer meant by
  "talking cuts and acting expenditure."
  Again, I wish to remind the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition that she and her Front Bench colleagues abstained on the issue of the 25 per cent. rate of VAT on television sets. By so doing they ensured a defeat for the Government—a defeat which over the next four or five years will cost up to £250 million. That also is
  "talking cuts and acting expenditure."
  Sir G. Howe: Now that the Labour Government have made a modification in national insurance contributions well sufficient to cover the abolition of the earnings rule, which was widely welcomed, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government intend to reverse the decision of the House and to restore the earnings rule to its former limit? Secondly, will he acknowledge that if his

  795
  right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not reduced VAT from 10 to 8 per cent. to win an election, the revenue would have remained far higher?
  Mr. Short: The fact remains that the additional expenditure has been put upon us by the very people who are now asking for cuts. [HON MEMBERS: "Answer."] Perhaps I could give a third example from this year. On 7th May the Opposition voted against a Government motion on defence that recognised the need
  "…to ensure that the level of public expenditure is contained within available resources…".
  That, too, is a matter of
  "talking cuts and acting expenditure".
  I do not wish to be unfair to the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East because he is not alone in his hypocrisy. He shares this record with most other Members of the Opposition Front Bench, including the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition. If they wish to possess any credibility, they must be more consistent.
  They were both senior members of a Government which came into office in 1970 and inherited a negative borrowing requirement—that is a surplus—of £18 million. A few months later, in October, in their White Paper "New Policies for Public Spending", they imposed the most humiliating cuts, cutting out the Consumer Council, regional development boards and imposing museum charges. When the Conservative Government left office three-and-a-quarter years later, they bequeathed to us a public sector borrowing requirement of £6,325 million. I shall not attempt to calculate the percentage increase in the borrowing requirement in those disastrous years, but the Conservatives' record has been this year, and still is, one of talking cuts and acting expenditure with a vengeance.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in a brilliant speech—if I may say so without sounding patronising—said that the policies pursued by the previous Government were a major factor in any objective assessment of our present economic problems.
  Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that since his Government
  796
  came into office the borrowing requirement has escalated rapidly. Will he answer the question which I asked him? Do the Government now think that there is any limit in time or amount to the extent to which they can borrow their way out of trouble?
  Mr. Short: I dealt with that a few minutes ago, as the right hon. Gentleman would have heard had he been listening. Of course the public sector borrowing requirement has increased in the past 20 months. It would have been impossible to prevent the increase. It was caused, first, by the roaring inflation which the Conservatives bequeathed to us and, secondly, by the need to protect the poorest members of the community from the worst effects of inflation, particularly by increasing social benefits and by food and housing subsidies. Even in the circumstances we inherited, we have made substantial improvements in pensions and other social security benefits. We have increased benefits three times in the 18 months since we took office. We have brought the total increase in pensions and related long-term rates to about 70 per cent. Pensions are now 33 per cent. higher than they were a year earlier, and that is a much bigger increase than the rise in prices.
  For the future, we have committed ourselves by law to increasing pensions in line with earnings or prices, whichever rise the faster. This month, we are introducing a new non-contributory invalidity pension, doubling the supplementary benefit disregard and increasing by 37½ per cent. the special heating addition payable with supplementary benefits, which now benefit some 700,000 people over pension age and 100,000 under pension age.
  These measures reflect the priority which the Government give to improving the position for the poorest members of our society. I shall ask the right hon. Lady a question, and I shall give way to her so that she may answer it. I have read out a list of what we have done to protect the poorest members of the community. They represent one reason why the public sector borrowing requirement has risen as it has. Which of them would the right hon. Lady not have done?
  Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: The Lord President got many of his facts

  797
  and figures wrong. Many of the measures to help the poorest members of the community come under the National Insurance Fund, which is paid for by the contributions of employers and employees. Many of the other measures he quoted would affect the public sector borrowing requirement much less if they were confined to the poor and were not indiscriminate. The right hon. Gentleman is paying indiscriminate subsidies to himself as well as to the poor.
  Mr. Short: The right hon. Lady knows that that does not even begin to be an answer. She knows why the public sector borrowing requirement has risen.
  Food subsidies would undoubtedly have been a first target for the right hon. Lady's axe. Members of the Oppositon have said so. Given the chance, the right hon. Lady would cut them at a stroke. Supposing she did so, what would happen? This year we expect to spend £550 million on food subsidies. The right hon. Lady is against subsidies. What would happen if the subsidies were dropped? I will tell her. The average family of two adults and two children would find that their weekly bill had risen by 73p. The right hon. Lady would stop food subsidies. She would put up the price of bread by 2½ p a loaf, the price of flour by 3p for a 3 lb. bag. She would add 8p on the cost of 1 lb of tea. She would put 12p on 1 lb of cheese, 2p per pint of milk, 11p on 1 lb of butter.
  What about rents? Whatever the right hon. Lady did about food subsidies, she would cut council house subsidies. This is what the policy of the Opposition would mean. This is what they advocate.
  If the right hon. Lady cut only this Government's increased council house subsidy, the council house dweller would be faced with an extra rent of £l·27p a week on top of the increases already experienced. Would the right hon. Lady have the nerve to ask that of a worker who settles for no more than £6 per week? I understand that the right hon. Lady supports that subsidy. Cutting out food subsidies and removing only the council house rent subsidy which we have introduced in the past 20 months would add £2 per week to the budget of the average family.
  Sir G. Howe: Will the Leader of the House confirm what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection have said on many occasions—that it is the policy of the Government as soon as reasonably possible to phase out the food subsidies about which the right hon. Gentleman has been making so much?
  Mr. Short: We shall do so as soon as reasonably possible. But the Conservatives say that they would do so immediately.
  I now turn to the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Devon, North and his hon. Friends. It mentions higher costs and inefficiency in the docks. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take a little more trouble to learn about the docks before we debate the Bill. On Monday he claimed that it was cheaper to ship tea via Hull than London. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman does not realise that Hull is part of the existing Dock Labour Scheme. He did not know that. He speaks of increased costs, but rates of pay in non-scheme ports are settled by the normal process of collective bargaining. Those ports do not form part of the scheme and are irrelevant to the proposals for its extension. It was asserted that the gross figure of tons shifted per man-hour in Dock Labour Scheme ports is about a quarter of the figures for private enterprise ports. However, the scheme already covers many private enterprise ports. I suspect that his assertions, inaccurate on this point, will prove just as groundless as those of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). He said that Antwerp dockers move seven times more goods per shift than London dockers.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): That was a lie.
  Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Patronage Secretary to use the word "lie" in the House?
  Mr. Speaker: The word "lie" is un-parliamentary language.
  Mr. Mellish: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I willingly withdraw the word "lie" and say that the

  799
  statement was a misconception and that the right hon. Gentleman has not had the decency to apologise.
  Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman also had to withdraw his remarks because it was discovered that he was comparing the movement of iron bars with general cargo.
  The Liberal amendment assumes that the extension of the Dock Labour Scheme to ports not already covered will lead to industrial action. There is no evidence at all for that assumption. The 1972 dock strike was, to a very large degree, the product of anomalies which our proposals seek to correct. That strike left no one in any doubt that industrial action in any or all of our ports has damaging and lasting effects. It is for this very reason that we are introducing this Bill, which is to try to prevent a similar deterioration in industrial relations in Britain's docks, exposing the country to such risks in the future. That is what the Liberals do not understand. This Bill will diminish and not increase the risks.
  The Opposition accuse us of policies which increase bureaucracy and diminish freedom. But nothing they have said dur-
  the course of this debate substantiates that ritual accusation. Their amendment is nothing more than a mirror of their own predicament, their lack of alternative policies, and their unconcern for the freedom and security of our people. Whose freedom will be served by immediate public expenditure cuts? Who will be freer by ensuring extra unemployment in the depths of a recession?
  The problem with the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition is that her definition of "freedom" is the freedom of the jungle. It is the freedom of a small group of people to jump the queue for a pay bed in a National Health Service hospital, for example. This amendment is typical of a party which, in opposition, has shown itself not as an alternative Government, but as a home for lost causes. The concern of the—
  Mr. Humphrey Atkins rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 294.

  Division No. 3.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Channon, Paul

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Alison, Michael

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Arnold, Tom

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fox, Marcus

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Clegg, Walter

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Cockcroft, John

  Freud, Clement

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Fry, Peter

  Barker, Kenneth

  Cope, John

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Banks, Robert

  Cordle, John H.

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Beith, A. J.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Corrie, John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Benyon, W.

  Costain, A. P.

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Crawford, Douglas

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Biffen, John

  Critchley, Julian

  Goodhart, Philip

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Crouch, David

  Goodhew, Victor

  Blaker, Peter

  Crowder, F. P.

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Body, Richard

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Gorst, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Grant, Anthony(Harrow C)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes(Brent)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Gray, Hamish

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Durant, Tony

  Grieve, Percy

  Brittan, Leon

  Dykes, Hugh

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Brotherton, Michael

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Grimond, Rt. Hon J.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Grist, Ian

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Elliott, Sir William

  Hall, Sir John

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Emery, Peter

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Budgen, Nick

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burden, F. A.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hannam, John

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Hastings, Stephen

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Farr, John

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Fell, Anthony

  Hawkins, Paul

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Sims, Roger

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Henderson, Douglas

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Hicks, Robert

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Moate, Roger

  Speed, Keith

  Holland, Philip

  Monro, Hector

  Spence, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Sproat, Iain

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Stainton, Keith

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hunt, John

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stanley, John

  Hurd, Douglas

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Mudd, David

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Neave, Airey

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  James, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Stokes, John

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

  Newton, Tony

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Jessel, Toby

  Nott, John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Osborn, John

  Tebbit, Norman

  Jopling, Michael

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pardoe, John

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Kilfedder, James

  Penhaligon, David

  Thompson, George

  Kimball, Marcus

  Percival, Ian

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Trotter, Neville

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Knox, David

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Lamont, Norman

  Raison, Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Lane, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon sir Peter

  Wakeham, John

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Raid, George

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Wall, Patrick

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Walters, Dennis

  Lloyed, Ivan

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Warren, Kenneth

  Loveridge, John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Watt, Hamish

  Luce, Richard

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Weatherill, Bernard

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Wells, John

  MacCormick, lain

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Welsh, Andrew

  McCrindle, Robert

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  MacGregor, John

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Madel, David

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Mates, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  Younger, Hon George

  Mather, Carol

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Maude, Angus

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Shepherd, Colin

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Mawby, Ray

  Shersby, Michael

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Silvester, Fred

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Bradley, Tom

  Concannon, J. D.

  Allaun, Frank

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Anderson, Donald

  Brown, Hugh D (Provan)

  Corbett, Robin

  Archer, Peter

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Ashley, Jack

  Buchan, Norman

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ashely, Jack

  Buchan, Richard

  Cronin, John

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Cryer, Bob

  Atkinson, Norman

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Campbell, Ian

  Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bates, Alf

  Cant, R. B.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Bean, R. E.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Carter, Ray

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cartwright, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Bishop, E.S.

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Delargy, Hugh

  Boardman, H.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Booth, Albert

  Cohen, Stanley

  Dempsey, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Coleman, Donald

  Doig, Peter

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Dormand, J. D.

  Douglas Mann, Bruce

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lamborn, Harry

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lamond, James

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Dunnett, Jack

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lee, John

  Rooker, J. W.

  Edge, Geoff

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Rowlands, Ted

  English, Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Ennals, David

  Lipton, Marcus

  Selby, Harry

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Litterick, Tom

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Luard, Evan

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Short Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Short, Mrs Renée(Wolv NE)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McElhone, Frank

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Flannery, Martin

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Sillars, James

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Small, William

  Foot, Rt Hon Micheal

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Ford, Ben

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Snape, Peter

  Forrester, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Madden, Max

  Spriggs, Leslie

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

  Magee, Bryan

  Stallard, A. W.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mahon, Simon

  Stoddart, David

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

  George, Bruce

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stott, Roger

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Marquand, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Ginsburg, David

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Golding, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester s)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Swain, Thomas

  Graham, Ted

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mendelson, John

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Hamilton, W. W. (central Fife)

  Millan, Bruce

  Tierney, Sydney

  Hardy, Peter

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Tinn, James

  Harper, Joseph

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Tomlinson, John

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Molloy, William

  Tomney, Frank

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Moonman, Eric

  Torney, Tom

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hatton, Frank

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Moyle, Roland

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

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

  Hooley, Frank

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Horam, John

  Newens, Stanley

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Noble, Mike

  Ward, Micheal

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Watkins, David

  Huckfield, Les

  Ogden, Eric

  Watkinson, John

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  O' Halloran, Micheal

  Weetch, Ken

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brain

  Weitzman, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Hunter, Adam

  Ovenden, John

  White, James (Pollok)

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Owen, Dr David

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Padley, Walter

  Whitlock, William

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Janner, Greville

  Park, George

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Parker, John

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Parry, Robert

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  John, Brynmor

  Perry, Earnest

  Wilson, Rt Hon. H. (Huyton)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Prescott, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Woof, Robert

  Judd, Frank

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Radice, Giles

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Kelley, Richard

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Kerr, Russell

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Mr. John Ellis and

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Miss Margaret Jackson.

  Question accordingly negatived
  Mr. Speaker: I now call the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) formally to move his amendment.
  Amendment proposed: At end of Question, add—
  But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains proposals for the docks which, if carried out by an extension of the areas covered by the National Dock Labour Scheme.
  will lead to further unemployment in those areas, further strangulation of Great Britain's successful ports and higher costs and inefficiency.—[Mr. Thorpe.]
  Question put forthwith pursuant to the Order of the House this day, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 294.

  Division No. 4.]

  AYES

  [10.17 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kimball, Marcus

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Alison, Michael

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Farr, John

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Arnold, Tom

  Fell, Anthony

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Fisher, sir Nigel

  Knox, David

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lamont, Norman

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lane, David

  Baker, Kenneth

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Banks, Robert

  Fox, Marcus

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Beith. A. J.

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Freud, Clement

  Lawson, Nigel

  Benyon, W.

  Fry, Peter

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Biffen, John

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Lloyd, Ian

  Blaker, Peter

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Loveridge, John

  Body, Richard

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Luce, Richard

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter

  Goodhart, Philip

  MacCormick, Iain

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Goodhew, Victor

  McCrindle, Robert

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes(Brent)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McCusker, H.

  Bradtord, Rev Robert

  Gorst, John

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  MacGregor. John

  Brittan, Leon

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gray, Hamish

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Grieve, Percy

  Madel, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Mates, Michael

  Budgen, Nick

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Mather, Carol

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Grist, Ian

  Maude, Angus

  Burden, F. A.

  Hall, Sir John

  Maulding, Rt Hon Reginald

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mawby, Ray

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Carr, Rt Hon Robert

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Carson, John

  Hannam, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Channon, Paul

  Hastings, Stephen

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Churchill, W. S.

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Moate, Roger

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Molyneaux, James

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Monro, Hector

  Clegg, Walter

  Henderson, Douglas

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Cockcroft, John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Hicks, Robert

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Cope, John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Morgan, Geraint

  Cordle, John H.

  Holland, Philip

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hordern, Peter

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Corrie, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Costain, A. P.

  Howell, David (Gulldford)

  Mudd, David

  Crawford, Douglas

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Neave, Airey

  Critchley, Julian

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Crouch, David

  Hunt, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hurd, Douglas

  Newton, Tony

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Hutchison, Micheal Clark

  Nott, John

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Drayson, Burnaby

  James, David

  Osborn, John

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

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

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Dunlop, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Durant, Tony

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinslead)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Johnston, Russeil (Inverness)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Jopling, Michael

  Penhaligon, David

  Elliott, Sir William

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Percival, Ian

  Emery, Peter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Kilfedder, James

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Silvester, Fred

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Sims, Roger

  Trotter, Neville

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Raison, Timothy

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Rathbone, Tim

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Speed, Keith

  Viggers, Peter

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Spence, John

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Wakeham, John

  Reid, George

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Sproat, lain

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Stainton, Keith

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wall, Patrick

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Stanley, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Watt, Hamish

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Wells, John

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Stokes, John

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Tebbit, Norman

  winterton, Nicholas

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Scott, Nicholas

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Younger, Hon George

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Snepherd, Colin

  Thompson, George

  Mr. Cyril Smith and

  Shersby, Michael

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Mr. John Pardoe

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)

  Harper, Joseph

  Allaun, Frank

  Dalyell, Tam

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Anderson, Donald

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Archer, Peter

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hatton, Frank

  Ashley, Jack

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Ashton, Joe

  Deakins, Eric

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Atkinson, Norman

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hooley, Frank

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Horam, John

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Dempsey, James

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Bates, Alf

  Doig, Peter

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Bean, R. E.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Huckfield, Les

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Dunn, James A.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Eadie, Alex

  Hunter, Adam

  Boardman, H.

  Edge, Geoff

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Booth, Albert

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Bradley, Tom

  English, Michael

  Janner, Greville

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ennals, David

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Brown, Hugh D (Provan)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Buchan, Norman

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  John, Brynmor

  Buchanan, Richard

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Callaghan. Jim (Middleton & P)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Campbell, Ian

  Flannery, Martin

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Judd, Frank

  Cant, R. B.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Carmichael, Neil

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Kelley Richard,

  Carter, Ray

  Ford, Ben

  Kerr, Russell

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Forrester, John

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Cartwright, John

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

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

  Lamborn, Hary

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lamond, James

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Coleman, Donald

  George, Bruce

  Lee, John

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Concarmon, J. D.

  Ginsburg, David

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Golding, John

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Graham, Ted

  Lipton, Marcus

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Litterick, Tom

  Crawshaw, Richad

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cronin, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Luard, Evan

  Cryer, Bob

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Hardy, Peter

  McCartney, Hugh

  McElhone, Frank

  Park, George

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Parker, John

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Parry, Robert

  Swain, Thomas

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Perry, Ernest

  Thomas, Mike (Abertillery)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Madden, Max

  Prescott, John

  Tierney, Sydney

  Magee, Bryan

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Tinn, James

  Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Tomlinson, John

  Mahon, Simon

  Radice, Giles

  Tomney, Frank

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Torney, Tom

  Marks, Kenneth

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Tuck, Raphael

  Marquand, David

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Roderick, Caerwyn

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

  Maynard, Miss John

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Meacher, Michael

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Rooker, J. W.

  Ward, Michael

  Mendelson, John

  Rose, Paul B.

  Watkins, David

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Watkinson, John

  Millan, Bruce

  Rowlands, Ted

  Weetch, Ken

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Weitzman, David

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Selby, Harry

  Wellbeloved, James

  Molloy, William

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Moonman, Eric

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Whitlock, William

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Short, Mrs Renee(Wolv NE)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Moyle, Roland

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Sillars, James

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Newens, Stanley

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Noble, Mike

  Small, William

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Ogden, Eric

  Snape, Peter

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Woodall, Alec

  Orbach, Maurice

  Stallard, A. W.

  woof, Robert

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Ovenden, John

  Stoddart, David

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Owen, Dr David

  Storehouse, Rt Hon John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Padley, Walter

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. J. D. Dormand and

  Palmer, Arthur

  Strang, Gavin

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Question accordingly negatived
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:—
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

    FRESHWATER AND SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Ordered,
    That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Coleman.]

    FRESHWATER AND SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
      ADJOURNMENT
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

  DRAMA SCHOOLS
  10.33 p.m.
  Mr. William van Straubenzee: I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity that you have kindly given me to raise for a few minutes a question which is of great interest to those immediately concerned with it—namely, professional training for drama. I am equally grateful to the Under-Secretary for being present tonight—at short notice I think I am correct in saying—I am, therefore, the more appreciative of his presence. I want to centre the few moments that I have upon a report commissioned by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation on professional training for drama, which is known as "Going on the Stage".
  This is by no means the first time that the House and the country generally have had reason to be grateful to the Foundation for looking closely at one particular aspect of our cultural life. When I was at the Department in 1971, I received an interesting report from the Foundation on music and musical education. Although we did not follow everything in the report, it was very helpful and led to considerable additional expenditure on musical education.
  I had something to do with encouraging the Foundation in the present inquiry and I am grateful to it. At a time when the Minister is under considerable financial constraints—as would be any alternative Government—it is not realistic to press for substantial increases in expenditure. I am precluded by the rules of debate from pressing for any changes in legislation, and I should not wish to do so.
  812
  I emphasise that the report does not seek to get the Minister to increase expenditure substantially. It starts from the basis of what can be done with existing resources. It is that—rather than a visionary plan—that confronts the Minister, and I hope that he will let us have at least his preliminary reactions to it. The report was commended in a leader in The Times Education Supplement on 26th August which said it avoided
  "all the expensive Utopian solutions."
  The Minister and I have both seen reports that fell into that trap. I hope that he feels that this report has avoided it.
  It could be argued that, at a time of economic difficulty, little or no money should be spent on education in the theatre. I reject that for two reasons. First, the theatre is part of our national heritage and is a great aspect of our national life. The quality of our actors and actresses and the excellence of our stage management and production are the envy of the world. If, as I believe, it can be said that London is the music capital of the world, it can also be claimed that London is the theatrical capital of the world. It is a very important part of our national heritage that we continue and nourish this great tradition.
  The second reason is that it is good export business. One has only to look at the number of productions on Broadway to see the export potential of the British theatre. We are extremely fortunate to have the fortune of our language. Tours such as the recent one to India by the New English Shakespeare Company take our language and heritage all over the world. So, even leaving aside the cultural argument, which the Minister and I would rate as being of great importance, there is something here in terms of hard cash.
  But, as the report shows, there are problems. We are overproducing actors. It is not possible to assess this as a measure of the unemployment, but unemployment there certainly is. There is evidence that those trained at the leading drama schools stand a better chance of a more rewarding employment than those who are trained at one of the lesser-known schools. Hence the report comes to the conclusion that the present support

  813
  from public funds, which is not inconsiderable, is uneconomic and inadequate.
  Much trouble and care has been taken over this report. It leads to the view that drama schools should obtain formal recognition as a prerequisite of support and that such support should then be confined to schools that have obtained that recognition. I hope that the Minister has noticed the view that the most likely source of support for such drama schools is the local authority.
  I remember that when I was in the Department of Education the Department understandably, had reservations about direct grant institutions. I can see the anxieties that they can cause if there is to be proper watchfulness and care. That leads me to hope that the hon. Gentleman will approve of what is said about support by local authorities.
  I hope that he will agree that there should be a national council for drama training to oversee the whole of these activities, to advise, to guide and generally to co-ordinate. I like the concept in the report that at least six of the schools should be in the regions. I think we are agreed that too much is concentrated in the metropolis, and it would be good to get as much as possible out to the circumference. It looks as though there will be four "guaranteed" schools in London with hope for others.
  The hope is expressed that the Department will issue guidance and that grants henceforward, remaining discretionary, will be slanted towards those institutions approved by the council. This concept is well understood by the Department and has been used on previous occasions. I liked the argument that there was no real case for standardisation. I feel that we benefit in our arts by a variety. I recall the previous Foundation report which called for a conservatoire of music. We rejected that because we felt that on the whole there was a greater benefit from the variety of the Royal Academy of Music and the Royal College of Music, whch are such great attributes of our musical life. It would be unwise to have that centralisation here, although perhaps there should be greater emphasis upon training in television and closer links, therefore, with the BBC and independent television.
  814
  Perhaps one of the most potent recommendations is that Equity, which is one of the interests which has kept closely in touch throughout, should be asked to grant automatic membership to those who have come from one of the schools that have achieved recognition. That would be an extremely significant factor.
  It is understandable that the committee is very critical of the conditions in some of our drama schools. The Minister has much experience in this direction. I cast my mind back to my early experiences and visits to that very memorable organisation the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art, which has one of the most beautiful small experimental theatres in London and which, in physical conditions well below the standard that we expect and regard as proper in our public provision, trains actors and actresses and those associated with them in brilliant ways. I recall being taken round by the former director, Mr. Norman Ayrton, who contributed so greatly to the training of many actors and actresses, with excellent results, and being impressed by what was achieved in poor physical surroundings.
  I end with a quotation from an interesting comment on the report by Mr. Michael Billington, whom many of us read with profit, in The Guardian on 25th August. He described the English attitude to acting as
  "the notion that it is really a profession for semi-literate oafs and that any attempt to apply to it discipline, rigour or academic method is somehow a betrayal of its randon, roistering charm."
  I hope that it will never lose its" random, roistering charm", but it will be greatly to the benefit of the nation if we can slightly and gently tighten up the professionalism of its training.
  The report has done a great deal to draw the matter to our attention. I hope that the Minister, even though he speaks at short notice, will be able at least to give a cautious welcome to what the report says. My object is achieved if I have been able to draw attention to what it has to say to us.
  10.47 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Hugh Jenkins): I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) not only on his selection of the subject for

  815
  this debate, but on the manner in which he has spoken. His interest in the subject is of long standing. It is possibly almost as long-standing as my own. Although I am here at short notice, as the hon. Gentleman said, I am in no way reluctantly here. It is a subject close to my heart, and therefore I regard it as a privilege to be able to reply to a speech made in such moderate and convincing terms.
  I welcome the opportunity which the debate gives us to consider a matter which has caused concern for a number of years. In a minute or two I shall say something about the excellent report "Going on the Stage". I am glad that the subject has been raised so soon after its publication, so that it should not have been put on one side and become dusty on the shelves before we had an opportunity to consider it.
  Before I say something about the report and its recommendations, I shall try to respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitations. I think that it will be generally agreed that, as I think is the implication of the report, there are rather more than a dozen principal schools of the type commonly known as drama schools—that is, schools, concerned for the most part with vocational training. These are pretty well known. There are a number of others whose names are less well known.
  There are many performers who enter acting without first having undergone training at a drama school. But the development of the theatre means possibly a greater requirement for training in future than has been the case in the past. The picture of a largely vocational training provides a contrast with other disciplines for which provision is made in publicly maintained colleges.
  In drama, and to a lesser extent in music, a different pattern has developed, with independent colleges more prominent and giving greater emphasis to vocational training than to courses of an academic nature. The difference is associated with the fact that until recently drama has not been seen as an art form requiring the support and encouragement of the State in the same sense as the visual arts and music. Indeed, the stage first established itself as in need of support via opera and ballet. It is not surprising that what has
  816
  been seen as an area for the entrepreneur or impresario should be among the last to turn to the State for greater support of its training systems.
  As the hon. Member for Wokingham has properly said, public funds already make an important contribution to drama training in two ways. First, five drama schools are maintained or grant aided by local education authorities and another by the City of London Corporation. Secondly, students at both publicly supported and independent drama schools may receive discretionary awards from their local education authorities. My Department does not itself collect information about the extent of discretionary support for drama students, but I was interested to see in the Gulbenkian Report that 63 per cent. of students were thought to receive discretionary awards.
  If we take the maintenance of institutions and student awards together, it adds up to a fair measure of public support for professional training for the stage. I take the view that what the Gulbenkian report found was an underestimate and that the figure may well be substantially more than a figure of 63 per cent., which is tentatively given in the report.
  Despite this, those of us involved with the theatre have been well aware for some time that some of the independent schools are in financial difficulty, partly as a result of inflation and more recently perhaps because of pressures on local authority expenditure. For many years there has also been concern about the employment prospects for drama students in the acting profession. Indeed, it would be surprising if Equity did not see in the inquiry a possible means, if not of closing the shop door, at least of narrowing the opening so that entry into the profession is reduced to manageable proportions. I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the report.
  These matters were no doubt in the minds of those who—wisely, I believe—decided that a survey of drama training was required. Tonight I shall concentrate not so much on employment matters as on the drama schools which are of concern to my right hon. Friend and to my noble Friend and myself. Their difficulties have been the subject of exchanges with the Department of Education and

  817
  Science on a number of occasions in recent years. The report "Going on the Stage", sponsored by the Gulbenkian Foundation, provides an excellent basis for a further look at the problem.
  I am sure that all those who are concerned with the state of the theatre, in the profession, the drama schools and elsewhere would wish to join me in expressing our gratitude to the Foundation for sponsoring this inquiry. It is by no means the first occasion on which the Gulbenkian Foundation has made a significant contribution to the development of the arts in this country and I am sure that it will not be the last. We are indebted to it.
  Perhaps I should preface my comments on the report by emphasising that it comes from an independent inquiry. It was not commissioned by the Government and there is therefore no commitment on my right hon. Friend to adopt any recommendations made. It is being carefully studied by my Department in so far as it concerns us. Many of the suggestions made are directed at others, such as the drama schools themselves, the acting profession and local education authorities. The report comments on stage schools—that is, schools of varying kinds which provide training in acting skills for children.
  There are particular problems about the position of these schools in the drama training system, and these might well benefit from further investigation. But I do not propose to discuss them this evening since they are outside the main theme of the debate. There are three points which in particular seem to require consideration by my Department, and we shall give them that consideration, as the hon. Gentleman asked.
  First, there is the suggestion that money should be made available to a national council for drama training, which body would be charged with recognising certain of the drama schools as deserving of public support. Secondly, the report suggests that, while most of the schools so recognised would find support through their local education authorities, a few might require direct grant from the Government, and it is proposed that this should be channelled through the Arts Council. We are still studying these proposals, but it will not surprise the House if I say that their expenditure implications
  818
  —which are not so great or extravagant as they might have been—give pause at this time.
  There are also difficulties which arise from the concept of a grant by the Government to educational establishments through the medium of an independent training council and from the proposed involvement of the Arts Council, quite apart from the Government's attitude towards direct grant for establishments of further education. But the principal question we must ask ourselves is whether additional public money can be given to drama training when other priority areas of education are under severe pressure.
  It is suggested in the report that local education authorities be advised to make discretionary awards only to students at schools which have been recognised by the proposed national council for drama training. Adoption of this recommendation would involve a major change in our awards policy, since the essence of a discretionary award is that it is for the local education authority to determine. Mandatory awards are not available to students at the drama schools, although this position could be affected if a drama degree course were established at a school and validated by the Council for National Academic Awards.
  Having made those necessarily discouraging remarks on the financial implications of the report—which, I am afraid, are there despite what the hon. Gentleman said—I must make it clear that I am by no means undervaluing it. The Department welcomes a dialogue with those concerned about any developments flowing from the report and will offer help wherever possible. We should naturally want to keep in close touch with a national council for drama training if one were established.
  There seems to be much that such a body could do, even without public funds, to create a more coherent and perhaps smaller system of drama training which would still be able to meet the employment needs of the stage and yet embrace a limited number of financially self-supporting independent drama schools whose students would, of course, continue to be the recipients of publicly-financed awards, thus providing State aid at one remove.
  The proposal for a national council for drama training is an important one, and needs to be examined by my colleagues

