Sitting of 11 February 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  INVERNESS HARBOUR (CITADEL QUAY ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Secretary Ross presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Inverness Harbour (Citadel Quay etc.) and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 59.]
  INVERNESS HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Secretary Ross presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 relating to Inverness Harbour; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

  CONTINGENCIES FUND 1974–75
  Accounts ordered.
  Of the Contingencies Fund, 1974–75, showing:—

  (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1975.

  (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Devolution
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters he has received with reference to the White Paper on Devolution.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): Since the publication of the White Paper on 27th November 1975, I have received 142 letters from organisations and members of the public commenting on various aspects of the Government's proposals for devolution to Scotland.
    Mr. Gourlay: Amongst those letters, has my hon. Friend received one from the Scottish National Party explaining the phrase "the gradual approach to independence"? Will he confirm that the Oxford Dictionary gives exactly the same meaning to both "independence" and "separatism"?
    Mr. Ewing: I confirm my hon. Friend's assertion that the Oxford Dictionary describes "independence" and "separatism" as one and the same thing. But perhaps I should correct his quotation. I understand from the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) that the SNP now adopts a gradual approach to separatism. The fact that I have not received a letter about it from the SNP is probably due to the fact that its members are having difficulty in understanding it themselves. No doubt they will write to me when they decide what it means.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Whilst appreciating the sort of black humour of the Under-Secretary of State's remarks, may I ask whether he accepts that in Scotland Chambers' is the preferable dictionary to both the shorter and longer Oxford Dictionary? Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the election results in Scotland speak for themselves, in terms of the dissatisfaction of the Scottish people, from all points of view, with the White Paper on Devolution?
    Mr. Ewing: If the election results in Scotland are to speak for themselves, I

    417
    think that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) will say "goodbye" to at least two of his colleagues in the next election. He may well appreciate my black humour, but I assure him that I do not reciprocate the feeling; I do not appreciate his black humour. If the SNP seeks to don new clothes and hopes that under the cloak of independence it will be more receptive to the people of Scotland than under the cloak of separatism, it is in for a rude awakening.
    Mr. Sillars: Do the Government still stand by the view expressed by the Lord President of the Council in a parliamentary answer in December, in which he said that it remained impracticable to devolve industrial powers to the Scottish Assembly?
    Mr. Ewing: The Government stand by the view that the White Paper is a discussion document. It is being discussed now. If the SNP does not want to discuss it, that does not mean that no one else wants to. It is being discussed, and we are receiving representations from a wide range of bodies to which we sent letters on 27th November asking for their comments.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Gentlemdan agree that 142 letters from various organisations is a pretty disappointing response? I accept the possibility that the figure is so small because many people are afraid that the Government are fairly fixed in their views. Will the hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to the sponsoring by the Government of an all-party conference in Scotland to examine thoroughly the many divergent Scottish points of view on this issue?
    Mr. Ewing: There are two sides to this question. The hon. Gentleman may well consider 142 letters to be disappointing. It would be disappointing if that were the whole picture, but the picture is completed only by my advising the House that of the 800,000 copies of the potted version of the White Paper distributed to post offices in Scotland, 500,000 have already been taken out. I am sure that the understanding that the Scottish people have gained from that potted version is reflected in the small number of letters that we have received.
    Mr. Sproat: Will the hon. Gentleman encourage his colleagues not to be rattled
    418
    or over-influenced by the result of the East Kilbride election, which can in any case be regarded as a normal result when any Government are trying to steer through a bad patch? Will he, rather, direct attention to the North-East of Scotland, where, in two recent by-elections, the SNP has been hammered into the ground by the Tories on an anti-Assembly ticket?
    Mr. Ewing: I hope that I do not sound offensive to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Sproat) when I say that with friends like I have I do not need enemies.
    Mr. Speaker: I have given a good run on Question No. 1. I know that it is harder for Celts, but one supplementary question by each Member called to ask one will enable me to call many more hon. Members to put supplementaries.
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on devolution from the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).
    Mr. Harry Ewing: The Council has been invited to comment on the White Paper of 27th November 1975 and has indicated that it hopes to do so shortly.
    Mr. Crawford: Is the Minister aware that when the Scottish Council sends him its views on the Scottish Assembly—and it will be sooner rather than later—it is likely that it will at last come round to the view that we should stop the centralisation of industrial decision-making and adopt full control over trade and industry, and the Scottish Development Agency?
    Mr. Ewing: I am reminded that the last time the hon. Gentlman said that he was making a statement on behalf of the Scottish Council, the Council came out the next day with a categorical denial. Therefore, I do not place much credence on the ability of the hon. Gentleman to speak on behalf of the Scottish Council.
    Mr. Canavan: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the Scottish Council's view on the desirability of decentralisation of industry and commerce, and also the fact that the Council's recent report shows that of all the non-governmental office jobs transferred out of London in the past 12

    419
    years less than one-quarter of 1 per cent. came to Scotland? Will he give an assurance about the steps that the Government intend to take to see that devolution is accompanied by a massive decentralisation, to ensure that more jobs come to Scotland from London and the South-East?
    Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend should be aware of the fact that even while we are discussing political devolution, the Government are involved in a massive dispersal operation comprising thousands of Civil Service jobs—[Interruption.] Glasgow is part of Scotland. To date, 31,000 Civil Service jobs have been dispersed. The people of Scotland will look at that dispersal programme against the background of the SNP's policy of separatism. No wonder the SNP is running scared from the idea of separatism and is trying to assume the cloak of independence.
    Mr. Younger: Is the Minister aware that the common factor in every one of the Scottish Council's views, over many years, has been the refusal to contemplate any benefits to the Scottish economy flowing from Scottish separation from the rest of Britain?
    Mr. Ewing: I am very much aware of that view, expressed by the Scottish Council over the years.
    Mr. James Lamond: Does my hon. Friend not regard the existence of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), together with the other institutions established in Scotland to develop the economy, as an indication of the advantageous position in which Scotland finds itself relative to the rest of the United Kingdom? Is this not due in no small measure to the work done by the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend?
    Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The work done by my right hon. Friend and successive Secretaries of State in attracting industry to Scotland is often forgotten. If the House is interested in the statement made over the years by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), it may like to know it was during my right hon. Friend's term of office in 1969 that the Scottish Council issued a statement saying that because of the Labour Government's regional policies it was able to attract an industry a day
    420
    to Scotland. That is eloquent testimony to my right hon. Friend's record.
    Mr. Rifkind: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any proposal to transfer industrial and economic powers from the Secretary of State to the Scottish Assembly to such an extent as would jeopardise the future existence of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland would be met with great hostility in Scotland? Does he accept that the office, if not the present incumbent, should continue for many years to come?
    Mr. Ewing: I believe that both the office and the present incumbent should continue for a great many years. We have a commitment, which is welcomed by the vast majority of people in Scotland, to ensure that whatever Government are in power there will be a Secretary of State for Scotland in the Cabinet—a Minister who will be Scotland's voice there. That commitment will be kept.

    Sureties in Bail
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made arising out of his inquiry regarding the practice whereby Scots standing as sureties in bail are compelled to travel to England in order to deposit such securities.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: My Department has consulted the Home Office on this matter and I hope that it will be possible to provide a solution to the difficulty to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that two Airdrie people accepted responsibility to go bail for their son, who appeared on a charge in an English court, but were prohibited from making bail arrangements at the Airdrie police office? Is he aware that they were compelled to make two different journeys to Carlisle the nearest English town—travelling a total distance of 400 miles? Is it not time that this nonsense was stopped and people who live in Scotland were treated as British subjects? Will action now be taken to stop this shocking practice as soon as possible?
    Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a rather complex matter because of the different legal systems in Scotland and England. However, our discussions with the Home Office

    421
    are at a very advanced stage and we hope that a Bill to be introduced in the not too distant future will take care of the difficulty to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Minister accept that his reply was totally unsatisfactory? Nothing is easier than to make arrangements for an English person to obtain bail in Scotland. Why should it be impossible for the Home Office to act in the reverse situation?
    Mr. Ewing: The Home Office has circulated all English courts explaining the difficulties arising from the kind of incident to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) referred. However dissatisfied the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) is, I must tell him that we are on the point of resolving this matter to everybody's satisfaction.

    Economic Prospects
    Mrs. Bainasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with current economic indicators in relation to the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with current economic indicators in relation to the Scottish economy; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): A broad range of indicators in relation to the Scottish economy is currently available and continuing efforts are being made to improve the reliability of existing series. There is scope for the development of additional series, and preparation of a revised index of industrial production for Scotland is in progress.
    Mrs. Bain: In view of the complacency of the Secretary of State's reply and his abysmal contribution to last week's debate on the Scottish economy, may I ask him whether he has seen a report published by the Scottish Standing Conference on Voluntary Youth Organisations in which young people in Scotland are compared to their counterparts in Norway, the Netherlands and West Germany? Is he aware that by every
    422
    economic indicator—job opportunity, income level, and so on—the young people of Scotland come off very badly indeed?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Even for a Celtic lady, that was a lengthy supplementary question. If every hon. Member would come to the point and cut out preambles, it would help us all.
    Mrs. Bain: Why is the right hon. Gentleman so complacent about the situation?
    Mr. Ross: I am not complacent in answering the hon. Lady's question, but SNP Members always manage to get things wrong. They have their own attitude to statistics. I can well understand why the hon. Lady and her party did not like my recent reply on the subject of hypothermia.
    Mr. Wilson: May I express my dissatisfaction with the Secretary of State's feeble reply? Has he taken note of that part of the Fraser of Allander Report, from which he has given selective quotes, stating that there will be a decline in employment and output? What message will he give to the Scottish people during 1976 for an uplift in their hopes and prospects?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is very good at selective quotations, too. I quoted a passage from the report which clearly suggests that the long-term outlook for Scotland is good.
    Nobody denies that there are immediate difficulties and that we have to face them, but I should like to know what proposals the hon. Gentleman and his party are putting forward. So far as I can see, they are putting forward none at all. If he studies the report mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) he will see that the nation is in no position even to guess what the SNP intends to do.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: Further to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain), has the Secretary of State ever heard a more abysmal commentary on a debate on the Scottish economy than that initiated last week by the SNP?
    Mr. Ross: The only thing that was worse than the first speech in that debate was the penultimate speech.
    Dr. Bray: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in regard to two key indicators—wage rates and unemployment—the position of Scotland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom is better now than it was two years ago?
    Mr. Ross: That is correct.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the Secretary of State recognise that what matters to the people of Scotland lies less in the situation in the past than the situation for the future? Will he answer the question that has been posed to him on many occasions and to which we have been given no answer: what investment are the Government planning through their agencies, particularly the Scottish Development Agency, to bring about an improvement in the job situation in Scotland and to bring in new industries? What money will be made available this year and next year to that Agency?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should await the document to be published shortly on that subject.
    Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problems in the West of Scotland are similar to those experienced on Merseyside and elsewhere? Is it not clear that the Government need to change their economic strategy and get down to the job of reducing unemployment, on Socialist lines?
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend has made that point effectively in recent speeches. He will appreciate that we are dealing not only with unemployment but also with the problem of inflation. The extent to which we succeed in that, and how quickly, will determine the rate at which we can proceed to a more general reflation, which my hon. Friend and I want to see.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: What credence can the Scottish people put on the right hon. Gentleman's sunshine forecast when they recall that in his term of office between 1964 and 1970, although he promised more jobs for Scotland, when he went out of office there were 80,000 fewer jobs in Scotland?
    Mr. Ross: We underestimated the number of new jobs that we would provide. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the reports produced at that time, he will dis-
    424
    cover that to be the case. We provided more new jobs than we estimated we would need.
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the economic outlook for the West of Scotland.
    Mr. William Ross: The longer-term economic outlook for the West of Scotland, as for the United Kingdom as a whole, is dependent on the success of the Government's anti-inflation policy and on achieving satisfactory growth in exports and investment. However, the measures which the Government have already taken to alleviate unemployment in the worst-affected areas will help to maintain employment in the West of Scotland, as will the further measures that are soon to be announced. In addition, the Government's intervention to prevent the closure of Chrysler's Linwood plant has saved several thousand jobs.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that shipbuilding and ship repairing are vital industries for the west of Scotland? In view of the present serious situation, which could soon become alarming, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is willing to initiate talks with the Secretary of State for Industry and his other Cabinet colleagues about the position of shipbuilding in Scotland? Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much extra money is available this year to the Scottish Development Agency, in addition to the money needed for the functions that it has inherited from other bodies?
    Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Development Agency has enough money to keep going until the annual announcement about Government expenditure, which will be made fairly soon. The shipbuilding issue is a serious matter, not merely for Scotland but for the whole of the United Kingdom and, indeed, Western Europe. I do not need to initiate talks with my right hon. Friend, because I am in constant touch with him about it to see what can be done to stabilise the position.
    Mr. Sillars: Does my right hon. Friend recall page 13 of the Labour Party's manifesto in Scotland, on which it was

    425
    said that we would not use unemployment to fight inflation? Is it not the case that the Government are using unemployment as one of the ways of fighting inflation?
    Mr. Ross: I am aware of that quotation. I know most of the other quotations that I hear occasionally from manifestos. I assure my hon. Friend that his interpretation of Government policy is not accurate.
    Mr. Monro: Is the right hon. Gentleman in any way satisfied with the progress made by the job scheme for young people, which many of us want to see succeed? Does he not feel that he should put much greater pressure on local authorities and industries in Scotland to take up a chance that will cost them nothing?
    Mr. Ross: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the present uptake of jobs. Dr. Docherty has been doing good work on this and has been in contact with local and other authorities. I hope that uptake will be improved. It may well be that some good news along these lines will come later.
    Mr. Crawford: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the economic future of the West of Scotland should not depend upon the central demand management policies of this House but, rather, on the indigenous efforts of the people of Scotland? Does he not further agree with me in totally deprecating the crocodile comments made by the Conservative Party about the Scottish Development Agency since the Conservatives voted against its creation?
    Mr. Ross: I remember that in relation to one vital aspect of the Scottish Development Agency the hon. Gentleman joined the Conservatives. Of course, the future depends entirely on the people and the extent to which the opportunities are made available by this House. What is required is a co-operative effort on the part of management, men and Government—and responsibility from the Opposition. We find that the sniping at Scotland by some is to a certain extent destroying part of the political stability of Scotland, on which inward investment depends.
    Mr. Selby: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing perturbation being expressed by large numbers of workers
    426
    in the smaller factories in the Govan area which are dependent on orders streamed off from larger factories, and which are now threatened by redundancies? Is he further aware that such workers do not regard a proposed Clyde-side Walkway as an answer to their problems?
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend should not exaggerate, or take one part of our programme concerning Glasgow and think that that is the only thing that is being done. If he looks at what we have already done for Glasgow in terms of new jobs and the new focus that we have given it through such things as the British National Oil Corporation and the Offshore Supplies Office, he will see that we are containing the position as far as possible and building up a new long-term future for Glasgow such as it has never had before. I assure my hon. Friend that the letters I receive from people in responsible positions in Glasgow show a due appreciation of what the Government have done.

    Fish Landings
    Sir John Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the effect on landings of fish in Scottish ports as a result of the dispute with Iceland about fisheries limits.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): The current dispute with Iceland has not had any significant effect upon fish landings at Scottish ports. Direct landings at Scottish ports from Iceland are relatively small, and changes in total landings are mainly due to seasonal factors.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although the implications in the short term may not be great, the closing of Icelandic waters could have a catastrophic long-term effect on the Scottish fishing industry? Will the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend convene a meeting with the Scottish fishing interests before the Law of the Sea Conference?
    Mr. Brown: The use of the word "catastrophic" is an exaggeration. It is true that if any of the deep sea trawlers are forced out of their fishing areas there will be increasing pressure on inshore waters. It is our responsibility to look after the interests of the Scottish inshore

    427
    fleet, and we shall do that. The Secretary of State is due to reply to a Question which appears later on the Order Paper and which deals with the other points raised by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Watt: Can the Minister tell the the House how many Icelandic boats are operating within 50 miles of Shetland at the moment? Can he say how many thousands of tons of herring they are taking away, and at which ports that herring is being landed?
    Mr. Brown: Not without notice. If the hon. Gentleman wants that information, he must table a Question.
    Mr. Corrie: Who is likely to be in New York on 10th March to look after Scotland's fishing interests at the Law of the Sea Conference and to try to persuade people there that it is time that this country had a 200-mile limit to look after our fast diminishing stocks?
    Mr. Brown: I agree that this is an important conference. The subject of representation is being discussed. It is a matter of keen interest to the Scottish industry. We shall be taking that fact into account in deciding the representation.
    Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister accept that the Icelandic dispute is a relatively minor element among the problems presently facing the Scottish industry? Does he belive in the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy? If so, what steps is he taking to help bring about such a renegotiation?
    Mr. Brown: This is a relatively minor problem in terms of catch. I wish that the SNP would give us backing for the general principle of adhering to international agreements. Our fleet is fishing in international waters. I wish that the SNP—purporting to speak for the people of Scotland—would back that line, which is the line we have been taking.

    Public Transport
    Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the effect on the Scottish economy of reductions in public transport.
    Mr. Fairbairnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he
    428
    has for improvements in transport and travel by road and rail in Scotland.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): I want to ensure that Scotland has an efficient and economical transport network, and, as part of this, services have to be adjusted from time to time as demand changes. At the local level, these matters are the responsibility of the regional and islands councils, through their transport policies and programmes.
    Mr. Monro: Is the Minister aware of the alarm felt in Scotland among rail and bus passengers who fear that their future services may be slashed? Is he aware that railwaymen and bus crews are entitled to know what their future will be? Will he come clean and state clearly what the public transport situation will be in Scotland in a few months' time?
    Mr. Millan: There is no need for the alarm. The position about rail services has been made absolutely clear, and the alarmist stories that have appeared are quite without foundation. The main responsibility for meeting subsidies on uneconomic bus routes rests with the regional councils and I am glad to say that they, with the Scottish Transport Group, are making arrangements in different parts of Scotland.
    Mr. David Steel: Is the Scottish Office fully alive to the real disaster that is looming ahead in large areas of Scotland where the regional councils find that they are instructed by the Government not to increase their budgets while the Scottish Transport Group is demanding ever larger sums for uneconomic services? When will the Government bring forward legislation on bus transport?
    Mr. Millan: I thought it was generally accepted in the House that decisions on priorities on bus services were best taken by local authorities and not by central Government. In the rate support grant settlement for 1976–77, there is provided as much support for bus services generally as last year, but with a greater tilting of the balance towards rural services. This has all been agreed with the Convention of Local Authorities.
    Mr. Canavan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in the Central Region and elsewhere, where regional

    429
    councils are expected to subsidise bus routes but the Scottish Bus Group will provide information only about its unprofitable routes and refuses to give information about its profitable routes? Will my right hon. Friend instruct this publicly-owned bus company that it should provide this essential information in the public interest, otherwise it will get no help from public funds?
    Mr. Millan: I did not know about that difficulty. Arrangements have been initiated by central Government so that the Scottish Bus Group and local authorities should get together to discuss their problems. We have provided finance through the rate support grant, but the main responsibility must rest with local authorities, in conjunction with the Scottish Transport Group. Certain figures have appeared in public suggesting that very large sums have been requested by the Scottish Bus Group, but after negotiations with local authorities satisfactory arrangements have been made in most cases.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there is no intention to close any essential rail routes to the centre and North of Scotland, to deteriorate further the bus routes in rural areas of those parts of Scotland, or to increase taxation on fuel or motorists, in order to prevent such things occurring?
    Mr. Millan: The only circumstances in which rail services in Scotland would be threatened with the kind of massive closedown adumbrated in the newspapers would be if we accepted the usual exhortations of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) to make massive cuts in public expenditure.
    Mr. MacCormick: Will the right hon. Gentleman reassure us in the Highlands by stating categorically that there are no current proposals to cut rail services to Oban, Fort William, Wick, Mallaig and Thurso?
    Mr. Millan: Any proposal for any rail closure at any time is made publicly.
    Mr. Younger: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as motoring becomes more expensive, the requirement for public railways becomes greater rather than less? Is he aware that the last Con-
    430
    servative Government clearly decided that there was a need for a basic national network of rail services and that we have now reached a level at which we cannot cut any further without breaking that network?
    Mr. Millan: We are already paying massive sums in subsidy to British Rail. The people calling for reductions in public expenditure well beyond anything that is likely to appear in next week's White Paper are hon. Members opposite.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the fishing industry.
    Mr. William Ross: I am meeting representatives of the Scottish Trawlers Federation and other organisations concerned with the fishing industry in North-East Scotland on 13th February.
    Mr. Sproat: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is attending that meeting, but will he take to it an awareness that we are talking not just about a crisis but about the possible death of an industry in which 8,000 jobs are directly involved and another 20,000 jobs indirectly involved? Is he aware that we need financial aid of £4 million fast, and that this sum represents only 3 per cent. of what we are splashing out on Chrysler?
    Mr. Ross: I shall listen with interest to all that is said by the Scottish Trawlers Federation, but I am not giving any hostages to generous fortune today.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the previous trawler subsidy scheme which lapsed in 1973 is still available under legislation and whether it could be reactivated, by Order, to provide a subsidy for an industry that is in serious trouble? Will he take this opportunity to deny the suggestions being made in some quarters that the Government are deliberately with-holding money from the industry in order to force it to slim down the number of vessels?
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend's last point is quite nonsensical. The Government have never embarked on that course. We

    431
    made clear at the outset, when we introduced the aid in 1975, that it was temporary, although my hon. Friend will remember that we continued it for a further period. During that time, a total of £3·2 million was paid in Scotland on total landings worth £59 million. In the longer term, there is no doubt that this industry, like others, must adjust to the market. I shall consider the legislative possibility raised by my hon. Friend.
    Sir John Gilmour: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is meeting the Scottish Trawlers Federation and interests in the North-East, but does he realise that it is essential to meet the whole industry before the British delegation goes to the Law of the Sea Conference in New York, in March?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Member should not take it for granted that because I am meeting this section of the industry on Friday I have not met other sections. I have had a useful and confidential talk with representatives of the inshore fleet within the past week.

    Grant-Aided Schools
    Lord James Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress made towards the implementation of his policy that grant-aided schools be fully integrated in the public system of education as comprehensive schools.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 10th December.—[Vol. 902, c. 451–2.]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since that date there have been 135 applications in Edinburgh to withdraw children from grant-aided schools and accommodate them in local authority schools, and a further 105 inquiries, making a total of 240 in all? Is he also aware that as soon as the increased fee structure to be announced by the Merchant Company comes forward that figure will substantially increase? Will he confirm that it is the Government's policy that where families cannot accommodate their children at these schools they should be allowed places at local authority schools? Is he aware that I shall be most grateful
    432
    if he will confirm this fact and keep the subject under review?
    Mr. McElhone: I am interested in the hon. Member's figures, but the figures that I have are very different. In the 21 months between January 1974 and September 1975 there was a fall-out of 201 secondary school pupils—an average of 10 a month—which is hardly a dramatic figure. Of course we shall provide education for the pupils, and we have said we shall consider the position again if the situation at Mary Erskine School becomes very severe.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the policy decision on the Mary Erskine School shows that his alleged offer of choice to direct grant schools is a total sham? Will he confirm that the Government's policy is creating great hardship for many parents of limited resources because of the substantial increase in fees, and also that the policy is creating an educational shambles in Edinburgh—a shambles that has been condemned by the Socialist Convener of the Lothian Regional Council?
    Mr. McElhone: I do not accept that. What worries me is that during the past four months at Scottish Question Time repeated reference has been made to one grant-aided school. Are the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and Edinburgh Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) representing certain seats in Glasgow and Edinburgh or are they representing the Mary Erskine School? As the managers of the school have repeatedly stated, the long-term result of paying £3 million for Mary Erskine would be to ensure that the other Merchant Company fee-paying grant-aided schools would continue. That is not the Government's policy.
    Mr. Canavan: If the Merchant Company is genuinely concerned about educational provision for all children and not just about getting its hands on some money through the sale of Mary Erskine's, to enable it to continue with its other over-privileged fee-paying schools, will my hon. Friend ask the Merchant Company whether it is prepared to give the Lothian Region the free use of the school building for comprehensive education until such time as the region can afford to buy it?
    Mr. McElhone: I should accept that offer with gratitude.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) was disgraceful. He is saying that his policy is not in the interests of the parents or of the children but is merely to spite the Merchant Company of Edinburgh. Let the hon. Gentleman say so straight out if that is what his policy is.
    Mr. McElhone: We get fed up with seeing mechanical jack-in-the-boxes jumping up from the Opposition Benches to ask questions about this school. I hope that the machine will be switched off. The only inference the Government can draw from repeated questions from hon. Gentlemen about one grant-aided school is that hon. Members must be very happy with the Labour Government in Scotland.

    Local Authority Staffs
    Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were employed by local authorities in each of the regions of Scotland in each of the years 1970 to 1975, inclusive.
    Mr. Millan: This information is not available. Figures for the total number of staff employed by Scottish local authorities in the years mentioned, as notified to the Department of Employment, were given in reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) on 14th January.—{Vol. 903, c. 162.]
    Mr. Johnston: Is the Minister aware that I find it difficult to believe that the figures are not available, as we know, for example, that the total number employed in the Highland Region now is less than the totality previously employed by the authorities within that region? That is not so in certain other regions. What is the Minister doing to find out why that is, in support of the original criticism made of this expansion by the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Millan: We are arranging in future to get regular figures, starting from March 1976. The difficulty about the Question put down by the hon. Gentleman is that it involves—perhaps not in the Highland Region but certainly in other regions—
    434
    dividing up the staff between one local authority and another to get the exact comparison in the new regions. We have given the total figures and, more important, we have made arrangements to monitor future staff changes. On the general question of staffing, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Secretary of State has made his position clear.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend explain to those who make local authority staff numbers the all-too-easy target for their criticism that the ordinary people of Scotland need substantial help, and that to claim that a reduction in local authority staff is possible without a corresponding reduction of services is complete hypocrisy?
    Mr. Millan: Yes. We have never asked for a reduction. Having regard to the need for stringency in public expenditure, we have asked local authorities not to keep adding to the number of staff, as they have done over the years. In most cases it would be fair to say that this has been done for good reasons, wholly supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The situation has changed. Nevertheless, I agree basically with what my hon. Friend said. If numbers are reduced it is difficult not to reduce services.
    Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Does the Minister realise that if Scotland has this absurd Assembly the number of staff will increase even more?
    Mr. Millan: That is perhaps not absolutely relevant to the Question. The staffing implications of the Assembly are included in the White Paper.

    Campbeltown
    Mr. MacCormickasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Campbeltown.
    Mr. William Ross: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. MacCormick: I am sure that the Secretary of State will accept that the people of Campbeltown will be deeply disappointed by that answer. Would he care to instruct his Department to take steps to make sure—especially in view of what has been said about the difficulties which face the fishing industry—that the fishermen of Campbeltown are not prosecuted by sea anglers and others, under an

    435
    ancient and disreputable byelaw, for employing otter boards when trawling in the Firth of Clyde?
    Mr. Ross: It is not a byelaw; it is—I think—an Act of Parliament, of 1885. I note the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. I spoke about it last week to a certain knowledgeable person from Camp-beltown. The hon. Gentleman knows that the matter is sub judice and that there will be a trial in Kilmarnock on 31st March. The question of a change in the law does not arise at present, but the hon. Gentleman may take it that I understand the problem and the feelings of the fishermen. There is little I can do at the moment.

    Emigration
    Mr. Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest emigration figures from Scotland.
    Mr. Welshasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest figures for emigration from Scotland.
    Mr. William Ross: Net emigration from Scotland in the year to June 1975 is estimated to have been about 19,000, comprising about 4,000 to the rest of the United Kingdom and about 15,000 to overseas.
    Mr. Thompson: In view of that answer, will the Secretary of State tell us what arguments he would use to persuade an unemployed person in Scotland not to emigrate?
    Mr. Ross: The arguments are my confidence and the confidence of most people in Scotland in the long-term future of their own country—as part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Welsh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of the age pattern for emigration from Scotland? If the young leave and the old return, what effect will that have on Scotland's economic future?
    Mr. Ross: I require notice of that supplementary question. It varies. When people go overseas, the father usually goes first and the rest of the family go later. There is a certatin rhythm about it. One of the most interesting aspects
    436
    of the pattern at present is that the position is holding in relation to emigration south of the border, but there has been a spurt or boom in the past year—in relation to the United Kingdom, in the past two years—in emigration to overseas countries.
    Mr. Sproat: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why, under the 1964–70 Labour Government, emigration from the United Kingdom rose every year, under the Tory Government it fell every year, and now, under the Labour Government, according to figures produced last week, it is rising yet again?
    Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Gentleman that he has the figures wrong. When I took over in 1964 the figure was over 45,000 a year. By the time the Labour Government's period of office ended that figure was reduced to about 20,000.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the pattern not all too familiar—that Labour Governments have had to clear up the mess left by Tory Governments and, just as we have got on top of the problem, unfortunately we have lost office? This time we certainly shall not do that.
    Mr. Ross: There is no doubt that it is not always the person who labours who reaps the harvest. What my hon. Friend says is quite true. I have been a Member of the House since 1946. We took over then when the country was bankrupt and put it on its feet. We did the same the last time we held office. We are doing the same thing again—cleaning up.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In his rhythmical approach to the question of emigration, will not the right hon. Gentleman reflect that the reduction in emigration to south of the border is perhaps because of the failure of his Government in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Ross: I do not accept that at all.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: In order to get the question in proper perspective, will the Minister comment on net immigration to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom and other parts of the world?
    Mr. Ross: There are indications that quite a number of people are coming back to Scotland. This is shown in the figures. One of the difficulties is that

    437
    the figures have to be analysed in order to distinguish the age groups and find out who the people are. There is no doubt that quite a lot of people have been attracted back to Scotland by the developments in oil. I am glad to say that many of them are Scots.

  CROWN OFFICE (STAFF)
  Mr. Fairbairnasked the Lord Advocate what increases in the staff of the Crown Office there have been in the year 1975; and what proposals he has for reduction of staff in the Crown Office in the year 1976.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): The staff of the Crown Office increased by five in 1975. Three of these were attributable to the assumption of responsibility for prosecution in the district courts. The other two were law apprentices. I am considering what reductions in manpower needs may flow from the Government's policy on reducing planned future public expenditure.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I am delighted to know that the Crown Office is leading the Government's policy in reducing the planned number of public servants, and the associated expense, but will the Lord Advocate assure us that he has been able to attract a sufficient number of qualified staff to undertake the duties of prosecution under the District Courts (Scotland) Act?
  The Lord Advocate: It would be wrong to suggest that it is an easy task to get suitably qualified persons, but I am satisfied that we are making reasonable progress, in view of the ultimate target date of 16th May 1976.
  Mr. Sillars: What sort of moneys are involved for the people doing this work in the district courts?
  The Lord Advocate: I should require notice of that question, but I think that a recent parliamentary answer provided some information on those lines.

  SHERIFF COURT, GLASGOW
  Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Lord Advocate when he last visited the Sheriff Court in Glasgow.
  The Lord Advocate: I last visited the Sheriff Court in Glasgow on 24th February 1975.
  Mr. Taylor: Is the Lord Advocate aware that solicitors have represented to me that the conditions in Glasgow Sheriff Court are deplorable and that, in addition, it is quite unsuitable for coping with the substantial increase in criminal prosecutions?
  Further, does the Lord Advocate agree that witnesses for both defence and prosecution have had to be accommodated in one room at the sheriff court, and that in the view of Glasgow solicitors this tends to interfere with the course of justice?
  The Lord Advocate: I am aware that the accommodation in Glasgow Sheriff Court leaves a great deal to be desired.
  As to the difficulty about witnesses, I am bound to say that the procurator fiscal and the staff of the sheriff court do their best to ensure that witnesses appearing on opposite sides in the same case are accommodated in different places. Sometimes mistakes may occur. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case to bring to my notice I shall be glad to consider it.

  FACULTY OF ADVOCATES
  Mr. Canavanasked the Lord Advocate when he next proposes to meet the Faculty of Advocates.
  The Lord Advocate: I have no plans at present for a meeting with the Faculty of Advocates.
  Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the recent statement by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, when referring to the proposals for devolution in the Government's White Paper, that the concept of a legislative Assembly being constitutionally subordinate to one Minister, namely, the Secretary of State for Scotland, is offensive to the democratic principles that were established in both Scotland and England even before the Treaty of Union?
  The Lord Advocate: I understand the point that the Dean of the Faculty made, but I think that the learned Dean is under a misconception as to the constitutional proposal contained in the White Paper.

  439
  The White Paper proposes that in any exercise, on behalf of the Government, of the limited power that the Secretary of State has to remit legislative and executive matters, the Secretary of State requires the positive agreement of Parliament. That can be seen by reading paragraphs 59 and 73 of the White Paper. Accordingly, it is wrong to suggest that the subordination of the Assembly would be other than truly parliamentary.
  As my hon. Friend has mentioned the letter from the Dean, perhaps I may take the opportunity of saying that during the devolution debate I may have unwittingly given the impression that three of the four representations to which I was then referring had positively endorsed the White Paper concerning the question of law enforcement. That is incorrect. What I sought to convey was that only one of the representations—that of the Law Society—had taken issue on this point.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Since the opinion expressed in the Dean of the Faculty's letter was not his personal opinion, but was given on behalf of members of the Faculty of Advocates, with whom he consulted, does the Lord Advocate not think that it is very unsatisfactory that under the privilege of this House he should either criticise the judgment of the Dean, who is a distinguished silk, or try to make the excuse that the White Paper is so clear that so distinguished a man could not be misled by it?
  The Lord Advocate: I hope that nothing I said about the learned Dean's letter suggested that I was in any way critical of his good faith in writing what he did, but I think it would be wrong to suggest that the letter that was sent to the Government contained the concluded views of the Faculty of Advocates. The Dean made it perfectly clear that it was a letter written by him after consultation with members of the Faculty.

  LEGAL AFFAIRS (SCOTLAND)
  Lord James Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Lord Advocate if he will implement the recommendation of the Law Society of Scotland, that a Ministry of Justice be established in Scotland.
  The Lord Advocate: All the recommendations made by the Law Society of
  440
  Scotland in its memorandum on devolution will be carefully considered. The recommendation referred to in the Question is one of particular interest. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, what the Law Society is proposing is that a Department of Legal Affairs should be set up under a Minister who would be a member of the Scottish Executive and responsible to the Scottish Assembly. In the Government's view, the decision whether or not to implement this proposal will fall properly to the scottish Administration, and accordingly no question of implementation by Her Majesty's Government can arise.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank the Lord Advocate for his reply. Is he aware that the Law Commission of Scotland has already recommended that a Ministry of Justice or Department of Legal Affairs should be established in Scotland in order to help harmonise Scots law with EEC law, and will he give this proposal full consideration in due course?
  The Lord Advocate: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. David Steel: Does the Lord Advocate accept that one of the advantages of setting up a Ministry of Justice in Scotland should be that there would be more adequate machinery to allay public anxiety in cases where there may have been a miscarriage of justice?
  Has the Lord Advocate studied the book by my constituent, Mr. Kennedy, on the case of Patrick Meehan, about which there is now great anxiety, and will he now agree to an inquiry into that case?
  The Lord Advocate: It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman, who should know better, has combined these two questions. I do not propose to answer the latter question, because it is not one for me.
  Concerning the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, I should have thought that it would be quite wrong to suggest that there is anything inherently wrong with the present arrangements for the administration of justice in Scotland.
  Mr. Fairbairn: It may have been wrong for the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) to raise the matter, but perhaps I may ask the

  441
  Lord Advocate this question: if it is his view, as he has stated, that Patrick Meehan was guilty of the offence of which he was found guilty, why does he not prosecute Ian Waddell, who, without question, is attempting to pervert the course of justice by making false claims?
  The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Gentleman has already asked me a Question to that effect, which I have answered.

  COUNSEL
  Mr. Grimondasked the Lord Advocate whether the submission to the Monopolies Commission about the necessity of senior and junior counsel includes Scotland.
  The Lord Advocate: Yes, Sir. Reference of the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was made by the Director of Fair Trading to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under Sections 47 (1) and (2) and 50(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1973.
  Mr. Grimond: In thanking the Lord Advocate for his answer, may I add that I am also aware that advocates in Scotland are not nearly as expensive as are barristers in England—although I may be in some trouble over suggesting that?
  Does the Lord Advocate not agree that it is a pity that the Scottish Bar did not set up its own inquiry into this matter and, indeed, into the question whether it is necessary in England and in Scotland to have so many layers of lawyers?
  The Lord Advocate: I note what the right hon. Gentleman said, but he is perhaps not aware, for example, that the Faculty of Advocates no longer rigidly insists on the two-counsel rule in criminal trials.
  Mr. Rifkind: Will the Lord Advocate advise the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—who is, I believe, a barrister of the Middle Temple—that when he chooses to make pronouncements on the legal profession throughout the United Kingdom he should acquaint himself with differences in policy and practice as betweeen Scotland and England?
  The Lord Advocate: I think that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) might bring himself a little more up to date.
  Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree to an investigation by a Royal Commission into legal practice in both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, in order to deal with the allegations of many people that both Scottish and English lawyers make a number of extortionate claims on legal aid systems?
  The Lord Advocate: Without agreeing with my hon. Friend's final comment, I note his desire for a Royal Commission on these matters.

CIVIL AVIATION POLICY
The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): With permission, I will now make a further statement about civil aviation policy.
Last July, following my review of civil aviation policy, I told the House that I had concluded it was no longer in the interests of our aviation industry or the economy generally to allow competition between British airlines on long-haul scheduled routes. Accordingly it would in future be our general policy not to allow more than one British airline to be licensed on any given long-haul route. Instead British Airways and British Caledonian Airways would have separate spheres of interest for their long-haul scheduled services.
Since my last statement there has been a series of detailed discussions between BA, BCAL, the Civil Aviation Authority and myself about how the airlines' existing route networks could best be adjusted so as to consolidate their respective spheres of interest. I have now decided that in Africa, where BA and BCAL at present operate competing services, East Africa and the Seychelles should in future be in BA's sphere of interest and Central Africa, including Zambia, in BCAL's. This exchange should enable both airlines to achieve considerable cost savings through deploying their resources more effectively.
Outside Africa, BCAL will give up the licences to operate scheduled services to New York, Los Angeles, Boston,

443
Toronto and Singapore via Bahrain, which it holds but is not at present exercising. It will also end the exempt charter service it operates to Singapore. However, it will retain the right to serve Atlanta and Houston—a route for which BA does not hold a licence—and will be the sole British airline to operate this new route when it becomes available. In addition, BCAL's sphere of interest in South America will be extended and it will take over services to Venezuela, Colombia and Peru from BA.
In making this rearrangement of routes, my objectives have been, first, to reinforce the competitive strength of British airlines in the fierce international environment in which they operate; secondly, to arrive at a result which is as fair as possible to both airlines; thirdly, to safeguard employment in the airline industry; and finally, to produce a settlement that would last for a substantial period ahead.
I believe that the decisions I have taken go a long way towards meeting these objectives. BA and BCAL will now be free to concentrate on meeting the challenge from their real rivals, the foreign carriers. BA will be able to plan the development of its services on major routes throughout the world free from the uncertainties of "double designation" licensing. Similarly, BCAL will have scope in South America, West and Central Africa and on the new Atlanta-Houston route for future expansion of its long-haul services. As regards the third objective, I am satisfied that no redundancies will result from the rearrangement of routes, and, indeed, that the employment prospects for both airlines in the longer term should be improved. Finally, the new policy will, I hope, give that stability in regulating the airline industry which is essential for effective long-term planning.
I have given further consideration to the proposed Laker Skytrain service, but I remain convinced that in the conditions likely to prevail in the North Atlantic market for the foreseeable future Sky-train would generate relatively little new traffic. It would, however, add excess capacity and would do substantial damage to BA's existing services. Moreover, having regard to the existing facilities that are available for cheap travel, it would confer no really worthwhile benefits to
444
the consumer. [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"]
The CAA, while sharing my view that conditions are still not suitable for Sky-train, would prefer the licence and designation to be kept in being and, more generally, that wider discretion should be left to the licensing system in the control of long-haul scheduled services. However, I see considerable disadvantage in prolonging the present uncertainty and have accordingly told Laker Airways that its designation will be withdrawn. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I am confident that the airline will continue to build up its already extensive charter business, particularly with North America, and my Department will continue to support it in this.
The position of the other independent airlines will on balance be unchanged by the policy changes I am making. I believe that they will continue to make an important contribution to our civil aviation effort.
The decisions I have announced today, and my proposals for new policy guidance for the Civil Aviation Authority, are set out in more detail in a White Paper, copies of which are now available in the Vote Office. I hope that we shall shortly be able to debate the proposed new guidance, which will require the approval of Parliament before it comes into effect.
Mr. Higgins: The Secretary of State will appreciate that this is a highly complex and important set of proposals which is not easily dealt with by question and answer. Will he indicate whether a Bill or a Statutory Instrument will be required? We welcome his assurance that there will be a debate, but we would not regard a debate of, say, one and a half hours as adequate for a matter as important as this.
On the broad question of the relationship between British Caledonian and British Airways, we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support for the second force concept, but what is now necessary is a framework within which the airlines can undertake investment particularly in broad-bodied aircraft. We shall need to study carefully the right hon. Gentleman's specific proposals for routes, but we certainly agree with him on the need for a period of stability in which the second force concept can be allowed to develop.

445
We are concerned that the Secretary of State has given the Civil Aviation Authority authority in these matters. In the past, as in the present, he has given it guidance, but he is now retaining, in effect, a two-tier system. That gives particular cause for concern over his decision about Laker Airways. That concern will be felt in all parts of the House. I believe that this is not a party matter. We are unhappy that the right hon. Gentleman's dogmatic determination to end dual designation outside Europe should be operated in such a way as to inhibit the enterprise of Laker Airways. The potential benefits which we believe would accrue to the consumer will thereby be lost.
The right hon. Gentleman will fully understand that there is great concern about this matter, and I hope that he has not ruled out the possibility of further discussions about it. Did he reach his decision on the basis of figures agreed with Laker Airways? If not, will he give an assurance that he will publish his own figures and those of Laker Airways so that the House may take a view on this important issue?
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the need to end uncertainty. If the CAA believes that the licensing and designation of Laker Airways should continue, and if Laker Airways is also taking the same view, who is worried about the uncertainty?
Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State said that the White Paper was now available in the Vote Office. I believe that it is there, but the Vote Office will not release it because it says there have been no instructions to that effect.
Mr. Speaker: If I am able to give long-distance instructions, I shall do so at once. Perhaps someone will see that the document is available.
Mr. Shore: Of course I accept that a document of this kind is complex and detailed. That is why I was a little alarmed to hear that the White Paper was not immediately to hand. It should be. It is certainly not my intention, with the co-operation of the Leader of the House, that this matter should be dealt with in a one and a half hours' debate. I am not proposing legislation, but I am
446
proposing the proper affirmative resolution procedure. I hope that that will be coupled with a substantial and proper debate on all the wide ramifications of these proposals.
Second, on BA and BCAL, I note what the hon. Gentleman said and I accept that he is right to come back to this matter when he has seen in greater detail the material in the White Paper. But I am very glad that he has stressed what has been very much in my mind—the need for British aviation as a whole to have as long a period of stability as possible. It needs to be spared the constant threat of change if it is to plan for the future.
Third, on the Skytrain proposal, I understand that hon. Members are unhappy about that. Indeed, I should have been very surprised if I had not heard the kind of noises that I did when I made my statement. There is, however, a case which will have to be put and I shall be only too pleased to do so at the right time. The difficulty with figures—I shall produce all the figures I can—is that a dozen or more assumptions must be fed in to give any meaningful result as to the probable effects of Sky-train. Those assumptions are the critical things that one has to consider before reaching a conclusion.
I have put to the House the points on which the CAA differed from me—I have made no attempt to conceal them—but they are a relatively narrow area and beyond that there is a substantial measure of agreement.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to protect the blue riband transatlantic routes of British Airways will meet with a warm welcome in all fair-minded sections of the House? Will he also bear in mind, however, that there is still a need to look to an even cheaper form of transport than has so far been possible by the main transatlantic carriers? Therefore, will he carry the ball onward from the imperfectly-thought-out Laker idea to see what might be done towards encouraging British Airways to encourage a third-tier form of service?
Mr. Shore: I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for virtually everyone on this side, and, I hope, far more broadly, in what he said about preserving for BA, which is our flag carrier, these important

447
Atlantic routes. Anyone who thinks that there is not already competition on these routes needs his head examining. It is the toughest of all the air service markets.
As for innovation, one thing that we must take into account is that in the three or four years since the Skytrain proposal was made a whole series of innovations has been introduced by, among others, British Airways, including, of course, far cheaper charter and APEX forms of flight across the North Atlantic. The whole price differential which at one stage was so markedly favourable to Skytrain has now been enormously eroded and in some cases totally closed.
Mr. David Steel: Nevertheless, does not the Secretary of State accept that the public will be dismayed that he has proved too conservative a Minister to try the innovation of Skytrain? On the wider and more important parts of the review, does he accept that both major airlines have been messed about over the past six years in an atmosphere of total uncertainty between Governments? If, as his statement suggests, he will produce a settlement which will last for a substantial period, is that not the most important outcome? Would he not agree that what we require now is a real opportunity for both British Airways and British Caledonian to be able to use the divisions that he has created for them, and for a long period of stability ahead?
Mr. Shore: I very much welcome what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for and the possibility of getting a period of stability, because the time scale in which this industry operates is bound to be a long one. I hope that that is understood everywhere. As for his first comment about my being too conservative, hon. Members on both sides do not really seem to have taken account of the weight and scale of the proposed innovation. This is not just a fly to be brushed aside.
At the moment, British Airways carry on the New York run about one-third of a million passengers a year. We estimate—I think it is a reasonable estimate—that if a British Skytrain went into service an American Skytrain would come in as part of the Americans' complementary service on the same route. Those together would have a capacity greatly in excess of the whole of British Airways'
448
present passenger numbers to New York. That cannot be dismissed as a light matter.
Mr. Conlan: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has told us that there has been lengthy discussion with the airlines themselves and with the CAA. What proportion of the package that he has announced has been agreed with the airlines and what proportion is being imposed upon them against their will?
Mr. Shore: It may not surprise my hon. Friend to learn that both the main airlines, BA and BCAL, would have liked more than I have felt able to offer, but I think that both would agree that this is a tolerable and not unfair settlement. But they must speak for themselves.
Mr. Donald Stewart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the idea of a debate, since many of us are extremely disturbed by the implications of the policy that he has announced today. Would he accept that many people would like to see more competition for British Airways in view of its mean and spiteful attitude towards the competition provided by BCAL within the United Kingdom, as exemplified in its document of 6th February?
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned routes held by BCAL but not operated. Are any of them routes for which it has received licences which have not been confirmed? As for Skytrain, does he not take into account the advantage which might accrue with the ordering of new machines and Rolls-Royce engines if the route went into operation?
Mr. Shore: Many of these matters will come out better in debate, but on the last point the hon. Gentleman must accept that the somewhat ambitious proposal for a new Rolls-Royce-engined version of the DC10 could not possibly come into being as a result of even the most ambitious of Laker Airways' activities. It would need the backing, as we all know, of a major carrier. So we must put that on one side. As for the question of routes in general, that will be a matter, within the terms of the new policy guidelines, for the CAA to examine in the usual way.
There is no lack of competition on domestic routes. I am not sure that the

449
hon. Gentleman is voicing the interests that he seeks to protect. I do not think that BCAL would welcome more competition on domestic routes, particularly to Scotland.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has it not occurred to the Secretary of State that, with the falling standard of living in this country, it is likely that the number of people who wish to use a Skytrain service because they cannot afford the cheapest scheduled services is increasing rather than decreasing and that, therefore, it would significantly increase the total air travelling public rather than merely redistribute it?
Mr. Shore: That is just the hon. Member's hope—not that our standard of living is falling, I hasten to add, but that more people would be attracted if this form of reduced price service were introduced. I repeat that there are already a number of very reduced charges for transatlantic travel, both in terms of APEX scheduled flights and in terms of special charters.
Mr. Les Huckfield: Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that this confirmation of the mixed economy and the endorsement of the second force goes very much against the policy commitment of this party and the assurance by the last Conservative Government that no more routes would be transferred from British Airways to British Caledonian? Nevertheless, will he recognise that some of us on this side accept that Skytrain would interrupt and make uneasy the present fares stability that we have on the North Atlantic and that we recognise that his decision at least preserves continuity of employment at Gatwick?
But when shall we come to the end of this process of parcelling up the world between British Airways and British Caledonian? Surely, if British Caledonian cannot survive after this lot, it should not be allowed to do so.
Mr. Shore: I think this new White Paper and these new proposals offer the kind of stability which the earlier White Paper did not offer, and I hope that it has a very good chance of sticking.
I am aware that at the time in 1971—entirely accept that it was the right thing to say—we on this side of the House said it was entirely wrong that the
450
West African route should be taken from British Airways without compensation and given as a dowry on which to launch a dual designation policy. That was as much as we said. I have to consider what now to do with what has already been given, in the terms of the 1971 transfer of routes, in applying dual designation routes which BCAL has acquired in the last four years. I have tried to reach a balance which is, I hope, not unfair to both airlines and, above all, which avoids what would otherwise produce a great deal of unemployment.
Mr. McCrindle: In view of the legislative process to which the Secretary of State referred and the uncertainty, until the whole operation is carried out, that his statement today will create, can he give an estimate of the date of the change-over of these routes? Can he say what effects, upwards or downwards, his decisions are likely to have on the staff of BCAL and BA respectively? Is he satisfied that the South American routes given to British Caledonian are profitable without access to the lucrative East Caribbean?
Mr. Shore: I am anxious to end uncertainty as soon as possible. Therefore, a great deal depends upon how quickly the House can have an opportunity of considering these proposals and reaching a decision. If the House consents, as I hone it will, the major transfers which I have outlined in Africa and in Singapore can have effect, with the agreement of both airlines, by 1st April, which I am sure will be of great benefit to all concerned. The Latin American routes can be dealt with a little later on but, I would hope, well before the end of this year.
Mr. Thorne: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these proposals will contribute to an improvement in British air services throughout Europe? Will they raise demand for civil aircraft and thus improve the general position of the aircraft industry?
Mr. Shore: It is very difficult to say what will be the effect of these proposals, on traffic in Europe. Basically, we are not making any substantial change in the situation on the short-haul routes. The major part of the policy statement is concerned with the short-haul scheduled services. I am afraid that I cannot give

451
a judgment on my hon. Friend's question.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: I shall allow one more question on this matter. There is a lot more business to come before the House.
Mr. Warren: Will the Secretary of State confirm that yesterday he told Mr. Laker that the designation of Skytrain would not be withdrawn until the proposals had been approved by both Houses of Parliament? Does not the right hon. Gentleman's decision on Skytrain, by its failure to recognise, encourage and reward personal enterprise and innovation, sum up all that is wrong between the Government and the people of this country?
Mr. Shore: I am in favour, as I think we all are, of encouraging private enterprise and initiative in a large number of areas, but in this sphere of air services I think we all understand that it is very easy, by simply plundering a particularly good route and giving it to a certain operator who has no special responsibility, to make a killing for one airline on one particular route. We therefore have to be sensible about it. There is
452
the analogy, to which hon. Members often refer, that it is easy enough to put on a private bus service from Marble Arch to Westminster and make it pay, but one knows very well that this will be done only at the expense of London Transport.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about talks with Mr. Laker. Of course, any proposal that I make to the House in the form of a White Paper is dependent upon the approval of the House before such a proposal comes into operation.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Mr. Speaker: In order to save the time of the House, unless there is objection I propose to put the Question on these three motions together.
Ordered,
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Dried Fruits) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Edible Fats) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Milk (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Dormand.]