  819
  responsible for training councils as well as by me. It would, however, be unrealistic to expect that the Government could staff and substantially grant aid a new body whose policies would be wholly independent of Government, and the way in which the task proposed for the council should be faced will need further consideration.
  Finally, there is the matter of priorities. Resources are limited, and I should need the advice of the Arts Council on the difficult problem of whether the provision of drama training, the support for drama training, or the additional aid towards drama training by the State should take precedence over the crying need of the arts themselves for additional support from the Government to help them cope with the problems which press so hard on clients of the Arts Council these days,
  820
  when the proper determination of the Government to bring inflation under control is restricting developments in the arts at a time when they are bursting with the frustrated desire to expand. To be held back and to have to put off planned expansion is painful. But what about the drama schools? This is the question raised both by the Gulbenkian report and by the hon. Member for Wokingham.
  All these are questions on which I shall need the advice of the Arts Council. But they are very proper questions, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us all the opportunity to give them their own priority in this debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Bread (Subsidy and Price)
  Bread (Subsidy and Price)
  Fireworks
  Fireworks
  Consumer Councils
  Consumer Councils
ENERGY
  Oil Companies (Government Participation)
  Oil Companies (Government Participation)
  Gas and Electricity Prices
  Gas and Electricity Prices
  Gas Meters
  Gas Meters
  Mining (Subsidence)
  Mining (Subsidence)
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
  PRESIDENT SADAT (MEETING)
  PRESIDENT SADAT (MEETING)
  SUMMIT CONFERENCE (RAMBOUILLET)
  SUMMIT CONFERENCE (RAMBOUILLET)
  EEC SUMMIT MEETING
  EEC SUMMIT MEETING
  KIRKBY
  KIRKBY
  NEDC, TUC AND CBI
  NEDC, TUC AND CBI
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  TERRORIST ATTACKS
  TERRORIST ATTACKS
  SOVIET UNION
  SOVIET UNION
  WALES TUC
  WALES TUC
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFERENCE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFERENCE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
  PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE (STAFF)
  PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE (STAFF)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Interests Register
  Members' Interests Register
  Postal Rates
  Postal Rates
  Office Accommodation
  Office Accommodation
ENVIRONMENT
  Kinmel Camp
  Kinmel Camp
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Leisure Plots
  Leisure Plots
  Oil Refinery (Cliffe)
  Oil Refinery (Cliffe)
  Rate Arrears
  Rate Arrears
  Direct Labour Departments
  Direct Labour Departments
  Selby Coalfield
  Selby Coalfield
  Local Government Employees
  Local Government Employees
  Squatters
  Squatters
  Concrete and Calcium Chloride
  Concrete and Calcium Chloride
  Trinity Park House, Edinburgh
  Trinity Park House, Edinburgh
  Government Property
  Government Property
  Airedale Trunk Road Inquiry
  Airedale Trunk Road Inquiry
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Grape Must
  Grape Must
  Sheep Carcases
  Sheep Carcases
  Fisheries Protection Vessels
  Fisheries Protection Vessels
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Terrorist Attacks on Soldiers
  Terrorist Attacks on Soldiers
  Immigrants Advisory Service
  Immigrants Advisory Service
  Trial Costs (Non-payment)
  Trial Costs (Non-payment)
  Attendance Centres
  Attendance Centres
  Football Hooliganism
  Football Hooliganism
  Nationality and Citizenship
  Nationality and Citizenship
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Tape Recordings (Evidence)
  Tape Recordings (Evidence)
  Television (Wales)
  Television (Wales)
  Courts (Case Distribution)
  Courts (Case Distribution)
  Regina v. Lattimore, Salih and Leighton
  Regina v. Lattimore, Salih and Leighton
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Children's Income
  Children's Income
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Public Services (Purchases)
  Public Services (Purchases)
  Tobacco (Advertising)
  Tobacco (Advertising)
  Disabled Drivers (Vehicle Excise)
  Disabled Drivers (Vehicle Excise)
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  International Agricultural Development Fund
  International Agricultural Development Fund
WALES
  Farm Labour
  Farm Labour
DEFENCE
  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  International Atomic Energy Agency (Director-General's Speech)
  International Atomic Energy Agency (Director-General's Speech)
  Armaments Purchases
  Armaments Purchases
  Widows
  Widows
  Chaplaincies
  Chaplaincies
  Royal Yacht
  Royal Yacht
  Nato
  Nato
  Army Barracks
  Army Barracks
  Armaments Sales
  Armaments Sales
  Harrier Carrier
  Harrier Carrier
  Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft
  Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Vulcan Bomber
  Vulcan Bomber
  Dockyards
  Dockyards
  Oman
  Oman
  Missiles
  Missiles
  Angola
  Angola
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Malaysia
  Malaysia
  Soldiers Discharged (Appeals)
  Soldiers Discharged (Appeals)
  Housing (Civil Use)
  Housing (Civil Use)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Nuclear Weapons (Proliferation)
  Nuclear Weapons (Proliferation)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  British Indian Ocean Territories
  British Indian Ocean Territories
  Mr. Robin Graham
  Mr. Robin Graham
  USSR (British Newspapers and Publications)
  USSR (British Newspapers and Publications)
  European Community (Parliamentary Elections)
  European Community (Parliamentary Elections)
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Schools' Catering
  Schools' Catering
INDUSTRY
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Alfred Herbert Ltd.
  Alfred Herbert Ltd.
  Merseyside and North-West
  Merseyside and North-West
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
TRADE
  Hotels (Notices of Charges)
  Hotels (Notices of Charges)
  London Airport Catering
  London Airport Catering
  Airports
  Airports
  Textiles and Footwear
  Textiles and Footwear
SCOTLAND
  Population
  Population
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Antrim
  Antrim
  Rathlin Island
  Rathlin Island
  Agricultural Production and Labour
  Agricultural Production and Labour
  Handicapped Persons and Delinquents (Costs)
  Handicapped Persons and Delinquents (Costs)
  N. Ireland Handicapped Persons
  N. Ireland Handicapped Persons
  STATUTORY
  STATUTORY
EMPLOYMENT
  Pay Settlements
  Pay Settlements
  Talk of the Town (London Hippodrome)
  Talk of the Town (London Hippodrome)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Divers
  Divers
  London
  London
  Public Services
  Public Services
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Dockers
  Dockers
  Disabled Persons (Transport)
  Disabled Persons (Transport)
  Pensionable Age
  Pensionable Age
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Premises (Closure)
  Premises (Closure)
  Irish Immigrant (Benefits)
  Irish Immigrant (Benefits)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Postal Rates
  Postal Rates
  Agency Nurses
  Agency Nurses
  Students
  Students
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Disabled Persons (Mobility)
  Disabled Persons (Mobility)
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalidity Pension (Housewives)
  Invalidity Pension (Housewives)
  Private Patients
  Private Patients
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Health Care Planning Teams
  Health Care Planning Teams
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Medical Certificates (Doctors' Fees)
  Medical Certificates (Doctors' Fees)
  Blind Persons
  Blind Persons
  Departmental Policy
  Departmental Policy
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY: CHARGES
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I have to declare an interest, in that I am directly affected by the provisions to which I refer.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the scheme of charges published by the Civil Aviation Authority on 9th September 1975 failed to make it clear that its introduction was dependent upon the agreement of Parliament to repeal part of the Civil Aviation Authority (Charges) Regulations 1972, which repeal had not been proposed at that time.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): My Lords, the Authority made it clear when it first consulted the industry about its proposals for these schemes that they were intended to replace the existing statutory charges. The schemes made clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had been consulted about them in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971, but reference to the possibility of Parliament choosing to annul the repealing instrument would hardly have been appropriate in the body of the schemes.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he not aware that at the time when the industry was consulted there was wide spread opposition to the proposals of the Authority? Furthermore, is it not the case that the consultations took place only with representatives of the major carriers, for all the small companies were
132
simply led to believe that they had no say at all in the matter?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry if the latter part of the noble Lord's supplementary question bears any resemblance to the facts. I am sure that that was not the intention of the Civil Aviation Authority, and I know that there has been a good deal of consultation. I think the time involved was ample. The documents went out on 22nd April while the schemes themselves were not published until 9th September, so there was ample opportunity.

BIRD MORTALITY: HEATHROW AIRPORT
2.38 p.m.
The Earl of ARRAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many birds in transit die every day at Heathrow Airport.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, there are no official statistics about deaths of birds at Heathrow Airport. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have estimated that over the last few years the average mortality rate of birds in transit which pass through the RSPCA hostel at the airport has been about 2·4 per cent.
The Earl of ARRAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that, according to the evidence given by an ornithologist before the Australian House of Representatives Conservation Committee, 500 imported birds are said to die each day on arrival at Heathrow? Is the noble Lord further aware that this is said to be due to inadequate health regulations at London Airport?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I was not aware of that statistic, although I have tried hard to read all the background information on this matter. I remember well the Question that I was asked in May of this year about the report called Heaven in a Rage, which I must say aroused my anger at the time, as no doubt it did that of the noble Earl. I think the situation is improving. I have

133
taken great care in going through the recommendations of that report and I think in almost all cases the recommendations have either been implemented or are about to be implemented. When the health restrictions are imposed, as they will be early next year, I hope the total number of birds coming into Heathrow will be considerably diminished, some say by about one-half.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the Minister say what 2.4 per cent. represent in numbers?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am dependent upon figures given by the Royal Society and that is the figure which they quoted. I have no doubt the figure given by the noble Earl is about right.

PARIS ENERGY CONFERENCE
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 it is still intended to hold the Energy Conference in Paris next month in view of the difficulties regarding British and unaligned nations' representation.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have not heard of any proposal that the Conference should be delayed. We would much regret any delay.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister, may I ask him whether, in view of the very short time available and the difficulties which still arise about British representation and the representation of the Committee of 77, it would be desirable now to try to find new representation which would give Britain an opportunity at this Conference? Is it not also desirable to inform the Committee of 77 that the issues raised by them concerning the developing and developed countries will be considered, even if there is this delay?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the answer to the first question is, certainly. The answer to the second
134
question is that we also hope that the interests, as they see them, of the un aligned countries would be given every possible consideration by the preparatory group.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government's efforts in seeking an appropriately special position at this Conference for Britain, as an energy-producing nation, commands much wider support among the public than might be suggested by the reactions of the media?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are well aware of that excel lent situation in public opinion, both in Parliament and in the country.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the interests of Britain would be best served if she joined the non-aliened countries; and would that not be strictly in accord with the economic and military facts of the world?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I do not think so, my Lords.

DIVORCE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords. I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to divorce and separation; to facilitate reconciliation of the parties in consistorial causes; to amend the law as to the power of the court to make orders relating to financial provision arising out of divorce and to settlements and other dealings by a party to the marriage, and as to the power of the court to award aliment to spouses in actions for aliment; to abolish the oath of calumny; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read1a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Bill read 1a,and to be printed.

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to licensed premises for which special hours certificates may be granted under the Licensing Act

135
1964. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Lord BRIGINSHAW: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Employment Protection Act 1975 in order to make better provision for determining which trade unions should be deemed to be independent and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Lord Briginshaw.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
2.45 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to scrutinise delegated legislation.—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I should like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether this Committee will have power to consider the Standing Orders relating to delegated legislation which, in my opinion, need some attention.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is one of the fastest balls I have received for a very long time. If the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will allow me to do so, I will look into the matter and correspond with him. If it is a matter on which the House should be informed, perhaps we can arrange for a Question to be put down for Written Answer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In moving this Motion, I must apologise to your Lordships for the fact that the name of the noble Viscount. Lord Eccles, has been omitted from the Offices Committee, and that the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, has been omitted from the Offices Committee and the Procedure Committee. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to include their names among those proposed for these two Committees. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
The Report was as follows:
ORDERED TO REPORT:
1. That the Committee have met and pro pose that, if the Commons agree that a joint Committee on Statutory Instruments be set up for this Session, the following Lords be named of the Joint Committee:—

D. Atholl,

V. Hanworth,

L. Auckland,

L. Darling of Hillsborough,

L. Peddie,

L. Reigate,

L. Wallace of Coslany.

2. That the Committee have also considered the membership of the following Select Committees of the House for this Session:—

Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses,

House of Lords Offices,

Procedure of the House,

European Communities,

Hybrid Instruments,

Privileges,

Personal Bills,

Standing Orders (Private Bills).

They propose that the following Lords be named of these Committees:—

LEAVE OF ABSENCE AND LORDS' EXPENSES
Chairman of Committees (E. Listowel)
E. St. Aldwyn,
L. Amulree,
B. Hylton-Foster,
B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Chairman of Committees (E. Listowel)
Lord Chancellor (L. Elwyn-Jones),
Lord Privy Seal (L. Shepherd),
M. Cholmodeley,
E. Buckinghamshire,
C. Loudoun,
E. St. Aldwyn,
V. Hanworth,
L. Byers,
L. Carrington,
L. Collinson,
L. Crawshaw,
L. Darling of Hillsborough,
L. Davies of Leek,
L. Denham,
L. Drumalbyn,
V. Eccles,
L. Erskine of Rerrick,
L. Fraser of Tullybelton,
L. Garner,
L. Glenkinglas,
L. Greenwood of Rossendale,
L. Gridley,
L. Henley,
L. Hughes,
B. Hylton-Foster,
L. Jacques,
Ly. Kinloss,
L. Kinnaird,
V. Hood,
V. Kemsley,
L. Aberdare,
L. Amulree,
L. Avebury,
L. Beswick,
L. Bethell,
L. Lee of Newton,
B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,
B. Macleod of Borve,
L. Macpherson of Drumochter,
L. Mais,
L. Mowbray and Stourton,
L. Newall,
L. Nugent of Guildford,
L. Robertson of Oakridge,
B. Robson of Kiddington,
L. Sainsbury,
Ly. Sempill,
L. Sherfield,
L. Soper,
L. Strabolgi,
L. Teviot,
L. Tweedsmuir,
B. Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie,
B. White,
L. Windlesham,
L. Winterbottom.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
Chairman of Committees (E. Listowel)
Lord Chancellor (L. Elwyn-Jones),
Lord Privy Seal (L. Shepherd),
E. Halsbury,
E. St. Aldwyn,
L. Aberdare,
L. Airedale,
L. Ardwick,
B. Bacon,
L. Byers,
L. Carrington,
L. Champion,
L. Denham,
L. Drumalbyn,
B. Elliott of Harwood,
L. Garner,
B. Hylton-Foster,
B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,
L. Maybray-King,
L. Morris of Borth-y-Gest,
L. Nugent of Guildford,
L. Pannell,
L. Shackleton,
L. Terrington,
B. Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.
L. Wade,
L. Wildlesham.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
E. Lauderdale,
E. Selkirk,
L. Chelwood,
L. Diplock,
B. Emmet of Amberley,
L. Fulton,
L. Hale,
L. Hill of Luton,
L. Inglewood,
L. Llyod of Hampstead,
L. Lloyd of Kilgerran,
L. Mais,
L. O'Hagan,
B. Phillips,
L. Pritchard,
L. Raglan,
L. Rhodes,
B. Seear,
B. Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie (Chairman),
B. White,
L. Wynne-Jones.

HYBRID INSTRUMENTS
Chairman of Committees (E. Listowel)
E. Cork and Orrery,
B. Bacon,
L. Beaumont of Whitley,
L. Cawley,
L. Clwyd,
L. Drumalbyn,
L. Fletcher,
L. Lee of Newton,
L. Reay,
L. Stamp,
L. Stow Hill,
L. Teviot,
L. Wallace of Coslany,
L. Wise.

PRIVILEGES
Chairman of Committees (E. Listowel)
Lord Privy Seal (L. Shepherd)
E. St. Aldwyn,
L. Aberdare,
L. Amulree,
L. Beswick,
L. Byers,
L. Carrington,
L. Champion,
L. Erskine of Rerrick,
L. Greenwood of Rossendale,
B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,
L. Molson,
L. Rea,
L. Shackleton,
L. Windlesham.

PERSONAL BILLS
Chairman of Committees (E. Listowel)
E. Mansfield,
L. Cross of Chelsea,
L. Henley,
L. Houghton of Sowerby,
L. Mancroft,
L. Wilberforce.

TANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BILLS)
Chairman of Committees (E. Listowel)
Lord Chancellor (L. Elwyn-Jones),
E. Lauderdale,
V. Brentford,
L. Airedale,
L. Alport,
B. Bacon,
L. Derwent,
L. Thurlow.
3. That the Committee have also considered the membership of the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees and they propose that the following Lords be named of the panel:—
E. Cathcart,
E. Cork and Orrery,
E. Shannon,
V. Goschen,
V. Hood,
L. Airedale,
L. Alport,
L. Amherst of Hackney,
L. Champion,
L. Derwent,
L. Douglas of Barloch,
L. Henley,
L. Maybray-King,
L. Nugent of Guildford,
L. St. Helens,
L. Segal,
L. Strang,
B. Wootton of Abinger.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
2.47 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by Baroness Phillips—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, my speech today will fall into two sections. By far the greater part of it will deal with the crime situation, and how the Government are dealing with it. I propose to begin by describing briefly some of the major Home Office proposals which the House will be asked to consider during the forthcoming Session.
I turn first to what will be by far the most substantial piece of Home Office legislation; that is, the Bill dealing with racial discrimination. As the House will recall, the Government published their proposals in a White Paper in September. They are designed to enable the difficult and continuing problem of racial discrimination to be tackled more effectively. They are based on the radical measures to promote equality for women embodied in the new Sex Discrimination Act. The Government propose that the Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1968 should be repealed and replaced by a new and more effective Statute.
Like the 1968 Act, the new legislation will apply to employment, training and related fields, education, housing, and the provision of goods, facilities and services. The definition of "unlawful discrimination" will be extended to cover discrimination on the grounds of nationality. It will be further widened to apply not only to deliberate acts of discrimination against identifiable victims, but also to "indirect discrimination" occuring when unjustified requirements are imposed which place at a disadvantage people of a particular racial group. In addition, the new legislation will allow a number of facilities and services to meet the special

141
needs of particular groups; for example, in relation to education, instruction, training and health and social services.
My Lords, clubs and other voluntary bodies are largely outside the scope of the present law. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, introduced a Bill to bring them within the 1968 Act at the beginning of this year. As he will recall, I then indicated that the Government would move on this matter. The Government have now done so, and the proposals which we shall make in this respect will be embodied in the new legislation. We propose that it shall be unlawful for clubs to discriminate on racial grounds, whether as regards applications for membership, or in respect of the facilities accorded to members. The proposals will not affect the right of a club to apply a test of personal acceptability for membership on other than racial grounds. There will be exceptions to avoid interference with genuinely private and domestic social gatherings, and for bona fide associations whose main object is to confer benefits on a particular ethnic or national group.
The proposals for the enforcement of the new legislation represent a major change from the existing law. The pre sent procedure under which every complaint of discrimination has to be taken to the Race Relations Board will be changed. It is proposed that in future aggrieved individuals will be able to seek redress directly, through the industrial tribunals in employment cases or the county courts in other cases, and indeed this is very similar to the legislation which, as the House will recall, we dealt with only two months ago when we debated the Sex Discrimination Bill. The new procedure is intended to give victims of discrimination speedier and more adequate redress than the present mandatory conciliation procedure.
The Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission will be replaced by a new statutory body. The main emphasis of its activities will be on the strategic attack on discrimination and the promotion of equal opportunity. In addition, as the White Paper indicated, the new Commission will have powers to assist individual victims of discrimination. The exercise of these powers will be at its discretion and not, as at present, a statutory obligation. A good many representations have been
142
made that the Commission's powers to help individuals will not be wide enough, and we are giving careful thought to the position of the individual under the new legislation in the light of the comments we have been receiving since the publication of the White Paper.
My Lords, Her Majesty's gracious Speech also promised that proposals will be prepared to amend the Official Secrets Acts and to liberalise the practice relating to official information. I am sure this is a matter in which the House will take great interest. It is now widely accepted that the Franks Committee were right in recommending the repeal of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and its replacement by a more limited criminal provision. But their recommendations have far-reaching and complex implications for every aspect of Government. The history of the present Official Secrets Act shows the importance of making sure that any new proposals are thoroughly considered. So the Government are pressing ahead with the preparation of detailed proposals to meet our broad Manifesto commitment to
"…replace the Official Secrets Act by a measure to put the burden on the public authorities to justify withholding information".
I have so far mentioned two major areas in which the Government intend to move forward in the forthcoming Session, race relations and official information. The third matter is that of complaints against the police. Last July my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced his proposals for a scheme designed to introduce an independent element into the present procedure for handling complaints by members of the public against the police. The Police Bill introduced yesterday in another place is intended to give effect to that scheme. Your Lordships may recall that the Government had announced an outline scheme as a basis for discussion in the summer of last year. The scheme which the new legislation will introduce takes account of the detailed and useful consultations with representatives of the police service and the police authorities which followed that first announcement by my right honourable friend.
As at present, under the Bill which is now before another place, the initial

143
investigation of complaints will remain with the police, but the legislation will establish, as part of the police disciplinary procedure, an independent body whose members will be appointed by my right honourable friend. The two main functions of the new body will be first to consider cases—they are, of course, the great majority of cases—where the Deputy Chief Constable, who is responsible for determining matters of this sort, after considering the report of the investigation into a complaint, decides not to bring disciplinary proceedings against the officer against whom the complaint has been laid. If the new independent body disagree with the Deputy Chief Constable's view, they may recommend, and in the last resort may direct, that disciplinary proceedings be brought. Secondly, where disciplinary charges have been brought and the officer concerned has not admitted them, the new body will consider whether to direct, in any particular case, that because of exceptional circumstances inherent in it the charges should be heard by a disciplinary tribunal rather than by the chief officer of the force concerned, which would be the normal arrangement. In such a case, a tribunal would sit, the chief officer of the force would be its chairman and there would be two members of the new independent body sitting with him to determine the facts of the matter.
I would think there will be ample opportunity to discuss the details of the scheme during the passage of the legislation through this House. We believe that we have been able to strike the right balance. There is a widely recognised case for introducing an independent element into the investigation of complaints against members of the police service. But it is equally important to ensure that no officer will be placed in jeopardy twice in respect of the same complaint, and that the responsibility of a chief officer for the discipline of his force will not be undermined. I believe that these changes will further strengthen public confidence in the police at a time when they are, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, coping with skill and courage with the problems that now face them.
It is to these problems that I now turn. The most immediate problem now con fronting this country in this area is clearly that of terrorism. London appears to be
144
the terrorists' principal target for the moment. But, as the explosions which took place in Birmingham only about a year ago demonstrated, any British city can find itself involved overnight in the IRA's campaign of indiscriminate murder. The problem of terrorism is now a major pre-occupation of every police force in Britain. And it is right to pay a tribute to the police for the remarkable run of successes which they have had in the past year. In the period from 22nd October last year to 7th November this year 40 people were convicted in England of offences connected with explosives. Noble Lords will recall that in August six people were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in connection with the bombing incidents in Birmingham to which I have referred, and that last month a further four people were convicted of murder and other offences and sentenced to life imprisonment in respect of the attacks at Guildford and Woolwich. Another 16 people are at present awaiting trial in England for offences connected with explosives.
The position of the police in carrying out their investigations has been greatly strengthened as a result of the powers conferred on them by the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. The House, as noble Lords will recall, passed this measure in a single day following the explosions which took place in Birmingham. As your Lordships know, a further Order has been placed before the House, which will I think be debated on Thursday, which seeks to extend the Act for a further period, on this occasion not of six months but four months. The reason that we are not asking for the renewal of these powers for six months is that my right honourable friend considers that in view of the speed with which this piece of legislation had to be hurried through Parliament on the last occasion, Parliament should have the opportunity to debate the very substantial powers which are conferred on the Government in this legislation. Accordingly, we have re-introduced this Bill, with a few minor modifications which have been found necessary in the year which has passed since its enactment.
This Bill has now been presented in another place and will be before us early

145
in the New Year. It is right that Parliament should give a substantial amount of time to these issues, affecting as they do issues of civil liberty on one side and the protection of life on the other. But we should recognise—I think it is important to do this—that this problem, this debate, is not unique to this country. For the problem of terrorist violence has been, or is being, experienced by every other major industrial country in the Western world. This, and the sometimes related menace of kidnapping—often for a political purpose, sometimes solely for money—are now a constant threat to the police forces not only of this country but of the United States, Germany, France, Italy, and of all our other partners in the European Community. This is why it is desirable to ensure that the closest collaboration exists between the law enforcement agencies of the developed world. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary greatly valued the opportunity he had last March of discussions in London with the French Minister of the Interior. In September I had the advantage of having talks in Bonn with the Minister of the Interior of the Federal Republic, and later with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington and the United States Attorney-General.
Discussions of this character can be extremely valuable in formulating our own response to the dangerous new problems that confront us. It does not mean that we necessarily must slavishly adopt techniques used by other police forces—sometimes this would be wholly inappropriate. Nevertheless, as the Spaghetti House siege in Knightsbridge demonstrated, the police were on that occasion able to consider their response on the basis of the experience of other forces in dealing with similar situations; and later they were able to pass on their experiences to the Irish police in handling the kidnapping of Dr. Herrema. I am sure that the whole House would like to co-gratulate the Irish Government, and the Garda, on the successful outcome of that extremely difficult operation. But it is also right, perhaps a little belatedly, to congratulate the Metropolitan Police on the Spaghetti House operation. As the House will recall, at that time we were in Recess, but 1 think it is right to acknowledge the cool, professional skill
146
demonstrated on that occasion by the Metropolitan Police. We are, as a country, perhaps a little too addicted at the present moment to neurotic self-criticism. When something does go outstandingly well, as it did on that occasion, it is right not to indulge in an orgy of self-congratulation but simply to pay tribute to the men and women who were responsible. And this, I am sure, the whole House would like to do concerning all the officers of the Metropolitan Police who were engaged in this operation.
I should now like to turn to the current crime situation. This, although it does not often attract the same public attention as terrorist outrages, is likely to affect in their everyday lives far more of our fellow citizens. I must say at once that the crime statistics continue to be most disturbing. In 1974 crime rose sharply. In the first three months of this year it was up 6 per cent. on the first quarter of 1974, and in the second quarter of this year there was a rise of 8 per cent. compared with the same period last year. There were, it is true, some hopeful features. Crimes of violence against the person, which rightly cause the greatest public concern, still amount to only between 3 and 4 per cent. of the total and they do not now constitute the fastest growing type of crime. Sexual offences showed an overall drop in the first six months of this year as compared with the same Period in 1974. However, the general situation is serious and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise.
To counter this increase in the level of crime the Government have been concerned to increase the size of the police force, and we have had some success. I am glad to be able to tell the House that at the end of October the strength of the Police Service in England and Wales was very nearly 106,000 men andwomen—105,878 to be precise. This is a net gain of 3,892 for the first ten months of this year. Part of this increase was due to the reduction of the age limit from 19 to 18½ which took place in June, and indeed to transfers from the British Air ports Authority Constabulary which occurred following the transfer of responsibility for the policing of Gatwick and Stansted airports. But even discounting this special gain there has been a substantial increase in the size of the police. In the Metropolitan Police area where,

147
despite an improvement, the problem still remains unsatisfactory, and where the shortage of manpower has, as everybody is well aware, been particularly acute, there has nevertheless been a net gain of 270 officers this year compared with a loss of 198 in the same period last year.
One consequence of an increase in police numbers, aided, as the police have been, by better equipment, has been an increase in the number of offenders brought before the courts. This, in turn, has led to an increase in the number of people sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The prison population has in fact grown from about 35,000 to 1973 to just over 40,000 at the end of October this year. The figure appears to be hovering at the moment between 40,000 and 41,000, but I must make absolutely clear that any further increase can only result in even greater overcrowding and a fall in the standards of supervision and training.
Imprisonment has, of course, one obvious advantage. It keeps out of circulation, at least for a time—in some cases a substantial time—those who, because they are men of violence, or have shown a complete disregard for the interests and rights of others, are a danger to their fellow citizens. It takes them out of circulation for a significant period of time. There will always be people for whom there is no conceivable alternative but a substantial term of imprisonment. But having said that, it is right to look at the other side of the balance sheet, to look at the clear and striking disadvantages of terms of imprisonment sometimes applied in other cases. First, imprisonment is very costly. But there is another aspect of the cost which is in some respects even more important. The cost of the prison system cannot be measured only in terms of what it costs to house, feed and supervise the prisoners; there are wider social costs as well. The prisoner's wife and children may need support from the State. It may be difficult for the prisoner to obtain employment on his release, and the cost of supporting him until he can find a job will fall on the State. Imprisoning men may mean depriving children of the support and encouragement of a father, and creating yet another one-parent
148
family with all the problems that have constantly been discussed in this House.
We are concerned, therefore, that the prison population should be reduced. This is not simply a question of imposing shorter sentences. It calls for a continuous examination and revision of the criminal law to try to ensure that it reflects the attitudes and opinions of the present day and also the development of alternatives to imprisonment, particularly those which enable the offender to be punished for his offence while remaining in the community and continuing to earn aliving. To this end the Government have been pressing ahead with the provision of community service schemes for offenders. I think that six of these experimental schemes were begun during the period of Office of the former Government. After careful thought we came to the conclusion that these experiments had been an outstanding success, and we decided to offer community service orders to areas outside the original six. Therefore, at the end of August last year, all probation and after-care committees in England and Wales were invited to submit proposals for the introduction of community service arrangements from April of this year; to begin by introducing them on the basis of one part of an area at a time to ensure that they were not overwhelmed by a sudden onrush of clients.
The news I think is fairly striking. From 1st December this year community service arrangements will be in existence in all or part of no less than 49 out of the 56 probation and after-care areas in England and Wales. There has been a welcome acceptance both by the courts and the general public of this constructive and forward-looking scheme. I emphasise that in the overwhelming majority of cases—obviously, it is always difficult to be precise—the people against whom a community service order is made are those who would otherwise have gone to prison. Therefore, in this respect, we are acting directly against the size of the prison population, which it is crucially important for us to do, faced as we are by this substantial and increasing general level of crime and, therefore, by the inevitable risk of a rise in the prison population.
In addition, the Government hope to reduce the numbers of those in custody