SHOPS (AMENDMENT)
3.55 p.m.
Sir John Langford-Holt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Shops Acts 1950 to 1965.
I think that most of us in this House have the feeling from time to time that perhaps we are churning out too much legislation. Therefore, at the outset I should like to say that the purpose of my Bill is to limit the operation of legislation and not to extend it.
A law in this country has to fulfil two requirements. First, there must be a demand for it. I have received on this matter a greater amount of correspondence and petitions, for which I have not asked, than on any other subject since I have been a Member of the House. Second, the law must be understandable and logical.
Let us see how the Shops Acts stand up to those requirements. I emphasise that I am talking only about the closing hours of shops on weekdays and not about trading on Sundays. Are the Shops Acts needed? Of course they are. We all agree on that. There are immense areas of legislation covering the treatment of employees and the quality and standard of service. There is no argument about that. As to whether the provisions of the Shops Acts relating to closing hours are intelligible and understandable, the answer must be "No". I guess that there is not one Member of the House who fully understands the law relating to the Shops Acts. I freely admit that until I started inquiries into the intricacies of my proposals I did not understand them.
The basic law is that shops should shut at 8 p.m. on weekdays and at 9 p.m. on one day a week, and that there should be an early closing day at 1 o'clock on one day a week. There are, however, exceptions. One has to look at the Sunday regulations to see how many anomalies and stupidities there are. To deal with the ordinary anomalies first, strangely enough the Shops Acts deal with the closing but not with the opening of shops. A shop is forced to close at 9 p.m. but, presumably, may open at one minute past midnight and trade all night without breaking the law.
454
There are strange requirements about food. One may go into a shop and eat a sausage roll if it is hot, but if it is cold and one takes it out of the shop the law has been broken. One may eat cooked meats in a shop at any time of the evening, but one may not eat half-cooked meat unless it happens to be partly-cooked tripe. One may buy tobacco, sweets and ice-cream provided that it is from a shop within the precincts of a theatre and provided that it is sold to a theatre audience. But if anybody comes off the street into the shop to buy, it is my belief that such a person is acting in contravention of the law.
Newspapers may be bought from approved stations. I wonder whether Sir Richard Marsh could tell us what is not an approved station. Petrol may be sold for the benefit of cars, cycles and aircraft, as long as the petrol station opens for that purpose and closes as soon as the car, cycle or aeroplane has been served.
I believe I am right in saying that a shop may stay open to victual a ship on a Sunday. Probably the greatest nonsense of all is the fact that on a Sunday it is legal to sell a Wimpy and it is in order to sell Chinese food, but it is illegal to sell fish and chips. Therefore, the law is in a muddle, lacks clarity and should not be applied in any place where it is not absolutely necessary.
Shops are open and will remain open tonight all over London. They will be breaking the law, not because they are open but because they happen to be selling, perhaps, baked beans with a loaf of bread. It is all right to sell a loaf of bread, but when a tin of baked beans is sold with it the shop steps outside the law.
My Bill proposes to exclude from the early closing provisions on weekdays shops which are—I emphasise these words—entirely and exclusively operated by the owners. The problem arises: who are the owners? I believe that an owner is someone who owns 25 per cent. or more of the business. That percentage could be 33 per cent., 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. It depends on the definition of "small shop". The moment a shop employs someone, it will automatically fall outside the provisions of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney), who, I believe, will oppose

455
the Bill—I make no complaint about that—sent round a "whip", which was given to me by one of his hon. Friends, in which he makes two statements, with which I must quarrel. First, he said that my proposals would exclude from the Shops Acts all shops operated by the owner or his family. The Bill does not exclude all shops from the Shops Acts or even small shops from those Acts; it excludes them from only one part of the Shops Acts, namely, Part I—not even Part IV.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that the Bill is a threat to all shop workers. The greater threat to the employment of shop workers is the fact that Tesco and, dare I say, the Co-op have turned their grocery departments into self-service departments. That is a greater threat than any which could arise from the small corner shop. If I believed that the Bill posed a threat to the welfare of shop workers, I should not ask the House to accept the motion.
4.3 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Torrey: The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) has outlined the main objections to the Bill and some of the anomalies in the existing Shops Acts. For many years I worked in a shop and then for a considerable time I was a full-time officer of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I am well aware of the anomalies, and it is possible that, if the House could find the time, the Shops Acts need to be amended. However, the hon. Gentleman wants to amend them to allow one section of shop employers or owners to operate differently from the rest. As the hon. Gentleman said, the owner-occupier need only employ his family, and this would add still greater confusion to the already confusing Shops Acts.
At present, Shops Acts inspectors have the unenviable task of trying to enforce the law. Although I have not consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, I am sure he would agree that to expect an inspector to know whether Aunt Mary was really Aunt Mary or an employee would tax the inspector even more.
Why do USDAW and I say that the Bill will be a threat to shop workers simply because for a great number of years they have been the Cinderella of industry? Shop workers work long, unsocial hours. Is it feasible to expect large firms in the High Street—and today retailing is a highly complex and competitive business, as all hon. Members recognise—which have large sums of money invested in their large retail organisations to stand aside while owner-occupied businesses, which employ members of the family, are allowed to open whenever they like?
There is only so much cake. However much we subdivide that cake, we shall cause economic stress. If a shop opens for 12 hours instead of eight hours shop workers will have to work a shift system, which I doubt would operate effectively, and there would be more to pay. Who pays in the end? The more hours a shop stays open, the more expenses there are. Those costs are added to the cost of the article.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury mentioned the hours during which shops are already allowed to open. He said that they could open until 8 o'clock every night and 9 o'clock on a late night. Is not that reasonable? Are we not pandering to the unreasonable if we suggest that someone may wish to buy a pound a sugar or a packet of cigarettes at 8.5 p.m. or 9.5 p.m.? At present, shop opening hours are quite reasonable. Moreover, the mass of shops do not stay open even as long as the hours permitted under the Acts. Many shops shut at 5.30 p.m. and 6 p.m. If they wish to stay open later, the Acts cover them.
I sincerely hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will follow me into the Lobby and vote against the Bill, because it is a thoroughly bad Bill economically and for shop workers.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 159.

Division No. 61.]

AYES

[4.09 p.m.

Baker, Kenneth

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Biggs-Davison, John

Banks, Robert

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Blaker, Peter

Bell, Ronald

Berry, Hon Anthony

Bottomley, Peter

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Hannam, John

Penhaligon, David

Bradford, Rev Robert

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Percival, Ian

Braine, Sir Bernard

Hawkins, Paul

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Hayhoe, Barney

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Brotherton, Michael

Higgins, Terence L.

Prior, Rt Hon James

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Holland, Philip

Raison, Timothy

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Hooson, Emlyn

Rathbone, Tim

Buck, Antony

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Burden, F. A.

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

James, David

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Carson, John

Jopling, Michael

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Kershaw, Anthony

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Kilfedder, James

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Cockcroft, John

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Cordle, John H.

Knight, Mrs Jill

Sainsbury, Tim

Corrie, John

Knox, David

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Costain, A. P.

Lamont, Norman

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Crawford, Douglas

Le Marchant, Spencer

Shepherd, Colin

Critchley, Julian

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Sims, Roger

Crouch, David

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Sinclair, Sir George

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Lloyd, Ian

Skeet, T. H. H.

Doig, Peter

Luce, Richard

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Sproat, Iain

Durant, Tony

McCusker, H.

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Macfarlane, Neil

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Elliott, Sir William

Mather, Carol

Stokes, John

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Stradling Thomas, J.

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Mawby, Ray

Tapsell, Peter

Fairgrieve, Russell

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Thompson, George

Fell, Anthony

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Welder, David (Clitheroe)

Freud, Clement

Molyneaux, James

Wall, Patrick

Fry, Peter

Monro, Hector

Walters, Dennis

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Montgomery, Fergus

Warren, Kenneth

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Watt, Hamish

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Weatherill, Bernard

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Wells, John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Mudd, David

Welsh, Andrew

Goodhart, Philip

Neave, Airey

Wiggin, Jerry

Goodhew, Victor

Nelson, Anthony

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Neubert, Michael

Winterton, Nicholas

Gray, Hamish

Newton, Tony

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Griffiths, Eldon

Onslow, Cranley

Younger, Hon George

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Grylls, Michael

Page, John (Harrow W)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Pardoe, John

Sir John Langford-Holt and

Hampson, Dr Keith

Parkinson, Cecil

Mr. Robert Corbett.

NOES

Archer, Peter

Dunn, James A.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Ashton, Joe

Edge, Geoff

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Hunter, Adam

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Bates, Alf

English, Michael

Janner, Greville

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Bidwell, Sydney

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Boardman, H.

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Buchan, Norman

Flannery, Martin

Judd, Frank

Buchanan, Richard

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Kaufman, Gerald

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Ford, Ben

Kelley, Richard

Canavan, Dennis

Forrester, John

Kerr, Russell

Cant, R. B.

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Kinnock, Neil

Cartwright, John

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Lamborn, Harry

Ciemitson, Ivor

George, Bruce

Lamond, James

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Ginsburg, David

Leadbitter, Ted

Cohen, Stanley

Golding, John

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Coleman, Donald

Gould, Bryan

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Conlan, Bernard

Graham, Ted

Litterick, Tom

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Loyden, Eddie

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Hardy, Peter

Luard, Evan

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Harper, Joseph

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Cryer, Bob

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

McCartney, Hugh

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Hart. Rt Hon Judith

McElhone, Frank

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Heffer, Eric S.

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Delargy, Hugh

Hooley, Frank

McNamara, Kevin

Dempsey, James

Horam, John

Madden, Max

Dormand, J. D.

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Mahon, Simon

Duffy, A. E. P.

Huckfield, Les

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

458

459

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Price, William (Rugby)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

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

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Rooker, J. W.

Walker. Terry (Kingswood)

Mikardo, Ian

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Ward, Michael

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Watkinson, John

Moonman, Eric

Skinner, Dennis

Weetch, Ken

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Small, William

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshawe)

Snape, Peter

Whitlock, William

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Spearing, Nigel

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Newens, Stanley

Spriggs, Leslie

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Noble, Mike

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

Stoddart, David

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Orbach, Maurice

Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Owen, Dr David

Stott, Roger

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Padley, Walter

Swain, Thomas

Woodall, Alec

Palmer, Arthur

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Park, George

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Pavitt, Laurie

Tomlinson, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Pendry, Tom

Tuck, Raphael

Mr. Sydney Tierney and

Perry, Ernest

Urwin, T. W.

Mr. Thomas Torney.

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Question accordingly negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [8TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered
  SUPPLY

    MOTOR INDUSTRY
    4.19 p.m.
    Mr. Tom King: I beg to move,
    That the salary of the Secretary of State for Industry should be reduced by the sum of £1,000.
    I should begin by apologising for my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who is at present drawing sick pay and is unfortunately unable to be with us for the debate.
    I notice that on the Order Paper today the title of the motion has become
    "State Investment in the Motor Industry".
    That is not actually the motion that we originally put down, although I well understand why, in the Business Statement by the Leader of the House, it was amended, and it has been yet further amended now. The title of the motion that we submitted was
    "The Failure of the Government to observe their Guidelines in respect of State Investment in the Motor Industry."
    It may have been possible for hon. Members to deduce that from the shortened version, and one understands the embarrassment of the Government and their desire to present a more abbreviated version.
    We censure the Secretary of State and the Government for their vast incompetence over the handling of this whole matter. Their incompetence is shown in their delay, in the whole handling of their industrial strategy, particularly towards the motor industry, and in their utter failure to practise what they have preached in this direction.
    I deal first with the question of delay. It may be interesting for hon. Members to recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this:
    "I hope in the next few weeks another area of uncertainty will also be removed as the Government defines its industrial strategy more precisely, setting out the criteria which will govern its aid to industry, describing its priorities for economic growth, and clarifying the
    462
    rôle of Planning Agreements and the National Enterprise Board."
    The Chancellor said that on 6th June of last year and he said that he would do those things within the next few weeks.
    What have we had? We have had the definition of industrial strategy, but we did not get it in "the next few weeks". We had to wait until 5th November for the Chequers meeting before we got it.
    We were also promised within the next few weeks from 6th June the criteria for governing aid to industry. Through the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), we at last extracted those criteria last month—mid-January.
    What about the clarification of the rôle of the National Enterprise Board which was supposed to be given within the next few weeks from 6th June? That is still not available. Yet the Minister of State said that it would be coming very soon. He has been saying that endlessly, month after month. In view of the present disputes about the relationship of the National Enterprise Board and Rolls-Royce, we can guess why the Government are still unable to produce this.
    That is our indictment about the delay. The Chancellor recognised in June the need for these documents to be available early, and yet two of them have only just arrived and one is still not available.
    Then we censure the Government for their failure to practise what they preach. Let us see what they are now preaching. In November they gave us their White Paper "An Approach to Industrial Strategy". This document includes some very important statements—for example:
    "Any major increases in productivity will require not only more investment better directed, but also improvements in working methods, including the reduction of overmanning and restrictive practices, and by transfer of workers into expanding sectors with a promising future."
    That is the Government's belief in their industrial strategy. They set out their philosophy of backing winners. They categorise such industries as follows:
    "industries which…are intrinsically likely to be successful; industries which…have the potential for success if the appropriate action is taken; and industries…whose performance is most important to the rest of industry."
    The Government deal also with the question of how they would handle

    463
    individual companies where rescue operations are needed. They say:
    "In deciding whether individual companies merit support the Government will have regard to the criteria in NEDC 75/67 including the need to ensure that the company concerned is likely to be viable in the longer term."
    That reference to NEDC 75/67 may come as a surprise to hon. Members who saw only the White Paper "An Approach to Industrial Strategy". If hon. Members went to the Library on the day of the Chequers meeting and actually got the first copies that were issued, which were in Roneo'd form, they would find that sentence included. Strangely enough, that sentence had disappeared in the White Paper. But NEDC 75/67 set out the criteria for investment under the Industry Act and the Government were very embarrassed at that stage at the suggestion that those criteria and the action that subsequently followed at Chrysler were related in any way.
    That document states the criteria for assistance very clearly:
    "By and large, profitability and return on capital, measured in financial terms, remain the best prima facie indicator of an industry's or company's efficiency in using resources and in giving consumer satisfaction…"
    It goes on to talk about viability and it says this:
    "An assessment of viability is a matter of facts, figures and commercial judgment, in which wider economic and social factors have no part to play."
    This is the Government's own document which was issued in November. It goes on to talk about one or two possible exceptional cases and it says:
    "It should be exceptional for a firm to be regarded as potentially viable in the ordinary sense if forecasts based on reasonable assumptions do not show profits and positive cash flow within three years."
    It goes on in paragraph 19 to say:
    "if we are to break through the balance of payments contraints and thus achieve more freedom for manoeuvre for the management of the economy, more and not less emphasis will be required on competitiveness in home and export markets. Failure to achieve this would in the end be the enemy of job security."
    The document goes on in paragraph 27 to talk about the merits of a receivership or a liquidation. It says:
    "A receivership or a liquidation does not necessarily involve the complete cessation of a company's activities…The resources of manpower, premises and equipment of involvent businesses are in many cases taken up in
    464
    whole or in part by other enterprises expanding or starting up."
    Those are the Government's own words in the document. They say:
    "This, rather than the propping up of failed enterprises, is and should remain the principal contribution of the Industry Act…"
    It goes on to say:
    "In exceptional cases…there must be a strong presumption that it must be possible to reconstruct the enterprise on a viable basis."
    These are the preachings of the Government making clear their strategy and making clear also, in yet another document which they have produced—the White Paper entitled "The British Motor Vehicle Industry"—the Government's approach to the car industry. The most important point is in paragraph 19. The first item is:
    "encouraging the fundamental changes in attitude throughout the industry required for the necessary improvements in productivity, quality continuity of production and industrial relations."
    That is what the Government believe. We accept their papers. We think that they contain the beginnings of a commonsense policy a great deal of which we could support. It is against that background that we look to see how the Government handle individual situations, because I know that nobody in the House is impressed merely by words or statements. They judge people by actions, and we are entitled to judge the Government accordingly.
    In the case of British Leyland every observer—whether it be the Select Committee, the CPRS, the Prime Minister, or the Secretary of State—has said that what is needed above anything is a total change of attitude in the relationship between management and men within those plants, that we must get across to people within the whole organisation that they are not guaranteed jobs for life regardless of effort or commitment, but that there must be a real understanding of the responsibility that everybody in the organisation carries for the success of its activities.
    The Prime Minister underlined this very clearly. In his original statement on 24th April last year he emphasised the importance of this and emphasised that there was no question of further funds being available to British Leyland unless objectives were achieved. He

    465
    promised that there would be very close monitoring. He promised a full rôle for Government and the National Enterprise Board in observing and monitoring the plans of the British Leyland board.
    Mr. Hamish Watt: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that what is needed most of all is a shift in emphasis away from the production of motor cars, where there is vast over-capacity, to commercial vehicles, where there is vast under-production?
    Mr. King: The first priority is to make efficiently and competitively whatever one is making at present and where one has markets at present. This is the first and overriding objective. At present, I do not think it is a choice between one and the other. I am sure that all hon. Members would like to see both succeed. At this stage we must ensure that what we are doing is done competitively in world terms and is done effectively.
    The Prime Minister made clear the importance of monitoring and said that there was no question of more funds being available unless targets were achieved. The Select Committee said in its Report:
    "We do not believe that withholding the next tranche of money for British Leyland is a practical possibility. The threat of sanction which cannot be used is no threat."
    A phrase used in the Government's latest comments on the motor industry is that time is fast running out, but what sense of urgency do we find in the Government's approach to the problem? In British Leyland is there the total change of attitude which everyone has recognised is necessary? It has been pointed out that in the six months following the Government's action there were more strikes at British Leyland than in the previous six months.
    Next week will mark the first anniversary of Lord Ryder's appointment as chairman of the organising committee of the National Enterprise Board. The Prime Minister told Parliament in April that it would be the responsibility of the Board to monitor British Leyland, but the only thing we have seen is unilateral action by the British Leyland board, which has had to stop further capital investment because losses have risen so steeply, made even worse by stoppages.
    466
    My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) asked the Minister of State recently what was happening about targets and attempts to monitor British Leyland. He asked the Minister to define the first of the targets of achievement and the date by which it would have to be met. The Minister told him:
    "The first of those targets will have to be met by the middle of this year, when there will have to be a review point for the next injection of finance. We shall have to get much nearer that period before we decide how matters are progressing."
    What are the Government's targets and objectives? The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asked:
    "Have not the Government heard of management by objectives?" [Official Report, 26th January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 8–9.]
    Would it not be helpful for the work force and management to be told at least a week before targets have to be met what the objectives are?
    We are not talking about 25p in the piggy bank. The next tranche is £100 million, to be put into the company in June this year, and yet we have no idea what targets the Government and the National Enterprise Board require British Leyland to reach by that time. Surely, when looking for a change of attitude and a real commitment, the sensible and obvious thing to do is to tell people what the targets are and to give them an honest chance to achieve them.
    Mr. John Page: Will it be necessary for British Leyland to state exactly to what use the money will be put, or can it be used for capital investment and wages?
    Mr. King: I cannot answer that question. Perhaps my hon. Friend will raise the matter with the Secretary of State. At present there is no plan and no understanding of what is happening. There is still a row between the Secretary of State's Department and Lord Ryder over the acquisition of shares. I am not aware that the shares have yet been transferred. There is continuing uncertainty against the background of the Government saying that time is fast running out, the background of dithering and messing about and the row between Lord Ryder and the Department on the price to be paid for the shares. Lord Ryder is

    467
    nearly celebrating his first anniversary in office, but so little has been done.
    There is now the argument with Rolls-Royce which indicates yet further how little preparation has been done to establish what the rôle of the National Enterprise Board will be. There is considerable uncertainty about the situation. The arguments have been rehearsed today in the Press about the position of the Board and Rolls-Royce. There are difficulties and complications. We understand that in the past Sir Kenneth Keith had access to the Prime Minister as well as to the Secretary of State, and that Lord Ryder previously had access direct to the Prime Minister. But what is his present position? Does he have access to the Prime Minister? Is he therefore yet another person who can go behind the back of the Secretary of State to negotiate his own agreements? It would be helpful to the House to know what the position is.
    I turn from the Government's total failure to implement their strategy in respect of British Leyland to the even more serious situation of Chrysler. It is relevant to the debate, because it was a post-strategy decision. The investment was made after the Chequers announcement on Government criteria. There have been Government statements about the prime need of a real prospect of viability. It is sad that nobody in the Government, with the possible but unlikely exception of the Secretary of State, actually believes that Chrysler can be viable.
    Paragraph 24 of the White Paper on the motor industry stated:
    "The Government have already taken measures to enable British Leyland to re-establish itself on a viable and competitive basis. In the case of Chrysler UK the Government have undertaken to support a re-organised and more concentrated operation."
    For Chrysler there is no mention of viability in the future. The Government cannot bring themselves to suggest in the White Paper that it should be viable. When asked about his confidence in the future of Chrysler the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 22nd December:
    "I am not going to express any confidence, only determination."
    Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Does not my hon. Friend think that the
    468
    phrase "a more concentrated operation" is a somewhat bizarre description of moving manufacture of the Avenger 240 miles away from the place where its engines are made?
    Mr. King: We must have sympathy for whoever had the job of drafting that sentence. But I understand what my hon. Friend says.
    The Government's overall strategy puts viability high in the list, yet the Industrial Development Advisory Board sees no prospects of commercial success. The Government's requirement is that there should be viability within three years, but their scheme for Chrysler provides for losses over four years. The only person who dares to suggest that the business might continue is the Secretary of State. He said on 16th December:
    "We have the basis for a continuing operation into the 1980s".—[Official Report, 16th December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 1168.]
    What is his basis for saying that?
    The Secretary of State wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley saying that no studies had been done beyond 1979. He can therefore base his belief that there will be a continuing operation into the 1980s only on a personal hunch or imagination because he has admitted that no studies have been made beyond 1979 and it is expected that further losses will have to be covered by the Government.
    The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): The hon. Gentleman is referring to correspondence I had with the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) about model development and future prospects for Chrysler. Although that correspondence was published, there was a great deal of information which I could not give the hon. Member for Henley because of commercial confidence and the rest. I invited the hon. Gentleman to take the matter up directly with Chrysler, and the managing director of Chrysler United Kingdom said that he was prepared to do so. That offer has not been taken up by the hon. Member for Henley. The Opposition, if they are seriously concerned, should take that offer up rather than repeat these charges, because they know that I cannot reveal the commercial confidences given to my Department.
    Mr. King: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He will understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and I are somewhat heavily involved in the passage of one of the Secretary of State's more contentious Bills at the moment. We intend to follow that matter up, but it still has nothing to do with the point I am making. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to model development costs, which we understand, but his letter does not say that the matter to which I referred is confidential. It says:
    "No projections have been made beyond 979"
    How can he have confidence into the 1980s if he has not done any projections about what is to happen in the 1980s, and the only projection done so far affects years in which he expects losses to be made?
    This situation reveals the total nonsense that has been made of the Government's strategy. The overriding requirement both at British Leyland and at Chrysler is for a change of attitude. Yet, for example, we have the situation at Linwood, where the whole production has been stopped by one dispute. When one takes into account the tax implication, the money involved was not worth more than a packet of fags a week to each of those involved. That dispute could have been resolved without it, but, instead, the whole of the production was stopped. I am not taking sides, but that situation is indicative. Both sides had an interest in resolving it, and it is a tragedy that all work was stopped. It is possible to have disputes without actually stopping the whole of production. There are ways in which these things can be negotiated.
    That dispute arose over the moving of 50 people four miles down the road——
    Mr. Norman Buchan: Half a mile.
    Mr. King:—half a mile down the road—so what confidence does that give the House over the moving of a total assembly line 240 miles? What must stick in the Secretary of State's throat is that he was persuaded to agree to this course on the ground that it would save votes for Labour in Scotland. Now that
    470
    he has seen the results of the East Kil-bride by-election, he must feel that he has been misled on that score as well.
    It is clear that many members of the Cabinet realise the utter folly of this situation. Hon. Members who watched Monday's television programme will know that such is the dislike of many members of the Cabinet for the strategy that they have been singing like canaries ever since to the Press. It is impossible that a programme like that could have been put together without a considerable number of direct leaks by members of the Government, and it has not escaped the notice of the House that Secretaries of State and other Ministers are prepared to sing like canaries to the Press but are not so keen on singing at all to a Select Committee of this House, where it would be more appropriate.
    We believe that the new strategy is right, but if it is to carry any conviction it must be applied in difficult as well as easy cases. We believe that the Secretary of State knows the answers on this matter. He knows the danger and the damage that will be done. He knows the threat to jobs posed by failing to face the situation. Anyone who has read the CPRS report, whose figures have been underlined and quoted again by the Government, knows that if the British motor car industry does not get this change of attitude and become competitive with overseas industries, the threat is that 275,000 jobs will be lost by 1985. That is the scale of the problem and underlines the crucial importance of showing that the industrial strategy is working.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer has drawn attention to the success of his accelerated investment scheme, and we pay tribute to it. He claims a multiplier effect of 6 to 1—that is, for every £1 million of public investment there is a follow-up of private invesetment of six times that amount. That means that the money spent on Chrysler could, if it had been used in other ways, have produced about £1,000 million of additional investment for the country.
    The Secretary of State has said:
    "To improve our industrial performance available resources should go to those industries which have the soundest performance, or the best prospects. This must be the first principle of Government aid…".

    471
    It is for his betrayal of that first principle, which he himself enunciated at the conference on 30th October, that we censure him today.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the Secretary of State for Industry, I remind the House that the debate is to be interrupted at Seven o'clock for opposed Private Business.
    4.45 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): This is a very much truncated debate and I shall try to follow the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) in being as brief as possible. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) cannot be with us, and I hope that he makes a quick recovery from his illness.
    The hon. Member for Bridgwater has characteristically asked a lot of questions. He himself answered one which had puzzled me. Those of my hon. Friends who were present in the House for business questions last Thursday will remember the cheers from the Opposition when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced that today there would be a debate on the Government's guidelines on State investment in the motor industry. But when I looked at the motion on the Order Paper today, I wondered where the guidelines had gone. Now, the motion simply refers to State investment in the motor industry. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government are incompetent, but the Opposition are not even competent enough to get down on the Order Paper the motion which they wanted. It is up to the Opposition to decide what motions they put down on a Supply Day.
    The fact is that when it comes to discussing State aid for the motor industry under the Industry Act 1972—and that is what we are talking about; that is where a good deal of the assistance for British Leyland will come from and the aid for Chrysler—the Opposition have too much of a past to live down.
    When, two weeks ago, for example, the House discussed the extension of the financial limit under Section 8 of the Act, the Opposition sought to make great play by quoting from the guidelines for Section 8 which we recently published. Those guidelines were not extracted from us—
    472
    they were volunteered. The criteria for assistance under Section 8 had been discussed within the framework of the National Economic Development Council. In any case, they were practically public on the basis of the discussions we had there.
    But we could never have had a debate on such guidelines between 1972 and 1974, because the Conservative Government never published any guidelines for Section 8. It was very much more open-ended than now. When it was going through the House Mr. Christopher Chataway, then Minister for Industrial Development, turned down an amendment to insert a proviso in Clause 8, as it was, by which aid would have been forthcoming only
    "where there is…evidence for believing that there is a reasonable prospect of the industry to be assisted achieving viability within five years".—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 13th July 1972; c. 713.]
    Mr. Nigel Lawson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of misleading the House, but it is not right for him to say that these criteria, which are the heart of the new industrial strategy, were volunteered by the Government. There was a reference in the NEDC document which was expunged in the White Paper. When I asked the NEDC to give me the document, it said that it was highly confidential and could not be revealed. Only when I put down a Written Question was the information vouchsafed. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having given the information to the House in the end, but it was a difficult and lengthy process, and far short of being volunteered.
    Mr. Varley: I do not quibble about this matter because it is not worth it. After the NEDC meeting guidelines were mentioned at a Press briefing. If the Government had wanted to hide the criteria they could have done so, but we saw no reason why the House should not have that information. When the Industry Bill was going through the House in 1972, the then Government—and Mr. Christopher Chataway in particular—decided that there should be no published criteria. The Conservatives were far more restrictive on these matters than we have been.
    Mr. Tom King rose——
    Mr. Varley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this is the last time I shall give way. I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in this debate.
    Mr. Tom King: I wish to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) which the Secretary of State has not answered. Why did the Government delete or expunge from the printed White Paper the sentence I quoted earlier regarding criteria?
    Mr. Varley: I am at a loss to understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making. We could have followed the precedent set by the Conservative Government and decided that there should be no published criteria. But we volunteered them, and it is as well that we did because everybody in the House is entitled to know.
    When we examine the criteria adopted by the present Government, it is as well to trace a little of the history of the matter when Governments have considered giving assistance. I should like to quote a passage from Hansard in 1972 dealing with criteria for assistance:
    "…there are the difficult and sometimes controversial cases where important concerns suffer a severe financial setback… In carrying out such an assessment, regard has to be paid to the whole range of relevant economic factors. Future profitability is one, but others cannot be ignored…the employment the industry provides in relation to the future of a particular area is also very important. This must be taken into account and care taken to examine whether it makes sense to allow a sudden collapse or whether it may not be preferable to aim for a slower run-down while alternative employment opportunities are provided. A viable enterprise at a lower level of operations is frequently a possible solution, too. Other factors may also be relevant, but I wish to emphasise the need for a thorough examination of all the factors so that a proper assessment of economic prospects and potential viability over the long term is made in each such case. I do not conceal the fact that, inevitably, these assessments are very often made against great pressure of urgency, and to pretend that risks do not have to be taken would be foolish, but they may be justified to achieve the wider purposes of policy.—[Official Report, 22nd May 1972: Vol. 837. c. 1020–21.]
    That is a very good explanation of the criteria and is the most fulsome and unconditional justification of Government aid that could be applied to the Chrysler situation. Those words came from the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr.
    474
    Davies), the former Secretary for Trade and Industry, in moving the Second Reading of the Industry Bill 1972 and explaining how Clause 8—now Section 8—should be used.
    The hon. Member for Bridgwater has all the brass neck in the world to have the nerve to get up in this House and criticise us for providing aid under an Act whose authors explained so candidly the purpose for which they intended it. He knows better than most, since he was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Minister, Mr. Christopher Chataway, who took the Bill through the House. It is about time that Tory Opposition Members stopped their carping and nagging and made up their minds whether they want to give the British motor industry a chance. If they had their way there would be only two volume car producers in this country and imports would be flooding in. Heaven knows, unemployment is high enough, but if Tory Opposition votes had been successful in this House in the last two years there would be hundreds of thousands more on the dole—in Oxford, Birmingham and Coventry. I emphasise "Coventry" and I hope that the point will be noted in that part of the country as well as elsewhere.
    It is easy to play a completely negative role. There is plenty to criticise within the motor car industry and a good deal to put right. We see insufficient investment, inadequacies in management and difficult labour relations. We have put all the facts before the British people and to those who work in the motor industry. Indeed, information has been made available to an unprecedented extent. Therefore, I do not wish to go into sterile arguments about criteria for British industry.
    We set up the Ryder team and published its report. We asked the CPRS to examine the industry in depth, and we published that report as well. The Tory Party complained bitterly that the publication of the CPRS report had been delayed. But the Conservatives did not publish any CPRS report, delayed or otherwise. I have published two such reports in the last two years.
    So we are not afraid to face the harsh facts about the motor car industry. But there are other facts, too. They are facts

    475
    in which the hon. Member for Bridgwater is not interested this afternoon or which he brushes aside. I refer to facts about the achievements of the British motor car industry and to facts vindicating the House's approval of the Government's decision to invest Government money in the industry. If the Tories had had their way, there would be no British Leyland today. They would have split it up and let most of it go under. Yet British Leyland has made great progress. There have been important organisational changes, they have taken place relatively smoothly and quickly, and a new board of directors has been appointed. As the House knows, these developments were marred by the tragic death last month of Sir Ronald Edwards. At present Sir Robert Clark is able to stand in as chairman until we can appoint a successor.
    The scheme for the financial reconstruction of the company became effective on 11th August last year. Following that arrangement, in early October the equity base was enlarged by £200 million, increasing the size of the Government shareholding to 95 per cent.
    The company has also been pressing ahead with discussions with those who work in British Leyland about the proposals for industrial democracy and measures to improve performance. The main task must be to rebuild British Leyland and to return it to viability. That task is still before us. It is a formidable task and we have a long way to go. But there are hopeful signs.
    Although the new arrangements for participation by the workers in the company's planning inevitably will take time to set up, it has now made an encouraging start with a joint declaration on the need for increased sales, productivity and production. We have hopes that this new machinery can make an important contribution to the smoother running of production in full co-operation with all concerned and that it will bring about a reduction in industrial disputes and an increase in productivity. It is true to say that morale and performance are improving.
    Let me give the House some facts that should be given if we want to support the British motor car industry.
    Last month British Leyland regained its position as the largest supplier of
    476
    cars to the United Kingdom with a 29 per cent. share of the market. Of course, there are variations from month to month. In September of last year it reached the record level of 39 per cent. This was followed by a period of several months during which sales reflected the depleted level of stocks. The stock of new cars is being built up to a much more acceptable level. On the truck and bus side of the business, British Leyland's share of the domestic market rose in 1975 to 30 per cent. compared with 27 per cent. in the previous year. This was achieved against a difficult background of recession and falling demand. During 1974–75 the truck and bus division made a profit of £27 million.
    It is British Leyland's export performance which is most encouraging. In the financial year to the end of September 1975 the value of British Leyland's direct exports reached £589 million. In this period the truck side of the business managed to increase exports from £80 million to £142 million—an increase of over 75 per cent. More than half the output of the truck and bus division is exported. For example, Leyland National in Cumbria has an order for 450 buses from Venezuela, with good prospects of securing further orders.
    Sales of cars to the American market, which everyone knows is a demanding market, have been particularly encouraging. Figures available for the year just ended show that sales were up by 30 per cent., by volume, on sales in 1974. I repeat, if Tory Members had had their way, if their votes had been carried, much of this would not have happened. Not only would we have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, but we would have lost hundreds of millions of pounds on the balance of trade and the balance of payments.
    The Government are determined not to let British Leyland go under, obviously. We want to see an improvement in performance. We want to see British Leyland thrive and prosper and fit sensibly into a market that also contains a role for Chrysler United Kingdom and allows maximum scope for Ford and Vauxhall. In 1965 the share of the United Kingdom market held by British manufacturers was about 95 per cent. It is now nearer 65 per cent. All of our firms can improve their competitiveness and their market position.

    477
    The action we have taken to assist Chrysler United Kingdom need not diminish the ability of British Leyland, Ford or Vauxhall to compete with those overseas firms which have taken so much of our domestic market over the past decade. The CPRS report stated quite clearly that productivity, quality, reliability and continuity of production need to be enormously improved. What we have lost through poor performance in the past can be regained by better performance in future.
    The objectives of our assistance to Chrysler are to give the company the chance to return to profitability and to compete more effectively in the home and overseas markets. No one can be certain that the company will achieve viability within three years. No one could give that categoric guarantee. The previous Conservative Government could not give that guarantee in respect of the assistance it gave to industry through the 1972 Act. If the Opposition do not regard our criteria as a satisfactory basis for aid in 1976, the evidence I have quoted proves that they regarded it as more than satisfactory in 1972—at the time of the "Chataway undertaking". When the Opposition were in Government and had responsibility for the motor industry they did not indulge in the sniping that goes on now. They now like sniping from the sidelines.
    The company forecasts small profits from 1977 onwards. Even if viability is not regained within three years, the Government consider that because of the powerful social, industrial and balance of payments arguments a longer time scale would be justified. This fits in fully not only with the criteria put forward by the right hon. Member for Knutsford when he held office but with the criteria we have recently published. We should not entirely dismiss the words of Mr. Riccardo when he wrote, and I put this in a letter to the hon. Member for Henley:
    "The conclusion we have reached provides renewed opportunity for the viability of Chrysler UK."
    Chrysler Corporation is backing this assessment with its own resources.
    Mr. Tom King: We do not want to ignore what Mr. Riccardo has to say, but the Government have a substantial stake
    478
    of public money in this company. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it might not be possible to achieve viability in three years and we ought, therefore, to be prepared to consider a longer time scale. As I understand it he has not considered a longer time scale. He has no idea whether the company will ever return to viability.
    Mr. Varley: From the discussion which Chrysler United Kingdom had with the Government before agreement was reached we believe that, given an improvement in performance and harmonious industrial relations, small profits can be achieved in 1977, 1978 and 1979. Of course, there were contingencies made for losses in all those years. I cannot be certain about the future viability of this company any more than the right hon. Member for Knutsford could have had confidence about the assistance he was giving to industry. The Chrysler Corporation will not only share in the losses that Chrysler United Kingdom may incur over the next four years; it is also providing new funds and important guarantees to the Government.
    The hon. Member for Bridgwater predictably raised the question of the Linwood strike. While I would like to say something about it, it is best not to do so at this stage so that I may finish my speech. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) will want to say something about that.
    There are other ways in which the Government have shown that they intend to work closely with both sides of industry. We want to establish a viable, substantial, internationally competitive and unsubsidised motor car industry in the 1980s. We have said that it is necessary for there to be a fundamental change of attitude throughout the industry. We have to assist with the necessary reorganisation and rationalisation to ensure that the Governments' policies and the industry's plans are understood and provide as far as possible a stable economic environment for domestic sales of motor vehicles.
    I have been giving a good deal of thought as to how we can achieve this objective. As a start I have approached the major motor vehicle assemblers and leading trade unionists with a view to setting up a group to tackle these urgent

    479
    problems. I am pleased to announce that Mr. Beckett of Ford, Mr. Price of Vauxhall, Mr. Hunt of Chrysler and Mr. Park of British Leyland, and Mr. Jack Jones and Mr. Hugh Scanlon, representing the principal trade unions concerned, have agreed to take part in this group, and the first meeting will be held shortly under my chairmanship.
    The group will consider initially the implementation of the White Paper on the motor industry and how work on the motor industry can be tied in with more general work between Government, management and unions on the Government's approach to industrial strategy. It will also consider other information, like the Report by the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of this House, as it becomes available. I hope the group will tie in with the tripartite machinery we have set up for other industries as part of our industrial strategy. It is absolutely essential that we should give very high priority to this work in recognition of the special position of the motor industry in our economy.
    This will be a short debate, but I hope I have approached the problems of the industry realistically and demonstrated that the Government approach the problem in practical, sensible terms.
    Fortunately for the motor industry and the nation, the Opposition have no influence at all on this key sector of British industry. If their votes had been carried on several occasions in the last two years, the industry would now be in a state of disintegration. While they move their motions of censure, the British motor car industry, with the support of the majority in this House, is getting on with its job.
    5.12 p.m.
    Mr. Hal Miller: The sympathy I felt for the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate evaporated rapidly. I have never heard such a petty, politicking, pettifogging attempt to go back over the past. The right hon. Gentleman based most of his remarks on what was happening in 1972. The industry needs a clear lead for the future and the Secretary of State spared us only half a page at the end of his speech. The reason why the industry did not need any help in 1972 was that we had a Tory Government. The Sec-
    480
    retary of State's attempt to criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) fell flat on its face.
    We are trying to consider the strategy that should be adopted by the Government towards the motor industry on a rather longer-term basis than was possible in the discussion on the Chrysler situation before Christmas, which was more of a tactical and short-term nature.
    We have now had time to study in detail the CPRS Report and we also have the benefit of the Government's answers to the invaluable Report of our Trade and Industry Sub-Committee, whose chairman we are pleased to see here today.
    The Government's policy and industrial strategy towards the motor industry has to be considered in the context of their industrial strategy as a whole. There is no particular reason to single out the motor industry, except, perhaps, its size and importance. Any differences are of degree and not of kind. But the industry is of signal importance to the West Midlands and employment prospects there.
    I had hoped that the Secretary of State would amplify the Government's commitment in their White Paper on the way ahead for the motor industry, and would say what they intend to do. We have had a belated working party, which certain distinguished gentlemen have been pleased to accept invitations to join, but what is being done to carry out the Government's stated policy in the White Paper?
    The White Paper sets out four objectives—first, the encouragement of fundamental changes in attitude that are necessary to improve productivity; secondly, assisting rationalisation of plant and reduction of capacity; thirdly, the development of closer relations between the Government and both sides of industry to ensure that policies are understood; and, fourthly, the creation of a stable economic environment.
    The first lead we are looking for from the Government is the encouragement of the fundamental changes in attitude which all reports agree are necessary and which the Government themselves have accepted. The difficulty is that as recently as last night the Government forced through a Bill based on entrenched attitudes which are no longer applicable in

    481
    industry. The Government have not given a clear lead to the country in this respect.
    This lack of leadership is depressing and unsettling, and creates uncertainty, which mitigates against both investment and the achievement of improved industrial relations. Uncertainty among the work force in the industry is one of the main factors contributing to its very unsatisfactory output and efficiency. It is very understandable when people are laid on and off, apparently at the whim of management, without, perhaps, realising the effect that the Government have had on those plants. We look to the Government for a clearer lead on the change in attitudes that is needed.
    The Government have said that they are committed to a high-wage, high-output economy, but that has a hollow ring for the man on the shop floor when he considers the Government's pay policy, the heavy increase in taxation—an extra £335 out of everybody's pocket—and the continuing decline in output. This decline started in about 1972. In one of our major factories, the same work force and the same supply of components is achieving only half the output of 1972. This is what the Government should be addressing themselves to, but I found a total lack of any appreciation of this problem in the Secretary of State's speech.
    The Government's second criterion was to assist the rationalisation of plants and the reduction of capacity. It is on this basis that we have been trying to assess the Government's investment of our money in British Leyland and Chrysler. We have no evidence of any rationalisation or any reduction of capacity. How it can be claimed that moving the Avenger production line to Linwood is a measure of rationalisation is impossible to conceive.
    We are still looking to the Government for some statement of rationalisation and reduction of capacity. The CPRS Report pointed out that the effect of costs on our cars, the number of models and the volume of production leads to considerable margins in favour of imported cars.
    We have now reached the ludicrous position in which, if the Government were to proceed with the recently flown kite of the abolition of vehicle excise duty and
    482
    increased petrol tax, thus creating a demand for small cars, the country that invented the Mini would be unable to supply that demand.
    At the other end of the scale the CPRS Report comments that the effect of imports is largely felt on executive cars—the one area of specialist cars in which we have considerable advantages. But we have failed to capitalise on those advantages. The Government have done nothing to assist the rationalisation of plants and the reduction of capacity.
    The third objective is closer relations, to ensure that fiscal, industrial and other policies are understood and meshed in. It is uncertainty about Government policies which has led to so much difficulty and lack of understanding. The contradictions in Government policies are damaging, and detract from the fourth objective of a stable economic environment.
    I have referred to the possible abolition of vehicle excise duty. Another proposal has been put forward that for tax purposes company cars should be treated on a different basis. I well understand the rationale of the proposal, but its proponents have not understood the effect that it would have on the motor industry, especially in terms of the demand for fleet cars, which is so important to our two main manufacturers. It is necessary to be aware of the effect of proposals before floating them. Lack of understanding contributes to the uncertainty. I understand that the Secretary of State may already have received representations from the industry on that aspect.
    Again, there is the classic example of the bus grant, which suddenly created an artificial demand for buses that our bus industry was unable to meet. What we are looking for this afternoon is not a repetition by the Secretary of State of a paragraph in the White Paper; we are looking to him to put flesh on it and muscle behind it. We look to him to show the determination and drive that the Government accuse the industry of lacking, and an intention to remedy the deficiencies.
    Apart from the lead for which we look to the Government, we are also looking to the Government to see that British Leyland and Chrysler put their promises into practice. It is disturbing to find that the capital investment programme in

    483
    British Leyland has already had to be stopped because the money had gone into consumption. The first tranche of the money voted by the House—for which I voted—has not been devoted to the purposes for which it was voted. What are the Government doing about that?
    We have not heard about that this afternoon, just as we have not heard what are to be the guidelines for the National Enterprise Board. At a Press conference with Lord Ryder the Prime Ministers said that they would be presented to Parliament for discussion. We were told that the bench marks in British Leyland would be made known to the House and that an opportunity would be afforded for a debate on the progress made towards achieving them before the next tranche of public funds was voted. I should welcome a restatement of that commitment in unequivocal terms.
    I supported the motion originally, with some sympathy for the Secretary of State. At one stage he had the courage of his convictions and stood out against the shabby manoeuvrings which led to the Chrysler deal being patched up. But he consented to that deal, and this afternoon he reaffirmed his consent. No attempt has been made to substantiate the bald assertion made in paragraph 22 of the White Paper that the deal complies with the Government's strategy. The right hon. Gentleman remains a member of a Government who have effectively ruined the nation's industry by inflation and taxation policies; who have, by their taxation policy, taken away from the work force the ability, will and consent to work; who have reinforced wrong attitudes instead of correcting them; and who have created uncertainty instead of the stability that is necessary to progress.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appeal to the House. Ten-minute speeches will be for the benefit of all.
    5.26 p.m.
    Mr. Norman Buchan: I am probably the only representative from Scotland who is likely to speak in the debate, and I wish to comment later on certain remarks which have been made during the past two or three weeks about people in my constituency.
    484
    Many of my hon. Friends and I. while welcoming the rescue of Chrysler, did not push for that solution. We saw the right solution in public ownership as a means of holding the position with future amalgamation with British Leyland. As we spoke about this throughout the country, we did not realise a significant factor which lies at the heart of our industrial malaise.
    As we were demanding public ownership of Chrysler, Mr. Riccardo, on behalf of Chrysler, offered the company to Britain. I can think of no greater illustration of the developing power of the multinational company. When the United Kingdom was seeking control and ownership, such was the power of the multinational throughout the world that it was willing to say "Take it". Such is the domination and power of the multinational that it still had sufficient power to be able to control and market the production of its empire elsewhere.
    I draw to the House's attention the Fourteenth Report from the Expenditure Committee on the Motor Vehicle Industry, which states in paragraph 267:
    "However, a company with operations all over the world will understandably concentrate on those places and methods which offer the greatest profit potential."
    In other words, the company was able to say "Take the company away from us because we have in Europe, Japan and America all that we require to penetrate the United Kingdom market".
    The report goes on to say:
    "If the multinational company is based outside the United Kingdom, the achievement of such aims may conflict with British national interests."
    That is the great problem.
    The crisis facing the motor vehicle industry is only one aspect of the general crisis facing the Western world in dealing with this phenomenon. We have one weapon for dealing with the power of the multinationals, and that is the power of the State. The State can use its economic resources and trading controls to deal with widely-based empires. But in this case that power, even in a medium-size country such as Britain, was apparently inadequate.
    We still have to use the power of the State within. We still think that our solution was right because in the long

    485
    run, unless we can emerge from the crisis within Britain with a large publicly-owned vehicle sector, we cannot cope with the real problems with which we have to deal.
    I want to look, therefore, at the solutions put forward by the very workers who have been so greatly maligned in the last two or three weeks. I believe that the most humane and the most intelligent approach to the whole question was that of the workers themselves when they accepted that there was over-capacity in the car industry. They might have gone on to draw attention to the inevitability of the creation of over-capacity when the profit motive is present. There has to be over-capacity in order to be able to take advantage of boom conditions. That illustrates the difference between those who run the industry and those who are concerned with planning. The shop stewards have said that the problem of over-capacity is related to the production of too many vehicles in the same range and based on the same narrow philosophy.
    In their proposals for dealing with the Chrysler crisis, the shop stewards suggested that this over-capacity should be used for social purposes. They underlined the need to manufacture commercial and specialised vehicles, buses and coaches, Land Rovers, agricultural tractors, heavy vehicles and so on. The shop stewards also recognise the ecological and environmental aspects, and regard the private petrol-driven car as a socially irresponsible form of transport. They urge that attention should be concentrated on developing new products of a socially useful kind.
    These suggestions have come from the very workers who over the last three weeks have been criticised irresponsibly, ignorantly and stupidly in the mass media and in this House. That irresponsible criticism has been made not only in a political and industrial context but also in cartoon form. I draw attention especially to a cartoon, published in the Daily Mail, which was a disgrace to British journalism. It referred to the workers in the Lindwood plant of Chrysler in my constituency, comparing them with mercenaries. The cartoon shows two men at the factory gate. One of them holds a bag, and written on it are the words "Angola Mercenary Re-
    486
    cruitment". The man holding the bag is saying to the workers,
    "It's men just like you we're after—ruthless and tough, with the killer instinct. So after you've killed this place off.…".
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Shameful."]
    We ought to try to understand the real situation. That is why I objected to a comment made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is a rather nice and kindly Tory and for whom I have a great deal of regard. But he, too, accepted as a basic assumption that in any dispute which leads to a stoppage it must be the workers who are at fault. It would seem that there are apparently two sides to every question in our nation, except where workers and management are concerned, and then, apparently, there is only one side. Yet this assumption is made in every case of this sort.
    I draw the attention of the House to an obvious truism. When any argument or difference arises between management and workers, the management can say that x shall be done, because management has the power to control x and to do it. The workers cannot say that x shall be done. They can perhaps resist x, or suggest y, but if no agreement is reached the workers have no other weapon to use.
    In the Linwood dispute the management was in the wrong, and demonstrably in the wrong. The report and the decisions made at ACAS show that management was in the wrong. Indeed, the very speed with which the agreement was reached demonstrated that management knew that it was in the wrong. Nevertheless, whenever the men are involved in disputes of this sort, it is said that they alone are in the wrong.
    Both the speech made by the Secretary of State for Industry two weeks ago and the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a week ago urged the need for peace in the industry and the importance of not attributing blame. I only regret that in the cartoon and in the speeches made there was no attempt to attribute the blame to the right quarter.
    Mr. Michael Grylls: My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was not taking sides but was simply referring to the dispute and saying that there were several

    487
    different ways of resolving it without going on strike. My hon. Friend made that point very clearly when he said that he did not want to take sides in the matter or to blame one side or the other but that people should not immediately jump into a strike position when a dispute arose.
    Mr. Buchan: Of course, I agree that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, but both sides are required to jaw. The workers' side was anxous to negotiate but the management side took the view that all the formal procedures had gone. That was what was happening.
    Of course the workers do not want disputes. The convener, John Carty, whom we have all grown to respect, and the shop stewards at Linwood did not want a dispute. Is it suggested that my constituents in Linwood, with their families, want a dispute? For God's sake, let us have some sense in dealing with this issue. We want Chrysler to settle down. We want to make it a success.
    Hon. Members ought to listen a little more to the workers' case, not only in these disputes but when the workers are giving their analysis of the car industry. They recognise the urgent need for Land Rovers, for example. Why can we not come to an agreement on the need for greater production of this type of vehicle in relation to the overseas aid programme? There is a great need for this work-horse type of vehicle.
    I should like in conclusion to make one last parochial comment. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) in his approach is fork-tongued like Geronimo and triple-tongued like Crazy Horse. He said that Coventry can go to the wall and that only Linwood should be saved, but when it came to a vote he voted for the deal. In the Select Committee he attacked the deal and suggested that it was done for votes in the West of Scotland, for political reasons. Why did the hon. Gentleman support the deal with his vote if he disagreed? Finally, he said that it was all wrong and that we should have used the money to grow trees.
    Mr. Watt: Does not the hon. Member agree that, until this country starts to produce articles that can be sold, all the money that comes from the Government will be wasted?
    Mr. Buchan: That is what I thought I had been saying for the last two weeks. I wish that the hon. Member would listen to the good advice of the workers given to him when he came to Linwood. The workers want to start producing the goods that the world requires and we can sell. That is the answer to the problem.
    5.37 p.m.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: I am sure that many hon. Members apart from myself will be grateful to the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) for drawing attention to the absolutely essential contribution of the majority of the workers at Linwood.
    I am in no way qualified to follow the hon. Member on this subject. However, I may manage to ward off interruptions about the desert from which I rise on this side of the Gangway if I explain, in relation to some small part of the desert, that this is the very hour—hallowed, I believe, by Mr. Asquith—at which the weekly meeting of the Parliamentary Liberal Party is held.
    On the television programme "We British" earlier this year, there appeared that formidable retired servant of the State, vastly experienced and highly distinguished—Dame Evelyn Sharp. This great authority said quite explicitly that she believed, as a result of all her experience, that the nation had lost its former great capacity for constitutional innovation and for keeping its institutions up to date. She was quite categoric about that. I happen to share that feeling—indeed, my party does—and I believe that it is nowhere more apparent than in the sphere of managing State assistance to industry—and particularly the motor vehicle industry, which is one of the very largest of our industries.
    We are in a state of anarchy. This is admitted virtually on the first page of the document produced in December 1975 concerning the criteria for assistance. Paragraph 2 of that document begins by saying, quite truthfully, that the major extension of the public sector is now taking place. It goes on to say that this suggests that
    "the time is ripe to take stock of the under-lying economic and social principles which are involved."
    That is rather like going out into the middle of the Atlantic and then suddenly

    489
    saying "Good heavens, it is time we found out where we are heading, the route we are taking and the time when we expect to arrive." That typifies much of the White Paper on the motor industry, and, indeed, the need for the very existence of the Ryder Committee. We had what I regard as a quite shocking Report from that Committee—even judging by the bowdlerised version which is all that this House has been able to see.
    Then we had the farce over Chrysler, whether we accept every jot and tittle of the Granada television version of events or not. Finally we had the production of the document on the criteria for State assistance. All these items are an indication of the anarchy in this sphere. The only point at which the constitution has come to the rescue in this matter has been the admirable Report of the Select Committee on Expenditure. However, the Committee will agree that it is not part of its job to manage the assistance, only to pass Parliament's judgment upon it, which it has very well attempted to do.
    We then come to the question of responsibility. The Secretary of State was eloquent in this direction about the contribution of the former Conservative Government to these matters in introducing the 1972 Act without any attempt to set up a structure or adapt the constitution for the ladling out of lolly in the vast amounts which have been paid. They produced no guidelines when they magnetised the routes to Linwood in the first place. I understand that Scotland is littered with monuments to the electoral expediency of the Conservative Party—half-completed steelworks and half-completed motor car works, and I believe that quite a lot of the apparatus of the oil industry will be likely to follow in the same way. Each coffin cloth will be embroidered with the initials of some vote-catching Conservative politician who will publish his memoirs in the hope of persuading people that he is a statesman.
    Even with its unfortunate inheritance of this vacuum, the Labour Party cannot escape its responsibility. It is paralysed in the dreadful tug between its loathing to do anything to help the private owners of industry with Government hand-outs and, on the other hand, its very proper concern about unemployment and,
    490
    perhaps, its less proper concern to extend public influence in the industrial sphere. This terrible tug was literally painfully illustrated by the Secretary of State over the Chrysler situation. There I believe that his opposition to the scheme of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was naturally motivated by the fear that in his own Chesterfield he would face the question posed in those rough Derbyshire accents, "Does Bridgwater come to you for the weekends for this Tory-Labour pact, or do you go to Bridgwater in order to implement this ' Operation Heselvar ' from which the country is suffering so much?"
    We need a major constitutional device for administering these enormous sums of money. I believe that in some way it should take the form partly of the regular presentation of a budget of Government finance for industry with all the disciplines of the Budget involved. This should have the effect of bringing in all the relevant Departments in good time instead of our experiencing the sort of scenario which Granada Television viewers were fascinated to watch the other night through impersonation by distinguished members of the Press.
    Secondly, it would compel the sponsoring Departments—those mysterious organisations which sometimes talk from Whitehall as though they were positively the godparents of different industries—to get off their backs and do a bit of sponsoring and monitoring instead of just occasionally administering pats on the back. The budget procedure would focus the attention of Parliament and at least create a public awareness of how the money was to be used. Above all, in a matter of industry where precision and a certain sharpness are essential, the exposure of an industrial budget to this House would drive out those wet and woolly terms which continually crop up in these documents, particularly the document of December 1975 which has featured so largely in the debate.
    Even the CPRS study, more disciplined though it is, contains some of those terms. One example is the word "viability". I have worked in business in Yorkshire for nearly 30 years without that word ever being mentioned by a client. In Huddersfield we do not say "A fine chap that, his business is viable ". We say

    491
    "A fine chap that. Even allowing for inflation he is getting a 20 per cent. return on the money he is putting in his business". I think that the term is wholly a medical one. The sickliest child, as long as it is breathing, is viable. The word fouls up a lot of our documents.
    The CPRS study has begun to approach this matter. We need talk not about viability, as though mere survival had any virtue, but about comparative returns on capital employed. I pay tribute to chart 23 on page 77 of the study. It is a splendid chart showing the return on capital which ranges from Chrysler with 9·7 per cent. to Automotive Products, Birmid, Qualcast and the Chloride Group with over 13 per cent. That is not what one would want, but at least it is approaching something reasonable.
    The presentation of a budget would give an opportunity for matters to be discussed in an orderly way without disclosing confidential commercial information and in a manner in which people from different parts of the country and different industries could make their contributions. We should no longer have child's guides to the assessment of companies such as we see on page 6 of the criteria of December 1975 which would just about do credit to an intermediate candidate for the Institute of Chartered Accountants, but certainly not at a higher level. On page 7, in paragraph 16 the document says, in referring to the assessments of business, that we have to consider the length of time required to give companies in difficulty a reasonable chance of achieving solvency. It is suggested that the State compounds the very serious offence of not merely allowing but assisting insolvent companies to trade in the hope that they will eventually achieve solvency? All that kind of persiflage which people get away with at the moment because it is not properly debated would be blown away if we had a series of proper budget debates.
    For four years we have had a coalition gravy train for a large number of industries, some of which are of very dubious long-term value. Sometimes the train has a Tory driver and a Labour guard, and sometimes a Labour driver and one or two Tory guards. The vast cost of managing this coalition operation—or perhaps I should say coalition shambles—is met,
    492
    first, by inflicting inflation on the people who can least bear it—and, incidentally, some of those who inflict the inflation are armed with pensions which ensure that they shall not suffer from it—or otherwise by a savage rate of tax on low incomes which now bears more heavily even than in war time. This is the price we are paying for failing to keep our constitutional devices abreast of what Government of both parties decide to do. More and more tickets on this gravy train are being negotiated for even as we debate.
    The time has come to create an orderly, properly-structured and understandable system for this necessary Government intervention, so that we no longer quarrel about the necessity of the intervention, which some of us, or some of us in this party, have been admitting since 1929, but instead have orderly debates about where intervention is to take place. Because there is no sign of this from the Government, my colleagues and I will be reluctantly obliged to keep dubious company in the Lobby tonight.
    5.51 p.m.
    Mr. Brian Walden: In the short time that I intend to speak, I do not want to follow the Opposition Front Bench in a discussion of whether the Government should bring more certainty into their pronouncements. I am dubious about the value of pronouncements anyway, whether certain or uncertain, and I do not want to talk about Leyland or about the Budget—only about Chrysler.
    I do not recall an occasion when I have been more out of sympathy with the general view expressed about Chrysler. I not only think that the Government were right; I think that they acted promptly and wisely and in the best interests of this country, both in the short term and in the medium term. I go further. Far from the deal that the Government made with Chrysler being a negligent waste of taxpayers' money, I think that it has actually saved a considerable sum of taxpayers' money, and I intend to try to show why.
    I want to confine myself to what seem to be the three major charges or suggestions made by the Opposition during the debates on Chrysler, one of which, since the hon. Members for Blaby (Mr.

    493
    Lawson) and Bridgwater (Mr. King) are so worried about expunging, was wholly expunged from the speech of the latter today, although the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made it one of his strongest points—I was sorry to see that even some of my hon. Friends in former debates thought that there was something in it—namely, the fatuous charge, which has never been withdrawn, that the British Government contributed—gave—£127 million to American shareholders.
    That was the assertion that the hon. Member for Henley made, together with a good deal of unpleasant anti-Americanism. It was a straightforward charge of giving money, and it is utter and absolute bunkum. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is ill. I wish that he were here to hear me say this, but I am prepared to chat to him when he comes back and I hope that he reads what I say.
    This is astonishing. The idea of taking a notional share value after a Government decision and then relating it back to what was the previous share value and claiming that in some obscure way the British taxpayer has contributed to American shareholders was nicely and precisely defined by the late Iain Macleod as the "hall-mark of financial illiteracy". That is the first point.
    The second point is that it is not even true. It is wholly false and can be demonstrated to be false. It does not even make sense. To begin with, Chrysler share prices did not rise upon the announcement of this deal. Why should they? Chrysler United Kingdom has never contributed a penny of profit to the Chrysler Corporation. In the second place—[Interruption.] Hon. Members can, if they like, reply to all this. I shall be grateful to hear them explain later what the hon. Member for Henley was trying to allege. I am saying that it is false.
    It is not true that the share price went up immediately because no money was ever contributed by Chrysler United Kingdom to the parent company.
    Mr. Tom King: That is not the only consideration.
    Mr. Walden: Moreover, on the arguments which the hon. Member for Bridg-
    494
    water, who is interrupting me from a sedentary position, put today, it is the contention of the Opposition that it never will make any profit. What kind of lunatic would wish to put up the price on that assessment?
    Mr. Tom King: There are many things that one can say about Chrysler, and I apologise if I did not cover all of them. There are two aspects of the subsidiary company which might affect the shares of the holding company. One is whether it contributes profits. The other is the size of the losses or the liability that it might represent. It was the great reduction of that potential liability which affected the Chrysler share price.
    Mr. Walden: I do not for one second agree that it had anything to do with a great reduction in potential liability, which I do not believe has taken place. But I want to move on from this point. I offer the hon. Gentleman an agreement. Let him go to the bedside of the hon. Member for Henley with some friendly brokers and put his case. When they have done laughing at him, they will tell him what actually happened—namely, that it was a stream of good news from American plants, it was the winning of the European Car of the Year award—[Laughter.] Wait for it. Most significantly, undoubtedly the reason for nearly all of the gain is that Chrysler went up—this is undeniable: the hon. Member for Blaby has enough sense to know this—on the general rise of the biggest bull market in Wall Street for a very long time.
    Mr. Lawson: The effect was disproportionate.
    Mr. Walden: The charge is nonsense, and unpleasant nonsense, I might add. There is no truth in it whatsoever.
    Then, when they have done with alleging that the Government are giving money to the American shareholders, the Opposition—at least, a large section of them; certainly the Front Bench, I take it—contend that Chrysler should have been allowed to collapse. Apparently, in some way which has never been defined, this would show not only great financial probity on the Government's part but a proper concern for taxpayers' money.

    495
    Well, would it? Let me give Opposition Members some figures. The loss of jobs in Chrysler, if it had been allowed to go under in the way suggested, taking in the ancillary jobs, could not have been less than 55,000.
    Mr. Lawson: Rubbish.
    Mr. Walden: That is 25,000 from Chrysler alone and an ancillary figure of at least 30,000. That is my view, the Government's view and other people's view.
    In view of what I shall be saying, however, one can lop a little off that and work it out to the figure that I shall give of what this would have cost. This would not have been unemployment shared at the rate of 100 each in every constituency in the country. It would have been concentrated and would have fallen cripplingly on Linwood. It would have made Linwood a ghost town.
    Mr. Lawson: Rubbish.
    Mr. Walden: It is not rubbish. It is the plain truth. There is not enough alternative work there. It would have raised the unemployment rate in Coventry, which is already well above the national average to about one-sixth of the work force.
    Most importantly of all, however, if one takes account of the additional unemployment benefit which would have had to be paid and the loss of income tax from men who would not have been paying it but who pay it now because they are in work, the cost of 55,000 unemployed men to public funds would have been £150 million for a year. That is about double the maximum amount that the Government can lose over four years, as I now want to try to show.
    Nothing is more false, nothing shows more clearly the distortion and prejudice which has crept into this argument, than the assertion that by allowing Chrysler to collapse money would have been saved. Money would have been forgone——
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is just Lever's poodle.
    Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman is right. I have great sympathy indeed with the right hon. Gentleman whom he has just named.
    496
    I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can answer the arguments which have been made. I do not think he has any intention of trying, except on the non-sensical assumption, which is what the Opposition's case depends on, that the employment prospects in this country are so splendid that we can redeploy the 55,000 people in a comparatively short time in areas like Coventry and Linwood—[Interruption.] What did the hon. Gentleman say?
    Mr. Lawson: We do, all the time.
    Mr. Walden: We do? If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions in that regard for the people in Linwood and Coventry who have lost their jobs, I suggest that he hurries at once to the local labour exchanges to tell them where those jobs are.
    Mr. Lawson: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, on the official figures of the Department of Employment, about 400,000 people find new jobs every month?
    Mr. Walden: Of course, 400,000 people find jobs. There is a very high degree of labour mobility in this country, much higher than is conceded by the party opposite on the election platform. But we are not talking about that. We are talking about 400,000 jobs a month plus 55,000 new permanent jobs. Nobody with any sense believes that such jobs are available.
    My next point concerns the finances of the matter. The original statement in the Press contained a figure of £200 million. That was on the basis that under a Labour Government one should add another 25 per cent. so that the Labour Government could be criticised. It is universally believed that the figure that will be lost or given away is £162½ million. But that is quite wrong, because £35 million of that represents a Government guarantee of money which Chrysler will get from private banking sources. Only if the parent Chrysler corporation collapsed or defaulted would that money be lost. As that is not likely to happen, it will not be lost.
    Of a further £55 million, £28 million is a loan on which we get interest. That sum of £28 million is secured by the parent company, and £27 million is on the assets of the United Kingdom company.

    497
    It would be technically possible for Chrysler United Kingdom to default and for the parent corporation to refuse to accept its financial obligation, but that is highly unlikely. For a major American corporation to default in that way would be one of the most stupid things for it to do. If one imagines that it would do something so stupid, one takes £63 million off the £162½ million. If one thinks that the corporation would not do so, one deducts £90 million. That means that on the most pessimistic assessment, on all the doom-mongering of the hon. Member for Bridgwater, the total loss that the taxpayer can sustain for the whole four-year period is £72½ million, which is half of what we would have lost in one year if we had allowed the company to go under and we had paid out unemployment benefit.
    The truth is not that the British car industry is perfect, not that the British Government never make a mistake, but that the Opposition, through prejudice or perhaps ignorance, have not carefully looked at the Chrysler situation because they did not want to do so. They were too worked up by the spectacular rumours which went around when it was originally set up. They have not done their homework. They do not deserve to win the Division, and I hope that they will not do so.
    6.4 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Nelson: I have followed the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) with interest. I think he has brought some of his customary colour and life to the debate. I should like to mention two points which he raised, as I was shaking my head violently during his speech.
    It is an undeniable fact that when one creates a potential liability for the British taxpayer of £162½ million and one reduces the debts of a subsidiary of an American company or increases the assets of it, that must affect the market capitalisation of that company in America, and that will be taken into account by the shareholders. There was a substantial increase in the share price of the Chrysler Corporation, and the increase was substantially more than that of other major car companies on the Stock Exchange.
    498
    With regard to the total liability of the British taxpayer, where does the hon. Gentleman think £162½ million comes from? If there is no liability involved in putting the money in, or if it has not been spent, let him tell us so. The fact is that the potential liability—in the worst possible circumstances, I agree—is £162·5 million. We all hope that the losses will not be as great as that, but in the last resort the British taxpayer is on the hook for that amount.
    In discussing the Government's industrial policy in relation to the motor car industry and the criteria which they employ, it is fair to say that it is more easily identified by their deeds than by their words. The Government's approach as set out in the White Paper, "The British Motor Vehicle Industry", speaks lyrically of
    "encouraging the fundamental changes in attitude",
    of reducing assembly capacity,
    "establishing closer relations with the industry",
    and of
    "providing …a stable economic environment".
    How hollow these statements seem in the wake of events. Are we encouraged to believe that the attitude of the packers at Linwood, who have now been promoted to production workers, displays a fundamental change in attitude? Are we satisfied that the relations between Lord Ryder and his prospective subsidiaries displays a closer relationship between Government and industry? Are we satisfied, at a time when the pound is sinking and when inflation is increasing, that we are on a more stable economic footing? In spite of the advice of the Industrial Development Advisory Board, the problems highlighted by the Central Policy Review Staff and the concern of the House of Commons Expenditure Committee at the lack of financial monitoring, the Government are liable to spend up to £2·8 billion on British Leyland, £162·5 million on Chrysler, and—who knows what?—on future ailing motor companies to subsidise in large part unviable businesses.
    The Prime Minister, speaking to the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce last month, said that the motor industry could not necessarily rely on Government

    499
    money if it continued to disrupt production. How strong is the Government's resolve? It was displayed at Linwood recently, but it did not come to the final stage where they had to cease all subsidy payments to Chrysler. The settlement to the packers of £1·10 a week was made by way only of regrading the status of those workers. Chrysler is committed to bringing its United Kingdom plants up to Coventry pay levels, but the £6 pay limit will prevent that commitment from being honoured. What is the Government's policy and what is the position with regard to that agreement?
    Mr. Tom Litterick: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that a number of the employees are already above the Coventry levels? In addition, would the hon. Gentleman develop the point over which he skated very quickly? Does he think that the Government's job is to blackmail, bully, threaten and coerce free men into accepting working conditions which have never been negotiated and jointly agreed? Does he believe that that is the Government's rôle?
    Mr. Nelson: With regard to the pay settlement I should make it clear that I am talking about the whole of the Chrysler company. It was an integral part of the negotiations for the settlement at Linwood. Secondly, with regard to the whole of the industry and the pressure that Government should put upon agreements, I think it was quite right that the Secretary of State did to a large measure try to assist in the difficult discussions which took place. Nevertheless, where the British taxpayer is on the hook to spend substantial sums of money on risk capital in industry, it is proper that we should endeavour to find out whether there is a possibility of getting binding agreements with those employed in industry that they will restrain their wage demands to a proper level.
    With regard to the formulation of a credible industrial policy, one of the important constituents of this, which was presented to the NEDC, was that it should take account of consumer choice. While it is proper that we should be concerned about the taxpayers' liability, and about the effect that such funding will have on chances of employment, it is proper, in considering the future viability
    500
    of the motor car industry, that we should take more notice in the future of the consumer's views and his demands.
    Paragraph 10 of the White Paper states:
    "The importance of the motor industry to the balance of payments, to employment and to the industrial structure of the UK make it imperative to achieve a substantial and viable volume car industry in this country."
    There is no mention of the consumer's choice or demands which should be accounted for in the industrial strategy for the car industry.
    I should be interested to know what the Minister considers the future to be of the Motor Industry Consumer Council which was set up by the National Consumer Council to look into questions of planned obsolescence, after-sales service and representations to car companies in which the Government have a stake. What rôle will this body play, and how does the Minister hope to improve the dialogue between customers and manufacturers on these matters?
    I want to remark briefly on British Leyland, which has been covered at length this afternoon. Hon. Members may have read some of the comments of Mr. John Barber, formerly a senior employee of British Leyland, which were published in the Financial Times today.
    He said:
    "The art of the game is to develop cars in sectors of the markets which give the best volume/cost/price relationship for the talents of the particular company."
    Although the White Paper did not comment on the reason for Mr. Barber's dismissal following his criticism of the biblical Ryder Report, he raises some important arguments which the Government have a responsibility to taxpayers to answer.
    First, the reduction of British Leyland models from its former 15 to its current seven is under way. However, it is suggested that four main bodies plus one unique one is the highest number British Leyland can sustain without low volume per model and the complexities and cost of running a large number of different production lines. This point was also made in paragraph 37 of the CPRS Report. That will cost the taxpayer money, and we should like to know whether the Government have had any consultations with the company to find

    501
    out whether its proposals in this area follow any guidelines which they have set.
    Secondly, British Leyland's top management perhaps lacks some of the car marketing and production experience which is necessary to revive the company's fortunes. I suggest that the position may be substantially worsened under the direction of the National Enterprise Board. If the Minister can make any conciliatory remarks on this matter I should be grateful.
    British Leyland's strength lies in superior production engineering, yet the Government's policy in practice is orientated towards continuity of existing production, that is to say, subsidising the production of cars that people do not want to buy, as opposed to improvements in the quality control, and pitching of new models at the up-market volume car market.
    I turn to Chrysler. The Government have estimated that the losses this year may amount to £40 million, which is approximately the same as the losses last year, with a £20 million contingency. However, at present the company is faced with a drop of some 25,000 units in exports to Iran and has set a target of 81½per cent. as the market share in the United Kingdom for its marketing team. We welcome the percentage share which it was able to achieve in the first month of this year, but it has a substantial way to go to achieve this average target for the rest of the year. Production changes, the phasing out of old models and labour difficulties in switching the Avenger from Coventry to Linwood could bring this loss to over £60 million.
    In such circumstances there is no agreement under the documents that were exchanged to cover losses in excess of £60 million this year. The Government's limit to the end of this year is £50 million and Chrysler's share in loss funding is £10 million. What happens if it is more? The Executive Vice-President of Chrysler (Europe), Mr. Gwain Gillespie, said that Chrysler would have to take another look at the agreement. Therefore, it is proper to ask, if the loss is substantially more, whether the taxpayer is on the hook for a larger amount. I hope that the Minister can give us his views on that.
    502
    There is still no satisfactory answer as to how Chrysler will finance four new models in its programme out of the £55 million capital grant. Mr. Riccardo said that the programme would be achieved by integrating model policy more closely with Simca in France. It is important that we should inquire what this will mean in terms of jobs in this country. Are the six models and the production locations to be rationalised sufficiently, and what will this do to average cost per unit? What studies have the Government undertaken in this area to ensure that the production, efficiency and productivity targets meet the requirements that the Government set in their funding?
    The Industrial Development Advisory Board recommended against the Chrysler rescue plan, but the majority of the Board were prepared to accept the scheme if greater capital commitment from Chrysler were to be forthcoming, if the Government had a right to curtail or vary their commitment and if there were binding agreement with the work force on manning levels and productivity. These are the minimum conditions that should obtain.
    Greater investment and higher productivity are, however, not necessarily the best medicine for an industry which may in certain sections be overmanned. Although we are often compared with the success of other car-producing nations, notably Japan, it is also fair to say that, as the international demand for cars dwindles or remains static, many of them will now be encountering some of the structural problems that we have.
    I want to ask the Minister about the future of the Jensen company which is based in West Bromwich—an area of high unemployment. The plant is due for closure in April if no solution is reached. What discussions has the Department of Industry had with a view to injecting money into that company? The good intentions of this Government are so often replaced with political expediency that this is a proper question to ask.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Les Huckfield: I am sure that many of my constituents wish that they had got as much of their car manufacturing experience from the Library as the hon. Member for

    503
    Chichester (Mr. Nelson) did. The hon. Gentleman referred to bringing Chrysler's pay rates up to those of Coventry's. He does not know about the dispute at Linwood, where one reason for the management's digging in was the fact that in the possible transfer of the Avenger from Coventry to Linwood it was possible that they would have to bring Coventry rates up to those paid at Linwood. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman mentions bringing the whole of Chrysler United Kingdom rates up to those of Coventry, he should know what he is saying.
    I am not surprised at the completely out-of-touch remarks of Conservative Members. The notional liability that the Government may incur will arise only if everything goes wrong with the deal of £162 million. Let us not forget that it was on 17th December that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who at present is ill, managed to excel himself and increase the total to £358 million. If we take into account the fact that he increased the total capital cost to £218 million and the total Government contribution to the losses to £105 million, we may wonder what the Opposition know about the car industry. In doing that the hon. Member for Henley conveniently forgot to take into his calculation the fact that the Chrysler Corporation has an obligation to pay for half the losses incurred, up to £72,500,000.
    Furthermore, in his calculations the hon. Gentleman completely omitted to say that many of the planning and development stages for the new models envisaged in the declaration of intent have already been paid for. From the pronouncements that have come from the Opposition it is apparent that hon. Gentlemen have not gone closely into the deal.
    I accept that the deal that was negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and others was not the most perfect that could have been concluded. Nevertheless, only £63 million—arrived at in the negotiations—out of £162 million will be paid by the Government if the parent company, namely, the Chrysler Corporation, totally defaults. A further £27 million could arise if the assets of Chrysler United Kingdom are not sufficient to guarantee half of the £55 million loan if the parent
    504
    company totally fails to meet its obligations.
    When Conservative Members refer to £162 million it bears repeating that even if the deal goes completely wrong and the Chrysler Corporation reneges on its obligations the Government liability is only £63 million.
    As for the total losses to which the Government are committed, again, £72½ million over the next four years is the total loss only if everything goes wrong. Again, however, the parent corporation is committed to meeting £32½ million of that. Therefore, we ought to have a far better analysis from all the self-styled and self-proclaimed financial wizards that appear on the Opposition Front Bench nowadays.
    I do not proclaim that this is the last word, or the deal to end all deals, but when the Press and Opposition Members talk about £162 million, they really ought to know what they are talking about. I believe that this deal may not last for the whole of the planned duration. I have constantly said that, inside and outside the House. Nevertheless, if it gives my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a breathing space in which he can plan what to do with the British car industry, I believe that the deal has been well worth concluding.
    What we have to do now is to see what we want for the whole British motor industry. I am talking not just about Chrysler but about British Leyland as well. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan)—with whom I agree on most other things—that I was one of those who did not favour the public ownership or the nationalisation of Chrysler United Kingdom, as an option, a way out, or a solution to these kinds of difficulties. I have always thought that the nationalisation of Chrysler, because of the rationalisation that it would ultimately have entailed, would mean far more redundancies and planned rationalisation. The only alternative to a massive rationalisation programme and redundancies would have been another British Leyland-style support operation. The Government could not have afforded that. Even if they could have afforded it, it would have totally jeopardised plans for British Leyland. Surely Opposition Members must have some regard for the value of the Iranian contract—at least

    505
    £100 million a year for supplying CKD Avengers to Iran—and for the kind of Middle East market that we could have lost.
    The most important argument that we must bring to bear on this agreement is the fact that if Chrysler United Kingdom had been allowed to collapse up to 10 per cent. of the British car market could have been left vacant and a prey to Japanese and German imports—indeed, all imports. Considering the fact that British Leyland now has 90,000 customers waiting for cars—and British Leyland, I think, made a very fundamental miscalculation in its "Superdeal" sales campaign—I do not believe, as the Think Tank Report impiles, that British Leyland or other British manufacturers would be in a position to supply 10 per cent. of that market if Chrysler vacated it.
    What I am saying, in other words, is that the only alternative to this rescue plan must be a policy of import controls. If Opposition Members want to oppose this deal they must tell the House and the country who is to supply the 10 per cent. of the market that would have been vacated by Chrysler. I do not believe that it would have been British motor manufacturers, because of their capacity problems and production difficulties. It could certainly have been the Japanese, Italians and Germans, who at present have very high stocks of cars in this country and high numbers planned to come here.
    My main point is that in both the Chrysler and the British Leyland rescue operations, which were to some extent forced upon the Government—the Government had to do something about both of them—now that we have injected the initial tranche into British Leyland and made the initial injection into Chrysler, we must have both undertakings working, and working efficiently, for the sake of the workers, the customers and the dealers. We have to do that above all, and to do it immediately and efficiently.
    However, during the two years that we have—I assume that we have a possible two-year period in which to think matters out—we must get down to thinking to what extent this country intends to stay in the small and medium end of the model ranges. We still have not decided that. To what extent, for example, ought
    506
    we try to compete with Datsun, Toyota and Volkswagen, which have capacity for 2 million units a year, at least? To what extent ought we to be contending with Ford of Europe, General Motors Europe, Citroen-Peugeot, or Renault, with a capacity of at least 1½ million units a year? My right hon. Friend must decide to what extent this country ought to be competing in that end of the market and to what extent we ought to be using public money for that.
    I end as I began. I do not think that this is the most perfect of all possible rescues, but I recognise the contribution that my right hon. Friend has made to saving the jobs of my constituents. This deal will not cost anything like £162 million. If it costs half of that sum I shall be very surprised indeed. During this breathing space let us work out what kind of car industry we want, because merely injecting Government money into British Leyland and Chrysler does not automatically give us the industry that the nation deserves.
    6.25 p.m.
    Mr. Nigel Lawson: I should like, first, to address myself—with great respect to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield)—to the twaddle that we heard a short time ago from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden), who seemed to think that economic illiteracy somehow became literate if it came to his ear from the mouth of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I am afraid that even in such circumstances it remains economic illiteracy. In the brief time at my disposal, I shall try to demonstrate why.
    The hon. Member for Ladywood says that if the 25,000 people at Chrysler and the 55,000 people in ancillary industries had all gone on the scap heap it would have cost £150 million a year. First, I have news for the hon. Gentleman. Under the Government's plan one-third of the Chrysler workers are due for redundancy—so there is £50 million of the hon. Gentleman's £150 million gone. It is already down to £100 million. But what is £50 million more or less to the hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Brian Walden: If the hon. Gentleman is going to use figures, he might as well get them right. I was talking about

    507
    £55 million. There will be 8,000 redundancies. The hon. Gentleman is already talking more about the ancillary workers.
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. He takes the 25,000 and uses a multiplier of roughly three to estimate the total unemployment, including workers in ancillary industries. But 8,000—roughly one-third—of the Chrysler workers are to be made redundant anyway under the Government's plan.
    Mr. Walden: Ancillary workers.
    Mr. Lawson: Right, but the 8,000 of the 25,000 Chrysler workers will be made redundant anyway, and there are ancillary workers connected with what they would have been doing. Therefore, the sum is reduced from £150 million to £100 million. However, that £100 million is arrived at on the assumption that the people concerned will be unemployed for a whole year. When there was a voluntary redundancy scheme at Linwood, more people volunteered to be made redundant than the firm actually needed to make redundant. Those people would hardly have done that if they had thought that they would be out of work for a year. Of course they would not; nothing of the sort. They knew that they could get better and more secure jobs in a reasonable period.
    It is no use Labour Members muttering because they do not like the truth and the facts. I speak as someone in whose constituency there are many Chrysler workers.
    The fact is that even now, in the trough of the recession, when the average length of time that people remain on the unemployed register has increased considerably, that length of time has nevertheless increased only to six months. That is too long, and of course no one likes people to be unemployed for that length of time, but it is six months and not a year.
    Therefore, we must apply that factor to the £100 million, which brings it down to £50 million. That itself is an exaggeration, because of the pre-supposition at the beginning that the whole Chrysler operation would have closed down, although that has never been suggested by anyone. What the Opposition suggested, as was set out in the excellent
    508
    criteria paper that we are meant to be debating, was that a receiver or liquidator should be brought in and that the viable parts should be kept going. Certainly that is true of the commercial vehicle division of Chrysler, which employs 3,000 people—and again, there are ancillary workers connected with them. If our proposals had been adopted, the total cost would have come out at about £30 million.
    Mr. John Wells: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of the viable parts of Chrysler, may I remind him that it is absolutely deplorable that the Government have done nothing about Chrysler at Maidstone, which is one of the few parts that is totally viable? The Minister failed to answer a letter that I wrote to him months ago——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very brief debate and long interventions are not welcome. Mr. Wilson.
    Mr. Lawson: The Prime Minister and I share the same birthday, Mr. Speaker, but not many other things. I am sure that that intervention was sufficiently full to receive a reply from the Minister who answers the debate.
    The fact of the matter is that we are talking about £30 million if the Opposition's strategy had been adopted, which is also the strategy of the criteria document. Against this, there is a liability of £162½ million under the Government scheme. It might be less.
    Mr. Walden: It will be.
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman says confidently that it will be less. Chrysler, which knows something about its own business, and in particular, Mr. Riccardo, who knows something about his company, were so confident about the future of that company that they offered the Government £35 million to take it away from them, lock, stock and barrel. The hon. Gentleman says that it will be less. It may be, but it may be more.
    The hon. Member for Nuneaton gave the game away when he said that he does not believe that this deal will last the full four years of the agreement. He is right, because Mr. Riccardo and Chrysler will be coming back for more money long before the four years are up.

    509
    The hon. Member for Ladywood, for whom I have the greatest respect, must in future find a better and more impartial source for his information on the Chrysler deal than the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
    This debate has been something of a disappointment to me. This important criteria document was half extracted from the Secretary of State for Industry and half volunteered, although it was a very strange thing that it was not volunteered until I tabled my Written Question. I cannot think why, if the right hon. Gentleman was so keen on its being widely known, it was not published earlier. But now that it has been published, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was going to talk about it and explain the importance of the various criteria. I thought that he would explain to his hon. Friends how important it was that a receiver should be brought in, particularly in the assisted areas.
    That matter would be of interest to those at Linwood, because there are certain benefits that a receiver could get in assisted areas. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would explain to his hon. Friends what the criteria now were and what the importance of profitability was—some of them do not fully recognise it—and that he would say how, although he was terribly sorry that he was overruled in Cabinet and, therefore, that the criteria could not be adopted in this case, nevertheless they were sound criteria and they would be adopted in future. It was this total failure to talk about the future that was particularly worrying to me and to others.
    Not only did the right hon. Gentleman not go through the criteria and explain what they are; this document has never been published as an official document. It has no official number, it has no White Paper number, and no House of Commons number. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, as he is here, that he should publish it, first of all, as a White Paper and incorporate it lock, stock and barrel as a schedule to the Industry Act 1975.
    I feel that the right hon. Gentleman should not only have gone through the criteria document and explained its importance but should have given an assurance for the future and said "The
    510
    Chrysler deal was very difficult, but in future we shall apply these criteria. There will be no more backsliding, as there was with Chrysler. We mean business about this."
    The significance of this has not been fully understood by the Press. I have here The Times for 28th January. It had a big story on this document. It was a little late—28th January—as the document came out on 12th January, but, after all, it was The Times, and one cannot expect everything. On 28th January The Times got round to it and it headed its story—"Government tightens rescue rules." The story was all about how, in the aftermath of Chrysler, the Government were tightening up on their rescue rules. The House knows that these rules came out long before Chrysler. The right hon. Gentleman knows it. Chrysler was an aberration, a falling away from the path of virtue.
    We would therefore like a firm indication that in future these criteria will be adhered to. It is very alarming that we have not been told in any way how this document will be applied on future occasions. What we are debating now is the Government's failure to apply their criteria. We want to know fairly and squarely where the document now stands and whether the Government are going to apply it in future or whether they will go in for "phoney" job preservation, based on fake figures such as we heard from the hon. Member for Ladywood.
    6.35 p.m.
    Mr. Michael Grylls: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) in his censure of the Secretary of State. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman came here with the guidelines—the criteria—but, if he did not, perhaps he will give the document to the Minister of State so that he can say something about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby was absolutely right; this is what the debate is about. The Government knew perfectly well what the debate was about; it was in the Business Statement. It is not our fault if the usual channels on the Government side have become blocked up. They must have known perfectly well that this is what the debate would be about. We give them one more opportunity and express the hope that the hon. Gentleman will be

    511
    able to say something about the criteria later.
    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) talked about Linwood becoming a disaster area—that was more or less the implication of what he said about Linwood—if there were a large number of redundancies. It is not so very widely known, but no doubt it is known to the hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan), that in the local employment area of Linwood there are 86,000 jobs and at present Linwood itself represents only 7,000 of those. Those are the figures I have. So it was gross exaggeration to talk of Linwood turning into a ghost town. The hon. Member for Ladywood may know Birmingham very well, but I am glad to see the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West sitting next to him, because he is no doubt putting him right.
    I want to reinforce the very important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby about those who applied for redundancies. If there had been any danger of Linwood becoming a ghost town—a prospect which fills the minds of all of us with horror—not so many would have applied for redundancies. In response to the reduction of 1,250 announced by the company, 2,319 applied for redundancy. That effectively answers that point. I know that the hon. Member for Ladywood is very well informed about many things, but clearly the facts about Linwood are inaccurate.
    Mr. Buchan rose——
    Mr. Grylls: I shall try to give way later. This leads me into the whole question of the Linwood dispute. This is central to the Government guidelines, because it is something that happened only a very few days ago and is of great concern to the Government. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister made speeches about the Linwood dispute. The hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West and I had words about the affair earlier.
    I quote what the Scotsman said about the Linwood affair in the middle of it, because this is, perhaps, a fair analysis of what happened:
    "The management have shown themselves insensitive to the mood and reaction of the workers and once again the workers have been
    512
    too quick to jump to the defence of their colleagues."
    I think that the Scotsman very fairly was apportioning blame on both sides. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West will agree with that, but I believe that is a fair analysis of the situation. It is not accurate to accuse the Opposition of saying that this is all the fault of the work people at Linwood.
    Mr. Buchan: This is the first time that I have learned that the Scotsman reflected the views of the official Opposition. I have always thought that it was the bugle of the Scottish National Party. I do not know what the hon. Member is talking about when he refers to 86,000 and 7,000. He will have to work that out with his innumerate friend. He must remember that the people at the factory there have been working on short time for a year with not very high take-home pay—not much higher than unemployment pay. That was the background and that is the continuing prospect. Against that background, and with the 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. unemployment in the area, the closure of Linwood would have meant disaster——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has already addressed the House. Other hon. Members failed to get in. There is only a brief time left for winding up.
    Mr. Grylls: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because I wanted to be as fair as possible. In quoting the Scotsman, I tried to put an uncontroversial view which I think is right.
    In the middle of this expensive dispute, when the car factory came to a standstill, the Secretary of State made dire threats that money would not be forthcoming, and there was courageous condemnation of the strike by Mr. John Boyd, who said that he thought the dispute was deplorable and that the men should return to work. The sad thing was that nobody believed the Secretary of State's threats. Bernard Levin put it very well in an attractive phrase when he said that everybody knew that the Government's yells and fierce faces were only for show. Nobody took the slightest notice of the Secretary of State's threats to withhold the next tranche of money. As the Select Committee said, it

    513
    was not a practical possibility. Clearly, the workers at Linwood also thought that.
    There was a settlement after 19 hours of negotiation by ACAS, but the result of the Arbitration was inevitable. It was rather like the love play of a prehistoric monster—a long process, but with a predictable result. We knew that as soon as negotiations began there would be a surrender. The management got itself into that position and then surrendered, thus encouraging the repetition of the same sort of thing.
    That dispute has been settled, but we look through the criteria in vain to see any general principle referring to industrial relations. Neither in British Leyland nor in Chrysler has there been any clear-cut commitment from the workers. The taxpayer has been told that he must pay up and that he cannot argue, but the workers have made no commitment to play their part.
    There has been much reference to the Industry Act 1972. When he was Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), in dealing with Dan McGarvey and others over the Upper Clyde situation, obtained a firm commitment from the unions that there would be industrial peace before a penny of the taxpayers' money was committed. There were hopeful noises in the Ryder Report about things changing at British Leyland, and the Chrysler contract, signed by the Secretary of State on 5th January, contains a clause allowing the right hon. Gentleman to withhold payments if industrial relations do not improve. The next payment is due on 15th February. The sum involved is £15 million. Curiously, the payment is being made on a Sunday.
    Mr. Varley: Monday.
    Mr. Grylls: It is a Sunday, but that is just one of those mistakes which do not matter.
    Does the right hon. Gentleman plan to invoke that clause if there are industrial relations problems? I hope that there will not be such problems, but we should know the right hon. Gentleman's plans, as the clause is in the contract. People have a right to demand of the Government—who have committed the investment of public money—and of the House—which has approved that commitment—that firm
    514
    assurances be obtained from the employees that they will play their part. The people involved, including the management, should know that there is no chance of their adopting the attitude that they have a meal ticket for life because they are in a firm either taken over by the Government or, as in the case of Chrysler, supported by it.
    I do not underestimate the serious industrial relations problems in the motor car industry throughout the world. Those responsible for the CPRS Report visited five plants in Europe. As far as I know, no overseas visits were made by those who produced the Ryder Report. The CPRS Report found that the British factories started late and finished early compared with the European ones, and stopped before and during shifts, whereas the European plants had their production going virtually non-stop. We must get to the bottom of the problem.
    There is clearly an international problem of working conditions in the industry. Is it because of noise, monotony, or the way in which the work is organised? Can the work be made more interesting? I believe that one report spoke of the slavery of production in the industry. That may be a fair comment.
    In the axle factory at Elsdon, in the United States, an employee, James Johnson, recently had a dispute with a foreman. He left the factory and returned with a shot-gun, with which he shot and killed two foremen. His defence lawyer claimed that conditions were so bad that he was not responsible for his actions. When the judge and jury visited the plant they found conditions so abominable that they decided that poor Mr. Johnson was temporarily out of his mind when he shot the foremen. There are problems in motor plants, and ours, unfortunately, are worse than others.
    We want to hear from the Government today what thought they have given to these problems. They and the taxpayer are now deeply financially involved in the industry. I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State that he is setting up a high-powered group under his chairmanship, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Red-ditch (Mr. Miller) said, it is all very well to set up a group ; the situation in the industry is so serious that we need to make changes immediately. Yet another report

    515
    will not suffice. For example, what is happening about amalgamating bargaining units, and about participation agreements?
    There has been some progress in British Leyland, which we welcome, but will the Government use their massive investment programme to try to persuade the unions to reduce their numbers in the factories? I understand from the Select Committee Report that British Leyland has to deal with 17 different unions. I can imagine nothing worse for the unions and management. It is one of the things that make the British industry so much more troublesome than many of its competitors. We want evidence that the Government are doing something about it.
    I hope that the Secretary of State's group will not sit for the next six or seven months, but will study the problems immediately to find out what makes factories in this country so different compared with, for example, the Chrysler factory in France—Simca—which is described as a certain winner, with huge investment and huge profits. It has not had a strike for 23 years. One of its workers, who was interviewed recently, said of the management "They have thought about us". It may be one of the faults in this country that that does not happen here.
    Many other workers who were interviewed said that they wanted nothing to do with politics. They said that all they wanted from a union was more money, and the only two subjects that raised enthusiasm among them were cars and girls. I believe that that is a proper sense of priority, although some of us might reverse the order.
    The Opposition will continue to oppose and criticise the Government for their attitude to the industry and their lack of control over investment until we can see signs that the firms in which they have invested are improving. Until then, we have a right, on behalf of the public, to be dubious and to ask the Government to work much harder on the matter. There is not much that we can do about public expenditure. That is why we have sought to reduce the Secretary of State's salary by £1,000. Incidentally, because of taxation that reduction would not make much difference to him.
    516
    I ask my hon. Friends to support the motion in the Lobby.
    6.50 p.m.
    The Minister of Stele, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): The Opposition are constantly demanding debates in this House on all kinds of subjects, and after two and a half hours of this brief and scrappy debate it is still difficult to know why they have wasted a Supply Day by choosing this particular topic. I suspect that originally it was selected to give the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) the chance to treat us to his well-known turn yet again, but most unfortunately he has fallen ill and the debate has lost its sole justification. We miss him. This matinee performance has been like Hamlet without the gravedigger.
    But we really did not need yet another debate about British Leyland. We have debated it ad nauseam and almost ad infinitum, and the House had repeatedly expressed its support for the Government's approach. We did not need this debate either to go over the old familiar ground about Chrysler. We debated Chrysler at length before Christmas, two days running, and returned to the subject a fortnight ago. On every occasion the House has supported the Government by substantial majorities.
    The Opposition, it seems, still do not understand the facts. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) and Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) have given those facts again today, and no hon. Member opposite was able to refute them, although the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) took twice his allotted time in failing to do so.
    Nor are we debating the principle of State aid to the motor industry. Previous Tory Governments have provided lavish aid to that industry. Indeed, Linwood would not be a motor car town if generous Tory regional assistance had not attracted the industry to Renfrew-shire, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) fairly pointed out. Indeed, apparently the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) wants us to provide aid for Jensen, but presumably, if we provided the aid he has asked for, he would vote against it as well.
    The Tories surely cannot have staged this debate either because they disapprove

    517
    of this Government having used the Industry Act 1972 as the channel for continuing their aid to the car industry. After all, the Tories created that Act as a major instrument of policy, brushing aside the doleful and reiterated warnings of the present shadow Secretary of State for Energy, the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who opposed the Act throughout its passage in the House of Commons.
    The Tories cannot contend either that their Act was all right but that in operating Section 8 we are disregarding their own strict criteria, because they never published any criteria whatever for Section 8. They conducted their own rescue cases—NVT under the 1972 Act and Rolls-Royce under separate legislation—on pretty much the same basis as we have proceeded.
    The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) talked about the criteria as having been at last extracted from us. But the Tories never had any criteria on Section 8 to be extracted from them at all. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Blaby rejoiced so much in the fact that I have placed a very large number of copies of the criteria in the Vote Office. The way he went on about it made one feel that that will be the peak of his political career.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has demonstrated how much more lavish and, indeed, profligate the progenitor of the 1972 Act, the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), was ready to be. Nor can the Opposition, however much they try, very credibly get righteously indignant about any alleged departures by this Government from the industrial strategy announced at Chequers.
    The hon. Member for Bridgwater complained that our strategy was late in coming. But the Conservative Government never had any industrial strategy at all, except by recourse to the presses to print sufficient money to spend their way out of the economic difficulties which they themselves had created. But hon. Members opposite may say that all that was in the old, unregenerate days, the bad old Heath days, when they turned away from the true faith and shattered the tablets that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) had carried down from Mount Selsdon. Now we are told that the Opposition have
    518
    seen the error of their ways and have repented. Their former Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry have been consigned to the Back Benches, and hardheaded realism reigns supreme once again. But the view very much depends on which part of this Palace one's vantage point is.
    On the Floor of the House, value for money and viability are the Opposition's watchwords, and this is emphasised by the selective way hon. Members opposite quote from our criteria, with paragraph 21, dealing with social costs and employment considerations, carefully ignored. Up on the Committee floor, however, those social and employment considerations which they reject down here are still very much official Tory policy—policy backed not only by their voices but by their votes as well.
    The hon. Member for Bridgwater and the hon. Member for Henley are not only their party's spokesmen on the motor car industry but are its spokesmen on the shipbuilding industry as well. Last week, in Standing Committee D, which is considering the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, we debated a most important amendment most powerfully moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). That amendment instructed the Secretary of State, in carrying out his function of giving general directions in the publicly-owned shipbuilding industry, to take account of considerations relating to regional areas and, in particular, employment considerations within those areas.
    My right hon. Friend, in moving the amendment, flatly rejected what he described as the narrow objective of commercial judgment. We in the Government resisted his argument and the amendment. But it was carried against us and inserted into the Bill. It was carried because it was supported by the voices and the votes of the official Opposition spokesmen, including the hon. Members for Henley and Bridgwater. They voted in favour of regional and employment considerations and against commercial judgment—"commercial judgment", the very words that the hon. Member for Bridgwater has used against us in this debate.
    Now the House can choose what opinion to hold. Either the Opposition upstairs in Standing Committee D were

    519
    simply acting opportunistically and were cynically inserting into a major——
    Mr. Hal Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister of State to waste the time of the House on matters taking place upstairs?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of State has only two minutes left.
    Mr. Kaufman: Either the Opposition upstairs in Standing Committee D were acting opportunistically and were cynically inserting into a major legislative measure an important provision in which they did not believe, or else they did believe upstairs in what they were saying and doing.
    Mr. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Standing Committee D has not yet reported. Is the Minister of State in order in referring to its proceedings on the Floor of the House?
    Mr. Speaker: If the Committee Hansard is available, the Minister of State is entitled to make what I call a gentle reference to it.
    Mr. Kaufman: In either case, everything that the Opposition have said in this debate, all their pleas for profitability, viability and commercial judgment, has been hypocritical humbug. The Opposition in this debate stand condemned for opportunistic hypocrisy. I ask the House to confirm that condemnation by voting down this paltry and cynical motion.
    Question put,
    That the salary of the Secretary of State for Industry should be reduced by the sum of £1,000:—
    The House proceeded to a Division.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish)(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have to inform you that there has been a miscount in the "No" Lobby. I have to report this to you before the figure is announced. I therefore give you notice that there is a dispute on the Division figures.
    Mr. Speaker: I understand that I must have the Tellers at the Table to make
    520
    the complaint which the right hon. Gentleman has made.
    The Tellers being come to the Table—
    Mr. J. D. Dormand (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I wish to confirm what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has said, that there was some confusion on at least two occasions during the telling. I support the claim that there was a miscount.
    Mr. Speaker: Do the other Tellers agree?
    The Tellers indicated assent.
    Mr. John Peyton(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite sure whether a Division is still on. Perhaps you would be kind enough to rule whether there is a Division in progress so that I know whether to stand up or whether to keep this thing on my head.
    Mr. Speaker: The Division is on until I get the result. If there is a dispute, I shall make an announcement to the House.
    Mr. Peyton(seated and covered): I had misunderstood you, Mr. Speaker. I thought you had ruled that there had been a miscount and, therefore, the Division could not be on.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall be ruling so within a few minutes. It was not in order for me to do so then. I am follow-precedent entirely. When there is a disagreement about a Division, the House must take another decision. That is clearly understood.
    Mr. Peyton(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point I wish to put to you is whether this is the moment at which the Question should be put again.
    Mr. Speaker: Yes. This is entirely in accordance with precedent. I shall call the Division off and will put the Question again.
    Mr. Peyton(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether this is correct. All that we have heard is an allegation that two mistakes were made

    521
    during the count. It seems a mysterious and facile way for the Government to get rid of a result which may well be unwelcome to them.
    Mr. Speaker: As I understand the position, I am not likely to receive the figures. The Tellers are here. It is in the best interests of the House, if we are to have another Division, that we move to it now to save time on the next business.
    Mr. Mellish(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to support the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) in his point of order. I do not know about the dispute in the sense of how it happened or why, nor am I aware of any of the figures involved. However, the business that is to follow this evening is important. Another Division now would in many respects give an untrue picture—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members should not push their luck. I am wondering whether it is in order and follows precedent for the vote to be taken on another evening to be
    decided between the usual channels. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If there is another Division now, it will be an unrealistic vote. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have gone home.
    Mr. Speaker: I wish I could be of help, but, as I understand my duty, it is quite clear that I have to put the Question as soon as we have finished the points of order.
    Mr. Dormand(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The word "dispute" has been used on two occasions. For the record, there is no dispute between the Tellers. The Tellers from both sides are in agreement about the mistake. There is no dispute.
    Mr. Speaker: If the House does not wish to divide again, nobody will shout. However, as both Tellers have agreed that there is a mistake, my duty is clear. Whether there is a Division depends on whether hon. Members shout.
    Question put:
    The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 209.

    Division No. 62.]

    AYES

    [7.20 p.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Corrie, John

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Costain, A. P.

    Hicks, Robert

    Alison, Michael

    Crawford, Douglas

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Critchley, Julian

    Holland, Philip

    Arnold. Tom

    Crowder, F. P.

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Baker, Kenneth

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Howells, Geraint (cardigan)

    Banks, Robert

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Hunt, John

    Bell, Ronald

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Hurd, Douglas

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

    Durant, Tony

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Blaker, Peter

    Elliott, Sir William

    James, David

    Body, Richard

    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

    Jessel, Toby

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Eyre, Reginald

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Jopling, Michael

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

    Farr, John

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Brittan, Leon

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Kilfedder, James

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Kimball, Marcus

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Fox, Marcus

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Budgen, Nick

    Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Freud, Clement

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Burden, F. A.