149
by increasing the use of bail. The Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts, whose Report received widespread approval when it was published last year, made wide-ranging proposals for achieving this objective. We hope to introduce a Bill early this Session to implement those recommendations of the Working Party which require legislation. These include, first, a presumption in favour of the grant of bail to unconvicted defendants; secondly, a requirement on courts to give reasons when refusing bail; thirdly, the replacing of the existing system of taking a defendant's personal recognisance by a new offence of absconding while on bail; and, lastly, a requirement that a person who is remanded in custody should have the opportunity of obtaining legal aid on or before his second appearance, unless his means are such that he does not require assistance.
The effect of the presumption in favour of bail will be that, where a person is before a court on a criminal charge and a remand is necessary, the court will be required to consider whether to remand him on bail, whether or not he applies for bail. The court will be required to remand on bail unless it considers it probable that the defendant will abscond, commit offences while on bail or interfere with the course of justice, or unless the court is satisfied that he should, for his own protection, remain in custody. If the court decides to remand in custody it will be required to give reasons for doing so, and I am sure that that is a most important requirement. The proposal for the introduction of an offence of absconding while on bail derives partly from the presumption in favour of granting bail, but is also, in the Government's view, a positive step forward. This sanction should be a more effective deterrent to the potential absconder than the often ineffective forfeiture of his personal recognisance, and should thereby encourage courts both to grant bail more freely and to place less importance on the provision of sureties.
Other recommendations of the Working Party are being implemented by administrative measures. A circular was issued to the courts, the police and the probation and after-care service last month proposing ways within the existing statutory framework in which the number of remands in custody might be reduced
150
or their length shortened. To some extent the circular was based on our experience of an experimental project at Camber well Green magistrates' court in London which was introduced in March of this year. The Inner London Probation Service has carried out this work in collaboration with the Vera Institute of Criminal Justice in New York, which itself has had a great deal of experience in various bail projects in New York City. The central purpose of the project is to be able to ensure that when a court is faced with the decision whether to remand in custody or on bail, it has as much information as possible about the defendant's background—his employment situation and his other links with the community—so that it can make a more informed judgment about the defendant's suitability for bail. I had the opportunity of visiting this project at Camber well recently and I was impressed not only by the quality of the staff responsible for operating the scheme, but also by the clear evidence that because of its existence, a number of men and women who would otherwise have been remanded to our overcrowded prisons had been granted bail.
Obviously the speed with which this type of scheme can be extended to the rest of the country depends on how successful the agencies concerned are in redeploying resources at local level. But it is already clear that the scheme has great potential value, not least because of the added advantage it has of involving volunteers in the very important work of verifying the information given by criminal defendants to the members of the probation service who are responsible for obtaining it in the court. Despite the difficulties caused by the need to limit public expenditure severely, I believe that we shall be able to make considerable progress in this field during the course of the coming year. The forthcoming Bill on bail, the extension of bail application verification schemes and our expanding programme of bail hostels should make a significant contribution not only towards limiting the size of the prison population, but also in ensuring that men and women are not remanded in custody unnecessarily in our penal institutions.
My Lords, I have outlined today the response which we are making to two of the most difficult problems now facing our country: first, the continuing

151
rise in the general level of crime, with all the trouble and anxiety which this causes so many of our law-abiding fellow-citizens; and, secondly, the threat to the lives of many innocent people by the murderous campaign of terrorist violence by the IRA and, indeed, by the potential threat posed by other extremist groups throughout the world. The Government are determined to deal with both by firmness, but also in a rational manner and with common sense. If further legislative weapons are required, we will not hesitate to ask for them. But the most urgent need at the moment is to use all the powerful resources at our command to act against these twin threats, which together are such a menace to a free society. That we are determined to do.
3.17 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, spoke with such measured reasonableness that any noble Lord who did not know the political procedures of your Lordships' House might wonder whether any opposition could be put against any of the measures which he outlined. If I do not follow the noble Lord down all the paths he trod this afternoon, it is perhaps because he dealt with matters as he has seen them from the Home Office. As I understand it, this debate is about home affairs and perhaps goes a little wider than the Home Office. However, some of the points he made I hope to cover in my speech, but I shall be going slightly wider in my remarks.
On Thursday last your Lordships had an interesting and indeed profitable debate on the economic situation of this country and how it may be, or is likely to be, helped or hampered by the Government's plans for the future as outlined in the gracious Speech. I suppose there was a general consensus as to the overwhelming need to reduce the level of inflation not only to manageable limits but even below that, to a single figure in percentage terms, if we as a country are to hold our own economically and, perhaps more important, are to help those who are not so prosperous as ourselves.
The consensus, I fear, was of short duration because as soon as the manner in which the Government hope to achieve their aims came to be examined, so far
152
as the economic sphere is concerned, the rifts soon became apparent. My noble friend Lord Thorne croft illustrated the likely divisive impact of the new legislation as he saw it and I want to discuss matters today, as I have said, from the rather different point of view of home affairs. As for terrorism and Northern Ireland, my noble friend Lord Belstead, who will sum up on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, will no doubt vouchsafe an opinion on the situation covering these subjects and the Government's proposals in relation thereto.
May I say this by way of introduction. If I do not stay to the end of this debate, it will be through no discourtesy to your Lordships but because of a previous engagement which I find it difficult to refuse at this stage. The gracious Speech revealed several proposals with which I imagine most if not all noble Lords would agree, at least in principle. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, about the amendment to Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and about the Complaints against the Police Bill. If I have any complaints against that Bill, it is that it does not extend to Scotland, and I should like to know whether the Government have any thoughts in that direction. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who deals with Ireland, may care to answer that question later on. It is, I feel, a matter of regret to all Scots that we in Scotland arc two Criminal Justice Acts behind England. We have no Community Service Orders and we do not even have suspended sentences yet, and I hope that this is something which the Government will reflect upon. Perhaps they will consider how judges in Scotland may be given the same discretion as is now cur rent in England. I made my maiden speech on the Criminal Justice Act in 1972; we are nearly in 1976 and nothing has been done about Scotland.
The Insolvency Bill is an example of a matter which—coming, as I believe it will, before your Lordships on Thursday week—contains certain provisions relating to bankruptcy and winding up which will not only strengthen the law but will at the same time provide flexibility in keeping up with modern conditions. Speaking personally, I am delighted that the Government recognise that the problem of bail procedures needs constant attention.

153
However, as in so many other fields, it is by no means easy to reconcile the rights and interests of the accused or the convicted person with the public interest. I certainly found during my professional career that much has to be left to the discretion of the court, which has to hold the balance, as it were, between the rights and interests of the accused or convicted person and the public interest. However legislation may he framed and however the court may be directed to attend to the matter in hand and whatever record it is directed to make on a piece of paper, in the end it is left to the discretion of the tribunal as to whether or not a man should be set at liberty, either pending his trial or after trial and awaiting sentence.
There are several other matters with which, at least in principle, I do not suppose noble Lords on this side of the House will quarrel. However, whereas the "barrel of apples"—if I may so describe the package—contains many that are good and sweet, there are always a few rotten ones which spoil the whole collection. What is the purpose of a Bill to ensure comprehensive employment safeguards for dock workers, unless it is a blatant attempt to advantage one powerful and vociferous body of Government supporters at the expense of other workers who have less influence with the Labour Movement? As I under stand the position, it could mean that men working in warehouses miles from a port or the coast, who have never even seen the sea, will be liable to be described as dockers and to be under the National Dock Labour Board. It is difficult to envisage how any such measure can improve efficiency or reduce costs. The likelihood is that the opposite will be the case and that this will lead to over-manning and increased cost and inefficiency.
One can quite understand that concern should be felt, with the introduction of new techniques and the downturn of ship ping, that there are now numbers of dockers who are redundant. How much better it would be to provide opportunities for those men to learn new skills in productive employment rather than forcing employers away from the ports—for instance, in container bases—to employ men in jobs to which, by outlook and disposition, they may not be suited.
154
It is by this kind of proposal that the Government stand to be judged, giving the impression—as they do—that they are the hostages of powerful groups among their supporters. As to the coming of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, the less said the better, except that I believe we are all agreed that the Government are doing what they are constitutionally and legally entitled to do, just as we did what we were legally and constitutionally entitled to do in the last Session. However, I think that it is proper and fair to criticise the Government for the words placed in Her Majesty's mouth in that part of the gracious Speech which deals with the matter. I shall not put it higher than this. It is displaying a certain arrogance on the part of the Government towards a large and varied body of opinion which thought, and still thinks, that the Government were, and are, acting unwisely. Worse, it made the constitutional Monarch speak in a contentious and pejorative manner which was at once offensive and totally unnecessary.
I want to pass on to matters which are both important and deeply worrying for all those who care for the continued existence of the United Kingdom. I refer, of course, to the proposals for the establishment of Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. I am not competent to speak on Welsh matters, but, so far as Scotland is concerned, I am sure that the Government are right not to rush into legislation without time for adequate consultation and debate. I feel it is unfortunate that this debate on the subject of devolution has to take place at all. It is only because successive Governments have allowed this situation to develop, and feelings to build up, that we now find ourselves in this present predicament. With the White Paper almost upon us, it is probably not profitable to say very much about devolution this afternoon. But I feel that it is right to make our own position perfectly clear, not least because Peers on these Benches are described as "Unionists".
If the Government bring forward proposals which ensure the integrity and strength of the United Kingdom, and at the same time improve the government of Scotland and the participation of its citizens in their own affairs, I am quite

155
sure that such proposals will receive sympathetic consideration both from noble Lords on these Benches and from Conservative Members in another place. However, the task will be by no means easy. With direct elections to the European Parliament on the horizon, I foresee the day when Scots will have to face elections to no less than six bodies. There will be the European Parliament, the United Kingdom Parliament, the Scottish Assembly, and regional, district and community councils. Clearly, there will have to be changes to avoid duplication and unnecessary expense.
There is also the question of the role of your Lordships' House, which will have to be considered if there is to be some form of Westminster control or veto on the deliberations or acts of the Scottish Assembly. I very much hope that the Government will not be tempted to impose solutions which may be politically expedient from the Government's point of view, but which, far from helping the present situation, may exacerbate it. If they do, they should not expect—nor will they get—any bipartisan approach to the problem.
Passing to other matters of Scottish flavour, I welcome the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. I have not had time to do more than read the Bill through, and there are one or two matters which will no doubt receive attention as it proceeds through both Houses, but it is a reform which is due and which will be welcomed in Scotland. My noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley will no doubt welcome the fact that the Bill seeks to correct certain anomalies in the law relating to fish farming.
As a practitioner, I was intrigued to hear that the Government are minded to reform the law of conspiracy. In the practical sense, the prosecution, or, indeed, the defence of a count of conspiracy in an indictment poses a number of formidable problems, both as to the admissibility of evidence and, more especially, as to what may be fair tactically, particularly where evidence, while admissible to prove the conspiracy, is prejudicial to the defence of one of the accused charged with a substantive offence.
156
When I came to draw indictments when I was at the Bar, I was strongly tempted, I must confess, not to include a count of indictment if I could possibly help it. The fact remains, however, that the offence of conspiracy is useful and, if abolished, 1 think it probable that it will have to be replaced by something else. We understand why some of the Government's more vociferous supporters are demanding a review of this law, but we must see to it that any reform does not enable persons to injure their fellow citizens either bodily or through their rights or property, or to inflict injury on the community and then have the ability to rely on being charged with some minor summary offence; thus, in effect, being in a position to flout the law.
My Lords, I have no doubt that in the coming Session there will be plenty for your Lordships to debate. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, an outline of how the Government see the new Bill affecting racial discrimination. I very much hope that "discrimination" will not become "unconscious" as it has in certain other fields of our law, because that would make a nonsense of the law of intent. I have no doubt that there will be much in the Government's programme with which we shall disagree. Nor do I have any doubt that where the Government's proposals deserve support we on these Benches shall give it. Where the proposals need improvements we shall seek to make them, and I have no doubt that we shall do so in a constructive fashion. Where condemnation is merited—and I fear that on certain occasions it will be —equally I have no doubt that it will be forthcoming.
3.32 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, it is impossible to open on every subject that was raised in the gracious Speech; nor is it possible to follow on every subject raised by each noble Lord who speaks. Accordingly, I shall attempt to confine myself to Scottish affairs that are mentioned in the gracious Speech, and I know that my noble friend Lord Avebury will be dealing with matters relating to racial discrimination. May I follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on one small point which follows upon the subjects which he raised? He drew the attention of your Lordships to the tremendous

157
dangers of terrorism in our midst, in our cities. I wonder whether the Government have any proposals which they intend to bring forward for the tighter control of detonators. Without a detonator one does not have a bomb, but my understanding is that detonators are not nearly as care fully controlled as, for instance, firearms, and that they are available in far too great a measure to the would-be terrorist in our midst. Therefore, I should like to ask that one question on that subject.
Before I go on to Scottish affairs, may I also mention how pleased I am to see that I am to be followed in this debate by the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, who will be making his maiden speech in your Lordships' House. I know that your Lordships' counsels will be greatly enhanced by his contributions both today and in the future, and I should like to welcome him, even though I shall not be able to congratulate him, not having yet heard what he has to say.
My Lords, a year ago when I spoke in the debate on the Address in reply to the gracious Speech, I likened the contents of the Speech to a menu in a strange restaurant. I think I spoke truer than I realised for, despite the blandishments of the waiters, has not the "dish" which I chose to discuss proved to be "off"? I refer of course to the promised White Paper on devolution for Scotland and Wales which the gracious Speech assured us in the last Session Her Majesty's Government would urgently prepare. However, I am glad to see that they now seem to have managed to get this "dish" up from the kitchen, and I shall look forward to sniffing its aroma, and even to tasting it, when it does arrive; and I shall pick on this again, nothing daunted, as my main course for debate this afternoon.
But for starters, the gracious Speech has three small kickshaws offered in the name of Scottish fare. First, reforms in the law on crofting are promised. Nobody would deny that reforms of the law on crofting are long overdue, and one wonders whether the Government will have the courage to bring crofting into the twentieth century and provide both crofts and crofters with a means of escaping from the bondage of an archaic way of life in an archaic system of land tenure. Will the Government ensure that crofting, crofts and crofters become an efficient part of Scotland's agriculture, and not
158
merely the most heavily subsidised part? Do Her Majesty's Government realise that many statutory small tenancies, land holdings and small farms, which have never before been crofts, registered as crofts when the Crofters' Commission was set up, not for the way of life offered, but for the size of the grants offered? Indeed, the Department of Agriculture for Scotland itself is the landlord of what is reputed to be the biggest croft of all—a farm of several hundred acres—and I wonder how it justifies that farm's qualifying for grants of a size which it would deny to other similar hill farms in the crofting counties which surround it?
Will the Government be following the example of the European Economic Community, which offers grants designed to bring farms up to an economic level which should support a family in dignity, if not in affluence? In reforming crofting, will careful thought be given to proper land use planning; in particular, to the virtues of multiple land use, which must be the key to proper land use planning in Scotland? In reforming the law on crofting, do the Government realise that they should stand today where the "improving" landlords stood at the end of the eighteenth century, when they did away with the run-rig system of agriculture and its multiple tenancies, to replace it with the system of farming which we know today? Do they realise that they have the same kind of responsibilities on their plate? I hope so, because I live in, and I love, the crofting counties. But I fear—I fear greatly—because the reform of crofting is tucked away in a little aside in the same sentence as that dealing with liquor licensing, that all we shall get in fact is a nasty little doctrinaire exercise in land-lord bashing, so that another pledge can be ticked off in a Manifesto which seems to have been as full as Noah's Ark!
The reform of the Scottish liquor licensing laws must have been as widely and as frequently discussed, examined and reported on as any other proposed Scottish reform, which is, I suppose, why it was uttered in the same breath as the reform of crofting in the gracious Speech. Nevertheless, not even the most hardened publican, nor the most drink-sodden sinner, could pretend that it occupied the same place of importance in the list of pressing Scottish reforms as reforms of the law on crofting. I doubt whether

159
it is as important to the health and happiness of the Scottish people as a reform of the Scottish divorce law, which was conspicuous by its absence from the gracious Speech, although I was glad to see that it is proposed to be discussed as a result of the Bill moved in your Lordships' House today by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. But I suppose it is reasonably popular, reasonably desirable and reason ably easy to draft; perhaps, also, it was a little animal in the aforementioned Noah's Ark.
The most desirable result we can hope to get from this reform is in the field of tourism. Such a reform will help to entertain visitors from other countries (and I include England in this broad category) and make them feel more at home. It will case the lot of licensees a little, but it will do nothing, in my view, to increase or decrease the percentage of alcoholics in the population of Scotland. One wonders why a measure like this was not left to a Scotish Assembly to work out. Could it be because it is known that a Scotitsh Assembly is but a will o' the wisp on the horizon?
The third little bonne-bouche for Scot land is a White Paper or Green Paper, or something—I am sure it is not a Bill, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, thought it was—proposing improved access to freshwater fishing. If this sentence had been worded, "to bring about improvements to Scotland's freshwater fisheries", I might just have managed a little squeak of joy; but what depresses me is this dreary fixation of the present Government with the idea that if you issue more permits all will be well with Scotland's fishing. There is a lot of good fishing very readily available to the public, and at very reasonable prices. There could be very much more if some real encouragement were given to fishery owners and fishery managers to carry out improvements with some hope of reaping a just reward for their effort. At the moment, salmon fisheries are heavily taxed and heavily rated, while trout fisheries are given no legal protection to make it worth while improving them at all. The emphasis must be on encouraging owners and managers of our fresh water fisheries to improve their fishings and bring them up to the highest standards, and this in itself will make more
160
fishing to which access may be had. It is no good just putting more rods on the water if you do not first create more territories for the fish to occupy. I know, because I manage a river which is 50 per cent. man-made, and I have designed, and had a hand in making, my share of it.
Now, my Lords, for the main dish on the menu, which is Scottish devolution—the proposal to set up a Scottish Assembly. Once again we are being kept in suspense. We are being kept in suspense about Her Majesty's Government's intentions; and, if I may change my metaphor, I would say that the Government seem to be trying to compose a new pipe tune called, "The Assembly is coming and a' and a'." We in Scotland are driven to wondering why the Government are dragging their feet. Have the Government finally decided on their policy? Shall we really know what the Government's policy is when the White Paper comes; and are they then going to give us a date for the establishment of the Assembly, and a timetable that we can see going ahead to devolution in Scot land? Or are they hoping that, by delays, they may be able to discredit the very idea of Scottish and Welsh devolution and at the same time encourage the so-called English backlash? One can only speculate—one is forced to speculate—and this speculation is doing no good. It is obvious that Socialists, who are centralisers by their very nature, must find it difficult to put their hearts into a task which will bring about decentralisation of both government and administration. Let me therefore, my Lords, as a Liberal—the Party which proposed Home Rule before the Scottish Nationalists existed—and as a Scot who believes sincerely in decentralisation of government and in Scottish home rule, re-state the reasons for wanting to devolve the government of Scotland to a Scottish Elected Assembly.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I hope the noble Viscount will forgive me for pointing out to him that socialism has always stood for democracy and for the people, and not for something centralised.
Viscount THURSO: I am delighted to hear that, my Lords. First of all, we are now in the Common Market, which is meaning, and will mean, more and more centralisation of both government and

161
administration within Europe. It is important to see that enough control of purely domestic matters, and democratic control at that, is left behind in the regions of Europe and in the hands of the people. Scotland is not merely a separate region within the United Kingdom: she is a separate nation, with a separate history, a separate culture, a separate legal system and a separate religious background. Even were it not for the need to devolve in a European context, there is a pressing need for democratic devolution in a United Kingdom context.
Since the mistake was made of abolishing the Scottish Parliament after Scot land joined in Union with England and Wales, the periodic complaints which have continually arisen about London centralisation have been met by the transfer of more and more Departments from London to St. Andrew's House. None of this has been democratic. Quite the reverse: the poor Scots are merely enabled to see better how their bureaucratic burden grows while their democratic control of the administration grows effectively less and less. There is a clear demand in Scotland for decentralisation. A nearer and a more democratic control over a growing bureacracy and a political focus in Scotland is demanded for the ambitions and aspirations of the Scots. But there is no majority demand for separatism.
Therefore, my Lords, what we all should seek is a transfer to a Scottish Parliament of all the powers at present wielded by the Secretary of State for Scot land. A Scottish Government should be answerable to the Scottish people for housing, education, health and social services, agriculture, forestry and fishing, transport and law and order. If this were done, and done effectively, then it would be better to add a substantial control over trade and industry in co-operation with United Kingdom Ministries, and political control over the nationalised industries in Scotland. To get this we must accept a reduction in the powers of the Secretary of State in the Westminster Parliament, and a reduction from 71 to our proportionate 56 Scottish M.P.s at Westminster, as recommended by the Kilbrandon Commission on the Constitution. We must also implement the other import ant recommendation of Kilbrandon and
162
elect the Assembly by proportional representation. If we are out to get justice and democratic control over bureaucracy, we must use the best means available to give the power to the people and not merely to the political managers.
I see, and we Liberals see, a Scottish Assembly in a federal context within the United Kingdom. We do not see it as disruptive. We see a Welsh Assembly in the same light. We see these Assemblies as the means of more strongly uniting the Kingdom of which we are proud to form a part, by giving renewed identity to the parts which voluntarily combine to make the whole. We see the Assemblies, not as sops flung to a howling pack of Nationalists, but as a birthright given with love to the adult sons and daughters of this Kingdom. My Lords, give Scot land and Wales a chance to show their greatness—aye, and the regions of England, too!—and you will go a long way towards restoring our self-respect as a nation and the unity of purpose within the United Kingdom.
3.49 p.m.
The Marquess of ABERDEEN and TEMAIR: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time I must ask for more than the usual indulgence on such an occasion for my inadequacy of expression and insufficient knowledge of your Lordships' customs. The reason I ask more than the customary indulgence is because I fancy I see one or two noble Lords and noble Baronesses about the Chamber who have submitted themselves to my attentions in BBC radio studios down the years, and one or two of them may be thinking: "All right; he tried to cut me down to size then, now I will see him make an ass of himself!" But I know your Lordships' customary, traditional friendliness and courtesy, as evidenced by the kind remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and I do not think I need have any worry on that score. Much more important is whether I shall be able to steer successfully between the anodyne and the controversial, to borrow the elegant phrase used last week by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, will forgive me if I do not follow him in any detail in his remarks, although I too wish to speak on the theme of devolution

163
in Scotland as mentioned in the gracious Speech. It is on that subject that I wish to offer a few observations. Since some measure of devolution on an organised basis is favoured by all Parties represented in Parliament, what I have to say about it cannot possibly be controversial, can it? In any case, what I personally think about it is today beside the point; but the lesson I learned from history is very much to the point.
Scotland may be an ancient nation in terms of the antiquity of its land boundaries, but I reckon that a sense of Scottish nationhood by all the people of Scotland is comparatively recent. This is not so much because of dominant and alien influences from different quarters, as of the disparate nature of the land and its people's pursuits, and where they came from. It was not the resistance to the hammer blows of Edward I, first by that superb man William Wallace and later by Robert Bruce, which brought about the total consciousness of nationhood. If it existed then it was partial only and it was soon torn to shreds by internal strife. It was not the extension of the King's justice and administration to the remoter parts of Scotland by James VI and I, important though that was: it was certainly not the union of the Crowns at 1603, for look what happened during the next 100 years and more!
I think that the dawning of the sense of Scottish nationhood (and here the noble Viscount may part company with me) was contemporary with the union of the Parliaments in 1707. Even then, it took a long time to come to full reality. As late as 1822 George IV, having for given the Scots, and wearing a kilt, held his levee at Holyrood. And why not?—it was good politicking and he liked dressing up. The people of Edinburgh were amazed at this indecent display and some of the nobility, mostly of Anglo-Norman origin, sent jokey letters back home about the likely consequences of so many wild Highiandmen gathered about the city for so long. But people from every part of Scotland and of every sort by then undoubtedly felt strongly a sense of national identity, even if many of them had to emigrate. Already Lord Selkirk of Red River, himself not a Highlander, had expended his life's energies trying to settle Highlanders in Canada, a shining
164
light in the mostly dark story of the emigrations and clearances of those times.
If I am right, and if the union of the Parliaments influenced the unity of a people who hitherto had shown that they were not totally united, the conclusion I come to is that there may be in the course of time a Scottish Assembly which could be the cause of a tendency, already observable, to want to split up into yet smaller units. We Scots are a rather divisive people, my Lords, not so much on class or Party lines as because of our history and geography. I arrive at this conclusion by an exercise in pragmatism, and I may be wrong. I may have got my history wrong, and history may be bunk, but I ask your Lordships to ponder this point. To me the hazards of devolution are much more the chance of splits within Scotland than the possible breaking up of the United Kingdom. Every body concerned in the move towards a Scotttish Assembly, from those who throw a few crumbs of assent to the idea to those who go for full sovereignty, should weigh this possible consequence. The history of quarrels between the different branches of the Christian faith and of schism within the Church of Scot land, though they are now mostly passed away, also deeply affected lay men and women and are further evidence of a tendency to split apart.
My Lords, I have been thinking too of the possible effects of Scottish and Welsh Assemblies upon England and upon Westminster. Already these are matters of public comment. So I have talked with a few people who have much better in sight than I and certainly much greater knowledge of the history, theory and sometimes the practice of government in the United Kingdom. One person tells me that there is no real worry, no real demand for reform at Westminster nor for the creation of regional Assemblies in England. Another tells me that just such demands are bound to grow but not throughout England; and how can you set up an Assembly for some regions and not for others? Yet another argues that rather than risk playing havoc with Westminster and the status quo in England it would be better to maintain also the status quo in Scotland and Wales. My Lords, I have today no views on all these matters; I merely summarise what I have heard from others. The prolonged public debate has already started and

165
will doubtless expand after publication of the White Paper expected on Thursday.
Finally, may I remind your Lordships, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, of that passage in the gracious Speech indicating reforms in the law on crofting and on liquor licensing, and on improving access to freshwater fishing. I am but an expatriate Scot, born in Kent, spending most of my working life in London and now living in the wilds of Suffolk; so I cannot judge for want of knowledge, and therefore take it that these matters need legislating so urgently that they cannot wait for the existence of a Scottish Assembly whose province they would otherwise seem peculiarly to be. Perhaps at least two of those items may be deeply controversial, so I must say no more. May a busy Session be had by all your Lordships! It looks likely.
3.58 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, it is my privilege to be the first to congratulate the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, on his maiden speech. He was, if I may say so, well informed and I think that he will find it always best in this House to speak on those subjects with which we are familiar. To an ignorant Sassenach like me, everything he said was of the greatest interest. He was modest, brief and non-controversial and therefore fulfilled all the requirements of the best of maiden speeches. I congratulate him on it and I am sure that we all hope to hear from him again very soon.
My Lords, on home affairs and Northern Ireland, may I first say a word about Northern Ireland. I have two causes for current satisfaction about Northern Ireland. The first is the way in which the so-called Diplock courts are working. My Committee found that they gave general satisfaction with very few divergencies from the normal laws of evidence and procedure in criminal courts. They are the ordinary criminal trial in open court except that there is no jury because of the existing state of intimidation; but they give general satisfaction and it is clear from what my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has said that they are continuing to do so. The second is the declaration by the Secretary of States that he proposes to end detention by Christmas. I welcome this. My Committee took the view that internment or detention without trial is a weapon which a modern State is
166
entitled to use against modern terrorism. Furthermore, despite any statements which had been made to the contrary, our having done so in Northern Ireland was not a breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. But we went on to say that it should be resorted to only as a last resort and ended as soon as possible. It has grave defects. One of the things I was afraid of when I read the Secretary of State's Statement was that this might lead to an increase in violence by the IRA, or the equivalent Protestant bodies, because naturally they are tempted to do something which will make us change our minds about ending detention, because there is no doubt at all the biggest propaganda weapon which the IRA or their Protestant equivalents have among their population is the existence of internment or detention without trial. There is all the difference in the world as to what families believe when they can hear in open court the evidence on which a man has been convicted, and what they believe when the only circumstance is that there is no proper trial, because all that happens is that a Special Branch man or Army personnel say that they have been informed by a paid police informer of this or that. Naturally, the families do not believe that the person has done anything which ought to have led to his being put away. The Statement made by the Secretary of State was both wise and courageous and I congratulate him upon it.
Regarding home affairs—following on what I said about speaking on the things which we know— I want to ask some questions about the state of law reform. May I begin by making it plain that nothing I say is intended to be a criticism of anybody; all I am desirous of doing is obtaining information. What are the Government's attitudes towards various reforms which have been proposed? They are as follows: No. 1: the Report of the Law Reform Committee on Conversion and Detinue. This was in June 1971. No. 2: the Law Reform Committee's Report on Wills. That was in March 1973. No. 3: the Law Commission on Forgery and Counterfeit Currency. That was in May 1973. The Law Commission are immensely thorough. They get out a working paper in three parts: Part One, "This is what the law in this field is now"; Part Two, "These are the criticisms which have been made of it". Part