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Knox, David

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Cheasham)

    Lamont, Norman

    Carlisle, Mark

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Lane, David

    Carson, John

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Gorst, John

    Lawson, Nigel

    Clark, William (Croydon S)

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Le Merchant, Spencer

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Clegg, Walter

    Grylls, Michael

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Cockcroft, John

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Lloyd, Ian

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Loveridge, John

    Cope, John

    Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Luce, Richard

    Cordle, John H.

    Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hawkins, Paul

    MacCormick, Iain

    McCrindle, Robert

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Spence, John

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Pardoe, John

    Sproat, Iain

    MacGregor, John

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Stanley, John

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Penhaligon, David

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

    Madel, David

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Marten, Neil

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Stokes, John

    Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

    Raison, Timothy

    Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

    Mawby, Ray

    Rathbone, Tim

    Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Tebbit, Norman

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Mills, Peter

    Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

    Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Trotter Neville

    Moate, Roger

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Monro, Hector

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Viggers, Peter

    Moore, John (Croydon C)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Wakeham, John

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Wall, Patrick

    Morgan, Geraint

    Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

    Watt, Hamish

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Wells, John

    Mudd, David

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Neave, Airey

    Shepherd, Colin

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Shersby, Michael

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Neubert, Michael

    Silvester, Fred

    Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

    Newton, Tony

    Sims, Roger

    Nott, John

    Sinclair, Sir George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Onslow, Cranley

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Mr. John Stradling Thomas and

    Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

    Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

    Mr. W. Benyon.

    Page, John (Harrow West)

    Speed, Keith

    NOES

    Archer, Peter

    English, Michael

    Lamond, James

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Ennals, David

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Ashley, Jack

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    Lever, Rt Hon Harold

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Bates, Alf

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Litterick, Tom

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Bennett. Andrew (Stockport N)

    Flannery, Martin

    Luard, Evan

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Lyon, Alexander (York)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

    Boardman, H.

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    McCartney, Hugh

    Booth, Albert

    Ford, Ben

    McCusker, H.

    Bradley, Tom

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    McElhone, Frank

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Freeson, Reginald

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Buchan, Norman

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    George, Bruce

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Gilbert, Dr John

    McNamara, Kevin

    Carmichael, Neil

    Golding, John

    Madden, Max

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Graham, Ted

    Mahon, Simon

    Cartwright, John

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

    Grocott, Bruce

    Marquand, David

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

    Hardy, Peter

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Harper, Joseph

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Coleman, Donald

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Meacher, Michael

    Corbett, Robin

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Hooley, Frank

    Mendelson, John

    Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

    Horam, John

    Mikardo, Ian

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

    Millan, Bruce

    Cryer, Bob

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Moonman, Eric

    Cunningham. Dr J. (Whiten)

    Hunter, Adam

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Davis Clinton (Hackney C)

    Janner, Greville

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Newens, Stanley

    Delargy, Hugh

    Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

    Noble, Mike

    Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

    John, Brynmor

    Oakes, Gordon

    Dempsey, James

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Ogden, Eric

    Doig, Peter

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Dormand, J. D.

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

    Dunnett, Jack

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Eadie, Alex

    Judd, Frank

    Park, George

    Edge, Geoff

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Parker, John

    Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

    Kerr, Russell

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Peart, Rt Hon Fred

    524

    525

    Phipps, Dr Colin

    Skinner, Dennis

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Small, William

    Ward, Michael

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Snape, Peter

    Watkins, David

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Weetch, Ken

    Radice, Giles

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Wellbeloved, James

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Stallard, A. W.

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Stoddart, David

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

    Whitlock, William

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    Stott, Roger

    Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Strang, Gavin

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    Roper, John

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Ross, William (Londonderry)

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Sandelson, Neville

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Woodall, Alec

    Selby, Harry

    Tierney, Sydney

    Woof, Robert

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

    Tomney, Frank

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

    Torney, Tom

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Urwin, T. W.

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Sillars, James

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Mr. James A. Dunn and

    Silverman, Julius

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Mr. Tom Pendry.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the salary of the Secretary of State for Industry should be reduced by the sum of £1,000.
    Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. The figures which the Tellers have announced and which you have confirmed, resulting from a three-line Whip operated by the Conservative Party and my party for a Division at 7 o'clock to be followed by Private Business, indicate that the vote is not a true reflection. I hope that we shall hear a statement from the Opposition Front Bench that the vote is not relevant. Vast numbers of Government supporters have left the House, and I should like it to be recorded that the Government do not accept the decision which has been recorded.
    Mr. Speaker: What the Government accept is not my responsibility. The "Good Book" is absolutely clear. I had no choice but to call a second Division in those circumstances. I cannot be held responsible, except for declaring the result.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The whole House knows that the ruling you have given is the only ruling you could have given, and that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury did not raise a point of order but abused the point of order procedure to make a statement.
    Mr. Speaker: I am deeply grateful for any compliment from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Mellish: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have invited the Opposition Front Bench, through the usual channels, to make their comments. If they are not prepared so to do, I wish to record again that this is not a true vote, and the Opposition know it.
    Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. For once in my life, I have nothing to say.
    Mr. Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it true that the Prime Minister has gone to see the Queen?
    Mr. Nicholas Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury say that the Government would not accept the verdict of this honourable House. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is a breach of the privileges of the House. Whatever the House decides, it is surely sovereign and its will must have effect. Unless some question arises about the Division which we have just held, it surely must be for you to ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark. The sovereignty of this House demands that whatever decision it makes be binding on those on whom the decision is meant to be binding.
    Mr. Speaker: The House has had a fair share of time on points of order. I must make perfectly clear that I am not responsible for the carrying out of decisions that are taken by the House. What the Government do and what the Opposition do are their business as long as they keep order in the House.
    Mr. Mellish: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I give notice, Sir, that, in view of what has happened tonight and the vote that has been recorded, I shall have discussions through the usual channels and put down the appropriate motion next week.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have your guidance? Might we know what the usual motion is and whether there is a precedent for the inability of the Chief Whip to hold his numbers here and then to try to abuse the procedures of the House?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are reduced to each side scoring off the other rather than pursuing points of order.

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
7.38 p.m.
Mr. George Park: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am aware that many hon. Members have received representations on various Parts of the Bill, but the constraints of time in a short debate, made even shorter by the previous happening, do not permit a detailed examination of the proposals. Therefore, the main burden of my remarks will be to try to persuade the House that the Bill should be taken in Committee to allow the proposers the opportunity of deploying their case and to permit objections from responsible people and organisations to be examined.
If the House were summarily to reject these proposals, it would ignore the fact that the content of the Bill, in large part, is related to problems and needs in the West Midlands. Perhaps the proposals are not framed in accord with the wishes of the House, but I understand that the council believes that it could meet objections by way of amendment if given the opportunity.
In approaching the Bill, and the feeling that the needs could be met by current legislation, it might be as well to recall that before local government reorganisation in 1974 there were many local Acts in existence in the West Midlands, each of which applied to a local government
528
area. After 1st April 1974 these local Acts continued to apply, but only to the old areas. In addition, there is the fact that local legislation in the West Midlands lapses in 1979.
I turn now to the various parts of the Bill. Part II concerns trading. The principle of municipal trading is not new. There are a number of industries, such as gas and electricity, in which, historically, it has been undertaken. Today the number is even greater.
One example is civic catering. It should be noted that the requirement in the Civic Restaurants Act 1947, that trading should stop if there were a deficit for three successive years, was relaxed by the Conservative Government in 1974. I doubt whether Conservative Members would have done this if they had not felt that the powers were being exercised responsibly and fairly.
I understand that it is not the intention of local authorities in the West Midlands to enter into extensive and damaging competition with ratepayers, and that the primary purposes of promoting such powers are twofold. The first is to enable local authorities to make provision in cases where the private sector is unable or unwilling to do so. The second is to allow local authorities to extend existing activities in cases where it is to the benefit of the public so to do. For example, Coventry runs an abattoir, and it seems not unreasonable that it should be entitled to provide a butchery.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Why?
Mr. Park: Similarly, it would seem not unreasonable that a local authority should be empowered, in its parks department to sell goods which can be produced at marginal cost over and above its normal costs, and thereby to contribute to the rate fund. It is not the intention to open butchers' shops and florists' shops throughout the area. The council also appreciates that there cannot be unlimited borrowing power without reference to the Secretary of State or unspecified powers in Clause 7.
Part III dealing with motor racing, has a provision which is of interest to Birmingham and to Birmingham alone. It should be noted across the House that in Birmingham it is a non-party issue.

529
I understand that the leaders of both major parties are in agreement on this and that the last vote on it in Birmingham was 80 to 20. There is, therefore, a great measure of agreement in Birmingham, and the district council would seek the opportunity to come before the committee and justify these proposals.
Part IV deals with powers concerning dogs, and Part VI deals with the parking of vehicles. There are very real problems underlying these proposals. The objections, however, come in the main from those sections of the community which do not create the problems.
Dog lovers and breeders do not allow their dogs to roam the streets, but can anyone gainsay the fact that there is a problem from vagrant or stray dogs, in many part of the West Midlands, savaging children and old people and fouling the pavements?
Similarly, members of caravan clubs and camping clubs do not normally park their vehicles in such a way as to interfere with the amenities or the convenience of their neighbours. But some people do. I am sure that hon. Members would not take very kindly to the parking of high-sided vehicles or commercial lorries outside their door or in the drive alongside, night after night. I am sure they would object. In an urban area, particularly, the complete freedom of the individual sometimes has to be tempered to the general good.
Part V relates to aircraft and traffic noise. It is a fact that the Department of the Environment might report against the traffic section of this proposal because it has recently been the subject of national legislation, but there is no national legislation that enables local authorities with their own airports to provide for insulation against noise, and the provisions in the Bill are modelled on those already obtained by Manchester and Luton.
Taking account of the fact that many Members will wish to contribute to the debate in the short time available, I conclude by saying that I have tried very briefly to summarise the underlying problems that have sparked off these proposals. I submit that they are worthy of further examination.
7.47 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: If the Bill is accepted by the House it will result in the bringing forward of a great variety of other county council Bills. This, in turn, will jam up the whole machinery of Parliament. Doubtless there will be some comment from the Front Bench on this issue.
I hope that the Bill will be rejected by the House. If the city of Birmingham wishes to proceed with its racing track, it can go ahead as a city and build that track, with proper permission. Likewise, if the city of Coventry wishes to have fresh provisions for its hackney carriage administration, let it devise some such provision. I am sure that other minor provisions of the Bill can be dealt with in that sort of way.
Looking at the Bill as a whole. I regard it, quite frankly, as a dangerous measure. More than that—it is a silly Bill. One can see that it has been devised by a variety of persons who seem to have been quite unable to produce a coherent Bill of any sort.
I do not regard this as a particularly Socialist Bill, or as a Marxist Bill; it is a combination of some of the oldest elements in the Labour Party, which are now really almost medieval. It is a sort of reincarnation of the spirit of the Mayor of Bursley. It goes back to the Stoke-on-Trent of Arnold Bennett. It appeals to some of the spirit of Joe Chamberlain when he was reforming Parliament. It reminds one of some of the absurd remarks made by Maud after he had destroyed local government, when he talked of reviving the civic virtues of our people. The Bill is completely out of date.
Because of the sort of world in which we live, the actions of a variety of both Conservative and Labour Governments have destroyed the ability of local authorities to be effective in areas where they should be effective. The proposals for trading are only to fill in the interstices of the capitalist or trading organisations set up by the State. The only people who will be affected are the small traders. Can one imagine anything more absurd than the city of Birmingham setting up a hotel chain to compete with Fortes? Can anyone imagine anything more ludicrous than the town of Wolverhampton engaging in a major exercise, in competition with

531
Shell, to set up a garage system? These powers will be used where the small people are involved, and that is precisely the point at which private enterprise is most effective in rendering services. I can imagine nothing more foolish than a florist's shop or a butcher's shop being set up by a metropolitan authority.
Some Socialists will argue that this is a great step forward. However, one has only to consider the confused drafting of the Bill and the financial provisions by which its authors blandly announce that they will borrow money without Treasury consent. The one thing that a Communist Chancellor would stop would be the borrowing of money by the city of Coventry without the authority of the Government.
Clause 12(4) illustrates the incredible struggle that took place between the geniuses who devised the Bill—a Socialist element—and the ratepayer element in these councils. Here is precisely repeated one of the main problems of all Administrations—the virement of funds. At the end of any year the funds have to be returned to the ratepayers' fund. How can any business of any sort be built up on such a provision?
Lastly, there is the amazing Clause 7, which from my experience at company law I judge would be called the articles of association. These articles make it possible for the city of Coventry or Wolverhampton to do anything it feels inclined to do. Plans could be devised for the building of motor cycles or atom bombs, or anything else. Anything is possible. We know that this is gobblede-gook, because not for one second would the Treasury ever permit it to happen. This is just a course to bankruptcy and stupidity.
This is a dog's dinner of a Bill, and the House should not burden itself with further consideration of it. Perhaps I should say that it is not so much a dog's dinner as a Yapp's supper. It is a waste of public time and a waste of the time of the House. It is a Bill that will merely annoy people, whether they are Left or Right, by its intolerable inconsistencies. It is a godsend to our party for the forthcoming elections, because with this kind of legislation I am sure that Yapp and his crowd will be swept out of office, and they will deserve what they get.
7.53 p.m.
Mr. John Stonehouse: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) moved the Bill in extremely moderate terms. He was quite right to refer to some of its good aspects, several of which I support. I support the provision of accommodation for the under-40s and the provisions in Part IV to deal with the problems of stray dogs.
However, those who framed the Bill were very badly advised. It would appear that they had no expert advise from this place. I do not know whether any hon. Member was advising them, but whoever did it gave bad advice. I agree with the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) that it is a bad Bill, and although there are some good aspects in it these are far outweighed by the bad. For that reason I shall reluctantly vote against it, and I say "reluctantly" because I should be sorry to see the good provisions lost.
Those who devised the Bill suffered from an excess of idealism. They have tried to do too much in one Bill, and, as a result, good provisions will go. There are bad provisions which the House must reject. There can be no question of the House allowing such a can of worms to be examined any further. I question whether the Bill is an improvement, as is suggested by the preamble. It is the job of the local authority to concentrate on its many responsibilities in providing an infrastructure of roads, social services, housing and so on. It must do these tasks efficiently, and the problem in the West Midlands is that this is not happening. The services are being provided sometimes well but sometimes wastefully.
As elsewhere, there has been a growth of bureaucracy in the West Midlands. In a speech at Eastbourne my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to an increase in the numbers employed in municipal jobs from 1·5 million 10 years ago to 2·5 million today. The West Midlands has shared in this increase in local government employment, but services have not kept pace with the rising number of jobs. In many areas services for the ordinary people have been reduced.
I opposed as best I could the reorganisation of municipal boundaries brought about by the late Dick Crossman. I was

533
glad that in his memoirs he reminded us of the way this was pushed through. It was a lesson in how not to reorganise municipal administration. I am glad that I opposed the Bill at the time, and I am sorry that we were not successful in retaining some of the old authorities which were doing a good job and were close to some of the ratepayers they were serving.
If we were foolish enough to allow the Bill to pass, there would be no improvement in services for ratepayers. Many representations have been made to me about the Bill—from the Walsall Co-operative Society, which is wholly opposed to its trading aspects, from the traders in Willenhall and Bloxwich, and from many traders in Walsall, South and Aldridge-Brownhills. There is no doubt that there is widespread opposition to the Bill in the West Midlands.
Clause 5(1)(e) provides for the provision and the maintenance of garages and filling stations. This could be very dangerous because the local authority running these activities could be responsible for planning permission for them. There could be serious suspicions that it was manipulating its planning responsibilities to advantage its commercial activities.
There are provisions for authorities to take shares in other companies. A company applying for planning permission, particularly for a petrol station, might find it beneficial to arrange a shareholding for the local authority. We do not know how these powers will be used. It is no argument to say that the present intention is to use them moderately. It cannot be guaranteed what future local authorities would do.
Clause 6 relates to the power to print. It appears to be a restriction, but if a local authority establishes a plant to print its own minutes or a newspaper to distribute to ratepayers it might use only 10 per cent. of the plant's capacity. It would then be able to use the machinery for commercial printing, which would not be acceptable to commercial interests.
I agree that Clause 7 is ridiculous. No one in his right mind would approve such a provision. Clause 9 (1) and (2) allow for preferential treatment to organisations with which a local authority has a shareholding arrangement. That would be extremely dangerous.
534
Clause 11 contains some curiously-written provisions about accounts. It refers to any credit being passed on, but how will any loss be made up? There must be a suspicion that if any activities were uneconomic either the councils concerned would disguise the real costs, as they could do, by allocating executives whose time was not truly apportioned——
Mr. Tom Litterick: That is a disgusting imputation.
Mr. Stonehouse: I am simply saying that this is something which it is very difficult for a council to decide. If an executive is employed in various directions and part of his time is spent running a florist's or butcher's shop or a petrol station, how will a council decide what proportion of his time is spent on which activity? It would be an arbitrary decision and people might suspect that the rate fund was being used to subsidise those activities.
Many councils show little expertise in doing the jobs they should be doing. Many are falling down on the job, rates are too high and the employment rolls of many West Midlands authorities are inflated. Many people in those authorities have a soft number. I have pressed the Secretary of State for the Environment to establish a section of his Department to provide assistance in making an effective evaluation of jobs in municipalities. There is enormous waste, as the Prime Minister himself confirmed in his famous East-bourne speech.
Until municipalities have reformed themselves and shown that they can be efficient, there can be no question of letting them enter these activities. Others can do these things better. Efficient co-operative societies, Marks & Spencer and petrol chains can best serve the consumer. We should not encourage local authorities which have so much else to do to divert their attention into these activities, where others should be responsible.
Turning to Part IV, I agree that there should be some action over the problem of stray dogs, but here again the Bill goes too far. It wants to establish a bureaucracy to issue certificates of registration for every dog—an enormous task. What happens if someone fails to conform?
Mr. Clement Freud: Ask the Prime Minister.
Mr. Stonehouse: Clause 36(6) says:
"If a person keeps a dog in a district in contravention of the provisions of this section or fails to identify his dog in the manner required by the certificate of registration he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50 and to a daily fine not exceeding £5."
That is very high for, say, an old-age pensioner who may not have good advice. Even £1 a day would be a big blow for people.
I agree with Part V. It is important to deal with aircraft noise, and authorities should have power to provide insulation grants.
I regret that the good aspects of the Bill are submerged in nonsense. I wish that the majority of the Bill were good: then I could support it. But the majority is bad, so I shall vote against it.
8.8 p.m.
Mr. Reginald Eyre: Conservatives throughout the West Midlands and on the Opposition Benches are totally opposed to Part II of the Bill. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) made a responsible and moderate speech, but his suggestions for further consideration were inadequate because of the inadequacy of his instructions from the promoters. That is because of the drastic nature of the powers proposed. They simply do not permit consideration on the casual basis that the hon. Gentleman suggested. He was really asking for matters to be dealt with on the basis of another and very different Bill.
In January the promoters of the Bill were advised, by myself among others, to take the Bill back and think about it again because there were obviously serious objections to it. They would have saved the resources of the ratepayers and the time of officials if they had taken that advice. Unfortunately, however, they have gone on with the Bill. The powers sought are so extreme that the Bill does not deserve the continued consideration for which the hon. Member asks.
On the need for adjustments relating to changed boundaries, there is plenty of time before 1979 for a more suitable measure to be introduced. It is widely
536
recognised now that Part II gives fantastically extended powers to local authorities to provide unfair trading competition over such a vast range of trades and small businesses that practically every commercial activity in modern life is affected and possibly endangered. The right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) was quite right to say that local authorities in the West Midlands should concentrate on their present duties and obligations and should not seek to get involved in wide-ranging activities of which they and their officials know very little. These powers are totally unjustified.
Our opposition is based upon four main grounds. First, the Bill is silent on the question of trading losses. Undoubtedly these losses would fall upon the ratepayers in general, and hundreds of ratepayers have expressed their considerable fear in this respect, as well as over 44,000 people in the West Midlands who signed in support of a petition to this House opposing Part II. Experience of nationalised industries leads us to believe that the bureaucratic extension of municipal trading on the scale envisaged in Part II would inevitably result in heavy losses and, consequently, severe additional burdens upon ratepayers.
The second main ground of our opposition relates to the important matter of unemployment. The Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers has expressed its oppositon to the Bill on the ground not only that the union found that there was no evidence of the need for municipal shops in the West Midlands but also that it could lead to a monopoly situation that might go to the extent of effectively eliminating consumer choice in a particular area. The union went on to say that it opposed the Bill also because of its fears that it could lead to unemployment among its 62,000 members. In my view any member of this House who cares about the frightening growth of unemployment in the West Midlands—unemployment has tripled within the last two years—must pay heed to this serious warning.
The third main ground of our opposition concerns the unfair nature of the competition to be provided. As the Secretary of the Walsall and District Co-operative Society pointed out in his letter of

537
31st December 1975 to West Midlands Members,
"Local authorities now act as enforcement agents in respect of many laws affecting retailers. In addition, they are planning authorities with wide powers including compulsory purchase. Soon under the Community Land Act they will be able to acquire development land either for their own use or disposal at market values. In our opinion, no local authority could compete fairly with other traders in view of its special position described above."
The secretary of that union was absolutely right in his judgment. There could not be fair trading competition against a local authority with these enormous overriding powers.
I must, however, add another important factor, which increases the unfairness of the proposed municipal competition. This Bill would authorise unlimited borrowing on the part of the local authorities, repayable over terms up to 60 years. No small business or trader could possibly hope to borrow money for business purposes on such favourable terms. Many shopkeepers and small businesses of all kinds are struggling for survival on account of some of the damaging effects of Labour policies upon their businesses. The Government must tonight make clear their position with regard to the unlimited power of public expenditure contained in the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) was right to emphasise the importance of this matter.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment promised on an earlier occasion that the Secretary of State would make a statement to the House on this Bill. I hope that he will be able to make it. Indeed, the Secretary of State ought to be here——
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): Since the Secretary of State has been mentioned, I should like to say that my right hon. Friend is suffering from influenza, and I am therefore standing in for him.
Mr. Eyre: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's explanation. I am sorry to hear of the Secretary of State's illness.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary will accept the obligation to spell out to the House the complete inadvisability of the powers contained in the Bill relating to
538
the unlimited nature of local authority borrowing. That is extremely important.
Any Minister who thought of voting in favour of the Bill should realise what damaging consequences it could have to the economic policy of the Government in other directions. That must be emphasised. Any who vote in favour of the Bill are flying in the face of Government policy, which is necessarily trying to deal with a desperately serious economic situation.
Our fourth main ground of opposition is that Bills of this kind could, and we believe would, be operated by Left Wing authorities to end the way of life which is represented by small independent local businesses. This would cause untold harm to the economy of the country and would bring about a severe loss of political freedom. I wish to make it clear that we shall fight Socialist policies of this kind with all our strength.
West Midlands Members have received a lot of correspondence on the Bill. I have received a number of letters which are critical of the provisions concerning dogs, caravans, the parking of vehicles, and many other matters. However, I understand that many Members wish to speak, so I shall not go over that ground, because I am sure that it will be very well covered during the debate.
For the reasons that I have mentioned, Part II is totally unacceptable, and it makes the entire Bill unacceptable. It is necessary that it should be replaced by another measure of a different nature. I say with all the strength at my command that Part II is so unacceptable that the whole Bill must be rejected.
8.18 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) introduced the Bill with commendable brevity and moderation. Because of the number of Members who wish to speak, I shall try to emulate that brevity.
May I make clear to the House that this is a Private Bill—it is not a Government Bill—and it is traditional for the Government to intervene in the debate and express their attitude to the Bill as a whole.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East said, the Bill is

539
introduced at this time, whether hon. Members on either side of the House agree with its provisions or not, because the powers in a great deal of existing legislation come to an end in 1979, and the authorities concerned, having properly considered their position, have brought before the House a Private Bill in which they wish not only to preserve some of the powers which they already possess but to extend those powers, and in some directions to extend them appreciably.
The Government's attitude to the extension of local authorities' powers, if they consider such an extension of their powers to be in the interests of their areas, is to say to them "You are right to consider this in a Private Bill and to consider what benefit your area will receive, and bring the Bill before the House."
However, there are certain provisions of the Bill which the Government could, if the Bill goes into Committee, in no way countenance. First, there is the provision under Clause 7 for blanket trading powers. It would be inadvisable for local authorities to continue to seek or to have blanket trading powers. I know that those advising the district and county councils—no matter what remarks have been made about them in the House—by including Clause 7 may well have been trying to set parallels in a Private Bill with the sort of provisions contained in the articles and memoranda of association of companies which give blanket trading powers to those companies and ensure that they can never be criticised under their articles and memoranda of association. We do not consider it appropriate for such blanket provisions to be laid down in the Bill, because a local authority is not a company. Therefore, we frown on Clause 7.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) mentioned Clause 10, which seeks to give unlimited financial borrowing powers to local authorities. I do not think that any Government of any political persuasion could agree at any time to local authorities having that power. Therefore, if the Bill achieves Second Reading and goes
540
into Committee the Government would frown upon such a provision and seek its removal. A Government would do that at any time but a Government at the present time who ask for severe financial restraint on public spending generally would certainly not countenance unlimited borrowing powers by a local authority.
Some Conservative Members may disagree with our attitude towards the trading provisions. I shall in a moment suggest what the House should do. It may be that within a local authority area there are instances—some may be given tonight—of a failure of the private market system to provide certain facilities for people and where it would be advisable for the council to step in and provide those facilities, even though it may cost the ratepayer or taxpayer money. Pharmacists and chemist's shops have been mentioned. There may be areas in some parts of the country—I am not saying that there are—where the nearest chemist's shop is a considerable distance away. That is a matter which the House should carefully examine.
Mr. Eric Ogden: The House knows of my interest in this matter. If there is an area which is not provided with adequate pharmaceutical services by private enterprise, is it not the duty of the area health authority, the hospital pharmacist service, or the chemist contractors to provide such a service and not to introduce a fourth tier when three other authorities have that duty under the law?
Mr. Oakes: That may well be the case. I am sorry that I mentioned pharmacists but I refer to the situation in which insufficient facilities are provided in an area and where the council seeks to rectify the deficiency.
Mr. Michael Morris rose——
Mr. Oakes: I hope that the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.
There is another provision where municipal trading would be in competition with people outside the council. If the Bill goes into Committee the Government's attitude would be that such municipal trading should be considered carefully by the Committee so that the

541
accounts balanced year by year and there was no subsidisation of that trading by the ratepayers, which would be unfair to ratepayers in general and to other traders in that area in particular.
There is also the vexed question of motor racing. The Government take a more neutral view on that. However, this issue has generated considerable debate throughout the West Midlands. If the powers were to be given the West Midlands they would be unique in the United Kingdom in allowing motor racing on the public roads. It may be appropriate that the home of the motor car industry, Birmingham, should be the place to have it. The greatest possible care should be taken in framing this legislation so that it protects the environment of those who live in the area where motor racing takes place and so that it ensures the safety of those in the area when they travel to and from their lawful business. Furthermore, the greatest care should be taken in relation to any indemnity into which the local authority entered, which in itself may reflect back on either the insurance premium or the rate fund of the local authority.
I have listened carefully to the debate. Almost all the arguments advanced so far and those which will be made later this evening tend to concentrate on Part II of the Bill, which deals with municipal trading. Most of the caveats that I have entered have concentrated on Part II. Therefore, I adopt the traditional rôle of the Government in relation to private legislation and ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Mr. Cormack: Go to the dogs.
Mr. Oakes: That is quite a traditional rôle for any Government to take on a Private Bill. I ask the House to allow the Bill to go into Committee, and hon. Gentlemen to consider each aspect of the Bill. I appreciate that Conservative Members have strong feelings about Part II. They are entitled to express their views.
Mr. Cormack: Go to the dogs.
Mr. Oakes: I am trying to put the Government's point of view. It is silly to keep saying "Go to the dogs". It is Part II of the Bill that attracts opposition. Many provisions in the Bill are perhaps a repetition of those in previous
542
Bills. There are also provisions which I should have thought would have received wide acceptance by all hon. Members, certainly by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who is concerned about aircraft noise. There are provisions which deal with the control of dogs, which can be a nuisance in an area. Other provisions deal with the unlawful parking of caravans. Therefore, the Bill does not deal solely with municipal trading. The House is, of course, entitled to throw the Bill out in its entirety. This is a Private Bill and the House is entitled so to do.
From the Government's point of view, and with the caveats that I have entered—that we would certainly set our face against Clauses 7 and 10, and some of the provisions with regard to municipal trading—our attitude, which is traditional of Governments of either major political complexion when Private Bills come before the House, is to say, "Let the Bill have its Second Reading, let the House itself decide what powers should be given, and let only the necessary powers be given if the Bill goes through Parliament."
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Keith Speed: I thank the Minister for telling us comparatively early in the debate what the Government's view is. I am bound to say that I can tell him from the Opposition side of the House, and certainly from the Conservative Party's point of view, that we shall not respond to his invitation to allow the Bill to go forward, for reasons that I shall explain.
I wish to raise one or two matters in respect of the Minister's speech. First, we always have difficulty in dealing with the hon. Gentleman because he is such a reasonable man in these matters. As I said from this Box not many days ago, the fact of the matter is that it was his right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government—and perhaps others of his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet who are not so moderate or reasonable about these affairs—who, last April, said that he sympathised with his hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts), who was asking for legislation for local authorities to carry out many of the things that are detailed in Part II of the Bill. However, it is fair to say that there are at least differences

543
of emphasis among Members upon their desirability or otherwise.
The Under-Secretary raised the matter of the argument about the date—1979. I am glad to see that the Minister for Housing and Construction is present this evening, because he has promised the House that there will be legislation to deal with the geographical problems concerning direct labour organisations. That, presumably, will be a Government commitment. It may well be that the Government will wish to chance their arm and to put some of the provisions of which they approve into similar legislation. They would have a fight on their hands if they did, but that would deal with the geographical matter and the year 1979.
I am glad that the Government are against Clauses 7 and 10, for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman, with which I entirely agree. He mentioned the Government's view that if the trading activities took place, from one year to another there should not be losses, and that if there were losses they should not be carried forward. That is what I understood him to say. I understand that. However, is not the problem here the problem that the Minister for Housing and Construction appreciates in regard to direct labour—the question of accounting and making sure that one does not lose money on shared overheads and that one has commonality of techniques? In practice, this would be much more difficult, particularly as at present the Government will not accept the CIPFA recommendations.
It is unusual for an Opposition to vote against the Second Reading of a Private Bill. However, as has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) and the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse), this is a most unusual, distasteful Bill. It is a bad Bill indeed. One might almost say that it is an abuse of the Private Bill procedure—having such a clause within it which is extremely controversial, in a way that I have certainly never seen in my time in the House in relation to a Private Bill.
There is and can be a genuine debate about the wisdom of motor racing, about
544
the dog provisions, about the provisions relating to caravans, and about the other matters. Those are perfectly acceptable in a Private Bill and they can be argued in Committee. I have no quarrel with those provisions whatsoever. However, the fact is that Clause 7, about which we know the Government are unhappy, and certainly Clause 5, taking it in its entirety, really open up the whole field for local authorities to do virtually anything that they wish. Clause 12 anticipates losses. Notwithstanding anything that the Government may say, at the end of the day the ratepayers would pick up the Bill not only on direct losses but by the diversion of the effort of councillors and officers who ought to be doing other things but who would be getting more and more involved in these activities.
Most reasonable people, whatever their political persuasions may be, would find it extremely unacceptable to have this form of competition, whereby the very people who are suffering from unfair competition might have to pick up the tab at the end of the day on their rates, whether commercial or domestic.
We have to ask one or two questions. Where are the vast reservoirs of management expertise and talent to run these activities? Do they exist in local authorities at present, among councillors or officers? I beg leave to doubt that. We know how officers and councillors, in all parties, are in many cases overworked at present, and that they are certainly not floating around looking for opportunities to make any work for local authorities. As has been rightly mentioned, what about the effect on local authority staff? There is bound to be a considerable increase. Even the Government now accept that staffing in the public sector must be reduced. The Prime Minister has said a great deal about that.
Clause 10 has been mentioned, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green. This clearly would be totally unacceptable. However, as the Bill, in practice, allows local authorities to make anything, to sell anything and to provide any service, apparently with very little account of profitability, I do not think that anyone could believe that the House would be acting responsibly tonight by giving it a Second Reading.
As the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) pointed out, the

545
statement on behalf of the promoters says:
"It is the intention of the local authorities…to exercise those powers in a fair and responsible manner."
Those are subjective terms. What is fair and responsible to me may not be fair and responsible to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the decision on what is fair and responsible in any local government matter rests ultimately with the electors in the area concerned, who decide which councillors to accept and which to throw out? Does the hon. Gentleman have so little confidence in the capacity of his own party to win local elections that he thinks that local authorities must at all costs be prevented from doing these things?
Mr. Speed: I remind the hon. Gentleman that in a few weeks' time there will be district elections among all the metropolitan districts in the West Midlands. No doubt the electors will then be able to give their views on this matter. As far as I am aware, the form of the Bill was certainly not introduced into any manifesto during the metropolitan district elections last year, or during the elections for the West Midlands County Council two years ago.
The hon. Member should not seek to fall back on the electorate in that way. Once something becomes the law of the land, Governments rarely find time for repealing legislation. It would be difficult to unscramble this measure. I am the first to accept that when there is a Conservative Government there tends to be a swing to Labour, and perhaps particularly to Left-wing Labour local authorities, and vice versa. If the Bill were to be passed in its present form it could present an open cheque to local authorities, which might be much more Left-wing than the promoters of the Bill, to do anything they wanted to do in future years. If the Bill is passed, it will be the law of the land and it will be no use looking back to see what the Minister said or what I said.
It is said in the statement on behalf of the promoters:
546
"the powers are required to enable facilities to be provided which are not at present provided by private interest".
I presume that "private interest" in this context includes the co-operative societies. I have not heard, either in this debate or in that which took place about a fortnight ago, any argument about a specific shortfall of services, except as regards pharmacists, which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) dealt with.
For a time I represented not only the largest constituency in the West Midlands but the largest constituency in England. In that time I received not one complaint about a shortfall in these private services. I received many complaints about shortfalls in some of the statutory services or public undertakings. However, Clause 15 specifically forbids any competition with them. Hon. Members representing West Midlands constituencies will know that the complaints they receive are not to the effect that there is not a small shop on the corner or in the Bull Ring; the complaints are much more likely to be about statutory undertakers. But they are totally outside the Bill. We have already heard what the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and a number of co-operative societies have said.
The House must consider seriously whether it should respond to the Minister's invitation to give the Bill a Second Reading. There can be no guarantee that changes will be made in Committee. If the Bill is given a Second Reading tonight, the principles embodied in Part II will have the approval of the House. Everybody has admitted that Part II is the major part of the Bill and is certainly the most unpopular part.
Mr. A. P. Costain: Would it not also save further expense by those who have petitioned against the Bill if we reject it tonight?
Mr. Speed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was coming to that point. There are a number of unfairnesses already. The ratepayers of the West Midlands will have footed the cost of preparing the Bill. If the advice of my hon. Friends representing West Midlands constituencies had been followed, that cost could have been saved. There are substantial costs to petitioners of one kind

547
or another. It would be wrong for those costs to be incurred when, tonight, we can tell the promoters "We do not like the Bill. There is a major part that we find offensive. If you take it away and bring in the other provisions later, in another Private Bill, you will save yourselves and many people whose livelihoods are threatened a great deal of time and money."
Part II is bad for businesses, large and small, as it could involive the possibility of unfair competition. It is bad for employees and trade and industry, because it could lead to unemployment, as the unions are saying. It is bad for local government, which in the West Midlands and elsewhere already has more than enough to do without being diverted down the highways and by-ways. Local government is ill-equipped for entrepreneurial activities of this kind. The Bill is bad for the ratepayer and the taxpayer, who are likely to have to pay for the losses. It is bad for the national economy, because it is a misuse of resources. It is bad for the West Midlands, because it gives the area a totally unwarranted impression of militant Socialism. It is bad for the consumer, because at the end of the day he will have less rather than more choice, and it will not improve services for him.
The case in favour of the Bill has not been made by the Minister, by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, or by the promoters in their memorandum. In philosophical, presentational and practical terms we on the Opposition side of the House find Part II singularly offensive, and I urge the House to reject it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The debate must end at 10 o'clock. Seventeen hon. Members still wish to address the House. I must leave in their hands the solution to the problem.
8.42 p.m.
Mr. Julius Silverman: The Bill has been described as a dog's dinner, but many local authority Bills are dogs' dinners for obvious reasons. Local authorities tend to collect together large numbers of provisions in one piece of legislation because normally they can introduce only one piece of legislation a year.
548
In this case the county council asked various district councils what they wanted in the Bill. Some of them said that they wanted an extension of municipal trading. Birmingham said that it wanted motor racing in the centre of the town—and that is not a party matter. The part of the Bill dealing with the parking of caravans and heavy vehicles was included at the demand of Solihull District Council, and so on. That is why, in Bills of this kind, there is a selection of various items.
The Opposition have concentrated on the clauses dealing with trading, but there are many other provisions in the Bill—for example, the motor racing clause. I am not committed on that matter. I believe that the clause dealing with that issue should be examined in Committee and a decision made by the Private Bill Committee on the evidence taken.
Various local authorities and other sources say that the increasing number of stray dogs is becoming a hazard to health and to traffic and that the increase inflicts cruelty upon the animals themselves. Perhaps some of the measures in the Bill go too far, but that is for the Private Bill Committee to consider.
Clause 44 would give power to provide residential accommodation for students and nurses. Surely that is an item which hon. Members on both sides of the House would support.
Part V of the Bill deals with aircraft noise and would provide for residents near, for example, Elmdon Airport the same sort of facilities as, I understand, residents near Heathrow Airport enjoy—the provision of sound insulation. There is great demand for it in the area. Once again, this is surely a provision which hon. Members on both sides would support.
I am arguing that, although Opposition Members have a rooted objection to Part II of the Bill, they should not throw out the baby with the bath water by throwing out the whole Bill. All these matters can be discussed clause by clause, with the taking of evidence, by the Private Bill Committee. Those of us who have served on such Committees know that they give matters before them very great consideration: counsel are involved, evidence is taken and petitioners

549
and objections are heard. I am sure that the Private Bill Committee would come to the correct decisions in considering the many clauses in the Bill.
Mr. Eric Moonman: Of course there are good things in the Bill—one does not deny that—but can my hon. Friend indicate to those of us who are not connected with the West Midlands why in Clause 6, in face of the opposition of the print unions—I am a member of one of them—there is reference to a local authority having power to undertake printing? The clause is headed "Power to print".
Mr. Silverman: There has been a great deal of hysteria about the Bill. A local authority could not buy extra machinery for the purposes of Clause 6 additionally to what it already has. There is no question of there being a big competition in printing. Clause 6 says:
"A local authority shall not purchase or in any other way provide printing machinery solely for the purposes of this section but may only undertake printing in accordance with this section with the use of machinery acquired and used by them for the purpose of printing in connection with the discharge of any of their functions under any enactment…"
Clause 6 is clearly intended, as I am sure the other trading provisions are intended, for very limited use.
There are two purposes. The first is to provide facilities where they are not provided by private enterprise—and there is no doubt that these facilities are needed. In my constituency, shops of certain kinds are needed. The second purpose is to enable a local authority to use its own resources in methods which are profitable to the ratepayers and which will defray the costs. That is the general intention, and the wording of Clause 6 would fulfil it in relation to printing.
I do not know why people are so hysterical about municipal trading. It has a long history under both parties. One of the greatest municipal Socialists was Joseph Chamberlain. Tory councils operated electricity and gas undertakings. When I was a member of Birmingham City Council, the Tory chairman of the gas committee proposed that the council should buy two or three coal mines because he thought that the price of coal was too high. There was not any objection by the committee or by the council.
550
I do not know what the latter-day Conservatives would say about that. Birmingham has run a civic restaurant under both parties for almost a generation, profitably and effectively, and it has not killed private enterprise. It provided a needed service in the city.
A more recent example is that of the National Exhibition Centre, into which Birmingham has put £30 million. It is true that it is a partnership with private enterprise and private industry. That enterprise has been successful, but its cost far exceeds any of the sums that are likely to be incurred under Part II.
There is a suggestion that huge sums of money will fall on the ratepayers and that these enterprises will be utterly unsuccessful and will lose money. It has also been said that they will be so profitable that they will chase private firms out of business and secure a monopoly situation. That is a load of nonsense. It is true that the powers in Part II are widely drawn, but the Committee upstairs, having heard the evidence, will consider whether it wishes to restrict those powers.
I understand the attitude of local authorities. They say "We are just like Parliament. We have been elected by universal adult suffrage. We are responsible to the electors. Why should we not have power to do what we think necessary for the good of our electors? Why should we be tried hand and foot at all times by this or that Act of Parliament? Why should we be creatures of the central legislature?" Even though I appreciate that view, I believe that matters of detail can be decided in Committee.
I should like to restrict the use of these powers to that which is for the benefit of the people of Birmingham and the West Midlands. Therefore, with the necessary amendments, I am prepared to support the Second Reading of the Bill, knowing that any defects can be put right in Committee upstairs. That Committee will come to its decision having heard objections and having heard evidence on these matters.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. Dudley Smith: We have heard a serious indictment, although made by the Minister in the most disarming way, of one of the largest local authorities in

551
the country. The hon. Gentleman implied that the local authority had worked out the matter badly and should have appreciated that it was introducing provisions that would worry Parliament.
We are aware that highly-paid officials have been involved in the drafting of this legislation. We understand the political motives of the leaders of the West Midlands Council. They believe in Left-wing Socialism. But they surely should be guided to act in the right way when they bring legislation of this nature to Parliament. I believe that the Bill does not deserve to be given a Second Reading purely on the grounds of incompetence on the part of those who seek to bring forward this measure and who, indeed, have had the gall to put forward these provisions.
I know that the attitude of the promoters is "Please give us a Second Reading, and matters of detail can be settled in Committee." I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in voting against the measure. I believe that the council has forfeited its rights on this occasion. If it has some minor matters that it wishes to bring forward it can present another Bill, as other more sensible local authorities do, and it will be given just and fair consideration.
I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) said that despite the Minister's assurances about the part of the Bill which troubles us—the local government trading powers—we should debate that part. It is a large Bill whose main ethos concerns the kind of trading which the West Midlands County Council wishes to carry out. I find it incomprehensible that any local authority, Socialist or otherwise, should bring forward proposals of this kind, particularly at a time when economies are being asked for on every hand in local government.
We know that local government has a voracious appetite which has arisen because of serious inflation, which is now adding to that appetite. We know that ratepayers are seriously overburdened and find it hard to meet the demands put upon them. If proposals such as are contained in the Bill are approved, there will be far heavier impositions. In many cases ratepayers will be paying for the salary increases of those in local
552
government who are now commanding higher salaries than those paid in the private sector.
There is the whole question of small businesses which Labour Members have tended to dismiss. This country was founded on the work of small businesses. It originally became great as a result of the entrepreneurial activity of many small businesses. To day many of those in such businesses are struggling to survive. They are harassed at every turn by bureaucrats. They are not looked on sympathetically by a Socialist Government and record numbers of them are going bankrupt.
It is of considerable significance that we should be debating this Bill tonight. I am glad it has been underlined that what happens now if the Bill is approved could easily happen throughout the rest of the country. Other local authorities would not be slow to follow, particularly if they had Left-wing inclinations. I am sorry that this has not been better publicised throughout the country. It has naturally had a great deal of exposure in the West Midlands, but there has been little publicity elsewhere.
Mr. Iain Sproat: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have never had as many forceful letters on other subjects from traders in Aberdeen as I have received concerning this Bill? The traders object to the Bill as being abhorrent in principle. There are certainly objections from all parts of the country.
Mr. Smith: I am glad to hear that. For the public at large there has been little publicity in the media except in the West Midlands. This is an attempt to move towards the type of State uniformity that some Left-wing Members and many Left-wing people in local government would like to see. It is far more suitable for a second-rate Iron Curtain country than for a once-great nation like ours.
However much Labour Members may try to laugh this off, the proposals are there and are objected to, not only by us but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) has said, by hundreds of people in the country who in many cases have no political affiliation and who in other cases have political affiliations different from mine. Labour Members have probably received the

553
same sort of letters as my hon. Friend referred to. There is anxiety among people about this trend. It is time we called "Enough" and told the West Midlands County Council to go back and think again. Although we hope that it will eventually be dealt with by the electorate, it ought now to be getting on with the job of local government rather than expanding its empire.
The West Midlands County Council stands condemned on a number of counts, irrespective of this move towards extreme Socialism, It has been engaged on an exercise which is a shocking waste of public money. This is a mish-mash of a Bill which must have cost a lot of money to prepare, to have printed and to be presented in Parliament at a time when local authorities should be economising.
I call in aid not a Tory but the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), who is an Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Employment. Mr. Stanley Sparks, who has an enviable reputation for accuracy and who is the political correspondent of the Birmingham Evening Mail, wrote in his column a week or so ago:
"Mr. Harold Walker, Junior Employment Minister, pulled no punches when he told the traders of his Doncaster constituency: 'This is an ill-judged hotch-potch of proposals which I cannot and will not support. This Bill can set a thoroughly bad precedent.'"
I know that the hon. Member for Doncaster is a man of integrity. I am certain he will not be in the Lobby in favour of the Bill. I hope he might even join me in voting against it.
I condemn the West Midlands County Council for its complete insensitivity to public opinion. There has been no real consultation with traders or with the many people who have written about dogs and caravans, and certainly no consultation with politicians.
I call in aid again Stanley Sparks, who, as I have said, has a reputation for accuracy. He said in his column when writing about this issue:
"When Sir Stan came to Westminster to talk to Tory and Labour M.P.s he found the Labour M.P.s more hostile than the Tories. He took such a battering that one M.P. had to remind the meeting they were all supposed to be Socialist comrades.
The reason was that with virtually no prior consultation, without seeing an advance draft,
554
without having any chance to examine the small print, the M.P.s were being asked to support a measure so vast and contentious that they knew it was beaten before it started."
What an indictment of the county council.
The council also stands condemned because the Bill would give it a very unfair advantage over established traders. The Walsall Co-operative Society has already been mentioned, and I would like to refer to another society a little nearer my own constituency. The secretary and chief executive officer of the Coventry and District Co-operative Society has written to me:
"In our opinion, no local authority could compete fairly with other traders in view of its special position.… Retailing is a fiercely competitive business and consumers can shop where they wish. Co-operatives have always regarded themselves as a further source of protection for consumers generally and in view of this we regard the Part II proposals as superfluous. We invite you to oppose them."
I imagine that this society has a large number of Labour supporters among its members.
There has been general condemnation of what is perhaps one of the most controversial Private Bills to come before Parliament, certainly in the 13 or 14 years I have been here. It has very few friends. There are a large number of people throughout the West Midlands who do not want it. I do not want it and my hon. Friends do not want it. Caravan owners, dog owners and even people who are not in love with car racing do not want it. No one wants to move to the kind of collectivism being proposed in the Bill.
The message should go out from this House to Sir Stan and his cohorts that they should concentrate on improving local government and making it more efficient—goodness knows, it needs it badly enough—and stop meddling in areas which are not their concern. They should leave trade and commerce to the experts, who are finding it difficult enough anyway and who need support rather than a bash on the head from the county council.
Despite the Minister's bland assurances, I can see real dangers here. If the council, despite the condemnation it has received, refuses to withdraw the Bill, it deserves to have it defeated in the Lobby. I hope that it is slammed hard

555
as an example to other people who might venture into the same territory.
9.4 p.m.
Mr. J. W. Rooker: The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) referred to certain remarks made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment. My hon. Friend has denied making those remarks, he has complained to the editor of the local paper, and is contemplating taking the matter to the Press Council.
Mr. Dudley Smith: I accept what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) says. I was quoting the words from a newspaper and I accepted them as being true.
Mr. Rooker: I cast no reflection on the Lobby correspondent of the Evening Mail, who is highly respected.
We have had four speeches from the Opposition Benches, only one of which was made by an hon. Member whose constituency is in the West Midlands County Council area. All hon. Gentlemen were talking about the "law of the land", "my area", "my traders", but the constituency of only one—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre)—is in that area. Anyone listening to the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) might have thought that his constituency was in the West Midlands County Council area. His constituency may be in the West Midlands regional area, but it is not affected by the Bill.
The speech made by the right hon. Member for Wallsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) made me wonder whether we should seriously consider changes in our procedures whereby right hon. Members have precedence over others. For the right hon. Member to chastise the county council for not coming here to take advice when he was not in a position to give advice even if the county council had done so is a travesty.
Hon. Members talked about trading and had not a good word to say for it, apart from two of my hon. Friends. I wish to devote my remarks to Part III—and I have not a good word to say for that. That may be a paradox. My name is on the Order Paper as putting forward an instruction to the Commit-
556
tee to leave out Part III. It is not true to say that this is only a Birmingham matter. Two of my hon. Friends who support my motion represent Birmingham constituencies, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), like myself, is a Birmingham ratepayer. Hon. Members representing areas as far apart as Coventry and Warley said that the fact that the Bill relates to Birmingham does not mean that they should not have a view. Their view was that they would not wish to inflict on someone else what they would not tolerate in their area. They are entitled to have a view, just as is any hon. Member who represents a Birmingham constituency.
I am not dogmatically opposed to the Grand Prix race; I am opposed to the proposals in Part III. The idea of such a race has been current in Birmingham for over four years. It originated from a night club owner in the city who was at one time an international racing driver. He has funds to support the race, there is an international consortium, and it will not cost the council anything. What riles me is that there has never been a jot of evidence sent to any hon. Member representing a Birmingham constituency about the proposed grand prix. The proposal has never been raised in meetings with the city leaders in the two years in which I have been in the House. It was only by accident last September that I discovered that the proposal was in the Bill.
Last summer I received letters from many chambers of trade. I got tired of saying that I had not seen the Bill. I wrote to the county council saying that Back Benchers could have a field-day on Private Business and suggested that we should get together. There was no such get-together, but eventually I received a typed draft of the Bill. That was the first time I was aware of the proposals for the race. Various Press references appeared concerned with the proposers, the night club owner and his buddies. The night club owner has always said that the race would only be on the May bank holiday or a bank holiday Monday, and that it would be an annual event.
In 1972 the Birmingham Chamber of Trade wrote to the former Town Clerk of Birmingham. He said that at a meeting of the council of the chamber of trade

557
a Mr. Martin Hone, the night club owner, had outlined the proposal for the race. The letter went on to talk about the race being organised on either the spring bank holiday Monday or the late summer bank holiday Monday. That was in 1972.
In 1975, to my surprise, I read a Birmingham Post headline which said
"Motoring racing Bill on last lap."
Yet the Bill had not been published, and there had been no communication at all to any Members of Parliament. The report went on to say that the race would be staged on either the spring or autumn bank holiday.
I kept quiet, thinking that one day I should be able to read what was in the final draft, because it was obvious that the proposers had consulted the trade and business interests. But what is abundantly apparent is that no one else was consulted, least of all the people living on the proposed race circuit.
As recently as two weeks ago the secretary of the Birmingham Labour councillors, Councillor May—a very high-powered person—complained that his constituents had not been consulted. The race is to be in the city centre, not in my constituency—it is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden)—and it is a city matter, not a constituency matter.
I have had letters from my constituents about their aged aunts of 86 and 68 who live in flats in tower blocks on the proposed circuit and do not know what is happening. No one has told them. Extreme concern is expressed by many people of that sort.
There are four churches on the proposed race circuit—two Church of England, one Roman Catholic and one belonging to the Plymouth Brethren. There has been no consultation whatever to inform them of what is to happen. Only by their own inquiries have they discovered that the streets are to be closed at 7 o'clock on the Saturday evening prior to the Monday race, and that they will be closed until midnight on Monday. They have been told officially that there will be no access to any of the four churches for public worship on the Sunday prior to the race. That is a very serious state of affairs, because
558
3,000 people normally attend those four churches on any average Sunday. There has been no consultation whatsoever with them. They have been told that everything will be all right, and that when the powers have been obtained they will be consulted. That is not the way in which to win the approval of Members of this House who have to give the powers in the first place.
The situation is even worse than that. Although the Bill gives power to close the roads only until midnight on the Monday, the churches have been told that the streets will not be clear until midday on Tuesday. That means that free access to the highway will not be available to people going to work and going about their lawful occasions on the Tuesday. That has not been taken into account in the Bill and has not been considered at all.
Another worrying aspect of the Bill is compensation, especially if the race were to become a regular event. Although we have heard about its being an annual event, the Bill is drafted in such a way as to give powers to run the race on both bank holidays, and in the schedule it is stated that the council can make an order to have the race on other days. According to the way the Bill is drafted, we could have a race every week.
If the race were an annual event—as the public were told it would be—it would not be possible to work out the cost of one year's race until the procedures for getting the next year's race under way had already been started. The time scale for putting in compensation claims extends for up to nine months after the race. There is a 10–15 weeks' lapse in regard to giving formal notice of closing the streets, and there can be an overlap.
In the Chamber on 15th December last, at the end of the debate on the rate support grant, I declared some opposition to this race. I had spent about 16 minutes in defending the Birmingham City Council and one minute in alluding to the race. I did not expect any thanks for defending the council, but I was viciously attacked for opposing what seemed to others to be a good idea but which I had not been informed about in any way.
I received a letter from the chief sponsor, Mr. Hone, the night club owner,

559
in which he told me about his experience. He said that the idea had been knocking around for four years, and that I, as a responsible Member representing the local community, ought to support it. He did not give a basis for that support but said that he had been a festival officer concerned with motor racing in Birmingham.
There was one illuminating paragraph in the letter:
"My advice has been sought on many occasions by different departments of the District Council, the City Engineers Department, the Planning Department, the City Solicitors, the Chief Executive, Councillors from all parties and I have freely given of my time".
The letter does not say whether he had been giving advice about the race. I do not know what the city councillors have been trooping up to the night club owners to get advice about, but it poses more questions than it answers.
This is said to be an all-party matter in Birmingham, and there is therefore no one to speak for those who are opposed to the race. Some people say that there have been free votes in the city council, and others say that the Whips have been on. There is, however, no dispute that the Birmingham City Labour Party voted overwhelmingly to reject the race proposals.
The main cause of my concern arises over the financial aspects in Part III. They are a disgrace. The crux of the matter is that there are no financial provisions. It is no justification to say that because the ratepayers will not lose that can be the end of the matter. The way in which the Bill is drafted will allow the city council to license some person or persons to have the film and broadcasting rights and then to sell off the advertising rights, the rights to charge for admission and the rights to organise the powers of compensation. There is no mention of the way in which the accounts will be presented to the city council by the persons exercising these rights.
The city of Birmingham has a first-class record for municipal enterprise, going back to the days of Chamberlain. Nowadays it actually runs the catering on the Ascot race course, so that if it loses these powers I do not know what the clients of Ascot race course will do. The city is selling its case for hosting the Commonwealth Games through literature
560
which has been notably good. Why has it been so shy in publishing the financial arrangements behind the race?
It is worth bearing in mind that four city council departments are undergoing police investigation. In the past two years various members of different city council departments have been serving prison sentences for corrupt practices. One questions the efficacy of the drafting of the Bill because one presumes that it has been done under instruction from the city council. That aspect worries me and many others in the city.
The lack of consultation with those who are affected by the Bill and with those who are expected to approve of it—Members of Parliament—leads me to think that the people concerned will get greater benefit from it for themselves and their organisations than will the city. Their main principle seems to be that the less said about the Bill the better, and that it should go through on the nod. Like all other hon. Members, I am sure, I do not accept that approach. If given the opportunity, which I think I shall be denied, I shall seek to delete Part III of the Bill, for the reasons I have out-lined.
9.19 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Ross: I was asked by the Minister to consider whether I might be able to support the Bill if Part II was withdrawn in order that it might at least get a Second Reading. I was prepared to consider such a course, but having listened to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) I believe that the Bill should be opposed. It must be defeated because there are so many other things wrong with it.
My constituency is, of course, not directly affected by the Bill, but concern about it is very widespread and has certainly been expressed on the Isle of Wight. I am a Kidderminster man and I was brought up in the West Midlands. I frequently go back to Birmingham. A relation of mine works in the Birmingham City Council.
Part II of the Bill is absolute madness, particularly when small traders have such troubles and such small profit margins. Why Birmingham wants to run hotels, Heaven knows. I thought that we had excess capacity at the moment. A

561
butcher's shop is the quickest way there is of losing money. I bet that Coventry loses money on its abbatoir. Horticulture has many problems at the moment. The most efficient horticulture in the country is in my constituency, but some firms are facing bankruptcy.
I had thought that motor racing was a matter best decided locally, but having heard what has been said I believe that it would be wrong to support that proposal.
I have some sympathy with the provisions relating to dogs. I know the problems here. I have just moved into a town house and I pepper the lamp-post outside every night because I am so fed up with their visits. Some legislation is needed, but this is too bureaucratic. The Government should take action. For a start, we should have a sensible licence fee, with exemptions for old-age pensioners and others.
Part V, relating to provisions about aircraft and traffic noise, is excellent and should be supported. In Part VI, Clause 43 is about the best thing in the Bill, extending the council's powers over property outside conservation areas which is about to be demolished. I have been fighting such problems in my constituency for many a long day.
I cannot support the Bill. The council is ill-advised to bring it forward. Did it not consult the Department? When my authority brought forward a Bill, the Home Office told us what was likely to be acceptable to the House and what was not. We withdrew the controversial parts and got the rest through. That is what the West Midlands County Council should have done. Because it has not, the Bill should be defeated overwhelmingly.
9.22 p.m.
Dr. Colin Phipps: Since I have been a Member of the House it has been a constant surprise to me to find that, whenever a measure extends opportunities for entrepreneurial activity and competition, Opposition Members are dead against it. I had been led to believe that that was something the Tory Party stood for. Whenever it is suggested that such activity might encompass a degree of public or municipal enterprise, suddenly it is no longer enterprise but, for some extraordinary
562
reason, "unfair competition". That phrase has been bandied about tonight by Tory Members.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) gave a long list of objections in explaining why this will be so good for the local authority that it will represent unfair competition. What he did not say was who will benefit from all these advantages. The people who will benefit are his ratepayers, for goodness sake, not individual councillors and officers. So that it is not a valid objection to the principle of the Bill.
What we are talking about is the principle of municipal trading. I accept entirely what the Minister said. His comments on Clauses 7 and 10 are well taken, but they are Committee points. In a Second Reading debate on a Bill of this kind we are trying to establish the principle of the Bill. I have for many years been in favour of the principle of municipal trading and enterprise. We have co-operative enterprises, private enterprises and State enterprises. I should have thought that this proposal would broaden the scope of those services and enterprises which can be put at the service of the public. I see no objection to it.
Some municipal enterprises such as transport seem logical activities for a municipality because it is in the best position to know what is the best form of local transport and, therefore, to undertake it. The idea that passing the Bill will mean suddenly and completely sweeping away every other form of enterprise in the West Midlands is one of the most extraordinary things I have ever heard.
I think it would be remarkable if in the next five years the West Midlands County Council did no more than develop those facilities which it already has and which can be used for the benefit of the ratepayers of the West Midlands. The Bill seems to me to be an excellent idea, and it is remarkable that Tory Members think that it is a bad Bill.
If we are to have more efficient local government—we have heard a lot tonight from hon. Members opposite about lack of efficiency in local government—one thing which makes it efficient is the maximisation of its facilities. There is no doubt that these facilities are not always maximised, and there are many

563
aspects of the Bill which seem to provide an excellent way of developing that sort of enterprise within the West Midlands and, indeed, within all other municipalities.
I urge hon. Members opposite to forget about all these hostages to fortune which have been put into the Bill. It is, after all, a portmanteau Bill. As has been said by one of my hon. Friends, local authorities do not often get the chance to introduce a Private Bill, and when they do get the chance they are advised to pack everything into it.
Mr. Gwilym Roberts: 1 accept that what we are discussing is a vital point of principle, but is not the reason why we have this portmanteau Bill the advice given by the Secretary of State to local authorities that they should take into account all the views of their district councils and include in their Bills a summary of those views?
Dr. Phipps: Yes, I accept the point. My own district council, the Dudley District Council, rejected for its own purposes a number of elements in it. On the other hand, there are other aspects of the Bill of which the district council would like to take advantage. It is inevitably a portmanteau Bill. However, these are matters with which we can deal in Committee.
There is only one other aspect on which I should like to touch and that is car racing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred so heatedly. I have never been a motor car racing fan. It seems to me to be a decadent activity. I have never been to watch it and I do not particularly like it. I have always thought that activities like mountain climbing and all the rest of those things which ex-public schoolboys now have to do because they no longer rule the Empire are not really sufficient reason for risking one's life in order to give it value, which is basically what people who drive racing cars do.
However, the matter has arisen in Birmingham because of the unique nature of the inner ring road, and this is how the idea of having a car race arose. To anyone who drives on the ring road it is rather like a car race. Once I am on it, I never seem to know how to get off it. I accept that the inconvenience
564
caused in the centre of Birmingham by a car race would be minimal. Anyone who goes to Birmingham city centre during the weekend finds it a windswept waste in which there are very few people indeed. I am therefore not personally opposed to the idea if this is what Birmingham people like. Where I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr is that this matter has to be put much more directly to the people of Birmingham if they are to have the race, but I do not think we ought to cut this out of the Bill on Second Reading.
Therefore, in supporting the Bill I appeal in particular to my hon. Friends to give to their own colleagues in the West Midlands area an opportunity to have this Private Bill, portmanteau or not, put before the Private Bill Committee in order that these matters can be argued. We should develop this fresh idea. It is something new. I should have thought that a municipal activity broadening the scope of enterprises offered to the public at large would merit the support of everybody on this side of the House.
9.30 p.m.
Mrs. Jill Knight: To date I have received 55 letters on the Bill, plus submissions from groups like the Business and Professional Women, the co-ops and the chambers of trade and commerce. Every one of them has been against the Bill. I also have a petition which is signed by 1,050 people of all political parties who strongly oppose the Bill. Some of the protesters object to the intended regulations on caravans and some to those relating to dogs. The vast majority object to the monstrous proposals to use ratepayers' money to engage in municipal trading.
The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) has totally missed the point about the Bill's purpose. Not only is it immoral to take a man's money and set up in competition against him—even robber barons, "Rachmen", highwaymen and the Mafia never stooped as low as that—it is not part of a local authority's function to provide the great British public with facilities for buying peas, pears, petrol, pork, printing, patty-cakes, powder, skis, running trunks or even little bits of china marked "A present from Smallbrook Ringway".

565
Ratepayers also object to being compelled to invest in commercial ventures which are not of their choosing. Objection is also taken to the blank cheque borrowing powers. However, there are far more objections than there is time to list them in the House this evening.
Like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) I want to refer to Part III of the Bill and the suggestion that a grand prix should be held in Birmingham's city centre. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr was right; there has not been the smallest attempt to inform or consult those who are affected by the proposals, thousands of whom are my constituents. There has been no public debate whatever, and although it may be true that both the Conservative and Labour chiefs on the West Midlands County Council agreed, neither of them lives adjacent to the area which would be used as the race track. I am no spoilsport, but it is not right to inflict such great inconvenience and suffering on ordinary people for the pleasures of the minority.
On the Saturday before the great race armies will move into the area and set up protective equipment, seats, pay booths and other such equipment. On that Saturday, work in the city is bound to be severely restricted and affected. On the Sunday there will be no possibility of anyone attending the church that they support if it happens to be in the city centre. It would be quite wrong to pass a regulation that meant that people could not attend their church.
Noise levels during the race would be immense. The noise of cars travelling at well over 100 mph underneath part of the freeway that runs through the city centre would bounce back from the walls. Recently a motor festival was held in the city. The noise level at that festival went far beyond the pain threshold and a decibel limit of 120 was recorded. It broke the existing pollution and nuisance laws.
Dr. Phipps: Concorde.
Mrs. Knight: The hon. Member for Dudley, West may say "Concorde", but there has been a deal of fuss already about the noise Concorde makes. It is all very well for him and for any other hon. Member to inflict that suffering on other people, but, like the hon. Member
566
for Perry Barr, I am concerned about those people who live near the race track.
Thousands of people would enter the city for the race. If they did not, the race would not pay. Therefore, not only would Saturday and Sunday be affected—because the race would continue throughout Sunday—but on Monday and Tuesday the armies would move in to remove the equipment that was erected on Saturday. Therefore, four days would be involved and the upset would affect my constituents and others who go into the city centre.
There would be tremendous parking problems for people coming in to see the racing. Where would visitors stay? I have in my hand a letter from a constituent of mine, a lady aged 74, who lives in a council tower block. She says that she is very worried. She does not think that all of the people coming to see the racing will be of good character. She asks where they will sleep. She says that during the period in which the racing is on she fears that the lifts and floors of her tower block will be used for sleeping and will be fouled.
That elderly lady has a perfect right to be allowed to live in peace and not to be upset by these proposals. There would undoubtedly be great danger to elderly people and to children.
I am concerned also about that part of the Bill which states that certain attachments can be placed on any dwelling adjacent to the race track. It states,
"Where attachments are affixed to a building under this subsection the Birmingham Council shall have the right as against any person having an interest in the building to alter or remove them, or to repair or maintain them".
I have had a lot of trouble with the council concerning constituents who want to put up notices on their premises—mainly shops and offices—and have not been allowed to do so. Under this clause attachments would be put on their property and they would have no rights in the matter whatever. This is a monstrous suggestion.
It is an incredibly stupid and unfeeling idea to propose running a grand prix in the centre of a city like Birmingham, and it will not work. I ask hon. Members to put themselves in the position of people who live adjacent to a race

567
track of the kind proposed. If it were proposed that a race track be built outside any of their houses I am sure that they would object—very reasonably so. This most unfeeling idea must be stopped. There are other tracks. It is rumoured that Castle Donington is soon to reopen. There is no case whatever for my constituents to be so upset and incommoded by what the Bill suggests.
9.37 p.m.
Sir Thomas Williams: Those who have proposed the Bill have done so in most moderate terms. I welcome many of the provisions that are concerned with improvement of life and of local government in the West Midlands. It is this that makes it very difficult for me to understand upon what principle it has been thought right to introduce the provisions contained in Part II.
Criticism has mainly been directed—although my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has introduced another somewhat disquieting factor—against the provisions in Part II. I cannot but feel that if it had not been for Part II the Bill would have stood an extremely good chance of going through the House tonight without opposition. The insistence, however, of including Part II has resulted in strong opposition not only from within the House but also from many organisations and individuals outside it.
Already about 27 petitions have been presented against Part II, and many thousands of people have expressed their opposition to it. Indeed, it is interesting to observe that those in opposition include some statutory authorities that not primarily affected by the Bill's provisions, such as the British Gas Corporation, the Severn-Trent Water Authority, the Midlands Electricity Board and the Post Office.
In addition, one finds it difficult to understand how the promoters of the Bill have been persuaded to force this matter through in a Bill having so many other commendable features. It has been apparent to the promoters over a very long period that not only those who might traditionally be expected to oppose it but even many of those who are its friends have been taken into the ranks of those
568
who oppose. I am a member of the Co-operative Group of Members of Parliament. The co-operative movement throughout the length and breadth of the land sees the Bill as a pathfinder to a way of life to which it is opposed.
The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has long since made plain to the promoters of the Bill its hostility on grounds that are very reasonable and not in any way factious.
Hon. Members have referred to the fears and anxieties that have been expressed by the members of USDAW and by the co-operative movement, both of whom, in their own way, seek to serve the public interest. In view of the shortness of time I shall not repeat those arguments. I shall merely say that by insisting upon introducing this aspect of the Bill and refusing either to compromise or to consult those whose interests are in many senses comparable with their own, the promoters of the Bill have placed those of us in the Co-operative Group of Members of Parliament and the USDAW Group of Members in a position in which we cannot support the Bill. If it were possible for us to support the Bill on the basis suggested by the Minister in his moderate and persuasive speech, we would so so.
However, we have considered the situation that would be created if we gave a Second Reading to the Bill, with much of whose contents we have a good deal of sympathy. We believe, having considered the matter, that the clauses in Part II have been so widely drawn that it would not be possible for a special Committee of the House to amend the Bill so that these clauses could be substantially altered. This is a matter of which the promoters have been warned. We are unable to support the Bill, but the responsibility for that must rest with those who, for whatever reasons—political or otherwise—have determined to pursue these clauses when they could have obtained the substantial measures they wanted if they had been prepared to compromise on this aspect.
Those of us who take this view are accused of being hysterical by our opposition. It is said that the policy of municipal trading has been so widely developed that it is unreasonable for those of us who take this view to object to the powers sought under what might

569
be called the general powers of the Bill to develop.
It must be understood that Clauses 5 to 13, which are the clauses about which we are most anxious, give Draconian powers of compulsory purchase, powers relating to planning, powers relating to the acquisition of undeveloped land under the Community Land Act, wide powers of investment and association, powers to borrow without the consent of the Secretary of State, and powers to deal with profits earned without saying what is to be done if there are losses. They are of such serious consequence that once granted, even though they might be used sensibly and fairly by those who now seek the powers, they empower succeeding local authorities to act in the manner that I have described.
These are matters of great concern, and because it is impossible to amend the Bill in the special Committee in the way the Minister suggested, those who feel as I do will be unable to support the Bill.
9.45 p.m.
Mr. John Stokes: The debate has been one of the most remarkable I have listened to in the five and a half years I have been a Member of the House. I have been sitting here since we began discussions and I think I am right to say that, apart from the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) and the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps), there has been no support for the main part of the Bill from either side of the House. Our victory tonight in defeating the Bill will be almost embarrassing in its proportions. This, however, is an occasion when the House of Commons uses its collective wisdom.
The Bill must be one of the most extraordinary to have come before the House. It must have been conceived by people who are entirely unpractical and unaware of the ways of the world. It must have been drafted by those with no knowledge of what is appropriate in a Private Bill. I think it is a matter of great indignity for the city of Birmingham because of the area's size and importance in the country.
We are discussing the Bill at a time when, unfortunately, all local government is under a cloud and is being criticised
570
for inefficiency, overstaffing and extravagance. The bare effrontery of bringing forward the Bill at a time when the Government are urging economy upon us all is almost beyond belief. The long-suffering ratepayers of the West Midlands want strict economy from their local authority, not a mad rush into matters for which the authority is unprepared, untrained and totally inexperienced.
The West Midlands is the most famous manufacturing area in England and 1 can assure the House, from the large correspondence I have had, that the Bill is offensive to manufacturers and traders. In the last 10 years local authority manpower has risen by 34 per cent. while manpower in manufacturing industry, which produces the wealth of the country, has declined by 7·3 per cent. Local authority spending has increased by about 55 per cent. in the same period.
My constituents feel strongly that further expenditure as envisaged by the Bill would be dangerous and highly irresponsible. Except for the great debate about our entry into the EEC and the dreadful Birmingham bombings, I have had more letters of protest about the Bill than on any other subject since I came to the House.
To add insult to injury, the council proposes to take powers to trade in an incredibly wide field with ratepayers' money, or with money borrowed on more favourable terms than a private firm or individual could obtain. It proposes to go into competition with ordinary business. Protests have poured in from all kinds of people.
The Bill appears to be State Socialism gone mad. The arrogance of the council is almost beyond belief. If municipal trading was allowed on the scale proposed, it would bankrupt many ordinary businesses and ruin many ratepayers. The commercial activities which are provided by the councils, such as building and maintenance, are notoriously less efficient than those of private enterprise. The West Midlands County Council simply does not have the outlook of the entrepreneur or the manpower.
When I think of the livelihood of hundreds of ordinary hardworking people in my constituency which is threatened by the Bill, I wonder what has happened to affairs in this country. These good

571
people deserve something better from those who are supposed to be their servants.
The Bill also gravely threatens individual liberty, not only in the highly dangerous provisions for the mad scheme of motor racing in the middle of Birmingham but also in the highly involved and expensive proposals about dogs and for severe limitations on the parking of caravans in private gardens. The Bill, I believe, is nothing but pettifogging interference with people's private lives, and I have had many protests about these clauses also. I trust that the Bill will be thrown out as the absurd monstrosity that it is.
9.52 p.m.
Mr. Geoff Edge: I welcome the Bill. I think that it has attracted more hysterical criticism than anything I can remember since I became a Member of Parliament. There are times when Parliament slips towards a political gutter, and I think that the opposition to the Bill has plumbed virtually every gutter in the country.
There is a basic distrust of the people in local government—of those who work their guts out voluntarily to run local authorities—and if the House refuses to give the Bill a Second Reading we are really saying that we refuse to trust the people in local government—not only Labour but Conservative and Independent councillors. I believe that local government people have had more than a rough time and a bad Press. They deserve more credit for the difficult job they have been trying to do in very astringent financial circumstances. They deserve a measure of trust from the House, and one measure of that trust would be to give the Bill a Second Reading.
The Bill is supported by the district councils and the County Council of the West Midlands, representing in total 2 million people. I do not think that the views of the elected representatives of 2 million people should be cast lightly aside.
I want to concentrate on two aspects. First, there is the question of municipal trading. It is possible for a local authority to engage in municipal trading at a profit. I am a member of one which does
572
precisely that. What is more, it is a policy supported not only by Labour members of the council but by Conservatives and Independents as well. It is an apolitical policy on the part of the council, with a desire to supplement, by trading, its rate revenue, and as such it is supported not only by all members of the council but by all members of the community, because they realise that if we are serious in asking local government to broaden the base of its revenue and that rates should not keep rising we have to give local government the opportunity of raising money elsewhere.
It is hypocritical of hon. Members opposite to say that they are so opposed to increases in rates when we have here a measure that could increase the potential revenue of local authorities. It is an example of the double standard that we have come to expect from hon. Members opposite. The Bill simply proposes to extend local authority activities in municipal trading purely as an ancillary to what they do now. If they produce a surplus of horticultural products, the Bill would enable them to sell it. Do hon. Members opposite want them to throw such a surplus into the dustbin? Is that good housekeeping for a local authority to practise?
What kind of illogical argument is that? It is an Alice-in-Wonderland argument. One cannot, on the one hand, argue to increase local authority revenues and, on the other, turn down legislation that will permit a local authority to sell off its surpluses in order to be able to reduce its rates.
My own local authority, with a population of 60,000, receives a revenue of £40,000 a year simply from its catering activities. The scope offered by the Bill through a modest extension of council activities is enormous. Therefore, I believe that those who oppose the Bill are misguided.
We have heard from those who have spoken on behalf of the co-operative movement. I come from a co-operative family. My father was a co-op manager for many years. I have never been so disgusted at the attitude of the co-operative movement as it has been displayed in the House tonight. Of course the Bill is not intended to drive retailers or co-ops out of work; it is simply an attempt by

573
a local authority to extend its trading activities to sell off surpluses. Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that the Bill's provisions will lead to a wholesale bankrupting of businesses.
We have heard a good deal of opposition from those who fear that these provisions will affect the rights of those who have caravans. Again, that opposition is illogical. If those hon. Members read the town and country planning Regulations they will find that there are already extensive controls covering modifications of property. Of course we want to protect the environment so that there is no drop in standards. It is surely illogical to seek to control brick-built extensions and not to control the siting of large vehicles. A person's environment can be ruined if a caravan or large vehicle is parked outside his premises on an almost permanent basis.
Clause 45 of the Bill is intended to prevent any violations of the environment. It is not intended to ban caravan rallies in the West Midlands. Surely the powers will not extend as far as Wales or Shrop-
shire. The clause seeks to prevent the fouling up of the environment by the parking of large vans or caravans on frontages. The power will be used only in limited cases. The amount of hysteria generated over Clause 45 only shows the extent of distortion to which the Bill's opponents are prepared to go.
I believe that the Bill offers great opportunities for the people of the West Midlands through their elected representatives to run their own affairs more efficiently and to take the powers which they believe to be right. They seek to attain administrative efficiency for their electorate——
Mr. Park 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 Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 268.

Division No. 63.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m

Archer, Peter

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Park, George

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Flannery, Martin

Parker, John

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Pendry, Tom

Bates, Alf

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Perry, Ernest

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Forrester, John

Phipps, Dr Colin

Bidwell, Sydney

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Freeson, Reginald

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Booth, Albert

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

George, Bruce

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Buchan, Norman

Grocott, Bruce

Rooker, J. W.

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Canavan, Dennis

Heffer, Eric S.

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Cant, R. B.

Huckfield, Les

Silverman, Julius

Carmichael, Neil

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Skinner, Dennis

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hunter, Adam

Snape, Peter

Cartwright, John

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Spriggs, Leslie

Clemitson, Ivor

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Stallard, A. W.

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Kerr, Russell

Strang, Gavin

Cohen, Stanley

Lambie, David

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Coleman, Donald

Lamond, James

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Lee, John

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Corbett, Robin

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Tierney, Sydney

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Litterick, Tom

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Crawshaw, Richard

Loyden, Eddie

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

McCartney, Hugh

Ward, Michael

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Madden, Max

Watkins, David

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Mahon, Simon

Watkinson, John

Deakins, Eric

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Dempsey, James

Maynard, Miss Joan

White, James (Pollock)

Dormand, J. D.

Mendelson, John

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Mikardo, Ian

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Dunnett, Jack

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Woof, Robert

Edge, Geoff

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Noble, Mike

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Oakes, Gordon

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Faulds, Andrew

O'Halloran, Michael

Mr. John Golding.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Awdry, Daniel

Aitken, Jonathan

Arnold, Tom

Baker, Kenneth

Alison, Michael

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Banks, Robert

Bell, Ronald

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Onslow, Cranley

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Page, John (Harrow W)

Benyon, W.

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Pardoe, John

Biffen, John

Havers, Sir Michael

Parkinson, Cecil

Biggs-Davison, John

Hawkins, Paul

Pattie, Geoffrey

Blaker, Peter

Hayhoe, Barney

Penhaligon, David

Body, Richard

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Percival, Ian

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hicks, Robert

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Bottomley, Peter

Higgins, Terence L.

Pink, R. Bonner

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Holland, Philip

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Hooson, Emlyn

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Bradford, Rev Robert

Hordern, Peter

Prior, Rt Hon James

Braine, Sir Bernard

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Brittan, Leon

Howell, David (Guildford)

Raison, Timothy

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Rathbone, Tim

Brotherton, Michael

Hunt, John

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hurd, Douglas

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Buck, Antony

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Budgen, Nick

James, David

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Bulmer, Esmond

Jessel, Toby

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Burden, F. A.

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Ridsdale, Julian

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Carlisle, Mark

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Carson, John

Jopling, Michael

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Churchill, W. S.

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Kershaw, Anthony

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Kilfedder, James

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Kimball, Marcus

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Clegg, Walter

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Cockcroft, John

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Royle, Sir Anthony

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Sainsbury, Tim

Cope, John

Knight, Mrs Jill

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Cordle, John H.

Knox, David

Scott, Nicholas

Cormack, Patrick

Lamont, Norman

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Corrie, John

Lane, David

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Costain, A. P.

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Shepherd, Colin

Critchley, Julian

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Shersby, Michael

Crouch, David

Lawrence, Ivan

Silvester, Fred

Crowder, F. P.

Lawson, Nigel

Sims, Roger

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Sinclair, Sir George

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Lloyd, Ian

Skeet, T. H. H.

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Loveridge, John

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Jame

Luce, Richard

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Drayson, Burnaby

McCrindle, Robert

Speed, Keith

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

McCusker, H.

Spence, John

Dunlop, John

Macfarlane, Neil

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Durant, Tony

MacGregor, John

Sproat, Iain

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Stainton, Keith

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Elliott, Sir William

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Stanley, John

Emery, Peter

Madel, David

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Eyre, Reginald

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Marten, Neil

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Mather, Carol

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Farr, John

Maude, Angus

Stokes, John

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Mawby, Ray

Stradling Thomas, J.

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Tapsell, Peter

Fookes, Miss Janet

Mayhew, Patrick

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Tebbit, Norman

Freud, Clement

Mills, Peter

Temple-Morris, Peter

Fry, Peter

Miscampbell, Norman

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

Mitchell, Davild (Basingstoke)

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Moate, Roger

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Monro, Hector

Townsend, Cyril D

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Montgomery, Fergus

Trotter, Neville

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Moonman, Eric

Tugendhat, Christopher

Glyn Dr Alan

Moore, John (Croydon C)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Goodhart, Philip

Morgan, Geraint

Viggers, Peter

Goodhew, Victor

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Goodlad, Alastair

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Wakeham, John

Gorst John

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Mudd, David

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Neave, Airey

Wall, Patrick

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Nelson, Anthony

Walters, Dennis

Gray, Hamish

Neubert, Michael

Warren, Kenneth

Griffiths, Eldon

Newton, Tony

Weatherill, Bernard

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Nott, John

Wells, John

Grylls, Michael

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

576

577

Wiggin, Jerry

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Winterton, Nicholas

Younger, Hon George

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Mr. Jim Lester.

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, as custodian of the rights of Back Benchers, to take into consideration the rules applying to the passage of Private Business through the House? It is clear that an unprecedented happening has occurred inasmuch as for the first time in the recollection of almost every hon. Member the official Opposition have applied a Whip to the passage of private legislation. Is it within your powers, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of the rights of Members and as the guiding eminence to the Chairman of Ways and Means, to advise the Chairman of Ways and Means to take into account the circumstances of his disgraceful intervention of party politics into the passage of private legislation?
Mr. Speaker: I thought it only fair to let the hon. Gentleman have his say, but Providence protects me from interfering in such matters.

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Clegg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order come out of the time for the Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Clegg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering whether you would perhaps invite the Patronage Secretary to illuminate us on the present position.
  Mr. Speaker: This is coming out of the Adjournment time.
  Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that earlier this evening the Opposition achieved by accident what they failed to achieve by design yesterday—[Interruption.]—in that the vote on this occasion was on a private——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Whip has nothing to do with the Chair.

CHILDREN OF GOD CULT
10.16 p.m.
Mr. John Hunt: I am very glad to have the opportunity of raising tonight a matter which has been of great concern to me for more than three years and which I have raised repeatedly since October 1972, both by means of parliamentary Questions and in correspondence with the Home Office. I refer to the activities of a sect calling themselves the Children of God.
I am bound to say that in my view the response of the Home Office—and, indeed, of the Metropolitan Police—to the representations from myself and many others on this matter has been one of general complacency and indifference.
The activities of this sect were first brought to my attention at my advice service in Bromley in October 1972. At that time the sect had established its headquarters in Bromley, and I began to receive many complaints about the strange teachings of the sect and about the mystery leader, Mr. David Berg, who goes under the name of Moses and distributes letters and pamphlets to what he calls his communes. These letters and pamphlets bear little resemblance to the teaching of Christianity and are in some cases blatantly pornographic.
I have also been concerned about the way in which the young people were recruited into this sect and, once they were in, deliberately alienated from their parents, from the Church and from society itself.
I am told that new converts are made to sign a document under which they promise
"to give all my goods and income, to let you open my mail and to obey rules and officers."
It is not surprising, therefore, that young people, particularly those with wealthy parents or, better still, with a private income of their own, are of particular interest to the sect.
There is evidence, too, that teenagers in a depressed or unbalanced state of mind—perhaps because of the pressure of examinations or of some domestic conflict—are also particularly vulnerable to the approaches from the Children of God.
580
On 22nd October 1972 I wrote to the then Home Secretary, and in a reply dated 30th November 1972 my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle)—whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber, and who was at that time Minister of State, Home Office—told me:
"Although the way of life of the Bromley commune may be thought unorthodox, local police have found no evidence to substantiate allegations that the organisation has been guilty of any breach of the criminal law."
He went on to say, referring to powers under the Aliens Order:
"There do not seem sufficient grounds for using these powers generally to prevent the admission to this country of adherents of the Children of God cult, but their activities will be kept under review and the Immigration Rules will be enforced to deny entry to any individuals who are considered by the immigration officer to be personally undesirable."
A few days later I was told, in reply to another parliamentary Question, that over 150 aliens had been permitted to enter the United Kingdom in connection with the Children of God movement in 1972. In December 1974 I was told that up to that date no one had been either refused admission or deported on the ground of membership of the Children of God sect. Yet in spite of the mounting evidence of the undesirable activities of these people, and the heartbreaking accounts from parents whose children had been abducted into this sect, nothing was done.
Let me quote just three letters from the scores I was receiving in 1974. One letter was from Swindon and it said:
"My son, who is 15, has been under their influence for about two years and as a result is very unhappy and at times almost deranged."
Another letter, from Clapham, said
"In May of this year my brother suddenly and mysteriously left his job and disappeared leaving us (his parents and five brothers and sisters) not knowing where he had gone or what had happened to him."
It went on to say:
"Since he joined this community he has been completely cut off from, not only us, but all his friends; in fact he has rejected us all and seems to have become quite a different person."
A letter from Dorking said
"My 18 year old daughter recently out of a convent public school, was picked up by the Children of God at Victoria and taken to a house and disco club in Pimlico. She was at that time—in July—being treated by a psychiatrist for adolescent depression and was in a most suggestible state."

581
The letter continued:
"Her total rejection of the love of her friends and family, and particularly the rejection of her 8 year old sister, is a cruelty which she would not normally be capable of doing, let alone wanting to do."
All this indicates the degree of family distress caused by what I would call these disciples of dissension and deceit.
At about that time in September 1974 the Attorney-General of the State of New York published a revealing and disturbing report on the activities of the Children of God which included documented allegations of rape, kidnapping and brainwashing. In the light of that report I asked our own Attorney-General whether he would institute his own inquiry into their activities in this country. On 19th June last year he again refused to do so. Subsequently, however, the Home Secretary decided—and I welcomed his action, however belated—to ask the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to inquire into the activities of the sect in the United Kingdom. This investigation was completed last October.
In a Written Answer to me the Under-Secretary of State said:
"It is not, of course, for us to express a view on whether the activities of this group are or are not desirable. Their activities concern the police only in so far as it is necessary to consider whether criminal offences may have been committed by anyone in pursuance of those activities; and they concern my right hon. Friend in so far as it is necessary to consider whether they should affect the exercise of immigration control over people connected with the group. The inquiries disclose no present grounds for further action."—[Official Report, 16th October 1975; Vol. 897, c. 753–4.]
The use of the word "further" in that context implied that there had already been action. But, apart from the investigation which was set up, nothing had been done. It is of this protracted inactivity on the part of the Home Office that I am complaining tonight.
The point I want to put strongly is this. Bearing in mind the American leadership of the Children of God, if the sect operating in the United Kingdom were to be deprived of the presence of those American leaders it would, in my estimation, very quickly wilt and wither away.
I should like to know how many American citizens are currently holding work permits to enable them to operate
582
in this country with the Children of God and why those permits cannot be revoked or, at least, not renewed. I submit that working with the Children of God can hardly be classified as gainful employment. I contend that the American leaders of the sect are undesirable aliens and that the people of this country, particularly the young people, would be well rid of these religious charlatans.
Admittedly, the indications are that the operations of the sect in this country are now contracting, but I see no reason why we should not help to accelerate that process. The signs are that many of its activities are now being transferred to the Continent and that many of the young people currently being recruited into the Children of God in this country are promptly shipped over to Europe to join there one of the communes, or colonies as they are called. I hope that, if that is so, European Governments are being alerted to the activities of these people and that Interpol will be on the watch for them.
The growth of the Children of God in recent years in this country and elsewhere illustrates how gullible and immature young people can be persuaded to join a sect of this kind, of highly dubious motives and objectives. I believe that it is our duty to protect people from this kind of religious confidence trick and to warn their parents and themselves against these people. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance to the parents of these people and to me. I await her reply with great interest.
10.26 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): I am glad that the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) has taken this opportunity to raise the question of the activities of the Children of God cult in the United Kingdom. This is a question in which he has taken a considerable interest, and I appreciate his concern about the disturbing allegations which have been made about the cult.
The group known as the Children of God was founded in 1968 in the United States of America. Its founder is a man named David Berg, otherwise known as

583
Moses. It is a self-styled youth evangelistic movement, which subsequently set up branches in such diverse countries as Mexico, Japan and Australia. Like other cults of American origin, it also crossed the Atlantic and became established here, though the number of its members in this country is not thought to have ever exceeded 200 or 300. I understand that members live in small communities or "families", run by "elders" who are often American.
There have been reports that converts are required to hand over their possessions and money to the group, and members do not continue in outside employment. One of the cult's main sources of income appears to come from the sale of literature, about which I shall speak more fully later. Members of the cult are believed to live an austere existence based on the cult's interpretation of the teachings of the New Testament. Life in the communities involves intensive study of the New Testament and all members adopt biblical names. It would appear that contact with non-believers in the sect is discouraged. Throughout the teachings and practice of the cult, it is apparent that the founder, David Berg, exerts a considerable influence.
The organisation has a respectable face. Its stated aims are
"to advance the Christian religion…particularly amongst the poor, sick, drug addicts and those who resort to taking drugs, vagrants, beggars and social outcasts".
But the activities of the cult have also given rise to concern among some of those who have come into contact with it. The hon. Member has explained some of the reasons for this concern. In particular, a number of complaints have been made by parents that their children who have joined the cult have become alienated from them; and the literature produced by the group is regarded in some quarters as offensive and obscene.
The complaints concern different authorities. First, there is the question of breaches of the criminal law; it is for the police to investigate any complaint which amounts to an allegation that a criminal offence has been committed. Second, there is the question of the organisation's charitable status: this is a matter for the Charity Commission rather than the Home Secretary, who has no responsibility for
584
the day-to-day work of the Commissioners or for their handling of individual cases. Since I have some developments to report on the cult's charitable status—which will, no doubt, be of interest to the House—I shall deal with that aspect first before going on to the police aspects.
The cult was entered in the Central Register of Charities on 5th April 1974. I should make it clear that inclusion in the register does not indicate that the Charity Commissioners approve the objects of an organisation. Provided that its articles are charitable in law, the Commissioners are obliged under the provisions of the Charities Act 1960 to register it. Under the Act, however, the Commissioners also have an obligation to ensure, as far as they are able, that charitable funds are applied to the charitable purpose. In this connection they asked the Children of God in 1975 to withdraw a number of their leaflets which, in the view of the Commissioners, were not in furtherance of the organisation's charitable purpose and about which they had received a number of complaints.
Early this year the Commissioners were informed through the organisation's solicitors that the majority of its members had now gone on missionary service overseas and that, due to the greatly reduced size of its membership, the organisation felt incapable of carrying on the administrative work of a charity and no longer regarded itself as a charity. Accordingly, in January the Commissioners notified the organisation's representative that the Children of God had been removed from the register of charities and reminded her of the obligation to supply the Commissioners with the accounts of the charity up to the date of the removal showing how any balance of assets had been dealt with. Therefore, on the basis of this information, it would seem that the activities of the cult in this country have been, and will be, considerably curtailed.
Mr. Hunt: Before the hon. Lady leaves that point, can she say whether those accounts have been supplied to the Charity Commissioners, or are they still waiting for the accounts?
Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member that information at the moment, but I shall write and let him know whether the accounts have

585
been submitted or whether they are being examined by the Charity Commissioners.
I come now to the police aspects. With regard to the complaints of alienation, there have been, as the hon. Member said, distressing instances, a number of which have been brought to the attention of the Home Office, where young people have joined the Children of God and, as a result, have left their home, given up their possessions, abandoned their careers and refused to keep in touch with their parents, regarding them as non-believers. It has been claimed that the sect itself deliberately fosters feelings of hatred towards families and former friends. There have even been allegations that converts who subsequently become disillusioned are prevented from returning home. Confronted with sudden changes in attitudes in children whom they formerly believed they knew well, parents have feared that brainwashing techniques have been employed.
I should like to make it plain that I have every sympathy with parents whose children become estranged from them in these circumstances. I can quite appreciate their distress. However, I must point out that in the majority of cases involving the Children of God brought to the notice of the Home Office the young people involved have been 18 years old or more. Distressing as it may be, these young people are adults who have the right to choose to live their own life; and, respite the allegations of threats, inducements, coercion and abduction, I am not aware of any case where such criminal activities have come to light. If any hon. Member, or any constituent, considers that he has such evidence, I ask him to bring it to the attention of the police so that it can be properly investigated.
As regards the cult's literature, there have been complaints that it is indecent, obscene, racialist and subversive. It is true that the contents of the organisation's pamphlets present a startling contrast to other publications sold as Christian literature. The language often seems crude and the tone spiteful and aggressive. There have been two prosecutions of members for selling indecent literature, but I understand that it is not considered to date that the pamphlets
586
provide grounds for prosecution as being obscene or contravening the Race Relations Acts.
The collection of money or sale of articles for charitable and other purposes, in the street or other public place, is subject to regulations made by local licensing authorities under the Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916. These regulations apply to any, collection or sale of articles, except for the normal purposes of trade, whether or not the organisation to benefit is charitable in law. In 1974 and the early part of 1975 a number of cases of unauthorised street collections on behalf of the Children of God were reported to the Metropolitan Police and there were several convictions for such unauthorised street collections in the Metropolitan Police District. Again, it is open to any member of the public to draw the attention of the police to any alleged offence.
Apart from those minor offences, despite the complaints received there has been no evidence that the organisation has been involved in criminal activities in this country.
However, in the autumn of 1974 there were disturbing reports in the Press of a report which had been made by the Charity Frauds Bureau to the Attorney-General of New York about the activities of the cult in the United States. The report pieced together information from a number of sources and contained allegations of criminal offences such as rape, brainwashing, kidnapping and forgery. As a result, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asked the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to establish the extent to which it was considered by the American authorities that the allegations were proved and would result in criminal proceedings, and to establish whether there was any evidence of similar criminal activities in this country.
As the hon. Member pointed out, the ensuing investigation took several months and it was not until October last that I was able to report, in reply to his Question, that the Commissioner had completed his inquiries. He had informed my right hon. Friend that it was understood that there were to be no prosecutions in the United States and that inquiries in this country had not produced any evidence of criminal activities here. The

587
inquiries therefore disclosed no grounds for action by the police, and this remains the position today. I repeat, however, that if any hon. Member or any member of the public has evidence, he should certainly submit it to the police for investigation.
I now come to the point about immigration that the hon. Member raised. There are no special immigration restrictions imposed on the Children of God. They are dealt with as individuals under the Immigration Rules in the same way as other foreigners and no special difficulties have arisen. On the evidence at present available, the Government are not satisfied that the case has been made out for immigration restrictions on the movement.
As regards the number of members, for which the hon. Member asked, I do not have specific numbers in relation to American citizens—which I think was his question—but the number of foreign members of the sect believed to be in the United Kingdom at present is about 50.
I am aware that this reply will be a disappointment to the hon. Member, who would appear to have been pressing for
588
some curtailment of the cult's activities which would presumably be achieved by some change in the law to make membership of the sect illegal. I do not wish to criticise those who exert such pressure. I know they do so from the best of motives. This country, however, is rightly proud of its traditions of freedom of speech and expression. I do not think that anyone in this House would wish to see those freedoms unnecessarily curtailed.
I accept that we must protect those who are vulnerable. However, we must also allow each other the freedom of choice, if necessary, to make our own mistakes. A free society is not one in which a person is entitled to hold and practise only beliefs which are considered right and proper and wholesome by the Government of the day. A free society is one in which a person is allowed to hold beliefs and engage in activities which hon. Members or I may consider foolish, misguided, far-fetched, dubious or even distasteful, provided that he does not step into the area which is the proper concern of the law.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENERGY
  Dragon Project
  Dragon Project
  Winfrith Nuclear Establishment
  Winfrith Nuclear Establishment
  Capital Investment
  Capital Investment
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Research
  Nuclear Research
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fire Precautions (Hotels)
  Fire Precautions (Hotels)
  Obscenity
  Obscenity
  Immigrants' Children Abroad
  Immigrants' Children Abroad
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Overseas Visitors
  Overseas Visitors
  Illiteracy
  Illiteracy
  Immigrant Criminals
  Immigrant Criminals
  Students
  Students
SCOTLAND
  Hunterston
  Hunterston
  Housing Co-operatives
  Housing Co-operatives
  Grant-aided Schools
  Grant-aided Schools
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  Rural Transport
  Rural Transport
  Industry (Aberdeen)
  Industry (Aberdeen)
  Local Government Costs
  Local Government Costs
  Hill Farming (Compensatory Allowances)
  Hill Farming (Compensatory Allowances)
  Council Houses Vacant
  Council Houses Vacant
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Scottish Trades Union Congress
  Scottish Trades Union Congress
  Devolution
  Devolution
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Technical Education (Highlands and Islands)
  Technical Education (Highlands and Islands)
  Glasgow District Council
  Glasgow District Council
  Crofters
  Crofters
  Fire Precautions (Hotels)
  Fire Precautions (Hotels)
  Housing (Strathclyde)
  Housing (Strathclyde)
  Police (Strathclyde)
  Police (Strathclyde)
  Selkirk (House Demolition Compensation)
  Selkirk (House Demolition Compensation)
ENVIRONMENT
  Richmond Park
  Richmond Park
  Driving and Vehicle Licence Centre
  Driving and Vehicle Licence Centre
  Defence Lands (Newport, Gwent)
  Defence Lands (Newport, Gwent)
  Highway Code
  Highway Code
  M66 (Bury)
  M66 (Bury)
  Railwaymen's Pensions
  Railwaymen's Pensions
  Road Fund Licences (Prosecutions)
  Road Fund Licences (Prosecutions)
  Car Rallies
  Car Rallies
  Noise Nuisances (Prosecutions)
  Noise Nuisances (Prosecutions)
  Rents and Costs (Council Houses)
  Rents and Costs (Council Houses)
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
  Buses
  Buses
  Aerosols
  Aerosols
  Lorry Routes (Suffolk)
  Lorry Routes (Suffolk)
  Dual Carriageways
  Dual Carriageways
  Municipal Trading
  Municipal Trading
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Rating (Empty Properties)
  Rating (Empty Properties)
  Property Damage (Road Traffic)
  Property Damage (Road Traffic)
  New Towns (House Sales)
  New Towns (House Sales)
  A17 (Norfolk Villages Bypass)
  A17 (Norfolk Villages Bypass)
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  Rate Support Grant (Hampshire)
  Rate Support Grant (Hampshire)
  Transport Policy
  Transport Policy
  London Rates Equalisation Scheme
  London Rates Equalisation Scheme
  Transport (Employment Discrimination)
  Transport (Employment Discrimination)
  Pelican Crossing, Sittingbourne
  Pelican Crossing, Sittingbourne
SOCIAL SERVICES
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
  Old People
  Old People
  Patients' Case Histories
  Patients' Case Histories
  Andrew Philip Brown
  Andrew Philip Brown
  Prescription by Telephone
  Prescription by Telephone
  Hospitals (Emergency Departments)
  Hospitals (Emergency Departments)
  Out-patient Clinics
  Out-patient Clinics
  National Health Service Employees' Pensions
  National Health Service Employees' Pensions
  Mentally-Handicapped Persons
  Mentally-Handicapped Persons
  Food Poisoning (Poultry)
  Food Poisoning (Poultry)
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Hospitals (Complaints)
  Hospitals (Complaints)
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Geriatric Beds (Leicester)
  Geriatric Beds (Leicester)
  Leicestershire Hospitals
  Leicestershire Hospitals
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  National Health Service Employees
  National Health Service Employees
  Health Services Expenditure (Trent)
  Health Services Expenditure (Trent)
  Age Action Year
  Age Action Year
  West Indian Children
  West Indian Children
  Heating Allowances
  Heating Allowances
  Fuel Bill Arrears
  Fuel Bill Arrears
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Angola
  Angola
  United States Bicentenary
  United States Bicentenary
  Chile
  Chile
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Passports
  Passports
  Buffer Stocks
  Buffer Stocks
CIVIL SERVICE
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Medical Treatment
  Medical Treatment
  Industrial Democracy
  Industrial Democracy
DEFENCE
  Naval Vessels
  Naval Vessels
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Low-Flying Aircraft
  Low-Flying Aircraft
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Gaelic
  Gaelic
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  School Classes (Size)
  School Classes (Size)
  British Film Institute
  British Film Institute
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Meat Storage
  Meat Storage
  Regional Rate
  Regional Rate
  Factories
  Factories
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  UNCTAD Proposals
  UNCTAD Proposals
  Guatemala
  Guatemala
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  MEDICAL AND DENTAL STAFF
  MEDICAL AND DENTAL STAFF
WALES
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Sports and the Arts
  Sports and the Arts
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Planning Inquiries
  Planning Inquiries
  A55 (Abergele)
  A55 (Abergele)
  Footpaths
  Footpaths
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
EMPLOYMENT
  Thorne, Yorkshire
  Thorne, Yorkshire
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
  Falsework
  Falsework
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
  Skelmersdale
  Skelmersdale
  Travel-to-Work Areas
  Travel-to-Work Areas
  Wages
  Wages
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Community Directive 118/71
  European Community Directive 118/71
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Butter Stocks
  Butter Stocks
  COURT ROOMS
  COURT ROOMS
  JUDGES' AND MAGISTRATES' SALARIES
  JUDGES' AND MAGISTRATES' SALARIES
  LAWYERS' FEES
  LAWYERS' FEES
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Opposition Parties (Financial Aid)
  Opposition Parties (Financial Aid)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Widows' Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
  Widows' Income Tax
  Widows' Income Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Bank Notes
  Bank Notes
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Public Sector Lending
  Public Sector Lending
  Immigrants' Remittances
  Immigrants' Remittances
  Bilderberg Meetings
  Bilderberg Meetings
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
INDUSTRY
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Trading Income
  Trading Income
  Skelmersdale
  Skelmersdale
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Price Restraint
  Price Restraint
    PRICE CHECK
    PRICE CHECK
  Patents
  Patents
  Children's Clothes
  Children's Clothes
  Fuel Supplies and Disconnections
  Fuel Supplies and Disconnections
  Pensioners (Expenditure Patterns)
  Pensioners (Expenditure Patterns)
TRADE
  Textiles
  Textiles
  British Airways Corporation Pensions
  British Airways Corporation Pensions
  Shipping (Liner Code Convention)
  Shipping (Liner Code Convention)
  New Zealand
  New Zealand
  Commodity Agreements (Developing Countries)
  Commodity Agreements (Developing Countries)
  Export Credits
  Export Credits
  Clothes
  Clothes
  Film Industry
  Film Industry

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.

LORD McCARTHY
William Edward John McCarthy, Esquire, having been created Baron McCarthy, of Headington in the County of Oxford, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Crowther-Hunt and the Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and made the solemn Affirmation.