167
Three, "These are provisional proposals as to how the law ought to be reformed". Then over months, and sometimes more than a year, this document is discussed with experts in this branch of the law. It goes to the Judiciary, the Bar Council, the Law Society and to representatives of anyone who may be affected by the proposed changes in the law. It is only after this intensive and thorough discussion on both principle and detail that the Law Commission then produces a Report accompanied by a draft bill which is prepared by one of our ordinary Parliamentary draftsmen, seconded for the time being to the Law Commission.
No. 4: the Report of the Law Commission on the Assessment of Damages in Personal Injury Cases. No. 5: the Report of the Law Commission on Injuries to Unborn Children. If we were ever to have another disaster like the Thalidomide disaster, it might be desirable by that time that our law should be in proper shape. No. 6: the Report of the Law Commission on the Solemnisation of Marriage. No. 7: the Report of the Law Commission on Implied Covenants in Leases and Tenancy Agreements. No. 8: the Report of the Law Commission on Exemption Clauses. No. 9: the Report of the Law Commission on Rent Charges. Your Lordships will no doubt bear in mind that the resulting Bills in the case of the Law Commission are eligible for the Second Reading Committee in the other place. Such Bills would take up no Parliamentary time on the Floor of the House.
No. 10: the Justice report on a suitors fund. Perhaps that wants a word of explanation. Some 15 years ago—it may be more—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Somervell of Harrow, and I tried to persuade a Government Committee that it was not right, as between litigants in a civil action, that any litigant should have to pay the costs of an appeal when the sole cause of the appeal was that the trial judge did not know the law. We took the view that the State ought to pay in such circum stances. This was subsequently considered by a committee of Justice which wanted to get something done quickly in this field. They knew that if you want to be quick you will achieve your object quicker—or so they thought—if you do
168
not ask for public money. This committee of Justice proposed a suitors' fund; every litigant should pay a small sum on starting an action, and the resulting fund would be available to pay the costs of a successful appeal where the sole cause was that the trial judge did not know the law. If you ask, "What amount?" The answer is, "an additional fee of one shilling on every writ would produce £80,000 a year, and half-a-crown would produce £200,000 per year". The amount lies somewhere between these two. They found such a scheme was already being operated in New South Wales to everybody's general satisfaction.
No. 11: the Justice Report on Litigants in Person. No. 12: the Jellicoe Report on Prison Boards of Visitors. The ones I am dealing with are mainly civil cases. There is an old-established convention which I must confess I concurred in—whether or not it is a good idea I do not know—that when it comes to the gracious Speech from the Throne, the Speech always states the measures for the reform of the criminal law the Home Secretary is to introduce. When it comes to the civil law it just says that measures will be put before the Houses of Parliament for the reform of the law and the administration of justice. This year is no exception. It says:
"My Government will perservere with efforts to improve the law and the administration of justice."
It never says what. When it conies to the Home Secretary, it says:
"My Government will give early consideration to the report, when received, of the Law Commission on the law of conspiracy in England and Wales, with a view to preparing legislation for the comprehensive reform of this branch of the law."
Here is the Home Secretary announcing legislation about a Law Commission Report which has not yet been made. The matters I have been talking about concern civil issues and are somewhat older.
No. 13: the Report of the Renton Committee on the Preparation of Legislation. Thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, we are to have an opportunity of debating that Report on 10th December. No doubt we shall be told then all I want to know about all these other matters. Have the

169
Government made up their minds yet on these various recommendations? If not, why not? If they have, have they accepted the recommendations?
No. 14—and I may add there would have been a lot to be said for my making it 13, which is a more appropriate number—is the Report of the Brodrick Committee on Death Certification and Coroners. I was well aware when I be came Lord Chancellor that all was not well with the law regarding coroners. My noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill appointed a Committee on 17th March 1965. For some reason I have not discovered, this Committee took nearly six years to report. It is now ten years ago since it was appointed; the Report has been published for four years, and I should like to know—this is probably more in the field of the Home Secretary than that of my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack—when the Report is going to be implemented, or whether the Government accept its provisions.
No. 15: the Report of the Younger Committee on Privacy. Here two entirely different points arise. First, what about the White Paper on Privacy and Computers which my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich in the autumn of last year hoped would be published by Christmas? It is only fair to him to say that he did not say which Christmas. Perhaps we could now be told something about the position. There is a second matter—and do not let us be put off by the first—in that I think I am right in saying that there were five or six recommendations about computers. In that Report there were 33 recommendations about the law of privacy, none of which had anything to do with computers. What I want to know now, after 3½years, is: what are the Government's attitudes towards those recommendations?
Do they accept them, or do they not? The Financial Times on Wednesday expressed the view that the Younger Report on Privacy was the best report of its kind made in any country. They pointed to the fact that most industrial countries had already legislated in this field, and inquired whether we were to be the last of such countries to legislate accordingly.
170
Regarding No. 16, the Bell Report on Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunals, some of your Lordships may remember that a long time ago now—I think it was in July of last year—I initiated a debate in this House on the administration of the cohabitation rule and voiced complaints about the supplementary benefits appeal tribunals. Much of what I said, if I remember correctly, was echoed in other parts of the House. We know that the Minister asked the Supplementary Benefits Commission itself to answer complaints about its officials; and Professor Bell, who is a member of the Council on Tribunals, has now conducted a long inquiry into the supplementary benefit appeal tribunals, and his Report amply bears out all the criticisms made in the House at that time. There are only three or four fairly simple recommendations which she makes and one would like to know when we may expect legislation concerning such of those recommendations as may require it.
Then No. 17 is the Report of the Faulkes Committee on Defamation, and No. 18, the Report of the Phillimore Committee on Contempt of Court. I should also like to ask what is the position regarding the following matters: No. 19, family courts and No. 20, company law reform. I have never really under stood why it is that Conservative Governments do not deal with company law reform. I should have thought they would be more interested in that subject than anybody else. I think the original Act was passed by a Liberal Government, and then we had to wait for the Companies Act 1948, which was produced by a Labour Government. Then there was another Act in 1966 which was again passed by a Labour Government. Undoubtedly, further company law reform ought now to be considered.
May I also ask, again, what is the position with regard to human rights? Having years ago signed the two United Nations Covenants on Human Rights, when are we going to ratify them? They come into force when 35 signatories have ratified them, and 31 have now done so. Are we really to be the last country to ratify them? I say that looking at my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, but for some reason which I cannot myself understand, when it comes to human rights, in relation to the United

171
Nations Covenants they are dealt with by the Foreign Office whereas the European Convention on Human Rights concerns the Home Office. That is how things are at the moment.
We have all read articles by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and others on the interesting question of whether we ought to have a Bill of Human Rights. I think that a brand new Bill of Human Rights would be immensely long, immensely controversial and full of difficulty. But we could do one fairly simple thing which others have already done. The best extant Convention on Human Rights is, I believe, the European one. We are parties to that Convention. Why on earth do we not simply make it a part of our domestic law? I believe this would satisfy most of those who want a Bill of Rights. It would save us from being, as we are now, of all the countries who are parties to the European Convention, the one most complained about at Strasbourg because of alleged breaches of the Convention. Other countries have very sensibly made the Convention part of their domestic law so that it is then possible to go to one's own domestic courts instead of having to go to Strasbourg. It seems a very curious affair altogether for a Government to have become a party to a treaty which provides for legal rights but not to make it part of their domestic law.
Perhaps I might deal with one more Report, since this is the one I should prefer to see implemented earlier than all the others. This is the Justice Report on the Prosecution Process. I believe that our police forces are probably the best in Europe, but they are also the least responsible and the most powerful. We do not always realise this. They are the least responsible because every other West European police force is the subject of responsibility to a Minister, who in turn is responsible to Parliament. It is only in the United Kingdom that the policeman is responsible to no one except his chief constable and, except rather mythically towards the Watch Committee, the chief constable is responsible to no one. True, the Home Secretary can make orders for conditions, pay, pensions, and so on, but not with regard to police work. A chief constable can,
172
in a sense, alter the law. I read the other day that a chief constable has issued an instruction—and a lot depends, of course, on which crimes they concentrate on and what sort of charges they bring—to the effect that in future, if A kills B by dangerous or drunken driving, there is to be no prosecution if B is the wife, husband or close relative of the driver. This may be a very proper provision and whoever decides on prosecutions has to draw lines of this; kind but because we still have 43 different police forces in England and 20 in Scotland, to some extent the law depends on what the chief constable decides, and the—
Lord OGMORE: My Lords, for my own information, may I ask the noble and learned Lord: is it not the fact that there is in Scotland an official who is a lawyer? He is a Procurator Fiscal.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I am coming on to that, because I am only dealing at the moment—
Lord OGMORE: My Lords, I wonder whether I might just finish? The noble and learned Lord said that this was the United Kingdom, not England and Wales. That is the point I was making.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I am much obliged. I was dealing with two quite different things. I said that the police were the least responsible and the most powerful. When we come to the most powerful, the noble Lord's point would be quite right. I said, "the United Kingdom" because the responsibility of the police to anybody, how the police are organised and our uniqueness in the United Kingdom in having a separate number of chief constables are peculiarities of our own. They are the most powerful, because when a crime is reported to them they interrogate suspects, decide whether or not there is to be a prosecution and, if so, who is to be prosecuted, what the charge is to be and what evidence is to be called. Then they prosecute. This does not apply any where in Western Europe except in England and Wales. In Scotland the police interrogate suspects, but they do not decide whether or not there is to be a prosecution, who is to be prosecuted, what the charge is to be or what evidence is to be called. All that is done by the Procurator Fiscal, who is an independent

173
prosecuting authority, standing between the citizen and the police. There are certain European countries, like Germany and Holland, who have a similar independent prosecuting authority. On the recommendation of the Committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was Chairman, we extended this to Northern Ireland. He is not called a Procurator Fiscal; he is called, which might be more suitable to us, the Director of Public Prosecutions. But apart from motoring cases, prosecutions have now been taken out of the hands of the police in Northern Ireland, for the good reasons recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and put into the hands of an independent authority.
The French civil law system is somewhat similar. There it is the Juge d' Instruction who takes charge as soon as any prosecution starts. He decides who is to be prosecuted, what the charge is to be, whether the police are to oppose bail, what evidence is to be called and so forth. So it is only in England and Wales that the police have these enormous powers. I feel very strongly that the relations between the public and the police are of great importance, but it is because of this extraordinarily powerful position of the English police that there is some public mistrust. I strongly believe that if there was an independent prosecuting authority it would he as great a gain to the police as it would to the public.
The only objection I have heard made against it is that it would be so terribly expensive. I cannot understand this at all. The large majority of our counties now have a prosecuting solicitor's office. Gone are the days when the chief con stable sat in the police court and prosecuted himself, usually sitting next to the clerk. The court was known as "the police court," and no wonder! In the majority of counties there is now a county prosecuting solicitor with a proper staff. He conducts the whole of these matters, but there is one defect. It is that if he says: "This prosecution cannot possibly succeed and it ought not to be continued," and the policeman in charge of the case says, "I say it is to be continued," the relationship between the county prosecuting officer and the police is
174
that of solicitor and client and the solicitor has to do what he is told.
The existence of the county prosecuting officer and his staff means that we are in an exceptionally good position now, and have been quite recently, to adopt what is almost a ready-made system to hand of an independent prosecuting authority, because the county prosecuting solicitors, under the Director of Public Prosecutions, take the place of the procurator fiscal and the local procurator fiscal; but these matters would be for them to decide and not the police. There would be the advantage that exists in Scotland. Any accused person could at any time he likes go to see the procurator fiscal about a case he is in, and all the public know is that one is being prosecuted not by the police but by an independent prosecuting authority. Already 88½ per cent. of the cost of all prosecutions is borne by the Exchequer, either direct on indictment or on reimbursement of local authorities for minor cases. So I should have thought that any additional cost would be small.
I am conscious of the fact that I have so far concentrated entirely on Bills we may or may not be going to see. Before closing, may I mention just one Bill we are going to see, which is the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill. I am taking advantage of the fact that last Wednesday the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who I am very glad to see here, said that he would welcome proposals for the better proceedings of your Lordships' House. I simply have a suggestion to make. I have been surprised in the last month at how many noble Lords I have met, some of whom are regular attenders, who have no idea of something that happened in 1968. It is not surprising in a way, because since 1st February 1969 there have been 142 new Life Peers created and 108 new hereditary Peers have taken the place of their ancestors. So there are 250 Members of the House who were not here in 1968. May I say to them that what happened was that a White Paper was put before this House for its approval which would have swept away its hereditary basis and swept away the built-in Conservative majority. One hundred and eighteen Peers put down their name to speak and at the end of three days the result was: Contents, 251; Not-Contents,

175
56. So by five to one this House has already agreed that it cannot defend its hereditary composition or the built-in Conservative majority.
As a Back Bencher I greatly admire what both our Front Benches do, particularly the Opposition Front Bench, nearly all of whom are wholly unremunerated and without whose attendance and careful work Parliament's legislation could never be carried through. We are a House which exists not on Erskine May volume II, but on conventions. We can make a new convention and give it up if it does not work. What I suggest is that in future we should have a new convention whereby if a Labour Government is in power the two Front Benches behave exactly as they do now—their respective supporters come to cheer them on and of course to speak if they wish to, because that is the Back Benchers'right—but the Labour side of the House should not vote.
I suggest this for the sole interests of the House since it would save such an enormous amount of time. Let us take the Community Land Bill. We had 20 Divisions. I am told by the Table that a Division takes getting on for 10 minutes or, if there are large numbers, up to 17 minutes. Let us say 10. The result of the 20 Divisions was: Government, nought; Conservative Party 20, because that is bound to happen. Many of us no doubt think that our Liberal colleagues are so outstanding that each of their votes ought to count as two, but it does not and so in practice there are only about 12 of them. If one looks at the current edition of Vacher's one finds there are only 27 Peers marked "Independent", one or two of whom are fairly well-known Conservative Party politicians. I am not accusing them of being wolves in sheep's clothing; they have no doubt good reason for sitting on the Cross Benches. But the situation depends on what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I always thought rather irreverently, used to call "the St. Aldwyn overkill". The plain fact is that if the situation is properly organised the Conservatives can win every Division they like.
As to those 20 Divisions on the Community Land Bill, they took over three hours just walking through Lobbies. Cui bono? What on earth good does it do anybody? I have looked at my record
176
for the last two years. It has never made the slightest difference whether or not I was here to vote. We have a Chief Whip and I shall not be revealing any confidences if I say that we are all devoted to her. She and her helpers send us imperious messages and rush around to increase the vote. What an appalling waste of time! In the last Session there were in all 114 Divisions, with 98 Government defeats. That leaves 16—I have of course obtained these figures from the Table. Of the 16, 11 were not Party Divisions. So out of 114 occasions there were only five on which the skill of the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, partly faltered or he miscalculated. This all took 19 hours, at 10 minutes a Division. If we work a five-hour day, we could have saved four whole days by simply not voting. My Lords, I seriously suggest that, when there is a Labour Government, if we did as I propose it would save a great deal of time.
4.28 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, for some time I have thought that at least one member of the Cross-Benches should speak out and condemn the doctrinaire legislation which has been enacted by this Government and which is forecast in the Queen's Speech. All of us, in general terms, believe in a fair, free society with, so far as is reasonable, equal opportunity for all. Principles such as these are a useful guideline, but no sensible solution is possible by pushing a principle to its ultimate logical end. More often than not, those who advocate doing so are simply equating principle with emotional prejudice. They fail to take into account the side effects of their policy and the fact that a perfect solution is never obtainable, simply because society is com posed of human beings who never live up to the dreams of the idealist.
I condemn the Government because, supported by less than 30 per cent. of the electorate and with a bare majority in the Commons, they have at a time of national crisis introduced many doctrinaire measures to which the vast majority of the electorate are opposed. This makes a mockery of democracy in any sensible meaning of the word, and cannot be justified by the convenient dogma of mandates. For most electors who are profoundly dissatisfied with Parliament and its representatives, the

177
choice lies between, at the most, three very unsatisfactory alternatives. I should like the Government and their supporters to think very carefully about the following points.
First, I believe that extreme Socialism and nationalisation, because of its inefficiency, can lead only to autocracy and loss of freedom. In the present context, it would be impossible to stop short of Communism. Secondly, the distribution and redistribution of wealth and earnings has reached a point where there is nothing of magnitude left to redistribute. If we are sincerely concerned with helping the poorer sections of the community and improving the quality of life, we must get on with the job and increase our gross national product. The redistribution lobby may well stand accused of being motivated by greed and envy, and a desire to drag everything down to the lowest common standard of mediocrity.
Thirdly, the key to establishing a stable Socialist society with a sensible partner ship between workers, management and shareholders—I include the Government under the latter term—lies in having fully responsible and representative trade unions to serve the nation. For this to come about many changes are necessary. These can most easily be brought about if those with a union background will speak out publicly and not simply defend the unions, right or wrong. Fourthly, the time has come when we must stop blindly accepting the principle of collective bargaining and some other shibboleths. Collective bargaining has always equated to a great extent with the law of the jungle, but it worked because both sides had roughly equal bargaining power. This is simply not true today. We must seek new or modified methods of wage agreements, if only because of the limited wealth of the nation. There is no hidden pot of gold. This means that higher wages in one industry can be obtained in the long run only at the expense of other workers, usually those with lower bargaining power who are in greater need.
My Lords, I should like the Government to think about those matters. They may not agree, but I believe that those points are important to the future of our nation, because a very great deal of their legislation has been both irrelevant in a time of national crisis, and harmful in its
178
effects and side effects. It is not leading to what they hope for, which is a reason able and sensible kind of Socialist State.
4.34 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Viscount will forgive me if I do not follow him along the line he has chosen to adopt. He will realise that his points are not new. Some of us who joined the Labour Party 40 years ago rejected those points at about the same time, so the noble Viscount will not expect us now, at his instant command, to fall into line. He must realise, to put it bluntly, that he is an extremely old-fashioned Conservative. Why the Government should be expected to renounce their own programme at his request baffles me. But it is a free country, and other noble Lords will join issue with the noble Viscount. He is as much entitled to his opinion as anybody else, but why the noble Viscount should expect a Labour Government to accept his instructions I cannot imagine. The noble Viscount will. I am sure, allow me to say all that in meekness and mildness, as St. Paul would put it.
I am told that the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, has left us and is at tea. I am sure he has earned a good tea and, I hope, something stronger. I should have liked to congratulate him on his maiden speech. I can remember an ancestor of his coming to stay with my father and mother in Ireland when the ancestor in question was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. In those days he was a spokesman of the Asquith Government and, therefore, a strong Home Ruler. I was going to say to the noble Marquess—but when he returns from tea somebody will perhaps tell him—that if his ancestor had been listened to we should be much better off now. The problems which confront us and which the noble Lord, Lord Donald son, coped with so heroically in Northern Ireland would not have arisen. It is all due to the failure to listen to the ancestor of the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, about 60 years ago when I was quite a small boy. That has some bearing on the question of devolution to Scotland and Wales.
May I offer a few observations on the treatment of prisoners. I shall not attempt to cover the whole field but will deal only with some particular aspects. I would begin by congratulating the noble

179
Lord, Lord Donaldson, not in his capacity as a Government spokesman on penal questions, but in his capacity as a Minister for Northern Ireland, and his admirable chief, Mr. Rees, on one of the steps that they are taking in Northern Ireland. May I take the opportunity, since everybody is not congratulating Mr. Rees at the moment, to say what a fine job I personally consider he has done and is doing in Northern Ireland, so ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and Mr. Orme, and beallowed to select one particular step out of many and congratulate them upon it this afternoon, because it is relevant to the topics I am discussing.
On 4th November it was announced both here and in another place that all convicted prisoners in Northern Ireland would be released after serving half of their sentences. I strongly applaud this step which has been taken in Northern Ireland where there has not been and still is no parole system. One cannot, therefore, make an exact comparison between the situation that will prevail there, even after this change, and the situation which prevails here, because there will not be a parole system in Northern Ireland. In view of all the pressures and the rather foolish outcry against Mr. Rees and his colleagues in Northern Ireland, this step has shown great courage and imagination on the part of Mr. Rees, the noble Lord and others, and I should like to congratulate them upon it. However, they are not introducing parole. I am ready to believe that a parole system which involves, as we work it here, a rather elaborate assessment of individual prisoners is for the moment impossible in Northern Ireland. I can only say that I hope the time will very soon come when it will be possible to operate a parole system, but for the moment let us regard the plans now being introduced there as the best.
I want to say a few words about parole in this country. Some noble Lords will remember that in June of this year I introduced a debate on this subject in your Lordships' House. I spoke then, and I speak now, as a strong and unrepentant believer in parole. I argued then that our parole system, which has many virtues, was being applied much too timidly, and up to the present I repeat
180
that it is being applied much too timidly. On that occasion I begged the Home Secretary to give a new lead and to introduce a much more liberal application of the parole system here. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who as a distinguished former chairman of the Parole Board has unique qualifications to be heard on this subject, made a speech of much significance on the same occasion.
The noble Lord said that in one import ant respect he had changed his mind. He said that he would now like to see the great majority of prisoners—leaving over life prisoners for another occasion, although I happen to be particularly interested in them—receiving parole after they had completed a third of their sentence, whereas at present only about a quarter of the prisoners receive parole on the first occasion; that is, after serving a third of their sentence. About 40 per cent. of them receive it some time or other, but for many of them it is very near the end of their sentence. So it would be a very big step forward if the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, supported by lesser people like myself, had his way. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has come round to the view that no legislation will be necessary for this purpose. He considers—and I agree with him—that it lies within the power of the Home Secretary to bring about a large liberal advance of this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, strongly urged the Home Secretary—and again I support him—to take the necessary steps.
I was sorry to see, when I read Hansard, that I had been rather discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I do not know whether other noble Lords feel they have been quite polite until they read Hansard, and then wonder what was biting them? At any rate, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, replying for the Government, fought a good holding action on the question of whether it lay within the power of the Home Secretary to move the Parole Board, in the application of parole, a long way in the direction indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the noble Lord, Lord Soper, myself and other speakers. Several of us—myself, in the first place—made the obvious point that if the Home Secretary really believes (as I am sure he does) in the policy of reducing the prison population, no other course is open to him. It

181
is essential to release far more people on parole than has been the case to date.
Since June, the aim of reducing the prison population has, I am glad to say, been restated in the Queen's Speech. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is not with us now, but I should like to support all that he and the Home Office Ministers seem to have in mind in liberalising bail and making it much more readily available. That is certainly a step in the right direction, but it is only one step and it certainly in no way obviates the need for a much more liberal system of parole. In August, well before the Queen's Speech but some time after our debate, the Home Secretary announced that he would be issuing new guidelines for the benefit of the Parole Board. I gather that what he said on that occasion did not represent the guidelines them selves, but it gave us a broad idea of what those guidelines would be.
In my own speech in this House on 11th June, I raised this very topic. I asked whether the Home Secretary accepted responsibility for giving the Board guidelines and many of us, like the noble Baroness who played a spirited part in those discussions, will remember that, whether in relation to a particular case or generally, we were given no clear answer as to whether it was in the Home Secretary's power to take steps in regard to the general policy. But a great deal was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about the independence of the Parole Board, its autonomy and the fact that it must not be unduly interfered with. As I have said, I think the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was carrying on a kind of holding action, and I must give credit to him. It may well be that he was influenced by that discussion; the Home Secretary may have been influenced and now the new guidelines are on the way and we are told that they will be issued at any time now. They are certainly long overdue.
In his speech on that same day, 11th June, the noble Lord. Lord Hunt, informed the House that in 1967 the late Lord Stonham—a much beloved Under-Secretary at the Home Office and later Minister of State here—had outlined, when speaking for the Home Office, what would be the criteria for the Board and for the committees. Lord Hunt told this House in June that these criteria stated
182
eight years ago by Lord Stonham in 1967:
"…were passed down as notes of guidance"—
that was the expression used by Lord Hunt, and after all he was chairman of the Parole Board for seven years, so he ought to know—
"to all local review committees and they have been used and respected by the Board."
So we understand from Lord Hunt, chairman for seven years of the Parole Board, that the guidelines announced by Lord Stonham in 1967 have been observed ever since. If the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says that then no doubt it is true that I was informed recently, after official inquiries, that the guidance given to the local review boards has never been published. I will ask the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, to confirm that, but I am sure it is true; that is, that for reasons unknown the guidelines which the local review boards are supposed to carry out have not been published.
So the first question I put to the noble Lord is whether there is any reason at all why any guidelines—the old ones or new ones—should not be published and why we should not know what criteria the local review boards are being instructed to follow. I hope he will tell us that in future these guidelines will be published, because I cannot think of any possible grounds for not doing so.
But I have a more fundamental point to put to the noble Lord. Will he be kind enough—now he has had proper notice, and by "proper notice" I mean 24 hours'notice—to spell out for us the intended difference between the new guide lines and the old. Perhaps I may repeat that question because I shall not speak for very long: will he be kind enough to spell out for us the intended differences between the new guidelines and the old? If he could do so only briefly, or might he be ready to answer a Written Question, or perhaps he can tell us when the new guidelines are to be published? Of course, he may say that it will be better to discuss them when they are published. That is one line of argument, of course; but, at any rate, can he throw light on the difference between the new guidelines and the old?
The new guidelines, of course, could mean little or much; they could mean

183
nothing or anything, so a lot of importance attaches to his answer. Can the noble Lord demonstrate to us that the new guidelines will lead to a substantial increase in the proportion of prisoners receiving parole, and receiving it early? I appreciate that life prisoners—in whom the noble Baroness and others are deeply interested—will require special treatment; but putting the general question I wonder whether the noble Lord can give us some idea as to what proportion of prisoners in future will receive parole, and receive it early. For instance, I know that one of the great train robbers was eligible for parole after 10 years, but lie was released after 11 years and eight months—20 months later. In my view, there are no possible grounds for supposing that after 11 years and eight months he would be more suitable to move about in society than he was after 10 years. That is the really nonsensical aspect of the parole system, but I hope all these things will be cleared up by the noble Lord and his colleagues in the Home Office when the new guidelines come out. I know that the noble Lord (of all men) whose services to penal reform are even more prolonged—I will not say more distinguished—than his services to Northern Ireland, will want to give us all the help he can.
Before I sit down I should like to deal with one other aspect of penal matters in a less cordial spirit, although here again I am not altogether without hope. The whole business of the control units is a wretched tale. If there are any noble Lords who do not know what control units are, I can only say that they are very lucky. It is a shocking story and we should not spend time recriminating about it now if they really have been buried for good. The Home Secretary has now suspended their use for the time being, while, I understand, reserving the right to make use of them if, in his view, it becomes imperative. I am persuaded that this last proviso is a face-saving device, so that the Home Secretary may bring them back, something to preserve his amour propre, or that of his advisers. I can only hope it will mean nothing in practice, and that we will not see anything more of them again.
My Lords, what is more relevant to my theme is that the Home Secretary at the same time has indicated that he has
184
it in mind to use the prison accommodation released from the control units for the benefit of those 600 or so prisoners who are under Rule 43, and who are segregated for their own protection. The Home Secretary has not exactly said he will do it, but he is looking into it care fully. I hope the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to say that the Home Secretary intends to use that accommodation for that purpose.
The treatment of these segregated prisoners—this is a separate question from parole—is a subject on which I opened a debate in the spring of last year, and it is not a matter which shows the Home Office to advantage. I concede that prisoners, who if they were let loose in the general prison would be attacked by their colleagues or other prisoners, are a problem, but they are not an impossible problem. There are plenty of prisoners at present who are segregated, and who are enjoying association with each other. Therefore, one cannot accept the view that, once a prisoner has to be removed from the general run of prisoners, he cannot enjoy association at all.
My Lords, may I put these factual questions to the noble Lord, of which I have given him 24 hours' notice. How many segregated units are there at present? I am not talking about individuals shut up in their own cells, which might happen for various reasons. Secondly, in how many cases is association between segregated prisoners possible? In how many cases are the segregated prisoners allowed to mix with each other? I do not know the latest figures, but when I last looked into the matter, there were about 25 in Worm wood Scrubs. The point at issue is not whether they should be allowed to mix in the general prison, but with each other. In how many cases may segregated prisoners mix with each other? If anyone says it is inconceivable that they should mix with each other, that answer would not work out, because prisoners are allowed to mix with each other in quite a number of prisons. In some cases they are not allowed to, and in others they are; hence, the drift of my question. These are questions of fact, but this point raises a value judgment. What possible excuse can there be for not making possible association in all such cases? I