PERSONAL SOCIAL SERVICES EXPENDITURE
2.46 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will advise local authorities of the undesirability of cutting back expenditure on day centres and meals on wheels services, in their necessary drive for financial savings.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, following the recent rate support grant settlement for 1976–77 we have advised local authorities that, while the provision in the settlement for current expenditure on personal social services allows no scope for general improvement next year, priority should be given to the maintenance of the effectiveness of the field services, domiciliary services, and to services for children. It is, however, for individual local authorities to consider their own priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he realises that these two services affect aged and often lonely people, that the day centres provide about five hours a day of friendship
78
and companionship over a mid-day meal, and that the meals on wheels service means that at least one visitor to speak to calls each day? Will he consider making both of these services statutory on the local authorities?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, I should have to take advice on the matter of whether this should be mandatory on local authorities. But I think I should point out to your Lordships that in the 12 months ending 31st March 1975, 23·5 million meals on wheels were served. This is an increase of about 14 per cent. over the previous three years.
In addition to meals on wheels, in the 12 months ending 31st March 1975, there were 14·4 million meals served in clubs and similar establishments, mainly to old and disabled people. With regard to the number of day centres, on 31st March 1975, there were in local authority day centres—if I may be permitted to give round figures—over 10,000 places for the elderly, over 3,000 places for the mentally ill, over 10,000 places for the physically handicapped and over 8,000 places in mixed centres. In the three years which ended 31st March 1975 the number of places in local authority day centres has increased overall by about 13 per cent. per annum. I cannot give your Lordships the number of day centres which are run by voluntary organisations, but I believe the number to be quite substantial.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that both of these services involve a tremendous amount of voluntary effort, especially meals on wheels? They provide very economic services as well as very important ones. Therefore I think we all consider that these are the last services which ought to be cut.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of something of which I ought to have informed your Lordships. I think that every one of your Lordships will appreciate the fact that about 60 per cent. of the meals on wheels are served wholly or mainly by voluntary organisations, to whom I am sure we are all grateful.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, would the Minister agree that meals on wheels is a way of keeping in their own homes people who might otherwise have to be put into institutions, and is also a way of keeping at work people who are looking after those old people? Would he agree that this is not only a humane but an economic service, which ought not to becut on economic as well as social grounds?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I entirely agree—and I know that my Department agrees—with what the noble Baroness has said. We have given a good deal of consideration to this matter, and the noble Baroness will be interested to know that the Department is initiating research into meals provision and day centres for the elderly in an attempt to find out the real need of old people for these services and the most effective and cost-effective forms of providing them. I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness has said.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would agree that the service is not just for the elderly but also for the crippled and the blind? This is a very good service for all three categories. I have delivered meals and know that very often it is the only contact that these people have with the outside world. May I further remind him that they pay towards this. It is not a completely free service, and never in my experience have people either refused to pay or not had their money ready when we arrived. Therefore, I should like to suggest—
Several Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness VICKERS: May I ask the noble Lord whether this is not the last service that we should consider cutting at the present time?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can only repeat that we must leave it to the discretion of local authorities. We have made our position perfectly clear. We have said that we do not want to see cuts in certain services, and I do not think that we can go beyond that. I pointed out to your Lordships that there were 14·4 million meals served in clubs and similar institutions not only to the old but also to disabled people. We are aware of the needs. So far as cost is con-
80
cerned, my information is that some local authorities provide meals as a voluntary service, and others make a charge. I believe it to be discretionary.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some local authorities, in exercising their discretion, make services like these and similar social services their first target for cuts? Will he give some assurance that, where there is evidence that a local authority has drastically reduced these services against the public interest, the Government will not only give them advice but take some action?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if its attention was called to such reductions, I think tht my Department would be prepared to do something in the matter.

TELEVISION PROGRAMME CONTENT
Lord KINNAIRD: 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 there is any limit beyond which broadcasting companies are not allowed to go in the use of obscene language in televised plays; and whether they will consider introducing a system of certificates, such as is used in the film industry.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, responsibility in matters of programme content rests entirely with the broadcasting authorities —the Board of Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority—who are appointed as trustees for the public interest in broadcasting. The introduction of a system of certificates would be a matter for those authorities.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for that rather discouraging reply. May I first ask him: is it not disturbing that this undesirable language is constantly hurled into the middle of our homes without time even to bolt the back door?

81
Secondly, does he not think it a matter of considerable concern that the ears of the growing generation are being acclimatised to this unexpected sort of language? Will he therefore please do everything in his power to urge greater responsibility not only from those who produce our television plays but also from those in authority over them?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Lord said that my reply was to some extent discouraging. I was simply stating what is in fact the position; namely, that matters of this sort are for the BBC and the IBA and not for the Government. If the House reflects on this matter, I think it will come to the conclusion that it is a mistake to invite Governments to become involved in the content of broadcasting.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, while accepting the noble Lord's point of view, may I ask him what self-disciplines are observed by the Corporations with respect to the use of obscene language, particularly during children's programmes?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I do not want to continue to repeat the two replies I have already given. I shall certainly ensure that the points which have been made in the House are drawn to the attention of the BBC and the IBA. I think that they are aware of criticisms of this sort, which have been made on a number of occasions, but it is for them to take appropriate action.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, in that case, will the noble Lord draw the attention of the BBC particularly to the recent Robin Hood series, which was broadcast during children's viewing periods, and which, in my view at least, was a public disgrace?

WESTERN SAHARA
2.57 p.m.
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 their Representative on the United Nations Security Council will
82
propose that the future status of Western Sahara should be decided by a plebiscite under United Nations supervision.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the United Kingdom voted in favour of Resolutions 3458A and 3458B on 10th December, both of which called for an act of self-determination by Western Sahara. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has instructed Mr. Rydbeck, his Special Representative on the Western Sahara, to enter into consultations about implementing these resolutions. Her Majesty's Government welcome this development and also the efforts of a number of Arab countries to bring about a reduction of tension in the area.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while greatly welcoming that reply may I ask this question? In view of the imminent prospect of some revolt within Western Sahara by the movement demanding independence, and the participation of Algeria which is not demanding territory but which is claiming self-determination (which Her Majesty's Government support), cannot Her Majesty's Government seek to speed the report from the Special Representative on the Western Sahara with a view to the implementation of the Security Council resolution?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we would certainly wish to speed in every way possible the investigation of Mr. Rydbeck, who, by the way, got to Madrid on 3rd February and I understand will be visiting the area itself and possibly adjacent countries. As to the imminence of disturbance in the territory, I am not informed that it is all that imminent. In the meantime, as I indicated in my first Answer, a number of Arab countries have been active in reducing tension between certain countries in Western Africa, not without some success.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the full meaning of a plebiscite and all its implications are properly understood by the natives of Western Sahara?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I certainly imagine that it would

83
form part of the efforts of Mr. Rydbeck and of the Secretary-General that any plebiscite that is held in this territory is understood as fully as possible by those taking part in it.

SOVIET FREIGHT RATES AND TRADE PRACTICES
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the conference arranged by the Western democratic countries on the freight rates charged by the Soviet Union for cargo shipping.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Baroness may have misunderstood my remarks in answer to her Question of 28th January. No conference has been arranged, but the Western maritime countries, in two international fora, have discussed the Question of Eastern bloc shipping activity in the course of their recent meetings. The matter will continue to be considered internationally.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I inform him that there was no misunderstanding on my part? Would he agree that when my Question was answered I got a reasonably satisfactory reply? May I again ask for an assurance that, from wherever the action comes, it is up to both this Government and the Western democracies to see that British shipping is not put out of action by those behind the Iron Curtain, particularly the Soviet Union, who are making it almost impossible on a reasonably competitive basis for our shipping to remain in full-time operation? Is it not a fact that we really must take some action now?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right in that the interests of the United Kingdom are greater than those of our partners in Western Europe because we are one of the major maritime Powers. We are very much aware of this but we cannot move alone; we have to move in concert with
84
our friends in the shipping world, and that we are doing. As I said in my previous reply, the situation is not yet damaging, but there is a threat to the future which we are watching most carefully.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to explain what he meant when he said that there was not a conference but there were fora? Do fora move more quickly than conferences?
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the Russians entered the freight trade last September with the declared objective of gaining 30 per cent. of world shipping freight trade which they did not already have? Are we in fact acting in concert with other Western European nations? Are we in agreement with them and do we have a policy which is in line with theirs? May I ask the noble Lord also to say whether any consideration is being given to the requirement now being made in the United States that any foreign freight at an artificially low rate should justify its action before a federal maritime commission?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, perhaps one of the reasons why there is confusion here is that two separate issues are at stake. There are the issues of (shall we say?) bilateral trade between ourselves and the USSR, which are governed by an agreement between us, and there are the problems of what is known as the cross trade—I suppose, tramping—which is what we are really talking about today. We cannot act alone; we must act in concert with our friends in the maritime industry and that is what we are doing. Perhaps I should add that because we are, in this particular group, the major maritime Power we must give a lead, but we cannot move alone.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I always thought the Opposition believed that competition was the dynamic force which made capitalism successful? Why are noble Lords opposite complaining now?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in the terms of our agreement with the Soviet Union it is "fair competition" which is the dynamic force. There is such a thing as unfair competition.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the Eastern fleets constitute what is virtually dumping? Would he further agree that the long-term effect will be very serious for our shipyards?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: If it were allowed to get out of hand, yes, my Lords, but I do not think we shall let it get out of hand.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, while my noble friend is trying to help the British shipping industry, may I ask if he will also suggest to those concerned that they should place more of their orders with British firms instead of placing 70 per cent. of them with Japanese and German shipyards as at present?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: That is a different economic question, my Lords.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, having listened to the Minister's helpful reply, may I ask him when he will be ready for me to put down another Question to see how we are getting on over this?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to answer the noble Baroness.

CIVIL AVIATION POLICY
3.5 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Winter-bottom will repeat a statement on future civil aviation policy.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): My Lords, on behalf of the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, that the Lord Sherfield be added to the Select Committee on the European Communities in the place of
86
the Lord Hill of Luton resigned.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Baroness TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, on behalf of the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the second Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. Use of facilities of the House by Peers who have not taken their seats:
The Committee have considered whether a Peer who has not taken his scat should be allowed to use the facilities of the House.
They recommend that a Peer should not be allowed to use the facilities of the House, other than the right to sit on the steps of the Throne, before he has taken his seat for the first time.
2. Parliament Office:
The Committee authorised the temporary appointment of an additional Clerk for Select Committee duties.

THE POLITICAL AND ELECTORAL SYSTEM
3.6 p.m.
Lord BYERS Lord BYERS rose to call attention to the rapidly declining efficiency of the British political system arising largely from the use of an electoral system for Parliamentary and other elections which does not represent the true wishes of those who vote; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this will not turn into a narrow debate on proportional representation. I would invite the House to go wider and deeper on this subject, which I believe is of vital importance to the future of this country. Traditionally, the argument for abandoning the present electoral system in favour of one which is proportionately representative has been the injustice suffered by minority Parties through their under-representation. Traditionally, too, the arguments in favour of retaining the present system have centred on the need for stable government. However, in the past two or

87
three years new dimensions have been added to this whole subject as more people have come to study this matter in greater depth. These studies challenge the very premises on which the opponents of electoral reform found their arguments, and many of us now believe that there is a direct causal relationship between our social and economic crises and the system by which we elect our House of Commons.
For the last 10 to 12 years we have had neither proper representation nor stable government. Between October 1964 and October 1974 there were no less than five General Elections and three changes of Government. Only two of those elections produced a substantial working majority in Parliament for a single Party. But the frequency of those elections meant that the Government of the day were concerned primarily with their electoral prospects rather than with the longer term interests of the country. The result has been disastrous as far as continuity of management of the economy is concerned and is one of the major causes of the loss of confidence on the part of the industrial and business community.
The truth is that the present "first past the post" or "winner takes all" system of voting entrenches what has rightly been called adversary politics or, as some might prefer, the politics of the two-Party confrontation. This atmosphere in which the Parties have been working in the last decade has exaggerated the differences between Government and Opposition, with each of the two Parties when out of office committing itself so often to out-right opposition to Government proposals which differed only marginally from those which they themselves had sponsored when in offce. A classic example, one in which I have an interest, is the three attempts to introduce legislation concerning occupational pensions. Over a period of more than 15 years this has been a nightmare for the pensions industry and an extensive waste of valuable commercial, Civil Service and Parliamentary time and ability.
Similarly, over too long a period there was no consensus between the Conservative and Labour Parties on which to build an enduring structure of industrial relations. We have also witnessed the
88
Socialist, Wilsonian, time-wasting farce over our membership of the EEC. The Labour Party created the opening for entry and then shuffled its feet in all directions for fear of the immediate electoral consequences. We now have the Conservative Party calling for substantial cuts in public expenditure which I do not believe they would ever consider if they were in office. We have the Labour Party incurring new expenditure of thousands of millions of pounds to fulfil what many of us consider an ill thought-out Party Manifesto. All this has contributed to a dangerous cynicism in the public mind about politics, politicians and democracy itself. The impact upon industry has been starkly set out in the recent report of the Financial Economic Development Council which said:
"The comparatively low level of investment since the mid-1960s has not been caused by shortage of funds. Instead, the prime constraining factors seem to have been a lack of confidence in the consistency of Government economic policy."
Much of what I have already said is taken from the evidence which my Party has submitted to the Hansard Committee on Electoral Reform. This evidence was produced by Mr. William Wallace and Mr. Tony Richards. The Hansard Committee on Electoral Reform is, as your Lordships will know, presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Blake. He has written me a letter—which I received this morning—in which he asks me to apologise to your Lordships for not being present today. He has commitments which he cannot get out of but he would have liked to take part in the debate if only to have said something about the Commission's progress and when it hoped to report. The noble Lord has asked me to say that the Hansard Committee is an informal body which was set up by the Hansard Society in the light of the uneasiness felt, at least in some areas of every political Party, about the existing system. It is not necessarily committed to the view that the status quo needs to be changed. Clearly, its members have misgivings about the present system but they might conclude that, for all its defects, that system was better than any alternative. What the Commission hopes to do is, first, to examine how those alternatives really work in practice and to dispel part of the cloud of prejudice, folklore and mythology which still surrounds them.

89
Secondly, it hopes to see how some of them might be adapted or transplanted for British use and, thirdly, it intends to try to put forward an agreed recommendation. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, wishes the House to know that he hopes to complete that report by June of this year.
A number of people have come to similar conclusions and have expressed very real unease. For instance, Professor Finer, the Gladstone Professor of Government and Public Administration at Oxford, in his introduction to an important collection of essays on Adversary Politics and Electoral Reform, has clearly demonstrated how the present system in Britain gives far greater influence to the extremists in the two main Parties than to the moderates. Yet the percentage of extremists in the electorate and even in the Parties themselves is, as most of us know, relatively small. Under our present system, the fact is that we have had instability, the undermining of confidence and the exaggeration of the influence of extremists. That is one reason why a growing number of influential industrialists are demanding a change in our voting system.
For those who still prefer to maintain the present system, I would remind them that it has only been in operation since 1885 and that multi-member constituencies were the rule in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Moreover, from the beginning of this century European countries have moved one by one to the system of PR. In Britain, over the past two centuries, the voting system has been a frequent subject of questioning and doubt. In 1917, this House wanted to adopt proportional representation by the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies, but the Commons objected and threw out the idea. They wanted to introduce election by the alternative vote in single member seats. In 1931, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will probably remember, that method was very nearly passed through Parliament and fell only because of the imminence of a General Election.
There is nothing new about trying to improve our representative methods and institutions. We contend—and my colleagues will deal in some detail with different aspects of the problem—that the
90
time has come to change, in the interests of democracy and national efficiency, to an electoral system which more truly represents the wishes of the people who vote. The country has been steadily moving in that direction for some time. The Conservative Government of 1970–1974, with Liberal and Labour Party support, adopted PR for the Northern Ireland Assembly. No one will deny that the result was far more representative than that at the subsequent General Election. Comparison of the figures is interesting. In 1973, the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, using single transferable vote in the 12 constituencies, gave the following result: the anti-Faulkner United Ulster Unionists received 44 per cent. of the votes and 35 per cent. of the seats—that is, 27 out of 78. In the 1974 General Election for the Wesminster Parliament, the anti-Faulkner United Ulster Unionists, using the method we employ at the moment, got 48 per cent. of the vote—that is, 4 per cent. more than they had had before—and 11 out of the 12 seats at Westminster. There was something rather disproportionate about that. As I said, we adopted the single transferable vote in a multi-member constituency by agreement with all Parties for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Again, the Royal Commission on the Constitution recently unanimously recommended the use of STV for national and regional assemblies in both its majority and its minority reports. In 1974, an all-Party study group sponsored by the European Movement recommended a modified version of the West German system for the election of British members to the European Parliament. I believe that we should very seriously ponder what may well happen in the next Parliament if we continue with the present electoral system. We normally tend to think that the unfairness of the present system is that it under-represents minority Parties. It is equally true that it over-represents nationalist Parties at Westminster. The nationalist vote is heavily concentrated in one area while the other Parties' votes are spread evenly over the country. That makes a tremendous difference. That is clearly demonstrated by the fact that at the last election it took 76,000 votes to elect a Scottish Nationalist, 55,000 to get in a Plaid Cymru candidate and 412,000 votes to get one Liberal Member of Parliament

91
back to Westminster. That is because of the over-concentration in smaller areas so far as the Nationalists are concerned. The result next time could well be that the Scottish Nationalist Party will hold the balance of power at Westminster much as the Irish did at the beginning of the century. Nothing could make for more unstable government and it might possibly lead to the break up of the United Kingdom itself. That is why the adoption of a more equitable system is a matter of extreme urgency. I believe that it must be dealt with before the next Election and should not be handed to some long-winded Royal Commission or other method.
Before we conclude that the reform of the electoral system is a mere academic exercise in political justice, I believe that we should do well to heed what Professor Wilson, the Adam Smith Professor of Political Economy at Glasgow University, has had to say about the economic consequences of the system. Having reviewed the considerable variations over the past 12 years in such matters as taxation, fiscal policy, hire purchase changes and regional policies, he says that a rapid alternation of Parties in power is bound to introduce a strong bias in favour of change. He contends that it is in the best interests of the nation that change should be tempered by stabilisation which, again, depends on a broad measure of political consensus, which the present electoral system discourages.
His conclusion is that a review of the post-war years leaves one dissatisfied with the way the traditional political machinery has dealt with economic policy. What is needed, he says, is strong government within an appropriately restricted field of State activity; and this, I believe, is what industry wants today—stability in the narrow field in which it is to operate and make changes.
"What is needed"—
Professor Wilson says—
"is confident, courageous leadership. We need a wider understanding of the issues and a much wider consensus. We haven't got this and the prestige of Parliamentary government is declining rapidly. The explanation, in part at least"—
he concludes,
"is our present electoral system which results in our unrepresentative Commons and a widespread political cynicism."
My Lords, we recognise, of course, that a more representative electoral system will make coalitions and minority Governments more likely, but certainly not inevitable. We do not regard this as a disaster. Indeed, we have in this country done far worse over the past decade than countries like West Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have realistically come to grips with the situation and have made democracy really work. The success or failure of co-operation among Parties depends in the last resort on the qualities of leadership and the respect for the wishes of the electorate shown by those of all the Parties involved. It is our contention, for reasons which will be advanced by my noble friends, that proportional representation enables quality leadership to emerge much more easily at all levels and in different institutions.
I should like to refer for a moment to the events in February 1974, when Mr. Heath made his offer of coalition to Mr. Thorpe. I believe that there are several lessons to be drawn from that political episode, and we should learn them if we are serious in wanting to achieve stability, consensus and genuine democracy. The first lesson is that a coalition is more likely to succeed if the Parties in it were broadly representative of the numbers of people who voted for them. In February 1974 the system totally distorted the mathematics. There were 12 million Conservative votes which produced 297 Conservative seats. There were 300,000 fewer Labour votes (that was, 11·7 million Labour votes) which produced 301 Labour seats—against the 297 Tory seats. The Liberals, with 6 million votes, got 14 seats. It takes 318 votes to produce an overall Parliamentary majority; the Tory and Liberal seats combined numbered only 310, so that was eight fewer than the quota required.
The only way to obtain the necessary 318 that we could see at that time would have been for both Parties to rely on the Ulster Unionists, whose presence at Westminster, if I may say so, is on major occasions fairly unpredictable. Therefore, this was not a viable situation. If, however, the seats had been proportional to the votes, with a Liberal Party of over 100 Members of Parliament strong, and the other Parties roughly equally divided—as they would have been on those

93
votes—a combination of either of the major Parties with the Liberal party would have provided a strong, broad grouping, probably centre-inclined, representing 18 million voters and providing a solid basis of consensus on which to move forward without endangering stability or confidence.
The second lesson of that episode is that Parties must begin to think in terms of less legislation and be prepared to regroup from time to time behind limited aims over a longer period than we have been used to hitherto. I believe that this country needs something like 10 years of strong Government, broadly based, with a real consensus of about 18 or 20 million people behind it if it is to conquer some of the major problems we are facing today. One really would have thought that over the past 30 years most of us in these two Houses could have come to some agreement on general policies which would give us a high level of employment without inflation. It should not be impossible to get some agreement on that. One would have thought that we could have made a much better contribution to obtaining a stable balance of payments, and that we could have produced, over the period since 1945, a basic structure of industrial relations which would at least have confined strikes and industrial disputes to those which raise major matters of principle. There are many other fields in which we should have been able to produce a sensible consensus.
My Lords, I come to the conclusion that we have all failed. What has been lacking has been the long-term view and a series of steady goals at which to aim. Instead of that, we have had one instant policy after another, with one eye on the marginal seats and the other glued on the opinion polls. We believe that this is not just a failure of men and women, but that it is the result of able people being imprisoned within a totally unrepresentative democracy and that is why, in our view, it is high time for a change in the electoral system. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.26 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for having given us the opportunity of this debate in which to take a broad look at our Parliamentary
94
system of Government. He has, as he always does, clearly and forcefully pointed out that our political system is under considerable strain. When he initiates a discussion he commands our full attention, speaking as he does with long experience in both Houses of Parliament and with a practical knowledge of industry. He is aware that our system should support the efforts of those who are earning the country's living in exports, and in goods and services. We share the aim that Parliament should assist in creating the most favourable conditions in which British business and industry can thrive. That is the way in which the whole country can benefit.
It was, however, no surprise to us that the noble Lord raised the question of proportional representation, which is a matter of consequence to the Liberal Party. Had he today spoken without mentioning it, it would have been like Boswell writing of his Highland tour without mention of Johnson, or as if Mr. Macabre had been speculating about the future without expressing the opinion that something would turn up: for the Liberal Party, like Mr. Macabre, is not completely disinterested. Changing the electoral system, as he proposed, would give more seats in the Commons to the Liberal Party if people continued to support that Party in about the same numbers at Election time as they have being doing, though I should point out that even that could change if a completely new system were brought in.
Your Lordships will remember that we had a debate on 23rd April last when my noble friend Lord Alport introduced a Motion on proportional representation, and my noble friend Lord Mansfield then spoke from this Bench. I will not go over all that ground again. I am well aware that some of my noble friends are in favour of proportional representation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Byers, they think that it would reflect more accurately the divisions of views in the country and, as the noble Lord said just now, some think that it would moderate extreme policies which they consider are damaging—extreme policies either of the Right or of the Left.
On this matter of proportional representation, the Conservative Party has proposed that a Speaker's Conference should

95
examine our electoral system as a whole. It is a much larger and more complex subject than many realise. There are several kinds of proportional representation, and there is considerable disagreement on which is the best. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, mentioned some of them. Their advantages are naturally extolled by the Liberal Party, but the disadvantages should not be overlooked. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, eloquently spoke of the advantages and I agree with a great deal of what he said on them, but your Lordships will understand if I do not repeat them but instead point out some of the disadvantages.
First, any of the systems would be likely to lead to a permanent state of minority Governments or Coalitions. Cabinets would be formed after post-Election pacts which had been negotiated between Party leaders, sometimes over a protracted period. This would lead to compromises on the principal policies on which the Parties had been competing for support at the Election. Many of the electorate would be justifiably confused, having supported candidates and Parties because of the policies which they advocated. They would then find that these had been modified and merged with the alternative policies of their recent political adversaries. In some countries where such systems apply there have been intervals of several weeks. which have been regarded as normal, between an Election and the subsequent formation of a Government; during that time these negotiations have been taking place. In Holland, in 1972, there was an interval of six months between the Election and the formation of a Government. That is the kind of problem which has not occurred in this country before and which we must recognise we should have to face. I suggest that Britain is a country which ought not to be left for long after a General Election bereft of Ministers without any mandate from the people.
Perhaps I may consider very briefly the different systems which have been suggested. First, there is the alternative vote. That would retain single-Member constituencies. An advantage is that it would involve the minimum of change from our present system; but it does not reliably reflect the proportions of those voting, and it can produce arbitrary results. For
96
example, the candidate apparently enjoying the most general support may not be elected. Then there is the single transferable vote in multi-Member constituencies, also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. Here, four-Member or five-Member constituencies are needed to secure proportions with any accuracy. This method suffers the disadvantage that, of course, one loses the direct relationship between the Member and his constituency—something with which we have now become familiar in this country, although it was not always so. And, while it could be applied to a city or to a large town, or to a highly-populated county, it would produce constituencies of enormous size geographically in sparsely-populated rural areas.
Then there is the list system; that is, a completely nominated system where the names are provided by the Parties. Or there is the hybrid system, which is operated in Germany, where half the seats are directly-elected individuals and the other half are allotted from Party lists depending upon the results. That, again, would lose the direct relationship between a Member and his constituency for half the Members; in Germany apparently it is already creating two kinds of membership, a kind of first-class and second-class membership, of the Chamber. Lastly, of course, it puts more power into the hands of those who operate the Party machines, and who nominate names to the list. I should also mention the second ballot system, which has operated in France. This causes names to be eliminated after the first ballot, and there is usually a delay of about a week between the ballots. This produces complications and also produces extra expense, with two polling days instead of one. But this system, like the others I have mentioned, might prove to be an improvement which is eventually adopted in this country as a result of a Speaker's Conference examining the possibilities.
However, if any of these, or some combinations of them, were adopted, my Lords, it would profoundly affect the whole way in which Elections are carried out in this country. We would have to face up to the question of whether Central Government should mark time, perhaps for weeks, for a period after an Election while the Party leaders tried to form Coalitions, because no Party would be

97
likely to win an overall majority in the Commons, or even be close to it, as happens under the present system. We would have to accept that policies would be stretched or bent, although they had been powerfully advocated over the recent weeks of an Election. Some may agree with this, and some may argue that this would be salutory and that it would tend to cut out some of the extreme policies of Right or Left; that if a new system were forced in this way, a Coalition might come into existence because there was no working majority—for example, a combination of the social democrats in the Labour Party in this country with most Liberals and Conservatives, who could agree on policies to govern effectively—and that this is what most of the electorate in this country would like; that is, that large majority of the electorate who are interested in seeing less bickering and more agreed action in Parliament.
I have a great respect for that view, and those of us who were campaigning in the "Britain in Europe" campaign last year found it refreshing—indeed, invigorating—to be on some platforms and engaged in some crusading expeditions, on a great issue of national importance, together with like-minded members of other Parties; I confess to some joint elation with some of them at the result afterwards. But we were like-minded on that single, dominating issue of the day. The concept of securing enough agreement over the whole area of political controversy today is easier to contemplate in the abstract than to put into practice. After all, the Liberal Party had their opportunity in March 1974, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, mentioned just now, when there was a finely-balanced Election result which would have justified a non-Socialist majority in the House of Commons combining to form a Government.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to interrupt him, I think it is important for the record. I do not think he could have been listening to that part of my speech. I proved conclusively that the mathematics were totally against that, and if he reads Hansard he will find out why.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I gave way a little too soon to the noble Lord, perhaps, though I would always wish to give way to him immediately, because I was just coming on to
98
my version of those events. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord's version. As I understood it, at that time the Liberals felt unable to accept that offer—and I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said about how he saw such a Coalition operating in the House of Commons. But I saw at the time, and now can still see in retrospect, a different reason why the Liberal Party was unable, within three days, to accept that offer after an Election.
I think one of the main reasons was because most of the Liberal candidates who had been in the field had been contesting Conservative-held seats with all the vigour and emphasis on the differences in policies which the activists of all Parties in constituencies naturally are expected to display during Election campaigns. I understand the Liberals' difficulty in 1974. None the less, I am sorry that in that comparatively simple situation—because it was simple when compared to the kind of situation which would arise when several Parties would have to negotiate—it was not possible. I believe that the country might subsequently have been spared a 26 per cent. annual rate of inflation, 1¼million unemployed and months of uncertainty and loss of confidence in industry as nationalisation plans were being prepared.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: In a moment, my Lords. I just want to add—because I must not forget this—that we might also have been well ahead with winning oil from the North Sea if there had not been a year or more of uncertainty and loss of confidence there also while new policies were being prepared.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord has just been arguing against the single transferable vote on the grounds that, after an Election, it would compel Parties to come to agreements against the platforms which they had been putting forward during the Election campaign. Why does he think that it was so easy for this to happen in the absence of any electoral reform? And is not the kind of partnership that was then being offered by Mr. Heath rather like the partnership which was offered by the wolf to Red Riding Hood?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I do not think that in anything I have said so far I have suggested that any of these matters was easy. As the noble Lord said, I was pointing to the fact that on the one occasion when, following a finely-balanced result in a General Election, it would have been possible for non-Socialist Parties with a majority to carry out certain policies together, that was not possible to accept. I am showing that this is a difficulty which we should have to face if we adopted a system of proportional representation. This kind of situation, the Parties having to discuss how they might form a Government together, would arise after any Election with proportional representation, unless there was a dramatic change in the views of millions of the electorate, causing a massive landslide for one Party. That is itself unlikely in practice, because proportional representation in other countries has had a tendency in the reverse direction; that is to say, it has encouraged a spread of support among several Parties rather than causing a great increase in support for one.
If in an emergency, or for some other reason, the political Parties or elements of them in this country were to make moves to co-operate in governing, that should surely originate from their convictions and not simply from a change of the machinery. It should be because they wish to explore these possibilities, because the situation required it or because of their latest or developing policies being mutually acceptable. It should not be simply because a new electoral system had forced them into an unwilling marriage.
My Lords, I have been concentrating on central Government, but the Northern Ireland precedent of proportional representation introduced in recent years was without prejudice to the system at Westminster. Many of the considerations to which I have been referring do not apply to an Assembly which is not the elected chamber of central Government. For example, two weeks ago we were discussing the Government White Paper on Devolution proposals and there it was proposed for the Scottish Assembly that the Executive should be appointed. Other variations were discussed, but in that situation there would not be the diffi-
100
culties of forming a Government. I make clear that the Kilbrandon recommendation (which was for proportional representation for the Scottish Assembly) and the views of many noble Lords on that where a Scottish Convention is concerned, do not run into the difficult situations and the problems which a major change at Westminster would create.
I should like to turn for a moment to other ingredients of Government. Indeed, my concern about the declining efficiency of Government in this country is as much related to the non-elected area as to the elected. So much of our national life is now directed or influenced by nationalised corporations and similar bodies which ale only tenuously accountable to Ministers and Parliament. Chairman and members are appointed and not elected to positions controlling vast monopolies in goods and services. They command bureaucracies of their own.
Let us examine the latest crop of such public bodies, including the National Enterprise Board and the British National Oil Corporation. According to recent Press reports, the Enterprise Board already seems intent upon stilling enterprise, while the Oil Corporation contains almost no practical experience of the oil industry. What is common to both is the interesting phenomenon that the chairmen are Peers, Members of this House, as is the deputy-chairman of the Oil Corporation. Another Peer is designated to take the chair of the British Aerospace Corporation, if current legislation reaches the Statute Book. There is a strange paradox here. At a time when the Employment Secretary, Mr. Foot, has been a little critical of this House collectively when it was using its limited power of delay in a matter of wide concern, the freedom of the Press, individual Peers have found themselves being appointed to some of the most significant seats of power in the country. It is ironical that through these appointments the Barons will be holding more power in the land than at any time since Magna Charta. The new droit de seigneur is the opportunity to bestow the first attentions upon these State damsels as they appear blushing to the world.
Not only are these new forms of nationalisation likely to slow down and frustrate British industry, but they will be colliding with each other. Weeks ago

101
we were promised in this House that there would be guidelines published on how the National Enterprise Board would operate. Nothing has yet appeared. We are still awaiting them. This cannot provide a climate for effort and enterprise in British business. In our community as a whole, the individual is feeling increasingly oppressed by bureaucracy and over-government; the talents of the entrepreneur and the exporter are needed more than the multiplication of officials.
In Parliament the machinery and the Parliamentary timetable have become overburdened. That is one of the reasons for the wide support in Scotland for an Assembly with devolved powers and functions. We debated the Government proposals two weeks ago. The system which for 60 years has enabled Scottish Members of Parliament to deal with Scottish business and Scottish Bills has become completely submerged and invisible to the public in Scotland. I must emphasise that the large majority of people in Scotland do not want independence and the breaking up of Britain. While many support the SNP as a Scottish pressure group, they do not share the proclaimed objective of the SNP which is independence within the Commonwealth. We must remember that the SNP activists themselves are opposed to devolution within Britain as an improved and settled system. They are only interested in it as a stepping stone to independence. The confirmation of this can be found in the SNP Whip's reported statement at their 1974 conference:
"I do not believe in devolution; I believe in independence."
Change is needed there, my Lords, without repeating our debate of two weeks ago.
The additional burdens on Parliament, however, have included examination of Draft Directives and Regulations of the EEC, and here this House has in the last two years been carrying out a new and useful function. On several occasions our Select Committee has been able to consider a subject of importance to Britain and to report to this House which has then been able to debate it at short notice before a Council of Ministers has met to take decisions. Thus public debate, often with expert views expressed, has assisted the Government at times when there has been little opportunity
102
for such debate in the Commons because of the congestion there. Examples are consideration of the EEC Regional Fund and Britain's anti-pollution system which affected industry. This is a constructive contribution which your Lordships have been able to make in this situation. In this connection I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie and the noble Lords and Baronesses who have assisted her on that Select Committee. I will not discuss the method of direct elections to the European Parliament because there is going to be an opportunity shortly for another debate on that.
My Lords, I should like to mention another fortress of power in this country, the trade unions. The method of election of their officers can greatly affect the general public because of the influence and authority of individual leaders. Our concern is that as many members of unions as possible should have the opportunity to vote. Voting which takes place only at branch meetings has led to presidents and general secretaries being elected on polls as low as 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. Therefore, the bringing in of a postal ballot and assistance, if necessary, from the Government could greatly improve the situation. If I may, I will refer to two recent elections to a union's executive committee where normally a 12 per cent. poll has been considered high. In the Midlands and Manchester area the poll, with a postal ballot, was 38.7 per cent. and in the area of Scotland concerned it was 37.4 per cent. The moderates were, of course, those who won in preference to the extremists. It is also of concern to the general public to eliminate ballot rigging and forgery. In the East Kilbride case three years ago there was proved to have been deliberate forging of signatures and the culprits were convicted and given prison sentences. Under the rules of that union, if action had not ben taken—beeasue those whose signatures had been forged spoke up—that union secretariat could have destroyed all the papers after six months and there would have been no possibility of pursuing the matter.
The initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is timely because of the widespread disillusion with our present system. I have much sympathy with the changes and suggestions which he has proposed.

103
I believe there need to be changes of policy and direction. A two-Party system can, as he said, mean that one Party comes in and cancels out what another Party has done. My Party stands guilty of this as much as the Party opposite. But it is not just the Labour and Conservative Parties reversing policies which can cause confusion. In many cases there have been change by the Parties themselves. I refer to changes of attitude, too. In another place I and my colleagues opposed the nationalisation of steel and the Bill which brought in the British Steel Corporation. Only about five years or so later some of the Labour Members of Parliament who supported the Bill were most vocal in their attacks on the Steel Corporation, its decisions and plans, for the very reasons we had predicted.
There is a temptation to indulge in gimmicks: in 1964 the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources was created. Many of your Lordships may have forgotten it. That is a prime example of what I have in mind. The only apparent reason for proposing it was to give the impression that this was an important subject to which the Party concerned gave great weight. The Ministry lasted only two years. It was abolished by the same Party which established it, not by a succeeding Government. It was a nonsense from the beginning. It impinged hopelessly on other Ministries' functions; it did not apply to Scotland because the Secretary of State's functions prevailed there where there was nearly half the land and a great many of the resources of the country.
If confidence is to be restored, political Parties and Parliamentarians should exercise restraint in exercises of that kind, which in any case are likely in the long run not to bring support. Such upheavals—Ministries created and dissolved—impede good and orderly government if frequently indulged in. The electoral system should be examined from time to time and various improvements can be made. Through a Speaker's Conference a case might be made in due course, and then perhaps accepted, for some radical change in our system on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I do not believe that is likely to happen now or in the present circumstances.
104
As I have sought to show, there is much to be improved in other parts of our system in government. I hope that as Parliamentarians we will not relax from the tasks of adapting and rationalising our system and, above all, making government less oppressive in the eyes of the public.

CIVIL AVIATION POLICY
3.53 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall repeat a Statement which has been made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"Last July, following my review of civil aviation policy, I told the House that I had concluded it was no longer in the interests of our aviation industry or the economy generally to allow competition between British airlines on long-haul scheduled routes. Accordingly it would in future be our general policy not to allow more than one British airline to be licensed on any given long-haul route. Instead British Airways and British Caledonian Airways would have separate spheres of interest for their long-haul scheduled services.
"Since my last Statement there has been a series of detailed discussions between BA, BCAL, the Civil Aviation Authority and myself about how the airlines' existing route networks could best be adjusted so as to consolidate their respective spheres of interest. I have now decided that in Africa, where BA and BCAL at present operate competing services, East Africa and the Seychelles should in future be in BA's sphere of interest and Central Africa, including Zambia, in BCAL's. This exchange should enable both airlines to achieve considerable cost savings through deploying their resources more effectively. Outside Africa, BCAL will give up the licences to operate scheduled services to New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Toronto and Singapore via Bahrain, which they hold but are not at present exercising. It will also end the exempt charter services they operate to Singapore. However they will retain the right to serve Atlanta and Houston—a route for

105
which BA do not hold a licence—and will be the sole British airline to operate this new route when it becomes available for international services. In addition, BCAL's sphere of interest in South America will be extended and they will take over services to Venezuela, Colombia and Peru from BA.
"In making this rearrangement of routes, my objectives have been, first, to reinforce the competitive strength of British airlines in the fierce international environment in which they operate; secondly, to arrive at a result which is as fair as possible to both airlines; thirdly, to safeguard employment in the airline industry; and, finally, to produce a settlement that would last for a substantial period ahead.
"I believe the decisions I have taken do go a long way towards meeting these objectives. BA and BCAL will now be free to concentrate on meeting the challenge from their real rivals, the foreign carriers. BA will be able to plan the development of their services on major routes throughout the world free from the uncertainties of 'double designation' licensing. Similarly, BCAL will have scope in South America, West and Central Africa and on the new Atlanta/Houston route for future expansion of their long-haul services. As regards the third objective, I am satisfied that no redundacies will result from the rearrangement of routes, and indeed that the employment prospects for both airlines in the longer-term should be improved. Finally, the new policy will, I hope, give that stability in regulating the airline industry which is essential for effective long-term planning.
"I have given further consideration to the proposed Laker Skytrain service but I remain convinced that in the conditions likely to prevail in the North Atlantic market for the foreseeable future Skytrain would generate relatively little new traffic. It would however add excess capacity and would do substantial damage to BAs' existing services. Moreover, having regard to the existing facilities that are available for cheap travel it would confer no really worthwhile benefits to the con-
106
sumer. The CAA, while sharing my view that conditions are still not suitable for Skytrain, would prefer the licence and designation to be kept in being, and more generally that wider discretion should be left to the licensing system in the control of long-haul scheduled services. However, I see considerable disadvantage in prolonging the present uncertainty and have accordingly told Laker Airways that their designation will be withdrawn. I am confident that the airline will continue to build up their already extensive charter business, particularly with North America, and my Department will continue to support them in this.
"The position of the other independent airlines will on balance be unchanged by the policy changes I am making. I believe they will continue to make an important contribution to our civil aviation effort.
"The decisions I have announced today, and my proposals for new Policy Guidance for the Civil Aviation Authority, are set out in more detail in a White Paper, copies of which are now available in the Vote Office. I hope that we shall shortly be able to debate the proposed new Guidance, which will require the approval of Parliament before it comes into effect."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
3.59 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making this Statement, which is a major departure from the policy of civil aviation expansion which was outlined by the Edwards Committee in 1969. I have sought to make it clear on a previous occasion that I appreciate the reasons which have impelled the Secretary of State to look again at civil aviation Policy, although it can be argued that it is questionable and that this Statement is now rather late in the day when, as we hope, the recession in civil aviation may possibly be over. However, I welcome the fact that this Statement has been made. The Secretary of State's intention to give British Airways and British Caledonian separate spheres of influence will obviously have only a marginal effect on British Airways, but a considerable effect on British Caledonian. British Caledonian have faithfully carried out all the aims and objectives which were set by the Edwards

107
Committee for the second force airline, and it is clear that the Secretary of State's decision could have considerable consequences. I welcome the Statement for that reason.
In doing so, may I ask the noble Lord to give us some information on several points. British Caledonian have been a value foreign currency earner. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the potential profitability of the new routes to be transferred to British Caledonian is going to compensate, at any rate approximately, for the prospective loss of the scheduled services for which they were duly licensed and which are now to be given up? May I say at this point how glad I am to hear the decision of the Secretary of State regarding the Atlanta and Houston routes. Secondly, may I ask whether, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the transferred routes will allow British Caledonian to develop, especially as regards the introduction of wide-bodied jets into their fleet? Thirdly, in view of what was said towards the end of the Statement, will what is projected there and in the White Paper require any legislation?
Lastly, I must say that I am more than sorry that the Government cannot support the Laker Skytrain. I would particularly deprecate the difference of opinion which apparently has arisen between the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority as to whether the Laker licence and designation ought or ought not be withdrawn. The fact is that Mr. Laker believe she can provide a unique service across the North Atlantic, and it is tragic that the Government are not prepared to contemplate this even in the longer term, despite the view of the Civil Aviation Authority. The White Paper will allow us to debate the matter further, but I should like to express the hope that no hint will be contained in the White Paper that any impediment will be put in the way of any of our national flag carriers developing their services when the hoped-for increase in civil aviation throughout the world comes about.
4.2 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, we on these Benches would also very much like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for reading the Statement. I should like to congratulate
108
Her Majesty's Government on the promise to produce a White Paper shortly, in other words, "before the swallow dares", as the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said the other day. However, so far there is no mention of the passenger or the consumer, and therefore if, as a result of altering the various routes of both companies, many complaints are received from passengers, I hope that perhaps the routes might be reconsidered.
I am also very happy to see that British Caledonian—and I am sure that others of your Lordships will join me in this—are to remain as one of the flag carriers. Could the Government tell us how long it will be before the negotiations are finalised regarding the Atlanta and Georgia route? Also, could the Government assure your Lordships that the negotiations are proceeding with great rapidity on the Australian routes for the British Airways Concorde, and that they are pressing on with these? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, could tell us something more about that. May I say that I hope the forecast of redundancies through the rearrangement of routes will prove to be correct.
With regard to the Laker Skytrain, the Statement begins by saying that the Skytrain would generate little new traffic on the already overcrowded North Atlantic route, but that it would therefore affect British Airways. The Statement goes on to say later that the Secretary of State hopes that Laker Airways will continue to build up their already extensive charter business on that route. This seems to be somewhat puzzling. I should, finally, like to endorse the hope that now the White Paper has been published the airlines will get on with the job of challenging their real rivals, that is foreign competitors, instead of each other.
4.6 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords who have spoken for their very positive reaction to the Statement which has been made. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked whether it was not a little late in the day. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State was very anxious to reach an agreement between the two main flag carriers which, we must frankly admit, may not be totally satisfactory to

109
either, but which nevertheless is reasonably fair. The agreement which has been indicated would last for a considerable period; the area of disagreement was narrow and the area of agreement wide, so I think we can say that this has been achieved. He did not state the reasons for supporting what we are doing, but we must never forget the impact of the use of the oil weapon by the OPEC countries, which led to the sudden fall in traffic on world airlines and which led to a contraction of the number of seats available over the Atlantic and elsewhere.
Referring to the foreign currency earnings of British Caledonian and compensation for their lost routes, I think it is true to say that they are trading in two of the fastest growing areas of the world. Venezuela is an oil-rich country and is fast expanding, and in fact the whole of the South American continent, which is in economic effervescence, is now open to British Caledonian. They should be able not only to build up the successful services they have already created but expand them and presumably, if they find it necessary, to bring on to their routes the wide-bodied jets which would carry the increased trade that may be generated.
I do not think that legislation will be necessary. I say that subject to correction, but what has been announced today is a question not of legislation but of Parliamentary approval. For this reason we shall be having another opportunity to discuss the matter in detail in due course. This will provide the opportunity for further discussions of the disagreement which has arisen between the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority. The exact balance between an advisory body such as the Civil Aviation Authority, with its licensing powers, and so on, and the Government is a matter of substantial importance and one that is worthy of a wider discussion than we can give it today.
The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, mentioned the very important point of the time-scale during which British Caledonian could expect to operate the Atlanta/Houston route. I cannot answer that, because this matter involves the decision of the American authorities as well as our own. However, I will write to the noble Earl and, if necessary,
110
inform the House of the expected time-scale involved. That area, again, is an oil-rich area with a very large passenger potential for British Caledonian. As to the Concorde routes, I speak without precise knowledge, but obviously British Airways are furthering this great aircraft. The State of Victoria has agreed that it should be given an experimental period of operation of some 18 months, and one assumes that British Airways will grab this opportunity with both hands.
Finally, I should like to refer to the question of generation of new traffic by the Laker Skytrain concept, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley. Unfortunately, this is an area which is full of suppositions which are not easy either to confirm or deny.
I understand Mr. Laker believes that he would have a two-years' monopoly on the North Atlantic route if he introduced the Skytrain. But I believe—and I speak from the point of view of the British Government—that no American Government would enable this project to come into being unless American airlines were permitted to have the same rights to operate a shuttle service across the Atlantic. So that assumption is not necessarily valid.
There are various estimates of the amount of new traffic to be generated. There are Mr. Laker's own estimates, there are the Civil Aviation Authority's estimates and there are the British Government's estimates. All these estimates of new traffic differ and to get a correct one is not possible. There is a vast area of supposition. All one can say is that British Airways provide very similar cheap facilities across the Atlantic, with their Apex and ABC charters, and if peole are willing to take advantage of being able to book on the sespecialised scheduled flights they will not be paying substantially more than if they use the Skytrain concept. Certainly, they would not undergo the possible uncertainty of having to await the filling of the aircraft before it set off across the North Atlantic. I have tried to answer the two noble Lords as best I can. It is a complex subject and perhaps it is worth a debate.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the Statement of the Government is very welcome, in particular that part of it which states it is hoped that the solution will last for some period, because these

111
reversals are very damaging to air transport. But I should like to ask my noble friend a question concerning the possible effect of the draft proposals which have come from the EEC with regard to air transport. These proposals, if I understand them correctly, would involve every national of any of the countries in the European Community coming over to this country and competing in setting up a service from this country. So if in a few years' time Mr. Laker were again to come forward with a Skytrain proposal and, at the same time, someone from France, Germany, Holland or Italy were to come forward with a similar proposal, then our licensing authority would be bound to consider them on exactly equal terms. That could mean that the licence would go to some other country rather than to an airline in this country. What is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards this point?
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister three questions—
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I should like to reply to that complex and rather difficult question while it is fresh in my mind. I cannot answer my noble friend's question. It is obviously of major importance, and it really impinges on the relationship between the powers of the Community and those of our own Civil Aviation Authority. Perhaps this is a subject which my noble friend may care to raise when we debate this subject at a later stage, which we shall have to do.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, this is a very important question. Does the Minister agree that it is not an unfair description of the policy to say that it is a closed shop carve-up of the world by our main scheduled airlines? Maybe it is the right policy for this country, because, as he knows, competition can show up not only from foreign airlines but between two British airlines going to different destinations; for example, in the way of performance, manpower, maintenance, et cetera. Does the noble Lord agree that this policy can succeed only if three parties have confidence in it—the two main parties being British Caledonian and British Airways, and the
112
third the party which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, but which has not been mentioned by the Minister; that is, the consumer? Provided the public are satisfied that it is a fair "do" for them, and the two partners build up a relationship which is good and sound, then I think the policy will succeed. I trust the noble Lord will agree with that hypothesis.
My second question is this. Is the Minister's mind still flexible as regards some modifications of the general outline in this White Paper? Desirable modifications, both technical and non-technical, may be exposed by public comment and one would like to have an assurance that the Minister has not closed his mind. My third question is a very simple one. The Minister stated that there would be a debate in another place. Will he and the noble Lord the Leader of the House fully support the idea that we should also have a debate in this House?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, working backwards, I would first say that the question of a debate will be settled through the usual channels. Secondly, on the question of the importance of the consumer, we had a valuable short debate in this House about a month ago and people said some very kind things about British Caledonian, which I am certain we should like to endorse. The noble Lord himself really answered his first question, and I would agree with him that competition is of the greatest importance in keeping any organisation efficient and watchful as regards the interests of the people to whom it is selling its services. British Airways and British Caledonian, acting independently in their various areas of responsibility will be kept tuned by the competition which they have to face from American and other international airlines. I am satisfied that there will be no lack of competition to keep them up to the mark. Would the noble Lord be so kind as to repeat the second question?
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I asked whether the Minister's mind is still flexible as regards modification?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, what my right honourable friend said was that he hoped that the proposals

113
included in this Statement today were a sufficiently good compromise to last for a substantial period. I think my right honourable friend said 10 years. But that is not for ever and, obviously, if what we have now decided proves to be insufficient or not the best way of solving the various competitive problems which the two British flag-carriers will have to meet, then of course they will have to be reviewed. Because trouble and care have been taken in producing this new policy we hope that it will last, but it is not a diktat.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a few questions? First, he said that the whole of the South American continent will now be open to British Caledonian. That means I take it, that British Airways will not be operating at all in South America. Secondly, can the noble Lord say what evidence there is to support the idea that on a high-density route, at a time when traffic is expanding, one airline is likely to get a higher proportion of traffic for this country than two British airlines or even to retain as much traffic for this country? This is an absolutely key point. I should have thought the evidence was all the other way: that two airlines would get more total traffic than one could attain, especially from British people who wanted a choice of British airlines. Thirdly, on the question of the withdrawal of the licence from Skytrain, is compensation payable on the withdrawal of a licence as it is, for example, on the cancellation of planning permission in this country, and, if not, why not?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, whereas two British airlines competing out of non-British territories might attract more passengers to travel on them, it is equally conceivable that one airline would be played off against the other. Whereas, at the moment, we are proposing that one profitable airline should work from various regions of the world, as a result of the noble Lord's proposals we might have two unprofitable airlines working from them. The whole basis of the concept is that the competition is provided by the foreign flag carriers and that British flag carriers are free to compete against their foreign competitors without competing against their own countrymen.
As regards compensation, there is the precedent of 1971. The Conservative
114
Government withdrew certain rights from British Airways without, as I understand it, paying compensation. In fact, this decision is paralleled by the one that we reached then. The Government of the day decided to take certain action in the interests of the industry as a whole. For that reason, as I understand it, no compensation was paid.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, of course we are in the hands of the House, but we have been debating this Statement for nearly half an hour. My noble friend has indicated that the usual channels will be discussing the possibility of having a debate. I think, therefore, that probably most noble Lords would prefer that we should now resume the debate on Lord Byers's Motion.

THE POLITICAL AND ELECTORAL SYSTEM
4.21 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, it is a privilege peculiar to your Lordships' House that membership of a particular political Party does not prevent unfettered objectivity when addressing this Assembly. The term "objectivity" is capable of erroneous interpretation. So far as my observations this afternoon are concerned, this does not mean that objectivity is associated with compromise or flexibility. It represents, in my judgment, the capacity to see both sides of the question, or even three sides of it. It is in that mood that I propose to offer a few observations on the excellent speech we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Byers.
Of course, your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord always makes a good speech. But perhaps that observation could be subjected to a mild measure of qualification. None could complain about his enunciation, his delivery, his articulation. It is all impeccable. But the content of the noble Lord's speech, however excellent in delivery, contained some misunderstandings which were surprising to me because of the noble Lord's experience of Parliamentary institutions both in another place and in your Lordships' House. For example, he began by saying that we ought not to narrow the scope of this debate by concentrating upon proportional representation and then

115
he proceeded to put the case for proportional representation.
On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, probably finding insufficient in the brief provided for him, repeated what was said by many Members of your Lordships' House in a recent debate on devolution and, of course, brought Scotland into the arena. We can forgive the noble Lord for that. I am sometimes too inclined to indulge in asides, in incidentals, in the association of ideas, let it go at that. Instead of indulging in moderate severity—pinpricking at the present Government and at their idiosyncracies with which many of us are familiar—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, might have focused attention on what is the basic element in this matter of political representation; that is, the existence of Parliamentary assemblies and the like.
As the noble Lord failed to undertake that task, I venture to fill the gap. It can be filled only by defining what is meant by democracy, a term which is often on our lips. We speak of our democratic Parliamentary institutions, our democratic way of life and all that is associated with that term. The simple definition of democracy—without understanding and accepting it with all its implications it is idle to proceed at all with any discussion of political matters, Parliamentary representation and assemblies of this character or any other—is that it represents the collective will of the people of any country—naturally, in our case, the United Kingdom. It represents the provision of privileges that are to be made available to every person in the country, without exception. That is my definition of democracy. The term is often misused, misunderstood and used in several contexts which have nothing to do with the definition.
However, accepting the definition I have ventured to represent to your Lordships, I say at once without any hesitation qualification, or reservation, or anything which savours of an impediment that I agree wholly and exclusively with the fundamental demand that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, made in the course of his speech; namely, that minorities should be represented. It is as simple as that. When I refer to minorities, I mean minorities without exception, otherwise
116
your democracy is a false democracy, a facade, a charade.
How are democracies in that sense to be represented? Not, I suggest, by the prevailing method of Parliamentary Elections. Perhaps one error into which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, entered—indeed, it seemed to intrude into his speech—was that the decline in our political system is due to a faulty electoral system. That was an error of judgment on his part. Certainly it could not derive from his Parliamentary experience. Take, for example, the Liberal Party itself. What was the cause of the decline in the Liberal Party? Was it the anomalies in our electoral system? Not at all.
The decline in the Liberal Party began when Mr. Lloyd George, who had been Prime Minister in a Coalition Government, who had been engaged in heated disputes with Mr. Asquith and eventually replaced that gentleman, decided to form what was called a National Government—a Coalition with the Conservatives. That was the beginning of the decay in the Liberal Party. One cannot challenge that: that is what happened, and although Mr. Lloyd George subsequently made efforts to return, and indeed was requested to return, to active political life, he faltered on the way. He was never the man in later years that he was before the First World War, during the war itself, and for some time in that National Coalition Government until the Conservatives threw him out, as they did with Ramsay MacDonald some years later. By that illustration I do not mean that the Conservatives are in the habit of throwing people out simply because they dislike their views. Not at all, they belong to the gentlemanly Party and would never dream of doing a thing like that. But it happened.
I go further than that. The decline in our political system—there has been a decline, practically and complete disillusionment on all sides among the people of the country; in Scotland, there is the SNP and the variety of the ingredients in this half-baked pudding, as it has become—is due to the fact that ever since the beginning of this century, with certain exceptions, our Governments have been shambles. That is what it amounts to.
Of course it really began with the Boer War, which we should never have entered

117
upon. That was recognised subsequently. We all recognise our mistakes subsequently, but never at the time. Then we had the Salisbury Government and then the Balfour Government. Arthur Balfour, the great intellectual, who never discovered the existence of the working classes until they were brought to his attention. Then we had the Liberal Governments of all the talents, who introduced social welfare.
Lloyd George was inspired by Winston Churchill; we must remember that it was Winston Churchill who advised Lloyd George to go to Germany, where they had initiated social welfare. Lloyd George did as he was told and as a result we got pensions at five shillings a week, subject to a means test, and unemployment benefit. I know all about that, and not by reading what the professors say. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, quoted quite a number of professors. I do not need to bother about professors; I have had the experience. I had four months out of work before there was unemployment benefit, and heaven knows what that was like! Sometimes I shudder through the night, thinking of it.
Then we had the war. Of course, if you can avoid two great wars with eventual bankruptcy at the end, with the loss of manpower, and particularly the young manpower with all the potential talent, and if you can hold your resources overseas and internally, that has its impact on the political situation. But, unfortunately, we had two great wars and the bankruptcies and the loss of talent, and we have had almost nothing but shambles since, with few exceptions.
We have had some good Prime Ministers, some bad and some indifferent. I have observed their activities. I have listened to their speeches, read their speeches and have observed that they frequently refer to their concern about the national interest. In their minds that really represents what will happen to them at the next General Election. Not every one of them, of course. There have been good ones. There have been well-meaning ones who were subject to great vicissitudes not of their own making. For example, with great respect, the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, for whom I have always had a great admiration, and indeed affection, might have become a great Prime Minister—one of the
118
greatest—but for certain events for which he was not in any way responsible. They could have happened to any Prime Minister; internal events, external events, international complications and the like.
I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Byers: these are the factors, the ingredients, which have caused a decline in our political system and the disillusionment that prevails on all sides. How is it to be corrected? There are other anomalies. I hope it will not affect anybody in your Lordships' House if I say that this assembly is an anomaly, but it is a very pleasant one. It is a benevolent one—embarrassingly benevolent and friendly sometimes. One ends it difficult not to conform. It is only with the greatest effort on my part that I manage to remain on this side of the House.
Of course, mistakes have been made: mistakes which are attributable to personal outlooks, misunderstandings and the like. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to the creation of functional appointments. He called them, "non-elected appointments"; I call them, "functional". Suddenly it is announced in the Press or as a result of a Question in another place that some person about whom we have never heard before has been mixed up with finance—I use the term "mixed up" meaning no offence at all—and suddenly he becomes the great tycoon who is to run a great industry, and not only run a great industry but run the nation—
A Noble Lord: And run it down!
Lord SHINWELL:—regardless of what may be said by my erstwhile colleagues in another place who somehow or other (and it is very amusing to me) consider that they have influence. They have nothing but their salaries. Of course I agree that they do a bit of social welfare.
What are we to do about all this? How are we to raise the prestige of our Parliamentary institutions so that we may create, if not euphoria, at any rate a measure of admiration? I would not put it higher than that. How are we to do it? I could speak for a long time on this aspect of the subject. I could almost write a book—indeed, I have tried to write a book on this subject, but hardly anybody reads it, so what can I do about it? Certainly, we shall not solve

119
our problems in the foreseeable future as a result of the existence of single-Party Government. That is my view. I ventured to offer that opinion in another form in our debate on devolution.
My Lords, it has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that if we decide to change our electoral system—I do not want to enter into the details or the mechanics of such a change it could be the alternative vote, or the single transferable vote, or, as in some countries, it could be to a long list out of which the electors could pick and choose, and a Government are elected. We could have all that. It has been suggested that that will be the prelude to a Coalition, and some people do not like Coalitions. That is understandable, if you belong to a Party and happen to be prominent, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, or the noble Lord, Lord A berdare, and even the Liberals, in a potential kind of fashion. If people have aspirations of a political character, they think, "Perhaps my time will come some day; lots of strange people have gone to 10 Downing Street, so why not me?" I have never had that view myself, but others may have, and naturally they will say, "We don't want coalition. What!— join up with those other fellows. We will never be able to get our policies through." How amusing that is: "We shall never get our policies through if we have to depend on others "! They hardly ever do get their policies through, and for the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
One Government come to power; they are in power for a few years, and they are on top of the world. I have been in Governments myself. We are able to carry out our programme, and how we brag about it! Every item in the Manifesto has been implemented. What an achievement! And one day we find we are out. Why? The only reason is that for one reason or another we did not get enough votes, and as a result another Government come in and turn the whole thing upside down. They turn the clock back. Indeed, the fundamental element in all this is that Governments are always turning the clock back unless they are prevented by the creation of some other
120
element in the community. It could be the Press; it could be the trade unions. It could be the collaboration of a vast number of people who say, "We are sick and tired of this nonsense. It is about time we entered the fray. Since the people who exploited us in the past had their own way, why shouldn't we have our own way?" They go on strike, they ask for too much, they want more money. But where did they learn all these tricks?—from the other fellows in days gone by. Do not blame them too much. It is natural; it is inevitable, and is understandable.
My Lords, let us come down to brass tacks. What are we going to do about it? The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that you cannot introduce proportional representation before the next Election. Naturally you cannot introduce it unless the Government in another place agree to it, and unless it is agreed in your Lordships' House. I do not suppose they have time for an expedient of that kind, but it could happen. I have some ideas about this, but have no time to develop them.
At least I can say this. Let us imagine an Election in 18 months' time. Mrs. Thatcher would like an Election this year. I can understand that, she is a little impatient. Women are often a little too impatient. Sometimes they want too much, and when they get it they do not like what they get. Now that we have the Sex Discrimination Act, I can say what I like about women because we have equality with them. We need not bother about our behaviour now. What are we going to do? We might have an Election in 18 months' time, and the electors of the country might say, "We are a little tired of Mr. Wilson, Mr. Healey, Tony Benn, and even Michael Foot. We are a little tired of them. They have certainly done their best in the circumstances, circumstances over which perhaps they have not a great deal of control, but we had better have a change." So we could get someone else—perhaps Mrs. Thatcher, Mr. Maudling—oh no! I think he is too lazy for a job of that kind. It could be Willy Whitelaw, a very benign person, whom I have always liked. Or it might be decided to ask one of the old school. There are some in this assembly, on the other side of the House, of course; not on this side.

121
So the Conservative Government come in, but have not a clear majority. What happens? If they make their representations to the Liberal Party, I would venture a guess. The Liberal Party did not like it last time for some reason, but perhaps we had better not go into the intricacies or details of that. The next time the Liberal Party are asked to come in, they will go in. And why blame them? They must have their chance to sit on a Government Bench at some time. They have very capable people, so why should they not?
On the other hand, it might be that a Conservative Government come in and have a majority, and even join with another Party if they have not got a complete majority, in order to form a limited Coalition of a certain kind. What happens? They will have more than enough trouble with the trade unions, and all your trade union Bills, all your trade union Amendment Bills and all the rest of the legislation, pernicious or otherwise, or even benevolently intended, will have little effect. That is no way to correct the situation. We must give a measure of confidence to the people of the country that those in Government are not concerned about their political views alone, but will focus their intention first of all, on putting their country back on its feet, even if it means the exclusion of some ideas and even the idealism which pervaded our Party in the past. It may be necessary to put much of it in cold storage for a while. I would be prepared to do that. Perhaps I ought not to say that because what time have I got? But let us leave it at that. It would be far better to put some of it in the freezer for a while in order to focus our attention on the things that really matter.
We have been trying to reduce inflation for quite a long time. It is not enough to use the alibi that there is inflation in other places; never mind about other places. It is said that there is vast unemployment which will increase—and why? Not merely because of a Government who fails to understand how to deal with it, but because of automation, rationalisation and mechanisation, so that fewer men than in the past are required for our productive purposes. These factors must be contended with. It requires not only skill, but organisation and understanding, and we must create the
122
confidence necessary among the general public. In my judgment, the confidence we had in the past will not be revived and restored as a result of the Election, or the appointment arising from an Election, of one single Party. It requires a combination and collaboration of Parties in order to create that confidence.
My Lords, I conclude by saying that I support wholeheartedly the proposition made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that some form of electoral system which represents true democracy is essential. If, as a result of that, a Coalition should ensue, we will have to make the best of it. It may not happen, but if we believe in democracy, let us seek to implement it.
4.50 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, judging from the extent to which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, seems to accept the basic theses advanced by my noble friend Lord Byers, I confess I cannot imagine why he goes on sitting where he does. Indeed, I should have thought his place was over here, rather than over there. Anyhow, I would not have thought that what he said was very acceptable to all his noble friends on that side.
To revert, however, to the Liberal Motion, may I say that I should have welcomed the opportunity of dealing with the highly unimpressive arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in support of the present electoral law, one of which, however, was adequately countered by my noble friend Lord Byers. Unfortunately I have not the time to do that now, and no doubt some of my noble friends will deal with them later on. So I propose, not unexpectedly, to cope with a matter which is both relevant to this Liberal Motion and of great importance at the present time, and that is the issues involved in direct elections to the European Parliament. Although we are going to debate it in about a month's time, I think it is not out of order to put forward some views in regard to it now, if only because it is conceivable that what is said in this Chamber is sometimes taken into consideration by the Government when they are preparing a White Paper. I should hope so, anyway.
My Lords, a directly elected European Parliament is now—and I say this

123
categorically—the best, if not the only, instrument for gradually transforming the present Common Market, as most people in this country go on calling it, into a real, democratic political Community. Not everybody may welcome this, especially noble Lords on the other side of this House, but I think that the majority of people who have any understanding of the great issues now facing this country, do so without reserve. In saying this I am not, as some remaining anti-Marketeers may claim, giving vent to, as it were, the last desperate hope of a European whose vision of a genuinely democratic entity in Western Europe has been consistently frustrated by the comparative failure of the organs of the EEC to function as originally intended, and notably, of course, the frequent inability of the Council on great occasions to speak with one voice.
On the contrary I have been agreeably surprised during the last few years at the extent to which quite often nationalistic urges have been overcome in the interests of an agreed common policy in the Council of Ministers. As we know, it is true that this happy outcome has, under the present system usually, been the result of furious bargaining behind the scenes in the Committee of Permanent Representatives, with some assistance by the Commission. But even as it is, the role of the present nominated Parliament has not been negligible, as is witnessed by the constant presence of important Ministers and Commissioners at its debates—they are always there month after month in the plenary sessions—and the attention paid by Ministers to at least some of its resolutions, and not least to the scheme for direct elections itself associated with the name of that admirable young Socialist Schelto Patijn. Neither should we minimise the success of the Conference of Foreign Ministers in increasingly achieving a common foreign policy within the framework of what is called the "Davignon procedure".
When, however, the Parliament is directly elected its members will be able, by the requisite majority, to bring considerably greater political pressure to bear on the Ministers to accept some solution which may for long have been held up in the Council by a minority of
124
national representatives. Why so? Well, it is perfectly true that a directly elected assembly is less likely to be the rather jolly and fraternal body that it is now. It will, of course, have greater powers. What will be the point of directly electing it unless it does have greater powers? And the political differences will then become greater and the debates consequently fiercer, if only because the result of them will be more significant.
So it is to be hoped that, making a virtue, as I think, of ultimate necessity, the Ministers will agree to the grant to the Parliament, no doubt to coincide with its direct election in 1978, of all or some of the powers of what is called "co-decision" proposed in the Vedel Report of several years ago. By this means, apart from anything else, more important political figures will be induced to stand for election, though, if we may judge from Willy Brandt's example, many important figures arc likely to present themselves anyhow. Willy Brandt, I may perhaps remind noble Lords, has just announced in a congress in Brussels that he himself proposes to stand for election.
Be that as it may, there is no doubt that a politician elected to the European Parliament, after a, no doubt, hotly contested fight on a Party political ticket, will be able, in his European constituency, to make much more fuss than a member of a national Parliament nominated by his political Party, as now, who must presumably be on his best behaviour if he wants to hold down his job and even get preferment to Ministerial office. True, the European member concerned will also have been elected on a Party political ticket, and he may, therefore, himself be in danger when his five years' mandate expires if he departs from his Party line. But if by any chance he should do so, and perhaps persuade his constituents that he was right—because, after all, he will be making propaganda for himself in his European constituency—his action could well have some effect on the fortunes of his national party colleagues at the next national General Election.
There is certainly little doubt that when they meet together in the European Parliament all members, directly elected members, regardless of their groups, will tend, by the nature of things, by the very

125
atmosphere of the place, to regard political issues affecting the whole of Europe much more from a European than from a purely national point of view, and this point of view will be explained by the directly elected member to his constituents in his European constituency in this country. It is for this very reason that great importance (and I am building up the argument towards direct elections) attaches to what is called the organic link between the European Parliament and the national Parliaments. The best way of achieving this, at any rate as we Liberals think, would be for the 67, as at present proposed, directly elected United Kingdom representatives to be given, on the analogy of the Berlin Members of the Bundestag, the privilege of speaking but not voting in the House of Commons, and, of course, attending all relevant committees.
Some assert—this theory has considerable support—that all that would be necessary would be for the 67 to be entitled to take part in the work of some joint European Standing Committee. But even if this body should hold its debates in public, which is doubtful I suppose, it would surely not produce the necessary sense of unity nor eliminate all sense of rivalry. So if actual membership of the House of Commons is impossible, and we are assured that it is, then it will still be essential for the 67 to become also Members of the Parliament at Westminister—and they are so enabled to do so under the Patijn Report—by being nominated temporary Peers of Parliament for the duration of their European mandate. Here I might perhaps observe, in parenthesis, that if any existing Peer happens to be elected—and some, after all, may stand—nothing could prevent him, despite the fact that he is a member of the European Parliament, from giving an account of his European activities in this House. And if he, why not others?
They could, thus, if they were ex officio Members of this House also give an occasional public account in Parliament of what they had been accomplishing in debates, which they might themselves initiate—as happens under the present nominated system. In any case, the 67, having become temporary Peers of Parliament, should attend any joint committee constituted to handle
126
European legislation. Naturally, they would eventually take over all the work of scrutiny now so admirably performed by the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, and her able assistants.
They would be very well qualified to do just this since they would, in the various committees of the European Parliament, have had to work from the start on such projects with representatives of the Commission. They would further be sufficiently numerous to devote most of their time to this important work, and thus be in every way capable of drawing the attention of their Party colleagues in their national Parliaments to anything which, in their view, might be dangerous from the point of view of their Party, or indeed from the point of view of the nation. It must finally be made plain that by such a procedure they could be made to appear to be—this is the real point—"our men in Strasbourg", as it were (or wherever the Parliament may then be), rather than remote characters or, worse still and worst of all, dangerous rivals to Westminster MPs whose work must inevitably be suspect and kept under constant review.
Other countries may have other means of achieving this vital organic link, but in our own case it is difficult to see how it can be suitably formed except more or less in the way suggested. After all, our Constitution is unwritten and wholly flexible. It might not, perhaps, be necessary for the 67 to be called "Lords" or even wear robes on State occasions. If necessary, there might be a special writ, couched in modern English, enabling them to sit for a given period "among the Barons". Why not? I dare say quite a number of them might like to call themselves "Lords", though it might be rather awkward if some called themselves Lords and others did not. Still, all these things are trifles, and the sensible thing, of course, would be to consider the nomination of "European Peers" as a step to-towards reforming this ancient House, perhaps on much the same lines as those so unfortunately rejected some years ago in another place.
So far I have confined my remarks to a consideration of what may happen if and when—I think I can now with some confidence say, "when"—the European Parliament, including a British contingent, is directly elected in 1978. For, after all,

127
if we should by any chance opt for nomination, as we can, we should apparently, under the recent European Council decision, be obliged to nominate 67 Members of the House of Commons, few of whom would have either the time or the inclination to serve. Therefore if that were so, it would virtually deprive this country of all representation in the European Parliament until 1983, which would surely be intolerable. But the question still remains as to how the British Members will be elected.
As I understand it, the present intention, of both the major Parties is that it should be elected in accordance with our archaic electoral law—usually referred to as a "winner takes all" system—which is supposed to result in "strong" government, as I think has been mentioned today, even if it means, in practice, the enactment of legislation abhorrent to two-thirds of the electorate and the virtual suppression of any minority point of view. The only real reason it continues to exist, of course, is because the major Parties think that they would lose some seats if it were replaced by some other system. That is a fact. In other words, it is not the national interest which enters into their calculations at all; it is purely Party interest.
However that may be—and one may accept it or not—not even the greatest advocate of this system could maintain that, if adopted for the election of British Members of a European Parliament, it would result in the emergence of a "strong" European Government. How could that possibly be, unless it is proposed that such a Government should be drawn from the ranks of the European Parliament, of which there is no question until such time—it may be never as the British Parliament agrees that some such federal system should be adopted. The argument that it would result in a "strong" European Government in other words, is totall bogus.
I cannot believe that this electoral absurdity will last for much longer without rather dreadful consequences. For instance, at the moment it seems to be also the firm intention of the Government, at any rate to apply it to the election of a Scottish assembly. Yet almost all those best qualified to judge—and I
128
believe that goes for some Scottish Labour supporters, too—admit that the application of this system to the election of a "devolved" Scottish assembly would mean, in practice, handing over Scotland to the Scottish Nationalists on a plate. I repeat what I said the other day when we debated devolution; namely, that either the Government plump for a toothless Scottish assembly (in which case the results of the elections may not matter very much) thereby however running the risk of producing a revolutionary situation, or they agree to grant the assembly significant powers and still arrange for the elections to be held on a "winner takes all" basis in which case there would be every reason to suppose that the Nationalists, with only, perhaps, 30 or 40 per cent. of the votes, would gain a considerable majority of the seats, and thus be well on the way to replacing the Union Jack by the St. Andrew's Cross over Edinburgh Castle.
It looks, however, as if the Government had more or less abandoned the original idea of constituting a toothless assembly, the Secretary of State for Scotland being in a position to veto any measure which he deems to be ultra vires, thus avoiding what I might call danger A. But if so, unless they agree in the national interest to arrange for some kind of proportional representation, they will unquestionably run up against danger B. There is no doubt about that.
The official Opposition seem to be becoming aware of this real danger—particularly those Tories who have anything to do with Scotland—and we must hope therefore that eventually the whole Conservative Party will vote for proportional representation when the Bill comes before the House of Commons. So, of course, will the Liberals and, I believe, for tactical reasons, even the SNP, to say nothing of such Ulster Members as may turn up. It looks, therefore, as if it would need only about 10 Labour MPs to be converted to what may be considered by most to be a reasonable proposal, even from the narrow point of view of Party interest, for proportional representation to be adopted for Scotland, as indeed it has already been adopted with success for Northern Ireland. And though noble Lords may not believe it, I ask them at least to consider that, though Liberals may well think that the adoption

129
of this system in Scotland may lead on eventually to its adoption in England, it is something, none the less, which transcends any particular Party interest.
But if common sense as well as national interest can legitimately be invoked on behalf of PR for Scotland, there is an even more convincing case to be made out for PR in the context of direct elections to the European Parliament. This Parliament is supposed—I am sure that the Government will not deny this—to represent all the major political currents of opinion in the Community. Only if it does so will the Ministers be able to profit from the popular support—if they can get it—of the great mass of the peoples involved. Only so can they promote enthusiasm for the great reforms that must be undertaken if Europe is to survive. Only so will they, contrariwise, be able to avoid adopting measures which are clearly seen to run counter to popular instincts and desires.
But what will happen if one applies the "winner takes all" system to European elections in the United Kingdom. The psephologists tell us that the larger the constituency the larger the swing. If, therefore, we were to have some 67 British constituencies roughly ten, times as large as existing constituencies combined with a "winner takes all" electoral system, we should in all probability have a grotesque swing resulting quite possibly in the return of a very large number of Members of the official Opposition, if by chance the Party in power had become unpopular; few representatives of the Party in power itself; a high proportion of Nationalists; and no Liberals at all, even though they might poll over 6 million votes. Nobody knows what the political climate will be in 1978 but surely the two larger Parties, if only in their own interests, should think twice before saddling our unfortunate country with this kind of system—a fearful demonstration of our political immaturity displayed to an astonished Continent.
In saying all this, of course, we Liberals, as realists, can understand that, however reasonable the suggestion may be, there is perhaps small chance of the two major Parties' agreeing to proportional representation before the next national Election, which may not come before 1979—although of course they could, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell,
130
said. We shall maintain our demand for it and try to rally as much public support as we can, but all we now demand in the general interests of the nation is that a reasonable electoral procedure should be applied to the two other elections that seem most likely to take place before the middle of 1978. To hint that we do so for purely Party political reasons, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, hinted the other day, is unworthy —or, rather, it represents an attempt to place the Liberal Party in the same category as those who, flying in the face of all reasoned argument, insist for admittedly Party political motives, on applying our appalling system of voting —a system not adopted in any other country of the Community—to new situations designed to initiate a new and hopeful chapter in our relations with all our neighbours. Frankly, we think that this attitude is shameful and we appeal to all those who continue to share it to abandon what in the long run must be a losing cause, and indeed to abandon it soon. As I have said, it needs, for a start, the conversion of only a few men with a national conscience to prevent the Government from pushing through their ill-conceived devolution plan for Scotland on a basis which will only too obviously wreck it from the start.
My Lords, I have perhaps said enough to convince at any rate some of your Lordships that the whole case for electoral reform is no longer a stale joke or a Liberal lost cause appealing only to cranks and experts and professors. It is, on the contrary, a burning issue which must be tackled sensibly if we are not to become more and more an inward-looking society and, indeed, a rather provincial laughing-stock, incapable of pulling ourselves together or of embarking on those great reforms which appal the timid but attract the brave.
5.13 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, some noble Lords will remember that on 22nd May 1974 I was fortunate enough to be able to initiate a full Wednesday debate on the need to consider what changes could usefully be made to our Party and Parliamentary system to bring it into line with present-day needs and improve the functioning of our democracy. Nothing since has occurred to affect the point of view I then expressed,

131
but there is one factor which I did not emphasise strongly but which now seems to me to be of paramount importance. I said that almost any system of Government, however perfect at its initiation, would sooner or later be abused and have to be changed. I cited as an example the method of electing the American President.
Today we can see our democratic system being exploited by extremists for their own ends. Changes must be made if we are to meet this threat and to preserve all that is good and admired from the past. Two arguments against doing so were made in the last debate by some influential Members of this House. The first was that our system had always developed to meet the needs of the day and it would do so now. Perhaps this is true, but only because of the efforts of those who saw that change was necessary. The failing of this nation has always been too little and too late. It takes necessary action only at the eleventh hour. One day it may be too late—it nearly was before the last war. The second argument against change in our unwritten Constitution is rather more plausible and considerably more dangerous. It is based on the assumption that nothing has really altered in politics during the last 30 years or so and that everything today can be paralleled with past experience. This may well be true, but the point that escapes those experienced people is that the external conditions in which the old politics operated are today completely different, and their view is really a condemnation of the lack of change in our political system.
In what way is the situation so different today? First, the old order of society, based largely on an élite selected by birth and inheritance, has passed away. With it so has the inherently stable society which it required for its survival. It was perhaps historically an extension of the feudal system and our system of government, so-called democracy, was to some extent at least tailored to its needs. Secondly, religion used to provide a reasonably clear guide as to what was right or wrong, desirable or undesirable. I would still call myself religious, but one has to admit that today religion does not have any important effect on contemporary thought or ideals. Thirdly,
132
although there has always been a vocal element against the existing order of society, it has only recently developed the efficient subversive techniques of today's extremists. Fourthly, although Governments and politicians have always been unpopular at times, they are so today to a far greater and more fundamental degree than they have ever been in the past. Fifthly, the present-day thinking is towards a greater representation of everyone's point of view. Governments may rightly have to introduce unpopular measures, but to pass through Parliament doctrinal measures supported by probably not more than 15 per cent. of the electorate is a mockery of democracy in any popular meaning of the word.
In the debate two years ago I was careful only to indicate possible areas where change might be considered. Today I think I might usefully be a little more specific. In my view, some form of proportional representation is absolutely essential. With modifications, it would still be possible to give the Party polling the greatest number of votes a majority in Parliament. Personally, I think the system would work perfectly adequately without this. I know that the self-interest of Parties makes this change difficult. However, I would maintain that it is in the interest of both major Parties although the Conservatives may win the next Election I do not believe that they will ever do so again unless the electoral system is broadened. The Socialists would, I think, remain at the mercy of their extremists and fail to achieve sensible Socialism. Inevitably, in my view, the outcome could be Communism. Among the many things that ought to be considered, I will mention only a few. The time has surely come when at least a partially written Constitution is desirable and would give greater stability.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said, devolution will mean some changes in our Parliamentary system and it would provide a good opportunity for introducing this new element. A further opportunity would occur if the House of Lords could be reformed or if proportional representation were introduced. I know that much has been said against the use of a referendum, but we now have a precedent and a referendum avoids an unnecessary election with the

133
country having to make a choice between two Parties on a single issue. I believe that the answer would be to control the use of referenda, and this could only effectively be done by writing the principle into the Constitution.
In considering the functioning of Government, we cannot ignore the trade unions. They are now so powerful that, to a great extent, the country can be governed only with their consent. It is therefore vital that they should be truly representative, and their methods of election and much else need rethinking in terms of the wider and more important role which they now perform. There is no place today for unthinking adherence to outworn shibboleths. Collective bargaining has always been to a great extent equated with the law of the jungle in which the weakest always loses. I do not believe it to be healthy for the Labour Party to have to rely to the extent it does on funds and members funded by the unions, and I also deplore the dependence of the Conservative Party on City and business interests. There would, therefore, seem to be a strong case for providing the Parties with some funds from a central source.
I do not believe in explosive and uncontrolled change. If we want to hold on to what was good in the past, we must plan our changes in time. What I believe to be needed more than anything else today is a positive way of life as an alternative to Communism and dictatorship. In my view, neither present-day Socialism nor Conservatism is dynamic enough to inspire the moderate element in our society and it is on that element that we really should rely in the future.
5.33 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I believe that there is nobody in this House who will not have appreciated the opportunity provided for us by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in initiating this debate. Certainly, I have never heard a clearer or more inspiring speech than that which was made by him on this subject today. I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is not here at the moment; his speech was historic and I very much enjoyed it.
Everybody has agreed that there is a great need to re-establish the prestige
134
and standing of this country's Parliamentary institutions. I should like to deal with two aspects of this problem. The first concerns the duties and the rights of a citizen to vote, and the second is to advocate without reservation the use of proportional representation for devolved Governments. I feel that there are tremendous difficulties in considering the introduction of PR into our Parliamentary system at Westminster. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has mentioned some of those difficulties, but they do not apply when it comes to a devolved Government. For instance, the question of the formation of a Government taking time where is is necessary to form a Coalition and of its being undesirable to leave the country without a rudder would not apply. We shall soon have before us legislation to set up devolved institutions for Scotland, and it seems to me to be a tragedy that the Government will not make the decision now to establish proportional representation for those new institutions, if only to see how it works at a lower level before we start tampering with the central system.
My own experience has been as a Member of Parliament twice elected by the ordinary method and as a Member of the Assembly and the Convention twice elected by proportional representation. In a short space of years, I had considerable experience of both systems. I was a Minister in a devolved Government for some time and it is that which emboldens me to speak about that subject as well as the other.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy brought into the debate the question of the unions. I should have liked to broaden the discussion to include also the CBI, the National Farmers' Union and all the other organisations to which we, in Parliament, have given a right to speak with authority, but especially those organisations for whose protection Parliament has passed rules, laws, and regulations. I believe that, having passed those laws, to protect and regulate the bodies in question, we have not insisted on sufficient regulation of the election of their leaders. Persons can come to the Government or before the television and can claim to speak for thousands—and, indeed, in some cases for millions—though some of them may only have been elected by tens. I

135
therefore come to the question whether we should not involve the members of such bodies in some obligation to vote. In Northern Ireland during the past two years we have had more elections than I can count and these were followed by a referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will know, too, that the prospect of doing without elections or referenda in Northern Ireland is not very bright. Personally, I shudder at the prospect of more elections and, just as union members have appeared to be disillusioned with voting, so there is a great tendency now in Northern Ireland not to vote.
We should recognise that fact. It is sometimes due to laziness, sometimes to disillusionment, sometimes to inconvenience and sometimes, in the case of Northern Ireland, to intimidation. I believe that in some unions the fact that one has to go to a branch meeting and hold up one's hand also constitutes intimidation of a kind. I believe that in all these bodies and in Parliamentary elections for devolved Governments, there should be a greater obligation upon the individual to vote. That is, we should make it easier and more convenient to vote than to abstain. We should extend the postal voting system throughout this area and, like Australia, we should, at the same time, include a nominal fine—I believe that it is ten dollars in Australia—for people who exercise the right not to vote. I do not believe that anybody in this House would suggest that Australia's institutions are not democratic and I suggest that that is the first proposition we should consider.
The second is the question of the use of proportional representation in devolved Governments which are about to be set up. My devotion to the unity of the United Kingdom is fundamental to my total political philosophy. As many other noble Lords have said, I believe that there is a danger to that unity in the present plans for devolution. I fear that there is a danger of the unity of the United Kingdom being split.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, mentioned the 1973 election for the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was carried out under PR and which produced a totally different result from the 1974 General Election. I should like to suggest a little caution on
136
that matter. There were eight months between the two elections and I do not believe that they furnish a satisfactory comparison or a good classical example of the problems of the "first past the post" method. The example which I feel to be the best is the 1948 South African election. In that election, the South African Parliament consisted of 150 seats and the two contestants were Dr. Malan and General Smuts. There were 12 seats which were uncontested, 11 of which went unopposed to General Smuts. One must assume that, in those seats, he had a very big majority and the resulting majority should therefore be added to his figures. Of the 138 seats that were contested, Malan won 78, with a total electorate of 442,338, while Smuts won only 60 seats, with an electorate of 547,437, to which should be added the 11 scats which went to Smuts uncontested. It is then found that under 40 per cent. of the electorate in South Africa changed the whole course of history. I believe that this is a perfect example of where PR would have changed the course of history and been an accurate and true reflection of what the voting people of South Africa really meant—
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but it will be for only a moment. He will remember that under the initial constitution, under the Union Act, there was a very strong bias given towards the country seats in South Africa, and therefore the actual distribution of seats was also one of the reasons for the disproportion in the voting.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I thank the noble Lord for that intervention; that is absolutely true. I am not quite sure whether this might not equally apply to Scotland, where the rural seats are very thinly populated and where there are some fairly massive urban seats. That seems to me to be almost a replica to what happened in South Africa. So I believe that there is a danger.
Had we a proportional representation Assembly, at the next Election, we could then have—as noble Lords have said, and if their fears are right —a vast majority of the 71 seats for Scotland in the House of Commons being of the Nationalist Party. It would, or should, then be modified by a much truer reflection in

137
the lower Parliament, the devolved Parliament, elected by proportional representation. In my view this would be a modification of the voice of Scotland, or a more accurate interpretation of the voice of Scotland. But over and above this, there are aspects of the actual working of a devolved Parliament, or a devolved institution, in its relations with central Government. A devolved Government, such as we had at Stormont, arrived at a most excellent machinery and a most excellent relationship with the central Government. This was a result of many things over a long time and was a great credit to all the Governments at Westminster and at Stormont. But at all times the Northern Ireland Government accepted the limitations by which it could modify, change, accept and reject the national policies, or rather the Party policies, of the national Government in power at Westminster. We were never involved, for instance, with the tremendous change that occurred, when one Socialist Government followed a Conservative Government, regarding the Town and Country Planning Acts. We were not involved in that. We established a balance by which that type of legislation was modified by the devolved Government.
It seems to me that it would be much easier for a new Assembly to establish those proper relations—because they would take time to establish—if the devolved Government was elected on a proportional representation basis. I am not going into the question of which variety of PR is appropriate because that is not very relevant at this point. But there is no doubt that a PR Election for an Assembly will reduce swings, because the other method exaggerates swings and produces an exaggerated majority; and I think that that has been accepted by everybody. It also produces, or is likely to produce, the need for coalition. I feel that this would be very important in the establishment and in the efficient working of devolved Parliaments in the rest of the United Kingdom.
When I was in Government in Northern Ireland I felt that the operation of a devolved Government was rather like going down a fairly wide tunnel. One could go a little to the right or to the left of the tunnel, but down that tunnel
138
one jolly well had to go! The general economic and financial limitations which are set by central Government in no way reduce the benefits from devolution, but what I believe they require is that Her Majesty's Government should look again at once, at proportional representation for devolution, and get it into the next Bill.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I speak as a member of Lord Blake's Committee set up under the Hansard Society, to which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred earlier in the debate today. For that reason, if for no other, I do not intend to deal with the details of electoral reform which we on that Committee are discussing at very great length, and on which, as has been reported, we hope to produce a report by the middle of June. Instead, I wish briefly to examine some of the other factors which affect the position and standing of Parliament at the present time, and therefore the efficiency of the political system in this country.
When the decline in the standing of Parliament is discussed, it is very often said that it is common in many spheres of life today for people to reject authority, and that this rejection of authority is a new thing from which Parliament suffers along with many other institutions. But on the contrary, I believe that the practice of criticising, and of being hostile to authority, is as old as Cain and Abel. Indeed, I do not believe that Parliament suffers more seriously from criticism than in previous centuries. Private Eye has very little on the lampoonists and the cartoonists of 200 years ago. Indeed, the Press has never been short of its honourable watchdogs nor, alas! of its quota of money-grabbing scavengers. Nor do I believe that it is true that the public as a whole resists authority. On the contrary, I believe that a great many people are seeking an authority that they can respect.
But what is true is that Parliament, like other institutions today, cannot command —it has to earn respect; the respect that people are seeking to give to the bodies that govern. The Parliament that can acquire and retain respect must today have three characteristics. It must be, and must be seen to be, democratic. It must, in fact, be sovereign and able to exercise the power it claims to hold;

139
and it must be non-totalitarian, by which I mean that it must respect and recognise, in its purposes, the fundamental pluralism of our society, which is a basic characteristic of the kind of democracy that we support.
How then does our present Parliamentary system measure up to the tests of being democratic, of being sovereign, and of being non-totalitarian? Other speakers have pointed out to this House how unrepresentative of the voters, and therefore how basically undemocratic, our present Parliament is. I will not again recite the figures showing how large a number of voters it requires to return a Member of one Party as against another, but I point to other undemocratic elements in the nature of our present Parliament. Let us look at the way in which candidates are chosen. This is a vital element in true democracy, and in regaining the support of the electorate. So long as it is possible for candidates to be elected and maintained in power by a small caucus of people whose power has been acquired often in devious ways, then indeed one cannot be surprised that people are scornful of the Parliament that results as a consequence.
I do not challenge—on the contrary—the right of a constituency Party to review and, if necessary, to reject, between Parliaments, their existing Member. After all, if you believe, as I believe, that a representative in Parliament must speak his own mind and act according to his conscience, then the corollary of that is that the constituency, between Elections, must have the right to say, "You no longer speak for us". But, my Lords, it must be the constituents, and not a small group of the constituents. It must be the Party members themselves; and if we are seeking ways in which to restore the standards of Parliament, we could do worse than look at the way in which candidates are chosen to be presented to the electorate for election.
What sort of democratic control have the elected Members of the people over the Government? With the present system of Whips, which has dominated the other place for so long, what real representation of the people who sent them to Westminster is there? We know perfectly well that, again and again, individual, elected Members do not believe in the policies which they support but are
140
dragooned into the Lobbies at the behest of the Whips. Can you wonder that Parliament as a democratic institution is losing the respect of the people that it seeks to govern?
Again, there is the question of the ultimate sovereignty, the control of Parliament over Government. How much real control do the elected representatives have over the activities of Ministers? The Back-Benchers are largely the fodder, there to feed the Ministers; and I for my part welcome the move which is going on at the present time in another place to see that Ministers can be more effectively called to account by the elected representatives of the people, that there should be a Select Committee system, working more thoroughly, under which Ministers may be required to go and could give evidence, as does not happen in most cases at the present time. When you see Parliament again exercising this kind of control, then you have some hope that people will say: "Here we see the genuinely democratically-elected representatives exercising the kind of democratic control in which we believe". So much for the House of Commons, let alone the House of Lords, being in fact a democratic Parliamentary system today.
Then, how about the sovereignty of Parliament, the power of Parliament? How many people today really believe that power resides in Westminster any more? Yes, there are some matters in which, of course, this remains true; but we know full well that to a very large extent power has moved away from the Palace of Westminster. Indeed, in many ways Parliament is not even a paper tiger: rather a Cheshire cat, fading away in its power and authority as decade succeeds decade. Where has the sovereignty gone to? Where is the power today? If we cannot reform and recover for Parliament the true sovereignty, how can we expect the electorate to take it seriously? It is, in part, in the Civil Service. It is perfectly true—nobody denies it—that a great deal of policy is decided, not by the elected Members but by the Government Departments; and many of the Government Departments no doubt accept that this is inevitable, even if, it may be, they do not wish it to be so. That needs to be looked at if Parliament is to claim to be sovereign.
But it is not only in the Civil Service that real sovereignty now resides. What

141
are the great powers outside Parliament? We all know the great power of industry and the great power of the trade unions. It is no use going on bemoaning the fact that power is where in reality it is. When it is found that there has been a shift of power and in this way an undermining of sovereignty, the need is to look at the institutions and find ways to legitimise their power. How can this be done? It may be that a move is taking place to get more and more authority to Neddy, so that the power of the CBI and the power of the trade unions may be harnessed to an institution which bears at any rate some relationship to the activities of Parliament.
For my part, however, I think we should probably go further. Previous speakers have made reference to the possible reform of your Lordships' House. We have in this House a Bench of Bishops. Is it really not practical, my Lords, to have a Bench, or two Benches, of industry, so that the social partners, as we have to learn to call them, may have a place inside the law-making institutions of this country? Somehow a way of institutionalising the fact of employer power and the fact of trade union power has to be found if Parliament's sovereignty, and therefore the public's respect for Parliament, is to be restored.
But, my Lords, just because both industry and the trade unions have so much power I would very much endorse what has been said by previous speakers and say that there, too, we are justified in requiring that true democracy should be found. Institutions with the ability to sway the fortunes of the country, as have the great industrialists and the trade unions, are not private, voluntary organisations which can be left to order their own affairs regardless of the effect on the rest of us. How representative is the CBI of the great mass of employers in this country? What are their systems for seeing that when they come to make representations to Governments, when they use their power in developing the economic affairs of this country, they really democratically speak for the great mass of employers up and down this country and for the great mass of professional managers who in fact provide the ideas and the skills which make the carrying on of industry possible?
142
Then, again as previous speakers have said, although it may be said that the trade unions have in some respects set an example in some cases in having their own elections conducted on a basis of proportional representation, the fact remains that the choice of the people who are going to exercise great power in this country is often left to a mere handful, fewer than 10 per cent., of the posible voting members. Surely we can do something to see that the voting power of the trade unions is used, and properly used; and may I add to what other speakers have said in urging that we should make a move towards postal ballots inside the trade unions, and that public money should be made available to see that this is done. We have only to look at what has happened in such trade unions as the ETU, where a postal ballot has enabled a large number of people to contribute to the choice of their executive—a far more representative executive than would have been had if no postal ballot had been used. Reforms of this kind are absolutely vital, and the need to institutionalise this power is paramount.
Then, my Lords, I said that, to be respected, Parliament must also be non-totalitarian and respectful of the pluralism of our society. One of the things which has brought Parliament into great disrespect in this country is the tendency—it is more than a tendency—for Government to take on activities which do not belong properly to Government; the extension of governmental activity into a wide range of fields of life which are far better left to voluntary effort of one kind or another. We suffer from far too much government far too badly done. Your Lordships' House knows all too well how hurried and slovenly is much of the legislation which comes up to us from another place, and how difficult it is to carry through the legislation which is passed.
How can Parliament be respected? How can people take seriously the idea that the Government are in control of the economic situation when we are told that they do not even know where their own money has gone to and when estimates of what they are to spend are of an inaccuracy which would bankrupt any firm if it indulged in such wild

143
Practices? Better government, seen to be competent, would command respect— a Government which recognized that there are many fields of life which are beyond, and should be beyond, the clutch of the politician's hand. This would do a great deal to restore the confidence that Parliament so badly needs—and it is not just that Parliament needs to have its confidence in itself restored. Representative Parliamentary government remains by far the best system of government which the world has yet devised.
The governing of men was always a difficult task. The governing of men in a democratic society, the self-government of men through Parliamentary institutions, is an even harder task. But this country is said to have a tradition of great political wisdom and great political experience. We knew how to adapt our institutions in the 15th century, in the 16th century, in the 17th century, in the 18th century and in the 19th century. Has our political creative wisdom failed us only now?
5.51 p.m.
The Earl of DUNDEE: My Lords, I think I have addressed your Lordships about three times in the last two years on this subject and all I want to do now, I hope very briefly, is to make a short contrast between the case for reform of the imperial Parliament—which is a very important question but, I am afraid, not an immediate one—and the case for having in any Bill that may be brought forward for devolution in Scotland an Assembly which shall be based not on the old bad principles but on new and better ones and preferably on proportional representation. On the question of the imperial Parliament, I think that I agreed with everything which was said by the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Byers, who introduced the Motion and, if I may say so, I was particularly interested to hear the very short and cogent speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, opposite. I think that the noble Lord the mover of the Motion is very right to argue that over the last century the present system of election has gradually eroded the real power of Parliament and particularly the real power of the House of Commons. It has resulted in a vast increase of bureaucracy, in a great diminution of the real influence which a Parliamentary representative can
144
exercise in the government of the country on behalf of the people who have elected him and also in encouraging in some ways, and particularly in economics, bad government by whatever Government is in power.
If we are frank with ourselves I am sure that we can all remember such periods in the life of every post-war Government. I see that my noble friend Lord Amory is here. I always say that he is the only good Chancellor that we have had since the war. He was the only one who was in Office at the Exchequer for three years without a single month of inflation; the purchasing power of our money remained the same through all his period of office and unemployment at the end was very low. No one since the war has done that.
On the other side of the picture, how easy it is under our electoral system for a Government who know that there is going to be an Election in perhaps 12 months or eight months, to manage the affairs, half consciously or perhaps deliberately, in such a way that some inflation takes place and that some, perhaps fictitious, appearance of prosperity may have the effect of giving people the impression when the Election comes that things are going a bit better. And how few votes you have to turn under our present system to win an Election! You may make a difference of 20 per cent, of the seats with perhaps only 2 per cent. of the votes. I think that that is a very bad feature of our present electoral laws. Now we hope that these things will be reformed; and I am always glad to try to encourage anyone in either House of Parliament who tries to raise the subject. I wish that there were a possibility of something being done, but I am afraid that I cannot say that there is a great prospect of anybody in another place doing much at the present moment. The Liberal Party have only 14 seats and the Socialists are not likely to do anything about it because they know that since the war they have won no fewer than six out of ten Elections, sometimes with as great a majority as 180 seats; but never once with a majority of the votes, always with a substantial minority of votes. As for the Conservatives, I am afraid that a very large number of the Conservative Party have not got enough brains to see how

145
much harm the present system is doing. So long as these conditions are subsisting together I doubt whether anything very exciting is likely to be done.
Now, my Lords, to the more immediate question. It is perhaps not so important in the minds of many of us but it is immediate. During the lifetime of this Parliament we may have a Bill to create devolution for Scotland and it is very important that we should get the right kind of Assembly. I think that it is very wrong and unfair that English Members here, in another place or anywhere else, should try to prevent the Government or this House or anybody who has any influence in the matter from introducing proportional representation in a Scottish Assembly because some of them say, "We are afraid that if you have an Assembly of this kind in Scotland it will mean that more people will want it in England." I think that that is a rotten argument and that there is nothing in it at all. We did not object —nobody in England or Scotland objected—to Ulster having proportional representation when Ulster had a local Assembly—or the Irish Free State. Since then, and before the troubles began, this electoral system has worked very well and with much better results than a straight single-Member constituency system would have produced.
My Lords, I sat in the House throughout the two days and listened, not perhaps to all 68 of them, but to very nearly all the speeches during our debate on Scottish devolution. Your Lordships will correct me if I am wrong but I think that very few who spoke in that debate were against proportional representation for the proposed Scottish Assembly and I also think that most of your Lordships who mentioned the subject were in favour of it. Of course, the best arguments that you can find for it are in the Royal Commission Reports on which the Government legislation was based—the Kilbrandon Report and the Minority Crowther-Hunt Report which strongly recommended proportional representation on all the grounds which were brought forward by the noble Lord who moved the Motion in speaking of the Parliament at Westminster. All the same grounds apply in a slightly different way to a local Assembly. Your Lordships
146
will find that the people who wrote these reports on which Scottish devolution is supposed to be based show clearly the bad results which might accrue if we have a system where a small number of votes could make a difference to a very large number of seats and, in particular, a system under which one area might return members to the Assembly consisting of nearly all the same Party, while another returned members consisting of nearly all another Party.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, is not in his place. We all sympathised with him when he had to wind up the debate and had to disclaim proportional representation at the end of his speech, having given the most brilliant argument in favour of it only 18 months before in his Report. He made the excuse that when he wrote the Report he was then living in an ivory tower. That raised my sympathy and pity very much; I hated to think of him being removed from this lovely ivory tower and being enslaved by a Government who I think one might reply are forcing him to wear an iron mask which prevents him from seeing anything he is not supposed to see or saying anything he is not supposed to say. However, I should like to be kind to the noble Lord, both in his presence and in his absence. because we all understand the position of a man who has to suppress his own views on account of his being a member of a Government.
One thing which happened as a result of that debate is that a few days later there was a letter in The Times written by two Members of your Lordships' House. One is my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, who is one of the most trusted and admired men in all Scotland. I was going to say a lot more nice things about him but now he is in his place I will not do so because it might embarrass him. The other Member was the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who is chairman of the Scottish Peers' Association in your Lordships' House. These are two very weighty signatures to this letter. I hope the letter will be acted on and that, as they suggest, a conference will be arranged. If the Government will not agree to take part in it, let us have one composed of people of authority in Scotland, perhaps from local authorities and elsewhere, who might wish to take part in it. It will be