185
am not referring to prisoners segregated for reasons of punishment, or even those who are segregated because it is thought to be necessary for good order in the prison.
Since the summer of 1974, to the best of my limited power and with a total lack of success—I stress that in order to arouse the sympathy of the House—I have been pressing that permission should he granted to the segregated prisoners to enjoy association between themselves at Wormwood Scrubs, a prison I will nominate in the light of day, although I will not deal with any particular prison this afternoon. Anything I imply about a particular prisoner there would apply to all the segregated prisoners. In principle, my argument has long been accepted. I was told by the excellent governor of Wormwood Scrubs, for whom I have a high regard, that he would bring this about as soon as possible. Having raised this argument last year, here we are, at the end of 1975, and nothing at all has happened. I cannot blame the governor. I must put the blame somewhere, which is our political system, and it must lie fairly and squarely on the Home Secretary. I can only hope that by now the Home Secretary, with his many virtues, will have come to realise that this is an unworthy position, and I hope he proposes to do something about it.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE SIDE: My Lords, if the noble Earl, Lord Long ford, will permit me to interrupt him—although it is not the issue I want to ask him about—when he writes, presumably directly to the Home Secretary, on this particular issue and he says he has taken action over a long period without any result, does he really get a reply? I do not know all the procedures in the Upper House, but I find it very difficult to get a reply. I used to be able to get a reply when I was in another place, but if the Home Secretary does not want to reply, he just does not reply. The other day I got into great trouble when I asked a Question of the Government Front Bench about letters which had not been replied to. The noble Earl and I have a great deal in common, and I am grateful to him for what he has said, but I should like to know whether he receives replies to his letters.
The Earl of LONGFORD: Well, my Lords, in the end one gets a reply, but it may be at very long last. I should not like to say that I can demonstrate that the Home Office are slower than other Departments in replying to letters, but they are very slow indeed. At first one may get an acknowledgement—that is the first sign; then, perhaps, one may get a further letter saying that the Home Secretary is looking into the matter, and so on. Eventually, an answer comes along. I have never failed altogether to get a reply. But the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, is so much more formidable than I that she ought to be able to extract a reply far more quickly. Perhaps between us we can do more than we are doing now.
My Lords, I was raising the point that there were plans for a control unit in Wormwood Scrubs. The control unit that was operated in Wakefield Prison has been abolished, and we are told—and the noble Lord will perhaps give us further information—that that accommodation will be made available for Rule 43 prisoners. I gather that is intended. But what about accommodation in Wormwood Scrubs which, although it was not in fact used for that purpose, was intended for the control unit people? This is accommodation which, on the face of it, is vacant, and which could be used for Rule 43 people. I do not want to tie down the noble Lord in too much detail, because he will have many topics to answer, but can he give the House some clear indication that far more positive steps than hitherto are being taken in the immediate future to cater for Rule 43 people? The noble Lord knows that he and I have the same aspiration, he in his exalted place and me in my humbler one. He is well aware that I am not out to make difficulties. No one would rejoice more than I if he has a start to give us.
4.59 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, it is a pleasure to congratulate the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, on his maiden speech, which we all enjoyed. We congratulate him on its content, brevity and rendering, and hope we shall hear from him again. I should apologise to the House for being absent for half an hour. I wanted to hear the end of the speech of the noble Marquess, but I had to help entertain the Moderator

187
of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. It is a great pleasure to congratulate the noble Marquess because we remember his father with great respect. I remember his grandfather and his many appearances in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, to which he was very devoted.
My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Earl, Lord Long ford. For one thing, I do not know much about Northern Ireland or, thank goodness! the problems there. I propose to stick to other matters of home affairs. With regard to Her Majesty's gracious Speech, enough has been said, particularly last Thursday, about the tenor of it without my doing any more than declaring that I go along with The Times in describing it as containing "clique-ish rubbish" and, further, "a preposterous set of damaging measures". I go further and, with my noble friend Lord Mansfield, protest at some of the partisan words which the Speech has put into the mouth of Her Gracious Majesty. In saying this, I agree in general terms with my noble friend Lord Molson, who last Thursday cited Clay Cross and the Shrewsbury pickets and so on, and who said that the spirit behind Parliamentary democracy seems to have changed.
All these factors give me to fear, reluctantly, that we are drifting towards a situation when civil disorder, and even more political violence than we have already, may begin to be a danger. Alas! the point has been reached—and we must face it—that no longer can we say, "It cannot happen here". The situation is not one of confrontation, but I feel most strongly that it is one of affront. I do not say that it is calculated, but it is extraordinary to me that even the most bigoted Socialist cannot take his or her head out of the sand and see the small cloud that is on the horizon.
Be that as it may, I turn to some of the contents of the gracious Speech which are not so provocative. I first refer to devolution, though only in passing. These notes were written before this debate, and I have studiously avoided saying too much about devolution because of the imminence of the White Paper and the debate which is bound to take place in this House at, I hope, not too great a distance. But it is interesting that in this
188
Chamber today we have already had three somewhat differing views on devolution. I will leave it at that. My noble friend Lord Mansfield did not take quite the same line as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and I do not take the same line either. I will stick to the question of the possibility of a referendum. I do not think this has been mentioned by any noble Lord.
The point I wish to make is that if the White Paper contains a reference to the referendum I should like to repeat something to which I referred obliquely at this time last year in debating the gracious Speech, which is this. When people talk of a referendum on Scottish devolution, on what electoral roll is it proposed to be based? The roll in Scotland? If so, it would be entirely misleading and wrong. There are thousands and thousands of Scots as devoted to Scotland as I am, as devoted as any to their native land, who do not appear on that roll—thousands of them. They can be in England or in Wales, in Northern Ireland, in Europe or indeed anywhere in the world. I spent much of my life in the Far East there were Scotsmen at every corner, all devoted to Scotland and all concerned. That is the point I want to make. To them the issue is of paramount importance, perhaps even more so than to the Scots who live in Scotland. In other words, I cannot see that a referendum is worth considering at all. For instance—and it is a mischievous thought—if a referendum were to be based on the electoral roll for the United Kingdom, one could not blame the English if they voted solidly for Scottish independence in order to get Scotland, as visualised by the SNP, right out of England's orbit. In that respect I disagree a little with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, whose proposals were extremely interesting in regard to the Liberal approach to a Parliament, if such were to be created. But I propose to leave the question of devolution at that.
There are several matters in the gracious Speech which are not bitterly controversial. Take, for instance, authors' public lending rights: splendid, the sooner that is brought in the better. though it is a tricky one. There is mention of the tightening up of Post Office procedures and access to freshwater fishing, which has already been

189
mentioned by two noble Lords. That is something that has to be gone into with care. I intend to refer only to a matter which many of your Lordships know has been a particular interest of mine for many years, and that is the broadcasting of the proceedings of Parliament. Any advance in this respect is worth it. The recent Commons experiment was, in my view, a marked success. I am sorry that the gracious Speech refers only to sound broadcasting, but even one step at a time is welcome. To avoid the possibilities of disorder, such as I begin to fear and have already mentioned, I feel that it is essential that the people and Parliament should be brought more close to each other, and broadcasting is the prime medium, because the unions have already got the Press by the throat. Legislation on the question of privilege, when we come to broadcasting, will be necessary before full broadcasting of proceedings can be complete, and that is a matter which I know lawyers think will take some time to work out. But how much more important than sound broadcasting is television. I myself feel that the decision, by one vote, in the other place to reject a television experiment in 1968 was a grievous and quite unnecessary blow to our body politic. I think I am right in saying that the late Richard Crossman referred to his failure to have a full House on that particular night as one of the greatest mistakes he ever made as Leader of the House. I think that was, as I say, a blow to the body politic from which we shall never recover, as matters would have been very different had the proceedings of Parliament been televised in the last few years. I look forward to the day when at least the other place will be televised. And it is bound to come; I cannot see how it can fail to come about.
In this hope, I put forward an idea which I have recently had. Over the years I have been in Parliament—it is 17 now—my heart has gone out to the public who wait patiently, sitting on the seats in St. Stephen's, or standing out in the street, waiting to go to the Galleries. Only a small proportion of them ever get a chance of seeing a full House, of being present at Question Time or being there for a Division. If there were ever a closed circuit system in the House of Commons—I believe there will be—with
190
coverage of the proceedings, could there not be a discreet series of screens, in Westminster Hall or in St. Stephen's, where waiting crowds could see what was going on inside the House before they eventually managed to get a seat in the Gallery? This, so long as the relay was within the Palace of Westminster, would not require any legislation in respect of privilege. Television coverage, in any case, would be necessary when even Today in Parliament reaches the "box". Whereas the radio programme Today in Parliament and the programme Yesterday in Parliament are splendidly done, they are both at times which cover only a very small audience, and the day will come when there will be a broadcast account of proceedings of Parliament on the "box". In any case, let us hope that it may not be long before the TV services will carry a report of that nature.
We in Parliament sometimes do not appreciate the real and ever growing interest in our Parliamentary proceedings, especially of the other place, and the "box" is really the prime medium. I believe I am right in saying that over the last two or three years, promoted by the experiment of broadcasting the proceedings of the House of Commons, the general interest in what is happening in Parliament has increased.
There is one other matter I wish to mention in conclusion; that is, that after the harum-scarum—shall we call it?—end to the last Session, to hope that the "other measures" forecast at the end of the gracious Speech do not include a measure about hare coursing. But if the item does include such, there are many far more important matters which should come first. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, has not yet put down on the No Day Named List his Motion for Papers which was for many months on the list last Session, to call attention to the Green Paper for a proposed new Highway Code, which was published in 1974. I was surprised to find today that already there is a supplement to it, dated February 1975. I hope that we shall see that Motion back on the list as soon as may be, and that the Government will give time to this matter which is of paramount importance to the body politic today, particularly on the economic side.
5.12 p.m.
Lord SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I should like to refer to the expression in the gracious Speech as to Her Majesty's Government's intention to abolish the agricultural tied cottage. We have heard that the reason the Government are anxious to carry this out is that the Labour Party put it in their Manifesto. What I am anxious to know, my Lords, is the reason that induced them to include this in that Manifesto. The abolition of the agricultural tied cottage, one must realise, is an emotional subject. The belief that the agricultural worker must have security of his house sounds reason able—indeed, desirable—but if the matter is investigated in depth it then becomes apparent that it is far from being as simple as that.
Who will gain if the present situation is altered? First, and most importantly, all farmers will find their work severely hampered—but, most of all, livestock farmers and in particular dairy farmers. As a dairy farmer myself, I know that it is essential for the milk producer to have his workers close at hand; in fact, that applies to all farmers who keep livestock. If for this reason dairy farmers are forced out of business, supplies of milk will drop, the consumer will suffer, and furthermore the whole nation will suffer as it will be yet another serious blow to the balance of payments. Finally, the farm worker himself will suffer, because he will find that instead of living in a tied cottage he becomes a "tied worker" It will become difficult for him to change the farm at which he works, whatever the reason, because the farm to which he wishes to go will not have a cottage in which to house him and his family.
It may well be that the Government were persuaded to include this in their Manifesto by the National Union of Agricultural Workers, but your Lordships must realise that only a very small percentage of agricultural workers belong to that union, and I am reliably informed that quite a large proportion of those who are union members agree with the bulk of the workers who do not belong to the union, that it is to their advantage that the tied agricultural cottage system should remain. It is significant that the Scottish Union has pleaded with the Government not to abolish tied cottages. The National Union of Agricultural Workers'
192
campaign has been based on the fact that eviction orders are often granted in order to obtain farm workers' houses for their successors. It is not appreciated, how ever, that the great majority of such orders are obtained with the full under standing, and often at the request, of the farm workers themselves, so that they in turn can obtain alternative accommodation from their local housing authority. The number of evictions actually carried out each year is very small indeed.
I should also like to know why the Government have selected the agricultural tied cottage for abolition, when it is a known fact that only 10 per cent. of the tied homes in this country are agricultural. The same emotional desire for abolition must weigh with the miners, the railwaymen, the police, the nurses and many others. I repeat: why have the agricultural 10 per cent. been selected? One thing I do know—it will cause unprecedented damage to a vital and essential industry.
Some of your Lordships may have noticed the paragraph in The Times a few days ago, which put this much better than I can. It said:
"Tied cottages on farms are only a small fraction of the total proportion of tied housing accommodation in the country and are among the most justified. It is of course right that provision should be made to provide housing for retired farm workers. But tied accommodation is as necessary if cows are to be milked as it is if junior hospital doctors are to be available for emergencies in the small hours."
It went on to say:
"The only hope is that this Bill will be so discreetly drafted as to be quite ineffective; otherwise the British dairy herd will be slaughtered even faster than it has been in the past year."
Various systems have been suggested to alleviate any hardship to agricultural workers; some are workable and some are not. It has been suggested that local authorities should be required to rehouse agricultural workers when their employment ceases. But do the local authorities know whether they could possibly cope with the enormous extra pressure which would be placed on their limited accommodation or resources by the additional building that would be required? It is estimated that at least 35,000 extra homes will be required, even if the 20,000 pensioners or widows

193
who are already privately housed by farmers in this country are left undisturbed. Certain local authorities now work a scheme whereby, as agricultural workers approach retiring age, they can be put on the waiting list so that their rehousing is facilitated when the time comes. This practice would be most helpful if it were common to the whole country.
There are many other things I could say about this matter, but I shall not bother your Lordships with them at this juncture. I should prefer to wait until we hear what Her Majesty's Government propose in order to bring about abolition. But I would emphasise—again referring in particular to dairy farmers—that they must be deeply concerned about the sanitary effect of having on their holdings tenants who might be employed on another farm, in slaughterhouses, catering establishments, packaging or compounding industries and so on, from which infection might spread. In the event of another outbreak of foot and mouth disease, for example, constant incursion on to the premises by outsiders, their families and possibly pets could be devastating in effect.
Finally, I would say, my Lords, that the issues raised and the implications of the Government's proposals are so serious for the dairy industry, its employees and the general public, that further time before legislation is imperative to allow for obtaining the considered wishes of agricultural, horticultural and forestry workers, including managers, and to ascertain the degree of support for the abolition of the existing system; also, to allow local authorities, as I have mentioned before, to consider how they would be affected, and further to allow full discussion of any constructive proposals which would be more in the interests of producers, employees, the union and the nation as a whole.
5.20 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I should like on another occasion to speak at length on the subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling; that is, the tied cottage. Many years ago, as the MP for Chislehurst, a considerable amount of my Parliamentary time in the constituency was taken up in the county court listening to cases of eviction, in many cases where the
194
farm worker was not even legally represented, so much so that I persuaded lawyer friends to team up with me and in many of the cases we defended we at least won a considerable extension of time. The judge in the county court at that time got rather annoyed over my Parliamentary Questions and on one occasion when we had lunch together he said that he had to administer the law, although he added that he would like to see the law changed. There are two sides to this argument and I have no doubt that in time we shall have an opportunity to debate them in the calmer atmosphere of this Chamber as distinct from the other Chamber, which has a different type of atmosphere on such occasions.
I do not intend to tread the same path taken by any noble Lord in this debate today, altough to some extent I shall be commenting on certain points about the National Health Service raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, in his speech last Thursday. There will be a debate on 3rd December on a Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I had the impression earlier that this subject would be debated during the course of our debates on the Queen's Speech, but it is obvious that the usual channels have adopted the attitude that the noble Lord's Motion should be debated. Nevertheless, I am well within my rights, as a Member of your Lordships' House, to speak about the Health Service on the gracious Speech—a reference to which appears in the gracious Speech—although I shall do so not in the fire and brimstone terms adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who rather inferred that the Labour Government were inserting words into the Queen's mouth that she should never utter. He rather forgot the constitutional point that the Opposition, when they come to power, often put words into the Queen's mouth which give offence to a large number of people who do not share their political beliefs.
I wish to speak about the National Health Service, but, first, I declare my interest, in that for nearly 40 years I was or have been involved in either an effort to get a National Health Service or as a member of a hospital management committee, and up to the moment of speaking—there may be reason later for my saying that—I am a member of an Area Health Authority and have very deep

195
feelings about the National Health Service. That is why I welcome, on a controversial issue, the mention in the gracious Speech of the fact that the Government intend to introduce legislation this Session to phase out private practice from the National Health Service.
Pay beds—I do not refer to amenity beds because there is a vast difference—have created an anomaly that has cut right across the basic principle of the National Health Service; that is, that medical need alone justifies priority. I do not in any way object to the private system—that is, a private system outside the Service—and, in fact, I firmly believe that in future there can be valuable co-operation, in the sharing of research and so on, between the private and public sectors. I am sure that this can be achieved by common sense and goodwill.
Let us not get the impression that privacy, which is needed in some cases, will be cut out of the Service after the abolition of pay beds. That is not true. In fact, there will be an extension of privacy facilities. There are cases where it is medically essential that there should be privacy, whether or not the patient is able to pay. However, it is completely wrong to believe that the payment of large sums of money by way of fees can assure for the patient greater medical skill. Indeed, to believe that it can is a slur on the undoubted professional skill of the British medical profession which, let us face it, has deservedly a worldwide reputation. I know that many people belong to BUPA and similar organisations and I do not object to that; if people wish to do so, there should be freedom of choice. But the great majority of people do not, although for reasons which your Lordships will readily understand I cannot give factual detail. However, it is within my recollection, as chairman of the finance committee of a former hospital management committee, that an illness, possibly terminal, can last far longer than expected, and in that event the relatives can be faced with outstanding pay-bed fees well beyond their capacity to pay. How can anyone force legal recovery of moneys under such pathetic circumstances? For many such cases it is not a question of privacy, but the desperate
196
hope for a medical miracle. As I say, privacy will still exist and be available.
In his speech last Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, referred to Aneurin Bevan. But let us get the facts straight. Aneurin Bevan did not negotiate a compromise, but he did make an eventual concession. However, he is on record as urging the gradual reduction of pay beds and their eventual abolition, as those who have read his book written in 1952, In Place of Fear, will be aware. In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, also referred to the bitter ness and misery today in the Health Ser vice. I agree with him, but he entirely failed to point out a prime factor behind the situation; that is, the reorganisation of the Health Service rushed through in dangerous haste by the previous Conservative Government, creating a bureaucratic monster running the Service like a chain of impersonal supermarkets. This may seem exaggerated language, but it describes the frustrated feelings of many of those involved in the Service today. Whatever the faults of the old system, at least the old management committees were close to their medical, nursing and ancillary staffs. Now control is remote and impersonal. The lines of communication have been extended to such an extent that staffs have become increasingly frustrated and irritated, and small wonder this is a fertile breeding ground for militants and so-called militants, and paper work has multiplied by the ton.
District management teams, composed entirely of officials under the district administrator, are closest to the work in the field, the day-to-day administration, but they are subject to overall control by the Area Health Authority, another team and set of officials. It is at the Area Health Authority level that the appointed lay members operate, but they have little or no contact with the district management teams. Numerically small, they cover too large an area to have personal contact with the work in the field, making their work virtually impossible. It is true that community health councils exist, but they have pathetically limited powers. Many of the people on them (good luck to them!) have had no hospital experience, although they have done valuable work in the social and other fields. But they have not had the experience of many people

197
who have virtually had to leave the Service because of the reduction in the numbers of people selected, and many valuable people have been lost to the Service as a result.
At the far end of this extended line of communication are the regional health authorities. I do not have much idea what they are doing at the moment. I believe they are the main authorities for planning, whatever that may mean. They are in the closest contact with the Ministry and it would be of great advantage to the Service if the Ministry had closer contact with the Area Health Authorities. I have every possible sympathy with the Secretary of State, attacked as she has been, in taking on a legacy of frustrated and angry staffs due to the remote and bureaucratic nature of the reorganisation imposed on them. By its nature, the National Health Service is a personal ser vice and we must somehow or other get back to a closer and more personal contact at local level. Area Health Authorities are far too remote and I feel strongly that lay membership should be extended either completely or partially at district level so as to restore at least to some extent the close contact that existed prior to reorganisation.
The Secretary of State is facing a dilemma. Noble Lords in all parties and on the Cross-Benches admit that there arc faults in this reorganisation, but the Secretary of State cannot institute any major reorganisation because she is facing other bitter and difficult situations as well. However, the change that I am suggesting could quite easily be made without adding to present difficulties and, by personal contact, it would help to solve some of the problems and difficulties which exist today. Nothing is more useful in solving a difficult situation than a personal touch and contact. That is why I am hoping to see an extension of the kind of situation which already exists in some hospitals where we have joint consultative councils with staff, in which members of the Authority can sit with the staff and give the lie to many rumours which start because of lack of consultation.
I do not want to be controversial about the doctors' dispute. It is a difficult situation and there has been a lot of distortion, particularly in the media. Whatever the rights and wrongs on either side, the fact is that industrial action is putting
198
patients' lives at risk There is no argument about that. I know that one leader in the North-West—a somewhat eccentric looking character, let us face it!—has publicly admitted that to be the case, but it is far more serious than that. In my area, as in many others, the accident and emergency centre is closed. It was closed immediately the doctors started unofficial action, and the result is that patients from my area—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, knows this as well as I do—have either to go to the Brook Hospital, where they are overworked, or all the way to Guy's. Imagine what could happen in an emergency case where time is valuable for the saving of life. That may happen. I hope to God it will not, but this is the result of unofficial industrial action. It is action which is not yet officially recognised. Had it been the miners or the workers in the public utility companies, it cannot be denied that the Parliamentary Opposition and, to a great extent, the news media would have been baying with fury against them instead of indulging in personal and petty attacks on the Secretary of State. How mean and low can you get?
I hope that reason will prevail. The great majority of us, whoever we arc, have always held our doctors in the highest esteem and have credited them with the highest of ideals. I cannot help comparing the words and actions of the doctors' leader in the North-West with that of a young, Bart's-trained doctor whom I met working against overwhelming difficulties in the Royal Victoria Hospital at Bathurst in The Gambia. Nothing else mattered to that young man, who was working all hours of the day and night, except his dedication to the service of the sick. I know that that is an extreme example, but I believe that noble Lords will understand the shattering of ideals which some of us have experienced. In my idealism—I make no apology for it—I have always regarded the National Health Service as based on the parable of the Good Samaritan. Those ideals are lacking at the moment, but I hope they may very soon prevail again.
5.37 p.m.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, it is almost with a feeling of guilt and with some hesitation that I rise once again to bore your Lordship with the topic of

199
Northern Ireland. I am sure that the heart of my noble friend Lord Donaldson sank when he saw my name on the list of speakers today, but it is indicated on the Order Paper that Northern Ireland is one of the topics to be included in the debate and I should therefore like to make two points.
I believe that the main political and constitutional implications of the Northern Ireland Convention Report should per haps be kept back for the debate on that Report which I imagine will take place some time early next year. However, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will find it possible to indicate their reaction to the Report with the minimum of delay. I agree that there has not yet been significant delay, but the longer the delay the greater the risk of a political vacuum and that would be a very dangerous thing in Northern Ireland today. With a political vacuum, there will always be a grave risk that the non-elected, paramilitary members of the community will step in and try to fill it.
I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will not see fit to accent the Report as it stands but, if I may respectfully make a suggestion, I would ask that, if the Report is rejected, it should be rejected in a very careful and tactful way. I should like to think that it would be rejected simply because it is not an agreed report. Other parties in the Convention have, I believe, asked that Her Majesty's Government should set up parameters and should even set a framework for the sort of future devolved government in Northern Ireland which would be accept able. I believe that would be dangerous and the Party which I represent is also of that opinion, because anything like that would allow the UUUC to say that it was another imposed solution. For instance, if Her Majesty's Government said that they would not accept any form of Government in Northern Ireland which did not include power-sharing, there would be a risk that the SDLP, labelling the solution as imposed, would refuse even to reconvene in the Convention to discuss it because it would put them in a position of appearing to be open minded about it, or, indeed, of being prepared to accept it. So I suggest that the report should be rejected simply because it is not an agreed report.
200
The figures show that this is the case. In the Convention, there were 42 votes in favour of the report, but 36 members of the total of 78 did not support it and, of those 36, there were five abstentions. The interesting point is that, of the 36, 17 were Roman Catholics from the SDLP and Alliance Party and 19 were Protestants. I believe, therefore, that it can truthfully be said that, whereas there was tribal support for the Report, those who rejected it were cross-community and represented both sides of the Northern Ireland community. So what I am saying is that we need a definition of the term used in the Act, "most widespread acceptance". I suggest that that definition should lay down that the acceptance must be cross-community and not just acceptance by the majority.
Turning to another topic—that of security, which is indeed topical at the moment—I believe it is important that people in Great Britain should know that what has been happening in South Armagh, which has been much in the news, and what occasionally happens in other Border areas is not typical of what is going on in the rest of Northern Ireland. Three years ago, when trouble was running at its height in Belfast and in Londonderry, the tragic events there perhaps rather tended to overshadow what was going on in South Armagh, or in Strabane, or in West Fermanagh. Now, thank God! things are very much quieter in Belfast and in Derry. What goes on in South Armagh tends to hit the news rather more. This does not mean that the recent murders were not more tragic than words can express—they certainly were! But from reading the national Press and listening to national radio and television, noble Lords and other inhabitants of this country might well form the opinion that things are getting worse, that because of what has happened in South Armagh the situation is out of hand all over the country.
In my opinion there has been a substantial and measurable improvement in the security situation during the course of this year. All credit must go to the Royal Ulster Constabulary for the part it has played in securing a much higher rate of detection of crime, particularly of murders, than has been the case since the trouble started. But it must be said that its successes in this respect are to

201
a large extent due to the greatly increased co-operation and information which the RUC is receiving from areas which previously did not co-operate.
If we are to continue this progress—and it really is progress—it is essential that the climate be kept favourable in order for the relationship of greater confidence between the RUC and the public to develop still further. It is very easy to say: "Go in and get them; untie the hands of the Army." But if the Army was to resume what is known as a high profile in certain predominantly Roman Catholic areas of Belfast and London derry, this information would dry up just like that! The matter of building community confidence is what is so much more important. In this respect, I say without hesitation that I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is entirely right to stick to his guns in phasing out detention without trial. It is the prospect of this detention being ended in the foreseeable future that is helping this community confidence, and helping to break down resentment between the minority in Roman Catholic areas, and the Security Forces. I admire the Secretary of State for having had the courage of his convictions and having stuck to his guns in that way.
However, this does not detract from my strong conviction that the Security Forces must crack down relentlessly on any remaining pockets of IRA activity in Northern Ireland, such as in South Armagh. It is rightly being said that South Armagh is a peculiar place; it is most difficult terrain from a security point of view. It is now probably the part of the country where the population is less in sympathy han any other with the Security Forces. Therefore this information, which has been so vital and which has provided so many successes in places like the Falls Road in Belfast or the Catholic areas in Derry, is not forth coming. The men can be seen slipping across the border, going into hiding no one is going to tell the Army or the police. So the position is extremely difficult, but it does not mean that this hard nut should not be cracked.
The security committee of my Party—of which I am chairman—has over the years endeavoured to make constructive suggestions. I am sorry to say that it seems to us that few of those suggestions
202
have been accepted. But one thing which we rejected at an early stage is what one might call, "instant solutions". It is very easy to say: "Reintroduce capital punishment; that will make it all right. Seal off the border". But that is impossible; it cannot be done. We do not think that instant solutions of that kind work. Thus we tried to make constructive suggestions which we thought would work. One suggestion which I made personally some months ago was that an area like South Armagh, should, for the sake of the morale of the law-abiding citizents there, be saturated for a period with not only Regular soldiers—there is a limited number of them—but also with part-time volunters from the Ulster Defence Regiment and the RUC reserves, backed, of course, with sophisticated Army equipment, such as helicopters, which they would need. I suggested that that area should be patrolled almost to saturation point. They could not go on doing it indefinitely, but I thought that that would raise the morale of the people and that, furthermore, it would show those part-time volunteers that their role really was worth while.
When I was in the Ulster Defence Regiment, I remember that one of the most frustrating experience was when, just before one went out on patrol in the evening, a signal came through on the radio, stating that there was trouble in such and such an area and advising one to keep away from it. That is an insult to anyone who has volunteered to join up. What the men want to hear is: "There is trouble in this area—come here quickly to help us sort it out." That is why I make that suggestion. I am not saying that it was anything to do with me, but a couple of weeks afterwards an operation was mounted and large numbers of soldiers and UDR men moved in. But I am sorry to say that in my view the operation was bungled—or at least mishandled. It was given advance publicity and the IRA men all quickly slipped across the border, so that when the forces arrived they were able to pick up 18 people for questioning, most of whom, if not all of them, to the best of my knowledge were subsequently released.
I do not know whether the noble Lord on the Front Bench can give me an answer when he is summing-up, but I

203
should like to know whether the Government of the Republic of Ireland were warned in advance about this operation so that it could be co-ordinated; so that the Southern Army and Garda could do their best to set up road blocks and prevent the means of escape for the IRA men before the British forces moved in. If that Government were not warned, then I suggest that they should have been.
Our Army stayed there in that strength for a while, but did not seem able to make much progress. They crated some roads—an operation which was much publicised—and then, when the farmers living on both sides of the border brought in machinery and began to fill in the craters, all the soldiers could do was take up observation posts and watch them through field glasses. If anything makes the Army feel and look stupid, it is some thing like that, particularly when the operation has been mounted in so well publicised a manner. That was something that depresed and undermined many of us who have always tried to speak in support of the Army and to defend it against the many unjustifiable criticisms to which it has been subjected.
The most recent major incident—unless anything further that I have not heard about has happened today; and I pray to God that it has not—was that at the observation post in South Armagh where the young soldiers were killed. One could ask many questions about this. I think it was a lance-corporal who was wounded. The last I heard he was still alive; and I pray to God that he is still alive. I can understand that until such times as that soldier recovers to the extent that he can give a first-hand account of exactly what happened, the Army does not want to make speculative statements about the matter. But the sort of question you ask is: why was not the normal procedure for an OP adopted? An OP is always in an exposed position because it has to be close enough to the enemy for you to observe what the enemy is doing. Of course you can see yourself, but, still, you cannot be surrounded by a ring of armoured vehicles in an OP; you have to be in a hideout. But the essential thing about an OP is that you have your back-up force far enough away for them not to be seen by the enemy
204
but near enough for them to be able to arrive in minutes; and there should be constant communications between the OP and the back-up force.
In case of the 1,000 to 1 chance and the first bullet goes through the radio in the OP, there should be another radio: and in case the second bullet should go through the second radio, the back-up base should radio continuously to the OP—every ten minutes, or something like that—and, if they get no reply immediately, go out to see what has happened. For 24 hours a day while that OP is being manned there should be personnel standing by with their flak jackets and their rifles, and with vehicles available and the drivers in possession of the keys, ready to go off at a moment's notice. That is the sort of question one would ask in trying to ascertain why there were no communications and why, if the report was correct, it took 90 minutes for the back-up force to find out that three soldiers had been killed and one seriously injured.
Yes, my Lords, we must crack down on the IRA where they still exist, but we must not aggravate the civilian population where relations with the security forces are improving substantially. In cracking down on the IRA I hope that liaison with the Southern Government, with the Garda and with the Southern Army, which I know has improved, will be yet further improved. I should like to think that, even if politically it is difficult for the British Army to have a direct radio link with the Southern Army, at least there should be liaison, by means of liaison officers, between the Southern Army and the Garda. We can ring up the Garda—there is no problem about that—but that liaison officer should be able to radio a signal immediately to a unit of the Southern Army so that they can be in position to cut off, say, a terrorist gang who are trying to escape across the Border.
In cracking down on the IRA, does it really make sense to continue to have contact with them? I am glad the Secretary of State has closed down the incident centres; they have not proved to be a success. I wish that the confidence of the people in Northern Ireland could be further restored by their being assured that no longer is there a "hot line" between the terrorist leaders and senior

205
civil servants. Indeed, it has been said that if you are a paramilitary, either Loyalist or Republican, you have more direct access to the Northern Ireland Office than if you are an elected representative in the Northern Ireland Convention.
Finally, my Lords—and this, I know, is something about which Her Majesty's Government cannot do anything—I wish that the SDLP would take their courage in their hands and support the RUC. I know that many Roman Catholics and SDLP voters are feeling distinctly uncomfortable that this is not the case; and the more the police can get into the Roman Catholic areas and establish a proper relationship between themselves and the civilians, the more important it is that the SDLP politicians should give their official blessing to the police and say, "Yes, we support them". After all, when the internecine feud was taking place between different Republican factions, how very much more important was it that the SDLP should support the police when assassinations were taking place in areas where most of their own members live!
So I leave your Lordships with this message. Please do not lose patience. We are making progress in Northern Ire land, though one might not guess it, per haps, from reading the papers and watching television. I can see that substantial progress has been made during the course of this year, and the best way for that progress to be maintained is for your Lordships, Her Majesty's Government and the people of this country to remain patient and to control their very natural emotions when such horrors occur as that which took place last Saturday evening. If we can just have the courage and the endurance we will wear down the opponent.
5.55 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I cannot say what a pleasure it is for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, who has just sat down. I heartily agreed with every thing that he has said. I also agreed with the paragraph in the gracious Speech which said that Her Majesty's Government are striving to find a constitutional solution to the problems of Northern
206
Ireland. But of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, has just said in so many words, before constitutional solutions can be found we must combat terrorism. While I agree with the Secretary of State's decision to end detention by Christmas, I would warn Her Majesty's Government that when that happens the Security Forces should be on extra guard, because have heard rumours—they may be quite untrue—that there are certain elements in Northern Ireland, certain terrorists, who are not particularly concerned with the affairs of Ireland but are professional agitators with other interests, who do not want detention to be ended and whose activities might therefore increase. But, my Lords, I shall not speak any more about Northern Ireland, because the noble Lord who has just sat down has put the case so admirably that that would be a waste of my time, and I do not now have the practical experience of Northern Ireland which the noble Lord has, because he lives there permanently and I do not.
May I now change countries and jump to Scotland, because I am, I suppose, by blood two-thirds Scottish? I was very pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Mansfield on the Front Bench express my sentiments on Scotland completely. May I at the same time take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, on his speech? I heartily agreed with nearly everything he said. It is, of course, true that Scotland was not really a united country till it was united under the British Crown. But throughout a vast area of the world we have seen that once the British Crown has been withdrawn—we have seen it in India, in Africa and in other places of the world—you get strife, divisions and countries breaking up. If Scotland had the form of devolution that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, was speaking about, it might lead eventually to the break up of the United Kingdom which would be disastrous. Does the noble Lord wish to interrupt?
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall the remark that was made by Lord Salisbury in 1886, that the Irish were no more fit to govern them selves than the Hottentots? Does he think that that applies to the Scots as well?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: No, my Lords. I do not think it applies to the Scots, but I think it would be a tragedy if the United Kingdom broke up. Therefore, I would not put any temptations in the way of the Scots to bring that about. I have known some people in various islands in the Hebrides who have talked about "that foreigner from Skye", and I remember one fishing ghillie who was called McDonald. The guest who was out with him drew a blank on one or two days and I asked him, "McDonald, what on earth is the trouble?" "Ach", he said, "he called me Campbell!"
My Lords, I should like for a moment to make a few remarks on the gracious Speech, and I am afraid that I shall have to pull it apart a little. I realise that we are supposed to be discussing home affairs and Northern Ireland, but Northern Ireland has been so aptly covered that I shall not discuss it any more, or Scotland. Home affairs are to a very great extent competely dependent on how Her Majesty's Government manage the finances of this country.
I was hoping that after the meeting at Chequers the gracious Speech would pro duce harmony and would be free of Party doctrine, but I find that it is divisive, doctrinaire and contradictory. Might I just point to the first page of the gracious Speech, the second paragraph—and I am now talking of its being contradictory—which states:
"My Government will maintain their firm support for the United Nations and the principles of its Charter".
You cannot say that the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill is abiding by the Charter, when we think of the Charter of Human Rights. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, spoke about human rights under the European Convention, but human rights as expressed in the United Nations Charter is very applicable to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill which, as the Government wanted it, although your Lordships' House amended it, denies to the individual the choice to join an organisation of his liking. That appears to me to be contradictory.
My Lords, might I now go on to quote from the gracious Speech on page 4, when it is again contradictory? It says:
208
"My Government will continue to give the highest priority to the attack on inflation and unemployment".
I must draw the line at the word "continue". Since when have they been continuing?—because in the last two years public expenditure has increased by over £25 billion; not million but billion.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, will the noble Viscount allow me to say that we had a day last Thursday for an economic discussion, we have a day for foreign affairs and we have today home affairs, and we have had at least 15 major subjects broached. I must ask the noble Viscount to keep off the economic situation this afternoon.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I agree that the noble Lord finds it very embarrassing to discuss the financial inadequacies of the Government, but home affairs are bound up inextricably with the financial management of the Government. I will cut short, as far as I can, my few words regarding Her Majesty's Government's handling of the economies, but I must point out that we now have a deficit in the public sector of £12 billion to £14 billion and, though this is a meaningless sum to the average person, what it means in practical terms is that the Government are spending £250 for every man, woman and child in this country, which they have not got.
Having said that, and in order to please the noble Lord opposite, although I do not see why I should please him, I will try to come off finance, but I must say that it is inextricably bound up with Home Affairs. Here we have the Equal Opportunities Commission. This surely comes into home affairs, and has to do with the Sex Discrimination Act. I under stand that the Government are now setting up the Equal Opportunities Commission to deal with the Sex Discrimination Act. That, I understand, will cost £2,230,000 a year to start with, to staff it with 400 people. But, just like all Government Departments, it will grow and grow and will probably end up by employing 2,000 people. There you have this persistent policy of the Government to transfer people from the profitable private sector to the unprofitable public

209
sector. If they go on doing that, they will be placing the most appalling burden on the ever weaker private sector which produces the wealth of this country. By depreciating the currency, you are really starving the country of the financial support it should have.
My Lords, might I now turn to the phasing out of private practice from the National Health Service hospitals? I understand that this will deprive the N.H.S. hospitals of about £40 million a year. Then the Government say in the gracious Speech that they will fight inflation, but that will add to inflation. I feel pretty sour about this question of phasing out private practice. My grand mother, like so many other people, left a very large fortune to a hospital—in her case, the Brompton Hospital. The Government of the day, of course, just seized all this money. I think it is immoral and iniquitous not to allow private patients to go to National Health Service hospitals, when so many private individuals gave huge sums of money for this purpose.
If you really want to cut unemployment, the only way of doing so is by stopping excessive taxation which is driving many firms into bankruptcy, thereby causing unemployment. If you stop this, you will give confidence to industry and then to the investor and you will prevent the rise in unemployment; because, in the long run, it is of no benefit to create over-employment in the State monopolised and subsidised industries, as you will only cause more inflation.
The Government's July cut down is only a pinprick, but it is quite incredible—and I know that this comes into tomorrow's debate—that they have chosen to cut defence further. Defence is already cut down to the bone, but they are now cutting into the bone. Good heavens, my Lords, if this goes on one man with a bow and arrow will be able to take over the country. If the Government really want to cut down, I suggest they should read a very good report of a committee set up by the Government, which reported in March 1973 on the abuses of social security benefits. If they acted on that report, I am sure they could cut down by many millions of pounds. It could be a far better way of saving expenditure and helping to reduce inflation
210
than cutting down the Armed Forces. But it would be unpopular with the voters, and therefore I do not suppose we will see it done.
Turning again to the gracious Speech, may I refer to an extraordinary contradictory paragraph? The gracious Speech says:
"My Government…will continue to encourage the maximum economic production of food at home in the interests of producers and consumers."
We heard the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, speak about tied cottages. If the Government do away with tied cottages, that will hardly encourage the production of food. I have had men coming to live in tied cottages and giving up the job within a week. They are then in the tied cottage rent free, not working on the farm. Sometimes for up to eight months.
At the same time, the gracious Speech says that a Bill will be introduced to give dockers control over cold stores and depots within five miles of the docks. There, again, the consumer will be denied. The gracious Speech says that the consumer is to be helped but, at the same time, the consumer will be affected by the dockers' slightest whim which can hold up the food supply. Not only will food production be hindered by doing away with the agricultural tied cottage, but the import of food will be held up at the docks and cold stores if the dockers so wish.
If we are to survive as a nation, we must stop being brainwashed. On the whole, I am a compassionate person, but we have been brainwashed too much about the compassionate society. There is far too much waste of public money; too many abuses of the Welfare State; law and law and order have become dirty words; profit, the accumulation of wealth and thrift have also become dirty words. I beg of the Government to try not to be so doctrinaire, not to be so divisive. I was appalled to read in the Press a few days ago of a Home Office report. It has taken 11 years todiscover—and it is almost impossible to believe—that by the time some nine out of 10 boys in London have left school they have stolen. I presume that is correct. What a terrible indictment that must be on our education system!

211
I commend teachers and parents to observe nature more. In nature, the predators especially have great love and affection for their families. If one of their family transgresses it gets a good blow from a paw. I think our human society, rather like animals kept in zoos and cages, has been so protected from the outside world that it cannot exist without artificial protection. I hope that this country will shake itself out of this dangerous situation. We are such a great country and we have ridden greater crises than we now find. I hope that we will knuckle down and survive the present dire straits which we are in.
6.16 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, it had not been my intention to say any thing about the countries of Ireland, Scot land and Wales, but there have been certain remarks this evening which make me feel impelled to say something. I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, who made some important and interesting remarks. Speaking as a Welshman, there is some thing which I should like to say to my English friends. You cannot hold down or impose any system on a part of this country. You cannot expect that the Irish, the Scots or the Welsh will go under to something which one tries to impose upon them. The Government are wise in looking at the whole possibility of devolution. I have lived in both Wales and Scotland and know what it is to be remote from the centre of power. This is what lies behind a great deal of these matters. I agreed with a great deal of what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said. If I interrupted him, it was because of what I thought was an irrelevance in his speech.
Regarding the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath—if I may say this in his absence—I hope we will bear in mind that mere sophistication in armaments, mere ingenuity in trying to impose something, will not work. For many years, the Americans used the world's most sophisticated armaments in Vietnam. All they did was to lose. It is no good imagining that one can subdue any part of these islands by mere sophisticated armaments. In the end, the solution is a political one and nothing else. One may find that one has to use methods
212
of holding back terrorism; but do not let us imagine that these methods will solve anything. They always leave bitterness behind them, and all we can hope for is that we move towards a rational, political solution.
It is not easy, and I do not envy my noble friends who are engaged in this process. But it is only by this method of constantly, slowly and patiently winning the confidence of people, and get ting a political solution, that we get anywhere. That is why I believe it is essential that we should look today to wards Scotland and Wales, and try to see that we have the right political solution ready before there is trouble; not come in too late and then find that we have to use all sorts of methods which are un pleasant, unfortunate and unproductive. Let us, for Heaven's sake!, reach the right solution quickly. Like the noble Viscount, I do not believe that either Scotland or Wales want to have separation, but I am quite sure that they want to have the right to run their own affairs—in so far as they are separate affairs. In my opinion, the whole United Kingdom would benefit if this were done, because it would relieve central Government of a great deal of this onerous work. As I mentioned earlier, I did not intend to say anything about this and it was only the fact that I listened to two interesting speeches which made me say anything at all.
I should like to refer to a passage in the gracious Speech about education. I know that we have discussed education before in certain ways, but this is a matter of vital importance to the people of the whole United Kingdom. The gracious Speech says this:
"Within available resources, they will give priority to children with special needs and to the vocational preparation of young people aged 16 to 19."
I believe that this matter of giving particular consideration to those with special needs is absolutely vital. But there is one matter I hope the Government will look at more carefully; that is, the provision for nursery schools. This, also, is a matter of special needs and, further more, it is not something which costs a lot of money.
I happen to have been in Newcastle at the end of last week, and I learnt from the Director of Education there that in 1974–75 the City of Newcastle received

213
£111,000 in the way of capital grants for nursery schools. In the following year—that is to say, the year we are now starting upon—they have been given £172,000. This is very welcome, but it has sprung from the fact, which is perhaps a little depressing, that other parts of the country have not taken up their grants adequately, so they have an extra amount because of that. I find this rather sad, although I am glad that Newcastle have got the money, and it is unfortunate that other parts of the country have not taken it up.
Newcastle have been told that for the following year the amount they will get is £36,000, which is a very substantial drop. Admittedly, this is new capital expenditure; but let us notice that the number of full-time places—not the total number of places, because one could probably add about 50 per cent. to the number of full-time places, since so many nursery pupils are part-time—in 1974–75 was 1,100, and this is now increased to 1,385. Add approximately 50 per cent., and you will get the total number of children involved. This is not a very large number for that area. When it is recognised that the children who go to these nursery schools are, very largely, the children of women who go out to work, it means that one is really depriving them of care, maintenance and education at a very important and impression able age—something which is quite essential. Surely we ought to regard this as a very important priority in our whole educational scheme. That is my first point.
My second point concerns the reference to the 16 to 19 age bracket. Here we are dealing with people of considerable importance. It is no use saying that after you have educated them up to the age of 16 you can throw them out. First, at the present time there are not the jobs to go to. Secondly, if they do not get continuing education between 16 and 19, they get fixed in the job they first go to. They get trained in a very narrow way for just that one thing. Then when they reach their twenties they find they have lost the opportunity to do something better; they have not had the training or the general education between the ages of 16 and 19 to enable them to go further.
214
Therefore, this training between 16 and 19 is absolutely essential if we are to have what I call Socialism, because to me Socialism means creating for every single person in the community the same opportunity—not exactly the same training—to advance. That is why I have been a Socialist for more than 50 years, because I know from what I have seen that, unless one gives the young an opportunity, one restricts what happens to them later. Afterwards, one turns around and says, "They are only fit to be unskilled labourers". The purpose of a community, it seems to me, is to provide an opportunity for every single member of that community to realise what lie is capable of doing. Therefore, this emphasis in the gracious Speech on the 16 to 19 age bracket is absolutely vital, and I congratulate the Government on it. I shall look with great care at their proposals, and I hope they will be sufficiently wide and all-embracing to ensure that all get what they need and deserve, and what the country needs.
We may say that there is unemployment at the present time. Are we assuming that there will always be a vast pool of unemployment? Or are we assuming that, as we have been in the past, we are still a lively, virile country doing new things? How do you do new things?—only if you have the young trained to do them. It is not the old "dodderers" like our selves who are important; we are of no significance. It is the young who matter—the young and the young alone—and unless we put our money on the young there is no future at all for this country.
If I may run briefly through the educational spectrum, perhaps I might go on now to the next stage, which is secondary education. During the past year, we have had two debates on secondary education. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I say that I have rarely listened to such a lot of irrelevant material as we heard during those two debates. It was assumed by many who took part that what we are concerned with is training a minute number of brilliant mathematicians. A noble Lord, a friend of mine, made this very remark quoting, if you please, Russia! It is not often that your Lordships quote Russia as the pattern to copy. But here, because the Russians happen to have special schools for mathematicians, we were told that grammar schools in this

215
country have to be given State support. It is not that they are not to be allowed to continue; they are to be allowed to continue, but they are to be given special State grants, in order to produce what—half a dozen brilliant mathematicians! Really, my Lords, can nonsense go further than that?
I inquired at Newcastle, again from the Director of Education, about the position with regard to schools in Newcastle—and these are figures I was given yester day. In the State schools, the comprehensive schools, in Newcastle there are 25,000 pupils; in the direct-grant grammar schools, leaving aside the Roman Catholic ones, which have all opted to go into the State comprehensive system, there were 350 pupils being maintained by the local authority. We are asked to believe that the future of education depends upon dealing with 350 pupils who have been carefully selected, creamed off by some magical method, and to neglect the 25,000. My Lords, really: Have we lost all leave of our senses? Are we talking about the world as it exists or about some marvellous imaginary thing?
If I may refer to what the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has been saying, there was reference to political prejudice and doing things because we have dogmatic beliefs. My Lords, there is your dogmatic belief; that is, the dogmatic belief that to pick out 350 by some marvellous process of selection is more important than to deal with 25,000. Where are we? Of course we have beliefs. I have very clear and fervent beliefs. Am I to be told that, having those beliefs and being confident from all my past experience that those beliefs are valid and would be good for this country, I am to throw them aside be cause I am dogmatic? I wonder where we come in some of these discussions.
I come to another point where I may be critical of the Government. I refer to higher education. I know that higher education is the most expensive part of education; I know it perfectly well. But if we do not have well-sustained higher education where are we going to get those people who will provide the important ideas which will sustain us in the future? Where will they come from? We in this country have been abundantly justified in our expansion of higher education. It
216
has been splendid. I give credit for this to Conservative Governments as well as to Labour Governments. I have no doubt at all that, if we had not been putting money into higher education over the last 20 years we should be far worse off than we are today.
May I move quickly to my final point, because I do not want to detain your Lordships long. It is research. Research is the whole basis of our future development. It is the seed from which every thing else springs. I have been in charge of research laboratories and I know quite well that there may be extravagance; I know quite well that a lot of what is done is not successful. But if we look around us today we see that there is not an important industry which has not come forward through research. Which are the industries which have failed us? Not the ones which have been doing research, but those which have not been doing re search. Our motor car industry has been deplorably backward in research and it is a positive disaster. To take engineering, look for example at our machine tool industry. For the last 20 years I have been urging parts of our machine tool industry to do better. They would not look at anything new at all. They are as dead as the dodo.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, may I interrupt. I once had a factory. With great respect I think the noble Lord is talking nonsense. Often if one introduces new machinery the shop steward comes along and says, "Hell! We are not going to work this. We are not going to do it because it will mean having less labour." With due respect, I do not think the noble Lord is speaking from practical experience, although I admire his great academic qualities.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, as I am a friend of the noble Viscount I never accuse him of speaking nonsense. But in this whole field we must remember that the future depends upon what we are doing today. I urge the Government to look at this whole problem of research and make certain—I do not say to encourage every single piece of research —that the real seed corn is not destroyed.
6.36 p.m.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, before turning to the gracious Speech in

217
more general terms I wonder whether I might make just a couple of points on the question of terrorism and security in this country. I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said this afternoon, in particular about what he said about expressing our admiration and gratitude to the police in their very difficult task. In watching, I think, the ITV "News at Ten" as recently as last Wednesday, I was rather concerned when there was an interview with a leading restaurant owner whose restaurant had been bombed about a week or 10 days earlier. The gist of what he said was that he had received no guidance at all from the authorities and was very much on his own. He was busy erecting laminated glass windows. Since then I know there has been a meeting of restaurant managers in London and so no doubt they will have received police guidance.
What concerns me and may well concern other noble Lords is that it may well be that terrorist tactics will change. Perhaps, instead of aiming at the smarter restaurants, they may turn their attention to the more common or garden pubs, museums, cinemas, and so on. I should like to ask two questions. First, are the police going round to all these establishments—I know it is a vast job—and making sure that there is somebody on the staff who so far as is possible is able to keep on the alert? I can see the difficulty if one considers a crowded Fleet Street pub, but I should have thought something could be done and it would be far better for a customer to lose his last drink rather than to lose a leg or an arm.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, may I deal with that point in view of its importance? The noble Lord has pointed out one difficulty which is that, although the target at the moment is restaurants in the West End of London, it could become almost anything. It is therefore difficult to know precisely what type of advice to give and exactly to whom. But I have made it clear in the past, as has my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, that the police are willing and able to give advice to anyone who feels he may be subject to this form of attack, and every local police station has a crime prevention officer who is always available and will
218
come and discuss the matter with any one who has any anxieties on this score.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I welcome very much what the noble Lord has said. The only other matter on this topic that I was going to mention was whether or not the Home Office view was that it would be a good idea to have posters on the entrances of various public establishments giving guidance to members of the public on what they should or should not do in the event of an attack. Turning in more general terms to the gracious Speech, I regret to say that, as I see it, we are in for another batch of somewhat partisan measures. Moreover, this Government hardly won a landslide victory at the last Election. Therefore, it can hardly be said to have a mandate in any real sense of the word. Indeed, very far from it; they have a majority of one in a House of 635 Members.
I know it was Churchill who said that a majority of one is enough, and certainly, a majority of one is enough. In fact, the present Government have so far gained much bigger majorities than that, owing to the fragmented state of the smaller Opposition parties: but it should be borne in mind that this is a Government which had the support of only 29 per cent. of the entire electorate at the last Election and of only 39 per cent. of those who actually cast their votes. Moreover, in England which consists of 83 per cent. of the United Kingdom electorate—and, incidentally, has only 81 per cent. of the seats at Westminster—the present Government are in a minority of seven or eight seats. I mention that point because it is one which ought to be borne in mind.
I should like to draw attention to the fast erosion of individual liberties and the increasing State interference that is taking place under this Government. During the past Session a vast paraphernalia of State apparatus has been clamped upon us, severly threatening the already hard-pressed free enterprise sector. It is a sobering thought that in the past year the additional public bodies that have been established include the British National Oil Corporation, the National Enterprise Board, the Scottish Development Agency, the Welsh Development Agency, the Land Authority for Wales, the National Consumer Council, and others. There has been a big expansion

219
of Ministerial powers through the Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Act. All of these bodies are being set up at a time when curbs on public spending are the overriding need. The mind simply boggles at the cost and at the vast amount of bureaucracy which will be required to run all these public bodies.
Then—I apologise for still harking back to the last Session—there is the Land Community Bill which I hardly dare to mention in this House after the many hours that your Lordships have spent upon it. However, as noble Lords opposite know, many of us on this side of the House still regard it as an iniquitous measure with wholly insufficient safe guards for owner-occupiers and with quite inadequate safeguards as to rights of appeal. This measure will also mean another vast army of bureaucrats. In the Session which we now have before us there is a further mass of divisive measures, partly, I suppose, to placate the Government's trade union masters. There is the nationalisation of shipbuilding and aircraft, thereby smothering two more industries under the blanket of nationalisation. There is the wholly unwarranted interference with agriculture through the intention to abolish tied cottages.
There is what The Times says should be called, "Mr. Foot's Trade Union Wrongful Exclusion and Expulsion Enabling Bill", removing personal safe guards of appeal if persons are deprived of jobs by their trade union membership being withdrawn. It seems to me to be such a pity that the Government still have to proceed with this measure just when there is a glimmer of hope as a result of the postal ballot in the engineering union which, if it has done nothing else, at least appears effectively to have slain what some of us consider to be one of the more terrible of the trade union dinosaurs, Mr. Hugh Scanlon.
More than anything in the gracious Speech, I regret what seems to me, to be the vicious vendetta against pay beds, private medicine and parental choice in education. In particular, I deplore the measures to curb the growth of the private sector in medicine. This has deplorable implications. I know that, at the moment, it is not Government policy to forbid people spending their own money on either private education or
220
private medicine, but certainly there are those who wish to see an end to the private sector in these fields. What I cannot see is where this kind of thing ends, where the dividing line eventually is to be drawn. It is only a minority—albeit by no means an insignificant minority nowadays—who wish to spend their money on such things as private medicine and private education, but in all logic I cannot see why one should not be able to spend one's money on those kinds of things any more than, say, on a particular kind of motor car. If some of us are able to spend£3,000 or £4,000 on a particular kind of car, why should that be right if everybody is unable to do so?
Alternatively, let us take holidays in Spain. Why should some people have holidays in Spain if not everybody can have holidays in Spain? Indeed, we have Mr. Jack Jones telling us in no uncertain terms that we should not have holidays in Spain because he does not like the regime there. There seems to me to be so much interference in our daily lives at the present time that it is leading to larger than ever numbers of people emigrating. Many of those who do so are professional people—doctors, businessmen, and so on—who in various ways feel that they are victimised or that they just are out of tune with the way of things as they are going in this country at the present time, for example, the self-employed who have to put up with swingeing increases in National Insurance contributions, businesses that are hit by capital transfer tax, not to mention penal taxation of a more general nature.
As Sir Geoffrey Howe—surely one of the most mild mannered of men—mentioned over the weekend, may not the time come when emigration reaches such proportions that the Government will be forced to restrict and control it. In today's climate, this does not seem to me to be so very far-fetched. Half a century ago a leading statesman—and it was not a statesman who was very favourably inclined towards the Conservatives—warned in a speech:
"If you establish a Socialist community, it means the most comprehensive, universal and pervasive tyranny that this country has ever seen. It is like sand of the desert. It gets into your food, your clothes, your machinery, the very air you breathe. They are all gritty with regulations, orders, decrees, rules. That is what socialism means".

221
The speaker was David Lloyd George and it seems to me that his words have the harsh ring of truth about them. At a time when acquisitive Socialism is so very much on the rampage it behoves those of us who value the free enterprise system—for all I know they may well include quite a number on the Benches opposite as well as on these Benches—to unite, close the ranks and cry, "Enough!"
6.49 p.m.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, may I join in congratulating the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, on his maiden speech. I was quite stirred by the perceptiveness of his remark that the danger of devolution might be more the disintegration of Scotland rather than the disintegration of the United Kingdom. I, a dedicated supporter in home and international affairs of self-determination, take note of that warning. I have a similar rather secret fear which he has brought to the surface. If devolution goes too far and Scotland secedes from England, undoubtedly England will insist on seceding from Northern Ireland. If that should come about one might expect, following upon that, that Dublin would be applying to Westminster for a restoration of the union which was broken in 1922, in order that this intractable problem too might be solved. So the noble Lord has given rise to food for thought.
In turning to the gracious Speech, I want to stand back a little, and I notice that the Prime Minister, in about 15 months—so far as I can ascertain from the people who offer me records—will have been Prime Minister for as long as Winston Churchill and, a few days later, for as long as Asquith and a few days after that he will have been Prime Minister of this country for longer than any other person this century. I am sure he is aware of this; I am sure also that he would like to go down in history as a great Prime Minister and not as a failure, as winner not loser of the battles in which he is now engaged.
Of these battles, one which is mentioned by everybody is the battle against inflation, inflation on such a scale that we are in danger of a lasting decline. Nobody questions that. The second one
222
is the permeation of his Party and the trade unions by Marxist philosophies, if only because international Marxism has designated its supporters to operate wholly within the Labour Party. I am sure that he recognises that, and there are people on the Government Benches in this House who acknowledge it and who perceive that a turn in favour of the less extreme in views is taking place.
The third is the campaign against law-lessness. I have heard in this House a debate in which the only speaker in favour of the application of law in industrial relations—the only person on the present Government's side to speak in favour—was the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. But I am certain that the others are law abiding, I am certain that even those who spoke most vigorously against the application of the law in these relationships at the present time are regretful because it is not practicable, and they would much prefer that it be so.
So the Prime Minister has a battle on his hands on three fronts, and I find it a most intriguing spectacle to watch what happens. I do not wish to comment on the details of his tactics. It would he impertinent for me to do so, and if I happened to be right it might be embarrassing but I note that the basis of his attempt is consent, because when you offend too many million people, and even if you put them in the wrong with the law, you cannot put them into prison. You cannot apply a sanction of that sort, and therefore persuasion has to be under taken. Rightly or wrongly, he took the step of what was called a "Social Contract", and in his speech to which I have previously referred, his speech to the National Union of Mineworkers on 7th July, the Prime Minister chided them bitterly, and others in the trade unions, for having failed to live up to their side of the contract while the Government had done all and more in the most difficult circumstances to fulfil their side of the pledge.
There is much that is unpleasant. For instance, I am very much on the side of The Times in its article on the gracious Speech, but I greatly disliked its method. I like pretending that the gracious Speech came from Her Majesty and not from Mr. Harold Wilson. Instead of saying, "dreadful Queen's Speech," I would say,

223
"The most gracious Speech"; and in stead of saying, "Seven bad Bills" I would prefer to say, "Seven humble Amendments to the gracious Speech". I do not think anything is gained by being insulting. I like the pretence, and I think it is a safeguard against discourtesies that we refer to the "most gracious Speech", and we think of the Queen and not of the legislators on the opposite side, whom we do not like.
In that speech to the National Union of Mineworkers, I detect a turning point in our history. The Prime Minister said things to the National Union of Mine workers that go right to the most militant heart of the Labour Movement. He said things which nobody else could have said and got away with them. After all, we have to bear in mind that Mr. Heath was driven from the battlefield by the miners and the electorate, and that the Prime Minister and the Labour Government came in in the face of the cock-a-hoop miners and many other people and facing a very difficult task. That he should at once scrap the whole of his part of the Social Contract is in my view impossible. Some people are asking for too much. In battle there have to be sacrifices; in battle there are great losses and he who comes out is the one, not who avoids battle and avoids losses, but who makes the fewer mistakes.
I had intended to spend more time than I have left on juvenile crime. I noticed in the London Evening News, which claims to have the largest evening sale, the headline, "London hit by child crimes". I was born in London; I joined a regiment which consisted of nine-tenths Londoners, and I did a stint running the junior section of a working boys' club in Bermondsey, among the sons of dockworkers. I wanted to know more about this. I have dedicated a large part of my life to the service of Londoners—all of them young, some very young. It was said in the newspaper that an alarming epidemic of theft by schoolboys was sweeping the city and that nine out of ten boys have stolen 100 times by the time they are 16. This report is the result of a study over six years by some body appointed by the Home Office.
The Home Office paid the expenses for that study of £110,000, and the volume in
224
question costs £15, which is why I have been unable to read it personally and had to go to somebody else in order to discover what this was all about. For that purpose I have been to my friends in Scotland Yard. My link with Scotland Yard is an accidental one. I have never asked them for any particular help, but I am by accident an honorary member of the Fraud Squad. I obtained an introduction to the juvenile department and spent some hours talking over the problem with them. "Are these statements true?" is what I first asked, and they said "Yes, they are more or less true". Is the crime scale new?" They said: "No, it is not; it has been going on now for a considerable time. Even the man making the report has taken six years to do so and he is not up-to-date. He talks about juvenile delinquents of seven years old, but even down to four-year-olds commit quite serious crimes." I asked whether all the crimes were serious, and he said, "It includes everything."
I understand that the evidence was taken in a slightly questionable way. The boys were given £1, a good meal and an evening out. If boys are treated like that, asked a question and given an immunity as to what they may choose to confess, they will confess in a rather exaggerated form; they will say almost anything you like. The report itself has not so much by way of value, but it has enabled me to discover that this is the truth. Scotland Yard expect that the situation will get very much worse.
Their reason for saying this is that we in this country have only a fraction of the crime committed in many of the cities of the United States—and in Tokyo it is many times worse. We are not alone. Knowing that I was going to speak, the people I have been in contact with said to me: "Try to persuade your fellow Peers to let us send a small representative party to the United States, because they are 10 to 15 years ahead of us in this. Some of their developments are very bad, and we should like to know whether there are lessons to learn so that we can avoid this." I asked how bad were the developments. "Well", they said, "recently a gang of 14-year-olds murdered six people at intervals and at random. They had nothing against them; they did not know them. They did not want to enrich themselves; they did not rob their victims, but merely killed them to see what

225
the authorities would do about it." I love Londoners, and we do not want them to come to that.
My Lords, I am aware, only too keenly, that person after person has dealt with this matter: the noble Earl, Lord Long ford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner—this House is stiff with people who have studied this matter. I am not unfamiliar with the situation. I have "crammed" the vast amount of legislation on this subject. I have looked hard at the summary and report of the 1969 Act, which is the last Act, and I have looked hard at a summary of its legislation. What is wrong? So far as I can understand, legislation for the most part is not wanting. But in every case where there is delinquency, there is not onlydeprivation—it is not only a question of the deprived; there are the depraved as well.
There are some who must be taken out of circulation, otherwise they may become popular leaders of gangs and they may corrupt people who otherwise would not be corrupted. I understand that the carrying-out of the terms of the 1969 Act has turned out to be too difficult and too expensive. No one wants to apply the care, even if it is ordered by the court. They do not; they will not; they cannot—it is too expensive and the accommodation is not there. Cannot the State intervene where the local authority is unable? This is an important matter, because the worst people are at large because nobody will contain them.
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not in the Chamber at the moment, but the other day he quoted a little story about St. Anthony and Satan. The noble and learned Lord told us how the saint had been offered a pea on a plate by Satan. I have another story of St. Anthony and Satan. Satan visited St. Anthony one night when the saint was staying up, having fasted and stayed awake. Satan said: "Anthony, you do a lot of things that I can do a lot better. You do not eat very much; I do not eat at all. You do not sleep very much; I never sleep. But there is one thing that you do very well that I cannot do at all. I cannot obey." And that is the answer. Some people have to be disciplined, they have to be made to obey.
7.6 p.m.
Lord WOLVERTON: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships for a short time, I wish to talk on the housing problem. I consider it to be one of the important social problems that we have today in this country. The gracious Speech said:
"My Ministers will pursue vigorously their programmes of social reform by legislative and other means, within available resources. They will take energetic action to encourage the provision of more houses in both public and private sectors; and following from a comprehensive review they will bring forward recommendations for future housing finance policy."
I wish to say a little about the financial side. But before I do that, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said in a speech the other day that one of our problems today in the social sphere was the problem of inadequate and bad housing. Two or three years ago we thought we had broken the back of the housing problem because we had built and improved a vast number of houses. But the fact that people are getting married earlier and living longer means that this problem is much in our minds today.
In many parts of the country, we have large housing waiting lists. Last yew was not a good year at all. In Great Britain, in both the private and public sectors, we completed about 270,000 houses; 130,000 in the public sector and 140,000 in the private sector. It seems as if this year the figures will be a little better. The projection for this year—it is only a projection because we are not yet through the year—is that 150,000 houses will be built in the public sector and 150,000 in the private sector, giving a figure of 300,000 houses against 270,000 last year, provided these projections are right. I put that forward in order to show that a little progress has been made.
My Lords, what worries me is that every council house built today has a subsidy of £1,000. That subsidy on a house costing about £10,000 goes on for something like 40 years, until the loans are paid off. In my part of the world, in East Anglia, the average rents are somewhere around £4 to £4.50 a week, and the average income of the workers is about £35 a week. East Anglia is not a highly rated area with regard to wages. I was always brought up to believe that

227
the right amount to pay for rent was about one-fifth of your income, but the figure I have quoted is about one-ninth. I believe the rent is going up by about 50p.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, if I may just clear up that point, the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, is giving relate to the gross income received by the worker today as opposed to before the War. But since the deductions are very much higher—both tax and National Insurance—it is appropriate to look at the proportion of the worker's net disposable income represented by his housing cost and not by his gross income.
Lord WOLVERTON: Yes, my Lords; but does the noble Lord think that one-ninth is the correct amount? If he is only paying £4.50, it is only one-ninth, and I consider that is not enough. We all want to encourage people to own their own houses, but unless a man earns about £50 to £60 a week he cannot get a mortgage; he must be left with a large proportion of his income before a building society will look at him. It costs him anything from £20 to £25 a week to get a mortgage. That excludes a very large number of people who would like to own their own homes, but under present circumstances cannot because they are not earning enough. We all want to get down inflation and therefore it means keeping wages steady, but this is what we are faced with today, a mounting number of people going on to housing lists.
I can assure noble Lords that, even in my part of the world, in East Anglia, the housing lists are getting very severe indeed for council housing, and now with the restriction on expenditure by local authorities and the reduction of their grants, they will not be able to afford in the future to build the number of houses that they should build. I was very pleased that in the gracious Speech Her Majesty's Government have said that they are going to set up, or have set us, a high level committee to look into the whole of this housing finance, which I think is in a chaotic condition, and I am not the only one who thinks that. We have somehow to find an answer to it.
With regard to the rent restriction that is going on, the other day at the local
228
government conference at Eastbourne Mr. Crosland, Secretary of State for the Environment, said that he would have a review made of the Rent Acts. I am very glad he is going to do that.
I should like to read to your Lordships a very short paragraph in the Cambridge Evening News of November 11th 1975:
"American airmen at the Mildenhall and Lakenheath bases are having to live in hotels because the two bases have run into a critical housing shortage problem".
Then it goes on with details of the problem:
"Mr. Novak blames the Rent Act which is affecting the bases' house hunters in common with British tenants. 'There are plenty of homes vacant and for sale in the local areas', he said yesterday. 'But owners arc not pre pared to take a chance on putting tenants in and risk not being able to move them out when they find a buyer.' "
That is perfectly correct; there are a large number of empty houses, because of the Rent Acts; the owners can never get them back again. It is not only affecting our people but our American allies who are doing a grand job of work in Western Defence and NATO at Mildenhall and Lakenheath. I am very glad the Minister is at last going to look into this Rent Act problem to see if any thing can be done. It is, in my humble opinion, a very vital thing to get good housing. I remember the late Lord I Salisbury telling us in an earlier debate, when we were struggling with this problem after the War, that good housing was essential to bring up a good Christian family. I do hope Her Majesty's Government will pursue vigorously these great problems and try to solve some of them; otherwise I do not feel we shall get the houses we so urgently need.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, at the end of the day in our Home Affairs debate on the gracious Speech, first I should like to apologise to the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, for not being present during his maiden speech. He is an old friend of mine, but I did not recognise his title. However, on this account I will read his speech with particular interest.
I welcome two of the Government's proposed measures, the one on public lending rights for authors and the other, and major one, on education. I shall

229
speak only on the proposals for education, for it seems to me that if this Government in these difficult days succeed in abolishing selection in secondary education, this will transform not only the educational climate but the social and economic climate in this country. Most people now agree that 11 is too early an age at which to judge the potential of a child, but they still persist in separating children into first- and second-class schools, so stamping them as first and second-class citizens. However, of late the psychological and social arguments about sowing the seeds of inferiority in so many of our children, due to selection, are now reinforced by the disclosure of the many mistakes created by the examination itself. It has been shown that a quarter of grammar school places awarded each year are given in error. No system of selection is foolproof, and now it looks as if the more selection we have the more mistakes we make.
The leader writer in The Times Educational Supplement, commenting on the Queen's Speech, said that he was not in favour of prolonging the 11-plus examination, but would have no truck with legislation now or in the future. How very obtuse since, ironically, on the same page there appeared a long paragraph on the increasing number of errors in the 0-level examination. Yesterday, that lively politician, Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, the Conservative spokes man on education, spelled out the all too familiar arguments for maintaining selection in secondary education. He made great play about the wickedness of politics in education. To me he appeared to be saying, "No politics, please; I am British".
One of the less worthy arguments used in the education debate is that the abolition of selective secondary education will destroy schools of proven worth. I wonder whether we realise that there is more than one side to the excellence of those schools. Why, for instance, have we not managed to produce the number of scientists and technologists we require and which are badly needed in the 'eighties? The loud Conservative cry is that the abolition of selection will destroy secondary education as we know it. Indeed, it may. My hope is that it will transform completely our education system. So let us not keep politics out of education.
230
We in the Labour Party do not go along with the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, in the thought that we have a right to be unequal in education. We stand firmly on the need to stretch and to multiply the opportunities for all our children, and particularly for the late developers and the less able. How else can these children obtain the choice of jobs to which they are entitled when they grow up? Our education system in the last one hundred years has failed in that it has been a caste system. It is not so long ago since careers in industry, commerce and engineering were looked down on socially. The Butler Education Act of 1944 was a great Act of Parliament and, as Mr. Fred Mulley, the Secretary of State for Education, rightly pointed out in the Commons, it would have been a still greater Act if it had done away with selection. Mr. Mulley trumped the criticism of the Conservatives by showing that his intention was to build upon its detailed proposals.
We can only work towards a fair and high standard system of secondary education within the framework of a comprehensive system. Our schools must more and more represent all the mixed abilities of our children, roughly all our children in the country, and this means more and better comprehensive schools. Educational research today should concentrate on the best techniques to bring to their greatest strength the ability and the talents of the less able as well as the able. We need to allocate more of our resources to the comprehensive schools. This is the relevant and urgent task for today, to give the less able and the poorer children a better choice in their working lives. Good industrial relations can only be achieved in this way.
We have lagged behind the Germans and the Americans socially and economically because of our class structure. Our education system up to date has been compared to a narrow ladder, and some people get to the top; whereas the American system, a non-selective system, has been described as an education escalator. That is the difference between those countries which are successful today and those countries which are suffering from malaise. If we do not change now we shall go limping into the 21st century. I

231
believe that the step which this Government are now taking is relevant, urgent, and courageous in these difficult days. Finally, perhaps my noble friend Lord Donaldson, who is to reply for the Government, will enlighten us on the final words about education:
"and to deal with certain other matters."
7.23 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, the age-old problem of the gracious Speech has always been that the Minister of whichever Party who has to reply last has to answer a whole plethora of questions on subjects well outside the ambit of his or her Department. I would mention only one or two aspects of Northern Ireland, which is the subject very close to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I watched on television, as many probably did, last Sunday's "Songs of Praise" from that lovely cathedral in Londonderry, St. Colombes. As I listened to the beautiful singing not only of the choir but of two of the leading schools of the city, I thought, "If this kind of quality singing and this kind of gathering can get together under this lovely roof, why do we have the terrible and tragic problems which have besotted this lovely country for 300 years?". That is a question to which many people would like the answer. Many dedicated people from all sides are trying to find the answer. But one thing I believe to be quite certain, having had many Irish friends over the years, in both Eire and Northern Ireland, is that the vast majority of them want to see both countries living in peace.
Having said that, I should like to turn to one or two subjects outlined in the home affairs section—and I stress, home affairs section—of the gracious Speech. First, I should like to follow to some extent my noble friend Lord Ferrier in his comments regarding the broadcasting of Parliament. I believe that the time has come for a comprehensive sound broadcasting system of our Parliamentary proceedings, not only in another place but in this House—and I stress, broadcasting. I have far greater reservations about television, but at this hour I do not propose on such a subject as the gracious Speech to get embroiled in any controversy there. I think that the spoken word is of vital importance.
232
Of course, one of the problems of that admirable programme "Today in Parliament" is, as I understand it, that it is not possible in the time available to give a really accurate and comprehensive assessment of what has been said, particularly by whichever Minister or Shadow Minister has wound up. Also, as my noble friend said, it is late at night, 10.45 in the evening or even later.
Lord FERRIER: It is 11.15.
Lord AUCKLAND: As my noble friend rightly said, 11.15. There are not very many people, except insomniacs—as we sometimes are, with the worries which we carry on our shoulders these days—who are in a fit state of alertness to take in what is said. Therefore, we are faced with the technical problem of putting it either on Radio 3, thus depriving the music lovers, like myself, or on another channel. Of course, this has financial implications. But no doubt these are matters which those who have drafted the Bill, and have presumably consulted about it, will have borne seriously in mind. Be that as it may, I think that the time has come for much fuller broadcasting of our proceedings, because we are now discussing matters of great importance, nationally and internationally.
I cannot help feeling that there is too much backbiting, too much political bickering, on the television screen, which may be good fun and good entertainment, as per last Sunday's television programme, "We the British," which had a fascinating portrayal of the Party at present in power. However, what any body learned from it, despite its superficial entertainment value, is rather dubious in serious times such as these.
I come to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, about education. I was not able to take part in the debate on direct grant schools due to other commitments and I do not want to raise the temperature of the House at this hour. I have the greatest possible respect for the noble Baroness and agree with her in many of the views she expresses, although not entirely with the views she expressed tonight. I listened, as many did in the course of the recent debate, to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, in a speech which, although I did not agree with chapter and verse, should be

233
circulated to all educationists because it had an enormous amount of sound sense in it. I was educated at a small but well-known public school in Devonshire and my son is there now. My younger daughter is at a grammar school in Epsom and my elder daughter is at a teacher training college in the Midlands, and as part of her training she has been doing some teaching in what I understand is a very good comprehensive school just outside the City of Nottingham. She enjoys teaching at the school, which has just over 1,000 children. However, when I talked to her the other day she told me that she had yet to meet the headmaster.
This is the main problem we face at present with all-in schools. It is a communications problem, and I put this question to the Government: when, as I understand it, in September 1976 reorganisation really gets started, what optimum size have the Government in mind for comprehensive schools as a whole? Obviously it must vary from area to area, but I submit with the greatest possible respect that any size over 1,750–1 quote that figure would be too high. That is my view, which I know will not be shared by all— there are those who have studied this matter far more carefully—but obviously there must be some optimum in the mind of the Government, particularly in regions where there is a heavy population and in regions where there are perhaps more backward children than in others, because I take the view that those children who are not particularly gifted must have their opportunities. I have always felt that, and I speak as one who did not go to university because of war service and one thing and another. At the same time, the bright child must not be overlooked because he or she might be in a comprehensive school which is too large or in any type of school which is too large.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a simple question about the size of schools. Can this be decided other than by trial and error? Does that not mean that we must have a comprehensive system working with a variety of school sizes before we can find out what is the right size? Does he agree that there is no theoretical method of deciding it?
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I wondered whether the noble Lord, who has great experience of these matters, might put a very erudite question. The only answer I can give is that comprehensive schools are not new; I think the late Lady Horsbrugh opened the first comprehensive in Birmingham. I should have thought, therefore, that before bringing in specific legislation this matter would have been thoroughly examined. This is not something which can be experimented with. This is far too serious a matter for experimentation, but obviously at this hour of the evening this is not a point which can be pursued. Nevertheless, I ask the Government to give some thought to it, and I am trying to make these points in as non-political a mariner as I can.
I must comment briefly on the National Health Service, a subject in which I and my family have had an interest for many years. I shall say very little, because I am hoping to speak in the debate which my noble friend Lord Aberdare will initiate next week. The right honour able Member for Blackburn has recently taken some knocks and, reading the speech which she made last Friday in the House of Commons, I am bound to say, being as charitable as I can, that she earned some of them. She and others made a great fuss when my right honourable friend Mr. Heath stood out against the coal miners. Now she is complaining because some of the junior doctors, some of whom work 90 to 100-plus hours a week, are having their say. Having said that, I would, as one who has many friends and acquaintances in the medical profession, say that enough is enough. I believe the time has now come for the doctors to return to normal working, and I feel that if they did so they would get a much enhanced respect from the general public. I think they have a particularly strong case, not only on the question of pay, though the £6 limit is there and everybody must adhere to it. As for the legislation regarding the phasing out of private beds in the National Health Ser vice, again I submit that this is rushed legislation, even though it has been on the cards for some time.
We had a very gruelling time last Session and I believe that we face another one this Session. I am bound to say that there is some legislation in the gracious

235
Speech which is good and sound—for example, the CBI and the trade unions working together, which every Government want, is sound, and there are other admirable measures—but there is still too much divisiveness in the legislation before the country. There is still too much which, at a time when we are all being exhorted to save and draw in our horns, will cost far too much public money. We in this House have the responsibility, as we have had before, to revise as much as we can and be, as we always have been in my 18 years here, a responsible and vigilant Chamber.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask him whether he would not agree, in relation to education, that, at this time of all times, it would be wrong and quite unnecessary to build more comprehensive schools—for I understand that comprehensive schools have to be what is called "purpose built" and that one cannot change an old grammar school into a comprehensive school—and that the Government ought to save rather than to build more comprehensive schools when there are plenty of grammar schools and other schools for these pupils at the present time?
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I would just say to my noble friend that no doubt the Government will take into account the remarks which have been made on this subject on all sides of the House.
7.41 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the articles of Mr. Bernard Levin in The Times seldom fail to amuse, even when he is rehashing a week old leader in his own newspaper, as he has done this morning in his references to the Queen's Speech. This familiar technique of wild exaggeration is almost invariably amusing, and I feel that the technique of the verbal cartoon sometimes vividly illuminates some aspects of our life which might otherwise be less clearly seen. Without going anything like as far as Mr. Levin in his speculations about the mental health of the Cabinet, one is astonished that a group of people with, as he says, a high intellectual capacity, can produce a series of measures such as we have seen in the Queen's Speech which are positively
236
harmful or, in many cases, irrelevant. For instance, one might refer to the development land tax, which could have been very useful in the 1960s when huge fortunes were being made in property but which would, in my opinion, simply create a new bureaucratic incubus on top of all the other measures which have been introduced to deal with this problem. Falling land prices are not the consequence of Government action but we have the nationalisation of development land at existing user prices, the capital transfer taxes, and the huge burden of interest rates which stifles many development schemes at birth.
Reference has already been made to the nationalisation of the shipbuilding and aircraft industries. That will absorb a great deal of the time and energy of Parliament in the coming Session which could otherwise have been devoted to working out long-term solutions for the management of a mixed economy which we now all agree we are going to have and to identifying the characteristics of a sustainable life style—and in my opinion this is a most important task. That sustainable life style will either be forced on us and will lead to uncomfortable and perhaps catastrophic discontinuities—a small foretaste of which we experienced during the oil crisis two years ago—or we shall have to plan for it so that we can make the transition in good time.
But, like all the best cartoonists, Mr. Levin tends to concentrate with gusto on the bizarre and unlovely aspects of his subject, and he ignores some of the many good features which his subject may possess or, if I may put it in the words of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, the barrel of applies which we are discussing contains many which are good and sweet. Personally. I happen to agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, said about the abolition of selection at the age of 11. I believe that that is long overdue, and the only question in my mind is whether the Government will provide the funds for local education authorities to see that the remaining stages of the reorganisation are carried out sensibly and competently. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that that does not mean that we should have the huge educational factories which we sometimes see passed off as comprehensives.

237
I also agree with the phasing-out of private practice in the National Health Service hospitals. I believe that the ability of rich people to pre-empt beds and all the other resources of the hospitals—which are, after all, provided at the expense of the taxpayers as a whole—is absolutely intolerable. I feel that the threats of resignation which are being made by the consultants should be seen as what they are. They are threats to the life of individual patients who may not be treated as a result of the withdrawal of these services, and I believe that the consultants should be told plainly that the Health Service belongs to the people as a whole and not to certain overpaid medical prima donnas who are taking industrial action as if they were violently Left-Wing or Trotskyite trade unionists.
I also agree that we have had a very valuable measure outlined in the Queen's Speech and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harris—that is, the establishment of an effective independent element in the machinery for handling complaints against the police, which is at last to be achieved 11 years after the opportunity first arose in the Police Act 1964. I believe that it is now widely recognised, as it should have been then, that these changes are needed in order to maintain public confidence in the police. Finally, as another example before I come to my main theme, there is the Public Lending Right Bill, which puts an end to a controversy which has gone on even longer, for it started some 25 years ago. I hope that this will be a satisfactory solution to that problem.
The gracious Speech referred to the Bill which is to be introduced to strengthen the law on racial discrimination, an out line of which was given in the White Paper in September and which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has now explained. The Liberal Party welcomes the concept of working towards the elimination of racial discrimination and the promotion of racial equality to replace the nebulous objective of "harmonious community relations" set out in the 1968 Act. That phrase could mean—as it does in some States which might claim to have harmonious community relations, such as South Africa—the repression of ethnic minorities and the smothering of their complaints. Conversely, I believe that
238
we shall have to recognise that, in order to promote genuine equality and the eradication of racism, we may have to accept some transitional friction which would have been incompatible with the objective of harmonious community relations. We also approve of the Government's stated intention to replace the Commission and the Board with a new public body which, in the proposals which we submitted to the Home Office, had the title of "Community Relations Executive". The name is not all that important but, on reflection. I still prefer "Executive" to "Commission" as an indication of the more positive and wider functions which are to be conferred on the new body. I should be grateful if the Home Office would take that point into consideration.
We agree that the scope of the legislation should he as wide as that of the law on sex discrimination and, in addition, that discrimination by clubs and discrimination on the basis of national origin should be dealt with at the same time. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, anticipated, I particularly welcome the proposals on clubs because they appear from the terms of the Queen's Speech to follow closely on the lines of the Bill which I introduced a year ago.
We also endorse in principle the suggestion that, generally speaking, complains of discrimination should be pursued by individuals either through the industrial tribunals or through the courts, as the case may be. In this connection, I should like to call attention to the following sentence in the White Paper:
"Help will be given to a person who considers that he may have been discriminated against unlawfully to decide whether to institute proceedings and, if he does so, to formulate and present his case in the most effective manner."
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will be aware, some anxiety has been expressed over the possibility that the complexity of the procedures involved in the presentation of a complaint either to a tribunal or to the court might erect an even greater barrier between the victim of discrimination and the means of redress.
The primary function of the "Executive"—as I shall continue to call it for the time being, if I may—is to

239
deal with practices and rules which are not ostensibly directed against any individual but which have a general discriminatory effect. However. I note that the "Executive" will also have a wide power to give advice, assistance and representation to individuals. On the face of it that also removes any apprehensions which were felt on this score, although the question of legal aid before tribunals is still outstanding generally, as has been pointed out in the Runnymede pamphlet on the White Paper. This would have been an additional item to have entered in the catalogue of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, because the reform of the legal system, the provision of legal aid before tribunals, was, I think, a recommendation made to the Lord Chancellor by a committee established for that purpose.
I should now like to turn to some criticisms that we have to make of the White Paper. The first point is the unsuitability of the Home Office as the sponsor of a body which is supposed to eradicate racism, when the Home Office has itself in the past promoted and enforced racist immigration laws. I suggest to the Government that these proposals in the White Paper would carry much greater weight among the ethnic minorities if they were to be implemented by some other Government Department. Since they obviously do not readily fit into any of the existing Ministries, we were driven to the conclusion that a new Department should be created which would assume the responsibility for combating sex and race discrimination. Of course one recognises that the weight of official opinion is against that solution; and as a second best I personally would support the solution which has been advanced by the Select Committee on Race Relations, that a Minister of State for equal rights should be created and attached to the Home Office.
Next, we were extremely concerned over the absence of any decisions in the White Paper on the matter of links between the local community relations organisations and the new national body. The White Paper says that the Government want to do nothing that will hinder the valuable work being done by local CRCs and their officers, and would indeed like to enhance the effectiveness of that
240
work. But the longer they take to make up their minds, the more damage will be done to the morale of the local professional and voluntary workers, and hence the less favourable will be the conditions for the improvement which the Government want to see. In our view the community relations officers should be employed by the new "Executive", so as to ensure their independence from local pressures, and in order to achieve national co-ordination in the war against racism. But the voluntary CRCs at local level would still be necessary as a channel of communication between local organisations of various kinds and the "Executive" at the centre, through the CRO, and as a means of bringing pres sure to bear on local authorities or other bodies, as the case may arise.
The role of local authorities should be limited to provision of office space, secretarial assistance and information services which are required to back up the work of the CRCs, as indeed many of them do already. By the way, that policy is very much in line with recommendations made by the Select Committee, while the Com mission in its comments on the White Paper emphasises that the "Executive",
"will be incapable of carrying out its stated functions unless there is a strong functional link with local activity."
So far as we are aware, practically nobody believes that the CROs should come under the local authorities, as Mr. Alex Lyon was suggesting at one time. It will obviously be absurd to create a new and entirely separate organisation in parallel with the "Executive" to which the CROs could become responsible. Therefore, by a process of elimination we are forced to the conclusion that, even if there were not other good reasons for doing so, the CROs must be responsible to the "Executive". With regard to its composition, the White Paper says that the Government will ensure that ethnic minorities are substantially represented among the membership of 15, although the Home Secretary is to be obliged only to consult other Ministers in making the appointments. We suggest that the Minister of State for equal opportunities, or the Home Secretary as the case may be, should be obliged in the legislation to take the advice of such representative minority groups as he may think fit. While I am perfectly certain that the present Home Secretary would anyway

241
wish to do this, it would be reassuring to have such a requirement written into the Bill.
We believe that it is not possible to gain a proper understanding of discrimination, and hence to fight it effectively, so long as attention is confined to individual acts, and the White Paper states that the "Executive" will be given wide powers to conduct inquiries into matters not covered by the Bill which cause or contribute to discrimination. This must include the examination of what is called the,
"familiar cycle of cumulative disadvantage",
referred to in paragraph 11 of the White Paper. The "Executive" will thus have the ability and experience to judge where resources ought best to be allocated in order to break this cycle. It is a matter for consideration whether it ought not to be given responsibility for disbursement of funds under the urban programme and Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, in much the same way as funds are available to the UGC or to the research councils on a global basis and are then allocated by them to the applicants on the basis of their own decision without reference back to the Secretary of State who has provided the money in the first place.
Finally, we propose that the "Executive" should be given the responsibility of assisting with the settlement of new comers to the United Kingdom. The Uganda Resettlement Board was supposed to do this job for one group of uprooted persons, but gave up the ghost as soon as the camps were closed and long before the task was really accomplished. For other new entrants—for United Kingdom citizens of Asian origin from the rest of Africa, for the Chileans, for example, and for the Cypriots, whom we have received since the troubles in their country, as well as the dependants of householders who are already here—there is no statutory agency whatsoever to provide help. The United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service has the much narrower function of advising on questions of entry, and it follows that the "Executive" ought to be invited to take over this function as well. But it would also deal with the many problems which face newcomers after they arrive, such as, for example, in obtaining accommodation and work.
242
The legislation announced in the Queen's Speech will not of itself put an end to discrimination. But, as Geoffrey Bindman has said, the proposals together make up an extremely powerful legal armoury, as well as a much stronger commitment by the Government than has ever been made before. While there may be other matters in the forthcoming Session that will be the occasion of much political controversy, as we have heard this afternoon, I hope that Parliament will be unanimous in its support for the principles which the Government have followed, and by doing so will bring nearer the day when racism is truly eradicated and there is genuine equality for every citizen.
7.58 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, is to wind up today's debate. I hope that I may be able to add just a few observations from this Bench on the situation in Northern Ireland. But the points that I shall make on that subject will be few, because I believe that affairs in Northern Ireland today stand at the constitutional crossroads. After all, the Convention has reported; upon the next steps for the search for a constitutional settlement, a very great deal depends. Meanwhile, Parliament awaits the views of the Secretary of State on the Convention Report.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not follow the points made by all noble Lords in regard to the very wide field which this debate has covered. I say this with particular reference to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who has just made a very interesting and detailed speech to which no doubt the noble Lord will be making a reply. I should like to say how much I enjoyed the speech by the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, who has been good enough to send me a note to say that he has had to leave the House early.
I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for giving some information about the forthcoming order to renew the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I must say that I find myself particularly in agreement with the noble Lord's view that, although very welcome successes in the apprehension of terrorists have been achieved within

243
the past year, none the less terrorism can occur anywhere within the United Kingdom. I am sure that this cautionary view is right, and for that reason alone, if for no other, it will be necessary to continue the provisions of the principal Act when the order comes before your Lordships' House on, I think, Thursday.
But before Northern Ireland, perhaps I may turn to an aspect of Government policy which, like my noble friend Lord Ellen borough, I must say I find thoroughly disquieting. This is the belief, which is expressed in a variety of ways, that wherever possible State control ought to be extended; and this is literally at the expense of the individual, who not only suffers in terms of personal liberty but is also, in many cases, required to foot the bill. A readily available illustration of this is to be found in the paragraph in the gracious Speech which deals with education, and some noble Lords have already dealt with this subject today. The paragraph includes the announcement that legislation is to be introduced to force local education authorities to make plans for the entire abolition of selection in secondary education.
I must say, my Lords, that I can well understand the Government disagreeing with selection at the age of 11-plus. I think that they can mobilise quite powerful arguments that this is a very early age, although I would not in any circumstances go along with them that it should be a matter for legislation. But what the Government are apparently unable to answer is the question which arises from their policy; namely, if selection in some way or another is proper at the age of 16, 17 or 18, why is it totally wrong—not just wrong but totally, completely and utterly wrong—at any stage whatsoever before that?
On the last day of the previous Session, I sought to draw the Government's attention to two articles which had been written during the summer not by Conservative politicians, but one by the Editor of The Times Educational Supplement, Mr. Maclure, and the other by Dr. Harry Judge, formerly headmaster of a highly successful comprehensive school. Both articles warned in essence against the educational monopoly which the Government are apparently determined to create, and both advocated some choice of
244
schools for pupils at 14 years of age. No answer of any sort was given to that point of view at the end of the debate, and the gracious Speech provides the reason why. It is because, regardless of parents' wishes and regardless of cost, the Government are set on a course to establish a monopoly of education in this country. If the Government are reluctant to argue their own case on educational grounds, or in regard to individual liberty—although may I say that I immediately acquit the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, of that, because they have indeed argued the case whereas the Government, from the Front Bench, have not—then they none the less have a direct responsibility to stand by their policy in terms of finance.
For 30 years now, expenditure on education in this country has been increasing steadily year by year in real terms. The rate support grant settlement announced last Friday has, however, signalled an end to that process. By no stretch of the imagination is this the time to force LEAs to embark on secondary reorganisation education schemes, some of which have probably been postponed precisely because of the cost. Is this the moment to drive direct grant and voluntary aid schools out of the reach of tens of thousands of children?
My noble friend Lord Auckland reminded the House in his speech that last week the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, made an important speech. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has an unrivalled knowledge of local authority finance and he pointed out that the Government's own circular, Circular 10/75, requires local authorities not only to prevent any increase in their expenditure in real terms now, but also to make substantial economies in 1977–78 and 1978–1979. Yet here is Government policy, set out in the gracious Speech, which is bound to increase the expenditure by local education authorities. The noble Baroness will forgive me for a moment. Indeed, three months ago the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced that £25 million would be allocated for comprehensive reorganisation alone, and this at a time when nursery education, primary schools and universities are crying out for money, and when unemployment in the teaching profession is causing real concern.

245
My Lords, these are the reasons why, regardless of any matter of principle, I disagree fundamentally with the speeches which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, on the subject of secondary reorganisation. The tragedy is that the gracious Speech includes two more educational policies which were, in fact, picked out by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, which are wholly desirable—priority to children with special needs, and the vocational preparation of young people between the ages of 16 and19. Doubtless, children with special needs include immigrant children and children in areas covered by the urban programme. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, selected children who need nursery education and I would not for one moment contradict him on that.
If I may take a rather more restrictive view of this former objective than perhaps the Government intend, special education is undoubtedly something which needs additional resources. In 1972, the Conservative Government's educational White Paper planned almost to double in real terms the special schools building programme over a five year period. Doubtless the forecast figures have been abandoned. In the economic climate, I think this would be understandable.
But the question which the Government really have to answer if they are to stand by these two further educational policies in the gracious Speech is: From where are the resources to be transferred, if priority is to be given to children with special needs or to vocational training for young people? From a Government careless of the welfare of private industry and commerce—which, after all, provide the profits upon which social policies are founded—from a Government who are prepared to spend their money like water on their own ideologies, and cast aside the assistance which voluntary and independent agencies want to offer, there can be no answer.
I am not in the least surprised that the trumpet call which introduces the paragraph in the gracious Speech on social policies is:
"My Ministers will pursue vigorously their programmes of social reform…within available resources".
246
For what are those resources to be avail able?—universal compulsory comprehensive education, the abolition of pay beds and the abolition of tied cottages. Not a word about how to build more houses—and we had to wait for a most interesting speech from my noble friend Lord Wolverton on that subject—no mention at all in the gracious Speech of how to save the National Health Service; nothing, absolutely nothing at all, about those things in education which really concern people, such as the retention of good schools, the improvement of bad ones, the future of higher education. This Parliamentary programme has justly been called irrelevant. So far as the social policies in it are concerned, I think that "irrelevant" is too kindly a word.
My Lords, on Thursday of last week the Report of the Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention was published. After six months' work, this marks another step in the search for a constitutional solution in Northern Ireland to which the gracious Speech refers. In the following sentence, the gracious Speech turns to security matters and I have no doubt that it is right to bracket together constitutional and security questions in this way. When the House last had a general debate on Northern Ireland security, which was on the 25th September, the noble Lord, Lord Moyola, said:
"Political solutions will come much more easily when violence is at an end."—[Official Report, 25/9/75; col. 605.]
I think that is undeniable. Indeed, I believe that an increase in violence is something which can persuade otherwise law-abiding people to support paramilitary organisations either actively or by consent if that violence escalates within their own community.
It would be totally unjust for me to infer that the brutal and often seemingly irrational acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland ought in all cases to be prevented. But since we had that debate in September I considered that a valid criticism was being made by several noble Lords in claiming that the continuation of the ceasefire was tying the hands of the Government and therefore of the Security Forces. On that occasion I put it to the Government that the ceasefire was restricting the Secretary of State to a policy

247
of response. In reply the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said:
"There is no inhibition of any kind. I could not make this point more forcefully or clearly. The Secretary of State is a free man."—[Official Report, 25/9/75; col. 622.]
If I accept that assurance, which coming from the noble Lord of course I do accept, then in turn I must ask the Government to accept that there has been a lack of confidence in security policies and that this, despite the efforts of the Ministers and the Security Forces, none the less remains so for reasons which at the moment are apparent in South Armagh where tragically three young soldiers of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers met their deaths on Saturday.
My Lords, during the last three and a half years it would always have been possible to have taxed the Government of the day with the lawlessness which appeared to prevail in a particular area at a particular time. Like some disease terrorism has constantly recurred, disfiguring different aspects of the face of Ulster. But I put it to the noble Lord that the South Armagh situation is of particular concern. If I might put some points to him, I do so in the hope that he may be able to give me information and for no other reason. Although these areas are subject to extreme Republican influence, many of the inhabitants in much of the area concerned want to live in safety within the United Kingdom. What support can it be said that they are getting for what they stand for and believe? From some accounts it is an area where the ordinary law is being disregarded. Would the noble Lord say that this is true? It may not be true, but I should like to hear it from the noble Lord. If it is not true, what police measures are being taken to prevent such a situation occurring?
I expect that the noble Lord will confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, is accurate in asserting that the problem of South Armagh is in getting confidential information from the people who live there. I think we must all bear this in mind when it may seem that the Security Forces are not cracking down hard enough. But the Army and the UDR must be given every facility to maintain the initiative in this area, for geographically the future of South Armagh could be the future of Newry,
248
of South Down and even perhaps of Fermanagh.
May I ask the Government how they see developing in Northern Ireland the enforcement of law and order generally? On 4th November in another place the Secretary of State paid tribute to the tireless work of the Army in Northern Ireland, but made the point that in the final analysis it must be the police who will be the principal guardians of law and order. From these Benches I should like to associate myself with the words of the right honourable gentleman. I know that under the direction of the chief constable the RUC have stuck to their work although often exposed to great personal danger; that they have met with considerable success in crime detection, and that they have made innovations such as the introduction of what is called the "A" squad. Similarly the tenacity and effectiveness of the UDR should be recognised, for without the men and women of the UDR the Army in Ulster would be stretched intolerably.
But, my Lords, the question on which so much hangs is this. How can the RUC and the UDR widen their recruitment? So far as the police are concerned, some 18 months ago proposals were made for the setting up of local police committees and for a new look at the Northern Ireland Police Authority. Incidentally, in saying that, I am assuming that the Police Bill which was introduced yesterday in another place does not extend to Northern Ireland. We discussed these matters briefly on the Emergency Provisions Order taken in your Lordships' House on 4th November when the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, gave his view that the SDLP would probably not be prepared to give unqualified support for any reorganisation of the policy authority in Northern Ireland unless the overall committee visualised at Sunning dale were set up. Since the noble Lord gave that view, it has been possible to read the SDLP proposals in the Convention Report. It strikes me that there is nothing in their proposals to prevent the SDLP from supporting perhaps another look at the way in which the police are organised throughout Northern Ireland to try to improve the grass roots confidence in policing. What I do find interesting is that all the parties in the Convention

249
are so concerned for the future of law and order that each wishes the police to be a responsibility of a Northern Ireland Administration. I make no comment on that conclusion, but I suggest that one of the most vital subjects that the Secretary of State will now require to discuss with the Convention parties will be how the RUC and the UDR can broaden their recruitment.
My Lords, the Report of the Convention now brings Parliament face to face with the constitutional realities of Northern Ireland. The Report has been made to the Secretary of State and there fore we await his comments, but with nine different parties represented in the Convention I think it would have been reasonable to have forecast all along that after publication the Secretary of State will need to undertake discussions with the Convention parties. If this is to be done I join with the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, in hoping that an announcement could be made soon. Otherwise although direct rule will be continued, in a sense there will be a political vacuum and into that vacuum could move those who have already taken up prepared positions. But this can be prevented. It is true that if the Secretary of State can extract, by having discussions with the Convention parties, a greater measure of political agreement than is contained in the Convention Report, so the danger of IRA terrorism will increase. For let us be under no illusion about the IRA objectives. After the Government issued their White Paper in July last year, the IRA gave a statement demanding self-determination of the Irish people, British withdrawal from Northern Ireland and an amnesty for political prisoners. Divided though the Convention parties are, it seems clear that they are united in rejecting those sort of demands out of hand, and because the IRA is aware of it, any hint of political agreement will be attended by increased terrorism.
So once again we find politics and security are inextricably linked in Northern Ireland. If little else has been decided yet by the Convention Report, one thing emerges already on which I hope there is general agreement in Parliament: a consistently firm Government security policy may yet win a response
250
from the political Parties and from the hard-pressed people of Northern Ireland.
8.19 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, as always happens in the home affairs debate, we have covered a fair bit of mileage. I estimate that no less than nine major topics have been raised this afternoon, each of which deserves a major debate on its own, and there have been about as many minor ones. It would take an inordinately long time to deal with all of these, and I hope that noble Lords will allow me to be a little selective in winding up this long, interesting and—with the exception of one Box thump—very good-tempered debate. We are in difficult times when irritation arises from people not doing what one thinks is right; and there is a total absence of agreement as to what is right. I think it remarkable that in this Chamber at this time we can discuss these affairs as amicably as we have done. I have heard some of the discussions elsewhere and they are very different and less profitable. I am helped in two or three ways; for example, regarding the National Health Service, my noble friend Lord Wallace of Coslany made a most arresting and moving speech on this subject and the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and the noble Lords, Lord Auckland and Lord Avebury, each referred to it. As there is a debate tomorrow week at the request of noble Lords opposite, it would be supererogatory for me to deal with it, considering how many other matters I have to deal with, so I will not do so. This is the saddest day perhaps in the history of medicine, and Hypocrates must be turning in his grave.
A number of noble Lords spoke about devolution. Even though the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, is not in his place, as he spoke from the Opposition Front Bench I will endeavour to answer one or two points. The noble Viscounts, Lord Thurso and Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to devolution. I do not propose to answer what was said in any detail because we shall discuss this next week. I must not neglect the opportunity to congratulate the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, who has, as he did to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead,

251
told me he could not be in his place at this time. He made a most interesting speech. His fear of further fragmentation is something we must all keep in mind when looking at the devolution problem. It is not one I thought of before; I thought it was very interesting. We look forward to hearing his views, which were clearly and forcibly put; during the great debate which is going to go on in the next year, we will have a good opportunity to hear him again.
It has been suggested that with devolution, Scotland and Wales will become over-governed and that there is some danger of over-egging the pudding. The White Parser to be published on Thursday will go some way to reassure noble Lords about this. This matter has been faced and thought about. The general view is—I do not want to anticipate the document—that devolution will not create a new tier of Government; it is rather a question of transferring democratic responsibility for existing work from one area to another.
There were one or two speeches which did not fit in any of my headings. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, made two points. He supported the reference in the gracious Speech to public lending rights, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, sup ported him. I should like to support them all; it is an important and overdue measure. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, showed great interest in the broadcasting of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, supported him in this. I was particularly interested in the suggestion that loudspeakers should be placed outside Parliament for the benefit of people waiting to get in. That is a very good idea. If we ever get loudspeakers fitted inside we should get them outside, too, as we do at Covent Garden for people who are late for the opera. That was a very constructive suggestion.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I said television rather than loudspeakers.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Better still! The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, as usual, made a charming speech. I cannot pass on without appreciating his appreciation of my Leader and his problems, and his attempt, which is how he holds us all together, to go forward
252
by consent. This is the basic point and it was interesting that the noble Earl should have raised it. If I may go on with my major topic, which I shall try to get through as fast as I can, I come to the question of parole which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and my noble friend Lord Long ford. Both noble Earls referred to the problems of parole and to the hopes that the present guidelines would be somewhat liberalised. I was asked: what is the essential difference between the new parole guidelines and the old ones? I think I might satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, but I never expect to satisfy my noble friend Lord Long ford. As regards persons convicted of more serious offences, the main difference is that while the protection of the public remains the paramount consideration, parole and, in some cases, fairly early parole, should not be ruled out because of the nature of the offence, as has often been the case in the past. This means a cautious move towards more and earlier parole for those prisoners who show clear signs of having changed their ways. Regarding relatively minor offenders, the bias has changed towards granting parole unless there are clear negative reasons rather than confining it to cases where there are clear positive factors. Secondly, I was asked: why should not the guidelines be published? I do not think there is any reason why they should not be published. Fresh guidelines for local review committees are now in preparation; I shall certainly draw my right honourable friend's attention to the suggestion regarding publication.
There was a suggestion from both noble Earls that the Home Office is being too harsh in the application of the parole scheme. I must make it clear that the Home Secretary has no power to grant parole unless recommended to do so by the hoard or. in certain minor cases, by the local review committee. My right honourable friend is anxious that more use should be made of parole and he has had discussions with the parole board to this end. There is agreement between him and the board that a more liberal policy towards the granting of parole is appropriate in view of its success to date, when only about 8 per cent. of those paroled have been recalled for breach of their license. I hope noble Lords who

253
have spoken on the subject will feel that what I have had to say is optimistic and that changes in the direction they have asked for are on the way.
My noble friend Lord Long ford asked a question about treating prisoners under Rule 43, which means putting them in solitary confinement either because they are in danger of being attacked by other prisoners—in other words, for their own safety—or because they are thought to be likely to attack other prisoners; so that is for the prison's safety. There seems to be some confusion in my noble friend's mind which I may clarify by explaining that the five existing open units are used to accommodate two distinct classes of prisoners segregated under Rule 43. I have just described them.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? He has already shown a good deal more con fusion in his mind than could possibly exist in my mind. He has implied that all those confined under Rule 43 are in solitary confinement. But they may be in segregated units.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, that is correct. I was coming to that. Originally, Rule 43 was as I stated it.
The Earl of LONGFORD: I thought we were talking about 1975.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, we are now, arid I propose to do so. The first group are segregated only for their own protection. The second group are segregated for good order and discipline. Prisoners in the former group can usually be offered an opportunity to associate together during exercise periods, during normal labour hours and, in some circumstances, during evenings and weekends. It is open to any prisoner to decline such facilities. Apart from the prisoners' own wishes whether or not to take part in the association period, there are occasions when staff shortages may reduce the opportunities for association, particularly during the evenings and weekends.
The noble Earl will no doubt be aware that special units exist at Gloucester and Reading, where prisoners are in most cases segregated under Rule 43 for their own protection. In these units, which provide a total of 171 places, prisoners
254
are able to enjoy association at work, during exercise and for recreation in the evenings and at weekends. A further unit of this kind has recently opened at Wakefield. This unit will eventually accommodate 39 prisoners. The prisoners segregated for their own protection are not accommodated in any of the units which I have just described. These prisoners are at local prisons throughout the country and are normally permitted to associate with others during exercise periods; and, in some circumstances, may be allowed a degree of association during labour or recreation time.
On 1st October—the latest date for which I have complete figures—there were 155 prisoners in special units in Gloucester and Reading. In addition to this, there were 555 prisoners segregated under Rule 43 for their own protection. Of these, 69 were not accommodated in the segregated units I have mentioned. The remaining 496 were held at other prisons. The noble Earl asked about the accommodation which had been a controlled unit at Wormwood Scrubs. This is now being used for ordinary prison purposes to relieve overcrowding.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, if the noble Lord is leaving that point, I shall have to raise some issues another day. Could he say more clearly whether the accommodation that has been used for a controlled unit in Wakefield will now be used for Rule 43 purposes?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, at Wakefield it will be used for Rule 43 people, whereas at the Scrubs it will not. I turn now to tied cottages. I must say a word about these. I made my living as a farmer for many years, and have always known both sides of the question—for there are two sides, both vitally important. I regret the comment made last week by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, which was read out again today by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. said that he foresaw, as The Times did, that there would be a further slaughtering of some of our herds. I leave aside The Times: it was scraping the barrel for hostile comment and I thought a prophecy of this kind was in keeping. But both noble Lords are usually fair, if perhaps harsh, critics and they might have looked more carefully at what the Government have said before

255
endorsing what had been written by The Times leader-writer. The Government are firmly committed to disengaging the circumstances in which farm workers are housed, from the conditions of their employment.
The consultative document acknowledged that there were serious problems, and invited comment from all concerned. There have been useful consultations with the National Union of Agricultural Workers, the National Farmers' Union, the Central Land Association and the Association of District Councils about this, and the discussions continue. It would be more generous if noble Lords opposite said they were glad that the real problems had been acknowledged, and that they would await with interest the Government's proposed solution in the proposed Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, quoted a significant remark from, I believe, the gracious Speech, though it may have been from something else. It is, of course, right that provision should be made for retired farm workers. This is part of the whole problem which has to be dealt with and it is clearly difficult. May I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, on the question of security that I hope he will allow me to write to him about detonators. This will save time. I also have two answers for the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and I propose to write to him on these also, because time is going on.
I turn to education, to which a number of speakers referred, including my noble friends Lord Wynne-Jones and Lady Gaitskell, and the noble Lords, Lord Auckland, Lord Avebury and Lord Belstead. We had a debate on this not more than a fortnight ago, and I do not propose to go into the whole subject again at this stage and at this time of night. I would only say that I was very much impressed by the two speeches from my side of the House. I do not mean that I was not impressed by the speeches from the other side, but I thought that the determination of my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones to put his money on the young, and his estimate of the importance of higher education and research as a basis for the future, was very significant. Personally, I felt that my noble friend Lady Gaitskell put the case for the Government
256
action as well as it could be put. I would not expect noble Lords opposite to agree with all of it, but I thought we had a very reasonable speech from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, supported it.
My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner raised a number of questions concerning the Law Commission and various reforms which he was awaiting, which are really a topic in themselves. I have here replies to all his questions, but I think the House would prefer these matters to be dealt with in the way he suggested; namely, that he should put down a Question for Written Answer so that the answers are then available in Hansard for all to see. My noble friend's impatience with the pace of law reform is well known to your Lordships. When any lawyer is impatient it pleases me, because the people who make me impatient, generally speaking, are lawyers; and it is only to be expected that both my noble friend, as the chief architect of the Law Commission Act, should look with a watchful and critical eye at the progress successive Governments make in fulfilling the expectations embodied in that Act. This Government make no complaint about his periodical reminders that much remains to be done, but may I suggest to him that he sometimes fails to give credit for what is in fact being achieved.
I would remind your Lordships that the following measures of law reform were enacted in the Session just ended, because so many other things happened that your Lordships may have forgotten them. There was the Limitation Act, implementing a report of the Law Reform Committee; the Local Land Charges Act, implementing a Law Commission Report; the Inheritance (Provisions for Family and Dependants) Act, implementing another Law Commission Report; the Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act, a Private Member's Bill supported by the Government; the Arbitration Act, enabling us to ratify an international exemption of Arbitral Awards; the District Courts (Scotland) Act, setting up a new system of inferior criminal courts in Scotland; and the Evidence (Proceedings in other Jurisdictions) Act, enabling us to ratify the Hague Convention on the taking of evidence abroad. In addition

257
to those, there were 17 Consolidation Acts and the Statute Law Repeals Act.
I do not think that is too bad a record of law reform in a Session which was as crowded as the last one with social legislation. An immense amount of work on law reform is going on—by the Law Commission, whose Tenth Annual Report will be laid before you shortly; by the Scottish Law Commission, the Law Reform Committee and other bodies. This Government have not been slow to implement reforms once the policy has won acceptance. For example, both the Inheritance Act and the Local Land Charges Act were based on very recently published Reports of the Law Commission, but unfortunately some of the Reports present difficulties which, as my noble and learned friend will know, take time to resolve.
As I have indicated, some difficulties arise on specific matters to which my noble friend has referred. I promised him an answer tonight on one point for which he had particularly asked. He asked about the Government's attitude towards the question of computers and privacy. I can tell him that the Government now hope, within a few weeks, to publish a White Paper on computers and privacy which will cover both the public and private sectors. The White Paper will take account of the Departmental review of categories of personal information held on Government computers, of the findings of the Younger Committee on computer use in the private sector and also of more recent developments in this field. The Government have not completed their consideration of the need for further measures to protect privacy, but they will announce their intentions—
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, would my noble friend set a limit at all to the words "within a few weeks"?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I could not set a limit at this moment, but I will make some inquiries as to what is meant. It has a fairly elastic interpretation as a rule, but I think it means "fairly soon". That is all I am going to say to my noble and learned friend. I will withhold one or two other things about which he asked until another occasion.
258
Finally, I turn to Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, will forgive me if I say nothing about housing at this stage. His speech was a very interesting one, particularly concerned with the financial side. This was referred to in the gracious Speech. I will write to him on this matter, but I am now rather past the time I had allowed for, as it were, other business. We have had a number of speakers on Northern Ireland, and I would like to say who they were so that we may know about whom we are talking.
We have heard my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, and the noble Lords, Lord Auckland and Lord Belstead. The outstanding speech for me was that of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath; it was the most constructive and helpful one. Even though the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, spoke a little about the convention, I do not think he would expect me to do that. Our position in Government is perfectly clear. We are looking at this matter. We shall have debates in Parliament and put something before Parliament which will then go to Northern Ireland. It is said: May it be soon! I echo the wish, but do not want to commit the Secretary of State. He must have a free hand to look after this as he likes.
Several speakers, naturally, have referred to the tragic incident in South Armagh on Saturday during which three soldiers of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers were killed and a fourth was very seriously wounded. I should like to place on record—I am sure I speak for all noble Lords—my revulsion at this brutal attack, my deepest sympathy for the relatives of these brave young men, and my admiration for their refusal to throw down their arms and surrender which course of action they were offered when they were completely cut off. There have been criticisms of the co-operation afforded by the Security Forces in the Republic. On this I must make it clear that in the incident on Saturday the Republic immediately deployed their Security Forces in an effort to catch the escaping gunmen and co-operation is now better than ever before. We are continually seeking ways to improve co-operation yet further and we meet encouraging responses from the Irish authorities.

259
There has been criticism, not only now but ever since I have been at this Dispatch Box, that the Army in Northern Ireland is hampered by political direction. I must make clear that the detailed tactics of the Army are in the hands of the General Officer Commanding and not of the Secretary of State. The General Officer Commanding is one of the Secretary of State's advisers on security, and security policy is discussed and agreed between them. When decisions are made, it is the task of the General Officer Commanding to carry them out in whatever way he thinks best.
Despite the tragedy in South Armagh the Security Forces are having increasing success in enforcing law and order. In the last three weeks no fewer than 55, 39 and 36 people, respectively, were charged by the police with serious offences; 128 people already this year have been charged with murder—this compares with 75 last year; 84 have been charged with attempted murder and 300 travelling gunmen have been caught and charged. The suggestion that South Armagh is left alone by the Security Forces is entirely untrue. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, bore this out and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked me a question about it. Since 1st August the police have charged 30 people with terrorist type offences. Four more have been arrested yesterday and are helping with inquiries into the recent crimes, including the murder of the soldiers.
The ordinary rule of law, moreover, is also being enforced, and this is made clear by the fact that some 300 people have been charged in South Armagh with non-scheduled offences since the beginning of September. This is not a picture of a lawless desert. It is a very awkward country and support for Security Forces and the Government is probably lower there than anywhere else in the Province. But this is not a picture of law and order stepping out and abandoning it to its fate.
There has been criticism that the Government are playing into the hands of terrorists by releasing detainees. Here, once again, we do not receive all that number of words of praise, but I was pleased with what my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner and the noble Lord,
260
Lord Dunleath, said about this. It has taken great courage on the part of the Secretary of State to do as he has in the face of so much opposition and to stand up to it. It is worth looking at what it means and what it has done. When we had between 300 and 400 men in detention it was often my duty at weekends to be concerned with the Secretary of State in making ICOs against gunmen where the evidence presented by the Security Forces left us in no doubt that, as a result of intimidation, it was impossible to get proof for a court of law. Holding these men in detention, however, did not eliminate violence. Whether because of the releases—my belief is that this is the real reason, though I cannot prove it—or for some other reason, the prosecution of gunmen in court is being noticeably more successful than it was. This can be only the result of greater readiness to give evidence on the part of the public.
The IRA have always used detention as a propaganda weapon—a successful propaganda weapon what is more—to recruit persons to their ranks. At the same time, detention has been repugnant to the ordinary citizen and causes resentment in the law-abiding community on both sides. It has reflected adversely on the normal judicial system, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, stated in his Report. It has been a political red herring when matters of constitutional and lasting importance should have been to the fore. My right honourable friend has reduced the numbers to 93 and I cannot too strongly express my support of his courageous determination to finish with this distasteful business by Christmas. I believe it was a reasonable option when it was adopted and I was involved in it without scruple or qualms, because I thought the protection of the public came first. But now that the public seem more ready to co-operate with the Security Forces and successful prosecutions are more and more the rule it would be madness to lose the undoubted advantage to be gained from the end of detention because of a local success, however tragic, by the gunmen in Armagh.
I think that is all I will say about Northern Ireland. We shall, evidently, have a full debate when the convention comes up for debate. It is important that people should understand this point,

261
and Lord Dunleath made a speech which has been helpful to me in putting this across. Things are not only not getting better quickly; in some places they are not even better at all. But they are better in other places. If one looks at the situation compared with a year ago, one sees areas where the situation is very much easier. People are more at ease. The possibilities of something coming out of what my right honourable friend has been working for for nearly a year, which is the convention, are not great but they exist. Most people in Northern Ireland, in my opinion, hope that something will come out of it, even though it does not. There is some movement here.
May I conclude by asking noble Lords opposite, who have been extremely good to us in taking this kind of view over Northern Ireland, whether they could not perhaps take a little more of this view about our own country. There is some change. Who would have thought a year ago that the miners would accept the £6 a week, and who could have done it but Harold Wilson? But I am not a political fighter at all; I like consensus and going on in that way. But I do not speak with a bowed head. I speak with the greatest hope in an appallingly difficult situation. We have the best leadership we could have. We have the only leadership at this moment which can avoid disaster; and, whether noble Lords are on my side or opposite, we can probably manage to down our differences enough to work together to try to do something about the situation.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES acquainted the House, That (pursuant to the Resolution of Thursday the 6th of November last) the Bill had been deposited in the Private Bill Office,
262
together with a declaration of the Agent: Bill presented; read 1a; then pro forma, Bill read 2a, reported from the Select Committee and the Select Committee (on Recommitment) with Amendments and with a Special Report (No. 347).

  NORTH SEA OILFIELDS: LOAN GUARANTEES
  NORTH SEA OILFIELDS: LOAN GUARANTEES