147
far better if we can have people from both Houses of Parliament and if the Government will agree to look sensibly upon this.
It may be that we shall not have a devolution Bill as soon as is intended, partly because the White Paper seems to reveal such a muddle in the Government's approach to this subject that no one would be surprised if they failed to draw up a Bill which they thought could get through Parliament; but if they do we will have to decide this question in both Houses. I have not discussed this with anybody, but for myself I believe a local Assembly in Scotland which is elected on the present out-of-date system will do very much harm to my country. I feel this genuinely, and I ought to tell your Lordships that if that is done I will vote against such a Bill in all its stages even if I have to go into the Lobby alone.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, would he answer one question? What real advantage does he think will accrue from the transfer of the Scottish Grand Committee in the House of Commons—the most boring committee in the world, as my noble friend and I both know from personal and long experience—from London to Edinburgh?
The Earl of DUNDEE: My Lords, I am not sure but I think my noble friend is a little out of date. This was proposed some five or ten years ago, but I do not think it comes into the present scheme at all.
6.6 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I feel sure that the majority of your Lordships will welcome this debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Byers. It has always seemed strange to me that your Lordships' Chamber, which is basically undemocratically populated, is often a place where the principles, rights and freedom of democracy are much more strongly upheld than sometimes in another place, in the unions and in many other so-called democratic institutions and, in particular, the selection by political Parties of their prospective Parliamentary candidates.
My Lords, let us consider briefly the purposes and intents of democracy. These I feel could be basically divided into three parts. Democracy should minimise the
148
practice whereby minority factions gain control of organisations as a result of a low turn-out of the eligible voters. Democracy should by every means eligible encourage voters to vote. Democracy should expose fully to the public those organisations which are unrepresentative of their electors. How can this be achieved? I do not profess to know all the answers, but I should like to try and make a few suggestions. Perhaps it could be that only elections in which a majority of voters from the electorate vote by secret ballot—postal or otherwise—should be deemed as being representative. Secondly, as my noble friend Lady Seear said, postal votes should be mandatory if the voter cannot be present in person. Thirdly, elections by a minority ballot should be deemed to be unrepresentative and therefore have no standing in that particular sphere. Lastly, any organisation that does not abide by, for want of a better word, these rules should, through its own default, cease to be known as a representative organisation.
Broadly speaking, these principles should apply across the board to all organisations, political, unions and social, particularly those with a membership of more than, say, 100 people, or where aggregates of subdivisions total more than 100. It may well be that my figure of 100 is totally wrong, but perhaps the optimum figure could be arrived at after further thought and debate. I should like specifically to mention the selection of prospective Parliamentary candidates.
Through the present method of selection by the two major Parties, trouble can arise from the most unexpected quarter—and I do not need to go into the troubles which have befallen the right honourable gentleman the Member for Newham North-East. I should like your Lordships earnestly to consider the Liberal Party's practice and code for the selection of Parliamentary candidates, which are not greatly dissimilar from the system of primaries. I beg your Lordships' indulgence while I quote one or two relevant paragraphs. The procedure may seem complicated at first hearing, but if any of your Lordships should feel puzzled by it I am sure it will appear much clearer when printed in Hansard tomorrow.
"The Candidates' Committee, consisting of the Chief Whip of the House of Commons as ex-officio chairman, a deputy chairman

149
appointed by him, two members elected annually by the National Executive Committee and three members elected annually by a postal ballot of all candidates shall be responsible for the preparation of lists of approved potential candidates for aiding a constituency association in the selection of candidates and the training of candidates. Constituency associations shall use the following procedure when selecting candidates. The constituency association shall first inform the Secretary of the Candidates' Committee of its intention to select a candidate. The association Executive committee, or a selection committee set up by it, shall consider all names submitted to it by the Candidates' Committee or by any member of the association. This committee shall submit three or more names of suitable candidates to a general meeting but may submit fewer than three names if, in its opinion, there are not as many as three suitable candidates among the names submitted to it. The association Executive Committee may, by a two-thirds majority, decide to propose to a general meeting the re-adoption of a previous candidate. At least two weeks' notice should be given to all members of the association and to the Secretary of the Candidates' Committee of the place and date of the general meeting and of the names to be submitted. The general meeting, after hearing and questioning each of the proposed candidates, shall select one as their adoptive prospective Parliamentary candidate in secret ballot and by the alternative vote. The Candidates' Committee may in exceptional circumstances authorise the constituency association to vary the procedure. A representative of the Candidates' Committee and of the regional Party shall be entitled to attend and speak at any selection committee, executive or general meeting."
Your Lordships will, I hope, note that what I have said constitutes a closed primary in two ways—
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me if I intervened to ask him what is the difference between the procedure he has just outlined to us as "special" and that which is adopted in the Conservative Party?—because to my certain knowledge they have been following such a procedure for more than a quarter of a century, and from what I know of the Party opposite, they follow a procedure which is not dissimilar. I am not criticising the noble Lord's description of their procedure, but it seems to me exactly what is in operation in other Parties and it is not "special".
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should also like to intervene briefly, if I may, because it seems to me that this is exactly the procedure which has been followed in the Labour Party. However, what seems very important to me is the
150
matter of how people get on to the candidate's list, and that is something which the noble Earl did not explain.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, if I may take first the question which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I may well be under a misapprehension. I did not think that was the way in which it was done, but if I am wrong I must apologise. As regards the question which was put by the noble Baroness, I understand she was asking how one got on to the candidates list. The candidates are voted centrally in London. Does that help the noble Baroness?
Baroness PHILLIPS: Not particularly, my Lords. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me, but I thought he was making the point that he had a different system. I should like to endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, From what was said, it does not appear to be a system which is very different, if at all different, from procedures followed at the moment by the Labour Party and, from what I know of the Conservative Party, from that Party, either.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, as I said, it is very possible that I may have been under a misapprehension. I thought there was a difference and I said what I said in good faith. However, I should like to continue by saying that the voters are limited to the members of the association, and this is obviously a provision which everybody in this Chamber will strongly support. Secondly, the nominations can come only through the association executive. Therefore, each Liberal, and possibly each Tory and Labour member, has a genuine say in the election of a candidate. I was under the impression that this does not always happen but certainly, so far as I know, in the Liberal Party this practice seems to have worked out very well in the past inasmuch as certain constituency executives who have produced a Liberal candidate whom they thought would be acceptable to their members have sometimes been proved wrong. This has thereby produced a strong element of genuine democracy in what is sometimes one of the more shady and camouflaged areas of our so-called "democratic" political system.
6.16 p.m.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, I was fascinated by the first three speakers, and must apologise for having failed to hear the two noble Viscounts, since I had to go out. I should like to begin by saying that, with one exception, I totally agree with the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. It seems to me wrong—I do not know whether it is wrong in conscience and perhaps I do not know quite enough about conscience, although I examine my own fairly frequently—that a Party resting on one-third of the votes of the people in a country should be able to pursue legislation which is hotly distasteful to the other two-thirds. But that is what is happening, and I think it is fundamentally wrong.
I am hopeful that proportional representation would cure that, so that there would be an end to this rule by a minority over a very hostile Opposition, taking the country as a whole—not on all matters of legislation but on some very important matters. Therefore, that is what I would hope for. If I were asked to vote for a method of doing this, I would do my utmost to get a single Member for a constituency, because I feel that the "fathering" of a constituency by one Member is very valuable in social and other relationships. If multi-Member constituencies proliferated, it would add one more impersonal factor to a situation which is already bedevilled by impersonal relationships in so many large institutions. I was going to add my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who was the first person I heard endorsing the necessity for a very thorough process of selecting candidates. 1 now transfer my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, because I am really bothered by the question of how they get on the list at all. I have the feeling that once they get on to the short list the business is probably well and fairly done. How do they get on to the short list? I think I am probably bothered by the same idea as the noble Baroness: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Byers, can enlighten us about that. However, in the matter of the trades unions and the way they vote, that surely is equally important.
If, for example, in national Parliamentary Elections the poll was regularly under 50 per cent., I think I should very
152
strongly support a compulsory vote as there is in some countries, so that people would be obliged to vote. I have heard today—it may have been from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—that, by means of the postal vote, the voting for union officials has moved in some cases from 6 per cent. to 37 per cent. I was familiar with the figure of 6 per cent. and I have always thought it a horrifying concentration of power in the hands of a few activists. But 37per cent. is rather poor, and I should have thought we had in some way to move towards something more representative. One mentions that now because of the power exercised by the trade unions.
I think one must now face the fact that if there is proportional representation there will be a permanent Coalition, by which I mean that if there is minority government the Coalition is unseen; it is a crypto-Coalition. It may be a shifting Coalition from one Bill to another, and not a formal one. But I think that, in one way or another, Coalition will be the Government of the future and I accept it. I have been worrying about it for many years, and I think that that will come.
I am not certain that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has the same ideas about the Coalition which he advocates. Incidentally, I was once more fascinated from the beginning to the end of his 30-minute speech, which kept a smile on my face the whole time. How he does it at 90, I do not know. But I gathered from his speech the other day that he was advocating, for the cure of our inflationary problem—which is a great crisis, indeed—a Coalition which would he of a different kind. Although it was reported in the Press that he had talked of a Coalition for seven years, I think he meant for only several, perhaps having in mind three years or thereabouts.
But the Coalition that we are arguing about today is different. I have a feeling that it is too late and the opportunity has gone for that kind of Coalition in this Parliament. On the other hand, I think that proportional representation, if and when implemented, will change our system of government into a permanent Coalition, and I do not mind. I do not like the spectacle of the Conservatives being influenced unduly by their extreme

153
Right, as I have seen happen, or the Labour Party by their extreme Left. Moderate men in both Parties find that distasteful, but they have to placate their extremists who are people with nothing to lose; therefore, we all suffer.
Another thing which I would readily accept is a waiting period after General Elections, during which no legislation at all takes place. I would regard that as a breathing space and would look upon it as an interval of extreme relief, because we legislate too much. If there were a crisis pending, deliberations would soon he brought to a conclusion and people would decide. It is only when things were going reasonably well that deliberations would last for weeks.
I come now to the point at which I would respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers. Even if we have proportional representation and it gets rid of the minority control over our affairs, I do not think that we shall effect an enormous measure of cure of our present ills. The ills from which we suffer have been indicated in unexpected quarters—one in a speech to which I referred earlier, that of Mr. Harold Wilson addressing the miners on 7th July last year, and the other in a little article by Bryan Magee in The Times of, I think, the day before yesterday—which show that we have reached a kind of cul-de-sac in the process of the redistribution of resources. We have been moving from the bourgeois, the well-to-do, to the workers, and we have reached a point where a very large proportion of the workers have moved to bourgeois standards and are enjoying a standard of living superior to that of the lower middle classes. They are getting more money to spend.
Mr. Wilson's remarks to the miners indicated that further transfer of wealth by what is conventionally known as "soaking the rich"—an expression which he did not himself use, although he used an expression which meant that—had come to an end. There were no further possibilities in that line. Any further subsidies of this and that would mean additional taxation, additional inflation, and the taxation in that case would not be taxation of the well-to-do, but taxation of everybody—of everybody's beer and
154
of the commodities that we all use. Therefore, we have reached the end of the road.
I am one of those who feel that the disturbance from which we suffer is that we have created, among the workers of our country, persons of a bourgeois standard of life who have not acquired the bourgeois responsibilities of the past. They do not have the stability of ownership. I am talking not of the ownership of Dukes, Marquesses, Earls and people of the class of life from which I have emerged, but of everybody. I have often wondered why we made no progress when, 20 years or so ago, the Conservative Party was talking about a property-owning democracy—in other words, everybody with at least a house and a garden as a foundation of stability—and whether that target could be revived. There are so many people who own things which are of a decaying nature, even the motor car for which people save for years. Its life is only eight to 10 years at the very outside. It is a dreadful delusion to think that you are stable and well-to-do in saving up for a motor car, and then find that it decays in your hands and you have to save again.
It seems to me that the hugely expensive process, whereby the Treasury takes money from taxpayers and then redistributes benefits largely to the same taxpayers at enormous expense both in taking away and in redistributing, should be slowly transformed into self-insurance groups and many other systems, whereby the growing number of well-to-do people may opt out of what is a kind of servile state and once more become independent. In other words, what I have always looked for is that the working classes, as they used to be called, should become small bourgeois people and not the other way around. I am only too aware of the immense scorn which Marx poured on that kind of person. Nevertheless, he is the person whom I should wish to see come about. I want to see a multiplication of small people of minor substance owning houses, a small plot of land and a good many other things such as nice furniture, with a great choice of things which do not decay in their hands and which give them stability, and I would take the risk that in that process they might become Conservatives.
6.30 p.m.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy is one of the most attractive Members of this House, whose fluency and style I, for one, greatly admire, but this afternoon he appeared to me to have something less than a wholehearted conviction for the arguments that he advanced. Having enumerated the weaknesses of proportional representation, he went on to show that those weaknesses were even more pronounced in the present system. Having dismissed proportional representation for Westminster, he appeared to welcome it for Edinburgh, or at least for Belfast. Having drawn attention to all the disadvantages of coalition, he went on to criticise the Liberal Party for failing to take advantage of Mr. Heath's coalition offer of 1974. He admitted that a vast majority of moderate, patriotic, middle-of-the-road folk would like to see some kind of coalition between some Conservatives, some Social Democrats and some Liberals, and then said that this was impossible because the Party activists would not allow it. That suggestion brought me to a consideration of the definition by the noble Lord, Lord Shin-well, of democracy and how far it could be reconciled with that definition. My noble friend ended his speech by giving a really formidable catalogue of the defects and failures of our present system, which would make almost any alternative seem preferable. He is a brand, I am sure, which in due course will be saved from the burning, and if this debate contributes to that in any way our thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for having initiated this debate.
My noble friend referred to a debate on electoral reform which I was able to initiate in your Lordships' House last year. I think it was the first—of recent years, at any rate which originated from the Conservative Benches in Parliament. I said then that in future the Liberal Party could look for reinforcements in its long and tenacious campaign. I was astonished as a result of that debate to discover the great weight of support which now exists and is mobilised behind this issue. There is now an effective group in the Conservative Party, headed by Mr. Anthony Wigram. There are a
156
number of influential Conservative Members of the other place who support electoral reform. For the first time in history, so far as I know, there has been a full dress debate on the subject at a Conservative Party Conference. There are, I know, a number of experienced Conservatives in this House who are as convinced as I am of its importance and its inevitability. As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, pointed out earlier this afternoon, those who take a realistic view of the future of the European Community, and those who are interested in and concerned with the devolution issues in Scotland and Wales, all seem to have come to the conclusion that electoral reform or proportional representation is an essential ingredient in the creation of effective representational systems for those various Assemblies.
We know very well that outside Parliament there is strong support among leading figures in banking, industry and the law, and also among political journalists of standing and repute, for this issue of electoral reform. It was always to be expected that the establishments of the Parties would be somewhat behind the front runners in this field. In so far as this is due to a fear that electoral reform might increase the influence of the minority Parties, and the Liberal Party in particular, I frankly have little patience with them. Speaking personally, I can say that I won my first election in 1950, only because I had Liberal support although there was, in fact, a Liberal candidate in the field. The Liberal Unionists of the Chamberlain era and the Liberal Nationals of the 1930s and their successors, like my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, of the post-war period, have always formed part of a continuing coalition over a long period of time with what some people like to call the "true blue" Tory Party. That my noble friend Lord Thorne croft and Mr. Angus Maude should concert their considerable influence and powers of eloquence in a determined effort to stamp out the electoral reform movement in the Conservative Party at last year's Black pool Conference seems to me to have been unwise. I can only assume that they were so recently appointed to office that they were inadequately briefed on contemporary trends in the Party and on political opinion in the country.

157
Let me confine myself in the rest of my remarks to the two objections to proportional representation which are at present fashionable: first, that the introduction of proportional representation will lead to weak government. I personally am not enamoured of strong Party government, either of the 1970 to 1974 or of the 1974 to 1976 kind, which has forced through policies against the wishes and judgment of the sober, sensible majority of folk in Britain who occupy the centre, or the middle, or the common ground, if that is the description your Lordships would prefer. I feel that that is no objection at all. The consequence of what has been known as strong Party government is that great issues, which should be solved only by the consensus of a united nation, or at any rate by the realistic-minded moderate majority, have been decided on the terms dictated by the power of sectional and nationalistic minorities.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk said in a recent debate that his doubts about proportional representation derived from his recollections as a student of the Germany of the Weimar Republic. This is always the skeleton that is pulled out to frighten public opinion in Britain, but Britain of the 1970s is not Germany of the 1920s. We have centuries of experience of Parliamentary democracy behind us. Germany then had less than a decade of Parliamentary democracy. We have the advantage of the historic continuity of our political institutions and of our national life, which Germany had had for only about 50 years. They were defeated in war and we were the victors. I believe that the danger which we face is more likely to arise from our failure to make good use of the underlying strength of our political inheritance to make the changes which are necessary than from any uncertainty which change must inevitably involve.
Secondly, those who oppose proportional representation in the form, perhaps, of a single transferable vote say that it will destroy the identification of Members of Parliament with the territory—the constituency, that is—which they are elected to represent and the people who live there. I think we should realise that the territorial constituency is a hangover from the feudal period and from the rotten boroughs. My predecessor but one in Colchester appointed and paid his agent
158
just as he paid the factor on his estate and the stipend of a parson whose benefice was in his gift. I myself always enjoyed identification with my territorial constituency.
I remember very well when, at the Dog and Pheasant farm I drove across the boundary from my noble friend Lord Butler's constituency at Saffron Walden and saw the splendid herd of Friesians in the fields by the roadside, I used to say to myself, "Ah, my cows", and that when I saw the lights of Colchester I said, "Ah, my town". I know what it is to have a love affair with somewhere in the Provinces of England and to feel a sense of fulfilment which has nothing to do with either ambition for office or the pursuit of power. But all this is quite unnecessary as an ingredient in a truly representative form of government or in ensuring the prudent exercise of judgment in national affairs. The territorial principle, the closeness of the representative to his constituents is, and truly should be, applied to local government, but not in my view necessarily to the government of the nation at Westminster.
If I may take my own example to illustrate my argument from personal experience and in a simple manner: if, for instance, I had been elected as one of the four Members for North-East Essex in a multiple Member constituency with my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, Mr. Ridsdale (now the honourable Member for Harwich) and Mr. Harrison, who was then the honourable Member for Maldon, under a system of proportional representation I believe we would have been just as good Tories, just as good Essex Members; we would have been just as close to the problems of that part of the world which we represented and, what is to me so important, my Lords, we would almost certainly have been less vulnerable to local, personal and political pressures. These pressures have forced so many experienced Parliamentarians to cut short their careers and deprive the country of their services in what is, after all, the most important and most difficult of all professions, which the late S. F. Oliver called "the endless adventure of governing man". And if one of us—myself for example—had been forced, through the

159
system of proportional representation, to give place in the House of Commons to a Labour or a Liberal Member for North-East Essex, to that extent the representation of our part of East Anglia would have been so much closer to the expressed wishes of the electors at a General Election.
In replying to the debate last year the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Green-which, indicated that the Prime Minister would agree, if the other Party Leaders were willing, to refer the matter to a Speaker's Conference. Since then nothing has happened, and in any case, on perhaps more mature thought on my part, I believe that a Speaker's Conference would be too dilatory and its membership unlikely to be sufficiently detached from the basic issue to produce a fair and objective Report. A Royal Commission would take even longer and would perhaps fail to give proper attention to the realities, as opposed to the theories, of Parliamentary government.
I would therefore suggest to your Lordships that electoral reform should be examined by a Joint Select Committee. In this House we have an abundance of experience of the workings of modern Parliamentary government from the grass roots up to the highest office which anybody can achieve under the Crown. Let the House of Commons send to such a Joint Select Committee as vigorous and able a cross-section of its Members as it can produce. Let the Committee take evidence. If, as a result, they come to the conclusion that the present system of territorial constituencies, derived as I have said from its feudal and rotten borough past, is best; that the present system of faction in our Parliamentary life (or confrontation, which is the modern word) based upon an auction for votes which allows real power to pass to extra-Parliamentary forces is inevitable; that it is right that a Government elected by less than one-third of the voters should be able to force through legislation against the wishes of the vast majority; that in the latter part of the 20th century Britain must continue to be governed by an unrepresentative assembly which has lost the confidence of the nation; that the disruption to industry and commercial life caused by constant reversals of policy and repeal of legisla-
160
tion are all essential to the government, and the best government we can find for this country, then, my Lords, I would accept their verdict and give up any efforts that I have made to make a change.
I realise, and other noble Lords have said, that the real malaise at the root of our problems here at the present moment cannot be completely solved by any form of electoral change or any form of constitutional innovation; but I strongly believe that the start of the improvement of the morale of the country depends upon the people of this country getting the sense that the institutions which govern, with which they are associated—our Parliament, for instance—are something which provides what to them seems to be a fair deal for all those who are part of our nation, who are the electors at a General Election and whose future for themselves and their children depends so much upon the good government and stability of this country.
6.46 p.m.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in congratulating my noble Leader Lord Byers on his admirable opening speech and for approaching this subject from a wide perspective. I have only one specific point to make as we near the conclusion of this debate and it seems to me that this is a convenient opportunity for doing so. It has a bearing on the need for avoiding undue delay—a point which has been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. On the26th March 1974, I opened a debate on this subject and in the course of my remarks I asked the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, whether it was intended that there should be a Speaker's Conference. I think a fair summary of his reply would be that the matter was under consideration. I was only asking for information. I had at that time a fairly open mind as to whether a Speaker's Conference would serve a useful purpose or whether progress might be made in some other way.
On the 23rd April of last year, as we know, the noble Lord. Lord Alport, opened the debate to which he has just referred. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to me at col. 940 of the Official Report of that debate and I think he may have assumed that in the previous debate I had been advocating another Speaker's Conference to

161
consider whether or not electoral reform should be introduced. I have no complaint if that is the assumption he made, but I should like to make my present position clear. I have given a good deal of thought to this. Much has happened since 1974, and I believe there is much greater urgency. Several noble Lords have also expressed that view, and there has been a marked change in public opinion.
With great respect to the Speaker of the House of Commons, whose impartiality is not of course in any way in question, I doubt whether a Speaker's Conference on whether or not we should have electoral reform would be the best course to adopt. It could so easily involve a waste of time if it meant going over all the old ground again, followed by a vote on Party lines. What is required is a decision of principle and then some method could be followed of deciding what is the best way to put that principle into effect. I believe it is reasonably clear that the majority of electors in all Parties are now in favour of proportional representation, and the numbers in support are growing.
Therefore, what is required so far as Parliamentary Elections are concerned—and I think this is true with even greater force with regard to devolutionary powers—is a decision on the best and most expeditious way of bringing about this reform. That this movement of opinion has taken place really does not require proving, but I will just give one very recent quotation in support. Mr. Ian Appleyard, President of the Leeds Chamber of Commerce, reported in the Yorkshire Post of 31st January this year, in proposing the toast of Her Majesty's Ministers at the chamber's annual dinner at the Queen's Hotel, said:
"I suggest that industry and commerce should use their not inconsiderable influence to persuade one or other of the principal political parties to include in its next manifesto the irrevocable pledge that it will introduce proportional representation."
A few years ago I would not have expected that at a chamber of commerce dinner.
Of course there will be some opposition from those who do not like change, but I believe the reform will come sooner or later. I believe the criticisms we hear are reminiscent of the opposition to the great
162
Reform Bill of 1832. It is very interesting to read some of those old debates. The opposition was based on fear of representative democracy. Today, the only practical question is how best to bring about a necessary reform, for how long will obstacles be put in its way, and how much will the country suffer in the meantime. I hope not for long. My own belief is that the sooner the advice given by the President of the Leeds Chamber of Commerce is adopted, the better it will be for industry and the country.
6.53 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I intimated to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that I would be only two minutes. My name is not on the list of speakers, and I apologise for that. But one has heard arguments that did not altogether fit in with one's experience and at a time like this I think the alternatives ought to be on the Record. The last Election was my 11th Parliamentary Election, and if one takes local government elections into account, it was my 18th election, so one is bound to have formed a view as to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a system which has been in operation for all of that time.
It is clear that the bandwagon of some alteration, whether it be proportional representation or something else, is on the move, but personally I would give this warning. Whatever change may come about, it will be a bad thing for good government if one gives the Government of the day, whoever they are and however elected, an alibi to get out of any mistakes they may have made. The one advantage of the system which has been criticised so much today is that no Government have been able to have an alibi. They have had the power and have used it for good, or on occasions have used it for ill, but it has been recognised that they had the power when that thing happened. If we move to any system which gives any Government an excuse for the things that have gone wrong, then in the long run I believe that the effective government of the country will suffer.
If it is that things have gone right, they are entitled to claim credit for them, and are entitled to be re-elected, but let us not do anything which will give them any excuse, or what I would call an alibi, to overcome any problems that may arise from their wrong or mistaken approach.

163
The one good that has come from the old system is just that. I do not want to chastise the Liberal Party because that Party is not really the subject for discussion this afternoon. But I am sorry that they did not join a Coalition when they had a chance after the February 1974Election. I said so to their Leader and to their Chief Whip when they turned it down. I believe they were driven away from that because of an avalanche of letters organised by the Young Liberals of the day—and we all know how effective that sort of lobby can be when it is pushed at you at a critical and emotional time after an Election.
On the other hand, for the good of the 6 million people who voted for them, and for the good of the country, I believe they should have shown that, under the old system, it was possible for an anti-Socialist group to represent what were the views of the country; because one thing the country made clear from their votes was that, at that time, they did not want the Socialism which was presented in the Manifesto. The Liberals, because they did not join in, thwarted that.
My Lords, I was disturbed at what might possibly arise from any new procedure relating to the conclusion of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who said that if it took the form suggested by various people today we should have a permanent Coalition. I do not believe a permanent Coalition would be good for this country, with its industrial need for virility, and so on. I believe a coalition is a valuable part of the existing governmental system. The value of a Coalition is that it comes into being only when there is a state of crisis, when there is something terribly important, when the message has to be given to the nation and the world that the groups are coming together to deal with a specific problem. We had such a thing in 1931, and it worked; we had such a thing in 1939, and it helped us to have the strength to win the war. I should like to keep this valuable impetus that can come from a coalition, and to have the special value of it only being used when necessary to distinguish it from the normal run-of-the-mill Government. If as a result of proportional representation we have permanent Coalition, it cannot be good. I say to the noble Lord. Lord Alport, that the morale of the nation needs something today, otherwise
164
we shall sink into the abyss from which we shall not be able to recover in half a century. But a Coalition that would be permanent would not do that.
My Lords, I believe a Coalition is good when it can be produced to meet a specific demand or problem, but I believe it is not good if it will be a permanent feature of government itself. I am trying very hard to keep to my two minutes, but the noble Lord emphasised the importance of the subject. He raised the point which people react to. It is right that those who operate the system should have their views on record. If we could get the leaders of the three Parties to find some way of approaching the overwhelming problems of the nation today by now having a Coalition, from that Coalition not only could some of the answers to the other problems arise but we could get a reform of government procedure which may well be proportional representation, or something else. We could get a realignment of Parliament. I would urge noble Lords who are placing their views on record today not to recommend anything which would give any Government, however elected, an alibi for their mistakes. In the long run, that would not be good government.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls sits down, may I ask him whether I am correct in assuming that he attaches enormous importance to being able to criticise a Government later for their mistakes? Does the noble Lord really think that, with the problems we have today, this is a very profitable exercise? Does he believe that the nation as a whole cares very much about this final analysis of mistakes made some time ago, when it is faced with immediate problems?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, did not quite get my point. That is my fault. I am not talking about the theory of government. It is good government for a distinctive group of men who have views to have the power to put those views into active operation. If the active views of those who form a Government are successful, they ought to have another term of office. If those views and the power to implement them prove to be unsuccessful, the electorate will remove

165
those men and replace them with another group of men who again have been thinking to put their views into operation. If you have a permanent soporific of a coalition, a consensus that comes out of it, you will never get the new thinking that the nation needs from time to time.
I never criticise what was called "stop-go". In any business, in any country, you have periods where you go, and then come up against problems and stop, and then move on again. There is no steady graph in business or in Government which is level, steady and easily recognisable. It is that sort of movement, of "Stop-go," which really gets us in the long run, to do something positive, instead of merely talking and being soporific in our outlook.
7 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I am sure there will be general agreement in the House today that the subject chosen for discussion by my noble friend Lord Byers is one of great topicality. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, referred to the growing interest in the subject, and indeed the growing support for electoral reform. Reference has been made during the course of our debate this afternoon to the recommendation of the Kilbrandon Commission, for example, that elections to regional assemblies, to assemblies in Scotland and Wales, or, if we have them later, assemblies in regions of England, should be by the system of proportional representation, by the single transferable vote. We have seen the reintroduction in recent years of that system into Northern Ireland for the Assembly, the Convention, and local Government. There has been discussion about the relation of electoral reform to direct elections to the European Parliament, and various important points in connection with that were put forward earlier by my noble friend Lord Gladwyn.
I think there is a growing feeling, as my noble friend Lord Byers said when he opened the debate today, that the electoral system is a root cause of confrontation politics, and it is not only informed opinion but also popular opinion which is coming to support electoral reform. During the same week in October last year the London Evening Standard and the Sun both carried opinion polls which showed that about two-thirds
166
of those questioned wanted to see a voting system which would mean that political Parties, shades of opinion, were represented in the House of Commons according to their strength in the country. It is no wonder that this should be the case; it is not surprising, as we can easily see if we look at some of the results of the last General Election in October 1974. We find that fewer than half of the 29 million who voted in October 1974 elected all the 635 Members. A majority of the electors, 15 million people, were not able, after the Election was over, to say that their vote had helped to elect anyone; and in point of fact if those 15 million people had remained at home and not gone to the polls the result of the Election would have been exactly the same. A Party with 39 per cent. of the votes gained an absolute majority of the seats, and reference to that has been made several times this afternoon. In England, a Party with 20 per cent. of the votes got only 8 out of 516 seats, and in Scotland a Party with 36 per cent. of the votes got 41 out of 71 seats.
During the course of the debate, there has been a great deal of support, which we have greatly welcomed, from all quarters of the House for electoral reform and for proportional representation in particular. Until the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, spoke, I was going to say that the only hostile speech was perhaps that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He said that there were advantages in the system of proportional representation, but he felt that we had put them so well that he should concentrate on what he considered to be the disadvantages. He said that proportional representation was a matter of consequence to the Liberal Party, as if it were not of consequence to anyone else. We believe it is of consequence to those 15 million people who voted at the last Election and secured no direct representation for the opinion which they registered at the Election. It is a matter of consequence to electors.
In listing the disadvantages, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that it was likely to lead to a permanent state of Coalitions, and that point was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord

167
Harmar-Nicholls, in his remarks just now. Of course, there need not be any Coalition if one political Party can secure 51 per cent. or more of the votes cast. There might be in those circumstances, but there certainly need not be. If one political Party does not secure 51 per cent. or more of the votes, then surely it is not right that one political Party should be given a monopoly of power, a monopoly of government in the country. If public opinion is so divided that there is not sufficient confidence in one political Party for the electorate to give it more than 51 per cent. support, then surely no political Party should receive a complete authority to carry through its policies in the way that the present Government, elected with 39 per cent. of the votes cast but fewer than a third of the total electorate, is able to do at the present time.
It has been said many times that all political Parties are in fact coalitions, and this is often said by people who are opposing electoral reform. They say: "Well, we have coalitions already, because all political Parties are coalitions". But they are coalitions at the moment which do not secure a majority of the votes in their support in the country. A reference was made to Germany, where coalition does exist, and the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, referred to industrial virility and felt that our industrial virility would somehow be undermined if we had Coalition Government in this country, although West Germany seems to have managed better so far as industrial virility is concerned with Coalition Government almost continuously.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was rather critical of the pacts and compromises which he felt would be necessary if we had Coalition Government. He spoke of this with some distaste; yet it seems to me slightly inconsistent with a regret which he expressed later in his speech that a coalition had not been arranged in March 1974 between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I am most grateful; I would not wish him to misunderstand. I was pointing out that this is a new situation for this country, to have
168
proportional representation and then have to negotiate on policy. What I was saying was that even when there was the more straightforward case it had been difficult for the Liberal Party and had placed them in a difficult position.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I should like to take up the point the noble Lord has made. I think it is important to realise that the present electoral system makes coalition very difficult indeed, because under the present electoral system if a Coalition Government are going to proceed to a subsequent Election, or even in the course of by-elections, they find it necessary under the present system to have an electoral pact; that is to say, the candidates of the two Parties in coalition cannot oppose each other. This tends to lead to the destruction of the smaller partner. This is one of the reasons—and there are many others—why the Liberal Party has resisted suggestions of coalition in the past under our present electoral system. Under a system of proportional representation, it is quite possible for candidates of the two Parties in the coalition to stand in the same constituency without splitting votes at all, because the system is not one in which that can take place. The electorate is able to choose between the Parties in the coalition without undermining the coalition or the structure of the Parties, and without undermining their independence, as tends to happen under our present electoral system.
Reference was made to the alternative vote, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said—and I agree with him—that the alternative vote is not proportional representation, and indeed we do not advocate it. It would be better than the present system, because it would do away with split votes and would prevent people being elected on a minority of votes; but because it retains single Member constituencies it retains all the distortions to which the single Member constituency gives rise. It gives rise to distortion because in every constituency you are giving 100 per cent. of the membership, 100 per cent. of the representation, to a Party which certainly has not had 100 per cent. of the votes—it may in fact have had only 34 per cent. or 35 per cent. of the votes, or even less, according to the number of candidates who may have been standing.

169
Reference was made, too, to the fact that it would be bad to have Parties come together because the new electoral system had forced them unwillingly together, and that that would be a bad state of affairs. But all the new electoral system would do would be to make the result of the Election a reflection of opinion. It might be that that reflection of opinion made coalition necessary, but that is a different matter. If that reflection of opinion made coalition necessary, then the electoral system, for reasons which I have just explained a moment ago, would make coalition possible in a way in which it is not possible today. We are not saying from these Benches that coalition is always and inevitably the best way in which the country should be governed in any particular situation, but we are saying that it is an option which should be available, and which should certainly be available where no Party commands majority support in the country, and that the system which we suggest would in fact make it possible.
We welcome the entertaining speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in which he said that some form of electoral system which represents true democracy is required, and that if that meant coalition, he would accept it. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said that some form of PR is absolutely essential. The noble Viscount, Lord Brooke borough, speaking from considerable experience in relation to this matter, advocated without reservation, he said, proportional representation for devolved assemblies. He drew our attention to the way in which in the South African election in 1948, even though there were only two Parties, it was still possible for distortion with the single Member constituency—taking into account the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alport—and that the Party which got the minority of the votes got the majority of the seats.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, did not want to see the old bad principles applied to devolved assemblies. We on these Benches join with him in that. We should like to see the old bad principles eliminated as soon as possible from the system of election for Westminster. We believe that if we had it, then, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, desired, we should bring to
170
an end rule by the minority over the majority.
I would sum up in this way. If we were to have a proportional system, and if, in particular, we were to have the system of proportional representation with the single transferable vote (the system which we prefer), then no longer would it be possible for a Party to have a minority of votes in the country with a majority of seats in the House of Commons. No longer would more than half the voters be in a position where they could not point to any particular Member who represented them. This is relevant to the point raised about the link between the Member and his territorial constituency, because although you would have a larger constituency it would be possible for an individual to say, "At least there is somebody here whom I have helped to represent me", and probably something like 80 per cent. of the electors would get their first preference elected under the system of proportional representation with the single transferable vote, and that must surely strengthen the link between the individual and Parliament.
It would always be possible, if Parliament wanted so to arrange things, to say that in, say, a five-Member constituency after the Election was over it would be possible to divide the constituency into five areas, and perhaps according to the order in which the Members were elected, or in some other way, to allocate the five Members to an individual part of that five-Member constituency, so that there could still be a territorial link between one Member and a territorial area, if that was felt to be of such importance. It is by no means ruled out. Then there would be no longer the exaggeration of small swings of opinion which give enormous power to a small number of voters. There would be no longer the under-representation of substantial minorities, and no longer would the electoral system encourage and bolster confrontation politics.
May I say in conclusion what I have said in your Lordships' House before; that is, that the present electoral system has become a barrier to unity, a barrier to co-operation, and a barrier to the supremacy of majority opinion. Its reform has, therefore, become an urgent necessity.
7.17 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think we have all listened with great interest to the speeches made in this debate this afternoon. I am sure that the whole House has welcomed the opportunity of coming back to this subject. I have a particular affection for this issue on the grounds that I took my seat in this House on the day that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, produced the first of what has in fact been a run of three debates on this subject, in March 1974.On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Wade, spoke about the virtues of proportional representation, as he has today. In April last year we had the speech and the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, who, as always, has spoken with great force and vigour this afternoon. It is right that there should be regular debates on this issue, because the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is right in saying that there is a substantial degree of interest in this subject both within Parliament and outside. However, I fear that even at the end of what is, as I have indicated, becoming a regular series of discussions I am by no means clear that we are any nearer to an agreed solution.
This year, as last year, the number of noble Lords who are prepared to speak in defence of the existing system has been fairly limited. For one appalling moment I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and I—and we had a certain amount to do with one another during the European campaign last year—would once again be standing fighting together against every other Member of your Lordships' House. Fortunately, at the last moment we were saved by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who spoke rather convincingly about one or two aspects of our present arrangements, which have been dismissed a little too lightly in my view in the debate this afternoon.
There were two other elements in the debate which made the debate this year interesting, particularly to those of us on this side of the House. First of all, we had that extraordinarily interesting interlude where we had a discussion between the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy, Lord Byers and Lord Avebury, later joined by the noble Lords, Lord
172
Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Banks, as to what exactly happened when the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party were having a leisurely discussion together in March 1974 as to whether or not they were going to have a Coalition. I am bound to say, on the basis that there seemed to be a slight disagreement as to what people's motives were on that occasion and as to what each side was saying, that if they found it difficult to agree about events that transpired only two years ago, it might have been a rather disputative Coalition if they had in fact succeeded in forming a Government.
The second question which I thought was of some considerable interest today was the position of the Party opposite, at least so far as its Front Bench was concerned. Last year noble Lords opposite were led by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and he began his speech in these terms:
"…I have to admit that over this matter I regard myself as an agnostic".—(Official Report, 23/4/75; col. 911.)
He admittedly added the qualification that he was ready to be convinced, that he was bound to say that he had not so far heard any truly cogent evidence, but nevertheless he was on the side of agnosticism. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I think that if he studies the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, he will find that the noble Lord is a believer and not an agnostic the noble Lord. Lord Campbell, in my view gave a very clear indication of what was, in fact, the position of the Opposition in this matter. And, of course, the reason for the change in attitude is to some extent an indication of the success of the campaign of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and his friends outside the House. What was decided at the last Conservative Party Conference by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, and Mr. Maude was that they had to bang this particular idea very hard on the head, otherwise it was going to get out of hand. That is why, in fact, there has been a very substantial change in the position of the Opposition since the debate we had about a year ago.
At the beginning of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred properly to the text of the Motion he has put

173
before us and, in particular, to the reference he makes in it to the
"rapidly declining efficiency of the British political system".
I know, and I would accept at once, that there are significant shortcomings in our political system, but without wishing to be in any way complacent I think that formidable criticisms can also be directed at the political systems of many other advanced industrial countries, some of which have electoral arrangements on a basis very different from our own. The noble Lord gave some indication in his speech of what he regarded as the shortcomings in our present arrangements in this country, but I am bound to say that at the end of his speech I was left wondering how one can objectively judge the efficiency of a political system. No doubt, any system in which the Liberal Party gains 5 million votes in a General Election, as they did in October 1974, but succeeds in getting only 13 Members elected to the other place could certainly be judged inefficient by the Liberal Party and, no doubt, by some people outside the ranks of the Liberal Party. Equally, I suppose, the Labour Party might have judged the system inefficient in October 1951 when it secured 230,684 more votes than did the Conservatives but found itself in Opposition.
I doubt, however, whether that means that the system can rightly be judged inefficient as a whole. In particular, it seems to me doubtful whether a change in the electoral system would necessarily lead to an improvement in the efficiency of the political system, even judged by Lord Byers's own criteria. I judge his argument, if I may summarise it rather simply—he will, no doubt, say rather too simply—to be that because a particular Party received X per cent. of the votes at a General Election, they should be allocated roughly—very roughly—X per cent. of the seats. That is an argument which I understand and, indeed, there are some electoral systems which provide for an answer of that kind, though not, I may say, necessarily the one which the noble Lord advocated this afternoon. But this argument of the noble Lord's assumes that the electorate is not itself influenced by a system of election and I think that this proposition is far from certain. We do not know
174
how many seats individual Parties would have won under a different electoral system.
I accept at once that public opinion in this country is a great deal more disenchanted about our political system than it has been for many years past; yet I am far from convinced that this mood of dissatisfaction is primarily caused by our system of Parliamentary Elections. It is due far more, in my judgment, to the intractable character of the economic difficulties which have faced Governments of different political persuasions. Until we surmount these difficulties, I do not believe that any change in our system of election will lead to a significant change in the public mood. Certainly there will always be those at either end of the political spectrum who wish to sweep away our existing institutions—there are even some who would like to include this House in that objective—but they do not show, in my view, signs of growing significantly in number, though they certainly do sometimes in terms of shrillness.
Of course, I accept that our political system is capable of improvement. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave some indication of the improvements she favoured making in the system and she was joined by many other noble Lords, and let me join her by giving some obvious examples of my own. I would certainly admit that there is still a great deal too much power centralised in London, and the Government are at the moment endeavouring to take some action to deal with this. I certainly think—the noble Baroness touched on this and she was joined by many others—that there are significant shortcomings within Parliament itself and I believe that all Members on both sides of both Houses have a responsibility for tackling this problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, believes that the central problem is not this, but is the need to reform our electoral system. One thing that I find certain about electoral reform is the profusion of alternative systems and the fact that no one group of people can agree on which one of these is best suited as a replacement for what we have at the moment. There is obviously a substantial volume of literature on the subject; there would

175
clearly have to be, given the fact that we had a Royal Commission on this subject in 1910, the Speaker's Conference of 1917, the Conference of 1930 presided over by Lord Ullswater, and the Speaker's Conferences of 1944 and 1965 to 1968. This abundance of material exists despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that the variables in any electoral system are fairly limited. They are principally the size of the constituency, the different methods of voting and counting and the principle on which seats are finally allocated. One can have a system of separate constituencies, as we do now, or one can have just one countrywide constituency, as in Israel and in Holland; one can have different methods of voting, such as a single choice, or an order of preference, but most interest is inevitably concentrated on the different methods of counting the votes under different systems.
At the end of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to public opinion polls which had appeared in, I think, two newspapers, indicating that there was broad public support for a change in the electoral system to some form of proportional representation; but what form of proportional representation? The forms are very diverse indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Lord, Lord Alport, clearly favour the single transferable vote, but there is no unanimity of view on this issue. There are, by my calculations, at least six separate systems, including our present system of election—the first past the post. We have, in Australia, the alternative vote which is used for elections to the House of Representatives. Under this system, voters are required to give an order of preference to all candidates in the constituency, and if no candidate achieves an absolute majority on the basis of first preference then the second preferences of the bottom candidate are allocated to the others.
This process continues until one candidate emerges with an absolute majority. I suspect that system is rather more favoured in this country than it is in Australia because one can get some very strange results with a system of that sort. Nevertheless, there are perfectly legitimate
176
differences of opinion as to whether this is a system of election which we should have in this country. It can certainly be argued that it would be more fair, but I believe that there are other significant problems associated with it, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to in his speech.
Then we have a variant of the alternative vote system, that is the second ballot system, as used in France. There, electors vote only for one candidate in the first ballot but, if no candidate has secured an absolute majority over all his opponents, a second ballot is held. In the second ballot, only candidates who have achieved 10 per cent. of the possible votes in the first ballot go forward and then a "first past the post" system obtains.
Fourthly, there is the single transferable vote system. It is this which has engaged the attention of many Members of your Lordships' House. Under the STV system, which can only operate in a multi-Member constituency—and we must recognise that there is no question of retaining our current system of single-Member constituencies if we go for a single transferable vote system—account is taken not only of a voter's first choice of candidate but also of his second and subsequent preferences. The voter marks on his ballot paper an order of preference for each candidate. By doing so, he indicates where his support should go either if the candidate of his first choice has already secured more than enough votes for his election or if his first choice has secured too few votes to stand any chance of election. The surplus votes of the candidate who has already been elected and of the candidate who is eliminated are redistributed to the other candidates in accordance with voters' expressed preferences, and the process of elimination and redistribution is continued until all the vacancies are filled.
If I may, I shall come back in a moment to the particular point of the relationship between a Member of another place and his constituents, but I should like at this stage to deal with a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I can see his problem: how is a Member to do his job if he is one of four or five operating over what is in fact a substantial part of the country? The noble Lord, Lord Banks, suggested

177
that one way of dealing with this would be to divide up the constituency on a somewhat arbitrary basis—because all the people in that area will have elected each Member for the constituency—and for the four or five Members to meet and decide who is to have relations with which local authority and where they are to conduct their surgeries and matters of that sort. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I do not believe that there is the remotest prospect of a system of that sort operating. Apart from anything else, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, quite rightly said, the Members may well belong to different political Parties. One of the virtues of the system mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is that, for instance, the Labour constituents of what is in fact a Conservative-inclined area would feel that, for the first time, they had a representative in Parliament. I can see the force of that argument. Nevertheless, that Member, if he is one out of four or five, will have formidable problems in simply maintaining contact with his constituents in what will be an extremely substantial area of country.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, if I may just develop that point, which is a very important one, the surgery and welfare services of the Member have developed over the past 20 years. They are done not because it is the Member's job but because, very often, he is taking over work which should properly be done by the local councillor and the local representative. It is extremely important that he should not be burdened with all that work and that it should go to the local man—the local representative of the council—who very often has the answer and has to act in the case.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am sure that there is great force in what the noble Lord has just said. I believe that it is undoubtedly true and I know that it is so from cases which I deal with as Minister. This situation arises from time to time, particularly in the area of housing in the major conurbations. Nevertheless, I believe that it would be a formidable responsibility which a Member, particularly from a minority Party, would have to fulfil in what would be a very large constituency. I believe that one must recognise that
178
that is one of the problems associated with this system.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I believe that this is a very important point. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lord Alport have discussed the question of the four-or five-Member constituencies which would have to exist under this system and the fact that not all those Members would belong to the same Party. Even though, being fairly fresh from the other place, I sympathise with my noble friend's suggestion that more of the work which is now being done by Members of Parliament ought to be transferred to local authorities and local bodies, none the less those Members will be competing with each other because their constituents will be expecting them to do the work in question whether or not it is right that they should.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that is undoubtedly true. The fact is—and I am saying something which I shall no doubt regret at leisure—MPs are often a great deal more assiduous in carrying out their responsibilities than are some members of local authorities. For instance, many more Members of Parliament regularly—and I emphasise that—have surgeries than do many councillors. Therefore, almost inevitably, they get shovelled in their direction a great deal of work which is properly that of councillors. Once it has been so shovelled, it is very difficult to get rid of it.
I now move to the fifth example of alternative systems. This is the Party list system which exists in Israel. There, each Party draws up a list of candidates in a specific order and the ballot paper contains the names of the Parties alone. The elector may vote only for one Party, and the seats are then allocated to each Party broadly in line with their proportion of the vote. To some, that may sound a fair system, but I believe that it has so many formidable objections so far as its application in this country is concerned, that I am extremely doubtful whether it would meet with any substantial support. For instance, it would make it impossible to have any relationship between an elected Member and his constituency because the Member's essential responsibility would be to his Party and not to a part of the United Kingdom.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the history of the Labour Party? Has he never heard of double-barrelled constituencies with both a Liberal and a Labour representative? They lasted for a considerable time, and even Keir Hardie was involved in such a constituency. It is surprising to me to hear all this because this is how we started. Is my noble friend further aware that, in 1900, the Labour Representation Committee started as a coalition and that there were actually Liberals in that coalition? Richard Bell, who was the Secretary of the railwaymen at the time, was a Liberal Member of Parliament. We had Liberals, though, as far as I know, we had no Conservatives. We had Lib/Labs and all kinds of people in the coalition and there were double-barrelled constituencies. That is how the Labour Party made progress.
Lord HARRIS: My Lords, with great respect to my noble friend, I was discussing the system in Israel, where there are no constituencies of any kind and where people vote for a Party and not for Members of Parliament standing for individual constituencies.
Sixthly, I come to the West German example. This example was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. It is, to some extent, a combination of the British single-Member constituency system, the relative majority system and the Israeli pure Party list system. Under the German system, half the deputies in the Bundestag are elected in single-Member constituencies on the basis of votes cast by the electorate in each constituency in what we in this country regard as the normal way. Each voter is, however, also entitled to vote for a Party shown on the ballot paper, and these votes are totalled nationally and used to distribute the other half of the Bundestag seats on a Party basis.
I should like to say one thing on this point because it has not been dealt with in the debate, and I believe it is important. We must ask ourselves a question, and it is related to a number of these alternative systems—some of them, but not all of them. Once there is a Party list it confers the most tremendous power on the headquarters of the national Party organisation. There is no doubt—and I concede it immediately—that politicians
180
as a class are not the most popular group of people in this country. I am not totally convinced that the Party machines are regarded by the people in this country in a wholly different way, and that there would be widespread public support for giving them tremendous authority in terms of deciding who should be Members of Parliament. I think that it is a major issue and one which is involved in some of these systems, though not all—
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he is surely aware that the German system is on a regional, not a Federal basis, and therefore it is not completely under the control of the Party system.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a point as far as the German example is concerned. I was simply pointing out that a number of these systems—I did not specify the German system—in fact confer very substantial authority on a national or, it may be in this particular case, a regional Party organisation. We have to ask the question whether we are prepared to consider very carefully schemes of this kind which would confer substantial authority on the national Party organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, dealt with a point relating to elections to the European Parliament, and I hope he will acquit me of any discourtesy if I do not deal with this at any length, all the more so because I have already spoken for 24 minutes. As he recognised in his speech, we are to have a debate on a Government White Paper which will be published in the near future. It is on that occasion that the important issues which the noble Lord identified in his speech should be dealt with, and I am sure they will be.
My Lords, I come to the conclusion of my speech. I end to some extent as I began, with a note of caution. There is a tendency at the moment for rather too many commentators in this country to seek a solution to our present national economic difficulties in some swingeing all-embracing reform of the system, whether it be the political system or the economic system. It might be rather agreeable for many of us if it were as simple as that, but I just do not believe that it is. In my judgment we will restore

181
the confidence of our people in our democratic system in this country only if we succeed in our present struggle against inflation, and its directly related companion, unemployment. It is this, not juggling with our electoral process, that is the central issue in British politics today, and it is towards this problem that the Government are determined to direct their efforts.
7.43 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I begin by thanking all those who have taken part in this debate, and particularly those who have given us support. I also with to thank particularly the noble Lords, Lord Alport and Lord Wade, who have been carrying on this series of debates with great effect over the past two years. The attitudes of the official spokesmen from the Front Benches were, I am afraid, predictable, although I got the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was less inflexible than perhaps the Conservative Party had been some time ago. As for the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I am not going to refute all his points because it would take far too long to do that, and I do not want to reopen the debate. But he ought to be a bit more forthcoming on this issue. I detected far too much complacency. As the spokesman of the Front Bench of a Government who have just been defeated in another place by five votes, this is something which he ought to take in very carefully indeed. After all, they may not be there tomorrow. I would willingly give way if the noble Lord wants to make a farewell speech, or to add to what he has already said.
I feel that this is a matter of some urgency. I am extremely worried that we are going to have a deadlock situation in the next Parliament through the disproportionate preponderance of nationalist Members who are there on an unfair vote because they are over-represented in relation to Westminster. I give warning of this. This could easily happen, and it will not be an easy siutation from which to escape. I do not know how one would get out. That is why I believe that Speaker's Conferences and Royal Commissions are too dilatory, and they will not give us an answer to this problem quickly enough. Therefore I feel that the Parties should be brought
182
together and we should find a machinery by which to determine this question.
In conclusion, I wish to say that I am so grateful that we have had this wonderful opportunity of hearing the delightfully incorrigible noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—and may he be incorrigible for many years to come. As soon as he is on the transfer list, the Liberal Party will be in business. My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Read 2 a, and referred to the Examiners.
METHODIST CHURCH BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY (RIVER DERWENT) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
FOYLE AND LONDONDERRY COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
HOVE BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  OCCUPATIONAL PENSION FUNDS: TAXATION
  OCCUPATIONAL PENSION FUNDS: TAXATION
  BBC EXTERNAL SERVICES: FINANCIAL CUT
  BBC EXTERNAL SERVICES: FINANCIAL CUT
  INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
  INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR