Sitting of 12 February 1976

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)
BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (FELIXSTOWE) BILL (By Order)
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Obscene Publications Act 1959
    Mr. Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will institute a review into the working of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will amend the Obscene Publications Act 1959 with a view to redefining obscenity.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I have no plans for immediate special legislation, but I am following the current public debate closely and I understand some of the concern. Where there is a flux and a conflict of standards, which is no doubt reflected in different jury verdicts, I am not convinced that there is any simple, workable and acceptable change in the law which would resolve the problem. However, I would not for a moment claim that the present law is perfect, and I shall keep the matter under review. But it is rarely wise to react immediately to a particular case.
    Mr. Carlisle: I fully accept the real difficulty which exists in amending the law on obscenity. When we were in Government we looked at the question in the context of our Bill on indecent display. I take it that the Home Secretary now accepts that the trend of recent decisions in the courts shows that the Act is not working and that unless Parliament is prepared to tackle again both the question of the definition of obscenity and the defence of the public good, we shall face a situation in which standards will rapidly decline. We are creating a climate in which practically anything goes—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. When an hon. Member is invited to ask a supplementary question, I hope that he will ask only one.
    Mr. Carlisle: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I end by asking the Home Secretary whether he accepts that this is a matter of concern to many people.
    Mr. Jenkins: I accept that it is a matter of concern. Strong views are held in differing ways. I endeavoured to indicate to the hon. and learned Member for Run-corn (Mr. Carlisle) that I do not treat the matter lightly or dismiss any practical solution, but I remain unconvinced in this respect. There have been conflicting decisions recently. They seem to turn more on jury decisions than on what judges indicate, and it is therefore an illusion to think that a simple change in the law would solve the problem.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to cases in which acquittals have been obtained on charges under this Act by unanimous verdicts of juries, yet the Director of Public Prosecutions has reinstituted charges not only a second but a third time, as in the Lindsey case? Will he do something about this practice, which is bringing the law into disrepute?
    Mr. Jenkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I am not responsible for the Director of Public Prosecutions. It would not be right for me to issue pronouncements on that subject. I am not sure whether the Director has acted exactly in the way described by my right hon. Friend, but I have no doubt that the Attorney-General will take note of what he said.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Even if the Home Secretary is not prepared to amend the definition of obscenity in the Act, is he aware that there is a case for banning material that encourages the concept of sexual acts between human beings and children and between human beings and animals, and sado-masochism?
    Mr. Jenkins: I have no doubt that there are matters of this sort which nearly everyone would regard as objectionable, as does the hon. Member. It is not easy to draw these frontiers on the basis of categories, and I suspect that there would be great difficulties in attempting to do so.
    Mr. Alison: We welcome the helpful and constructive reaction of the Home Secretary to the Questions and to the misgivings expressed by the public. We also welcome his willingness to look seriously at alleged shortcomings in the Act. Will he go further and undertake to give sympathetic consideration to receiving an
    592
    all-party deputation, which could elaborate some of the difficulties being experienced over the way the Act is working?
    Mr. Jenkins: I would always receive an all-party deputation on this subject—or any deputation consisting of a substantial number of hon. Members. I would listen to what they had to say. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), in association with some of his hon. and right hon. Friends, has been doing some work on this matter, I believe, and perhaps he would like to talk to me when he has the results of that work.
    Mr. Edward Gardner: However formidable the difficulties of drafting a satisfactory legal definition of obscenity, those difficulties do not exist to the same extent in the case of public advertisements and indecent display. Will the Home Secretary show a little more concern for the anxieties of a growing number of people who find it wholly objectionable to have this kind of lewd material thrust upon their attention in our towns and cities, and think again about introducing legislation on the lines of the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill, which the last Conservative Government tried to bring forward?
    Mr. Jenkins: I have always made it clear that I do not regard the same consideration as applying to the obtrusion of matters of this sort as they do to other matters of censorship and what people read privately. I have no doubt that the previous Government brought forward their Bill with good intentions, but it did not stand up as a piece of
    legislation.

    Police Forces (Authorised Establishments)
    Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the monthly return of strength and vacancies for the police forces in England and Wales, issued by his Department, continues to show separate authorised establishments for men and women.
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes there have been in police establishment since the passing of the Sex Discrimination Act.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): From 29th December 1975, when the Sex Discrimination Act came into force, the separate establishments for men and women officers were combined and returns of the establishment after that date will show only the combined figure.
    Mr. Townsend: Will the hon. Lady assure the House that no suitably qualified woman will ever be turned away from the Metropolitan Police on the grounds that some arbitrary establishment level has been reached? Will she assure us that everything possible is being done to encourage the recruitment of more women police officers?
    Dr. Summerskill: I can give the hon. Member that assurance. When the Act came into force women police officers comprised 5·5 per cent. of the total strength, and I hope that percentage will increase.
    Mr. Morris: Is the hon. Lady aware that in Northampton one woman officer has already resigned and a quarter of the establishment is threatening to resign because they have to patrol at night? Does this not demonstrate the need for an amendment of, or a commonsense approach to, some of the police duties that women are asked to undertake?
    Dr. Summerskill: Each police force must decide who is to carry out what duties. I do not think I should comment on the situation in the hon. Member's constituency.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does the hon. Lady not agree that whatever the Sex Discrimination Act may say there are some things in the police service, as in many other walks of life, that men do best and others that women do best? Will she be very careful in anything she says or does to avoid the suggestion that there is no difference between a policeman and a policewoman?
    Dr. Summerskill: The Act recognises that there are genuine occupational qualifications. In the police force these may include the searching, custody, and escort of prisoners, some forms of detective duties and certain welfare duties, for which either men or women may be particularly suited.
    Mr. Speaker: It appears that my appeal is not having much effect and that some hon. Members feel entitled to ask two or three supplementary questions I appeal to other hon. Members to confine themselves to one supplementary question.

    Immigration Statistics and Policy
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ask Sir Claus Moser, as part of the inquiry he announced on 14th January, to ascertain the number of Commonwealth citizens ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and not yet accepted for settlement, who none the less possess immunity from deportation; and if he will state the Government's policy in general towards the subsequent granting of the permanent right of settlement to those who enter the United Kingdom on a temporary and conditional basis.
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how is the net balance figure for immigration calculated from embarkation and admission figures; and what relevance the figure has in assessing the true immigration level.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: On 14th January, I announced that I had asked Sir Claus Moser to look into the circumstances in which the embarkation of certain Commonwealth citizens was counted twice. I have now received from him a report on how this error occurred, which has shown that it was due to a lack of clarity in the revised instructions which came into effect on January 1st, 1973, and to defects in the supervision of those concerned in the counting. Although it is clear that I, and consequently the House, should have been informed earlier that the error had occurred, I have found no evidence that the officials concerned behaved discreditably or in such a way as to justify disciplinary action.
    What is, in my view, of greater public importance is the significance that should be attached in general to these figures of arrivals and embarkations, and I have therefore asked Sir Claus Moser for a supplementary report on this aspect. I do not think it would be either right or necessary to ask him to range wider than this. I shall inform the House in due course of the outcome of this review.
    Mr. Lawson: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. I am glad that he is slightly extending the remit given to Sir Claus Moser, but will he please answer the second part of my Question, which concerns a matter of considerable importance?
    Mr. Jenkins: The Government's policy in relation to the subsequent granting of right of permanent settlement and the revocation of conditions is that which has applied for some time. It takes place, unless there are reasons to the contrary, when someone ordinarily resident here has been so resident for five years. This recognition of the facts does not lead to an increase in the numbers settled here. I do not think it would be desirable for people to live here in a state of permanent uncertainty.
    Mr. Mayhew: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that true immigration is made up of those admitted here to settle and those who, having once been admitted as visitors, are subsequently allowed to stay? Are these categories not separately calculated, and can we not have the figures for 1975?
    Mr. Jenkins: The hon. and learned Member is almost exactly right. It is the total of these two categories which successive Governments have regarded as the most accurate indication of immigration. They are published each year and they were not affected by the error relating to 1973 and the early part of 1974. They are published and available. Anyone who follows these matters adds the two together and gets the final figure. I am not sure whether we can perform this simple act of addition ourselves. There is no reason why we should not. These are the correct categories to take into account in determining net immigration in any year.
    Sir David Renton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in addition to visitors here for a short-term stay, there are also other categories, such as students and people admitted for limited periods of employment, who may well overstay their time, perhaps unknown to the Home Office, but whose dependants will become permanent settlers here? Will he bear this factor in mind?
    Mr. Jenkins: This point is very much borne in mind. The problem of dealing with overstayers exercises us, and in a large number of cases when they have been detected they have been deported. If a person overstays and is here illegally, that time does not count towards the necessary period of residency to achieve a permanent right of settlement.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that in considering this whole policy and reviewing the position of permanent right of settlement he will always have in mind the policy he stated to Mr. Robin Day on television, of a very restrictive policy towards immigration?
    Mr. Jenkins: My policy, which I have stated on a number of occasions and repeat now, is that there is, in present or any foreseeable circumstances, a strict limit on the amount of immigration that this country can absorb. It is right and generally accepted that the rules have to be administered with a reasonable humanity—and problems of humanity do arise. Together with that strong control over immigration, we must have a most determined and liberal policy of complete equality for those settled in this country. I regard these matters as two sides of the same coin.

    Police (Accommodation)
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what record his Department has of the number of people in the police service for whom accommodation is provided by an arrangement in the nature of a service tenancy or service occupancy.
    Dr. Summerskill: There is no central record of the number of service tenancies, and the information could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Bell: If the Home Secretary considers that this system is advantageous to the police authorities and to policemen, will he make representation to his ministerial colleagues that it would be a great pity if it were to be abolished, from a necessary sense of consistency, when the attack is launched on agricultural tied cottages?
    Dr. Summerskill: If I may answer on behalf of my right hon. Friend, it is not

    597
    proposed to extend the legislation beyond agricultural workers, as they are a special case with special problems, and there was never any Labour Party commitment to do so.

    Immigrant Workers (Rights of Residence)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to introduce legislation which will give additional rights of residence to immigrant workers and their families.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir. Families of holders of work permits are normally given leave to join them for the period during which the holder is authorised to stay in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the concern in the Labour movement and elsewhere about the distinction between patrial and non-patrial British citizenship, which often means that a non-patrial citizen is treated as a second-class citizen, will my right hon. Friend introduce legislation to end that unfair discrimination and ensure that full rights of residence and rights to work are extended to all British citizens resident here, irrespective of their colour or country of origin?
    Mr. Jenkins: I may have misheard my hon. Friend, but I think that he is creating slight confusion between the right of people to come here and the rights of those who are resident here. The Government have been conducting a review of our nationality and citizenship laws. One difficulty we have suffered is that, unlike most other countries, the United Kingdom has no coherent definition of "citizenship" and "nationality". When that review has been completed. I hope that we shall be able to legislate on the subject. That will mark a substantial step forward in enabling us to determine, on a non-racial but adequately clear basis, who is entitled to be here.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that the rights of the indigenous population of these islands are being steadily eroded by so-called anti-discriminatory legislation and that what the British people want from the Home Office is a fair deal for themselves?
    Mr. Jenkins: That is what I am endeavouring to give the British people, from the Home Office, bearing in mind that the hon. Gentleman has not a unique right to speak for the British people, who themselves have a sense of fair play. They have a sense of their own rights, certainly, but they also have a reasonable sense of the rights of people who came here a little more recently.
    Dr. Edmund Marshall: Has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility of extending the franchise in our local and national elections to all aliens who are resident in this country long enough to be on the electoral register?
    Mr. Jenkins: I have not given consideration to that matter. I am not sure what the implications would be, but I shall examine the question.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Is the Home Secretary aware that it is the British people's sense of fair play which is outraged by the flow of immigration that has continued under his stewardship and under the legislation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). Will the right hon. Gentleman do something to restrict the magnitude of this inward flow?
    Mr. Jenkins: I have indicated my policy upon this issue. We should probably all get on better and produce a rather more rational climate on this subject if we did not make too many appeals to that abstract concept of the sense of fair play of the British people. [Interruption.] I was replying to the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), who raised it in the most personally possessive manner I have ever heard. My remarks were entirely by way of riposte. It is perhaps better to debate the issues on their merits without any of us assuming that we have the monopoly of fair play.

    Immigration Appeals
    Mr. Brittanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he applies in deciding whether to reverse immigration appeal decisions taken by an adjudicator or by an immigration appeals tribunal.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): We exercise my right hon. Friend's discretion to act

    599
    outside the Immigration Rules where an adverse decision taken in strict compliance with the Rules and upheld on appeal would, in his view, result in injustice or undue hardship.
    Mr. Brittan: Is the Minister in a position to say whether the percentage of cases in which the initial decision has been reversed is increasing? If so, does he agree that it is undesirable that the decision initially taken should be reversed on the basis of such extremely vague criteria?
    Mr. Lyon: No, because the adjudicators and the appeal tribunal have to work within the rules. The exercise of immigration control is the exercise of a prerogative under the discretion of my right hon. Friend. The rules are guidance to the officials and the tribunal about how they should operate, but there is still a reserve discretion, which all Governments use.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that the rate of acceptance for settlement of immigrants from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan who entered provisionally and were given revocation of their conditions has more than doubled since the Labour Government took office? Is he satisfied with that rate of increase? How far will it continue? How is it possible to present a rational policy if the hon. Gentleman has no idea of the number of people already here who are not accepted for settlement but whom he cannot deport?
    Mr. Lyon: We do not count the number of people here who are not eligible for deportation until we give them unrestricted leave to settle. The difficulty about the hon. Gentleman's onslaught is that it was the Conservative Government in 1971 who legislated that no one who had been resident in these islands for more than five years could be deported. It is on that basis that we remove the conditions after five years. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures—which I shall be glad to publish—he will see that the two major increases have been on this account—which the Conservative Government approved in 1971—and on account of marriage—which the House approved last year.
    Mr. James Lamond: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on the
    600
    Government Benches appreciate the fair-minded way in which he listens to representations made on behalf of our constituents who are immigrants, but will he please try to get decisions arrived at a little more quickly?
    Mr. Lyon: I am doing my best on the latter count. I am always interested to see how many similar representations I get from Opposition Members.
    Mr. Burden: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when he confirms an appeal decision he should take into consideration matters which are known to him but which the appeal tribunal cannot take into account, to make sure that justice is done?
    Mr. Lyon: My objective in using the discretion, which is used only in a minimum number of cases, is always to try to do justice. I seek to apply an emollient between the rules as they are cast and the circumstances of a particular case.

    Republic of Ireland Citizens
    Mrs. Knightasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring in regulations to deny access to Great Britain of citizens of the Irish Republic who have no means to support themselves and whose presence will be a drain on British Exchequer funds.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am not in favour of anyone who is not a national of this country coming here to live off the British Exchequer. But in so far as a problem exists it is not uniquely concerned with citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Nor could it be solved by Regulations alone.
    Mrs. Knight: Does the Home Secretary agree that hard-working and responsible taxpayers resent the fact that people come into the country and, having contributed not one penny to the Exchequer, immediately draw benefits? Does he realise that when resentment of that kind builds up the relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland is affected?
    Mr. Jenkins: I agree that there may be resentment, and I think that there is, occasionally. One has to view the problem in its proper proportion. If one is concerned about the resentment it is desirable not to foment it if it is not on a large scale. It has to be remembered that a British citizen can go to any of

    601
    the countries of the European Community and immediately draw benefit. Therefore, the position of Ireland is not unique. Clearly, I am not in favour of people coming here to live off the back of the British Exchequer, which has enough on its back already. I agree with that principle, but on the basis of a very limited number of cases I cannot embark on a complete change in our relationship with the Republic of Ireland and the EEC.
    Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) campaigned assiduously for Britain's entry into the Common Market, and as so many other hon. Members did likewise. Is it not true to say that if we introduced Regulations of the kind that the hon. Lady wants, we would be acting in conflict with the principles of the free movement of people, which we accepted when we became members of the EEC?
    Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) confined her remarks to citizens of the Irish Republic. However, the Irish Republic is a member of the European Community. Even if we were to revoke the common travel area, which would be a major step to take, the provisions of our membership, the membership of the Irish Republic and membership of the other seven countries of the Community would mean that no different position existed.
    Mr. Powell: As the right hon. Gentleman has twice confirmed that he disapproves of cases of the kind which he defined, how does he propose to deal with this problem?
    Mr. Jenkins: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me on certain matters at present. There are a number of things of which I disapprove and wish did not happen. However, it is not possible or competent for a Government to deal with all of them by legislation or even by Regulation.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that hon. Members would serve the nation better if they brought to the attention of the appropriate Department those cases in which there is an abuse of public funds, rather than coming to this House and making smears and innuendoes about other
    602
    people? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the latter part of last year the Daily Express, a so-called reputable newspaper, published three letters making grave accusations about the acquisition of a car and a television set by means of supplementary benefits, but that when those cases were investigated it was found that there was not a scintilla of truth in the allegations? It is about time that hon. Members stopped spreading these smears, which are completely without foundation.
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not believe that my hon. Friend's powerful intervention calls for any reply from me.

    Immigrants (Wives and Dependants)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how soon the admittance of eligible wives and dependants under the Immigration Act 1971 and East African Asians with special vouchers is likely to be completed.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: We cannot make forecasts of this kind because the future rate of entry depends on a wide variety of social, economic and other factors. But it is likely that the United Kingdom passport holders who are heads of household in East Africa and who wish to come here will have been admitted by the end of the 'seventies.
    Mr. Goodhart: As polygamy is legal in a number of Commonwealth countries, will the Minister give an assurance that second wives and the children of second marriages are not included in the list of those eligible for entry?
    Mr. Lyon: The term "wife" in the 1971 Immigration Act has been defined by both the tribunal and the courts as including a second or a third wife in relation to a polygamous union that took place when the husband was domiciled in a place where polygamy is permitted. However, difficulties arise, particularly in relation to Pakistani wives, when the marriage took place when the husband was domiciled in this country.
    Mr. Hooley: Will my hon. Friend speed up the mechanics of the process of dealing with applications from wives who wish to join their husbands in this country?
    Mr. Lyon: I am doing my level best to do exactly that, although sometimes I am criticised by Conservative Members. We have managed to increase the rate of interviewing on the Indian subcontinent by almost 100 per cent. in the last year. I hope that the situation will continue to improve.
    Mr. Budgen: Will the Minister confirm the report by Mr. Amit Roy in the Daily Telegraph of 2nd February that fresh instructions have been issued to immigration officers concerning the entry of Commonwealth citizens into this country? Will he further confirm that the spirit of these fresh instructions is "If in doubt, let them in"?
    Mr. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman is referring in particular to the acceptance of a father or mother coming to the wedding of a child in this country, where there may be doubt whether that father or mother will use that visit as a device for settlement. We have said that the greatest humanity should be applied when those cases are considered because it is often extremely difficult to resolve the intent in an individual's mind. Where that conflict exists, the answer is that if there is doubt we allow them in.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: May we take it that three polygamous unions are the absolute limit?
    Mr. Lyon: I believe that by the laws of Islam and Pakistan, four is the absolute limit.
    Mr. Shersbyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in the arrangements for the admission of the remaining wives and dependent children eligible to enter Great Britain under the Immigration Act 1971 have been made in 1974 and 1975; and what further changes, if any, are in prospect.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: In view of increasing delays in the issue of entry clearances to wives and children in the Indian subcontinent, a reinforcement of the staffs at Dacca and Islamabad was announced on 26th June 1974. As a result of my visit to the subcontinent in January 1975 a number of changes were made last year in the processing there of applications for entry clearances; in particular, outstanding applications by
    604
    unaccompanied wives, and mothers with children under 10, are being dealt with more expeditiously under a simplified procedure. The arrangements are kept under review.
    Mr. Shersby: What immigration controls now operate in relation to newly acquired wives of immigrants not born but settled in the United Kingdom and who return briefly to their native land to participate in arranged marriages in accordance with their custom?
    Mr. Lyon: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman stressed the last words, because one has to recognise that the Asian custom is an arranged marriage and that there is nothing dishonourable or disreputable about it. It is not necessarily a device for evading English immigration controls. We respect that custom, and anticipate that in the early years of the change of rule that was made last year by this House there will be a slight increase in immigration as a result. The figures for last year are available and have been announced. I do not expect them to increase very much in future years.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware that a recent humanitarian decision made by him has been welcomed in Preston by Asian and non-Asian members of the community alike, and will he indicate whether he intends to have an early review of the working of the whole of the Immigration Act 1971?
    Mr. Lyon: We have already announced that when the nationality review is complete we shall be reviewing the whole of immigration law, but it is impossible to do so until we have finally resolved the central issue of who is a British citizen. When that is done, we shall get on with the matter.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is the Minister aware that despite his visit to the Indian subcontinent, it is still taking the best part of a year for genuine cases to enter this country?
    Mr. Lyon: Yes, Sir, and I am glad that sentiment has come from the Opposition side of the House. It ought to be realised, in the whole of this dispute which has flared up again, that there is real anguish and concern for thousands of wives and children in the subcontinent

    605
    who have the statutory right to come and ought to be allowed to come as quickly as they can.
    Mr. Woodall: Is my hon. Friend prepared to consider changes in the arrangements governing the entry of husbands into this country? Is he aware that a constituent of mine, Mrs. Linda Sekhor, married an Indian gentleman in February 1975 and that his application for entry into this country will not be heard in Delhi until July of this year?
    Mr. Lyon: Yes, and I agree with my hon. Friend that that is a disgrace. However, we are doing our best to try to expedite matters so that that kind of delay does not occur in the future.

    East African Asians (Entry Procedures)
    Graham Pageasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have taken place in 1974 and 1975 in the procedures for controlled and orderly entry into Great Britain of East African Asians holding United Kingdom passports under special voucher provisions.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My right hon. Friend announced on 6th February 1975—[Vol. 885, c. 1541–3.]—an increase from 3,500 to 5,000 in the annual quota of vouchers. The essentials of the scheme are unchanged, though it is administered with reasonable flexibility.
    Mr. Page: Is the Minister satisfied that the rules that are applied are specific enough? If so, are they sufficiently well known to the immigrants who are already here and who have been given original rights to bring in dependants to be fair both to them and to those who now acquire new rights to bring in dependants? There seems to be considerable confusion about the rules that are being applied.
    Mr. Lyon: If the right hon. Gentleman will write to me setting out where the element of confusion lies, I shall certainly look into the matter. As I understand it, the administration of this part of our immigration control is carried out with a good deal of flexibility and despatch.
    Mr. Sims: In view of the increasing rate of unemployment in this country, particularly among immigrant communities, does the hon. Gentleman believe
    606
    that he was wise to increase the voucher quota at this time?
    Mr. Lyon: Since the early 1960s both Conservative and Labour Governments have given an assurance to Asian passport holders in East Africa—and it should be recollected that they have the same citizenship as we have—that they will be admitted here if they are not allowed to remain in their country of origin in East Africa. It is because we believe that it is better to get rid of that commitment as soon as possible that we have increased the number of vouchers. However, that does not mean that the total number of those coming in will increase. It means that these people will come in quicker. We hope that the commitment will be fulfilled by the end of this decade.
    Mr. Marten: Has the Minister's Department got the mechanics to identify immigrants from the West Indian and Indian Ocean Islands of Martinique, Guadaloupe and Réunion, and separate them? That might be to the benefit of those who approved of the Common Market and yet who object to the immigration of coloured people—because those islands are part of metropolitan France?
    Mr. Lyon: So far we do not have that problem, and I hope that we shall not have it. In relation to United Kingdom passport holders, the problem involves a limited number of people in East Africa. That limited number is decreasing fast and we expect it to be zero by the end of this decade.

    Shrewsbury Picket
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has recently received on the matter of Mr. Des Warren's imprisonment.
    Mr. Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days imprisonment Mr Des Warren, shop steward and member of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians has now served; and what is the average time served prior to parole by a first offender sentenced to a deterrent sentence of three years.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have received 60 letters since the beginning of October. Mr. Warren has served a total of 647 days

    607
    of his sentence. The other information requested is not available.
    Mr. Skinner: I wonder, however, whether my right hon. Friend can tell me what has happened to the argument that was put forward by a majority of Labour Members 12 months ago, to the effect that the sentence was very excessive. Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to display a little bit of that much flaunted liberalism with which he is credited by the trendy media and get Warren out, or is it that political prisoners abroad are the only ones about whom he is concerned?
    Mr. Jenkins: As I have made clear time and again, I do not recognise, any more than the British law does, the existence of political prisoners in this country. My hon. Friend's recollection of the view taken by a majority of Labour Members at the end of last year is somewhat different from my own. The view taken, I think, by the majority, at a meeting, was that verdicts and sentences should be determined by the courts and not by the Executive, in the person of the Home Secretary. That has been and remains my position.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend recollect, however, that Mr. Warren's sentence was for conspiracy to intimidate? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of lawyers—some leading lawyers—now suspect the validity of that sentence under the terms of conspiracy to intimidate? As the appeal judge himself remarked upon the excessive nature of the sentence, does it not seem to my right hon. Friend to be almost vindictiveness to say that Mr. Warren must serve beyond the 604 days which my right hon. Friend has now announced?
    Mr. Jenkins: The figure was 647 days. No, I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that there are a number of lawyers who can be found to sustain almost any proposition. If I were to intervene in every case in which a number of lawyers took a view different from that of the court which reached the decision, I would indeed be on very shifting sands, while also having a very busy time. I do not think that my hon. Friend's description of the remarks of the judge in the Court of Appeal were entirely correct,
    608
    because the Court of Appeal, of course, upheld the sentence.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is the Home Secretary aware that if the law on conspiracy were changed, and if the law were changed to the degree that someone who committed the offences of which Des Warren was convicted and to a degree that required the sentence which was imposed upon him, if the law did nothing to provide an offence which would cover that eventuality, the law would indeed be an ass?
    Mr. Jenkins: That sounds like a hypothetical as well as a convoluted question.

  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  Mr. Crawfordasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to pay an official visit to Oslo.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Crawford: When the Prime Minister does visit Oslo, will he lose no opportunity to inform the Norwegian Prime Minister that with self-government the people of Scotland will be able to emulate the economic achievements of the Norwegians—1 per cent. unemployment, a competitive bank rate, and access to their oil revenues? Does the Prime Minister agree that the people of Scotland could not possibly make a bigger mess of running their economic affairs than this House is doing for them?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that in preparing our plans for North Sea oil we have drawn considerably on the successful experience of the Norwegians. However, I understood that in the last General Election campaign particularly, the SNP was totally opposed to anything of the kind and wanted to hand over all the profits to private enterprise.
  Mr. Jay: Could not the Prime Minister save much of his time and that of the House if he published from time to time a list of all his intended visits?
  The Prime Minister: It takes up quite a lot of time of the House to indicate those visits that I shall not be making.
  Mr. Rifkind: Will the Prime Minister remind the SNP that in its admiration of all things Norwegian it has forgotten that Norway has conscription to its armed services? Will he ask the SNP to make it clear to the people of Scotland whether an independent Scottish army would be completed by means of conscription?
  The Prime Minister: There is no ministerial responsibility for the SNP—and as far as I can see, no other kind of responsibility either.
  Mr. Weetchasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Lee.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Weetch: When my right hon. Friend does have a chance to make a visit, will he visit the Homes Limited property conveyancing association, a firm which, like others, can conveyance property for half the charges of a solicitor's office but which is hounded through the criminal courts for doing so? Knowing that my right hon. Friend is aware that a promise was made in the Labour Party manifesto of 1964 to undertake a fundamental reform of conveyancing, will he please tell me what is the state of that promise now?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware of the work of the organisation to which my hon. Friend has referred, but to visit it is not one of my highest current priorities. However, I ask my hon. Friend to await the statement that I hope to make after Question Time.
  Mr. Tebbit: Is the Prime Minister aware that the River Lea runs through my constituency and that it is quite near to the town hall? If he visits the town hall at Waltham Forest he will find that the borough council is attempting to force all its employees to join trade unions, under the threat of dismissal, although at the moment fewer than half of them wish to join. Why should the borough council be allowed to jump the gun of his rotten legislation in this way?
  The Prime Minister: There is no ministerial responsibility for which river has the misfortune to run through the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I do not think that asking me to go by circuitous routes to places that I was not going to go to
  610
  anyway, arises out of the original Question.
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Copenhagen.
  The Prime Minister: I visited Copenhagen on 18th and 19th January to attend the meeting of Socialist Party Leaders at Elsinore. I have no plans at present for a further visit.
  Mr. Marten: As the Prime Minister is not going there again, will he have a telephone conversation with the Danish Prime Minister about Mr. Tindemans' conclusion, in his report, that Europe will further its destiny only if it espouses federalism?
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will repeat his Question.
  Mr. Marten: Assuming that the Prime Minister telephones the Danish Prime Minister, will he refer to Mr. Tindemans' report, in which it is said that Europe will further its destiny only if it espouses federalism? Does he agree that Britain is utterly opposed to being part of a federal Europe?—[Interruption.] In spite of the Liberal Party, is he aware that many Opposition Members are believing increasingly that direct elections are one step on the road to federalism?
  The Prime Minister: I answered the hon. Gentleman's Question, and I mentioned Elsinore hoping for a typical Shakespearean quotation from him, which I was disappointed not to get. The Tindemans Report will come up for discussion at the next meeting of the European Council. In view of the magnitude of the issues raised, I doubt whether we would want to have any definitive or final discussion, but that will be a matter for the Council. As for federalism, I have never been a federalist, and most of my right hon. and hon. Friends have never been federalists.
  Mrs. Thatcher: When the Prime Minister next travels to Copenhagen or elsewhere, will he take the opportunity to charter a plane, from Laker Airways, preferably—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Presumably, if the Prime Minister went to Copenhagen he would have to travel by some means of transport.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order. Although I have great respect for your decisions, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will appreciate that they give the impression of siding with the Opposition.
  Mr. Speaker: I am sure that no personal reflection is intended. I am trying, if I may use an English expression, to play as straight a bat as I can.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your ruling about the Prime Minister's possible means of locomotion on any visit that he may make to Copenhagen, is it not more likely that he will merely walk upon the water?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here too long not to know that that is not a point of order.
  Mrs. Thatcher: When the Prime Minister visits Copenhagen or elsewhere, will he charter an aeroplane, from Laker Airways, preferably, with Freddie Laker on board, so that he may hear at first hand of the cheap air services that private enterprise can provide and that the Labour Government are denying to the people?
  The Prime Minister: However cheap the service provided by Mr. Freddie Laker, I am sure that he has never had a cheaper commercial than that. The right hon. Lady's memory departs further and further from the collective responsibility of the Government of which she was a part. She must know that in these and in other matters I have totally followed the precedent set by my predecessor, the previous Prime Minister. I have followed the advice that he was given on security grounds—namely, that on such visits I should travel at home and abroad by Service aircraft. That was the advice I was given. If the right hon. Lady regards that advice as wrong, I am surprised that she did not raise the matter when she was a Cabinet Minister.

  HONOURS LISTS
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the system of the submission by Departments of names for the Honours Lists.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware of the widespread belief that the present system is too selective and is dominated by Prime Ministerial patronage and departmental lobbying? Does he agree that in the interests of open government it would be a good idea if the system and the way it works were made more public, for all to see.
  The Prime Minister: I know that there have been criticisms recently—indeed, in the House—about the use of the honours system for conditioning the votes of Members of Parliament. I have not noticed that. However, I have studied the facts. I find that in the whole of the seven and a half years during which I have been Prime Minister so far, six knighthoods have been conferred on Members of this House—including two from the Chairman's Panel, and of course, the Leader of the Conservative Group at the European Assembly, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams) in respect of his IPU work. Six knighthoods have been conferred in the seven and a half years while I have been Prime Minister, as compared with 57 during the last seven and a half years of Conservative government.
  Mr. Watkinson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Labour Members, at least, will welcome his statement that honours will not be awarded for political or party service? However, does he accept that there may be a place for a more independent approach to the consideration of honours?
  The Prime Minister: When I decided, I think in 1966, to stop the system of political honours, I provided that a similar number of honours should be recommended in the case of service to local government, irrespective of party. Although the Conservatives had been in office for 13 years before 1964 and had given a vast number of political honours, after that decision all were decided on their merits, and impartially—and about a third of the honours in respect of local government service went to Conservatives or Liberals.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (JOB DISPOSAL)
  Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Scotland in carrying out the Government's policy of facilitating the dispersal of Ministry of Defence jobs to the west of Scotland.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware of the concern in Scotland that the programme is about six months delayed, and that it now seems that it will not be completed until 1984? Will he give us a clear assurance that work will not be further delayed by the Defence Review? Will he give us some indication when work will start on the building of new offices? I point out to the Scottish National Party that if Scotland goes independent these jobs will go back to the South.
  The Prime Minister: The Government remain fully committed to complete within 10 years the programme that we have set ourselves, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Lord President. There have been a number of difficulties with the staff involved about the move to Scotland. I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware of those matters. I happen to share the view of the hon. Gentleman and the former and present Lord Provosts about the great qualities and attractiveness of Glasgow for such work to be established there.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision to disperse Ministry of Defence personnel to Wales smells of jiggery-pokery? Is my right hon. Friend further aware—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. A supplementary question must be related to the Question on the Order Paper, which in this instance relates to the dispersal of jobs to the west of Scotland.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: My supplementary question was related to the dispersal of Ministry of Defence personnel. I was saying that the decision—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. As I understand it, the Question concerns the dispersal of
  614
  Ministry of Defence jobs to the west of Scotland.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend conduct an investigation into how the decision has been reached regarding Wales?
  The Prime Minister: I naturally bow to your superior knowledge of the geography of Wales, Mr. Speaker. With great humility, I submit that no part of Wales is in the west of Scotland.

  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  Mr. Lawsonasked the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the final report of the Royal Commission on the Press.
  The Prime Minister: As I informed the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr. Blaker) on 5th February, the date of the final report is a matter for the Royal Commission, but I am sure it fully appreciates the need for urgency on reporting on all the issues referred to it. The Royal Commission is aiming to submit its interim report on the immediate problems facing national newspapers by the end of this month.
  Mr. Lawson: Despite the habit of the Prime Minister and his entourage of scattering writs like confetti, and whatever may be the state of those writs, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to present his own evidence to the Royal Commission before it reports? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—[Interruption.] Three months ago the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he expected—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I could not even hear the question. Has the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) asked his question?
  Mr. Lawson: I wanted to ask the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, whether he is aware that three months ago he told the House that he expected to present his evidence to the Royal Commission in the very near future. If a week is a long time in politics, how soon is the very near future?
  The Prime Minister: I shall treat the opening words of the hon. Gentleman with the contempt with which his questions are increasingly deserving. I have

  615
  made it clear that while civil proceedings are continuing—I hope to see them dealt with very quickly, one way or the other—it would be utterly wrong for me to submit my evidence. I intend to publish the evidence as soon as I present it to the Royal Commission. There is no question—I am quite clear about this—of any of the present delay in any way deferring or holding up the work of the Royal Commission, or the presentation of its final report. I understand the sensitivity of the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends about the subject matter that he has raised.
  Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a free Press is rather like a sewer, in that it is essential to public health but is bound to stink?
  The Prime Minister: I do not accept that a free Press is bound to stink. In answer to a question about the Press on Tuesday I made a comment about a recent matter, by which I stand, but it does not follow that every newspaper is behaving in the way that I was condemning. There is wide support from my right hon. and hon. Friends, and from a number of decent Opposition Members, of whom there are quite a few, for what I said on Tuesday.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that television programmes, involving senior journalists, which purport to be, and which probably are, documentaries of events and discussions which have gone on in Cabinet, are a matter of concern and interest which should be referred to the Royal Commission?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Royal Commission is concerning itself with the Press and not with broadcasting. The Annan Committee is inquiring into broadcasting. I did not see the programme that I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but from what I am told it involved a number of very distinguished actors, who are not members of Equity, and who wrote their own scripts. I am told that neither the acting nor the scripts were very good.

  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Mr. Heller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the course of earlier exchanges, one of my hon. Friends was told that he should not stray beyond the terms of the Question to the Prime Minister. May I appeal to you to consider the situation? If we keep Questions so narrow, the only things we shall be able to deal with are those relating to whether the Prime Minister will visit Oslo, Huyton, Liverpool or elsewhere. Because of the nature of Questions to the Prime Minister, the matter of tabling them obviously raises wider issues. May I appeal to you not to keep these matters so narrow as to prevent the House having a genuine discussion based on the Questions which are tabled? I believe that if we were expected to confine Questions too strictly, we might as well wrap up Prime Minister's Questions.
  Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he presented his point of order. I am the servant of the House and I want the House to have its wishes fulfilled. I shall consider the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman and notify the House in due course.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you also consider the Report of the Select Committee in 1971–72 which dealt with the subject of parliamentary Questions? That Committee examined the Prime Minister's part in Question Time and we found it hard to find ways of improving the situation. At that time it was the practice to permit supplementary questions to go as wide as some hon. Members endeavoured to get today. The Select Committee suggested that that practice should continue. However, if it is your wish to start breaking precedent, may I personally assure you that you will have the full support of some hon. Members in breaking some of the precedents in this place, although not perhaps this one?
  Mr. Speaker: The House must realise that I regard precedent as my great protection. I intend to follow precedent in the attitude I take. I think that older Members of the House will know that the present custom has developed only

  617
  recently. However, I have undertaken to look at the matter, and since we have before us a heavy programme of business, including statements, I hope that we shall quickly conclude points of order.
  Mr. Molloy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If your endeavours to limit the extent of supplementary questions are aimed at enabling more Back Benchers to ask supplementary questions, will you consider imposing the same strictures on Front Bench as on Back Bench speakers?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes, I assure the hon. Member that I shall try to apply the rules fairly and impartially to both sides, and to Front and Back Benches.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If as a result of your consideration you should come to the conclusion that supplementary questions to the Prime Minister should be restricted to the subject matter contained in the Questions, will you also ensure that the answers are restricted to the subjects contained in the Questions?
  Mr. Speaker: By long custom, the occupant of the Chair never takes responsibility for ministerial replies.
  Mr. Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is as well that the House should continue to regard Questions to Ministers as a battle of wits between Ministers and those who question them. May I say that, for my part at least, anything you can do—and, indeed, as you have already done since you have occupied the Chair—to keep Question Time moving fast and the questions addressed to Ministers reasonably relevant, the better, and the more we on the Back Benches can dodge your rulings and get into the heart of Ministers, the better too.
  Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

LEGAL PROFESSION (ROYAL COMMISSION)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Mr. Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement.
I have recommended to Her Majesty the Queen that a Royal Commission
618
should be established with the following terms of reference:
"To inquire into the law and practice relating to the provision of legal services in England and Wales and to consider whether any, and if so what, changes are desirable in the public interest in the structure, organisation, training, regulation of and entry to the legal profession, including the arrangements for determining its remuneration, whether from private sources or public funds, and in the rules which prevent persons who are neither barristers nor solicitors from undertaking conveyancing and other legal business on behalf of other persons."
The House will have seen this morning that the Bar Council and the Law Society have issued a joint statement saying that
"they would welcome the opportunity to participate in a comprehensive examination of the structure of the profession, its functions, its remuneration and the services it provides".
The Commission will have all the usual powers to call for evidence and information to make inquiries and visits and to submit interim reports.
An announcement will be made in due course about the chairman and membership of the Commission.
Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that the joint statement to which he referred also emphasised that the legal profession should remain independent? Does he share that view in setting up the terms of reference? It is a little difficult to judge from the terms of reference whether that is so. Secondly, as the Prime Minister will be aware that it is extremely important that the Commission should command the confidence of both the public and the profession alike, will he undertake wide consultations on its membership?
The Prime Minister: On the last point, yes, certainly. In order that the Commission shall command wide confidence, I am sure that the right hon. Lady, who is a member of the legal profession, will agree that it would be inappropriate to have a lawyer as chairman of the Royal Commission.
The point which the right hon. Lady raised at the beginning, which I do not quite understand, is not in question at all. The whole House recognises the importance of the independence of the legal profession. The particular matters to be inquired into—which I dealt with in considerable detail in the proposed terms of reference—will cover some of those on

619
which great public anxiety has been expressed about the organisation and practices of the profession.
The right hon. Lady will be aware of the motion on the Order Paper signed by, I think, 111 hon. Members. I cannot recall whether the right hon. Lady signed it. That motion expressed anxieties going far beyond this House. I am happy to feel, as is the right hon. Lady, that the legal profession was among the first to welcome this decision.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his announcement will be extremely welcome within the legal profession, but that not all members of the profession would share the view he has just expressed that there should be a lawyer as chairman. Many members of the legal profession would prefer to have a lay chairman. [Interrirption.] If I misheard my right hon. Friend, I shall be very glad to be corrected.
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that it will be within the scope of the Commission to consider the desirability of setting up a Ministry of Justice to deal with the antiquated and inefficient administration of the courts, for which no Minister is at present answerable in the House?
The Prime Minister: Dealing with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, what I said was that I would not recommend to Her Majesty that a lawyer should be chairman of this particular Commission.
Concerning the question of a Ministry of Justice, this has often been considered in this country and debated in the House. It has been considered by successive Prime Ministers. I would certainly need—as my predecessors would have needed—a great deal of argument to convince me that this would be right. There is, however, nothing in the terms of reference of the Royal Commission to preclude it from commenting on that matter.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that we welcome any Royal Commission which is to examine any profession which has a restriction on terms of entry, whether it be lawyers or dockers, in order to see whether it is in the public interest? Secondly, will the Prime Minister tell us why the Commission's
620
terms of reference do not extend to Scotland? Thirdly, will it be in order for the Commission to report on whether legal aid should be made more widely available to citizens of this country?
Finally, and simply for the record, can the Prime Minister—he might require notice of this question—tell the House how many Royal Commissions have been set up in the last 10 years, how many of their Reports have been implemented in whole or in part, and how many have been shelved?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think it is right—the House has supported it—that we should have a Royal Commission at this time. It is a long time since there were inquiries into those two most distinguished and ancient professions, the doctors and the lawyers. The oldest profession was inquired into by Wolfenden some time earlier.
The question whether a similar inquiry should be held in respect of Scotland, which has its own system of law, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and the question a Northern Ireland are still under consideration. Legal aid is certainly very clearly within the terms of reference, as the right hon. Gentleman will agree when he has studied what I have said.
As to the number of Royal Commissions, I have actually asked the same question myself. I have had the answer but I cannot remember it. I shall make it my business, if the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question or write to me about it, to answer it and make the answer publicly available.
Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that millions of people who have been concerned about the legal profession and the legal services will warmly welcome his statement about the setting up of the Royal Commission and will want to thank him for it? Will he try to ensure, first, not only that the chairman of the Royal Commission should be a lay member but that there should be a majority of lay members, not lawyers?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend seek to ensure that any urgent legal reforms now being considered by the Lord Chancellor will not be delayed by the Royal Commission?
The Prime Minister: Legal reforms stemming from the work of the Law Commission and those originated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will not be impeded in any way by the announcement of the establishment of the Commission. I thank my hon. Friend for the welcome he has given to it.
As to the membership, in my view—I am picking up a point which I may not have fully answered from the Leader of the Opposition—there should be the fullest consultations about the form of membership of the Royal Commission.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Prime Minister indicate why there is a delay in dealing with the Scottish legal profession, if the matter is still under consideration? Secondly, if the Prime Minister is not prepared to go ahead with a Royal Commission for Scotland at the present time, will he give consideration to providing enough time in the House for the Solicitors' (Scotland) Bill, which seeks to provide lay representation on disciplinary committees?
Will the Prime Minister accept our thanks for not having lumped the Scottish legal profession, which is entirely different from that in England and Wales, into the same Royal Commission?
The Prime Minister: To receive thanks or praise from those Benches is unprecedented, and I am duly moved by it. I explained in answer to a previous question that urgent consideration is being given to the matter of a separate inquiry or whatever might be the appropriate form of procedure in respect of a country with its own distinctive branch of law. As to the other matters raised by the hon. Member, these really are more appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, when he deals with business questions today or on some other occasion.
Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable suspicion at the alacrity with which the Law Society and the Bar Council have rushed in to welcome the setting up of the Commission? Is he aware that we have seen Commissions come and go in the past, and that many hon. Members on this side of the House will judge the Commission by its membership? Does
622
my right hon. Friend agree that not only is it important that the Commission should not be packed with lawyers, but that if it is packed with members of the Establishment it will be equally unsatisfactory?
Will my right hon. Friend further agree that we need ordinary working people on the Commission in order to make sure that the law does not continue with the types of restrictive practice that it has at present?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend referred to the suspicion which he finds surrounding the statement by the Law Society and the Bar Council. Being totally innocent in this and all other matters, I have no reason whatsover for supporting such suspicion.
I have already answered questions about how the membership of the Commission should be arranged.
Reverting to the point raised by the Leader of the Liberal Party, I am reminded that I answered what is described as a huge Written Question from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the former Attorney-General two weeks ago about the Royal Commissions which have been established in the last 20 years. When the Leader of the Liberal Party has had time to study that very long answer, if he wishes to approach me on any questions I shall be happy to answer them.
Sir T. Kitson: Is the Prime Minister aware that on 23rd October he announced the name of the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Betting and Gaming but that, as yet, we have still not been informed, 15 weeks later, who the members of the Commission are to be? Is there any way of speeding up the appointment and the work of this Royal Commission?
The Prime Minister: Once having announced the decision in principle, it is very difficult to make sure that there are adequate consultations not only with the interests concerned but with "anti-interests" and with people in all parts of the House who may have views about this matter. I am sorry that it has taken so long. I shall get in touch with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about this matter. There has been some delay, and I am afraid that it is fairly usual. I

623
hope that we can proceed with more speed on this occasion.
Mr. English: I take it that the terms of reference of this Royal Commission are wide enough to consider my proposals for an ombudsman to deal with complaints of negligence against solicitors. Will my right hon. Friend also persuade the Exchequer to allow a little more money to the existing ombudsman and persuade the Lord Chancellor to widen his powers within the extent of the present law? It is desirable that the many complaints that we receive—they run into five figures—should be considered even while this Royal Commission is sitting rather than simply waiting for the long processes of the Royal Commission.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's professional qualifications in the law being so much greater than mine, he will have more authority than I do to interpret exactly how the terms of reference might be construed. But this must be a matter for the Royal Commission. It is for the Royal Commission to construe its terms of reference. I see no reason why it should not deal with such issues as those raised by my hon. Friend.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall allow two further supplementary questions on this. Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn.
Mr. Fairbairn: May I declare an interest in that I am a member of a legal profession which is not to be the subject of paranoiac scrutiny in this form? Will the Prime Minister assure the House whether there is any intention to make a similar inquiry of this rather witch-hunting kind into the legal profession in Scotland and, if not, why the cost of this long bureaucratic inquiry should be paid for by the people of Scotland?
The Prime Minister: I am not competent to bandy words with the hon. and learned Gentleman either in legal matters or in paranoia. Dealing with the latter part of his question, I have already answered the point twice, if not three times, when I said that the question of a parallel inquiry or some other form of inquiry in relation to Scotland was being considered urgently. Whatever happens, it will not be paranoiac. The hon. and learned Gentleman's reaction may be.
Mr. Wellbeloved: In view of the widespread concern about the conveyancing side of this question, will my right hon. Friend consider requesting the Commission to give urgent priority to the conveyancing issue and to publish an interim report? Will he also say whether the terms of reference of the Royal Commission allow for consideration to be given to the thorny question of the amalgamation of the two branches of the law?
The Prime Minister: Conveyancing and the present legal monopoly in respect of conveyancing are covered in the terms of reference. I made that clear. I also made it clear that the Commission would have all the usual powers to submit an interim report or reports should that be the position.
With regard to the divorcement, if that is the word, between the two branches—the question whether there are two branches of the profession; if it were not so we would not have had the dual statement welcoming this decision which was issued this morning—it is manifestly clear that that can be considered by the Royal Commission.
Mr. Edward Gardner: Can the Prime Minister say when he anticipates that this new Royal Commission which is about to be appointed is likely to be in a position to make its report?
The Prime Minister: That must be a matter for the Royal Commission. It has been charged with a very, very important task. No one would wish it to rush its report unduly. But, as I have said—and the hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard me—it will be a matter for the Royal Commission to decide, if it finds any subject on which it thinks it urgent to make an interim report or a series of interim reports, to do so.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Short. Business Statement.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 16TH FEBRUARY—Until about 7 o'clock, Second Reading of the Road

625
Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) Bill [Lords], followed by Second Reading of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 17TH FEBRUARY—Until about 7 p.m., motion relating to the proceedings at the end of the Supply debate on Wednesday 11th February.
Second Reading of the Trustee Savings Banks Bill [Lords].
Motion on EEC Documents R/2662/75 and R/2663/75 on nuclear safety.
WEDNESDAY 18TH FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Water Charges Bill.
Motion on the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) Order.
THURSDAY 19TH FEBRUARY—Supply [9th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the fishing industry, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 20TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 23RD FEBRUARY—Supply [10th Allotted Day]: debate on a topic to be announced.
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House to say a little more about the motion we shall have on Tuesday relating to last night's business? There are two separate points. The first concerns what the Government intend to do about that motion. The second concerns the attitude of the Cabinet taken at the time and announced from the Dispatch Box. We are well able to find precedents for decisions of the House being varied by later decisions, but we have not been able to find a precedent in which a Cabinet Minister has come to the Dispatch Box wishing it to be recorded that the Government did not accept the decision of the House. As Leader of the House, surely the right hon. Gentleman will not wish that statement, which doubtless was made in he heat of the moment, to stand.
Mr. Short: The effect of the motion passed last night was an expression of opinion that the salary of the Secretary of State for Industry should be cut by £1,000.
Mrs. Thatcher: Of the House.
Mr. Short: It was an expression of opinion of the House, yes. The effects of the motion which I propose to put down on Tuesday will be to give the House an opportunity to restore the position to what it was before last night's motion was passed. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] I understand that the House would want that opportunity.
Mrs. Thatcher: The Leader of the House has not yet answered the second part of my question relating to the statement by a member of the Government that he wished it to be recorded that the Government did not accept the decision that the House had just reached.
Mr. Short: I should have thought that the fact that I had announced a motion to restore the position to what it was before was the reply to that. [Hon. Members: "No."]
Mr. Thorpe: The Leader of the House has been kind enough to offer the House an opportunity to reflect and to reconsider its decision. Are we to take it that this is to be a mutually applicable doctrine which he has enunciated and that, whenever there is a solid body of opinion on one side or the other which happens to disagree, three or four days later we shall have another motion so that we may have a second bite at the cherry?
Mr. Short: I am having enough difficulty in answering questions on business next week without trying to deal with the hypothetical question of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Can the Leader of the House tell us why the Government are reluctant to find time for an urgent debate on events in Angola and South Africa?
Mr. Short: This is simply a matter of shortage of time. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I will bear in mind the question of Southern Africa, and when an opportunity arises we will have a debate in which these matters can be discussed.
Mr. Brittan: Will the Leader of the House accept that there is all the difference in the world between not accepting a decision of the House and asking the House subsequently to alter its decision? Will he not accept that it is constitutionally quite unacceptable for a Cabinet

627
Minister to say that, while a decision of the House is standing, it is not accepted by the Government?
Mr. Short: I am giving the House an opportunity to reverse its decision. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say when the Green or White Paper report on direct elections to the European Assembly is likely to be published, so that the House may have an opportunity to debate this important subject at an early date?
Mr. Short: The Paper, which will be Green—or a good deal more green than white—will be published next week, though I do not know the exact date. But there will certainly be an opportunity to debate it.
Mr. Thompson: Will the Leader of the House tell us when he will bring forward legislation for Scotland analogous to the Water Charges Bill, so that Scottish ratepayers who do not receive mains sewerage and mains water will not have to pay for these services, as they do at present under legislation of the last Tory Administration?
Mr. Short: I will certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us believe that we should be notified of business at least 10 days ahead instead of only five? Further to that point, we have no information on the subject of the debate to be held on Monday week. I am aware that this is the fault of the Opposition, but will my right hon. Friend make clear that we need proper notice of debates?
Mr. Short: The announcement of the subject for debate on the following Monday week is an innovation which is working reasonably well, but the Opposition cannot give us a subject for that day and we understand that. It is, however, of value to the House to know that it is to be a Supply Day.
Mr. Tebbit: Is the Leader of the House able to tell us whether the House will have as much time to make up its mind on the debate on whether it should
628
restore the reduction in the salary of the Secretary of State for Energy as we had before hon. Members made up their minds that his salary should be cut? Will there be a full half-day's debate on the matter? Anything less would be inadequate.
Mr. Short: The time for the debate will be exactly the same as the House had yesterday, and the motion will apply itself exactly to the wording of the Opposition's original motion.
Mr. Jessel: Is the Leader of the House aware of Early-Day Motion No. 194, tabled last night, which has already been signed by 100 right hon. and hon. Members, urging the early reintroduction by the Government of the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill?
[That this House, conscious of the experience of other countries, and of the Government's own estimates, believes that the compulsory wearing of seat belts would save at least 1,000 lives and avert 10,000 serious injuries each year, reminds the Government of its undertakings to introduce legislation and urges it to provide time, without further delay, for the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the official figure that this measure would save 1,000 lives a year and prevent 10,000 persons being seriously injured each year? Will he say when the Government are going to act on this?
Mr. Short: I cannot comment upon the figures but I can give the hon. Gentleman a little more hope than previously. I hope that there will be an opportunity in the fairly near future to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Mr. Grocott: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Early-Day Motion concerning proxy voting for people who are genuinely sick? In the light of the events of the last week, would he not agree that we make ourselves look absolutely ridiculous in the eyes of people outside this Chamber when we wheel in people who are genuinely sick? Does he not agree that if any one of us had in our constituency a factory or an office where that kind of industrial relations obtained, we would consider it absolutely ridiculous? Therefore, may we have a debate on this as soon as possible?
[That this House, appalled by the possible serious danger to the health of a

629
number of hon. Members occasioned by the irresponsible refusal of the official Opposition to pair sick hon. Members, calls upon the House, as a matter of urgency, to introduce proxy voting for the sick.]
Mr. Short: It is a question of history repeating itself. Exactly the same demand arose in the past when we had to bring sick Members to the House. It culminated one night early in November 1965, when one of my hon. Friends, the then Member for St. Helens, was forced on to the premises by the refusal of the party opposite to pair, and he was brought in unconscious in an ambulance. As a result, the two sides signed an agreement that sick Members would be paired. I signed it as Chief Whip and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) signed it on behalf of the Conservative Opposition.
That is an honourable and binding agreement between honourable people, and it is still in existence, but one paragraph in it reads:
"in the event of such a breakdown in pairing arrangements, it will be open to the Government to propose the immediate introduction of proxy voting as recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure."
If the party opposite wishes to abrogate this agreement, we shall feel free to look at this question again.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Leader of the House aware that many glasshouse growers are facing almost immediate bankruptcy but that for two years we in this House have never had a proper debate on horticulture? Will he make sure that we get one before it is too late.
Mr. Short: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and that of many hon. Members, and I shall certainly bear in mind what he has said.
Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has rather sprung the question of pairing on the House in his Business Statement? There is some room for discussion to clear up the position as to the understanding between the present Chief Whips, because it may vary from what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall await with a good deal of interest the terms of the motion we are to debate
630
on Tuesday? Is he also aware that we shall be very interested during the course of that debate to hear anything from Ministers to sum up their own attitudes to decisions of the House of Commons? We hope that they will take the opportunity to make quite clear that decisions of this House are treated with respect.
Mr. Short: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said in the second part of his question. I take such decisions very seriously. That is why this motion is being put down. So far as his first point is concerned, this was an agreement signed on 24th November 1965 headed
"Memorandum of Agreement between the Government and Opposition Chief Whips as to voting arrangements for sick Members".
As far as we are all aware, that agreement is still in existence.
Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to refer to me, but would it not have been fairer to me to have told me beforehand that he was going to do so? Secondly, while certainly my signature would bind me personally, I do not believe that either the right hon. Gentleman or I—[Interruption.]—can bind two Chief Whips or future Parliaments, particularly since we understand—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm—that there has been a subsequent arrangement between the present Chief Whips. In that case, therefore, is it not unreasonable for him to have acted in the way he has?
Mr. Short: No. This reply arose out of a supplementary question. The right hon. Gentleman signed the agreement and it is still in force. Of course, it continues until it is agreed that it should be repealed. We understand that this is an honourable agreement between honourable people, and it should be honoured.
Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to agreements which, it is accepted, were between the official Opposition and the Government, but he spoke of Chief Whips in the plural, which could mean two or three. Can he make perfectly plain, because this is important for the record, that when my Chief Whip offered an arrangement to the Government in respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who was sick but was prepared to be

631
paired with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), who also was sick, it was subsequently accepted by the Government Chief Whip but too late for action to be invoked?
Mr. Short: I do not know about that, but if the right hon. Gentleman says that, I accept what he says. This agreement is headed as being between the Opposition Chief Whip and the Government Chief Whip.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Leader of the Liberal Party knew, as the House knew, that what the right hon. Gentleman said was not a point of order. He was making his point in a way which others do but which I do not encourage. May I express the hope that the usual channels will solve this problem between them, because there is—
Mr. Humphrey Atkins rose—
Mr. Speaker: I will call the right hon. Gentleman. There is a major statement to be made, I understand, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there will be points of order after that before we get to the day's business.
Mr. Atkins: The Leader of the House referred to an agreement made by himself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) and said that he thought it ought to stay in force until a new one had been entered into. Perhaps I might inform him that a new one has been entered into by myself and the Government Chief Whip.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): I confess immediately to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) informed me that he did not agree with the agreement which had been in force. I had no alternative but to accept the position that he then laid out.
Hon. Members: Withdraw!
Mr. Whitelaw: I have no wish to prolong the proceedings or to exacerbate them, but, in view of what has been said, I think that the Leader of the House owes it to me at least to say
632
that he has misled the House and, therefore, has been very unfair to me in the process in implying that I—my party—had gone back on my word. That was what he did, and I hone that he will apologise to me.
Hon. Members: Withdraw!
Mr. Short: The Conservative Party refused to pair sick Members for the debate. That is agreed, both on the agreement with the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) and on the new agreement to which the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) has referred.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey)rose—
Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since documents have been referred to but have not been laid on the Table, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will publish them to tomorrow's Hansard?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. [Hon. Members: "It is."] No, it is a question to the Government. We shall always get into difficulties if disagreements between the usual channels are brought to the Floor of the House.
Mr. Wiggin: The Leader of the House raised it.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not saying who are the innocent or guilty parties: I am merely saying that I think that the usual channels should settle the matter.
Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to take the heat out of this situation, might I propose, under Standing Order No. 9, that we have a debate on this matter, which is specific, urgent and of public importance? The matters which have just been brought out show that there is a total lack of communication between the Patronage Secretary—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not yet reached the time when an application under Standing Order No. 9 should be made.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance in trying to make it plain to the House and, therefore, to the country that whatever agreements there may be between the Front Benches about pairing those who are sick in no way inhibit the rights and duties of all Members of all parties to vote in any debate on any subject in the way in which they see fit, provided it is clear that whatever agreements and pairing arrangements they might privately make are no longer valid for that debate. It would appear to someone listening to recent points of order that the result of any Division can be decided between the two Chief Whips concerned. I am seeking your guidance about the protection of the rights of Back Benchers and minorities. It would be most unfortunate if that impression were left by this interchange.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member and am grateful for the way in which he spoke. As he and everyone else knows, officially I know nothing about Whips. As far as I am concerned, hon. Members always vote according to their consciences.
Mr. Cormack: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I think that the House could do with some advice on a very different point. It is a very well-established tradition—indeed, a rule of the House—that if, after one has tabled a Question and it has been answered, one goes to the Table Office to table the same Question, it is ruled out of order. The Leader of the House has announced today that the same business will be debated next week as we debated yesterday, the House having made its decision. Could you reflect on this, Mr. Speaker, and give a ruling on Monday?
Mr. Speaker: The difference is that the Government decide the business that they will bring before the House. I think that I am right, although that is an off-the-cuff ruling.
Mrs. Thatcher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have dealt with this matter as if it were a matter between the two Chief Whips. With respect, it is not now a matter between the two Chief Whips. The Leader of the House has made an allegation against two of my
634
right hon. Friends about a question of fact which could be easily ascertained. Is it not right that, as Leader of the House, he should withdraw that allegation until the facts have been found?
Mr. Short: So far as the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border is concerned, if that agreement has been withdrawn and another substituted for it, then of course—I have known the right hon. Gentleman for many years—the last thing I would accuse him of is dishonourable conduct. But out of the mouth of the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) we heard that there was another agreement. That agreement was broken the other night.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is certainly not a matter for me. I gather that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) is satisfied.

EMPLOYMENT (CHANCELLOR's PROPOSALS)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): Two weeks ago this House debated unemployment and resolved by a very large majority to take "all possible effective measures" to reduce it. In that debate I said that I hoped to present a further set of measures within a few weeks, taking account of proposals by the Manpower Services Commission and by the TUC and of other views expressed inside and outside the House. This I now do.
Wherever possible, the Government have been concerned to ensure that measures to reduce unemployment in the short term shall also reduce constraints on growth and employment in the medium term when recovery reaches its peak. I have therefore examined, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, the scope for improving our industrial base by further expenditure under Section 8 of the Industry Act on schemes for the modernisation and restructuring of important sectors of industry. The £110 million so far earmarked for such schemes is now largely committed. I therefore propose to allocate a further £55 million for new schemes such as printing machinery and nonferrous foundries, and to make available

635
further funds for existing schemes, particularly ferrous foundries. Some £15 million to £20 million of this sum will be spent in the next fiscal year.
On a smaller scale, the Development Commission has told me that it could usefully spend £1 million more than the additional sum allocated to it in September last year, for building small factories in rural areas during the next 12 months or so. I am authorising this expenditure since I recognise that unemployment has affected some rural areas with particular severity.
I told the House in the unemployment debate that we were looking at the possibility of further assistance to stock-building to help industry during the recession in fields where it is possible to foresee future demands with reasonable certainty. I am now pleased to be able to tell the House that the National Enterprise Board is discussing with the industry ways of providing finance for the stockpiling of machine tools of types which are expected to be needed during the recovery. The intention is to devise arrangements which will be a good bargain for the National Enterprise Board and for the industry and will help to maintain capacity and provide employment during the remaining months of the recession. I believe that hon. Members will welcome the rôle which the NEB plans to assume in the field of stock-building.
One of the worst-hit sectors in the recession has been the construction industry, although there are signs that demand is beginning to revive in some parts. We have taken steps in the last two years to provide it with some extra work in the public sector. In considering further measures of this nature I have had to make sure that there is no risk of expenditure slipping into future years. when public spending must be contained so as to permit the movement of resources into exports and investment. We have therefore decided to concentrate on the improvement of public sector housing, which can be started quickly and finished before the end of the financial year 1976–77. We propose to provide £50 million for such house improvement, where the effect on employment and the social benefit will be greater than in any other field of construction.
636
I turn now to the two temporary subsidies for employment which the Government announced last year. The temporary employment subsidy, which was introduced last August for a year, provides £10 a week per worker for six months for an employer who agrees to postpone a redundancy of 25 or more workers. It is now estimated that 55,000 workers will be covered by the scheme. I propose to make two changes.
First, I propose to extend the length of the period of payment. The first firms to use it will very soon exhaust their six months' entitlement. The maximum period of entitlement will therefore be extended from six to 12 months. This means that the 55,000 jobs affected may be preserved for a further period beyond six months. Secondly, I propose to reduce the minimum size of a qualifying redundancy again, from 25 to 10 workers. This is estimated to bring a further 3,000 or so workers within the scope of the scheme.
The gross Exchequer cost of extending the period of payment to 12 months is estimated at £14½ million and the cost of reducing the minimum qualifying redundancy at £1½ million. But there will be savings in unemployment benefit and gains in national insurance contributions and income tax. These will depend on the circumstances of the workers covered by the subsidy, but in aggregate they are likely to mean that the subsidy will have little or no net effect on the public sector borrowing requirement.
Next, I come to the recruitment subsidy for school leavers, through which employers who recruit unemployed school leavers receive £5 per recruit per week for 26 weeks. The scheme is at present limited to those who left school last summer or before, but I propose that it should now be extended to those who left at Christmas 1975. The cost of this will be about £250,000.
The Manpower Services Commission has been considering what more it could do to employ and train those who would otherwise be out of work. It has proposed an extension to its scheme for job creation. So far £40 million has been allocated to this programme, which should provide 30,000 to 35,000 jobs. If proposals continue to come in at the present rate, the whole of that £40 million will have been pre-empted by bids

637
received by about the end of April and approved by the end of June. The scheme would thus begin to taper off in the autumn, just when there is a particular need to provide extra jobs for those of next summer's school leavers who fail to find other work. Therefore, we have decided to allocate a further £30 million to the programme, as the Commission proposed, to keep it going at peak level until the end of the year. We shall neeed to consider before then, in the light of the latest prospects for employment, how quickly the scheme should be tapered off in the early months of 1977. This extension should permit the creation of some 20,000 to 25,000 extra temporary jobs. The net effect on the public sector borrowing requirement will be small.
These are measures to maintain or create extra jobs while unemployment remains high. I am convinced that they are both necessary and cost-effective for this purpose. But as well as these measures to provide jobs in the immediate future, we must do everything possible to build up the scarce skills which will be in demand when the economy is running nearer to full capacity. The Manpower Services Commission has put forward proposals to provide, from next August, some 30,000 to 35,000 extra training places in industry, at a cost of approximately £55 million. About £45 million of this applies to new first-year apprentice training and the rest to second-year apprentices and to other measures, including schemes for non-craft training of the kind that the engineering industry is considering. Again, the Exchequer cost of this is very largely offset by the savings on benefits for the unemployed, and this expenditure will be a valuable addition to the effort which is already going into providing training in industry.
First-year apprenticeship grants will be available to employers who take on extra apprentices under arrangements to be worked out by the industrial training boards in consultation with the Training Services Agency. I greatly welcome the speed with which the Manpower Services Commission has reacted to current needs, and I am glad to be able to accept these proposals in full.
I know that the whole House is concerned that we should do everything possible to avoid the demoralising effect of long periods out of work on young
638
people just out of school. The further education system should also have a rôle to play in this field. Therefore, I shall be considering with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment what more can be done to make the best use of the further education system for this purpose during the recession.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be announcing the details of a comparable set of measures costing £8 million, of which about £5 million will be spent in 1976–77.
The estimated total cost of all these measures is about £220 million. But less than £140 million of this will be spent during the coming financial year. The large items of expenditure on training and on industry schemes are phased over the next two or three financial years because training is organised by academic years, and industry schemes are partly financed by interest-relief grants spread over a period. In both cases, however, most of their real effect on employment will be felt in the coming year.
Because of the offsets which I have mentioned earlier, the net cost to the public finances is likely to be less than half of the gross cost, or about £60 million, in 1976–77. Altogether, the measures are likely to provide about 140,000 jobs or training places—though not all these jobs will last as long as a year and some may be at the expense of other jobs. Over the coming financial year the net effect on employment should be about half that figure.
I am convinced that this set of measures is the most cost-effective way of providing more jobs as quickly as possible and of improving our industrial capacity without a general reflation of domestic demand, which is widely recognised to be inappropriate at this time, and within the limits on public spending which we must respect if we are to achieve stable prices and steady growth in the upturn. I shall, of course, want to consider in my Budget whether by then there is scope for doing more along the same lines.
Sir G. Howe: I commend the Chancellor for having accepted the advice repeatedly offered to him from this side of the House to resist any demands for movement towards general reflation, and

639
I ask him for his assurance that he will sustain his will in that respect through the long and testing times that are still to come. I welcome particularly the sums devoted to improvement of facilities for training and retraining.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House the net cost to public funds, taking into account the figure he quoted of £60 million net in the coming year, of all measures of this kind that he has announced since his Budget Statement last year?
Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in repudiating the suggestion in a Labour Party policy document published today to the effect that reflation would in any way be rendered more acceptable if it were accompanied by import controls? Does he agree that that would be a disastrous prescription?
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the total number of jobs actually saved or created by all the measures he has announced since his last Budget? When he spoke to the House in December, he listed the actual number of jobs saved or created—I think the total came to about 14,000—as opposed to the potential. What is the number actually saved or created—as he would have it—by his measures up to the present time?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever that figure may be, it will be far smaller than the number of jobs destroyed by the policies operated by the Government since they took office, by huge increases of £25 billion in public spending, by the tax burden which has been imposed to sustain it, by the multi-rate value added tax, by nationalisation and by the measure on which the House voted on Tuesday—the Dock Work Regulation Bill—since all these are measure which are destroying jobs and for which so-called moderate Members on the Government side continue to vote?
Mr. Healey: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I suppose I should be. Long before the Opposition were lecturing us on this matter, however, I was asked by the TUC and the Labour Party conference to resist general reflation at this time.
Since the Budget last year, the net cost to public funds in the coming financial
640
year should be about £100 million, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will put down a specific Question, relating it to a particular time scale, I shall seek to give him a more accurate answer.
On the question of import controls, as I told the House in the debate two weeks ago, in our judgment these could not be introduced by the Government on the scale recommended in some quarters without massive retaliation by our trading partners, which could well lead to a world trade war, and there is no possibility that such measures would increase employment on the scale sometimes suggested within the next year or so.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for the total number of jobs created or saved by Government measures since the last Budget. Again, the measures I have announced since the last Budget will ultimately save about 150,000 jobs. The precise number saved so far net, for reasons I have explained in earlier debates, is extremely difficult to calculate at any single point in time.
I must say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that unemployment in Great Britain in the last year has been increased by the Government's spending programme is the literal opposite of the truth. On the contrary, without public spending on the scale that the Government have maintained, unemployment would have been very much higher. The House will be astonished by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, since we all know that only three weeks ago, on 22nd January, he asked for immediate cuts in public spending and confessed, for the first time, that that would mean substantial increases in unemployment in the short term.
Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great deal of satisfaction will be gained among machine-tool makers at his announcement, except that there will be some surprise that he has not outlined the guidelines which he has put before the National Enterprise Board and that he has made no mention of the figures involved? However, does he not accept that stockpiling should be extended far beyond machine tools and should involve heavy engineering and the re-equipment of the country if it is his purpose to re-tool the whole economy? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that

641
the very small and puff-like will-o-the-wisp announcements which he has made today will not go anywhere near far enough towards safeguarding the jobs which he has undertaken to the House to do?
Mr. Healey: I think that my hon. Friend is in some confusion as to whether to congratulate or condemn me. On the question of stockpiling, the details of the National Enterprise Board's scheme are being discussed with the industry and the Department, but the total sum committed is likely to be about £5 million. In the last debate I announced help from the Government for stockpiling steel, which is the most critical element in the whole future of our industry. We gave about £70 million for this. Last year I also announced stockbuilding by the National Coal Board to the extent, I believe, of over £100 million. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is already discussing with other industries the possibility of extending the scone of such stockbuilding schemes.
Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the construction industry, which has 211,000 unemployed, the £50 million—plus improvement grants will provide only 8,000 jobs and that the grants will still be only half the rate they were two years ago? Is he further aware that there will be great disappointment in the West Midlands that it seemingly continues to be discriminated against, despite the trivial amount of assistance it has received in the last two years? Is he also aware that there is about £1,300 million in deferred tax in the industry as a result of his stock appreciation provisions, and that the release of that money for investment would have been a major injection into the economy?
Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman has his own experience of packages to deal with unemployment in the construction industry. I examined very carefully what he did. I discovered that his plans for stimulating the construction industry were drawn up so unwisely that there was a slippage of £120 million from the second year into the third year and of £40 million from the third year into the fourth year, while the way in which he carried out his plans contributed both to the seizure of the economy in 1973 and to the gross inflation of housing and
642
construction prices in that same year. I believe that the Government were right to concentrate on construction schemes which would have an immediate and direct effect of a very large scale, both on employment and on the welfare of those living in public sector housing.
Mr. Pardoe: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that two weeks ago this House called for all possible effective measures to reduce unemployment, that it is still waiting to hear those measures, and that 70,000 extra jobs in the coming financial year falls far short of what the House called for in that debate. Will he now say that he recognises at last that waiting, as his strategy is, for a world upturn to put the British people back to work is no longer credible? Will he enter into urgent negotiations with the trade unions to provide a really effective package for job creation and selective reflation, as well as a much tougher incomes policy from next August?
Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman asks so many times for so many things with such increasing stridency that I am sometimes at a loss to know what he is asking for. I do not blame him for his recent increase in stridency. We all know what lies behind that.
The measures that I have announced at this time will all contribute directly to increases in jobs in the immediate future. Measures of reflation—if by that the hon. Gentleman means reflation of domestic demand—cannot be expected to increase employment for at least 12 months.
Mr. Noble: My right hon. Friend has said that he will take all effective measures. Perhaps he recalls that before Christmas he announced a package when he said that he would preserve existing viable industrial capacity. Is he aware of the increase in unemployment, particularly in the North-West and in the areas dependent on traditional industries? Is he further aware that deflation in the economy at the moment is not only damaging our domestic industry but, while restricting exports, nevertheless allowing an increasing penetration of imports? Will he now listen to the TUC, which is a cornerstone of his policy, when it demands selective import controls immediately in order to preserve jobs?
Mr. Healey: Unfortunately, unemployment is still increasing in Britain, but it has been increasing faster in recent months in Japan, Denmark and France, and the percentage of the working population out of work is very much higher at this moment in the United States, Germany, France and Denmark than it is here. It is still rising very fast in Germany and France. My hon. Friend must accept the fact that the whole world at the moment is in the grip of the worst recession since the war, partly because, I think, far too many Governments, unlike the United Kingdom Government, underestimated the deflationary effects of the massive increase in oil prices a few years ago.
My hon. Friend can be assured, however, that there are many signs, to which I referred in the last debate, that the upturn has come in many countries. The recession has certainly bottomed out in the United Kingdom, and this is accepted as much by the CBI and the TUC as it is by the Government. It would be a disaster for the Government to repeat the mistake of the Conservative Administration in 1971 of ill-considered reflation. That produced the greatest distortions our economy has ever known and an inheritance from which the Government are only just rescuing the British people.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Chancellor accept that any measures to alleviate unemployment are welcome but that those which he has announced are far too derisory to make an immediate impact on the problem? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider raising grants for retraining since 40 per cent. of school leavers in Scotland are going into unskilled jobs? Will he consider making an increase in the amount put out for the construction industry, since there is bad housing and there is unemployment in the industry and such a move would assist beyond the contribution which has already been made?
Mr. Healey: I am well aware of the special problems faced in many parts of Scotland, although the hon. Member will know that the current recession has hit Scotland a great deal less hard than it has hit many other parts of the country. That is a tribute to much of the work by successive British Governments in helping the regional development of Scotland. As for the precise level of grant
644
for training, all our experience is that this is not a major factor inhibiting the take-up of training places. We have doubled the amount of training in the last two years, and I hope that both sides of the House will be grateful for that. However, the speed at which training can be increased depends on a large number of factors, and payment to those who accept training is only one method.
Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that this package is much better than some of us expected, but that on the other hand it is quite clear that it will not be enough seriously to begin to deal with our problems? Will he again reconsider his attitude towards import controls? Even with what he has already done for the construction industry, this is not good enough. I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to take into consideration what is said by Labour Back Benchers, by the TUC and by the Labour movement in the country.
Mr. Healey: I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend. In saying what he has said he reflects the view of many who, like himself, criticise my general policies. I do not complain on that score. However, I have gone as far as I sensibly and effectively can go at this time with this type of selective measure.
Only selective measures are likely to affect the level of employment in the short term. The argument about what sort of measures should be taken to effect employment in the medium term—after 12 months and in the following years—will be the subject of debate for a very long time.
However, I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the warning I gave in my speech a fortnight ago that the sort of import controls that the officials of one of our political parties—if we are to believe the Press—are recommending—
Mr. Prior: It is the Labour Party. The Chancellor should say what he means.
Mr. Healey: Of course I meant the Labour Party National Executive. The right hon. Gentleman would do himself and others a great service by sometimes keeping his mouth shut, although I shall not refer to him in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) used.

645
I understand the points that are put, but I ask my hon. Friend to appreciate that import controls on the scale recommended by junior officials at Transport House would certainly lead to massive retaliations, from which world trade would suffer, and the poorer countries would suffer most of all. The calculation that I have seen them quoted in the newspapers as making, about the effect on employment, is grossly exaggerated.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I join in the general congratulations to the Chancellor for producing some reasonable looking bricks out of the small amount of straw available to him. Will he assure us that the new training proposals will not in any way be at the expense of retraining, including retraining of older men in new skills and young people who are already in work? In view of that, will he do everything he can to encourage employers to release young people for vocational and general education?
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making at least some of the help he is giving to the construction industry available for public sector housing, to be used to help labour mobility? As he knows, the difficulty in getting people to move is finding them somewhere to live.
Will the right hon. Gentleman look carefully at the potential conflict between his measures to postpone redundancy and the measures he announced, at the beginning of his statement, to modernise equipment—he quoted the example of printing machinery? Ts he aware that there is no point in modernising printing machinery if the present gross scales of overmanning are to continue, because that will merely mean that the machinery will be unused and the orders will go abroad?
Mr. Healey: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his intervention. I assure him that none of the training measures announced today or on earlier occasions will be at the expense of training young people in work, or training older people. I agree very strongly that it would be highly desirable if employers would agree to release young people in work either by the day or for longer periods, in order to improve their professional qualifications.
I strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the mobility of labour and the relevance to this of public sector
646
housing. In my last package I included a mobility allowance in order to assist in this respect.
On the question of printing machinery, I accept that there are problems of overmanning in this industry. However, they are largely confined to Fleet Street and London and are infinitely less serious in other parts of the country. That is certainly the case in the West Riding, which is where my constituency is situated. However, there is a real problem about antiquated printing machinery in some parts of the country, including my constituency. Some important firms with a valuable past have found themselves faced with serious financial problems because they are not at the moment producing modern equipment for sale not only in Britain but abroad. The measures I have announced will help substantially to improve the export prospects as well as the domestic prospects of the industry.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to the House? I want to call several more hon. Members, but I ask them to be brief, because a lot of business is still to follow.
Mr. Michael McGuire: I weclome my right hon. Friend's announcement, although I do not believe that it will do a great deal of good for my constituency. No town in England has felt the cruel lash of unemployment more than Skelmersdale, and in view of our desperate need of a hospital there will my right hon. Friend say whether his proposals for building in the public sector can be extended to building a hospital in Skelmersdale? A big project like that generates more capital and employment than does the building of a number of separate houses.
Mr. Healey: I welcome the spirit in which my hon. Friend has commented. I know that unemployment in Skelmersdale, particularly because of recent events, is as high as in any other town in the country. I did not feel able to allocate more money for hospital building because, first, it is not possible to build a hospital within a year and, secondly, the building of a hospital is attended by continuing current expenditure over many years. I was most concerned about construction work and concentrated

647
such money as I felt was available on housing, which is extremely labour-intensive, can be started tomorrow, and can be finished before the time that we expect unemployment to return to normal. The need to free resources for export and investment is paramount.
Sir P. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the job creation programme is getting off to a very slow start? Is he further aware that Humberside County Council submitted an application for 44 jobs in October and has only just had it approved? Does that not justify the complaints of the Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, Sir Denis Barnes, about the slowness with which the Government reacted to the plans for job creation put forward by the Commission at the end of 1974?
Mr. Healey: My right hon. Friend will look into any specific complaints about the programme and I am sure he will consider the point raised by the hon. Member if he is given the details. Applications for job creation schemes were slow to come in, but there is a very large number now before the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment. The money I have so far made available looks like being committed to schemes for which application has already been made. That is why I am increasing the scale of the programme by £30 million, to keep it flowing steadily through to the end of the year.
Mrs. Hart: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to what is essentially no more than marginal short-term assistance to the unemployment problem, but is he aware that I am a little disturbed by his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) about the amount to be devoted to stock-building? Is he aware that stockbuilding can not only make a great contribution towards resolving the unemployment problem but can also prepare the way for export success when the upturn comes? Is he aware that the £5 million given to the National Enterprise Board is utterly inadequate and that we would like the figure to be much higher? Does my right hon. Friend realise that the paper, which has unfortunately been the subject of a great deal of Press comment today, has considerable economic authority
648
behind it and that it would be wiser for him not to refer to it as just a paper produced by junior officials at Transport House? Will he refrain from closing his mind, in terms of a medium-term strategy, to the question of import controls and accept that there are two arguments about retaliation? Does he accept that in terms of creating employment as a result of a recovery, import controls might well be absolutely essential?
Mr. Healey: I am grateful for the welcome that my right hon. Friend has given to the measures. She is quite right in saying that they will affect employment only in the short term and that their effect will be marginal in relation to the size of unemployment, which we all deplore. However, no other sort of measure can affect employment in the short term. In the medium term—12 months and more ahead—we face a very difficult set of problems, but I believe we can rely on the upturn in world trade to affect employment in the medium term. We have certainly seen an end of destocking and there are some signs of a recovery in stockbuilding. All the surveys suggest that investment, if it does not pick up this year—though some plans may be brought forward—will pick up next year. The question of other action needs to be judged in the light of the disastrous experience of the last Conservative Government, who acted on far too large a scale at the wrong time. We are looking at the possibility of further action in connection with stockbuilding.
As for machine tools, my right hon. Friend will be aware that we have already committed £25 million to a restructuring of the machine tool industry, which will also benefit from other schemes in engineering, such as those for ferrous and non-ferrous foundries and for printing machinery. The NEB Stockbuilding scheme is only one element of the assistance to this industry. There has also, of course, been the transfer of ownership of Alfred Herbert's, which was collapsing under private control. On my right hon. Friend's last point, I shall never close my mind to anything, but, as an American politician once said, one should never keep one's mind too open, otherwise a lot of rubbish will be drawn into it.
Mr. Norman Lamont: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we firmly support

649
his resistance to general inflation, but is it not thereby the clearer that these measures will have a very limited effect, because goods cannot be produced without a market and we cannot produce machine tools to produce machine tools to produce machine tools? Is not the real purpose of these measures to prevent an illiterate Secretary of State for Employment from resigning from the Cabinet?
Mr. Healey: The hon. Member's tedious and offensive remarks are quite out of keeping with the general tone of the discussion on these measures. The saving of 70,000 jobs may be a matter of no consequence to the hon. Member but it will be of very great consequence to the 70,000 people who would otherwise be suffering the demoralisation and humiliation of living on the dole.
Mr. MacFarquhar: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the demoralisation to which he has just referred is particularly high not only among school leavers, but also among men aged over 50, who may see no prospect of any further job? Will he consider measures of financial assistance to firms prepared to take on workers in their fifties who have been through a retraining programme?
Mr. Healey: I recognise that the problem of unemployment bears very heavily on people in every age group and in every sort of situation. It has been generally felt by the House that if priority has to be given anywhere it must be given to young people who, if they find themselves without a job for many months or even years after leaving school, may find their propensity for work damaged for life. It was right for that to be our priority.
Mr. Anthony Grant: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is absolutely no comfort or consolation to someone unemployed in this country merely to be told that there are more people out of work in Japan and West Germany? Is he aware that in the last 16 months, unemployment has risen by 97 per cent. in development areas and by 118 per cent. in intermediate areas, while in the non-assisted area of London and the South-East it has increased by a disgraceful 159 per cent? Do these figures not indicate that it is necessary to have a completely fresh look at our whole
650
regional policy, in order to encourage mobility?
Mr. Healey: In a rather bizarre and unwelcome way, the figures just quoted by the hon. Member show that the regional policy is working. The impact of unemployment is no longer distributed in the old development areas to the degree that it used to be. I somewhat resent being lectured by the hon. Member about increased unemployment when every policy for which he has voted in the past year would lead to increased unemployment, as the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer finally admitted in a speech a fortnight ago.
Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend accept a welcome from the Government Benches for the £50 million to improve public sector housing? But what is he doing towards research and development? Is he aware that there is no indigenous television tube industry in this country? All the firms are multinationals. Surely, while we are awaiting the upturn, we should develop our own technology and not rely on imports. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the notion of selective import controls is not rubbish—I am sure he did not mean to say that—and does he not consider that as Socialists, wanting to control the economy in a Socialist way, we cannot depend on the free market entry of imports and controlling the economy internally? I advise him that he is far more likely to receive rubbish from the City than from a Labour Party pamphlet.
Mr. Healey: I would not seek to distinguish the precedents in the area to which my hon. Friend referred, but I am glad that he welcomes the construction measures. On the question of import controls and Socialism, there is in some circumstances a case for import controls, and we introduced two selective import controls in the packet in December. But no Socialist would regard it as Socialist policy to export unemployment. At a time when all countries are suffering from heavy unemployment, the risk that an attempt to restrict trade in this country alone to protect employment might be seen as exporting unemployment and lead to retaliation is a very real one. One can see that by the reaction in the EEC to the recent suggestion of import controls in Sweden.
Mr. Prior: I should like to press the Chancellor on his overseas comparisons. Is he aware that publications by the Department of Employment on 29th January and 10th February show that in the year-on-year figures Britain has a greater percentage increase in unemployment than has any other country, that on the three-monthly figures only Japan has a greater percentage increase in unemployment, and, according to the most up-to-date EEC figures, the only country which has a greater increase is Luxembourg, where the figures went up from 144 to 609? Does not the Chancellor understand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) said, that it is little consolation when the figures for other countries are quoted, but it is no consolation when those figures are quoted wrongly and the people at home are misled by the right hon. Gentleman's figures?
Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman accurately stated the facts in the earlier part of his question but in his final remarks he perpetrated an act to which I am not allowed to refer in Parliament. I can perhaps refer to it as a terminological inexactitude.
It is true that unemployment over the past 12 months has risen faster in Britain than it has in other countries. Nevertheless, in the past three months it has risen faster in Japan and Denmark, and at about the same speed in France. In the last month unemployment rose at least as fast in Germany and France, and, according to French predictions, is likely to continue rising in France through the year. The important aspect is that the level of unemployment is much higher in the United States, Germany and France than it is here at this time, and that in the United States, which has followed the monetary policies currently fashionable on the Opposition Front Bench, it is not expected to fall to the current level in Britain before the end of the decade.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on. Mr. Gow, on a point of order.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to seek your guidance on a matter affecting the rights of Back Benchers and the tabling of Questions to Ministers and their answers. On 5th November the Minister of State, Treasury, in a Written Answer to me, stated that the salary of one of the special advisers to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—Professor Lord Kaldor—was £14,000 a year. In an oral answer to me on 11th December last the Prime Minister stated that the total cost of the special advisers at No. 10 Downing Street paid for out of public funds was approximately £43,000 a year.
I have since tabled Questions to various members of the Government, and I received from the Secretary of State for Energy, in answer to a Question about the cost of special advisers in his Department, the following Written Answer:
"It is not the practice to specify, either individually or in total, the salaries of special advisers appointed to serve in a particular Department".—{Official Report, 10th February, 1975; Vol. 905, c. 144.]
In view of the previous answers when the individual salary of Lord Kaldor and the total salaries of those employed at No. 10 Downing Street were given to me, it is manifestly not correct to say that it is not the practice to give that information.
Further, Mr. Speaker, as civil servants' salaries are within the legitimate area of ministerial responsibility, and as special advisers are, on the Government's admission, employed as civil servants, is it not legitimate for Back Benchers to ask questions about the salaries of civil servants, and is it not a defiance of the rights of Back Benchers for Ministers to refuse to answer those questions? Is it not also the duty of Back Benchers to scrutinise the Executive and, above all, to be the guardians of public expenditure? Will you advise us, please, Mr. Speaker, how we should fulfil our traditional role as scrutineers in this regard?
Mr. Speaker: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point of order he wished to raise. I fear that I have to rule, as my predecessors have ruled many times, that the content of ministerial answers is not a matter over which the Chair has any

653
control. No doubt notice of what the hon. Gentleman said will have been taken by those concerned.
Mr. Burden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be desirable for a Select Committee of the House to go into the question of what should be disclosed by Government and what should not? This is an important matter, which affects the whole country, and it should be given mature consideration in the absence of Government control.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that those responsible will take note of the hon. Gentleman's words. I do not know, but it might be a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure.

STANDING COMMITTEES (REFERENCE TO PROCEEDINGS)
Mr. Hal Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful if you would guide me as to the admissibility, in debate in the House, of a reference to proceedings in Standing Committee. Last night the Minister of State, Department of Industry, when making his winding-up speech, referred to proceedings in Committee. He dealt with the content of the matters there being debated and commented on the arguments taking place on an amendment that had been moved, the arguments put forward in support of the amendment, those who supported it and the result of the vote. He went on to comment on the reasons that might have led hon. Members to speak for or vote on the amendment.
I should be grateful if you could help the House by giving your guidance on the extent to which such references to Committee debates are admissible.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful also to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) for giving me notice of his point of order and for the courteous way in which he has returned to the matter, which he raised last night when the House was a little excited. I think that that is within his memory, as it certainly is within mine.
654
References to proceedings in Standing Committee before the Committee has reported are not wholly out of order. The House will recall that on 16th April last my predecessor had occasion to make a considered ruling on the matter. He gave a number of instances which, in his view, fell on the right side of the line. One of those was a reference to the attitude of Government supporters on the Committee. It seemed to me that the Minister last night was making similar references to the attitude of Opposition Members of the Committee. For this reason, I take the view that he also was just on the right side of the line, but only just.
I should like, however, to repeat the wise words of my immediate predecessor, which were used at the conclusion of his ruling and which, I hope, the House will bear in mind. He said:
"My conclusion is that, before Standing Committees have reported, the Chair should strongly deprecate references in the House to what has been going on in them. We already have quite enough to argue about on the Floor of the House.
But I do not think that I can make the rule absolute. Nevertheless, I hope that common sense will prevail in the House's interpretation of my Ruling, and that the time of the House will not be unreasonably taken up by such matters."—[Official Report, 16th April 1975 ; Vol. 890, c. 444.]
I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch for raising this point of order so early in my experience in the Chair. I hope that the House will bear in mind the ruling that has been given.
Mr. Hal Miller: Further to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, for which I am most grateful, I should like to assure you that I would not have raised it or taken up the time of the House if it had not occurred to me that some of the Minister's remarks had gone rather beyond describing the attitude of supporters and opponents and had gone, indeed, to the heart of the matter being debated in the Standing Committee. That was my reason for raising it. However, I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling.
Mr. Speaker: It might well have been that I should have been sterner last night, but the future is a long time, I hope.

BILL PRESENTED
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
  Mr. Secretary Crosland, supported by Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. John Silkin, Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Gordon Oakes, presented a Bill to make amendments for England and Wales of provisions of the law which relates to local authorities or highways and is commonly amended by local Acts; to alter certain supplemental provisions of the enactments relating to public health; to provide for certain powers of local authorities to execute works to be exercisable outside their areas; to provide for certain future local enactments and orders to have effect subject to certain other enactments; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 62].

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's Sitting, Mr Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of Proceedings on the Water Charges Bill not later than half-past Seven o'clock.—[Mr. David Stoddart.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WATER CHARGES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.12 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I should explain to the House, although it is probably within the recent memory and knowledge of most hon. Members, that the Bill arises from a House of Lords ruling last December in what has become known as the Daymond case. It is concerned only with the direct effects of that ruling. We are not concerned with any of the wider questions that arise from the 1973 Water Act, on which the Government will publish a consultation paper in the next few weeks. This Bill is not the vehicle for any change in the present system.
  The decision in the Daymond case was that the 1973 Water Act does not permit any charge for sewerage and sewage disposal to be levied on a property which is not connected to a public sewer. The Water Authorities (Collection of Charges) Orders 1974 and 1975 were, therefore, ultra vires to the extent that they purported to authorise sewerage charges to unconnected properties. It must follow from that that all such charges made in the financial years 1974–75 and 1975–76 were illegal. That is the situation that we have to consider and which is the reason for the Bill.
  As someone who served on the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill, I am bound to say that although we took issue with the then Conservative Government and Ministers of the day on many matters, to the best of my recollection this matter was not a subject which any hon. Members questioned. Therefore, I do not seek to lay undue blame or charge against Members of the previous Conservative Administration because, as I led for the Opposition at the time, it never occurred to me that anything was amiss about the way in which the matter was dealt with.
  Both the present Opposition and the present Government thought that the Water Act conferred the necessary

  657
  powers to charge all properties for a transitional period. When sewerage and sewage disposal were the responsibility of local authorities they were financed through the general rates. Therefore, everyone helped to pay for the services, and did pay for them for many years, regardless of whether or not their properties had main drainage. It was clear that the Water Act was intended to change that situation in the longer term, so that only those who received the service would be charged. However, it was also recognised, no doubt by the Ministers then in charge, that it would take some time to identify which properties were connected and which were not, because, as I understand the position, no records were specifically kept for that purpose. Therefore, a transitional period was necessary in order to deal with just the question of identification and it was necessary to continue charging people on the old basis, that is to say, everyone.
  However, the House of Lords has made it clear that the Water Act did not allow such arrangements to be continued, even on a transitional basis. I emphasise that the Bill in no way seeks to overturn or reverse the decision of the House of Lords. There are arguments about the decision and we have had to consider how to deal with the decision. We have received advice from some local authority associations—some of which we have not taken—which would like us to go much further in dealing with the immediate situation than we are prepared to go. On balance, we believe that it would be wrong to seek in any way to overthrow or challenge the House of Lords decision, but we must face it and ask the House to deal with the situation that now arises.
  I know that some people believe that, for example, because of the general work of sewerage and sewage disposal which water authorities do, every citizen benefits and, therefore, whether or not a person's property is connected to the mains, he should make a direct contribution because it is impossible to go into our cities, go to the theatre and so on and escape the necessity for a first-class public sewage system.
  For their part the Government have accepted and do accept that no property without mains drainage should pay a
  658
  sewage disposal charge, and that such charges paid over the past two years should be refunded.
  I turn to the main provisions of the Bill. In Clause 1 we have two tasks. The first is to impose a duty to make refunds. It is extraordinary that, having got ourselves into this tangle, there is no duty for water authorities to make refunds. That must be put right. Secondly, we have to provide powers to recover the cost from other users. This is an important fact which has not yet been clearly understood, though it will be understood as water bills come in that if it is right or if the law demands that we exempt a large number of people from the duty of paying certain charges, inescapably those costs then have to be passed on to others. Inevitably the effect of the House of Lords ruling—the challenge to the situation—must be to increase the costs of the service to the other users who are already connected to the main sewerage system.
  The main provision of the Bill—Clause 1—imposes on water authorities a duty to refund unlawful charges paid in 1974–75 and 1975–76. As I have said, legislation is necessary, because I am advised that there is no general obligation to refund money paid under an error of law. The Bill also provides for the cost of refunds to be recovered by higher charges to the remaining connected consumers, again for the reasons that I have given.
  I am bound to tell the House that very large sums of money are involved. Many of the people who have been commenting on these matters in the recent past have given the impression that this is rather small change that we have been talking about, and that this matter concerns only a few small people. Without in any way decrying their right to go to law, I am bound to say that the main beneficiaries of this ruling are some very large industrial concerns. Those very large industrial concerns now have to be exempted from an obligation to pay, because they deal with their own sewage disposal problems, for example, and this has very considerable repercussions for most other water users.
  The water authorities tell me that their estimate of the cost of this judgment of the House of Lords is about £60 million.

  659
  I think that that will show the House the extent of the matter. This ruling will mean—it is inescapable—an average increase throughout the country of 21 per cent. on the cost of bills sent to the rest of consumers during the next financial year.
  There have been suggestions that as the need to make refunds arises from a mistake in the previous Government's legislation, the Exchequer should foot the bill. I am bound to say that we have not been able to agree to that suggestion, for two reasons. First, there can be no question of adding such a large sum to Government spending during the present economic difficulty, especially in view of the advice that we are receiving from all quarters of the House and around the country to reduce the amount of Government indebtedness.
  Secondly, the implication of the judgment in the Daymond case is that only the connected consumers should have been charged in 1974–75 and 1975–76. That is the clear implication of the judgment which we have to accept. If that had happened then, their charges would have been higher previously than they actually were. For the Exchequer to meet the costs now would amount to a larger subsidy to the consumers. This would be contrary both to the intention of the Water Act, that water authorities should break even without subsidy, and to the present Government's general policy of phasing out subsidies to nationalised industries.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the Minister indicate how the estimate of £60 million is arrived at? I do not challenge it now. However, I think that we are all conscious that these forward projections made by statutory bodies can be wildly off the mark. To be told that it will amount to a 21 per cent. increase in bills begs the question. Is this £60 million a figure for the lost revenue of the authorities because they are no longer getting the money from those whose properties previously were unconnected, or is it their estimate of providing the service to those people in a different way?
  Mr. Howell: I shall have that matter checked. If I am wrong, I shall have it corrected in the winding-up speech. How-
  660
  ever, I think that I am almost certainly right in saying that £60 million is the sum that has been illegally collected and has to be refunded, and, therefore, the additional cost that has to be collected next year to make good the refunds. That is the basic point.
  I can understand the hon. Gentleman asking about these estimates of these large figures, and whether we can be reasonably sure about them. The water industry is unique, in the sense that we have eight separate industries and not just one.
  Mr. Keith Speed: Ten.
  Mr. Howell: I always forget Wales. I do that because, with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), sitting beside me, I dare not talk about Welsh problems, because I get a little upstaged.
  However, I shall be surprised if these estimates are not very accurate indeed, because in recent years for the first time, as a result of steps that we took two years ago, we know the number of unconnected properties, and, particularly, we know the large-scale unconnected properties. One of the largest factories that we have in Birmingham now obtains relief in this way. Therefore, it is possible now to make these rather accurate forecasts and I believe that that is what has happened.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I tackled my local authority about this matter two years ago and that it said that it could not make this differentiation because it had no knowledge of properties that were unconnected? The authority would not even accept from me that there was not a sewer in a particular road. How could it arrive at this sort of estimate?
  Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman could not have heard me properly. I have said that since we came into office, for the purpose of giving a certain degree of relief we have been able to identify, over the past two years, the properties that are not connected. About a year ago there was considerable public agitation about this matter, and questions were put to me. We thought it right, as I announced in the House, that there should be some degree of relief for people

  661
  whose properties were not connected to sewers, and we placed it at 50 per cent. In order to carry out that purpose, the local authorities and water authorities have since had to identify these properties. I do not complain about the fact that it could not be done previously, but that was historically a fact. We are now in a happier position and I am able to give a more satisfactory answer.
  Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I am interested in the size of the large concerns about which the right hon. Gentleman has been talking. Will he list, say, three of the biggest, and say how big they are?
  Mr. Howell: I think I am right in saying that one, in Birmingham, is Imperial Metal Industries. I am almost certain about that. I visited the plant a few months ago and I was very impressed by the tremendous amount of work that has been done there in putting in a sewage treatment plant, and so on. However, as the firm is such a large ratepayer in Birmingham, the repercussive financial effects are considerable.
  I think that another such concern is the Royal Naval Dockyard in Plymouth, where a similar situation applies and the sewage does not go into the normal system. Being such a large industrial concern, the effect of that in the South-West is considerable.
  Those are two concerns that come to mind off the top of my head. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants examples of others, I shall be happy to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales to supply him with other examples.
  The Government have decided not to swell the total cost of refunds by clawing back to the Exchequer domestic rate relief paid in 1974–75 on account of higher general service charges to unconnected properties. That is one of the subjects that we had to consider. It would have been reasonable, given prudent financial principles, to have said that as relief was being paid where it now clearly ought not to have been paid, that ought to be claimed back by the Government. I do not overstate the position, but I give that to the House as a matter of fact and say that we decided not to follow that course.
  662
  The Government introduced, for the year 1974–75 only, a special programme of relief to domestic properties to help to alleviate the combined impact of water reorganisation and local government reorganisation. Domestic properties whose combined bills for general rates, water and general services rose by more than 20 per cent. over the previous year got Exchequer relief of 60 per cent. of the excess over 20 per cent. Some of that relief was paid on account of higher general service charges. Although refunds must obviously be reduced by the amount of such relief—otherwise people will be refunded something that they did not pay—the water authorities will be allowed to use the aggregate amount so deducted to reduce the costs of refunds to connected consumers. The sums involved, in this small operation, are estimated to be about £6 million. Connected consumers as a whole will therefore get roughly the same benefit from special relief that they would have got if charges, and therefore entitlement to relief, had been higher than they were in 1974–75.
  I should stress that there is some element of rough justice. The deal, if unrealistic, solution would be for all rate bills for 1974–75 to be recalculated. However, that would involve an intolerable administrative burden, which I do not think the House would wish to impose on local authorities or water authorities. Therefore, the Bill provides for the rough justice solution which I have outlined.
  Although the Lords' judgment was about sewerage charges, the Bill provides for the refund of any water charges paid in 1974–75 or 1975–76 on properties without a water supply. Exactly the same principle applies—namely, a person does not have to pay for a service that he does not receive. I should stress that this is likely to be significant only in one small part of the country. Before reorganisation, water was paid for in one area of the Anglian Water Authority's area not by direct charges to consumers but by a precept on the rates. Just as with sewerage charges, that arrangement was continued for a transitional period after reorganisation. The very small number of people in that one area who paid for water through their rates, even though they did not have a supply, will get their money back. In the rest of the country water rates

  663
  have normally been paid only on properties that have a water supply, or the use of one, so refunds will only rarely arise.
  I now turn to the method of refund. In most cases, refunds will take the form of a credit against the 1976–77 general rates demand. This is the only practical and economical way of arranging for people to get back their money. This will involve a considerable amount of work for local authorities which act as agents for water authorities in collecting charges. We have worked out a detailed scheme with the local authority associations which we hope will reduce to as small a level as possible the burden on local authorities, thus keeping down the costs of administration. No part of the cost of refunds in the form of administration costs will fall on local authorities. They will be entitled to bill water authorities in full for any costs which they incur. I am sure that the House will agree that that will be a perfectly proper arrangement.
  In their judgment on the Daymond case the Law Lords were critical of Section 30 of the Water Act, which contains the charging provisions. It was criticised because of its failure to make clear which water authorities are entitled to charge for the services they provide. The Law Lords concluded that the section must mean that charges could be levied only on those for whom the services were provided. However, this raised doubts about the authorities' power to charge anyone for those services which are not performed completely for identifiable users. Although such services as pollution control, recreation and amenity represent only a small part of the authorities' expenditure—about 2 per cent.—it is essential that they be funded properly. As these services are undertaken for the benefit of the community as a whole, it seems right to us—I hope that it will appear right to the House—that the community as a whole should meet their costs. Therefore, Clause 2 makes it clear that while in general charges may be imposed on those for whom services are provided, the costs of these specific services, which are defined in the Bill, may be visited on all ratepayers.
  The relevant provision is declaratory in form. It clarifies who may be charged for the services since the water authorities came into being. Refunds will be slightly
  664
  reduced by expenditure on these items. If people are to have refunds in the next financial year it is essential that the Bill become law by 31st March. I look hopefully at Opposition Members in the belief that they will appreciate the position. It would clearly be preferable if we could get this measure on the statute book well before 31st March as the water authorities and local authorities have to send out their rate demands. I know that all of us have great sympathy with them in the considerable administrative task that lies before them.
  This is a narrow Bill. It is concerned only with the Daymond case. I know there are many other aspects of the water industry on which hon. Members hold strong views. No doubt there will be an opportunity to discuss the wider picture after the Government's consultation paper is published. As I have said, it will be published pretty soon. We shall invite comments from all sections of the industry and from the local authorities. I am sure that we shall find means in the House for hon. Members to express their views before the Government determine in the late summer how they should proceed.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the consultation paper, which some of us are eagerly awaiting, be a White Paper? Will the Minister give us some indication whether it is weeks or months away?
  Mr. Howell: I do not think that it will be a White Paper. I can understand the hon. Gentleman awaiting its publication with great eagerness. We shall be giving him the opportunity to correct the mistakes of his own legislation. I think I am right in saying that we expect the document to be published in a matter of weeks. I shall be disappointed if we do not publish it within two or three weeks. I know that we aim to get replies from all interested parties, and the public, not later than the end of July, so that we can proceed in the autumn. When the House is having a pleasant time on the beaches in the autumn, we shall be getting our legislation ready for early next year.
  Mr. Graham Page: I presume that the consultation paper will not go only to local authorities and that it will not be kept a high priority secret document. I presume that hon. Members will see it.
  Mr. Howell: I hope that they will. It is intended to go to all local authorities, water authorities, consumer interests, and recreational and amenity interests. I shall personally ensure that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is sent a copy.
  Mr. Graham Page: And signed?
  Mr. Howell: Yes, a signed copy. I know that he takes a keen interest in these matters, as does his hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). We want the views of hon. Members.
  I hope it will be generally thought that in a difficult situation the Government have faced the problem in a sensible and realistic manner. We seek to put the matter right for the future without in any way challenging their Lordships' judgment, putting on a proper legalistic basis the financing of our water and sewerage services.
  If I am right in my judgment that the House will accept this measure as right and inevitable, I invite the House to give it a Second Reading. I invite the co-operation of both sides of the House in what I hope will be a short but constructive period in Committee so that we can put this measure on the statute book at the earliest moment.
  5.38 p.m.
  Mr. Keith Speed: I begin by thanking the Minister for the way in which he has advanced the Bill. As he says, I think there is no difference between the parties. Mistakes were made which were not taken up by the Opposition or the Government then responsible. Perhaps I should start by declaring an interest. I reside in a property which is not connected to anything at all, and I shall be a beneficiary under the Bill.
  It has become clear to us all that a simple substance such as water becomes complex when the lawyers start to play about in it. There is no doubt that the decision of the Law Lords made this legislation necessary. There is no doubt that it is urgent, and it is important that we try to complete all its stages as soon as possible for the reason that the Minister has given.
  Faced with the Daymond judgment, it would have been possible for the Government to have legislated and restored completely the intention of the 1973 Act
  666
  by making premises liable to the general service charge whether connected or unconnected to a public sewer. They would have been right to do so in equity, but I do not think it would have been right to have had that element of retrospection. It would have been wrong to have challenged the Law Lords. I am sure that the Government were right to take this decision.
  The Minister referred to a number of local authority associations and those who asked for the Treasury to pick up the £60 million. The Government were right to resist that suggestion. I do not wish to see that extra amount of public expenditure. It would have been popular, but I believe that it would have been wrong to take that action. Therefore, I support the Minister.
  I agree that the Bill will involve an average increase of 21 per cent. in regard to general services for the rest of the community. I suspect that some people will receive a nasty shock on that score, and I do not think that that factor is sufficiently widely appreciated.
  We accept the principle of the Bill, but since there is little time between this and remaining stages—which I understand are to be taken on Wednesday of next week—I shall seek to suggest ways in which the Bill needs amendment and clarification. Obviously we do not wish to see litigation arising on these matters after the Bill is enacted.
  I hope that the Minister will give constructive answers to our queries and the points we make. He will appreciate that there is little time for amendments to be tabled to meet points made by the various interests who may be in touch with us over the weekend and in the next few days. It may be that amendments will have to be tabled in another place, but I assure the Minister that we shall approach this matter in a spirit of co-operation. I am sure that he will respond in the same way.
  I understand that 900,000 properties are affected by these provisions. But will the Minister in his reply give the House practical examples of the effect of the Daymond judgment on domestic properties after the Bill is enacted? A great deal depends on local authority collection charges and other factors, matters at which one can only guess in general terms. I feel that at the end of the day

  667
  many people may be worse off than they would have been but for the Daymond judgment. A backlash may be felt by hon. Members later on in the summer when these provisions become operative. It might stave off difficulties if advance warning can be given that people may not be in the promised land in terms of charges. We must remember that the charges on connected properties will be heavy, the rates are still rising, and incomes are tightly limited.
  Will the Minister consider a suggestion made by the Association of District Councils about phasing the figure of £60 million over a longer period than a year? I can see the problems, and no doubt this suggestion was considered and rejected, but perhaps we may have an explanation.
  I should like to make a number of detailed points. I shall try to pick a clear path through the technical detail, and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) will be dealing with other points later in the debate. Some of the points can be said to be Committee matters, but we shall seek to deal with them now since the Bill is required urgently.
  Clause 1(1), which deals with the question of refunds, appears to be inaccurate since the action taken will be by way of credit set off against general rate. There are some problems involved which I should like to illustrate by reference to my own property. I moved into my present house at the beginning of November. It is not connected to services and no doubt the previous owner who has moved out of the district will have some problem in obtaining a refund of money due in the earlier period. I presume that publicity will be given to the Bill to ensure that there is a simple way for people to obtain refunds when there has been a change of ownership. It is no good giving the previous owner a credit against rates because in my case my predecessor in the house has moved to a different local authority area. This poses a practical difficulty.
  In regard to Clause 1(1), should not the Bill authorise allowances against rates? I see the difficulty because, unless the situation is made clear, water authorities could be deluged with demands for cash payments, notwithstanding the fact
  668
  that district councils will make the calculations and give allowances and credits in rate demands.
  Subsection (1)(a) says
  "all charges for sewerage or sewage disposal (other than charges for the removal and disposal of the contents of cesspools)…".
  I believe that that provision is too wide and could cover charges levied by and paid to district councils. It could also cover charges levied by water authorities for reception and treatment at sewerage works of contents of cesspools emptied by tankers. Surely what is intended is a refund of that part of the general services charge relating to the exercise of an authority's functions under Section 14 of the 1973 Water Act. I should have thought that a tighter definition was needed.
  I turn to Clause 1(1)(b), which contains the phrase
  "to which they did not supply water".
  I feel that phrase might be suspect. I wish to draw attention to a recent High Court decision in the case of Miguel v. West Pennine Water Board which might have some bearing on the question of the definition of "supply of water". In addition, it could possibly be argued that if people were absent from their homes or commercial premises were not operative or were closed on 1st April of the two relevant years, they could require a refund. That is not my reading of the wording, but I know that some legal experts are concerned on that score.
  I should like to deal with Clause 1(2). It may be implicit in the provision that the 50 per cent. relief from general service charge in the current financial year for domestic premises not drained directly or indirectly into a foul sewer or combined foul-surface water sewer is taken fully into account. Although that may be implicit in the wording, I wonder whether it would be advisable to make it explicit. That point may be worthy of greater consideration.
  On Clause 1(5) it has been represented to me by water authorities that the subsection is too narrow. They wish to recover the cost of funds in the financial year 1976–77, but since there are long and complex tasks of verification extending beyond that time there is the problem of administrative costs in the current financial year, and those costs might fall on

  669
  water authorities. It might be helpful if the Bill were to state that it would relate to any period after 1st April 1976 rather than tie down the matter specifically.
  I am a little worried about Clause 1(7) because complex issues can arise in the case of surface water drainage. For example, roof and surface water can drain from premises via a fall pipe across a pavement, not through any defined gully or channel, into a kerbside gutter and then to a public sewer. The occupiers of such premises clearly enjoy the benefits of the water authority's sewerage service and, in equity, should pay for it. I am not clear whether that is the situation, and perhaps the Minister would tell us.
  On a more general point in seeking to prevent other Daymond-type situations in the future—as we all want to do—is it not possible for the definition in respect of refunds to apply for the purpose of future charges as well? The Association of District Councils and the water authorities have strong views on this point.
  On the same point, is it the case that the words in line 29
  "foul water or surface water or both"
  mean that premises, whether domestic, commercial or industrial, not connected to the foul water sewer but connected for surface water only will be chargeable in the entire general services charge?
  On the general question of refund, it has been put to me that statutory undertakers, particularly the nationalised industries and electricity power generating stations, are not connected and will obtain the lion's share of the refunds. A figure of up to 70 per cent. has been suggested to me. I do not know if this is the true figure.
  The situation may be that a considerable body of domestic users—those who are connected and will be paying the extra 21 per cent. this coming year—will be paying a lot of the money which will be going both to nationalised and to other major industries. If so, it will have profound consequences. The Minister hinted at this. There may be equity at the end of the day, but I do not think that this point has fully come out, or that it was fully appreciated by those who entered into the law case in the first instance.
  670
  Clause 2 does not make provision for the validity of the 50 per cent. relief granted by the collection of charges order in 1975. I am told that the water authorities and the district councils could be challenged in the courts unless the Bill validates this relief. I do not know if this is so. I am not legally qualified, thank goodness. If there is such a challenge, we should want to stop that as soon as possible. It may be that something needs to be done to tighten up that aspect.
  I apologise for making these detailed points, but I think they are important. If tonight the Minister can give us assurances on them, that is fine. If not, I hope that we can, in a constructive spirit, see whether there may be some amendments or tightening up on definitions if some of my points have validity.
  In a few weeks' time the new water industry will be two years old. The problems in the Bill are not of the industry's making. There are also problems, as the Minister knows, of equitable charging of past neglect and under-investment. I am sure that these and the other things will be highlighted in a few weeks' time in the Minister's White Paper, Green Paper, or whatever colour it may be.
  Real progress has been made in the last 23 months by the national water industry in its efforts to serve the whole community. We take water and sewage disposal very much for granted. These subjects are not very often discussed in this House.
  The sufficient supply of water and the growing cleanliness of the rivers and coasts are in the hands of 10 regional authorities with both local authority and appointed members. The National Water Council, under the vigorous leadership of Lord Nugent, has done a great deal for the industry. The many dedicated men and women working throughout the country have also done a great deal to ensure that services are kept going and are able to meet the growing demands on them.
  It is very often forgotten that water is the principal raw material of industry. It would not come amiss, therefore, if the House were to congratulate the water industry on its second birthday for everything it has done in welding the industry together.

  671
  Much progress has been made in the past two years. Although there are problems arising from the Water Reorganisation Act, the Act was necessary, and I am confident that the sort of progress already made will be maintained and expanded in the future.
  I believe that the Minister shares my opinion that we can teach our Common Market partners a great deal about water and measures against water pollution. The Minister has recently been putting that point of view across in Brussels, and seeking to change some of the attitudes in Europe.
  I am sure that we wish to thank all the men and women who often bear the heat and burden of water charges and other problems for which in many cases they are not responsible.
  I support the Bill. I hope that the Minister will accept what we are saying in a constructive way. I wish the Bill god-speed, because we want to get it under way as quickly as possible, with the least possible administrative delay. We look forward to hearing from the Minister on these detailed points when he winds up later.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): For the protection of the business of the House, the proceedings on this Bill must be disposed of by 7.30 p.m. Time is short and a considerable number of hon. Members desire to take part in the debate. I appeal to the House in its own interest to limit speeches to 10 minutes.
  5.54 p.m.
  Mr. John Tomlinson: I shall endeavour to confine my remarks well within the time suggested, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I am unable to go along too far with the later remarks of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), in the course of which we heard his apology for the Water Reorganisation Act 1973, but before he got to that part of his speech I agreed with much of what he said.
  I support the Bill and the general approach of the Government towards this measure. At the same time, I regret its necessity, which has arisen from what for other reasons besides this was an ill-conceived and badly executed Water Reorganisation Act in 1973.
  672
  That argument has been well rehearsed, and it is no part of the process of this debate to go through it again tonight, but the point has to be made that without that measure we should not be faced with the invidious circumstances with which we are faced today.
  I support the Government entirely in agreeing that the cost of the measure should be borne directly by the consumers and should not be Exchequer-borne.
  I differed slightly from the view of my right hon. Friend, when he was appealing that we should not go too far into other issues because there may be a consultative document produced in the next three or four weeks. By that time it may well be too late to influence some of the regional water authorities in their present attitude.
  For example, the Severn-Trent Regional Water Authority—which, I believe, is seriously damaging the counter-inflation policy of the Government by the charge it is seeking to impose upon ratepayers next week—will not be influenced unless we influence it now. If we wait for the consultative document, and constrain our criticism for a further three or four weeks, it might by then well be too late.
  As my right hon. Friend will know, local authorities like the West Midlands Metropolitan County Council have confined their increase in rate demands next year to 5½ per cent. My own North Warwickshire Borough Council has done even better in confining its increase in rate demand to 3 per cent., yet when it has played its full part in cutting out valuable and important areas of public and social expenditure, and played its part in supporting the Government in its necessary counter-inflationary policy, we find the Severn-Trent Regional Water Authority seeking to levy through the local authorities—so that possibly the local authorites will get the odium for it—increases in water rates next year of the order of 50–55 per cent. Such proposals are totally unacceptable and are fundamentally damaging to the efforts of this Government and the local authorities in regard to the counter-inflationary policy.
  It is not sufficient to allow them to get away with the excuse that an unfortunate court judgment is the sole responsibility for this enormous increase in rate demand which they will be making next year. It

  673
  is becoming too easy for them to refer to a court judgment and try to brush off the whole responsibility for 50–55 per cent. increases for that reason. That is totally unacceptable, and it needs to be said not only from the Back Benches but from the Front Benches. I hope it will be said from the Front Bench when we have the reply to the Debate.
  I should have thought that at the moment it was reasonable to expect that regional water authorities, with prudent financial management, would have been led to anticipate even the vague possibility that they might lose their case in the courts, and that they should have shown some restraint on current expenditure during the current financial year 1975–76. This they singly failed to do. They are seeking in the next financial year to push the whole cost directly on to the consumer, and to continue the whole of their capital programme—without abating it in the way that local authorities are doing in seeking to constrain their rates—while at the same time blaming it on the court judgment and the unfortunate wording of the Act.
  I hope that we shall make it quite clear that, while we support the measure, at the same time we express our great displeasure at the action of certain regional water authorities. I particularly mention the Severn-Trent Regional Water Authority in my own area. Other hon. Members will have examples to give from their own constituencies.
  While we say that this is to be done during the next financial year, we should also make quite clear our displeasure at the fact that there is a desire and willingness on the part of the Severn-Trent Regional Water Authority and other regional water authorities to continue with their capital programmes, and to show no restraint in their public expenditure—such as local authorities are having to show—while at the same time blaming the whole of the increase in the regional water authorities' charges on this particular measure.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of the fact that the absence of hon. Members from this debate does not necessarily mean approbation for the conduct of regional water authorities or of their proposals for the forthcoming financial year.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Cordle: The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) made a strong plea for a consultation document, which I, too, would have much preferred to have been available deal in some of the assessments and today, if possible. It would help a great arrangements being made by the local authorities at the moment, as well as giving some instruction and help to the constituents who have written to their Members of Parliament about this whole issue.
  I find myself at variance with the Government in respect of this Bill but, in general, I shall support the Bill since it is a vital part of the effort to put right what has gone wrong because of the errors in the original drafting.
  In my view, the whole philosophy and approach of this Bill is both wrong and unfair. It is wrong and unfair to large numbers of my constituents and, I am certain, to the constituents of other hon. Members. It is wrong because most persons connected to a sewerage system are to be made to suffer because of errors of the Government and of the water authorities in 1974–75 and 1975–76. Those errors were to impose charges on persons who were not legally obliged to pay the sums demanded of them. The House of Lords pointed out the error, and the Government rightly decided that the services should be charged on those who enjoy the benefits.
  This Bill proposes to recoup the losses incurred by refunding illegal charges collected over two years from the remaining ratepayers over one single year. This seems to be quite wrong in principle. The refunds should be paid and the water boards should be reimbursed out of a central fund. Surely that is the more just and equitable way to deal with the problem.
  Therefore, Clause 1(5) should be deleted and replaced with some provision to ensure that the burden of the necessary refund should fall on the community as a whole.
  The Bill is unfair because the great increases in water charges for 1976–77, if the Bill is enacted unamended, is particularly unfair to those on fixed incomes who already are hard pressed by inflation and now are to be instructed to compensate the water board for the refund within a single year.

  675
  The increase presently proposed for my area—the Wessex Board—is 25·3 per cent. for unmeasured supply, the highest figure in the entire country. This is far too large to be either fair or acceptable, and it must be reduced.
  If the Government will not listen to reason and pay the refunds from public funds, at the very least the ratepayers should be able to spread the burden over, say, five years and not be expected to find the whole amount immediately.
  May I draw attention to the drafting of the present Bill? Clause 1 makes it the duty of all water boards to pay refunds on 1st April 1976. Clearly, this is quite impossible as a mere matter of administration. Whatever else the Bill does, it must cause the authorities to have to increase their staffs, even temporarily, to deal with it.
  The wording of Clause 1(1) should be altered as recommended by the Association of District Council Treasurers at its meeting on 6th February of this year to allow the authorities a reasonable time to make repayment. Therefore, the wording should be altered from "On" to
  "From and on or after 1st April 1976."
  It is clear that the implications of the Bill in Wessex and Bournemouth have meant not only a great deal more work but a considerable increase in money costs to both local authorities and water boards. They have meant that the local authorities have had the task of identifying unsewered property, and it is estimated that the regional cost of refunds in respect of 1974–75 and 1976–77 could exceed £4·1 million. I understand that this sum has been added to the normal income requirement for 1976–77 as it is the authority's decision to recover the cost of refunds from connected consumers in a single year.
  Sadly, the overall effect of the Daymond judgment is to increase charges in 1976–77 over 1975–76 by an average of 28 per cent. In the case of Bournemouth, £380.000 is the apportioned cost of refunds to be borne by the connected consumers. This represents an enormous increase in terms of the rate in the pound of 17·9 per cent. when compared with 1975–76 and, in addition, the effects of increased expenditure and the reduced charging base require a further increase of 13·5 per cent. That represents an
  676
  overall increase probably of 31·4 per cent.—another regrettable Daymond consequence.
  Will the Minister give some indication when he winds up whether he will agree today to a longer period of repayment for those constituents and local authorities who, through no fault of their own, now face not only increased water charges but the refunds demanded in the Bill by 1st April?
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Ridsdale: The reason why I make a brief intervention is that I fear that this may be another case of not being fair to the small man. During the passage of the 1973 Bill, it was my criticism that we were not being fair to the small man. In this Bill, as it is drafted at present, once again I fear that the Government are making the same mistake.
  A great number of occupiers—rate-payers—will be angry if this Bill is not amended. The words in page 2, line 29, "or surface water" and, in lines 31 and 32,
  "the use, in respect of the hereditament, of facilities which drain to a sewer or drain so communicating",
  can be interpreted so as to debar a great number of hereditaments from eligibility for refunds.
  The benefit accorded to a hereditament from "run-off" by gravity which results in the surface water flowing to a street gutter should be regarded as one of the services paid for on the general rate levy of the district council, as should the disposal of surface water which drains directly to a surface water sewer.
  That is the one point which I wish to put to the Minister, and I am sure that he will follow it in detail. It is more of a Committee point, perhaps, but it is one which, if it is not covered, will lead to an increasing burden being placed on the small house owner and the small bungalow owner—the very persons whom we wish to help—and not the big user, as the Minister pointed out.
  I hope, as a Government spokesman said, that the water authorities, unrepresentative as they are, will not use this Bill as an excuse for extravagance and for not cutting back on some of the capital expenditure which in my view is unnecessary in these difficult times.
  6.9 p.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: At the outset, I have to declare two interests. The first is that I was one of the authors of this Bill and, in the circumstances I promise to be brief because, on this matter, I have a good deal to be brief about.
  I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) has said. Far from believing that the 1973 Water Act is a bad Act, I believe it is an extremely good one and that we have now in this country the best structured and probably most efficient water and sewerage industry in the world. This is not to say that all the water authorities are the best in the best of all possible worlds—of course not—but I hope that the Minister will go very carefully in bringing in a White Paper and proposing new legislation. I hope he will not seek to dig up by the roots an important radical reform of this vital industry.
  Secondly, I want to declare an interest in that I am not connected to the sewers in my own cottage. I am perfectly happy that way. Indeed, I would advise a lot of regional water authorities not to regard it as a measure of their hydrological virility that they have to connect every single cottage, however remote, to the main sewers. That would be far too expensive. Provided one has a proper cesspit, regularly cleaned, that is perfectly adequate.
  Having declared my interest, may I deal briefly with the Bill. I have looked up the Committee stages of the 1973 Act, and I am bound to say that this particular matter was not debated by the Government side of the day nor by the Opposition. We were far too concerned at the time about the general question of metering. Possibly, we should have paid rather more attention to the precise language of Section 30(1) of the Act. Nevertheless, for my part, having had some of the responsibility, I ought now to say that had I realised at the time that the result would be that large numbers of people not connected to the sewers would be charged for sewerage, I would not have accepted it. To that extent I believe their Lordships have quite rightly inter-pretend the intention of at least one Minister on that Committee.
  678
  I would have regarded it as contrary to natural justice, in exactly the same way as I would have thought that the GPO's charging for a telephone that was not installed would be wrong, or if the BBC were to charge for a television licence when a person did not have a television set, and so on. I would not have agreed to it had I known at the time that this would be the consequence. Therefore, I welcome the Bill. I feel that the Government are quite right to bring it in, and for my part I shall hope to give it a fair wind.
  I raise three brief questions with the Minister. The first is in respect of those who are not connected and who now will be relieved, at least for the time being, of the charges. What is to happen henceforth? Plainly, they are going to have to continue to have their cesspools cleared. Is it the intention from now on that a direct charge will be made to them for that particular service? How is it to be calculated? Can the Minister who is to reply give some indication of how large these charges will be? Many of those who are not on the sewers are extremely poor people living in remote rural areas and if the emptying charge is a steep one they will be in difficulty. Therefore, it is important that the House should know approximately the level of direct emptying charges that may now be imposed.
  My second question concerns the balance of consumers who are to have this very high new cost laid upon them. Many will find that their water and sewerage rates go up very steeply. A 21 per cent. average means some very nasty shocks indeed for many of our constituents. It is only fair to acknowledge that. I ask whether people who receive these extremely heavy increases will be eligible for rate relief? That is an important point particularly for people who are on small fixed incomes, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale).
  Mr. Denis Howell: If I may deal with that point immediately, of course there cannot be any rate relief because the Government of the party opposite created a national industry and there is no rate relief for a nationalised industry, a water industry. Under the proposals of

  679
  hon. Gentlemen opposite, these organisations are nationalised and, therefore, there cannot possibly be eligibility for rate relief.
  Mr. Griffiths: I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a nationalised industry. We were very careful indeed not to do that.
  Mr. Denis Howell: What is it then?
  Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman is apparently answering my question. There will not be rate relief, but I feel that I was right to raise that point.
  In conclusion, this Bill clarifies the position in respect of the charging for services rendered by the regional water authorities in respect of pollution control, recreation and amenity, and a number of other matters. That certainly was the intention of the original Act. But I feel it is right to say that when the 1973 Act was placed on the statute book we were in a better financial situation in this country than we are today. There was a good prospect that we could go forward with the new structure for the cleaning of rivers and opening up of water space for recreation and amenity. I am very sorry that, for a variety of reasons which I should not go into here, the financial background today is such that we are not making the progress on cleaning the rivers and opening up water space that was intended at the time that the Bill was passed.
  I hope that when the hon. Gentleman comes to issue his White Paper he will restore to the industry and to the British people a little of that momentum towards pollution control and the improvement in recreation and amenity in water space which was the intention of the 1973 Act and of both sides of the House when we passed it. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that there is no more vital raw material in this country than water, but we have to look at both dirty and clean water, for it is the recycling of the one to make the other that is the future for water supply in our country.
  I for one welcome the Bill. I regret that it is necessary. I hope that it will have a speedy passage, and I endorse entirely all that my hon. Friend has said from the Front Bench. We owe to those who work in the water industry, whether in sewerage,
  680
  water supply, land drainage or recreation, a vote of thanks for the very good work that they do.
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: The House will appreciate that in Wales at any rate water is a burning subject. There the Water Reorganisation Act of 1973 has had, in conjunction with the local government reorganisation, a dire effect. In creating a water authority for a big part of Wales joined with a small part of England, the Act disregarded the integrity of Wales. But, in addition, perhaps more seriously, the Act endowed so-called Welsh national water authorities with great and valuable assets of local authorities and water boards without giving them or the ratepayers a single penny in compensation, although these authorities throughout the years had themselves built up and financed the water undertakings.
  Following this kind of legalised robbery by the State, the ratepayers, especially in Wales, were further subjected to an unprecedented escalation of water charges and, of course, charges by authorities for sewerage services, even when they were not connected with the public service, which is why we have this Bill before us today. In Wales, the burden imposed on domestic consumers is a scandal, and it is not mitigated by any material return for Welsh water which supplies industry and the domestic needs of consumers in huge and wealthy conurbations in England. Water has been referred to more than once today as the biggest raw material of industry, and we should be in a position to have some material return from it in Wales.
  Welsh commercial users have been among the greatest sufferers in this matter. A formidable impediment has been created in the way of industrial development in Wales. Now that the Government have been forced by the Daymond case to remedy a wrong of their own making, whereby charges were imposed on households and premises which were not connected with the public sewerage services, they seem to have compounded the injury that the Act did to local authorities.
  Whatever may be said about the debates at the time—I was not in the House then—the Government had been warned about the consequences of this

  681
  part of the Water Act. There is no doubt that the responsibility for the wrong is the Government's. In these circumstances, it must be argued that the cost of reimbursing those wrongfully charged should be borne by the Government. But it is the ratepayers and the ordinary commercial users who will have to pay another addition to their back-breaking burdens. The Minister skated too lightly over this aspect of the matter.
  Again, instead of accepting the cost of administering this piece of retrospective legislation, the Government have loaded it on to already overworked local authorities. They are expected to take on no more staff to deal with it. Since Whitehall and Westminster made the errors, Whitehall and Westminster should shoulder the financial responsibility for correcting them. Instead of presenting the ratepayers with yet another addition to their rates, the Treasury should have been instructed to make the refunds itself, as well as paying for the heavy costs of administering the refunding.
  In Dyfed, in my part of the world, the Government's refusal to accept responsibility has become almost a habit as we have seen in their refusal to accept responsibility for the costly and disastrous accident with the Cleddau Bridge. But, apart from imposing these extra burdens on the ratepayer, the administrative work itself has been thrown on to the district council staffs. That administrative work is considerable, especially in rural areas like the one that I represent. The work involves identifying the unconnected properties, which in itself means a great deal of work.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): Just to get this one out of the way, I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not the intention that costs will fall on rating authorities. In fact, the rating authorities will bill the water authorities for the administrative costs to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
  Mr. Evans: Am I to understand that the Minister is now saying that the local authorities will be reimbursed for the costs of administration which are now being imposed on them?
  Mr. Alec Jones: For the administrative costs, yes.
  Mr. Evans: That is very good news, which I am sure will be greatly welcomed.
  I was going to say how great these burdens are. Even the reimbursement of the direct costs of the administration does not do away with the heavy labour which has been imposed on local authorities in this respect. Arduous work is involved in making the survey which is necessary to identify unconnected property—indeed, in refunding for as tar back as 1st April 1974 and adjusting the refund to take account of the special domestic relief. In additoin, I understand that the rating computer programme has had to be amended. At any rate, the cost of the administration is pretty heavy and until now has fallen on the district councils.
  I should also like the Minister's comment on the fact that these councils may find it administratively impossible to keep to the timetable in the Bill. There has been a great clamour in some political quarters about the so-called overstaffing of local authorities and the increased costs of local government, but much of this is hypocritical when one realises how much of a load is put on local authorities by this kind of thing, partly due to the reorganisation scheme, but also because of the Water Act itself.
  But I should also like to touch on the preposterous and unacceptable aspect of sewerage and water rates, quite apart from the refunding and the new load of work thrown on local authorities by the Government. Whereas the sewerage and water charges were, before local government reorganisation, an insignificant part of the general rate, they now assume the proportions of major charges—indeed, the biggest charges of all in the case of district councils.
  In my district of Dinewfr, the water rate and sewerage charges this year are more than twice the general rate levied by the district council. The water rate is 14·8p and the sewerage rate 14p, making a total of 28·8p payable to the Welsh Water Authority. The general rate demand for the district authority is only 13p. So the charges for those two public services are more than double the total charged for district council services put together.
  Furthermore, those whose very low incomes qualified them in the pre-reorganisation days to a rebate now get

  683
  none. There is no rebate on these big water and sewerage charges, even for the very poorest. The poorest ratepayer has to pay the full amount, just as much as the richest. The least that the Government could do is amend the Bill in this respect to provide for assistance to the poorest section of the community. Also, the position of the Welsh Water Authority in relation to the rate support grant should be re-examined.
  The householder who is not connected to main sewerage is not out of danger with this Bill. He may have avoided the Scylla of the charges only to collide heavily with the Charybdis of perhaps penal fees which could be levied by the district council for clearing his cesspit. I hope that this will not prove to be the case.
  6.27 p.m.
  Mr. David Penhaligon: I suspect that much of the agreement in the House tonight is due more to relief that this matter is settled than to admiration for the settlement which has been worked out. My party certainly agrees that it was illogical to charge people for something that they did not receive. That is the basic cause of the judgment referred to, as the Bill recognises. But we would add that people should pay—we know that to a certain extent they now do—for services which benefit everyone.
  The view has been expressed that these services account for a larger percentage of the total bill sent out by water authorities than has been recognised hitherto. In other words, the most important thing that water authorities achieve, at least so far as sewerage is concerned, is the prevention of mass disease. One benefits from that service whether connected to the sewerage system or not.
  One hon. Member claimed for his area the record increase because of this judgment—24 per cent. I do not know what the largest increase is, but in Cornwall, which is covered by the South-Western Water Authority, the increase will be 35 per cent. That is a substantial sum to collect in just one year. Despite the Government's present financial difficulties, I wonder whether they could not think again about recouping all this money in one year. If the Government could make a contribution, I am sure that that would be welcomed.
  684
  It is unfair that the rates in my area will rise by 35 per cent. when the national average increase will be 21 per cent. People in my area are connected to the system like everyone else, yet they are to be punished in this way for living in an area where many properties are not connected. I hope that the Government can look into the possibility of help towards the refund.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is the Liberal Party's policy to increase taxation to pay for it?
  Mr. Penhaligon: One of my hon. Friends suggested before I entered the House that perhaps we were in a Clay Cross situation and that those responsible for the original legislation should pay personally. If I say that the Government should make a contribution, that means that the money comes either from taxation or from borrowing from some of our friends. I do not deny the implication.
  I must admit that I am not impressed by the water authority. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said that we had one of the best set-ups in the world. I do not consider myself an expert on what the other parts of the world have, but if ours is the best I feel sorry for some of the others.
  The water authority in my area is famous for its glossy magazine. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has collected nine or 10 of the magazines, which add up to an impressive document. I cannot help wondering how much it costs to produce them.
  There is a tremendous argument in our area about the water authorities' decision to charge direct instead of through the local councils. One cannot help coming to the conclusion that it is bound to cost the people in the area of the South-Western Water Authority more money individually, even if it might give a small advantage to the water authority because it receives its money earlier.
  The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) pointed out the nonsense of the present situation, saying that some people pay more for water and sewerage than for local government. We all know the reason. It is not that local government does not cost more, but those serving in

  685
  local government are elected and report to somebody. They can be chided or thrown out. Two-thirds of their money is given to them by the Government. But every penny of the revenue of the water authority, which appears to report to nobody, is taken out of the local ratepayer's pocket. That is nonsense of the first order and a basic contradiction of the democratic principle.
  There is one thing that disturbs me about the idea that water authorities must be self-financing. I can comment only on what has happened in my area in the past two years. There is no recognition of the lack of local resources. There is no resources grant for water, if I may put it in that way. We have reached an appalling situation in areas such as mine. Cornwall has a winter population of about 330,000. I understand although I am always a little dubious about the figures, that during the summer we have 3 million visitors. Sewage disposal in Cornwall at the peak of the summer is nearly at breakdown point. Merely refusing to talk about that, as most people in our area do because of the possible effect on the summer trade, will not make the problem go away. I draw the Government's attention to the fear which is at least expressed behind closed doors in my county. The lack of a resources grant means that the situation will never be rectified.
  I hope that some comments can be made about another big anomaly which is about to be created. If we are to charge people for emptying their septic tanks, which must be the logic of the Bill, I presume that the charge will be liable to VAT. I do not understand why it is logical to charge VAT on emptying a septic tank just because the householder does not have a pipe for the sewage to go down when presumably there is no VAT on the water rates. In my area, where many people already have their septic tanks emptied and are charged VAT, the VAT charge is not very popular. Perhaps the Minister could speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) has had great concern expressed in his area about people's apparent inability to obtain compensation from the water authorities for loss of business caused by the carrying out of public works. I understand that a road in
  686
  his constituency has been blocked for about six months because of a new installation, with the tragic result that a business has gone bankrupt. It appears that the constituent concerned is not entitled to compensation.
  Despite the criticisms advanced from the Liberal Bench, I do not believe that there will be much opposition from the Liberal Party to the Bill. It is important to get the matter cleared up as soon as possible, and then perhaps the new White Paper will give us the opportunity to look again at the difficulties encountered in the last two years, but there will not be much opposition until 31st March.
  6.36 p.m.
  Mr. John MacGregor: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate, because East Anglia is one of the areas most affected by the Bill. It has a much higher than the national average proportion of households not connected to mains sewerage.
  I understand the difficulties in which the Government and the House are faced over the Bill, not least because if we reversed the House of Lords decision we should be introducing retrospective legislation, which in general I deplore. But I have considerable doubts about whether we are doing the greatest service to either group of ratepayers in the Bill we are discussing tonight. Let us consider first those who are not connected to main sewerage. I have a feeling that those who pushed through to the House of Lords and won the decision there will have gained a Pyrrhic victory. The decision may well boomerang on many who are not connected. I suspect that the average charge for emptying septic tanks will turn out to be bigger than the saving that many of those not connected will have achieved as a result of that decision. Of course, averages can be misleading and some will undoubtedly benefit. But many others will not.
  In the area of my district council it will now cost £30 a year, plus VAT, for an average number of emptyings of septic tanks. I have heard the rumour—I do not know whether it is true—that in one water authority area the cost will be £90 a year. That will certainly be greater than the saving that many will have as a result of the decision. Many of those not connected will find that there is a

  687
  nasty backlash and that the decision has not been to their benefit.
  I come to those who are connected, particularly the domestic householder and ratepayer, with whom I am most concerned. In the area of the Anglian Water Authority, for example, the costs of sheer administration in dealing with the refund are thought to be about £500,000 in the coming year. Although the local authority can reclaim the money, the water authority must meet the extra charges in the end, and so they will come back to the ratepayer, who will have to bear this burden.
  Secondly, the refunds in the authority area will amount to £11 million. The combination of refunds and administrative charges means a 31 per cent. increase this year in the water authority precept to those who are connected. That has ruined the tremendous efforts of my county council in the past year to hold down the general local authority rate. The council feels that it will be unfairly accused of having caused a great deal of the increase, whereas it arose from the House of Lords decision.
  The unfairnesses go even further. I am concerned about the unfairness to the individual ratepayer. Had it been known that the decision would be made, it is likely that the charges for emptying septic tanks in the previous two years would have been higher. Therefore, the ratepayer who is connected is now being asked to pay an even bigger charge than he would otherwise have been, because the costs to be recouped would have been less. Above all, it is the poorest ratepayers for whom I am most concerned. I was unable to check this before the debate, but I understand that there are no rate rebates for the water authority charges. An average increase in Norfolk in the coming year of 31 per cent., unrebated in any way, will be a heavy burden on the poorest ratepayers at a time of high inflation.
  Many of those benefiting from the decision are not domestic ratepayers but the public institutions, nationalised industries, and private-sector industries. They will benefit at the expense of the poorest ratepayers who have no opportunity for a rebate.
  688
  I know that the Government, having made up their mind on a difficult decision, are determined to push this legislation through. Therefore, I conclude with three suggestions by which we can ameliorate some of the effects of the Bill which I have described, suggestions which can be pursued in Committee. The first two are concerned entirely with the administrative costs. There are considerable doubts about the inclusion of surface water in Clause 1(7)(a). If that were excluded, it would be easier for local authorities to trace those ratepayers who are not connected, because that would directly relate to the provision of 50 per cent. rebate for those unconnected which applied to last year. But through this Bill we are changing the definition of non-connection and thereby making the task of tracing greater and the cost of administration higher.
  Secondly, the Rating and Valuation Association believes that the word "facilities" in Clause 1(7)(a) is unclear, and a clearer definition in the interpretation clause would help in administration.
  Third, I hope that even at this stage something can be devised to help the poorest ratepayers, who are facing particularly heavy charges. Properties subject to special rating under Clause 1(7)(b), and also properties which I understand are, in the technical term, rated in cumulo, are to be aided substantially. They are often properties in the public sector. I question whether it is desirable that they should have such substantial concessions when others are having to bear the burden. Surely the Exchequer will gain from these measures, because, if some private sector industries get such rebates, that will increase their pretax profits and so, in a roundabout way, the Treasury will draw something back. If a scheme could be devised whereby that money could be given back so that the charge to the domestic ratepayers was not so high, we would be very grateful.
  6.41 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I am sorry that the Minister of State is not here at the moment, but I hope that my thanks will be conveyed to him for the way he introduced the Bill. There is in the Water Act a section which does not carry out the intention of either the

  689
  then Government or of the then Opposition at the time the Act was going through the House. The House of Lords has decided that the intention, as expressed on several occasions in debates when the Act was going through the House, was not carried out in the wording of the Act and that certain refunds have to be made.
  In Committee when the Act was going through this House, I made the intention clear, and it was never questioned by the then Opposition. I said:
  "The immediate problem is the transition from the system of paying on a rateable value basis, whether one has a service or not. Indeed, one pays whether or not one has a sewerage service or a water service."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 12th April 1973; c. 982.]
  I made it clear that there was to be a transitional stage in which even those who did not have a service would be paying. I made it clear again on Report that that was the intention. I said then:
  "There will be a transitional arrangement… That is merely a transitional arrangement, and a temporary measure of this sort will give the authorities sufficient time to be able to set up direct charging arrangements.
  If direct charging has to start, or had to start on 1st April 1974 when the new authorities take over, the existing authorities would have an enormous task in identifying all properties connected to the public sewers."—[Official Report, 1st May 1973; Vol. 855, c. 1022.]
  That is exactly the position.
  It was clearly the intention that, because of the difficulty in identifying those properties which were not connected with the sewer, as the Minister said, we intended to allow a transitional stage. Unfortunately, the wording of the Act did not allow that: it did not carry out our intention. But there is no doubt that it was intended that there should be that transitional period during which a general charge would be made—a charge on all ratepayers based on their rateable assessments, whether they were receiving the service of a sewer or not.
  The court having decided that that intention was not embodied in the Act, I stand by its decision in the same way as the Government are doing. It is necessary and proper to abide by the court's decision, but only until it is altered. Indeed, it can be altered by this House. I have never advocated retrospective legislation—that is why I will abide by the decision up to the time it is altered. It
  690
  can be altered prospectively or retrospectively. I question the wisdom of the Bill in altering the decision of the court prospectively as well as retrospectively.
  I agree that, while the decision stands, the refunds must be made, and in connection with the refunds the Minister has said that the cost will be £60 million. That, I assume, is the assessment of the refund itself. But, of course, if one continues to allow the judgment to stand prospectively, there will still be the increased liability for providing the service as a whole in the normal local government service manner. So I agree that the Bill should not alter the law retrospectively, but I see no reason why we should still hold to the Daymond case in future.
  I would have chosen to return to the intention of the Act that there should be a transitional period, and if it has been taken away by the court's decision for these two years, there is no reason why we should not restore that transitional period and allow it to hold good for perhaps another two to three years.
  At the same time, I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that the result of the Act in not carrying out the intention of both sides of the House at the time should be spread over a longer period, and not reclaimed from the general ratepayer over a period of only one year. I see no reason why we should put that heavy burden on the general ratepayer, although, of course, it is a measure of how the general ratepayer has benefited out of the unfortunate occupier of property who has not been given a service. But it is a blow and I would have hoped that it would have been spread over a longer period.
  Why not return for the future, to the original intention of the Act and of our debates on it, at least for a further transitional period? We were thinking at the time of a transitional period of some five years. Now that the transitional period has been removed entirely, although I abide by the decision removing it for two years past, I see no reason why the Bill should remove it for the further three years. If we allow the transitional period to continue, the only amendment I would require would be that cesspool charges should be credited against the general rate charge. If someone who is not being served with a sewerage service has to pay

  691
  not only his general rates but also for the clearance of his cesspool, that is unfair, but there is no reason why he should not be allowed to credit the charge against his general rate payment.
  If we continue the general transitional period as intended in the Act, it will allow rate rebate to continue, because the sewerage charge has, up to the present, been included within the general rate demand and, therefore, has had the benefit of rate rebate.
  As I said, I am grateful to the Minister for the way he presented the Bill. After all, he is now probably receiving advice from the same civil servants from whom we received advice. We are grateful to them and the parliamentary draftsmen. It is not, therefore, a party matter. It is one of those things that no one on either side spotted at the time, and it has been brought to light only by their Lordships in their judicial capacity. I see no reason why we should not, for the future, go back to what we intended. I do not know why the Minister chose to construct the Bill so as to apply the Daymond case for the future when he could have fulfilled the intentions of both the major parties by restricting it to the past.
  6.51 p.m.
  Miss Janet Fookes: I was not closely associated with the passing of the Water Act and I therefore listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) with particular interest. The Daymond case is of concern in the South-West, which is where my constituency is located. Mr. Daymond lives close to Plymouth, and he was represented by a Plymouth firm of solicitors. I fully agree that the refund should be paid, the Lords having made their decision, but I take issue with both Front Benches about where the burden of repayment should lay. Here I am enjoying what I believe is called the freedom of the Back Benches. It seems that since the error was made—as both sides admit—through the ambiguous drafting of the Act, in all equity and fairness it is the Government of the day who should foot the Bill. The authorities might well have budgeted differently had they known what the future held, and I do not see why they should be landed with extra payment which at the
  692
  time they could not foresee having to make.
  I share the view expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends that it is a stiff penalty to ask that two years' refund should be made in one year. This seems a great burden, as is illustrated by the case of the South Western Water Authority. It estimates that the refunds will be about £3 million, whereas its total net expenditure on general services will be about £18·5 million. That is a pretty fair proportion of the total. It masks the situation for the individual connected ratepayer. Perhaps I may correct the figures which were given by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). It is true that the increase will be 35·5 per cent.—more, on average, than last year—but 3·1 per cent. of that increase is due to rising costs, and the rest directly or indirectly to the result of the Daymond ruling. That is still extremely high, however, and the burden will fall very heavily on a number of people whose wages generally are not as high as those paid in the rest of the country.
  I am not impressed by the Government's argument that they cannot afford the additional expenditure. At the very least they might have made a contribution and said that they could not do more because of public expenditure requirements. But it comes oddly from a Government who have already vastly extended public expenditure unnecessarily and harmfully on a number of projects—such as the nationalisation of oil and the Community Land Act—which should never have been carried out. If they had not been there might have been more to spare for the unconnected ratepayers.
  The Plymouth solicitors to whom I have referred drew my attention to one point that has not been mentioned so far in the debate. It concerns the question of court fees and costs for those who resisted the attempt to make them pay the charges and who were taken to court. I gather that the Caradon council, in the area of the South Western Water Authority, was not prepared to see how the matter went, and it brought cases against individual ratepayers. The Liskeard magistrates' court was not prepared to adjourn the proceedings. Some people, fearing that they might have the bailiffs in to take their furniture, paid up, but found themselves facing court cases for arrears.

  693
  This situation should be dealt with by the Bill, but there is no mention of it. I trust that the Minister will give us an assurance that these costs will be covered by an amendment to the Bill in Committee. If they are not, my hon. Friends will certainly table amendments to take care of the matter. This may seem a small issue, but it is of great importance to those who were asked to pay up and who later found that they had no need to do so.
  The Minister said that the Bill was designed to deal only with refunds, and therefore did not extend to wider issues. In many ways I regret this, especially since the Government are expecting the water authorities to shoulder the bill themselves. In many cases the water authorities are not given much freedom of financial action—a point that was put forcibly at a meeting between officials of the South Western Water Authority and Conservative MPs and, I believe, MPs of other parties in the House recently. They explained that they could not set aside more than 2 per cent. of their revenues for a capital reserve—rather like the prudent housewife who prefers to save rather than incur hire-purchase debt.
  I understand that there are restrictions, either through the Water Act or Treasury directives, which in many instances compel the authorities to borrow longterm when they prefer to borrow short-term. They do not have the freedom of manoeuvre which they would otherwise enjoy, and they have asked that they should have the same freedom of action as do local authorities. It seems ironic that while we are expecting them to pay for the Government's error, the Government are stepping in and limiting the freedom of their financial manoeuvring.
  The South Western Water Authority is not the most popular of public bodies. I do not know what is the standing of water authorities in other areas, but I think that my local water authority can be said to be the "top of the unpops". In some cases this is unfair, and in this instance I believe that the authority is more sinned against than sinning. I hope that the Minister will indicate that the Government will look to the financial powers of water authorities, at least in their consultative document, if not in the Bill.
  6.59 p.m.
  Mr. Tony Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) for agreeing that I should have a moment or two of his time, and I shall try to be brief. I also declare an interest in that I am non-connected sewerage ratepayer, and, therefore, that I stand to gain financially by the passage of the Bill.
  I intend to disturb the general bonhomie which seems to surround the Bill, in spite of reservations, from both sides of the House. I have listened to virtually every word of the debate, and I am far from satisfied that we should not adopt a far more aggressive line towards some of the points which have emerged about the way the burden will be distributed among those who will have to foot the bill.
  I welcome the Bill's basic purpose. I supported very strongly the view that it was contrary to natural justice that people who had no sewerage should have to pay sewerage charges. I am very glad that the House of Lords reached its decision.
  The technique proposed in the Bill for remedying the situation is probably right. There should be no general charge levied on unconnected ratepayers, and charges on them should fall in respect of specific services, such as the emptying of cesspits. There might be a case for doing it the other way round and making the charge and then deducting specific charges for emptying. However, I suspect from experience in my own area, where some septic tank and cesspool systems need virtually no maintenance and others require considerable maintenance, that such a scheme would continue to leave a sense of injustice.
  I have two substantial reservations about the Bill. The first is whether we have got the balance anything like right. Certainly the previous situation was wrong. I made that clear to my constituents last year, but I also made clear my view that the compromise of a 50 per cent. charge was probably about right. Although my home is not connected to the sewerage system, I enjoy the advantages of the drainage system in the surrounding towns where I shop and on the roads where I drive. It would be quite unfair if I made no contribution to that system and to the interest charges and

  695
  cost of any extension of the system. It would be unfair if that fell only on connected ratepayers.
  If this Bill means that virtually no charge will fall on unconnected ratepayers, the balance is wrong. I hope the Minister can say more about this in winding-up.
  My anxieties about financing increased as I listened to the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) I do not think it is fair that the cost of remedying this mistake should fall, over a short period, on unconnected sewerage ratepayers. It will cause great injustice. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) asked whether the Liberal spokesman though there should be an increase in taxation in this situation. I have to say that I believe that is how the matter should have been dealt with. I do not like saying that, but it would have been fairer than what is proposed in the Bill. There is no merit in curing one clear injustice by creating another in the burden these proposals will impose on connected ratepayers.
  The force of that argument is strengthened if, as I understand, a substantial part of this £60 million is going to big firms and public sector industries. It will be quite intolerable if my constituents and those of other hon. Members, many of whom are not at all well off, are to be expected to pay a swingeing increase in sewerage charges in order to provide rebates to the electricity boards and Government bodies such as the Royal dockyards. If that is the situation I shall have to think very carefully about whether I can support the Bill., I hope the Minister will tell us how much money is going to large industrial concerns, and especially to the nationalised industries and other parts of the public sector.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Arthur Jones.
  Mr. Keith Stainton: Do I not count, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) counts very much. Is the Opposition spokesman giving way?
  Mr. Arthur Jones indicated assent.
  Mr. Speaker: In that case, I call Mr. Keith Stainton.
  Mr. Stainton: I have been here for some time, and I got to my feet before the Opposition spokesman—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the point. The hon. Member must not try that with me. The winding-up speeches were due to begin five minutes ago. The Opposition Front Bench spokesman was kind enough to give way to allow the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge a few minutes of his time. I know that, as an experienced hon. Member, he will co-operate.
  Mr. Stainton: I shall certainly cooperate, Mr. Speaker, but with the reservation, made in all respect and regard, that I stand here as the equal of any other hon. Member, wherever he may sit. I am told by various persons that this is a non-party matter. It is certainly a matter of aggrieved rural residents. Many of my constituents feel that this has been a complete muck-up, right from the start—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. He knows that it is a long-established custom of the House in these circumstances that he should take only one minute. He would then be playing the game with everyone.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. Keith Stainton: Having prefaced by remarks with those cautionary words and reprimands, I have two points of great substance to raise.
  The first is that one can assume that industrial users of water have, in greater or lesser degree—and, I imagine, almost totally—recouped their payments through their own activities. I would not like to think they are going to benefit in any degree from the mechanisms of this Bill.
  The second point concerns the financing of water authorities. I hope that in Committee, Back Benchers will ensure that the opportunity is seized to look afresh at the financing of these authorities, at the debts they have inherited—especially the Anglian Water Authority—the origins and definitions of those debts and the financing that is caused to be undertaken long term, via the Public Works Loan Board, which has gravely constricted the financial manœuvrability of these large and important authorities.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: This debate has been a somewhat rare occasion. Hon. Members on the Government Benches and my hon. and right hon. Friends are joined in a feeling of non-fulfilment in regard to the Water Act, its original intention and the defective drafting which has given rise to the under standable and deep sense of injustice that we have seen reflected in the debate. There are defects which must be put right, and the House is seeking ways of doing it as equitably as possible. Maybe we are using a rather blunt instrument in trying to solve these problems and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) said, this may lead us into other problems, but I am sure that it was the original intention that a general service charge should be payable in respect of all properties, whether connected or not. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) made this clear with the extracts that he read from the Second Reading and Committee debates on the Water Act.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) will not feel that I am being a little harsh if I say that he was making his judgment with the benefit of hindsight. Many of us recognised that it was inequitable that people whose properties were not connected to a sewerage system should pay the full charge. We had an Order last year which reduced the general service charge for those properties to 50 per cent. That was an endeavour to meet what was recognised to be an inequitable situation. However, the Order needs validation and I am not sure whether the Bill adequately covers that point.
  The Daymond case revealed the inadequacies of the draftsman. It is a narrow decision, which has been described as wobbly, but nevertheless I am glad that is binds the Government. I am not sure that it would be wise for the general body of taxpayers to be required to meet the bill. It is said that the Government should find the money, but the Government can find money only at the expense of the taxpayer. There has been considerable advocacy in that regard, but it is against the basic philosophy behind the Water Act, which is that the consumer should pay for the services he receives. For the Government to meet the £60 million at
  698
  the taxpayers' expense would mean a subsidy to the consumer. I am sure that I speak for most hon. Members in saying that we should not get involved in subsidies for services under the Water Act.
  In coming to that reduction of 50 per cent. of the general service charge, it is recognised that the cost of meeting drainage facilities in highways and open spaces amounts to about 30 per cent. of the general service charge. I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree said. If we take into account the common benefit element of 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. and add to that the highway drainage charge of 30 per cent. we reach 32 per cent. or 33 per cent. against the charge of 50 per cent. levied under the 1975 Order.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Cordle) advocated that the refund should be made at the taxpayers' expense. On reflection, I think that he will not regard that as the right decision, having regard to public expenditure and the purpose behind the Water Act.
  The Minister said that the water industry is now a nationalised industry. On that I am in conflict with him. It is a public utility, regionally autonomous, under 10 regional water authorities. It is in no way analogous to a nationalised industry. There is a large content of the private water companies in the service. The Minister may be trail blazing. He promised us a discussion document in a few weeks' time and that may be a slight lifting aside of the curtain.
  Grave concern for the level of water charges has been expressed in every speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) dealt with the position in the area of the Anglian Water Authority, in which my constituency lies. He mentioned a 31 per cent. increase in the general service charge, which arises from the Daymond decision and increases the charge for 1976–77 to 51 per cent. instead of 20 per cent.
  I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, who dealt at length with the emptying of cesspools, that that matter should have been dealt with in the original Bill. There is great variation in the level of charges.

  699
  The Minister will probably be considering that in his paper. For example, in my constituency, the district of South Northants charges £9·50 per load or part of a load consisting of not more than 1,000 gallons, but the Daventry district, which is also within my constituency, makes a standard charge of £20 for each emptying. It is a hardship that under the original Bill people were expected to meet the charges of cesspool emptying beyond the general service charge.
  Health and social security are essentially dependent upon a proper water and sewerage service. What hope would the Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security have unless the regional water authorities were effectively carrying out their duties? I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State here. I am sure that he will deal with these points of detail.
  Mr. Denis Howell: My hon. Friend is now in the Welsh Office.
  Mr. Jones: I recently chaired a Committee in which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) was performing his duties for the Department of Health and Social Security. I ask his apologies. He has wide experience of Welsh affairs as the hon. Member for Rhondda.
  The problems of repayment, identification and the non-connected have already been mentioned, as have the questions of persons who have moved, the deceased, and companies in liquidation. Surely there is some limit to the scope of the exercise. Will there be a continuing liability on water authorities for an indefinite period? All the repayments could not possibly be made in the first year. Is it suggested that there should be a terminal date beyond which no more repayments will be made? Will the regional water authorities rely on the six-year limit under the Statute of Limitations?
  The cost of recovery will be a serious matter. What about the refund arrangements? Will they be devised in such a way as to avoid problems in the payment of rates by instalment? That is an added complication that will have to be dealt with.
  The common benefit element is only 2 per cent. or 3 per cent., and it covers pollution, recreation, conservation,
  700
  amenity, fishing and navigation. There is a need to secure rising standards in our rivers and watercourses. Will the common benefit element be collected by the regional water authorities or will it be levied by the local authorities as part of the rate payment? The former is preferable. It is simpler, it moves towards direct charging—which is a likely decision by the regional water authorities—and it is in no way related to the rate demand.
  We are awaiting the departmental review, which the Minister of State promised within the next few weeks. That will deal with the difficulties of regional and national equalisation. We hope to make progress on the method of charging on the basis of water used or effluent discharged, and the issue of cesspool clearing.
  It is generally recognised that the Water Act 1973 provides a sound basis for the whole hydrological cycle, and I pay tribute to those who originally conceived and implemented it and are now operating it. The Act is rightly recognised as providing a sound basis for water resources policy, for the adequate provision of sewerage and sewage disposal, and for raising standards in our rivers and estuarial waters. It has proper regard to land drainage and flood protection. The new structure co-ordinates water recreation and amenity, including fishing, and the regional water authorities, with the guidance of the Water Space Amenity Commission, are actively pursuing these ends.
  Clearly, there is a need to make progress, ease the administrative problems, and provide adequate time for the heavy work load that will be associated with the provisions of the Bill. I hope that the Bill will receive a fair wind.
  7.20 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): Despite the fact that I have little time, I made a promise to my constituents that provided I am in order—and I trust you will so rule, Mr. Speaker—as the hon. Member for Rhondda, your home town, I would convey to you the first time I spoke from this Box the best wishes of all the people of Rhondda on your new office.
  In the main the House has accepted that the Bill is necessary. I do not believe

  701
  that everyone welcomes the Bill, because most of us wish that the situation which caused it to be present had not arisen. The attitude of most hon. Members is that the Bill is inevitable following the High Court ruling in the Daymond case. Time will not allow me to answer many of the questions which hon. Members raised or comments on the general aspects of water. Therefore, I shall confine my remarks specifically to the contents of the Bill in the name of haste, speed, and all the rest.
  There is little dissent from the main purpose of the Bill, which is that people should receive refunds of any illegal charges which they paid during the years 1974–75 and 1975–76. It is right to say that those charges were not imposed by any malevolent act of any wicked water authorities, but were charges imposed by responsible authorities which believed that they were acting legally and in accordance with the wishes of this House. Although it is tempting, I shall resist the temptation to say that it is the fault of and blame Opopsition Members. All those who were Members of the House at the time the Act became law bear some responsibility for failing to see that what we thought we were passing was not, in fact, what we wanted.
  I am glad that the hon. Members for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and Daventry (Mr. Jones), in accepting the Bill in general terms, reject any idea of retrospective legislation and any increase in public expenditure. By and large they believe that the Bill is on the right lines. The hon. Member for Ashford, together with other hon. Members, mentioned the phasing of increases. That was certainly considered, and the Bill will allow it. However, water authorities do not want to do this because it will increase total costs. If we agree that water authorities are responsible authorities, it follows that they must make a judgment in this case. The important point is that if the costs are spread over two or more years, the total cost will be much higher because it will result in deficits and interest charges to cover them. The water industry has paid its way so far, and it would not be wise to encourage it to get into a deficit situation.
  The hon. Member for Ashford raised many technical points, and I assure him that we are thinking along similar lines
  702
  because not only Ministers but all involved in the Bill are striving to ensure that we get it right this time and are not caught in a subsequent Daymond case. We are examining the specific and detailed points which the hon. Gentleman raised, many of which are in hand at present. He referred to the effect on those who have moved homes, which is of some concern to the general public. In most cases refunds will go to the present occupiers. People will get back only what they paid, so if previous occupiers submit claims—and Government publicity will be given to this—they will get their refunds and present occupiers' next bills will be adjusted accordingly. It is the intention to ensure that as far as possible those who move will not suffer as a consequence.
  Concern was also expressed about local authorities. The refund schemes were discussed with local authority associations. They suggested that the refunds be made as credits against the 1976–77 rate demands, because that would involve the minimum administrative burden. Therefore, we have sought to devise a scheme which was acceptable to and easily administered by local authorities. I understand that hon. Members have expressed the view that there could be burdens on local authorities. We have consulted the associations and have adopted their views in this matter. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) was concerned that local authorities would have difficulty in deciding where these unconnected domestic properties are situated. We are advised that local authorities know where most of them are at present. Therefore, we do not consider that that is likely to present a difficulty.
  I turn to the question of making the relevant date 1st April. Clause 1(1) says:
  "On 1st April 1976 it shall become the duty of every water authority to refund—".
  That duty does not require to be instantaneously discharged, but we hope that there will not be any appreciable delay before these refunds are made for the sake of those receiving the refunds and for the sake of getting the whole matter cleared up.
  I say to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) that as a result of my recent travels in Wales I believe that many Welsh people who live inside the

  703
  boundaries of the Severn-Trent Water Authority will not be quite so enthusiastic about coming inside the boundaries of the Welsh National Development Authority. As a consequence of the Daniel Report, the consultative document will be published shortly and the hon. Member for Carmarthen will have the opportunity not only of judging, but of giving his own views about, the proposal contained in that document. The hon. Gentleman, in common with many other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, referred to the high costs involved. He did not take fully into account the increase in the domestic rate relief as it applies in Wales.
  In Wales that relief runs at approximately 30p in the pound. There was also a special rate relief paid in 1974–75 to domestic ratepayers whose water, sewerage or general rates would otherwise have been even higher than they are at present. There was some provision made to deal with the ever-increasing burden.
  Several hon. Members referred to rate rebates. There are no rate rebates for water service charges. The poorest members of our society are taken into account through supplementary benefits. The hon. Member for Plymouth Drake (Miss Fookes) referred to compensation. The Bill is about the refund of sewerage charges and not about compensation for other costs. Her suggestion would take us into deep water. It is somewhat difficult
  704
  to draw the line on this matter, but we shall examine the matters which the hon. Lady raised.
  I was asked about the costs of emptying cesspools. I am not an expert on the emptying of cesspools, but I am advised that I cannot give a figure for this because it varies considerably throughout the country. In some cases cesspools are emptied by the local authority, in some cases the water authority, and in other cases they are even emptied by private contractors. I have tried to give the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) a meaningful answer, but am unable to do so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) made a fairly substantial attack on the Severn-Trent Water Authority. It is not for me to defend that Authority, or any other. The Government have no powers to make directions to water authorities about the levels of their charges. What we have shown quite clearly is that we have tried to introduce—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. In accordance with the Business Motion passed earlier, I must now put the Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Snape.]
  Committee tomorrow.

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
7.30 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission documents R/3166/75 and R/3271/75 and, in respect of R/3166/75, of the Government's intention, taking account of the needs of producers and consumers and the importance of restraining public expenditure, to seek both satisfactory levels of agricultural support prices and further improvements in the operation of the common agricultural policy, especially in the milk and cereals sectors, and to maintain the provision for variable slaughter premiums in the EEC beef regime along the lines of the arrangements secured as part of the renegotiated terms of EEC membership.
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition. With that amendment the substance of the amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) can be discussed. Those amendments are, respectively, at end add
but regrets the continued existence of the Green Pound, which is a major impediment to fulfilling the expansion envisaged in the Government's own White Paper, 'Food from our own Resources'."
and at end add
"and urges Her Majesty's Government to oppose proposals for the compulsory use of skimmed milk powder in compound animal feedingstuffs".
Mr. Peart: The issues that we shall be considering in our debate this evening are many and complicated. We must all be grateful for the work done by the Scrutiny Committee in producing its clear and helpful Report. As one who has appeared several times in front of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and his colleagues on the Committee, I say to the right hon. Member that I have always found it a pleasure. I have often heard it said by some Ministers, of all persuasions, that sometimes it is a bore to go to certain Committees. However, I find it a worthwhile experience, because the Committee has been constructive, and my staff and civil servants who accompany me have always been received with great courtesy. It has been a successful operation. I am grateful for the work done by the committee.
706
The Report itself identifies the main aspects of the European Commission's proposals on Community agricultural support and prices for 1976–77. I shall try to deal with each of the sectors to which the Scrutiny Committee has drawn attention.
It is clear from the motion that the Government have tabled for our debate that more is at issue in the negotiations in Brussels than the level of support prices in 1976–77. The level of support prices is important enough. We are also concerned, however, to follow up our stocktaking discussions last year. We want to see further improvements in the operation of some of the more important commodity regimes in the Community.
I should like to deal with the Opposition amendment quickly, as it has been mentioned by Mr. Speaker. Naturally, the Government always attach importance to maintaining the competitiveness of United Kingdom agriculture. In the forthcoming negotiations I shall certainly be concerned to avoid arrangements that would undermine our industry's competitive and structural advantages. I have no difficulty in accepting the amendment.
I have set out on earlier occasions the Government's general approach to agricultural support in the Community. The common policy should provide effective support to efficient producers without imposing undue burdens on either consumers or taxpayers. For this reason we have always emphasised the need to fix support prices in a way that takes account both of the needs of efficient producers and of the market situation for individual commodities. We have to set prices that ensure as far as possible that there is no shortage for consumers. On the other hand, the accumulation of structural surpluses for which there is no effective demand is wasteful. I think that there is agreement, certainly in our industry and in the House. This is not in any way a matter that divides the two sides of the House, because there is agreement here.
For some products within the Community the imbalance between supply and demand could be so serious that changes in the support regimes are necessary as well as restraint in the level of support prices.
I now turn to the Commission's 1976–77 proposals. In these proposals the

707
Commission has made an effort to respond to the problems. I think that it was wrong to propose the phasing out of the beef premiums and I have stated in Brussels that I cannot agree to this. Indeed, I have reported back to the House on this matter and have declared my policy and my intention. Otherwise, however, the Commission does seem to me to have addressed itself to the major issues, particularly in its package of measures in the milk sector and in its approach on the intervention price for feed wheat. We have some reservations whether the Commission has always satisfactorily followed through the logic of its own analysis. Moreover, we need to examine closely whether many proposals would be cost-effective and practical.
I turn first to the proposed average level of increase in support prices, of 7·5 per cent. in terms of the unit of account. I was glad to note the Commission's efforts, in assessing the necessary level of support, to estimate the requirements of modernised farms. This was discussed in the stocktaking document. We have always stressed it. I declared it to be one of my aims in securing improvements, and I believe that the CAP is better for this.
The Commission's work to improve this aspect of its price proposals is to be encouraged. Because of other elements in the package, such as the proposal on skimmed milk powder intervention, effective support prices even in units of account may not rise by as much as 7·5 per cent.
We have also to recognise that the effective increase in support prices in most member States will be considerably less than 7·5 per cent. in terms of their national currencies, because of the proposed monetary changes. Indeed, only the United Kingdom, Denmark and the Irish Republic would have the full increase in their farmers' common support prices in national currencies. None the less, the increases proposed in Community prices seem to us to be on the high side and, in the forthcoming negotiations, we shall continue to look for restraint.
The Commission's monetary proposals are primarily of interest to other member States. The Scrutiny Committee rightly mentions that no change in the green pound is proposed, but I should remind the House that the Government have
708
made four changes in the green pound since October 1974. We made three changes last year. The sterling monetary compensatory amounts are now only 6·4 per cent. and have been steady at that level for some time.
Decisions on the green pound always involve a difficult balancing of different interests, because of the effect on food prices. We shall continue to keep the level of the green pound under review. We have shown that, when the need is there, we are ready to act.
I turn now to specific commodities. I start with beef. Last year, as part of renegotiation, we secured revision of the EEC beef regime to enable premiums to be used as an alternative to complete reliance on permanent intervention. The new arrangements have worked well this year. We have avoided the waste of excessive support buying. Consumers have benefited, and so have producers, who have had more assurance on the level of their returns.
The European Commission has now proposed to phase out premiums for the next marketing year. It foresees stronger prices and, in the forecast market situation, it does not think that premiums will be necessary. I have made clear that I do not accept this reasoning. Provision for premiums is necessary. If, contrary to what the Commission expects, market prices are inadequate, we do not want excessive intervention. We need to assure producers that their returns will be made up to satisfactory levels.
The Council in Brussels has no doubt where I stand. The House, also, can be confident that I want to see arrangements that do not rely solely on permanent intervention—support buying—and which provide for premium payments to producers if market prices are depressed.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that for all the reasons he has given he will not agree to the phasing out of the variable premiums system?
Mr. Peart: I have repeated my position. I do not know why my right hon. Friend should be anxious. I believe that I have the support of all hon. Members. I am glad to say that I have the support not only of the National Farmers'

709
Union but also of its European equivalent—COPA. I am supported by a strong body of opinion. I am grateful to have the support of my right hon. Friend and others. This is a matter for negotiation.
Mr. Neil Marten: If it is a matter for negotiation, what is the area of negotiation?
Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman questioned me on this issue in the Scrutiny Committee and he must accept what I said. I made clear what I want to secure, and I cannot go beyond that. I cannot be tied to every comma in the negotiations. I have given a forthright declaration. I am rather surprised that some hon. Members still want to fight some of the old battles of the past.
_Mr. Nigel Spearing: We want change.
Mr. Peart: I have said that I have achieved change in the CAP. In the renegotiation I achieved the variable premium system. Despite what the Commission has said, I intend to fight for that system. I believe that it has worked well for British farmers. I cannot go beyond that. I hope that hon. Members will realise that I am grateful for their support on that issue.
I turn now to the question of milk. The Community faces a serious problem of over-production of milk products, particularly skimmed milk powder. A combination of measures is necessary. I am naturally concerned that any proposals should not bear inequitably on producers here. Within the Community system there should be an expansion by our efficient producers, notwithstanding the need for restraint on Community support and for a better balance of supply and demand on the Community market as a whole.
The Commission has put forward a very complicated package. It has proposed a below-average increase on support prices and its implementation in two stages. There would be a 2 per cent. increase in the target price for milk in March and a 4·5 per cent. increase in September. Because of monetary changes, dairy farmers in most of the Six would get no effective increase at all until September. The two-stage approach is a
710
sensible recognition of the higher costs of winter production.
In September, the intervention arrangements for skimmed milk powder would also change. Fixed-price intervention would stop. Instead there would be a tendering procedure, and support buying prices would be liable to vary within a range according to available supplies. This is a move to more flexible intervention, in line with our stocktaking objectives. I know that producers have expressed some concern. Some action, however, to discourage production for intervention is essential.
I shall certainly be concerned to ensure that the Council's decisions on support prices and the intervention mechanisms adequately reflect the serious imbalance in this sector. The restoration of a balance in the market is the best longer-term assurance that our own milk producers can have.
The Commission has also proposed a scheme to encourage producers to stop sales of milk. The so-called non-delivery premiums would apply to farmers producing as much as 120,000 litres of milk. Such farmers might have up to 30 cows. I think that the scheme, if adopted, needs to concentrate on smaller producers. As proposed, its coverage seems too wide. Moreover, there are many administrative problems which must be solved. We are still examining in Brussels whether the scheme would be cost-effective or practical.
The Commission has also made proposals intended to reduce the accumulated stock of skimmed milk powder and to stimulate consumption in various ways. An important and controversial feature is its plan for the incorporation of skimmed milk powder in animal feed for a limited period.
Mr. John Watkinson: On the question of milk production, which is of some concern, how does my right hon. Friend marry up the undertaking given in the White Paper about the expansion of milk production and the possibility of adopting proposals from the Commission that we should cut back milk production? How does my right hon. Friend think that the Commission's proposals will affect our milk industry?
Mr. Peart: I know that my hon. Friend takes a deep interest in these matters. He will know that I have been questioned on this specific matter over and over again. I see no inconsistency in a policy that enables our efficient industry to produce more milk and to increase production even though milk products on the Continent have accumulated. We have not been responsible for that accumulation. There is no contradiction, and that is known to the Community.
Although there is a need to stimulate our own production, there is some controversy about the incorporation of skimmed milk in animal feed. The scheme will be for a limited period. It is designed to dispose of about 600,000 tons of powder. Livestock producers whose feed costs will be increased are understandably concerned, as are the feed manufacturers themselves. There are problems of principle and practice, including the consequences for overseas suppliers.
The Commission is considering some alternative mechanisms. I must emphasize, however, that the disposal of these stocks inevitably involves considerable cost. That is not just true for the Community; it applies to New Zealand, Australia and America. Many other countries throughout the world have a skimmed milk problem. It is not something peculiar to a wicked Community and a harmful CAP. The accumulation of skimmed milk stocks has occurred in many countries throughout the world.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an indication of the amount of money that is involved in this process?
Mr. Peart: Much depends on the market price at which producers are able to dispose of it. There is over 1 million tons of skimmed milk. That is a considerable amount. I can get the figure, but I do not think that I can give an accurate answer immediately. Outlets for the powder other than for animal feed are limited. The Commission has proposed raising to 200,000 tons the Community's disposal of skimmed milk powder for food aid. This is clearly to be welcomed. The basic issue in considering the Commission's proposals for the disposal of skimmed milk powder in animal feed is
712
whether there is a better method or a fairer way of distributing the costs. I shall be interested to hear what is said in the debate.
We are disappointed by the Commission's proposals for the butter subsidy.
Mr. Marten: When the right hon. Gentleman appeared before the Scrutiny Committee, and when we were discussing the extra 200,000 tons going to aid, he told the Committee that it had not been decided whether it was additional aid which had to be paid for on a supplementary budget estimate or whether the cost had to be taken from existing aid. Has the financing of the extra 200,000 tons been resolved?
Mr. Peart: No. This is a detail which still has to be worked out and finalised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not know why hon. Members are chortling. We are discussing basic proposals, many of which will be accepted or modified in negotiation.
I shall be in Brussels on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and possibly Thursday, of next week. I am not saying that we shall achieve a final result, because that may come in the next session, but these matters will be carefully scrutinised and discussed. Although I am talking about the Commission's proposals, I do not assume that those proposals will remain as they are now. There may be modifications. However, we shall discuss costs including the cost of the food aid proposal. I shall report back to the House when we reach a final decision.
As I have said, we were disappointed at the butter subsidy proposal. The net effect of the proposal would be to reduce the contribution from Community funds to our subsidy. I have pointed out in Brussels that we face serious public expenditure constraints and that any cut in our butter subsidy could adversely affect the outlet for butter here. This would be to the disadvantage of our Community suppliers. I hope that the Commission's proposals can be reconsidered.
The Scrutiny Committee has also drawn attention to cereals. The Commission has tried to establish a new pattern of support prices. Its detailed proposals are closely interrelated. The intention is to remove the need for a denaturing subsidy and to reduce the

713
incentive to put feed grains into intervention. I welcome the basic principle that feed grains should be supported at feed level. It seems to me sensible to reduce the basic wheat intervention price with a view to aligning this more closely with the maize and barley intervention prices. Too high a level of wheat support, when applied to high-yielding feed wheat, imposes unnecessary costs on livestock producers and, through them, consumers.
I question, however, the size of the Commission's proposed increase in the target prices for cereals. These target prices affect the level of the Community's threshold or minimum import prices. The Commission has proposed increases of up to 9·5 per cent. In my view, the Community should not put up unnecessary barriers against imports.
I have also questioned the Commission's proposals on breadmaking wheat. We are not clear how the Community will be able to differentiate in practice between feed and breadmaking wheat. This is a very complicated and difficult area. I shall certainly be concerned to secure that if arrangements are introduced they will be fair and practicable and set at a sensible level.
I think that we have made some progress in our general objective of seeking improvements in the operation of the common agricultural policy for some of the commodity regimes in the Community. We shall pursue this vigorously in the present negotiations on support for 1976–77. It is equally an essential national objective to maximise our receipts from Community funds. We have been successful in achieving this recently. In 1975 our expected total receipts from the guarantee section of the Community's agricultural budget are £339 million.
By far the greater part of our receipts were Community payments which benefited our consumers—in particular, the Community payment of our import subsidies on food, the contribution to our beef premiums, the special import subsidy on sugar, the contribution to our butter subsidy, and Community expenditure on our social beef subsidy. In 1975 our receipts from Community expenditure on the common agricultural policy exceeded our contribution, leaving us as net beneficiaries.
Mr. Bryan Gould: Do the figures given by my right hon. Friend represent gross or net receipts? Do they take account of our contribution to the funds that produce those payments?
Mr. Peart: Of course they do, and I have said so on previous occasions.
I have drawn to the attention of the House some of those points on which we should like to see changes in the Commission's proposals on agricultural support. I shall press hard for these changes—in particular, on the beef premiums—in the negotiations later this month.
We should recognise also, however, that there are good features in the Commission's package. It would produce a saving of about £92 million on the Community's agricultural budget in 1976. After taking account of changes in receipts, the United Kingdom's net contribution in 1976 would be about £25 million lower than it otherwise would have been. There is the prospect of useful changes which would restrain the level of support on feed wheat and skimmed milk powder.
The proposals are estimated to result in an increase of only 1 per cent. in the food price index here by the end of 1976.
Our efforts to maintain—or, if necessary, to restore—the balance in the markets for individual commodities must continue. Tackling the imbalance in the dairy sector is particularly important. Overall, the common agricultural policy will develop and evolve in response to circumstances from year to year. I shall certainly take careful note of the views that hon. Members may express in this debate. I shall bear them in mind in the forthcoming negotiations in the Council of Ministers.
I hope that the Council will be able to reach decisions at the meeting on 23rd and 24th February and I shall of course report them to the House at the earliest opportunity.
7.58 p.m.
Mr. Francis Pym: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, at end to add:
'and urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the competitive and structural advantages of United Kingdom agriculture are maintained'.

715
I wish wholeheartedly to endorse the thanks conveyed by the Minister of Agriculture to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and his Committee for the way in which they have discharged the onerous responsibility placed upon them by the House. The fact that they have given the House an immensely helpful report, which so assists hon. Members in seeking to deal with European legislation, is to their lasting credit.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for saying that he is prepared to accept the Conservative amendment. I am sure that it expresses the correct spirit, and it is a relief to the House to know that he will approach the remaining stages of the negotiations on the basis of the words we propose to add to the Government's motion.
I am certain that it is right that we should have this debate at this stage before negotiations have been concluded so that the Minister can take heed of the views of the House. We agree that the right hon. Gentleman and all successive Governments will continuously be involved in improving the common agricultural policy. There may have been a little disappointment in the sense that a number of questions raised with the Minister in the Select Committee were not accurately clarified. I wish now to repeat some of those points. The documents cover a very wide field. Naturally, I cannot possibly deal with all of them, but I want to make some general observations and to raise some questions on particular aspects of the Commission's proposals. We know that the negotiations are in progress now, and it is hard to exaggerate their importance.
Far from wishing in any way to damage the right hon. Gentleman in the negotiations, I want positively to put more fire and resolution into him to strengthen his hand. I wish it were stronger already. Indeed, I wish the Government of which he is a member had taken a different attitude to the European Community all along, but that is past history. We all, whatever our views, want him to conclude the best possible package for our producers and our consumers alike, for they share a joint interest, and it is a matter of balance. I have never liked the way in which the responsibility was
716
divided between the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, but that is how the Government decided to do it.
The review is extremely important, because 1974 and 1975 were painful years for agriculture, for horticulture and for fishing. The decline in farm incomes has been marked—perhaps 30 per cent. in 1974–75, and probably not up in 1975–76. It could even be down. There has been too little investment, and there is too little potential for increased income, but, hopefully, 1976 will see a recovery. That recovery must be the start of a long-term process of regeneration in the industry.
The review and these negotiations provide the opportunity for the Government to make their own White Paper a reality. I say that despite what the Minister said about the possibility of surpluses of certain commodities in the Community. The White Paper last year was a non-event, and at this review the Minister has to turn that non-event of 1975 into a gold medal for 1976. Unless he does, there will be no restoration of long-term confidence. Happily, the immediate situation in farming is not as bad as had been predicted, because we have had a very mild winter once again.
Nevertheless, there is a lack of long-term confidence, nor, unless the Minister gets a satisfactory review, can we look to that expansion which the Government themselves want, no less than the Opposition. The publication of the White Paper, without action at the same time to give it effect, has made the situation worse today, because that White Paper raised expectations which have not so far been realised. I think it will cost the Minister more now to live up to those expectations than if he had taken action earlier.
There are two matters of overriding importance at this juncture—a reduction in taxation, and fair prices for food that is economically produced. These two go inseparably together, and are fundamental to any sound policy for agriculture. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is involved—and, indeed, the Labour Party—in its present excessive mood of anti-capitalism. Incidentally, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take

717
the first opportunity to assert in public in forthright terms his opposition in principle to any suggestion of nationalisation of the land.
The spirit and basis of the European Community is that of fair competition in trade. Therefore a broad equality of taxation between member States is a basic requirement. The levels of taxation are not now equal, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have regard to this fundamental imbalance.
This leads me to the first specific matter in these documents that I want to raise—
Mr. Norman Buchan: Is the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should cancel the various fiscal and taxation measures that we have regarded as necessary for the well-being of the people of this country, in order to harmonise with the Common Market?
Mr. Pym: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the present level of taxation is for the benefit and welfare of the people of this country he really has a very funny view of how things stand. I do not think that anybody else here takes that view.
Mr. Buchan: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question. I, too, should like to change the taxation system, although the way I should like to do it would not be welcome to Conservative Members. My point is that the decisions made by the Government of this country in their taxation and fiscal policy are designed, rightly or wrongly, to serve the interests of the people of this country. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that these decisions should be rejected in the interests of harmonisation?
Mr. Pym: I do not mind on what basis it is done, but taxation in this country overall, taking all taxes together, is higher than in any other member State. That is unreasonable, unfair and absurd. Although it is not particularly related to agriculture, it affects agriculture, just as it affects everybody else, and it is completely fundamental to the basis of fair competition. Unless taxation is reduced all round, and the threat of further taxation removed altogether, there will not be very much left of the United Kingdom.
718
Turning to the monetary measures, the Minister referred to the green pound, and we acknowledge that he has made a number of adjustments. We have thought that they were not always enough, or always at the right time. The Minister says now that he will keep the matter under review. I hope that when he adjusts it next time it will not be too late. Even though he has made many adjustments, it might have been better if he had made bigger adjustments less often, but in any case the feeling of unfairness remains. The feeling of resentment in the industry still exists.
British farmers, thanks to their own hard work and to the support of successive Governments, have achieved a competitive and a structural advantage that is a really valuable asset to the industry. We know what efficient producers they are, and how high is their productivity. I have no doubt that their structural advantage is one reason why they consistently, from the early 1960s onwards, supported the proposition that the United Kingdom should join the European Community, but many of our farmers are getting a feeling now that, through no fault of their own, they are being denied some of those advantages. They had no cause or reason whatever to expect this in advance.
I know that the compensatory amounts are designed to reduce and compensate for currency differences. Nevertheless, misalignments persist. Misalignments distort trade, and not only for producers. Butter is an example. Germany has been able to become a big exporter of butter, and will very likely supply as much of our own market this year as we do ourselves, if not more.
Bacon and ham are other examples. Our producers are under-cut, due to misalignment, by 3p or 4p a pound in the case of bacon, and 7p or 8p a pound in the case of ham. One of the consequences of this is that redundancies are being caused in the manufactured meat products trade. Incidentally, the profits of these traders are being squeezed in some cases virtually to zero.
There is no doubt that the green pound is distorting competition to our disadvantage, and this poses a real threat to the increased production of home-grown food.

719
As sterling has declined against other currencies, our industries have benefited with their exports—except for agriculture, which has special constraints upon it. There are growing opportunities in Europe, as well as elsewhere, and it is in the national as well as the agricultural interest to expand exports. I am glad that the Government are taking action in this connection. The export drive has my support, but the green pound is relevant to it.
This brings me to the proposed price increases. I have already mentioned the decline in farm incomes over the last two years, some of it certainly due to the weather, but the inflation of costs certainly cannot be laughed away. That inflation has been severe and merciless. It has affected wages, machinery, fertilisers, and very nearly everything else. Those increases have not been recovered through prices, which have failed to keep pace. Rising costs just cannot be ignored.
Hon. Members will have seen a month or so ago an article by Lord Rothschild on wheat. He estimated that the cost of growing an acre of wheat is £102, and that on average yield it requires £76 per ton to show a profit. Let us look at the figures contained in these documents about the relative increases in costs in the member States of the European Community. In the United Kingdom last year the figure was up by 13·2 per cent. The next highest was France, with 10·5 per cent. The next two, Germany and Belgium, were only just half the increase in United Kingdom costs and, in the case of Denmark and the Netherlands, they were a third.
That cannot be laughed off. It is all very well for the Consumers Association to speak of the rising problems of food prices, which are very real, but they cannot be explained away from the point of view of the farmers getting too much. Although the great campaign launched by the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection may be marginally helpful it is a great mistake to expect too much from it in the light of escalating costs. Unless the end prices are realistic we cannot get expansion, and the supply of food itself could be put at risk.
I do not think that the 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. proposed increase will be
720
enough to recoup the higher costs. The Minister said that he hoped for a lesser figure, and I notice that a number of speakers in the European Parliament thought that 9·5 per cent. was a more realistic figure. I think that something in that direction is more appropriate. We can look, too, at consumer prices and the increases there in relation to our neighbours and friends in Europe. In 1974 the increase over 1973 was 16·1 per cent., which was broadly at the average level of other countries in the Community—slightly higher, but somewhere near the average. In 1975, over 1974, we are far and away the highest with an increase of 26·6 per cent.
Mr. Buchan: We did tell the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman likes to think that this is because we have joined the Community. It is not. It is due entirely to the economic policy of this Government. It is due entirely to their laxness on the economic front in 1974 for political reasons. It has nothing to do with our joining the Community.
Mr. Jay: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is nonsense. One of the reasons for the rise in food prices here was the inevitable increases that we had to make in the prices of butter and cheese, for instance, as a result of the Treaty of Accession.
Mr. Pym: I am afraid that I do not accept that argument. Let me give the House the figures. The increase in consumer prices in the United Kingdom last year was 26·6 per cent. The next highest was 18 per cent., which was in Ireland. The next was in Italy, with an increase of 13 per cent. In all the other countries it was less. The highest of all was in the United Kingdom, and that is the end product of galloping inflation. The producers of our food were not responsible for that. They have suffered as much as any; we know that their incomes have fallen.
Mr. Buchan: Taking the amount of saving on costs due to the ACAs and MCAs, during the year 1973–74 it was of the order of £1,200 million on food prices, which means that in two years we have had to put an additional £1,200 million on food costs.
Mr. Pym: I am sorry, but I do not accept that. Nor could it conceivably account for the incredible differences in 1975 in consumer price increases.
I want now to say a word about cereals, although I shall be brief on this because, broadly, I agree with the Minister. The proposal to align cereal prices more realistically with their feed value is logical and capable of development, but the obvious problem with the two-tier system is how to identify the bread-making and feed qualities of wheat. Unless this question can be answered I do not see how the scheme can work. This is of especial importance in the United Kingdom where our grain is stored on farms, where sales take place throughout the year and where every bin will have to be correctly identified. The Minister said that they must find a fair system. They must find an accurate system, which can be accepted and thought completely fair by every farmer in the country, and a method which is reasonably simple to operate. Experiments are being done on this, but is not there a case for postponing the introduction of such a scheme? I should have thought that that could be achieved, because obviously more work needs doing on it.
The other point on cereals is that there has been circulated to right hon. and hon. Members a short paper from the National Farmers' Union indicating that the United Kingdom guaranteed prices for wheat, barley and oats are due to end this summer. If that happened it would mean that the floor of the market would be provided by intervention prices. I am sure that the Minister will be able to give the House an assurance that if the United Kingdom guarantees are phased out or abolished there will be no question but that the Government will operate the intervention system, and no question of a unilateral abrogation of the system will be considered. I am sure that that is an undertaking which is required.
Next, I come to milk. Again I agree with the Minister that the seasonal target price is a sensible move. It is no new idea to dairy producers in the United Kingdom. What the Commission proposes this time is to decide the winter price at the beginning of the milk year
722
and not, as was tried before, making the winter price subject to variations in the light of subsequent events or production levels in the summer. That is very necessary.
There is concern amongst dairy producers at the possibility of abolishing the intervention price for skimmed milk, and I know that the Minister is anxious about it. There are many questions to be asked about its proposed replacement by something rejoicing in the extraordinary name "orientation price" and a tender procedure. It is not clear how it will work. It is not clear whether there is any commitment on anyone's part to accept any tender, and it appears to us at the moment to be a vague and uncertain arrangement with the possibility of considerable fluctuations and the consequential undermining of confidence. I hope that we shall hear more about that before the end of the debate.
Then, I deal with the compulsory addition of 2 per cent. skimmed milk powder in animal feed. This is a new surplus disposal device with a number of unattractive features. There is no denying that surpluses are a headache. However, they are not so bad as shortages. The SMP surplus is not of our making. We do not have a surplus. If, therefore, this scheme, or anything like it, were to come into operation, we should have to import it, which does not seem a good idea from the balance of payments point of view or any other.
Then there is the question of cost. The proposal would put up the price of feeding stuffs by 5 per cent. or 6 per cent., or £450 a ton, which would have repercussions all down the line and bear hard on pig and poultry producers. Neither of those sectors has had anything to do with the surplus of milk.
Is it possible for the European Community to bear the cost of this? If so, the addition of skimmed milk powder would not alter the price of feeding stuff per ton, but it would dispose of the surplus and not create many difficulties. It would have another advantage in making the proposal equitable as between those farmers who mix their own feed and those who purchase their feed.
On the non-marketing premium, it is clear that the better structure of the United Kingdom dairy industry makes

723
the United Kingdom less susceptible to this scheme than our continental neighbours. The surplus of production is across the Channel where there are many more small producers. We are short of milk, despite the fact that we are more efficient producers. There is a strong case—and the Minister supported it tonight—for increasing the United Kingdom's milk output, but I do not think that it can all be done by the medium-size or large herds. The small producer has a very important part to play. In relation to the size of his business and in relation to his land, often, in his own way, he is just as efficient and economical as the larger producers. For this reason I have reservations about a scheme such as this which applies to the land. I know it is a voluntary scheme, but we ought to be very careful before we close any options.
I come next to beef. We have consistently supported the scheme on these lines during transition. I myself put forward in 1974 a scheme not exactly the same but similar in principle and pressed it last winter; and I still support, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends, the right hon. Gentleman in his fight to continue it. His determination to retain this scheme must not lead him rashly and unnecessarily to pay, or to have to pay, an excessive price. He has some strong bargaining counters. We want to achieve a package that is satisfactory all round, not one that achieves a beef premium at the expense of everything else. We must always bear in mind as well the relative position of our meat.
That brings me back to the question of structure. I believe we would like to hear more by way of explanation and justification of such large transfers of funds from the guidance sector to the guarantee sector. We are all agreed in this House about the fundamental importance of agricultural structure, and however tempting it may be to raid this pool, one questions its wisdom. It seems to me to be a case of short-term considerations versus long-term considerations, and both have to be right. It would be far better, both in the long and the short term, to reduce taxation, to restore incentives, to stop threatening the very capital of the agricultural industry by the threat of a wealth tax, than to leave tax at its present level
724
and try to shore up the situation by short-term palliatives.
The challenge to the right hon. Gentleman, which is in some respects a self-inflicted one, is to restore buoyancy and enthusiasm to the industry of food production. No one supposes that his task will be easy, but our land, worked hard as it is by farmers, growers and farm workers, is one of our greatest national assets. It will still be there long after the North Sea has yielded up all its oil. It is capable of producing more. Those who work on the land are eager to see that it does. A heavy responsibility rests on the right hon. Gentleman. He is to come back in a few weeks to report to the House what he has achieved. The outcome and the results will affect tens of thousands throughout the United Kingdom who produce our food, and every single family as consumers whose interest in supply is certainly no less than in price. He is in the hot seat at the moment and, therefore, we have to rely on him to bring back a fair deal.
8.23 p.m.
Mr. Bryan Gould: The common agricultural policy is so inefficient and wasteful that one searches in vain for any justification for it. There is, however, one fundamental, underlying fact which offers not justification, but perhaps at least explanation. That simple fact is that food prices in general are for the time being, and will be for the foreseeable future, higher within the Community, with its relatively inefficient agriculture, than they are in the world outside, particularly in the cheapest, most efficient food-producing areas. That simple fact was well recognised by those who formulated the CAP. If it was not, one would wonder for what other reason they inflicted upon us all the paraphernalia of the CAP with its import duties, levies, controls, subventions—
Mr. Geraint Howells rose—
Mr. Gould: —I shall be glad to give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished my list—surpluses, possibilities for fraud, all these things that have been inflicted upon us for the simple reason that European farmers, and particularly French farmers, need protection against cheaper food imports from outside the Community.
Mr. Geraint Howells: If I correctly understood the hon. Gentleman, he spoke of cheap food-producing areas in other parts of the world. I wonder whether he could say where those are.
Mr. Gould: I would be very glad to give the hon. Gentleman a formidable list but I will simply point out that in New Zealand one can obtain butter, according to the very documents we are now debating, at prices two or three times lower than Community prices, and similarly with beef and lamb. One could go on. The point that I am making is not denied but is, indeed, confirmed by the documents we are debating. I hope this much at least will be common ground in this debate. If this is a fact, it was to some extent obscured, partly fortuitously and partly deliberately, in the period leading up to the referendum but I hope that we can accept, whatever may be the merits or demerits of the CAP, that it is a simple fact that in general terms food is now and will be cheaper outside the Community than within it.
It is in this context that we must look at this particular exercise in price review. The Commission proposes a general average increase of 7·5 per cent. Inevitably, that does not satisfy the farmers; but the consumer interests have rightly pointed out that that level of increase, which they have condemned, has quite unnecessarily put up food prices. I am a political realist. We have heard all too clearly from my right hon. Friend the Minister tonight how limited is the room for negotiation and manœuvre when he goes to Brussels, so I do not expect him to be able to press for a figure lower than 7·5 per cent., however much his colleagues in the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection might wish he could; and I am delighted to see a Minister from that Department on the Front Bench in this debate.
I hope, however, that when my right hon. Friend goes to Brussels, if he is at all tempted, beyond 7·5 per cent., to compromise in some way at an even higher figure, he will bear in mind that on this occasion at least the Commission is on his side and that our colleagues in the European Assembly have actually persuaded the whole Socialist Group in that Assembly to endorse 7·5 per cent. and to
726
resist any higher figure, and that that figure itself represents a compromise which stretches to the limits of acceptability the sacrifices which consumers are expected to make on the altar of the CAP.
We in this country have more to fear from the greater disparity between world and Community food prices than anybody else, because we are major importers of food and we have traditionally had very close trading relations with cheap food producers. Therefore, as this disparity widens, not only do we pay more for every individual item of food but the total effect on our food import budget is enormous. It is also worth bearing in mind that we are at this point only part way through a transitional phase which will make this disparity even more punishing and damaging than now appears; and no amount of mumbo-jumbo about securing supplies can possibly obscure the simple fact that for many staple items of the British diet we pay two or three times more than we need pay to our traditional suppliers who are only too willing to provide on a long-term basis.
Mr. John Davies: I take it that the hon. Gentleman would make as a complete exception to what he has said our experiences with our traditional sugar suppliers over the last 18 months.
Mr. Gould: The right hon. Gentleman takes the example of one commodity, but even in that, world prices are now lower than Community prices. One is hard put to find any commodity which is now more expensive outside the Community than within it.
Mr. Frank Hooley: Would my hon. Friend agree that it was precisely because we deliberately destroyed the CSA that we got into the absurd position in which my right hon. Friend had to pay £250 a ton, when the going price is now about £180?
Mr. Gould: I am grateful. It is, of course, true that if we are to say to our traditional long-term suppliers that we are no longer interested, we shall run into short-term difficulties.
Mr. Peart: But would my hon. Friend be fair on sugar? He is wrong here. The deal that we did on sugar was welcomed

727
by the ACP countries. There was no antagonism from that surce. They recognise that they now have a long-term agreement which is of great value to them.
Mr. Gould: My right hon. Friend is correct to say that our traditional suppliers, once we told them that we are committed to membership of the Community, have had to face the inevitable.
There is a further reason why the common agricultural policy is unsuited to this country, apart from the question of price. That is that one of its major objectives is a uniform agricultural industry. In many senses, in many structural details, our own agriculture is quite different from anything on the Continent. As a result, many of the measures taken in the Community interest to deal with Community structural problems—one thinks of wine, milk, glasshouses, beef, and so it goes on—are wildly inappropriate for British agriculture.
Nowhere does one see this more clearly expressed than in the dairy industry. I pass over the myriad problems which the agricultural policy is posing to producers and consumers alike of dairy products in this country, to say nothing of the difficulties caused to our traditional suppliers, particularly New Zealand, whose dairy farmers are at this moment receiving just over 50 per cent. of the price paid for their products by our consumers. I pass over all these problems and single out perhaps the most bizarre problem of all, which has attracted the attention of both Front Bench speakers.
That is the question of the enormous surplus of skimmed milk powder. My right hon. Friend correctly says that other dairy producing countries have precisely this problem, but no one will suggest that the scale of the problem—1 million tonnes of milk powder—is even remotely approached in other countries—
Mr. Peart: Of course it is.
Mr. Gould: Relatively, perhaps, but certainly not in absolute terms.
Mr. Peart: The skimmed milk stocks held by New Zealand, considering the size of that country and equating it with the whole of the Community, are evidence that my hon. Friend is not thinking realistically.
Mr. Gould: It may be useful in that case for my right hon. Friend to consult his New Zealand colleagues to see whether they have reached a more sensible solution than the one which we are now debating.
What is being suggested here is not only that we should give away 200,000 tonnes—there are varying views on that and some of us may regard it as a good way of dealing with the surplus—but that from the stock of 600,000 tonnes 2 per cent. skimmed milk powder be added to feed-stuffs in other sectors of agriculture so as to reduce that surplus. This is an extraordinary suggestion. Not only is it compulsory, which is objectionable in itself, but it must produce one or two results.
The first is that which was severely criticised by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). This skimmed milk powder will inevitably be more expensive than the sources of cheap protein which are normally used. That will mean that the poultry farmer will either be compelled to pay more for his feedstuffs from the Community itself, or the Community must subsidise it in some way. I think that the right hon. Gentleman suggested that that would be a painless solution, but in its own document the Commission suggests that this might require a subsidy of up to 450 million units of account.
Who will provide that money but the very consumer who is also losing out on other aspects of the CAP as it affects the dairy industry?
Mr. Marten: Is not the hon. Gentleman saying that in this effort to dispose of its surplus the Commission is passing on the entire cost of the surplus to the consumers?
Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman is right.
In our own case it is more remarkable than that, As has been said, we have had no part in producing this surplus. Our own dairy industry is rightly calling for expansionary measures. Such a policy is endorsed by my right hon. Friend in his own White Paper. So we are being asked to bear this burden for which we have no responsibility, when we are ourselves trying to expand dairy production. I know that my right hon.

729
Friend's freedom for manoeuvre is limited in Brussels, as we all foresaw, but I hope that he will resist on this issue to the bitter end.
Mr. Spearing: When my right hon. Friend the Minister opened the debate he implied that there was a new feature. My hon. Friend has implied that the subsidies would be a new and extra cost. But the document makes clear that 72 per cent. of the dried milk sold last year was sold at a reduced price as a result of substantial subsidies for the manufacture of animal feedstuffs. Are we now to pay even more?
Mr. Gould: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the further elaboration of the point I was making.
I shall make a brief mention of sheep meat, because the Commission has proposed a sheep meat regime and we wonder why. This country dominates in both consumption and production of sheep meat. It is mentioned in the second document—the survey of the CAP.
Mr.: There is no proposal.
Mr. Gould: There is a proposal, but it is referred to only obliquely. The proposal clearly stems from the fact that the French are concerned at the possibility of cheap imports of sheep meat threatening their domestic meat situation. The European Court of Justice recently decided that the controls which the French imposed on imports of Irish and British lamb were illegal and could not be continued. We need, therefore, look no further for the reason for this sudden interest in sheep meat and the sudden proposals for a sheep meat regime.
The price which the French propose to exact from us for allowing free access to their markets is that in addition to the duty already paid on lamb, which is currently running at 16 per cent. and is to rise to 20 per cent. next year there should be the possibility of imposing extraordinary controls if there are to use the rather quaint expression—disturbances in the market. Presumably what is meant by that expression is the possibility that French or British housewives should be able to buy lamb at a
730
price reasonable for them and for the producers.
We should resist the French proposals. They would sound the death knell for the New Zealand lamb industry and mean, according to the Consumers Association, an increase of 50 per cent. in the price of lamb in this country to the consumer. The price of lamb would be put up beyond that of beef and take lamb off the plates of the British consumer.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that it is important to fight for matters such as the continuation of the beef premium. I hope that he also accepts that the CAP is a hydra-headed monster and that, while he should fight what is already there, he should also resist growths like a sheep meat regime, which would be equally damaging.
8.39 p.m.
Mr. John Davies: I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) in a certain amount of what he has said, although I think his basic approach to the CAP is erroneous.
I thank the Minister for his comments about the Scrutiny Committee and I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) for what he said about the Committee.
The debate enables me to return to something about which I feel deeply. It affects the broader spectrum of Community affairs, although it is illustrated most effectively within the framework of the CAP. It is that the Community, to paraphrase a very good Conservative remark, is either a Community for all its people or it is nothing at all.
One of the things which worry me still about the Community's actions in certain sectors, notably in action in the Commission in relation to agricultural matters, is that its quite correct regard for the unity of the market, or the endeavour to achieve unity of the market in agricultural products, leads it to assume that there is that unity existing already, and that it can, therefore, deal dispassionately with the whole Community as though it were but one single market. This leads inside the Community to what seems to me to be slightly damaging proposals which require the British Minister to go forward as though he were begging

731
amendments or as though he were constantly in some measure of hostility to the Commission. I find this a troublesome factor in the relationship between any Government and the Commission.
I am well known as an ardent believer in the future of the Community and in the development of the unity of the market. I am, for instance, a deep believer in the development of a system of economic and monetary union as soon as it can be achieved. But never for a moment would I imagine that it was possible to embrace the proposition of monetary union and disregard that of economic union. They are essentially hand in hand. In the same way, it is not really practicable in agricultural affairs to assume the unity of the market in terms of its pricing and guarantee function and, in relation to the structure of the market and its nature, to disregard the fact that it is by far not unified. This is an important problem with the proposals that the Commission has put up.
I can illustrate it well in relation specifically to the issues about which the hon. hon. Member for Southampton, Test has been speaking. It is to me clear that, in relation to skimmed milk, the Community's proposals take regard of eight-ninths of the market but not of the remaining one-ninth. That seems to me to be wrong. It seems to me to be quite wrong that the Community should seek to work on a unified basis to correct what is undoubtedly, at the moment, an extremely unsatisfactory characteristic of the Community and the milk market, and visit upon the one-ninth, which is totally dissimilar to the other eight-ninths, exactly the same provisions. That does not seem to me to be reasonable.
It is noticeable in the changes in the intervention arrangements. I have always been a supporter of the principle of intervention, because it has enormous value to the farmer in that it ensures that in all circumstances there is a market. The value to a farmer of being sure that he does have art outlet for his products is of very great importance, as I know.
But I think that it is equally true to say that the change that is now envisaged is a right correction, in the sense that one thing which has been noticeable in the continental dairy market for some considerable time is that a substantial
732
number of milk producers, by virtue of the fact that their own milk outlets are not at all comparable with our own, have worked consistently to assess at what marginal cost they can produce milk in the certainty that it will go into intervention. This is, in itself mischievous in that, because there is an underlying scheme which assures the farmer that he will not find himself in misfortune, there should be widespreadly those who regard it, on the contrary, as being in some ways a kind of soft touch in the Community.
I therefore welcome the arrangement that the Commission has put forward to overcome this abuse. But I point out that it is totally unsuitable from the point of view of the British dairy market, and, therefore, to provide it blandly as though our market were entirely with the continental one in this respect is not carrying out the task for which the Commission is there, and does not take into account fully all the members of the EEC in seeking to ensure that its proposals are those which meet the overall needs of the market, including our own.
I feel that the same objection has to be made in relation to the methods of disposal of existing stocks. It is all very well to accept 200,000 tons of skimmed milk to be put into the aid programme. I welcome that. I do not find it disagreeable. But this 200,000 tons of skimmed milk has come from no part of our market and has no expectation at any future date of doing so. It is hard that it should be automatically assumed that we must bear the financial consequences of that. The same is true in relation to the 600,000 tons which is going into feeds, because it seems that that quantity does not arise from our market and is never likely to do so. It may well be that a substantial part of our proportion of that load will have to be met by imports from the very market which has produced in excess, in circumstances in which the producers are simply taking advantage of the intervention system and are not regarding it as the basic assurance system which they should.
For these reasons, therefore, I return to my original theme. It is not that I feel expert or competent enough to discuss the question of skimmed milk in great depth, but a Commission which fulfils its task properly should not put British Ministers in the position where

733
their sole course is to combat what is put before them because it is wholly inapplicable to our arrangements.
This is a very serious concern about the Commission's work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire and others pointed out that at the end of 1975 there was a major transfer of funds from the guidance to the guarantee system. In fact, 59 million units of account have been transferred in order to meet an unexpected but serious deficit in the guarantee section of the fund. I should point out to the hon. Member for Test that this was to a very large degree in order to pay for our sugar subsidies. However, if it is possible to find such a large amount from the guidance section of the fund in order to meet such a problem, it might well be appropriate for that section to be devoted more effectively to matters which are concerned with the structural side of the industry. In particular, it should take into account the differences between a country like ours which is still the biggest food importer in the world, and the eight countries on the Continent which are, if not balanced, then surplus producers.
The Community has rightly produced a regional policy in order to try to develop a better economic balance in industrial terms within the EEC. It provides funds to ensure greater equilibrium. In the same sense, the Guidance Fund should not be ignored as a means of trying to cure the basic imbalance between this country as a vast food importer and the other members which are surplus producers, so that these things could be put on to a more rational basis.
I believe that the Minister's wish is to hear the views of hon. Members and to try to strengthen him, if he needs strengthening, by knowing what we feel. Here, he has the views of an ardent pro-Market man but one who is not completely happy with the comportment of the Commission in this respect as it affects British interests.
8.49 p.m.
Miss Betty Boothroyd: As a Member of this House and of the European Parliament I am conscious of continually being educated in all sorts of agricultural matters, and I, no doubt, still have a long way to go.
734
I have no pretensions about being an agricultural expert, of knowing my way around the CAP, or of knowing about the technicalities of the price review. I do know, however, that farmers and farm workers make up a certain percentage of the 250 million or so people in the Community, as do postmen and plumbers. And I approach the whole problem of farm prices as a small particle of that enormous force which makes up 100 per cent. of the Community—the consumer. The consumer always foots the bill.
I wish to comment on this year's farm price proposals from the point of view of the consumer and the impact the proposals will have on shop prices. The proposal is to increase farm prices by 7·5 per cent. I believe that should be the maximum, and I hope my right hon. Friend's hand will be strengthened by this debate and the decision taken in the European Parliament. Even so, I suspect that the proposed price increases will mean higher prices for the British consumer because of transitional and monetary arrangements and because the Commission's figures are based on the assumption that only about 70 per cent. of foods are affected by the price review. In fact, a great deal of food which is not included in the review is indirectly affected.
The Secretary of State and other hon. Member have mentioned methods of reducing the milk powder surplus. One suggestion has been that something like 2 per cent. should be put into animal feeding stuffs. This will surely lead to increases in the price of feeding stuffs of perhaps more than £4 per ton and will result on large price increases especially for poultry and pigmeat. The consequences will go wider still with an effect on all kinds of animal products which in turn will have an effect on prices to the consumer. It will eventually mean the British consumer being penalised for over-production. That is why I am emphatic that there should be no increase above the proposed 7·5 per cent.
Mr. Marten: If the Socialist Party from this Parliament agrees to the 7·5 per cent., does the hon. Lady know whether the other Socialist parties in the European Assembly will support it? How does their view compare with that of the non-Socialist groups?
Miss Boothroyd: I understand that the decision of the Socialist group in the European Parliament is to accept the 7·5 per cent. I have not been in the Parliament this week. Perhaps hon. Members who have just returned will be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's point.
As a consumer, I want enough food to eat and I want to be assured of its supply. Naturally, as a woman, I want it to be provided as cheaply as possible, but not so cheaply that those who earn their living on the land do not get a fair return for a fair day's work.
This having been said, a few questions remain. Is the consumer getting value for money from the agricultural policy, and is the policy fulfilling its declared objectives of increasing productivity, promoting technical progress, ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers and farm workers, stabilising markets and ensuring an adequate supply for the consumer at reasonable prices? I believe the answer is a qualified "No". I qualify the answer because there have certainly not been failures as total as some would like to believe. There has been a shift in agricultural policy from that which had as its prime objective the protection of the producer to a policy which takes a more balanced view of the interests of producers and consumers alike. However, in the short term, the consumer is not getting a very good bargain.
I wish to make observations on the longer term and the working of the system which produces these prices. First, Community producers cannot go on believing that they can produce as much as they like of any given commodity regardless of world prices and consumer needs. Nor should they believe that the price the consumer eventually has to pay is of no account. The building up of surpluses is a considerable indication of the extent to which support resources have been misallocated and where there has been little, if any, forward planning.
If we are to solve the problem of costly surpluses it must be tackled at source. Difficult though that is, it must be done by reducing the incentives to produce what is not required. Surely at this stage of our association with the common agricultural policy we should be on the way to defining more precisely a modern viable farm, and seeking to set prices at a level which reflects the needs
736
of a modern, efficient unit, taking into account world prices.
Mr. Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that a problem—mentioned some years ago—is that the variation in the nature and background of farms in Europe makes it impossible for a small farmer in a backward area to get a reasonable return without the more efficient farmer getting an enormous return? That is a dilemma which no policy can meet.
Miss Boothroyd: Yes. I am aware of that. Improvements will not happen overnight.
Many small farmers on the Continent have already been phased out. It takes a political decision to see that producers who cannot make a living move out of the industry, or that the industry is restructured into larger groupings. All people, in whatever job, are reluctant to change. Hardships arise, and individuals must be cushioned against those hardships. This is a social, not an agricultural, problem. A social element is also involved when production which is fundamental to our well-being has to be supported and when there are justifiable social and regional reasons for keeping non-viable producers still producing. Then the cost of support must be met through general taxation and various regional and social funds.
What is wrong with the present system is that the support cost is being added to the consumer's food bill. The poorer the family, the less it is able to carry that type of taxation. That is what is wrong. It is that hidden analysis of the price the consumer has to pay that has been neglected in arriving at farm prices for food.
Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend realise, in addition, that while we have an intervention system such as we have at present there is no incentive to producers to adapt, because, by definition, anything they produce will be bought?
Miss Boothroyd: I do not accept that. Conversely, the consumer has a responsibility too. I do not accept the argument put forward by some of my hon. Friends. We can no longer look to other countries to supply us with cheap food whenever the domestic production falls or domestic prices rise. I want to be assured of

737
adequate supplies at all times, good harvests or bad, world shortages or world surpluses. Levels of agricultural production must cater for that, and we must also cater for over-production, and this, too, must be paid for, but over-production must take the form of manageable molehills rather than immovable mountains. I look upon manageable surpluses as an insurance policy. No householder complains if, having insured his house against fire, it does not burn down. Similarly, no one can complain about a system which ensures against shortages, and ensures that there is food in the store cupboard during hard times.
As I see it, the major task is to work out forecasts of consumer needs for major products, not annually or in the short term, but over the long term—over perhaps a five-year period. The needs of the consumer must be balanced alongside the ability of the producers to produce what can be produced within our society. Naturally it would be only prudent to plan for surpluses so as to ensure supplies. A five-year plan, which is modified perhaps each year in terms of needs and world conditions, is basic to agricultural policy. It is a difficult task, and I am always told that it is dangerous, that we must proceed with caution, and that forecasting is impossible. Of course, it is difficult. However, it has to be done, as it is already done with some commodities.
It is only when we have this type of long-term planning that the farming community will receive a substantial degree of stability. I pay tribute to the British farming industry. It is highly efficient. It is only with long-term planning that the consumer will receive protection against excessive surpluses and inefficient production.
Finally, so far in decision making the consumer's voice has been very weak. It is only after decisions are taken in Brussels that consumers are consulted. Consumers are no longer concerned only about hygiene, quality and labelling. They are also interested in food costs and prices, the cost of production, the cost of storage, and in how surpluses are disposed of. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that the consumer's voice is heard in the early stages of decision making, particularly when those
738
decisions fundamentally involve the consumer.
9.02 p.m.
Mr. Geraint Howells: Although we take note tonight of the EEC documents, I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for accepting our amendment to the motion in the name of my colleagues and myself.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Gentleman is under some misapprehension. We are allowing the amendment to be debated together with the Opposition amendment, but no one has accepted it. The Secretary of State accepted the Opposition amendment but not the Liberal amendment.
Mr. Howells: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I misunderstood Mr. Speaker's remark at the beginning of the debate. However, we can discuss the Liberal amendment to the motion.
First, I congratulate the Minister on clarifying the EEC documents. I confess that he is gradually getting to grips with the situation within the European Community. Tonight we are reviewing the agricultural situation within the EEC. We are reviewing not only what is written in the documents but also what is left out, which should be included. We should be planning ahead. I have not read all the documents but I have read many of them and I still hold the view that I have held for many years, that many changes must be made in the framework of the common agricultural policy within the next 10 years if farmers are to accept the challenge to increase food production in this country.
We need a 10-year plan for the agricultural industry so that farmers can plan ahead, know exactly where they are going and, in turn, can invest their capital accordingly. Many of my colleagues are well aware that in Wales in particular the majority of farmers are confined to dairy farming or livestock rearing of cattle and sheep because of climatic conditions. One thing is certain. Farmers will not expand unless they are adequately recompensed for their costs, and unless we have a favourable review this year, production will decrease. We are all waiting for the annual price review to be disclosed for this year. In my view the annual price review should

739
be made known at the end of every year, so that farmers can plan ahead better.
I am sure that the Minister is very well aware of the figures released a few weeks ago by the Meat and Livestock Commission, which estimates that lamb production will be down this year by 7 per cent. and beef production will be down by 17 per cent. This downward trend must be stopped at all costs, otherwise the nation will be heading for disaster. We are already spending too much money on food imports. Production in many parts of the country could be increased by up to 100 per cent., given the right incentives and encouragement.
I reaffirm on behalf of my Liberal colleagues our total support for the Minister in rejecting the EEC proposals to phase out the beef regime introduced by the Government in 1974. It is working satisfactorily—as long as the price guaranteed is increased year by year according to the increased costs of production. I am sure that as a practical farmer I am voicing the opinion of nearly all livestock producers in Britain when I say that the present scheme must be retained at all costs.
I hope that one day the Minister and his colleagues will be able to persuade his counterparts in Europe to accept our method of support, which safeguards the interests of our producers and consumers alike. We had operated the old system very well for many years, but we all know what happened in 1974 when the guaranteed price system was done away with. Confidence was lost overnight. Many farmers are still finding it difficult to overcome the financial difficulties that came upon them in that year, that is now history, but it must not be allowed to happen again. What happened in 1974 spelled disaster for the livestock sector of the agriculture industry.
Turning to the hills and the marginal land of Britain. I agree entirely with the brief of the NFU. The proposal to increase the FEOGA contribution from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. for the payment of hill subsidies under the provisions of the directive on mountain and hill farming and farming in certain less favoured areas, is to be welcomed. I am sure that the Minister knows my views quite well. Although I accept the present system, it was a sad day for me when I learned
740
that 500 small hill farmers in Wales would not qualify under the new scheme and that many more throughout Britain would not qualify. Once the Government have accepted this order in principle—I know that it was only 3 hectares, or 7·14 acres—I hope that the 3 hectares will not be raised to 20 or 50 hectares in the years to come, otherwise many hill farmers and marginal farmers will be thrown out of business.
I want to make a suggestion to the Minister. If we are to increase production from the hills we must maintain our support system. Perhaps many right hon. and hon. Members will not accept my suggestion, but I suggest that to increase production we plant one acre in 10 of all the land in the less favoured areas, or 10 acres in every 100 or 100 in every 1,000. I believe that it would be a worthwhile exercise, and I hope that the Minister will pursue that suggestion.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that there is another aspect that worries me in relation to increasing production. We must all confess that the ground is honest. It is much more honest than we are. I am sure that the Minister is aware that because of lack of confidence in 1974–75. British farmers did not feel able to plough back into the land from their profits. In the past few years the tonnage of basic slag put down has dropped by two-thirds compared to 1971–72. There has also been a reduction in the amount of lime that has been spread throughout Britain during the past few years. If we do not feed the land, the land will not feed us.
Mr. James Kilfedder: That is common sense.
Mr. Howells: I am grateful that at least one hon. Member agrees with my views.
I hope that the Government will not accept sheepmeat regulations that do away with the guaranteed price system now operating. I have tabled an Early-Day Motion urging the Government to retain the system. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House for signing the motion.
Mr. Marten: Not at all.
Mr. Howells: I am afraid that one day we shall have to accept sheepmeat regulations, but I hope that the Minister, in accepting them, will retain a guaranteed price system for lamb.

741
As a member of the Standing Committee on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, I am grateful to the Minister for accepting my suggestion that we have a land bank to help young farmers entering the industry. The right hon. Gentleman has agreed to consider the matter, and to do so in a European context. I hope that he will be successful in his deliberations. I know from experience that many genuine young farmers and farm workers would like to farm 20, 50 or 100 acres, but due to a lack of capital they are unable to be small farmers and eventually large farmers. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will consider my proposals within a European context.
The Minister said that many adjustments were made to the green pound last year, but the day is coming when we shall have to do away with it. I am wondering whether the Minister is in a position tonight to give us an assurance that he will do everything in his power to abolish it. It has been in existence for far too long. That view is shared not only by many farmers but by whole farming organisations. The disparity in value is the cause of great concern. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the few points that I have raised.
9.14 p.m.
Mr. John Watkinson: I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Geraint Howells) speak of the necessity and desirability of creating a land bank. That is an idea which will find fruitful ground among my hon. Friends. I support the idea that farmers might be able to pay their CTT by handing over land to the State so that we can create a land bank, but that is another matter.
I can understand the frustrations that are felt by Ministers when they feel that in debates such as this we are returning to the old debates about whether Britain should join the Common Market. They feel that we are bringing alive once more the arguments against the common agricultural policy. Ministers cannot complain, because the CAP is a hydra-headed monster and there are many grounds for criticism. I serve as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and we have considered the nightmare of monetary compensation amounts as well as problems
742
involved in smuggling between Ireland and this country. It is such a tangle that it is almost beyond human understanding.
The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) let the cat out of the bag when he said he looked forward to economic and monetary union because he felt that only in that way would the CAP function. I agree that it would function more easily if there were such a union, but I warn the House about the consequences of the proposal. If the right hon. Gentleman were here, he might wish to consider some of the arguments put forward by SNP Members in terms of the effect of any monetary union between their country and ours. He might consider the effects of such a union between the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe.
In debating the common agricultural policy, it is worth remembering that world commodity prices have evened out. In the great referendum debate the case for entry was given impetus by the fact that there was said to be a marked increase in world commodity prices and that our entry into the EEC would enable us to obtain a secure and stable market. We are now in the EEC, but it must be remembered that world prices do not always remain high, and, indeed, have fallen. Therefore, had we still been outside the Common Market we would have had access to cheaper foodstuffs.
I am worried about the fundamental philosophy underlying the CAP, particularly the intervention price system which envisages production only in terms of the end price. The net result of such a system can only be surplus production. A German economist who has studied this matter has suggested that food consumption in the Common Market is increasing at about 2 per cent. per annum, whereas food production is increasing at a rate of 2·9 per cent. per annum. Therefore, by 1980 there could be 10 per cent. over-production unless we do something about the situation.
I have criticised the Common Market, but we have recently debated the stocktaking documents and there are one or two facets of negotiation that meet with my approval. These facets are now written into the whole basis of the common agricultural policy. Whether we

743
are for it or against it, we have to live with it for the next few years.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell indicated dissent.
Mr. Watkinson: I do not anticipate our coming out of the Common Market as rapidly as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) expects. We have to live with the CAP, but at least we have established that the test whereby farmers' incomes are set will be based on the efficient farmer. This is a vital concept, and I am pleased to see it ingrained in the basic thinking of the Common Market. I hope it really is the efficient farmer that we are talking about, because in bygone days it was the inefficient French farmer.
We have also to accept that a new concept has entered into Common Market thinking, in terms of co-responsibility for the production of surpluses. This responsibility is being placed to a limited extent upon those farmers who produce surpluses. They will be penalised in years after. I believe that already in this year cereal farmers, sugar farmers and olive oil producers have been affected in this way.
I emphasise the point that I raised with my right hon. Friend about the problems of milk production, because it is absolutely vital to us in this country. It is in milk production that our comparative advantage lies.
It is very disturbing for me, coming from an agricultural constituency, to see a proposal in the documents suggesting that we shall be paying people to go out of milk production in this country, for milk production is one of our great natural assets. I find that suggestion as repugnant as glasshouse producers in my constituency being paid to smash up their glass.
This brings me to horticulture. I know that the Minister had a big brief and did not have time to mention it, but horticulture is a significant part of our agricultural system in this country. I know from my own constituents that they are very concerned about what the future holds for them.
Mr. Richard Body: Hear, hear.
Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. These people have been faced with an increase of over 300 per cent. in fuel costs in the last two years. They have also had to face the effects of the cataclysmic gale at the beginning of the winter. They are worried, too, about the lack of any Common Market policy in this matter which we would accept in this country. They complain that, while they are getting no support, their competitors abroad seem to be getting it. They point to Holland in this respect. I hope that my colleagues on the Front Bench will consider this.
I should like to revert to my reference to the complexities of the nightmare world of the CAP in which we now have to live. I have the honour of serving on the Public Accounts Committee, in which we have considered the modernisation of farms. Hard though it is to believe, there are farmers in this country who are entitled to money from the Common Market under the scheme for modernisation but are not taking it up—this is admitted by civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture—because they simply do not understand the procedures. Yet these are areas of expenditure in which the taxpayers of this country could be helped.
I am no great expert on agriculture, but as a result of my attempt to understand the operation of monetary compensation amounts, and the green pound, I feel that there really is a need for a Select Commitee on agriculture, so that we can be better informed of these matters.
I have had a certain amount of experience in economics, and as a lawyer, but when I try to understand agriculture I find myself literally on the frontiers of human knowledge.
In these circumstances, it might be of some assistance to me and to my colleagues in the House—and, indeed, to the nation at large—if we had a Select Committee on Agriculture. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take this message back to the Leader of the House and give us an answer in due course.
9.25 p.m.
Mr. Charles Morrison: I begin by echoing the words of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) about the position of the

745
horticulture industry. There is no doubt that many horticultural producers have suffered considerably from the increase in fuel costs and, more recently, from the very severe gale. The gale was an act of God, but that, coming on top of everything else, has made life very difficult for them. I hope that the Minister will bear their position in mind very sympathetically.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West was also concerned about the possibility of increasing surpluses in production unless, as he said, we did something about it. He was right to be concerned about this matter. However, it has always struck me that one of the fundamental objectives of the common agricultural policy, in addition to its intention to provide an adequate standard of living for people in agriculture and an adequate supply of food, was so to reorganise the structure of agriculture within the Community that it would take account increasingly of consumer requirements, which should have the effect gradually of reducing the possiblity of any vast surpluses of production.
I cannot help thinking that it is rather refreshing to be able to take part in a debate of this kind in the House. It is one of the minor, albeit important, benefits of Community membership. It means that we are able to discuss here the proposal for what now amounts to the annual price review before the decisions on it are made and, in consequence, we have an opportunity to bring some influence to bear upon them. This is a pleasant change compared with the old days, when the Minister of Agriculture made his announcement and we, or more precisely the agricultural industry, had to lump it.
As before, the review provides an opportunity to put the gloss or veneer on the agriculture industry for the forthcoming year. In the old days, this was very important, and it remains just as important. But the veneer is relatively more or less important depending on whether the framework of the industry underneath is healthy.
I have no intention of crying "Wolf", and, in the past, I have criticised some farmers for crying "Wolf" too often. However, I think that the underlying framework of the agriculture industry
746
today gives some cause for concern, for two reasons above all. First, it seems that there has been a considerable fall-off in capital investment. In the year ending September 1975, there was a 41 per cent. decline in the number of applications for capital grants. That must reflect a considerable decrease in the amount of money which farmers intend to put into the industry. If they invest less, in due course it will become increasingly difficult for them to maintain their rate of production, let alone increase it.
There is no doubt that this cut-back has occurred because we have had two years of very low profits. Other reasons are inflation and the huge increases in costs to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) referred earlier. These together have reduced confidence very considerably.
The second reason for concern is the extent of taxation, especially capital taxation, as it affects farmers.
If the farmers in my county and in my constituency were asked today what is their main worry in agriculture they would all start by saying that it is the rates of taxation. The National Farmers' Union is extremely concerned about this. That has been shown recently by a leading article in The British Farmer and Stockbreeder, entitled "Taxation is Still our Biggest Enemy". Taxation is the deathwatch beetle which could eat away the framework of agriculture. I was not uninterested to note that this has been recognised by some sectors, at least, of the Labour Party.
I have no intention to argue the question whether or not it is the intention of the Labour Party to endeavour to nationalise agricultural land, or even to incorporate that in its policy, but I read a report in one of our national newspapers of a document that apparently originated in the Labour Party Home Affairs Committee, proposing the nationalisation of land. The newspaper said that, anticipating the objection that the proposals would involve very great public expenditure, the document countered by stating that much of the land taken over would be in lieu of taxation. If one takes that the other way round, to me the implication is that there is an understanding amongst certain members of the Labour Party that the level of

747
taxation of agriculture today is such that before too long many farmers will be forced to sell up simply because they will not be able to stay in business any longer.
Mr. Watkinson: Would the hon. Gentleman also accept that there is concern among certain Members on the Government Benches over the effect of capital transfer tax on the forestry market, and the fact that there has been a fall of considerable proportions in the planting of trees in this country. This is of great concern to the Government side, and, I hope, to all others in the House.
Mr. Morrison: I am delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman said. We shall look forward to receiving support from him when we bring forward amendments to capital transfer tax in respect of forestry, and no doubt other matters concerned with agriculture as well. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West has made a very encouraging point, but whilst current rates of capital taxation continue there will be little hope of achieving the White Paper targets and, therefore, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire pointed out to him, the Minister must emphasise the impossibility of ever having a hope of achieving his White Paper targets unless he can persuade his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce taxation and to show a little more common sense towards agriculture.
I was very interested in the argument put forward by the hon. Lady the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), who seemed to me to try to steer a reasonable path between the interests of the producer and the consumer, but I doubt very much whether an average increase of 7·5 per cent. in prices will be adequate to encourage farmers to increase their production, as again the Minister apparently hopes, according to his White Paper.
Any agricultural policy should be broadly designed to produce a small surplus. It is virtually impossible, with all the uncertainties of the weather and so on, to produce precisely what is required. It is therefore necessary to have a marginal surplus rather than a marginal shortage, with the consequent increase in prices. It is essential to keep any surpluses in perspective. Despite emotive
748
talk about "mountains", they come and go; they disappear as a result of later shortages or of policy decisions, in this case by the Commission.
I am not satisfied that the methods so far adopted to cope with surpluses are perfect. That would be true if the proposals for dealing with the current skimmed milk powder surplus were introduced. I hope that the Minister will succeed in his representations on that subject.
I support the Minister's efforts to retain the beef premium. It is encouraging to know that he has learned from his mistakes in 1974, when he burned his fingers badly. I hope that this time he will achieve success in his continuing negotiations.
We should remember that the incompetence of the Russian agriculture system governs the world-wide availability and cost of wheat. It is important to do nothing to endanger Common Market production. I support my right hon. Friend's request for postponement of the two-tier pricing structure.
I gained the impression, this year, of uncertainty in the Commission's proposals for price changes, but I hope that it is just that it wanted to hear the reactions of the various countries before drawing firm conclusions. In that respect, I hope that this debate will help both the Minister and the Commission.
9.39 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: As usual in an agricultural debate I want to say a brief word about the green pound. The briefest and best word that I can say about it, especially in relation to Northern Ireland, is that the sooner it is brought to parity the better for all concerned. With that, I will leave the subject for tonight and move on to beef.
All of us and the farmers welcome the statement that the Minister intends to defend the premium system which has been negotiated. It is entirely welcomed in Northern Ireland in view of the special circumstances in which it operates there and of the special need there. But what is meant in the Explanatory Memorandum on beef and veal by the reference to
"…slaughter premiums on adult cattle and (as alternatives) the payment of cow retention on calf subsidies "?

749
If alternatives are to be discussed, we should know precisely what they are and why, if the right hon. Gentleman intends to defend premiums to the death, he finds it necessary to talk about alternatives in the Explanatory Memorandum.
One of the main problems in relation to less favoured areas is Italy. What does paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum mean? Does it mean that the Government can increase payment beyond the present level, or can they change the areas covered by the less-favoured areas directive? If it does not mean that, where is the extra 15 per cent. of money to go? Is it to go into things like the meat industry employment scheme in Northern Ireland or in the form of grants to farmers to improve their capital works? Or is it, as I suspect, to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The farming community and the taxpayers would resent that. If money is coming from the Common Market for farming, the agricultural industry should get it. We should be told where in the industry this extra money is to be spent.
I turn now to the pig and poultry industry in Northern Ireland, which imports about 80 per cent. of its feeding stuffs. We have high costs there. They are always higher than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. If to those higher costs we have to add 6 per cent. in the form of a skimmed milk powder addition, how does the Minister expect the egg and pig producers of Northern Ireland to survive? Is it intended that Northern Ireland egg production should be allowed to run down to the point where it will only meet the internal needs of Northern Ireland? What effect will the skimmed milk powder scheme's introduction have on egg production and the finances of egg producers in Northern Ireland? I see no reason for confidence that egg or pig production in Northern Ireland can continue on any reasonable scale. I say that mainly because of the high cost of transport and because the Community has made it clear that each area will produce that which it is most suited to produce. If that is so, the logical places to produce eggs and pigs are France, Germany and the East Coast of England, and not Northern Ireland.
How long will the United Kingdom's guarantee system for milk last? What effect will the proposals for standardisation
750
have on the guarantee system if they are applied here? Like the beef regime, this is of vital importance to the farming community in this country, and it should have a clear and definitive answer. In the end, all it really means is that all that has been done by the Minister and his colleagues in Brussels is to make this nothing more than a hole-plugging exercise, because there are vastly different circumstances in production in United Kingdom and continental agriculture.
Our old guarantee system was very useful in its day, but it came into existence and operated in entirely different circumstances. It operated simply to defend a cheap food supply for the nation, and for no other reason. That system could operate successfully in the circumstances which then existed.
The NFU and all the farmers' unions complain of a lack of overall strategy and a lack of continuity in farm planning. What on earth do the farmers' unions expect? They are trying to reconcile points of view which are so vastly different that they can never meet. However, the situation is becoming more clearly understood by the farming community, and I think that the farmers are altering their opinions about where they now are. They complain of ad hoc measures which in Northern Ireland we call hand-to-mouth measures. They are nothing else, and cannot be in present circumstances.
I now turn to the system under which our old guarantee system for agriculture worked. It operated in circumstances where, because of our population, we were permanently in a food deficit situation. It could be used in these circumstances to even out the hills and level off the tops, such tops as were left after the tax system operated. Now we have to operate with a permanent surplus of all commodities.
We must be clear about that. If, as we all hope, agriculture on the rest of the Continent becomes as efficient as it is in this country, there will soon be a permanent surplus. What are we to do? Are we to use it as a political weapon, or sell it on the world's markets at high cost to ourselves? I should like to know what the leaders of both parties intend to do when that situation arises, be it a happy or an unhappy situation, according to

751
one's point of view. While the present system exists there are bound to be mistakes. They are as inevitable as the food mountains that will result from them. We must be told how we and the Common Market intend to deal with it in a reasonable and economic way.
Farmers' unions are now face to face with the realities of membership of the Common Market. The Minister has done his best, but it is clear that it is only a plugging operation. The effect on small farms in outlying areas of the United Kingdom is simple: they will disappear. There is no way round that, and farmers must be told that this is so. The small farms depend on pigs and poultry. The Minister has said tonight that he can only support efficient farms, but they can only be efficient when they have top quality stock and when they can buy feeding stuffs at reasonable prices. That is impossible at present.
Mr. Peter Mills: I have listened carefully to the hon. Member's argument. Does he really think that in this country we should always produce food as cheaply as possible to the detriment of many Third World countries which produce protein and other things? That is not what I want.
Mr. Ross: The United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia would all be happy to sell us food.
Mr. Peter Mills: At low cost of production?
Mr. Ross: They were happy to sell to us before.
The Minister also explained that milk producers with 30 cows at most would be taken out of business. Where I come from, as in many other parts of the country, 30 cows is a respectable herd, and it represents a considerable investment in time, skill, capital and hard work. There are many such producers in my constituency. Is the House to support or bring forward legislation that will force out the small family farm? Are we eventually to work round to a system of vast co-operatives and farming communes? I would deplore and oppose that, and I think that the farming community would do the same.
752
It is high time that the Government, the House and the Common Market came clean about what the farming and food policy will be. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) said that there was cheap food to be had elsewhere. There was recently a grassland conference in Northern Ireland at which one of the speakers alleged that it was possible by varying systems to produce beef at £6 per cwt. or £85 per cwt. This view was put forward by a member of the Grassland Society of Northern Ireland. Its opinions are not to be taken lightly. In Northern Ireland we have some of the foremost grassland beef producers in the world. I am prepared to believe the figures they put forward and I am also prepared to believe that they can produce beef according to those figures.
Mr. Peter Mills: Rubbish.
Mr. Ross: If the hon. Member does not agree with that let him write to the society, which will give him the facts so that he can read them for himself.
The Common Market and the House must decide whether we are to have cheap food or dear food. In other words, are we to have subsidised production or is the consumer to pay the real price? The percentage of family income spent on food has been falling, but are we not heading for the situation where it must increase? That is the question that the two major parties and the Common Market must answer. The present system is unworkable and will soon be demonstrated to be so.
9.53 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: We have heard a powerful speech from the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) which has highlighted some of the anomalies and paradoxes of the common agricultural policy. I agreed with nearly everything that he said, with this reservation. He said that the previous system under the 1947 Act was designed for one purpose only, to enable us to import cheap food. I think he will agree that it had another purpose. That was to give a stable minimum price to the farmer, who, knowing that he had a guaranteed price, could indulge in good husbandry. I do not think there is much evidence that the CAP does that.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) referred to the need to look

753
after the soil, but, unlike the previous system, the CAP does not encourage that. If anything, it does the reverse. Our former system also encouraged a wholesome rural society, which all parties in this House want. It also encouraged a variety in crops and stock, which in itself led to good husbandry. I do not want to see a pigless Northern Ireland. That would be a great pity.
I did not agree with the intervention of the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) on the subject of cheap food. Those of us who have consistently opposed the common agricultural policy have not necessarily done so on the ground that we should get food from the cheapest markets. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement did not necessarily mean, over a period of years, that we would get the cheapest sugar. The Conservative Party voted it away when we joined the Common Market. Many of us would like an arrangement of that sort now, but I will return to the question of sugar later in my speech.
This is a very important series of documents, but when the business of the House was announced last week, the Leader of the House did not tell us what they were about. We are about the annual general meeting of the CAP in Britain. All my right hon. Friend said was that we were to discuss EEC agriculture documents. He did not say that they were the annual price review and survey for 1975. It was only on Monday that hon. Members were able to obtain copies of the documents from the Vote Office.
The form of the documents is very bad—a wad of paper six inches thick. In view of the importance of the policy, we should have had at least some of these papers, I do not say all, printed in English. A very great sum of money is involved. I doubt whether very many members of the public will have access to these documents, and the quality of the debate in this Chamber and in the country, and, therefore, the quality of democracy, is the loser if this information is not more easily available.
The table on page 18 of the main document, No. 321/75, gives credence to the suggestion that food is more expensive within the Common Market. Taking world prices as 100, wheat durum inside
754
the Community is 125, beef and veal are 168, eggs 164, butter 320 and milk powder 140. These are all averages for 1974–75. I suspect they will be even higher next year.
Sugar has been a subject of controversy. It was the delay in banking the so-called bankable assurances which led to the shortfall of sugar imports and the subsequent shortage to the consumers last year. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) got his bankable assurances, but they consistently bounced until the eleventh hour—just before we went into the Common Market The ACP suppliers were not assured of their market, and it is not surprising that we had problems in the change-over between that system and the new system.
We are now reaching the second stage of these problems with the publication by Tate and Lyle and Manbré and Garton of the rationalisation problems facing the British cane sugar refining industry. Many people have known these problems were coming for some time. The capacity of the British sugar refiners is over 2 million tons of sugar a year in white sugar equivalents. Because of our entry into the Common Market, we shall have a maximum of 1·4 million tons to refine, leaving a surplus of about half a million tons of capacity per year. That means that there will have to be redundancies. It is not so simple as pro rata redundancies in the six main sugar refineries in the country. Specialities are involved. Each refinery looks after a certain part of the sugar demand and some refineries deal with sugar wholesalers. The matter is extremely complex. The Government have announced their intention to encourage the increased production of beet sugar. That suits the farmers. No doubt most Opposition Members will say "Hear, hear" to that policy, which has been consistently asked for, but it produces many problems.
First, there is the supply problem. This year we have only about 600,000 tons of beet sugar, and the crop in the previous year was low. According to my information, the variation in the yield of sugar can be 30 per cent. up or down. That means that our only sources of sugar are unreliable. The movement in our beet sugar supplies is the same as it is in Europe, especially in Northern France which has a similar climate. So we have

755
an imbalance of shortage and surplus with the European sources as well.
The Government have given permission for the British Sugar Corporation to put what are called white ends—that is, extra refining capacity—on the sugar beet refiners at Peterborough and Ely. Those beet raws used to come to the port refiners, who will be further reduced at a time when their cane sugar imports are going down. This means a loss to the cane refiners of about 1,500 to 2,000 jobs out of a total of between 5,800 and 6,000 in the industry as a whole.
Those jobs will probably be lost in the next year or 18 months, and they will be lost in Greenock, Liverpool and East London, all places where jobs are not easy to find. The cane refiners have not decided among themselves how these redundancies are to be achieved. Today they published three options, and there will be disagreement as to which option should be chosen. The unions have got together and said that the issue is not between them, but that their quarrel is with the Government for asking the cane refiners to do this on their own. The cane refiners have not been able to do it and the Government have been asked to referee. The Government must take the odium of the choice.
The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Parliamentary Question tabled yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon), to which my right hon. Friend gave an assurance that there will be continuing consultation with the unions and the refining interests on possible reorganisation. The first task is to elucidate the documents which are under discussion. Then there will have to be an assessment before the policy-making is completed. I want to use this brief opportunity to assure my hon. Friends and the industry—both employers and employees—that there is a long way to go before plans are finalised. The documents to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) refers are purely discussion documents, and we should not read too much into them. There will be considerable consultation with all interests before a decision is reached.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have read the answer in Hansard. What my hon. Friend said does not change the fact that the onus is on the Government to decide. I am heartened by what he said about discussions, because the companies have accepted certain assumptions which the employees and I do not accept. I declare an interest in having the Silvertown refinery of Tate and Lyle in my constituency.
The first assumption is: why put the extra white ends in the beet refineries at Peterborough and Ely? Farmers can produce more beet if they like. We should prefer that they did not. However, why should the country spend extra money on putting white ends in those refineries where the refining capacity already exists and which will have to shed their capacity and put people out of work? That does not make sense from any point of view. Yet both the sugar companies and the Government have apparently accepted the proposals for adding to these sugar refineries.
The second assumption is that there will be no possibility of bringing in beet from the Continent. At the moment the price situation does not make that possible. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to inquire whether it is possible to make up our deficit with European beet raws or, better still, by going to countries other than the ACP countries to get more cane. I fear that the Commission will not allow my right hon. Friend to do that, but at least he could try.
The third possibility is to introduce beet growing in Lancashire and Cheshire and convert the Sankey cane sugar refinery to beet refining. Even if we did that we should be in difficulties, because in normal years the EEC has a surplus and the full beet production in Europe is enough to meet all the requirements of the EEC. Therefore, I hope that in his reply my hon. Friend will deal with white ends and the reasons for the policy. It does not make sense. Need we have the high amount of 1·2 million tons of beet sugar? Not only is there the question of the variation in crop, but if we did not grow beet we could perhaps grow something else which might be equally nutritious, if not more so.

757
Finally, the question of cane and beet is not just of domestic importance but is a matter of relations with the Third World. Unfortunately, our imports of cane have already increased. In two months' time the UNCTAD Conference will be held in Nairobi. If this country is to show its concern for the Third World—if, indeed, the Common Market is to do that—I hope that there will be greater security for the African, Caribbean and Pacific States. Although they have the notional figure of 1·4 million tons, about which everyone has heard, there is no security in price. They must plant extra sugar cane soon, which will reach our sugar refineries after 1980. Unless they are given some security they will not want to send us the sugar.
758
The reductions in the industry will affect Clydeside, Merseyside and Thameside—areas of nineteenth-century industrial development which are now in great difficulty. It would be for the good of the nation, and ultimately the reputation of the common agricultural policy, if my right hon. Friend were to think twice about pursuing the sort of policies upon which the Government already appear to be set.
Mr. Speaker: I should explain to the House that it is hoped that the winding-up speeches will begin at 11 o'clock. Six hon. Members wish to catch my eye. If hon. Members will bear that in mind everyone who wishes to speak may do so.
10.8 p.m.
Mr. Neil Marten: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) rather apologetically started his speech by saying that we were bringing back some of the old arguments about the Common Market. That is true. This price review debate illustrates that the Common Market is not working. It illustrates, in a way, what Mr. Tindemans said in the covering letter to his report, that the Common Market will fulfil its destiny only if it establishes federalism. I believe that the common agricultural policy will work only if the Common Market establishes federalism.
I do not believe that the farmers or the consumers will like the price review when it has been agreed. Generally speaking, I believe that quite a lot of chickens will come home to roost after the Minister has been to Brussels and signed on the dotted line.
I have always maintained that the CAP was a bad system. Under the CAP we pay to keep the price of food up. Under our old system we paid to keep the price of food down. If we have to pay either way, frankly I should rather pay to keep the price down than to keep it up. The British farmer would be far better outside this thing and having his own national agricultural policy, under our control, under which we could settle these things in the United Kingdom and not over the other side of the water.
One of the objects of the CAP is security of the supply of food. That matter was suddenly raised during the referendum campaign, although it seems to have died away slightly now because we are rather over-supplied in some items. Another object is to benefit the consumer and the farmer. However, I believe we are paying far too high a price for the security—so-called—of our food supplies, because in the world outside the Common Market there is cheaper food. One has only to look at page 18 of the document mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr Spearing) to see the extent to which the price of food is higher in the Common Market than it is outside it.
760
Common Market butter is 320 per cent. of world prices. In practice the British consumer at the end of next year will be having to pay 70p for a pound of butter. There will, therefore, be less butter, because consumers will not be able to afford it. They will try to turn to margarine. Already, as we have seen in the Scrutiny Committee, a little draft regulation has arisen about erucic acid. I do not know about this but I am told that it might be in order to keep the price of margarine up so as to force people back on to consuming high-priced butter—at 70p a pound. If that is so—I am just told; I am not such an expert that I know all about it—it rather illustrates the fact that the Commission is using the food standards to keep up the price in order to keep the butter mountain down. Time will tell whether that is what it is all about.
On the subject of skimmed milk powder, about which there has been much adverse comment in this debate, of course this will raise the price of animal feed by £4·50 a ton. That will be paid by the consumer, because that feedstuff is going into bacon, poultry and so on. Ultimately the consumer will have to pay. It is not the farmer who is suffering because of the mountain that he has created.
When we read the stocktaking document we thought that there would be some sharing of the burden of this surplus, but it is not so. Rather cunningly, it is being put all the way back on to the consumer. The Common Market Ministers have failed—
Mr. John Davies: Would my hon. Friend say that that was so in relation to the new system of orientation in terms of intervention?
Mr. Marten: I am sorry. I do not understand the question.
Mr. John Davies: I willingly repeat it. Would my hon. Friend say that it is the consumer who pays in relation to the new intervention system under an orientation system?
Mr. Marten: Under an orientation system? There was some doubt as to what precisely that means.
Mr. John Davies: Oh, no.
Mr. Marten: Clearly, however, if the price of feed is to be raised by £4·50 a ton—[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) has evidence to the contrary, let him produce it. I should be grateful to hear it. Whichever way one looks at the matter, the burden is being passed on to the consumer, ultimately, through the feed. My hon. Friend shakes his head. Perhaps he will deal with that when he makes his speech.
Furthermore, we are recycling this milk back into animal feed. That is just about the craziest thing that one could think of. People are now complaining that we did not create this mountain of dried milk, and therefore, why—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) was implying—should we pay for it. I thought that my right hon. Friend was in favour of the Common Market and an integrated economy—that is what we are supposed to be aiming at—and that, therefore, if we have a surplus somewhere we have got to get rid of it by cutting down somewhere else. I feel that in his heart of hearts my right hon. Friend is much more of a nationalist than a Community person. I think that he illustrated that in his speech tonight.
The Common Market price of beef, according to the list, is 168 per cent. of world prices. Therefore, in two instances we find that there is cheaper food outside the Common Market. There is a plentiful supply of beef in Latin America, Australia and New Zealand. Once again the consumer suffers because of price rises and because we are inside the Common Market.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford said with pride that he supported the beef intervention system. I only hope he realises how many thousands of tons of beef are rotting away and will not be able to be eaten by human beings. That is not a very favourable way of treating beef. Anyway, it seems that my right hon. Friend is in favour of eating intervention beef. Beef is produced to be eaten. Let my right hon. Friend have a diet of intervention beef if he wishes. I hope that he will enjoy it.
762
I hope that the Conservative Party will join the Liberal Party in signing fully the motion which is on the Order Paper objecting to the intervention system for sheep meat. As has been explained, if we go ahead with the draft regulation it will probably increase the price of lamb by 50 per cent., making it more expensive in the shops than beef. If we go through the list we find that in January 1976 hard wheat cost £20 more in the Common Market than outside. Barley cost £15 a ton more and maize cost £20 a ton more. Where is the benefit to the consumer of being in the Common Market?
Where is the benefit to the farmer? I do not think that there is any need to talk about that. When the Price Review is completed the full blast of the settlement will come firmly upon the head of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I shall leave the farmers to express their opinion about the great benefits that they have received after the price review.
I have no great enthusiasm for the common agricultural policy.
Mr. John Davies: We have noticed that.
Mr. Marten: I know that some of my right lion. Friends have great enthusiasm for it. It seems that they like frozen intervention beef.
Mr. John Davies: There is New York-dressed poultry.
Mr. Marten: Yes, there is that, and many other things. The National Farmers' Union supported entry into the Common Market. If it is a bad price review, the union must take a share of the responsibility. The CAP has satisfied few farmers or consumers, and it has hurt many people. I believe that it is a total and disastrous muddle. Many in this Chamber have made excuses for it, but, as the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, we can now begin to draw the stumps and reconsider. Let us consider it again from an all-party point of view. Let us have a Select Committee getting down to that sort of consideration. When that has been done there can be a stop to the argument because we shall know the real truth.
It is the poor who are suffering through the CAP. It is the poorest people who

763
are suffering the most. I was not elected to let the poor suffer because of the nightmare dreams of Continental bureaucrats.
10.19 p.m.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I promised that I should limit myself to a few remarks and, therefore, I can deal only briefly and superficially with a limited number of matters. I know that there are three hon. Members who wish to speak, and I should like them to have the opportunity to express their views to the Minister.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman needs to hear the anger of the House so that he can convey it to the meeting of the Council of Ministers next week. Criticism of the Minister has been expressed but he has done his best in many ways. He is certainly not the worst Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that we have had. That remark was meant in a kindly way.
The Minister will need to be pretty hard-headed and stubborn next week in the Common Market agriculture negotiations. The people who will benefit from these proposals will be the continental farmers in the EEC—in other words, inefficient farmers who pile up surpluses. These proposals will not benefit United Kingdom farmers.
The Government's White Paper "Food from our own resources" suggested that there would be expansion. I have seen no real signs of that expansion. The confidence of the farming community has not been fully restored, and this has been confirmed by the fall in expected output. Thes reason for this situation is the capital tax, which causes farmers great concern. Some are considering leaving agriculture, and certainly many farmers wonder how they are to obtain a fair return from their labours and a fair standard of living.
Farmers are sometimes blamed for increases in costs and prices, but this is not true. Farmers and consumers have the same interest—namely, a guaranteed and adequate supply of home-produced food. If there is a shortage—as there has been of potatoes—it is the consumer who suffers, but the farmer certainly does not benefit. The farmers want to see a system that ensures adequate output. That will help the consumer because he
764
will be protected in times of shortage and in times of price fluctuations. We must not seek to undermine farming communities. Instead, every effort must be made to persuade farmers to invest more, and certainly to produce more.
The proposals outlined by the Minister do not give the encouragement which is required. Words are not sufficient. Farmers are rightly wary of Government promises. They have heard them before. What incentive is there? Prices everywhere are rising. But farm incomes in real terms have dropped behind other incomes in the past two years. It is not surprising that agricultural production rose by only 2 per cent. in the United Kingdom compared with the far greater increase in some Common Market countries.
It is wrong to agree to a Common Market proposal—and I hope the Minister will not agree to it—providing for the compulsory incorporation of skimmed milk powder in feeding stuffs. This will add £4·50 per ton to the cost of feed. It will raise the costs of pigs and poultry. We must remember that Northeren Ireland imports over three-quarters of its feeding stuffs. It will mean a further blow to Northern Ireland farmers. The National Farmers' Union has already made clear that the Commission's proposals on milk give no assurance of any increase in the return to producers in view of the proposal to withdraw the firm intervention arrangements for skimmed milk powder. This will not promote expansion of dairy herds and will increase uncertainty.
It was wrong for the Commission to propose the phasing out of the beef premium. It is vital to retain that premium. It is particularly vital to Northern Ireland because the present scheme incorporates special protection for Northern Ireland producers when a premium is payable, and Northern Irish market prices fall substantially behind prices in Great Britain. I hope that the Minister will be able to have his way in the Common Market but he will have to fight hard for the farmers.
There is no doubt that a full adjustment of the green pound to the true value of sterling is essential for the creation of fair competitive conditions for British farmers.

765
Will the Minister examine the position of the horticultural industry? The glasshouse producers should have a subsidy on oil to enable them to compete with the Dutch growers, who have a full subsidy from their Government. Without this help, the horticulture industry in Northern Ireland, and certainly in my constituency, will continue to suffer, and production will decline. It ought to be recognised that the horticulture industry contributes substantially to food production in the United Kingdom.
I urge the Minister to fight hard next week for the farmers of this country.
10.25 p.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: I count it a very great privilege to be on the Scrutiny Committee, and I should like to pay a tribute to its chairman. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) were not the chairman, I should not want to continue. His enthusiasm and encouragement keep us going in a Committee which has an extremely difficult and arduous task.
It seems a pity that so many people who have spoken have been anti-Common Marketeers. There is another very real and important side to it, and we ought to be supporting the Minister in his fight in Brussels.
A great deal of nonsense has been talked in this debate. I am sarry that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), is out of his seat now, because lie actually made a statement that beef could be produced for £6 per cwt. A 10 cwt. bullock costs £60, and the calf costs £20–£25 at least. According to the hon. Gentleman's argument, it means that for two and a half years the rearing has to be done for something like £30. It is really pathetic that anyone should come to this House and make such misleading statements, when one knows that no one could possibly produce a bullock for that sort of figure.
My worry about the green pound is that, because of our poor economic position, this problem could be with us for a considerable time to come. I do not see why the British farmer should have to bear the burden of the green pound. For how many years will this have to
766
continue? Until we improve the economic position of our country, the green pound will continue. I hope, therefore, that the Minister of Agriculture will watch this question very carefully, adjusting frequently so that British agriculture does not carry the main burden of the green pound all the time.
Concerning the general level of price increases, I say to my hon. Friends—and should like to have said to hon. Members on the Government side who seem to have disappeared—that British agriculture is having to bear increased costs, just as the car manufacturers and any other producers are having to bear increased costs. With rising costs everywhere, why is it that British agriculture should not be expected to recover its costs in production? That is the problem.
I hope that the Minister will fight very hard in Brussels to see that at least our costs are covered. We are not asking to become very rich people. We just want a fair price to cover our costs. That is very important.
Concerning the whole problem of surpluses. I can well appreciate that there are people who do not understand it. I understand why those who are against the Common Market criticise this aspect of it, but it is a matter for the Community putting its house into the right order.
The Community has a lot to learn about how to deal with the problems of production and marketing. In this country that excellent organisation, the Milk Marketing Board, exerts discipline and controls and encourages liquid milk sales, so that we do not have the problems that confront other countries in the Community.
The whole object of my life at the moment is to try to encourage the Community to adopt a similar system, so that milk can be channelled into the right quarters and be sold and marketed in a proper way.
The problems of surpluses in the Community at the present time—particularly dairy surpluses—should be tackled in three ways. First, I want to see intervention prices varied according to the areas of production. This is essential if we are to get anywhere in the Community in dealing with this problem of surpluses. There is no point in making it difficult for

767
us in this country to produce milk, because we need it. What is the use of my having in my constituency a milk factory producing cheese which is working at only half capacity? We need to deal with the problems of surpluses for those who create them, and intervention prices should be varied according to areas of over-production. This is not new. It happens here. The variation between prices in South-East Kent and the South-West is a considerable sum of money per gallon. We have varying prices in Great Britain. Why cannot we have them in the Community? They would act as a discipline on those who are prepared just to produce milk for butter production and thereby create surpluses.
Secondly, the Community needs to put its house in order in terms of a proper marketing system for milk and encouraging the consumption of liquid milk, bearing in mind the discipline which that would create on producers in certain areas.
Thirdly, I want to see a much better regional policy in the Community. Alternative jobs must be provided for the producers in these difficult areas. If they cannot turn to any other form of employment, it is extremely difficult for them to get out of the same old way of a few cows producing more and more milk, resulting in more and more butter and skimmed milk powder mountains. We need to get the structure right in the regions. We need to see that there is alternative employment for some of these people who must get out of agriculture because they are inefficient. We need a real strengthening of our regional policy in the Community. Those are the three requirements: variable intervention prices, a proper milk marketing board system, with all that that means in the Community, and getting the structure of the regions right. They would do far more to deal with these surpluses than any of the proposals before us tonight. I feel strongly that these requirements must be met.
Finally, I deal with the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) asked. Unfortunately, he is not present at the moment. But I hope that he will read my reply in Hansard—[Interruption.] I am glad to see my hon. Friend back with us. I am afraid that he is ill-informed. The
768
change from a mixed intervention price to an orientation price works right back to the producer. More than that, it is a radical change from what has happened in the Community in the past. We have never had such a radical change as regards intervention. This is putting it directly back on the producer, and not the consumer. If my hon. Friend studies these proposals carefully, he will see that it does not even mean that the Community has to buy. It is a very open-ended arrangement, and it could be that the Community might not accept the tenders. That means that a very real discipline is back on the producer, because in certain areas in the Community they must put their house in order, as opposed to us.
Mr. Marten: I had just stepped out for a much-needed cup of coffee. If the producer has to bear the cost, will he not pass it on to the consumer?
Mr. Mills: My hon. Friend has missed the point. It is no use a producer producing purely for surplus. Discipline has to work back to him. That is why I regret that my hon. Friend was not here when I was talking about variable intervention rates, which would again work back to the producer. That would help the producer by allowing him to avoid paying high taxes for this intervention system.
There is a subsidy for the production of whole milk powder, which I regret. The money spent is a terrible waste. The money should be used instead to promote the sales of liquid milk, as British farmers have to bear the cost in this country. We should be encouraging the drinking of more milk in the Community.
I hope that the Minister will bear particularly in mind my three points about surpluses.
10.36 p.m.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: The common agricultural policy is the absolute linchpin of the EEC and it must work to the benefit of the producer and the consumer even-handedly throughout the nine member countries. If it does not do so at the moment, that is no reason for throwing it out lock, stock and barrel. It is all the more reason for working on it to make it achieve the ends for which it was designed.

769
I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on taking part in the deliberations of the Select Committee although his views are contrary to the common agricultural policy. His Devil's advocacy is of great value to the Committee in throwing up possible weaknesses which can then be rectified.
The Government's own policy at this time must be to achieve the same balance between the producer and the consumer. They published their White Paper as a means to this end. Their objective now must be to achieve a balance on the Common Market front and the national front.
I am an ardent supporter of the CAP, although it is obviously not free from criticism. That is not to say that it is not right to show up some of its short-comings. We know that there is a tendency at the moment to create surpluses without having prepared before-hand a method for dealing with them. There is nothing wrong with a modest surplus, but it is apparent now that intervention alone does not work. It needs some other system with it. There is a tendency to create a climate in which producers produce for surplus alone and not for market needs. The 66 per cent. of Denmark's milk production which shows this very well. There is also a tendency to divorce milk production from orderly marketing, which is giving rise to many problems.
At the moment, EEC prices are generally higher than world prices. That is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that continuity of supply is maintained. Continuity of supply has been dismissed out of hand by many previous speakers, but I take the view that it is like happiness: one does not realise that one does not have it until it is gone. The potato is a great indicator of that. It is well worth a premium for continuity of supply. No one can dispute the considerable success of the Community over the last 12 months in ensuring continuity of supply for a vast range of products—beef, for example. Beef has been in the shops at a reasonable price for the last 12 months, and with a stability of price which has been very acceptable. The Commission has a responsibility to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community as well. But in 1975
770
there was a net loss relative to non-agricultural real incomes.
The next matter is one that it would be wrong to say my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury has an obsession with, because I think that the CAP has an obsession with harmonisation where none is necessary. Let us allow market forces to do the work. The question of the composition of mayonnaise comes to mind. I personally am a substantial market force when it comes to that product compared with any other hon. Member. Allowing market forces to do the work could save a great deal of bureaucracy and paperwork. I am considering indenting for a wheelbarrow to take away my documents from the Vote Office, or taking shares in the photo-copying industry.
There have been a number of short-comings in Government policy on agriculture, and they must be related to the review. There is a reluctance to press for a devaluation of the green pound, wrongly based on a desire to keep food costs lower than they would otherwise be. As a result, returns to producers have been somewhat lower than they should be, resulting in a reluctance to expand their home production. That is seen in agricultural production for the past year, which was 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. less than it was the year before, although it must be admitted that the weather had an effect.
There is a tendency to confused party dogma with practical necessity. Uncertainty and mistrust over such issues as tied cottages, landlord-tenant relationships and disincentives based on capital taxation have caused an acute lack of confidence among home producers.
These are some of the factors which must influence our consideration of the proposals. It is essential that eventually the Community develops a wide, overall strategic view, so that the need for short-term measures is reduced to an occasional touch on the tiller as the CAP develops. This would cut the ground from under the feet of the detractors of the CAP. We must be careful never to put ourselves in the position that we have been in of late, that for every solution we have had a problem. We must get it the other way round. Let us have solutions to problems.

771
The Government would do well to grasp the nettle of green pound devaluation firmly right away. It would do substantially less damage to their fight against inflation if they did it now rather than let the matter drag on. I do not think that we are necessarily at the bottom of the slide of the differential between sterling and the other currencies of the world. We might as well catch up now and move towards something like parity. It would be a great help to the producer, and would not have all that dramatic an effect on the cost of living index.
I come to the other related measures. Paragraph 19 of the document R/3166/75 sets out the areas of improvement to be achieved. Paragraph 20, which is relevant to our situation, underlines the need to consider the milk-beef-veal complex as a whole. It says:
"As regards the milk and beef and veal sectors in particular the Commission is aware of the serious imbalance of the milk sector since 1968 and that the prospects are unfavourable in the medium-term. It is for this reason that it is proposing to the Council a series of measures relating both to milk and to beef and veal and including measures on prices, the organisation of markets and structural adjustments. It considers that it is only by simultaneously implementing a whole series of incisive measures that the equilibrium of the markets in the milk sector will be re-estabslished."
That is the correct approach and the first part of the equation must be with the beef industry.
I am delighted that the Minister of State has shown his determination repeatedly this evening to fight for the retention of the variable premium scheme. This is accepted in the beef industry in my part of the world, and it has been successful in developing confidence. It has had the effect of matching production to seasonal needs and variations. It has also had the side effect of creating stable prices to the consumer over the last 12 months. I wish the Minister success on that point, but it may be that he has to give a little in some other direction. If he considers making concessions about the skimmed milk pile it would be best if he were to opt for the recycling approach, asking for FEOGA or Community funds to cover the cost.
This would have the effect of turning the surplus inwards into the market in a manner which the public would understand, rather than selling it off to Russia,
772
which they do not understand. I am certain that a large percentage of the public cannot understand why we sell our surpluses to our ideological enemies to keep them in business when their own lousy management of agriculture has created such shortages.
Solutions are possible. The Community came up with the successful solution to the butter problem with the butter premium. The beef premium had the effect of turning the surplus inwards. There is a cost to this approach, but the cost is preferable to trying to recoup a small amount of visible cash through selling the produce outside the Community.
The other proposal which must be tackled very delicately is that of encouraging small smilk producers to go out of business. Much has been said about the efficiency of milk production in this country. The level of incentive must be selective so as not to encourage the wrong producers, bearing in mind that about 50 per cent. would be eligible. However, it must be sufficiently high-geared to encourage the French and Danish producers to opt out and go into something more worth while. It is not an easy equation to mate up, and I wish the Minister well in his attempts.
I can detect small alarm bells ringing in the back of my mind about whole-milk powder and subsidies for its production. The answer must be to encourage the consumption of milk rather than run the risk of building up another pile of whole-milk powder. The Minister has a tortuous path to tread if he is to obtain for our consumers and the agricultural community a fair balance of supply, price and reward, all coupled with confidence for the future. However, our producers would like to be able to compete on equal terms with those elsewhere in the Community, and here it is vital to consider putting pressure on the Government to accept that the present state of taxation on capital and income is unacceptable as a fair basis for competition. I hope that no effort will be spared in trying to harmonise our taxation downwards.
10.49 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We have had a helpful and constructive debate. I believe that the hon. Member for Newham, (Mr Spearing)

773
described the debate as the annual general meeting leading up to the Common Market price review. That is an accurate description of our proceedings, and I hope that the Minister is receptive to many of the points which have been made.
I draw particular attention to the forceful contribution by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross.) I did not agree with many of his opinions or the assumptions on which he based some of his arguments, but he raised some very interesting points which I hope the Minister will take to Europe next week to bring out in the very hard debates which lie ahead.
I should like to congratulate and pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and near neighbour, the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). Like me, he represents an extremely good agricultural constituency, and the work he has done in the arduous task of Chairman of the Select Committee on Secondary Legislation makes the work of the House much simpler. We owe him a great debt of gratitude.
I would remind the hon. Member for Londonderry that, in opening the debate for the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) stated clearly his belief that we must not encourage our smaller dairy farmers to go out of business, because they do an extremely good job and they would be sadly missed. The small dairy farmer in this country is very different from the small dairy farmer on the Continent. I believe we need an increase in milk production in this country, and the smaller dairy farmer is important in achieving this objective.
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister and the House to a statement made by one of my constituents who is on the Council of the NFU, was chairman of the Cheshire county branch of the union last year and was previously chairman of the Macclesfield branch. He has said:
"To those who believe there is no need to expand home milk production because North Sea Oil will buy all the milk products we shall need in the future, I say this: All the surplus revenue from oil in the 1980s will not even redeem our national heritage from the international pawnbroker, and certainly there will be no money available in the near future to buy milk products on a world market in which
774
shortages will, in any case become the dominant feature."
He knows the industry and runs a highly successful farm. He takes a considerable interest in European and United Kingdom matters and, in a very few years, has risen to the top rank in the union.
He also believes that the present potato shortage and the recent sugar scare can both be blamed on short-sighted planning by successive Governments which have failed to guarantee fair prices for surplus production.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) was quite right to bring to the Minister's attention the fact that the British farmer is looking for fair competition—no more, no less.
Cheshire is a large milk-producing area and what happens in negotiations in the next few weeks will be of great importance to my constituents. I hope the Minister will make some comment about standardisation, which is causing some concern in the dairy trades.
I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) put forward a very constructive suggestion when he proposed a variable intervention price. I hope that proposal will be examined on the European scene, because it holds a great deal of promise for the future.
We do not produce a milk surplus in the United Kingdom. We can scarcely produce enough milk to fulfil all our requirements. We need to import considerable quantities of milk products, and many butter and cheese factories have closed down or are on short time because of the shortage of milk. We need to produce more milk, and I hope that the Minister will take that message to Europe.
I pay tribute to the Milk Marketing Board and the Potato Marketing Board, which do a wonderful job in guaranteeing a fall-back price to the farmer and providing stability of supply for the consumer. The setting up of similar boards might be a future development for the EEC. In the promotion of liquid milk in the United Kingdom the Milk Marketing Board, the Dairy Trades Federation and all involved have done a wonderful job. Europe should follow our example.
From information which has come from interested bodies, including the

775
NFU, there is no doubt that the proposed EEC price review is not altogether acceptable. EEC farm incomes as a whole fell by almost one-fifth in real terms in 1974. The gap between farm earnings and non-agricultural earnings almost certainly widened in 1975. The Commission's proposals for an average increase in farm prices of 7·5 per cent., which is worth much less in practice because of a combination of special measures for certain commodities and various monetary adjustments, would do nothing to reverse this recent trend. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) will comment on that.
Heading the farmers' objections and grievances is the absence of provision for further adjustment of the United Kingdom representative rate of exchange, commonly known as the green pound. Despite adjustments made by the Minister, which we welcome, it remains over-valued, and that is very much to the detriment of our farmers. Although I realise that because of the consumer aspect the Minister is unwilling to make further adjustments, I hope that he will accept that another adjustment is necessary.
May I now refer to an article by Jim Murray of the Farmers Guardian, in which he said:
"The total of the Commission's package amounts to a rise of about 7½per cent., on average farm prices. Some observers and some participants in Brussels believe that this may be pushed up a few points to, say, 8 per cent. The European Parliamen's rapporteur, the Dutch Christian Democrat Mr. De Koning, has stated in a report to his agricultural committee that this needs to be raised to 9.5 per cent. to cover increased farm costs."
Surely it is right that the increased costs which the farmers have had to bear should be met and that the prices guaranteed to them should reflect the additional costs.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire said that in the past two years there had been a cut in farmers' incomes of about 30 per cent. in real terms. Farmers are unable to provide investment for expansion. In my constituency good livestock farmers who are making a profit tell me that they are unable to keep up with the normal replacement of machinery. The longer they
776
delay in replacing machinery, the more inflation puts it further out of reach. They are worried as to how they will catch up and what will happen when the machinery they are using, perhaps beyond its useful life, finally wears out.
The only way they can re-equip is to borrow heavily at high rates of interest, and the long-term confidence is not there for them to do it. The price review as it stands will not give the farming industry the confidence it needs, and without confidence not only will expansion not take place but there will be grave danger of a further fall in production. The Minister published a White Paper, "Food from our own Resources", putting forward expansion plans. Let him go to Europe next week and ensure that this expansion can take place.
11.0 p.m.
Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: The debate is most fortunately timed by the Government, although, in the circumstances, perhaps a little inconvenient for me. It is rare, as has been said, that we get an opportunity to put our views to the Minister before he negotiates with his colleagues in the Council of Ministers, as he will be doing next week. He will now have the benefit of the House's views on the proposals of the Commission. I wish we could have done this before the Minister came back with the annual price review proposals in the old days before we joined the EEC. This is a great step forward.
There is another advantage in having the debate today. I have just returned from Strasbourg, where the European Parliament finalised and voted on recommendations on the various proposals of the Commission. The main recommendation, supported by a two-thirds' majority, was that there should be an increase from 7½5per cent. to 9½5 per cent. in the overall increase in the price review.
I was therefore surprised when the right hon. Gentleman said that he was not only worried about the 7½5 per cent. but thought that it could be a little lower. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, the reverse is true. Farmers' input costs have increased almost 10 per cent. It will be an impossible situation if the Minister starts from a bargaining position of wanting even less than 7½5 per

777
cent. Now that the European Parliament has given him and the Commission more scope in the negotiations, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not maintain a rigid view that 7½5 per cent. is the upper limit and that, if possible, the increase should be less. If he does, he will do farming an injury from which it will take a long time to recover.
There has been almost a structural change in the method whereby the common agricultural policy is supporting various products. There has been an increase in the target price of almost all the products. The increase in the intervention price for the main products has been much less, and in some cases the intervention price has dropped. The variation is much greater now between the target and the intervention prices, and that is a good development.
The Minister should not forget that at the end of the day it is the intervention price which is the guarantee. He may not approve of the system, but it is that price which is of maximum importance to the farmer-producer. It is the target price which is of importance to the importers and compounders. The figure of 5½5 per cent., which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said was the real increase proposed by the Commission, is the one being advanced. That simply is not enough. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will start from 7½5 per cent, and go up from there. He has been given room to manoeuvre by the recommendation of his colleagues at the European Parliament.
I want to deal with some of the main products. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman accepts that it is right to bring feed grain into line and to do away with the regionalisation of prices. It will take time to do this and it will have to be done in steps. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) has proposed—and the Commission is studying it—that there should be a specialisation in the regions so that the regions which are specially suited for particular commodities should grow them. For example, in most parts of the United Kingdom grass grows well, and it therefore follows that dairy and beef farming should predominate. Cereals grow well in parts of the central basin of France and around Paris.
778
Differentials should be worked out on the level of the intervention price—not on the level of the target price—depending on the priority which the Commission, after consultation with the various national Governments, attaches to a particular region specialising in a particular product. We have put that suggestion forward many times at the European Parliament. I hope that the Commission is studying it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think about it and put it forward in the forthcoming negotiations.
I am a little worried about the lack of emphasis being placed on the production of more feed for the coming season. The farmers have been critical that these changes have been made public fairly late. It would have been better if we had been informed of them earlier.
I am glad that in principle the Minister accepts that feed grain should remain at its present level. Until we get the bread-baking test properly defined—that will be the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility—each country will have to work out its own method. I beg the Minister not to bring in the 15 per cent. premium but to keep things as they are at present. The 15 per cent. premium for milling wheat is the right differential, but unless there is a proper method of testing it will be open to so many frauds that we must have second thoughts about it.
I turn to the important subject of milk. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) on the work of his Committee and on his remarks. He mentioned the milk proposals. I hope hon. Members realise that all these proposals have to be taken together as one package. We can discuss the various parts individually—for example, the non-distributive part of milk, what is being done about skimmed milk powder and so on. However, they have to be taken together.
I hope that the Minister will take up the one glaring inadequacy in these proposals, namely, that although the Commission says that it wants to encourage liquid milk consumption—and a small amount is being used in school meals—it is not putting in any money worth talking about. There should be a campaign throughout Europe to encourage

779
liquid milk consumption. It is not easy, however, to change people's habits.
The Commission is also not putting forward any proposals for increasing liquid skimmed milk consumption. The Commission says that it will do so, but there are no recommendations. This is lunacy. If one makes milk, one will have skimmed milk. It is no use consuming energy and power to dry it off and then putting liquid back into it later. It is far better to use it and feed it straight to the animals that need it—in other words, pigs. This will not happen unless there is a reasonable inducement to do it. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to attend to that point as quickly as possible.
There are one or two other points concerning liquid milk. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and I have always been friends over these matters. I admire him and his arguments so much that I find it frightfully difficult to say that he was talking absolute nonsense—but he was, particularly about the skimmed milk powder.
Mr. Marten: I must quickly correct that point.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: No, there is no time. My hon. Friend must listen to what I say. No doubt we shall have a tremendous talk about it later at some more suitable moment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West said, for the first time there is a reference guide price for skimmed dried milk. It is to come in from 15th September of this year. That can range between 94 per cent. and 102 per cent. of the target price for skimmed milk. Within that range, tenders will be submitted for whatever quantities are available at the time. If the tenders do not come in, that milk does not get sold.
However, the price can be as low as 94 per cent. of the target price. In other words, the tenders will all be at the market price at present, inevitably—in other words, the bottom price. The farming community is saying "We do not like this much. It gives us no bottom guarantee for this product." My reply—and I hope that of the right hon. Gentleman—is "No, it does not, but at the same time we do not want to encourage any more of this reducing of milk for intervention, particularly dried skimmed
780
milk straight into intervention." If this will stop that or slow it down, as I think it will, it must be acceptable and the right thing to do.
I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is going to stick to his guns over the beef premia. In the European Parliament we managed to succeed in keeping a two-stage proposal on milk, but we did not succeed in this respect. Although a healthy number of members, not only from the United Kingdom but from other countries, voted for the premia to be retained, unhappily we did not get a majority. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will at least maintain the variable element even if he has to give up the fixed element. There is a certain amount of sympathy for this, not only among members of the European Parliament but also in the Commission.
As I understand it, the proposals for a sheep regime throughout the Community have been sent back to the Commission for rethinking again by the European Parliament. New and, I hope, better proposals will be coming forward in the near future. Certainly the Commission's proposals would not have had the effect about which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) was talking—raising the price by 50 per cent. However, they would have given Eire—and, indeed, this country—access to the French market for the first time, without allowing the French to bring down the chopper whenever they chose when the prices got too weak. However, those proposals were not sufficiently sound. They have gone back to the Commission. They will not be before the right hon. Gentleman until they have been thought out again.
As regards horticulture, it was the right hon. Gentleman himself who cut off the support that he could have given and in which he could have had help from the FEOGA funds for glasshouse growers in the United Kingdom. We were the first to give support, but we were the first to cut it. We did so while others were still getting it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think about that again.
An issue that appears to be small but which is important to some, and especially in the West Country, concerns cauliflowers between January and March 1977. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will

781
try to get an extra 20 per cent on the withdrawal price.
All in all, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go to Brussels fortified by this debate. The House has been saying that what has been achieved so far goes a little way on the right road and that there is a great deal more to be done. There is now the opportunity to improve and increase stability and to restore some of the confidence within the farming industry which is so badly lacking. The means exist, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity next week to bring about what he and his White Paper have spoken of—namely, improved production from our farms. He can do it, and if he does it I am certain that Members on both sides of the House will wish him well.
11.17 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) for the good wishes which he, like so many others on both sides of the House, has expressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for his forthcoming discussions in Brussels. The hon. Gentleman reiterated the comment of his hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) that this is the right timing for such a debate. I endorse that view. I have listened to almost every speech throughout the debate, as has my right hon. Friend, and what has been said will be borne in mind. Comments have been made which will fortify my right hon. Friend, and certain points have been underlined. I believe that the whole of the debate has been exceedingly useful.
Some hon. Members have related their remarks to the whole state of the agriculture industry. I do not want to follow them in that course. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) who referred to the criterion of assisting the efficient farmer. We believe that the common policy should provide effective support for many producers without imposing undue burdens on consumers or taxpayers.
I believe that the Scrutiny Committee has done invaluable work. I endorse what has already been said about its work. We have made full use this year of our annual review discussions so as
782
to be fully informed of our agriculture industry's views in formulating our approach to the Commission's proposals. I know that it will bring pleasure to both sides of the House, and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), when I say that we have extended the range of consultations to include consumer organisations. In short, we have integrated our annual review more closely into the preparations for the negotiations in Brussels. We shall be publishing the results of the annual review—it was on this matter that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) spoke about timing—with the decisions which will be taken here and in Brussels. It is not yet clear whether the Council of Ministers will be able to reach a conclusion at its meeting on 23rd–24th February, but we hope that it can do so.
I think we have all recognised—this has been the tenor of the debate from beginning to end—that there were many problems for farmers last year. The weather was unfavourable until the autumn and especially affected yields of cereals, potatoes and sugar beet. Cost inflation was a burden on farmers as on other sections of the community. Fortunately the open autumn and early winter did much to make up for losses in the spring and summer. We have seen good results already in increased milk production, and there are good signs as regards the planting of winter wheat.
We are all conscious that the better weather will not be fully reflected in agricultural output until 1976–77. Net production in 1975–76 will undoubtedly be hard hit by the large fall in the cereal harvest. Nevertheless, while there were setbacks in 1975, there has recently been a good recovery of confidence and output.
We as a Government are determined to curb inflation, and we have also taken major steps since the last review to improve the support that is available to producers. It is well to recognise that factor.
The green pound changes in August and October and the accompanying increases in the guaranteed price for milk were clear evidence of our continuing commitment to United Kingdom agriculture. I am sure that those decisions have contributed substantially to returning confidence. We intend to build on this

783
by giving our farmers a fair deal in the forthcoming decisions on support for 1976–77.
I turn to the Commission's 1976–77 price proposals. The negotiations on these proposals are particularly important because they represent an opportunity to continue our efforts to secure certain improvements in the operation of the CAP. The Commission's proposals recognise some of the more important issues identified during last year's stock-taking discussions.
My right hon. Friend the Minister was asked on the subject of milk whether there was a contradiction between higher output in the United Kingdom and restraint in Community prices. There is a fallacy in that respect, as some hon. Members recognise. It is essential to recognise that we are still in transition. Community prices for milk and milk products have been running at high levels for some time. Returns to United Kingdom dairy farmers have been moving up but have not yet reached Community levels. Hence the differences in production and aims. It is unrealistic to compare the position of continental and United Kingdom dairy farmers last year as if the transition had been completed. At full Community prices, our dairy farmers should be able to take advantage of their good structure and climate.
There has already been a big swing within the European Community towards milk production in the grasslands areas. In the last 10 years milk production has gone up by 25 per cent. in the grassland areas and has fallen by about 20 per cent. in non-grassland areas. There is no reason why this trend should not continue to our benefit.
The right hon. Member for Cambridge-shire (Mr. Pym) asked for assurances about the use of intervention in cereals. The remaining cereal guarantees will end in July under the transitional arrangements negotiated by the Conservative Government. We already have intervention prices. Intervention will be available, if necessary, for United Kingdom cereal producers. I hope that that is an assurance hon. Gentlemen wish to hear. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The right hon. Gentleman also asked, as did other hon. Members, about the
784
proposed new intervention arrangements for skimmed milk powder. As my right hon. Friend said, these represent an important move to more flexible intervention. This was spelt out in the speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West. Some such action to avoid the continuing accumulation of surplus stocks is essential. Producers will not be without any support. Subject to the supplies available, tenders would be accepted within a range of 94 to 102 per cent. of the proposed new reference price. There could also be arrangements to vary the packaging and quality conditions for support buying. I understand the concern expressed by some producers, but we believe it is right that the present intervention arrangements should be altered.
We were asked about compulsory incorporation of skimmed milk powder in animal feed. Again, I understand the concern of those who oppose compulsory incorporation. Such compulsion is, in principle, undesirable. Livestock producers' and feed manufacturers' costs will be increased. The point was made by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). It will certainly not be easy—I emphasise this—to administer the scheme which the Commission has proposed and to avoid unfair discrimination between different users. There is also the special problem for us that there are only small stocks of skimmed milk powder available here, although the Commission proposes to make an allowance for the extra transport costs involved.
On the other hand, we must face the fact that there are large accumulated stocks of skimmed milk powder. While I hope that the Council will agree on measures which discourage the further accumulation of stocks, the existing stocks must be disposed of. The main outlet available is animal feed. Disposing of these stocks for feed is inevitably expensive. The main question is how and where the cost should fall. A purely voluntary scheme would involve much larger budgetary costs. I have the figures.
I assure the House that, in the forth-coming negotiations on the Commission's proposals, we shall bear in mind the points which have been made tonight. We shall certainly be anxious to secure

785
the fairest and most sensible arrangements we can. The hon. Member for Londonderry expressed his fears, but I am given to understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has just announced a scheme of aid for employment in the pig and poultry sectors in Northern Ireland through higher feed price allowances. I hope that this will be welcomed in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) mentioned sheepmeat, as did other hon. Members. We do not expect a regime on sheepmeat to be part of the package of measures now under discussion. We have made quite clear that we would not agree to a regime which did not take account of the interests of our consumers as well as of our producers.
Concerning the average level of price increases, we have had comments throughout the debate on the proposed average level of support prices. I emphasise also that the support price increases in national currencies in most member States will be less than 7½5 per cent. None the less, my right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks that the Government regard the Commission's proposals as being on the high side. In the current economic situation, and given the serious problems of over-supply in some sectors, it seems to us that constraint is called for.
There is not the time to go into the argument concerning the existence of and the changes in the green pound, but I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of the reason why it is there and the role it plays, and certainly the need for it. There would otherwise have to be changes with every change in a particular currency's market value, leading to great uncertainty and instability in floating currencies. My right hon. Friend has made quite clear that we continue to keep the level of the green pound under review.
I have dealt with as many of the issues raised as I can in the time available, and I assure the House that all the points which have been made will be kept in mind in the forthcoming negotiations.
786
Indeed, I hope that our negotiating position will be strengthened as a result of the debate. The Council of Ministers will be meeting again next week and is due to have a further session, as I have already told the House, on 23rd and 24th February.
I know that in the negotiations my right hon. Friend will be exerting all his efforts to secure an outcome which is fair both to producers and to consumers and which in no way puts at risk the strategy for agriculture set out in the White Paper "Food from our own resources."
Amendment agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission documents R/3166/75 and R/3271/75 and, in respect of R/3166/75, of the Government's intention, taking account of the needs of producers and consumers and the importance of restraining public expenditure, to seek both satisfactory levels of agricultural support prices and further improvements in the operation of the common agricultural policy, especially in the milk and cereals sectors, and to maintain the provision for variable slaughter premiums in the EEC beef regime along the lines of the arrangements secured as part of the renegotiated terms of EEC membership and urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the competitive and structural advantages of United Kingdom agriculture are maintained.

Motion made, and Question put forth-with pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Statutory Instruments, &c.),

RATING AND VALUATION
That the Post Office (Rateable Values) Order 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.—[Mr. Dormand.]
That the Post Office (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February be approved.—[Mr. Dormand.]
Question agreed to.

RATING AND VALUATION
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dormand.]

GRANT-AIDED SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND)
11.30 p.m.
Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise on the motion for the Adjournment the subject of Government policy towards grant-aided schools in Scotland. No one will doubt that this is a matter of the gravest concern, not merely to the parents, pupils and teachers in the schools, themselves, but to all those interested in the quality of education throughout Scotland.
For some years the Labour Party has had the reputation, in education matters, of being more concerned with ideology than with the actual practical effects of its policy on parents, teachers and children. Sadly, this is nowhere more apparent than in regard to grant-aided schools in Scotland and independent schools in England and Wales.
I do not wish tonight to concentrate on the general merits of the Government's policy. We have gone over these matters previously, and I doubt whether the Minister will be swayed on the matter this evening. That is not because I do not believe that he is flexible; I am happy to concede in the presence of those hon. Members who are present tonight that the Minister is the epitome of sweet reasonableness. However, I suspect that on this matter he has received his directions from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that there should be no quarter, no compromise and no questioning of the fundamental principles of the Government's policy.
I would rather concentrate on certain of the detailed consequences of the Government's policy and how the policy has evolved over the past few months. We have, first, the question of exactly what the Government's policy is or can be considered to be at present. When it was first announced that the Government intended to withdraw the grant from the grant-aided schools, it was stated without qualification that when the grant-aided schools ceased to be grant-aided the Government would not demand that they should opt for a particular status. The schools could opt for independent status or could become local authority schools in the area in which they were
788
situated. It was stressed by Ministers and others that the schools could opt to become local authority schools or go independent if they so wished.
I remind the Minister that his predecessor in office, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), said that "They"—that is, the grant-aided schools—
"will certainly have the right to choose which is the best course for them."—[Official Report, 23rd January 1975 ;Vol. 884, c. 1899.]
The choice would be between independence and local authority status.
Equally, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
"My hope is that it will be found possible for the schools to be fully integrated in the public system of education as comprehensive schools".—[Official Report, 11th March 1975 ;Vol. 887, c. 278.]
Indeed, some days later, in a letter dated 14th March 1975, from the Scottish Education Department to the Merchant Company in Edinburgh, it was stated that:
"It is the Government's hope that the schools will be prepared to adopt the role of comprehensive schools integrated with the public system of education".
In other words, it was made clear that it the schools wished to opt for local authority status, not only were the Government willing but they were enthusiastic that the schools should so opt.
We have seen how, in the event, the vast majority of the schools—rightly, in my view—have chosen to opt for independent status rather than to be swallowed up in the Government-sponsored State system which they feel does not meet their requirements. But we have one school in Edinburgh—Mary Erskine School—which has requested to be integrated into the local authority system in the city of Edinburgh and the Lothian Region. Not only did the school wish to be integrated with the local authority; the local authority was anxious that it should be integrated, and made strong representations to the Government that this should be permitted.
Despite the wishes of the school and of the local authority, and despite the clear commitment by the Government to allow schools to opt for integration into the local authority, on two occasions the Government vetoed any proposals that would enable the school to do so. When

789
Opposition Members have criticised the Government about this they have been accused of playing party politics and putting forward a Conservative dogma, and of attacking a Government who were trying to meet the real requirements and education needs of the city of Edinburgh and the Lothian Region.
These are serious charges. Normally, it might be difficult for the Government or the Opposition to prove or disprove the basis of them, but it is not difficult in the present case. The request for this school to be allowed to integrate into the local authority did not come merely from Conservative councillors in the Edinburgh local authority; it came from an education committee controlled by the Labour Party, its chairman being a member of the Labour Party. The proposal that the school should be allowed to integrate had the unanimous support of all political parties in the Lothian Region. It was the view not only of all political parties but of all those involved in determining the education needs of the people of Edinburgh that it was in the interests both of the private sector and of the local authority sector that this integration should be allowed to take place.
If there is any doubt about this, I refer the Minister to some remarks by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), who asked, on 21st January:
"Does my hon. Friend accept that the result of the decision will be no endowment of the fees of the remaining Merchant Company schools, and that there is a serious fear among the Labour movement in Edinburgh that more than 1,000 pupils will drop out of these schools and come into the State system next autumn?"—[Official Report, 21st January 1976; Vol. 898, c. 1335.]
If there is alarmist talk, it is not merely from the Opposition Benches; it comes from Government supporters as well.
Perhaps the most eloquent remark about the Government's decision to veto this integration of Mary Erskine School came from the Chairman of the Lothian Region Education Committee, who is a member of the Labour Party and a Labour councillor—Councillor George Foulkes. He described the veto by the Secretary of State as "pathetic, callous and impudent." That is strong language. I can assure the Minister of the true Socialist credentials of the gentleman who used those words, because he was my
790
Labour opponent at the last General Election. Although I do not always agree with Councillor Foulkes' views on many political matters, the Minister must concede that there is all-party agreement that the Secretary of State was pathetic, callous, and impudent to all those concerned with education in the capital city of Scotland.
I ask the Minister to answer one simple question: are the Government still of the view that those grant-aided schools which want to integrate into the local authority system should be allowed to do so? If so, how does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that view with the veto by the Secretary of State? If that is no longer the policy, when did the change take place, and why?
The second matter to which I refer relates to the effects on parents with modest means of these schools going independent. The Minister will accept that if these schools go independent fees will have to rise once the grant has been withdrawn, and many parents with modest means will find great difficulty in paying the fees.
It is interesting to contrast the Government's attitude in Scotland with their attitude towards the same type of school in England and Wales. The Secretary of State for Education and Science said, on 27th October, that
"if the fees rise because the schools go independent, parents who cannot afford them under the existing arrangements will get the benefit of the remission of fees scheme".—[Official Report, 27th October 1975; Vol. 898, c. 1191–2]
That scheme does not apply in Scotland, but in England it will ensure that parents of modest means are helped. This is a fundamental matter of principle. If the Government accept the principle for England and Wales, why do they not accept it for Scotland?
The Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, said, on 23rd January 1975:
"Nor are we treating grant-aided schools in Scotland any more harshly than they are being treated in England and Wales."—[Official Report, 23rd January 1975; Vol. 884, c. 1900.]
If that is true, the Government must make a concession so that parents of modest means receive some help towards payment of increased fees.

791
On 11th March last year the Secretary of State for Scotland, asked whether help would be given, pointed out that the fees remission scheme did not exist in Scotland, and went on:
"Whether anything can be done on these lines as the grant is tapered off will be subject to discussion."—[Official Report, 11th March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 280.]
Has there been any discussion of these matters? If not, when will it begin? What form will it take? Will the Minister accept that, since the principle of helping these parents south of the border has been conceded, similar steps should be taken by the Government to help parents of similar means in Scotland when, as is inevitable, the fees rise because of the Government's own policy of withdrawing the grant?
My third question is short and simple. When is it intended to bring forward the draft Regulations under which the grant will be gradually withdrawn over the next few years? Will copies be made available in advance to the grant-aided schools? They should be able to consider them so that their views can be taken into account when the House prays against them, as it certainly will, so that they can be fully discussed.
My final point relates to the disappointing reply that I received to my Written Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland,
"whether he will meet parents and teachers at grant-aided and local authority schools in Scotland to discuss with them the effect of the Government's policy towards grant-aided schools".
The reply, in the name of the Minister who is before me tonight, was a simple, blunt,
"No, Sir."—[Official Report, 11th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 208.]
The Question did not ask him to concede any political point or to meet one group rather than another, but simply to hear the views of those in both sectors on the Government's policy.
Yesterday, the Minister took grave exception to the accusation of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that the Government's policy was motivated by spite, ideology and lack of interest. If his anger at that charge was justified, I am sure he will agree that his concern could best be demonstrated by reconsidering
792
that blunt, thoughtless and insensitive decision to refuse even to meet these people and discuss the effects of the Government's policy.
Whatever our differing views on priorities, we are all agreed that it is important to safeguard the educational interests of all children in the community and to realise that, in the unusual situation in Edinburgh—where there is a slightly unexpected identity of views between the Labour majority on the council and the Conservative Opposition, and between the local authority schools and the grant-aided schools ; where all four parties are in agreement on the main issues—there is an unusual and onerous burden on the Government to adopt a more flexible and reasonable position.
I hope that the Minister will not only answer my detailed questions but will discuss with his right hon. Friend the views that have been expressed, in order to see whether a more reasonable and honourable approach can be adopted to a matter of the gravest concern to many thousands of parents, pupils and teachers throughout Scotland.
11.46 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): The hon. Gentleman's views on grant-aided schools, and on Mary Erskine School in particular, are becoming well known in the House. For the past four months he has repeatedly raised the issue at Question Time. I am not in the habit of giving advice to Conservatives, but I tell the hon. Gentleman that if he keeps pursuing the same issue about one school week after week and month after month the constituents of Edinburgh, Pentlands will be seriously asking themselves whether he is the hon. Member for Pentlands or for Mary Erskine. The only inference I can draw is that the hon. Gentleman must be very happy with the Labour Government's policy in Scotland when he has only the issue of Mary Erskine School to raise month after month.
The hon. Gentleman repeated the accusations we have heard so often in the past few weeks that our decision not to allow extra capital investment to the Lothian Region to acquire the Mary Erskine School proves that we have given up, or never seriously intended to implement, our idea of the grant-aided schools

793
integrating with the public system of education. That is far from being the case. As we see it, integration means the integration of pupils, not of bricks and mortar. By offering one of its three school buildings, the Merchant Company would acquire capital—about £2·75 million—which would enable it to limit the rise in the fees of the other two schools and thus enable more pupils to remain in selective schools than might otherwise be the case under the Government's policy, however reprehensible that policy might seem to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
Mr. Rifkind: Will the Minister concede that in the examples of Government statements that I gave—and there are many other examples—the Government pledged that if schools wished to opt for independent status or local authority status it would be a matter for the schools themselves, where the school and the local authority wanted it? Why have the Government now changed their policy?
Mr. McElhone: It is not a question of changing our policy. No one is against the schools going independent. There is a freedom of choice in education. If they want to go independent, so be it, but the real difficulty for 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. of pupils in Scotland is that there is no choice. The people in favour of grant-aided schools and those who run them are entitled to pursue their aim. I do not doubt their sincerity, although I disagree with them, but they are not entitled to describe what they are trying to do as integration. The whole exercise at Mary Erskine School is to enable the two other schools under the control of the Merchant Company to keep their fees at a reasonable level to sustain this type of education in Edinburgh.
The Government's decision not to grant extra capital investment to Lothian Region to acquire the Mary Erskine School was not based on any theory of integration. I should like to put on record why I reject the accusations made tonight by the hon. Member and by the Chairman of the Lothian Region against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whose long service in this House has reflected a tremendous interest in education, for the greater good of all the pupils in Scotland.
794
The Government's decision reflected the fact that the Secretary of State was not satisfied that the prospective need for school places in Edinburgh resulting from the policy on grant-aided schools was so great as to justify the purchase of this very expensive school. It would cost £2·75 million, plus £600,000 for conversion.
I wish to deal with the question of the fall-out of pupils. On this, the hon. Member for Pentlands referred to comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). My hon. Friend referred to the fact that 1,000 pupils would fall out of the grant-aided system this year. I replied to my hon. Friend on that point. The delegation from the Lothian Region came to see me and pointed out that there would be 1,000 young people on the streets if we did not allow them to acquire the Mary Erskine School. That figure is not correct. The Lothian Region intends to phase out the primary sector of the school, and that brings the number down to 600 pupils. I took the trouble to check what is called the "scatter graph" in the Lothian Region Department of Education. It showed that these pupils did not come just from West Edinburgh, where I am told the problem lies; they came from the catchment areas of 13 schools within Edinburgh. In fact, 91 of the pupils actually came from outside Edinburgh. My investigations, along with those of the inspectors of schools, show that the pressure will be on only three schools if the Mary Erskine School closes. I do not believe that it will close. Instead of 1,000 pupils being under stress, the approximate figure, as we have it from the Lothian Region, is 225.
We come to the figures for the fall-out of pupils in the period from January 1974 to September 1975. These are 406 for the primary pupils and 201 for the secondary. That is a fair number, but it is not a landslide. The education authority says that it is able to cope so far but that if the number accelerates there will be difficulties, in the sense that some schools will be overcrowded and some children will not be able to go to the schools nearest their homes. I recognise these difficulties, but they have existed in many parts of Scotland. At present, when resources are scarce, there is no quick solution to the problems.

795
If capital investment in education could be increased by £3 million it is far from clear that Edinburgh would have first claim on the extra resources. We have to get our priorities right. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend has closed the door. We have said that we are not yet satisfied that in a period of financial constraint we should spend £3 million. But if the pressure in West Edinburgh should build up to create what we regard as a serious problem, of course we would be prepared to consider the matter again. That is only reasonable.
Hon. Members opposite have asked about the Regulations relating to grant. These are in preparation and they will be made as soon as possible—probably within the next few weeks—since I know that some of the schools at least will shortly he actively engaged in preparing their estimates for the coming financial year and they are naturally anxious to see the terms of the Regulations. However, I do not think there will be any surprises in them. The existing Regulations date from 1959 and they have been amended three times, so we are going to proceed this time not with a further amendment but by making entirely fresh Regulations, revoking all the previous ones. The opportunity will be taken to tidy them up in various ways.
The only really new matter will be that which the schools already know about—the phasing out of the grant over six years, beginning in the next schools' financial year. The effect will be that the grant for the next financial year will be six-sevenths of the grant for the present financial year, five-sevenths in the year after that, and so on, so that it is extinguished entirely at the end of six years.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands asked whether we intend to consult the schools about the Regulations before they are made. I do not think that will be necessary. There was extensive consultation with all the schools at meetings last year, after the Government's policy had been announced.
Hon. Members opposite have alleged that by phasing out the grant, the Government are threatening to destroy schools that have a high reputation and
796
to achieve equality by levelling down. Nothing could be further from the truth
Mr. Rifkind: Before the hon. Gentleman deals with that important point, will he say whether the Government will make provision, as in England and Wales, to help parents of modest means when their children's schools go independent? Does he stick to the Secretary of State's commitment to discuss this problem to see whether anything can be done to help?
Mr. McElhone: I hope to be able to refer to that matter later. It is not our intention to have a levelling down. Some of the grant-aided secondary schools are good schools, but there are good schools too in the public sector.
Fees remission does not extend to Scotland, but in certain grant-aided schools, including Morrison College, at Crieff, local authorities subsidise pupils. I understand that that does not happen in Edinburgh, but I think there would be no objection to this happening for a certain period of time. It is not our intention that it should be for a long period. We want to phase in those schools wishing to go comprehensive, and those that want to remain selective must pay for it.
Mr. Rifkind: Will the Minister confirm that he is saying that for an interim period the Government might not be averse to a local authority so assisting parents of modest means whose children's schools opt to go independent?
Mr. McElhone: I say that with some caution. I am open to correction. I was not aware that the hon. Member would be raising this point. It could be considered for a short period. Local authorities might be able to help these parents, but only for a temporary, transitional period. It is a matter I would like to discuss with local authorities. Our commitment is only to discuss, not to agree.
We are flexible. The hon. Member for Pentlands has paid tribute to my own flexibility in the short time that I have held this office. I thank him for initiating this debate. It has given me the opportunity of clearing up a few points which have not got across in the House or in the Press.

797
Though he disagrees with us, I can tell the hon. Member that we wish to build a strong system of comprehensive education. We do not object to children being educated in the selective sector, as long as the independent schools are prepared to pay for it—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twelve midnight.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Data Protection Committee
  Data Protection Committee
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Police Complaints Board
  Police Complaints Board
  European Parliament (Elections)
  European Parliament (Elections)
  Paroles
  Paroles
  Litter
  Litter
  Helsinki Agreement
  Helsinki Agreement
  Police Bill
  Police Bill
  Arrested Persons
  Arrested Persons
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Water Safety
  Water Safety
  Republic of Ireland Citizens
  Republic of Ireland Citizens
  Immigration Statistics and Policy
  Immigration Statistics and Policy
  Public Appointments
  Public Appointments
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Urban Aid
  Urban Aid
  Community Development Projects
  Community Development Projects
  Police (Interrogations)
  Police (Interrogations)
  Elections (Ballot Papers)
  Elections (Ballot Papers)
  Pensioners (Television Licences)
  Pensioners (Television Licences)
  Cock Fighting
  Cock Fighting
  Emergencies (Local Authorities' Responsibilities)
  Emergencies (Local Authorities' Responsibilities)
  Remanded Persons (Letters and Telegrams)
  Remanded Persons (Letters and Telegrams)
  Police (Football Grounds)
  Police (Football Grounds)
  South African Bureau of State Security
  South African Bureau of State Security
  Film Shows (London)
  Film Shows (London)
  Mentally-Handicapped Persons
  Mentally-Handicapped Persons
  Parliamentary Boundary Commission
  Parliamentary Boundary Commission
  Aliens' Admission to Britain (EEC Study)
  Aliens' Admission to Britain (EEC Study)
  Succession to the Throne
  Succession to the Throne
  Referendum
  Referendum
  Obscenity
  Obscenity
  Alimony (Defaulters)
  Alimony (Defaulters)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  INCOMES POLICY
  INCOMES POLICY
  USSR
  USSR
  DEFENCE (MINISTER'S STATEMENT)
  DEFENCE (MINISTER'S STATEMENT)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (MINISTERIAL SPEECHES)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (MINISTERIAL SPEECHES)
  PRESIDENT OF FRANCE
  PRESIDENT OF FRANCE
  TRAINING AND JOB CREATION
  TRAINING AND JOB CREATION
  MOBILITY OF LABOUR
  MOBILITY OF LABOUR
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  CBI AND TUC
  CBI AND TUC
  MOTOR INDUSTRY
  MOTOR INDUSTRY
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  UNEMPLOYMENT
  UNEMPLOYMENT
  FEDERAL GERMAN CHANCELLOR
  FEDERAL GERMAN CHANCELLOR
  NETHERLANDS PRIME MINISTER
  NETHERLANDS PRIME MINISTER
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Conifer Seed
  Conifer Seed
  Departmental Structure
  Departmental Structure
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Poultry (European Community Directives)
  Poultry (European Community Directives)
  Butter and Cheese Smuggling (Channel Islands)
  Butter and Cheese Smuggling (Channel Islands)
  Fish (Irish Sea)
  Fish (Irish Sea)
  Marketing Boards
  Marketing Boards
  Farm Hedges
  Farm Hedges
  Tree Planting
  Tree Planting
  Horticulture (Glasshouse Sector)
  Horticulture (Glasshouse Sector)
  Plums (Sharka Disease)
  Plums (Sharka Disease)
  Iceland (Fishing Conservation Areas)
  Iceland (Fishing Conservation Areas)
  Fruit Trees
  Fruit Trees
  European Community (Price Proposals)
  European Community (Price Proposals)
  World Food Supply (Conference)
  World Food Supply (Conference)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Employment (North-West Region)
  Employment (North-West Region)
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Halfpenny
  Halfpenny
  Betting Duties
  Betting Duties
  Wines, Spirits and Beer
  Wines, Spirits and Beer
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Charitable Donations (Tax Allowances)
  Charitable Donations (Tax Allowances)
  Capital Transfer Tax (Works of Art)
  Capital Transfer Tax (Works of Art)
  Charities
  Charities
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Indian Subcontinent (United Kingdom Entry Applications)
  Indian Subcontinent (United Kingdom Entry Applications)
  USSR
  USSR
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  President's Report on Integration
  President's Report on Integration
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
  SOLICITORS
  SOLICITORS
  LAWYERS
  LAWYERS
  "INSIDE LINDA LOVELACE"
  "INSIDE LINDA LOVELACE"
  DR. JOHN COURT
  DR. JOHN COURT
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Publications
  Government Publications
  Civil Servants and Diplomats
  Civil Servants and Diplomats
  North-West Region
  North-West Region
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  REFERENDUM
  REFERENDUM
DEFENCE
  Army Records ("British (Irish)" Designation)
  Army Records ("British (Irish)" Designation)
  Military Hospitals
  Military Hospitals
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Dining Rooms and Cafeterias
  Dining Rooms and Cafeterias
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Knowle Hospital, Fareham
  Knowle Hospital, Fareham
  Child Interim Benefit
  Child Interim Benefit
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Fraudulent Claims
  Fraudulent Claims
  Special Advisers
  Special Advisers
  Doctors and Nurses (Gulf States)
  Doctors and Nurses (Gulf States)
  Aliens
  Aliens
  Paediatric Units
  Paediatric Units
  National Health Service Employees
  National Health Service Employees
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Blind Persons
  Blind Persons
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Faversham Health Centre
  Faversham Health Centre
  Sheppey General Hospital
  Sheppey General Hospital
  Medway Hospital
  Medway Hospital
  Local Hospital Facilities
  Local Hospital Facilities
  Supplementary Benefit (Welfare Officers)
  Supplementary Benefit (Welfare Officers)
  Young Chronic Sick Institutions
  Young Chronic Sick Institutions
  Retirement Age
  Retirement Age
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Childbirth
  Childbirth
  Supplementary Benefits Commission
  Supplementary Benefits Commission
  Supplementary Benefit (Foreign Nationals)
  Supplementary Benefit (Foreign Nationals)
  Health Authorities (Government Grants)
  Health Authorities (Government Grants)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Coal Mining (Health Checks)
  Coal Mining (Health Checks)
EMPLOYMENT
  Nationalised Industries (Employees' Public Duties)
  Nationalised Industries (Employees' Public Duties)
  Dock Workers
  Dock Workers
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Pensioners (Fuel Charges)
  Pensioners (Fuel Charges)
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Chrysler United Kingdom Limited
  Chrysler United Kingdom Limited
ENERGY
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Research
  Nuclear Research
  Nuclear Capacity
  Nuclear Capacity
  Winfrith
  Winfrith
  Gas and Electricity Disconnections
  Gas and Electricity Disconnections
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Statutory Councils
  Statutory Councils
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Schoolchildren's Dress
  Schoolchildren's Dress
  11-Plus Examinations
  11-Plus Examinations
  Sixth Form Courses
  Sixth Form Courses
  Children's Book Clubs
  Children's Book Clubs
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  "Better Life for All" Campaign
  "Better Life for All" Campaign
  Demonstrations
  Demonstrations
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Regional Rate
  Regional Rate
  Police Pensions
  Police Pensions
ENVIRONMENT
  Tankers (Canvey Island Tests)
  Tankers (Canvey Island Tests)
  Vehicle Testing
  Vehicle Testing
  Airedale Trunk Road Inquiry
  Airedale Trunk Road Inquiry
  Rural Transport Legislation
  Rural Transport Legislation
  Railway Sidings
  Railway Sidings
  Windscreens
  Windscreens
  Railway Fares
  Railway Fares
  Listed Buildings
  Listed Buildings
  Harlow
  Harlow
  Historical Monuments
  Historical Monuments
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Planning Inquiries
  Planning Inquiries
  Brakes
  Brakes
  Housing Development Directorate
  Housing Development Directorate
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Construction Industry Manpower Board
  Construction Industry Manpower Board
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  M1 (Police Observation Ramps)
  M1 (Police Observation Ramps)
  Rate Equalisation
  Rate Equalisation
  Houses (Conversions and Improvements)
  Houses (Conversions and Improvements)
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
  Airbus
  Airbus
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Bus Group
  Scottish Bus Group
  Mental Hospitals
  Mental Hospitals
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  Local Authority Houses
  Local Authority Houses
  Housing Grants
  Housing Grants
  Sports and Recreation
  Sports and Recreation
  Fuel Supply and Disconnections
  Fuel Supply and Disconnections
  Oil Industry
  Oil Industry
  Health Services Expenditure
  Health Services Expenditure
  Freshwater Fishing
  Freshwater Fishing
  House Purchases and Improvements
  House Purchases and Improvements
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Sports and Arts Councils
  Sports and Arts Councils
  Scottish Assembly
  Scottish Assembly
  Stipendiary Magistrates
  Stipendiary Magistrates
  Fire Service (Strathclyde)
  Fire Service (Strathclyde)
WALES
  Public Appointments
  Public Appointments
  A5 (Clwyd)
  A5 (Clwyd)
  Road Traffic Signs
  Road Traffic Signs
  Welsh Scientific Advisory Committee
  Welsh Scientific Advisory Committee
  House Purchases and Improvements
  House Purchases and Improvements
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Employment (Construction Industry)
  Employment (Construction Industry)
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Development Agency
INDUSTRY
  Industrial Materials and Manufactures
  Industrial Materials and Manufactures
  Steel (Pensions)
  Steel (Pensions)
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Investment
  Investment
  Government Aid
  Government Aid
  Planning Agreements
  Planning Agreements
  Rolls-Royce
  Rolls-Royce
  Machine Tools
  Machine Tools
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Computer-Aided Design Centre
  Computer-Aided Design Centre
  Postal Traffic
  Postal Traffic
  Skelmersdale
  Skelmersdale
  North-West Region
  North-West Region
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Motor Vehicles
  Motor Vehicles
  Petrol Retailing
  Petrol Retailing
  Monopoly
  Monopoly
  Consumers' Rights
  Consumers' Rights
  Fruit and Vegetables
  Fruit and Vegetables
TRADE
  Furs and Skins
  Furs and Skins
  Export Credits
  Export Credits
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS ACT
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are considering amending the Obscene Publications Act.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, the operation of the law is kept under continuing review, but the Government have no plans for immediate special legislation.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will not the Minister agree that the recent case has done a great deal for the publicity of this obscene book, and that clearly the present law is not effective? Would it not be worth while for the Government to see whether a law, inspired by the present Home Secretary, might be changed and improved so that we should not have books of this type made public and made popular, with all the damage that they do?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the present legislation was put on the Statute Book as a result of a very substantial amount of support from both sides of another place and indeed both sides of this House. I am by no means convinced that there is any simple, workable and acceptable change in the law which would resolve the problem simply. But nevertheless, as I have indicated, the Government will certainly keep the issue under review.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is it not a rather unhappy story which has succeeded the passage of the 1959 Act? One has now quite an amount of case history. Is it not true that in a recent case brought
186
under this Act rather full use was made of the right of peremptory challenge by the defendant? Are not we rather less than edified by this extraordinary procession of so-called experts who claim to be experts in the public good, and who are almost impossible to contradict because nobody is fool enough to give expert evidence on the other side? Who can be an expert in the public good? What was Parliament thinking about—indeed what was I thinking about, when I was Lord President when the 1959 Act went through —to allow such rubbish to appear on the Statute Book?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am saddened that the noble and learned Lord is so full of self-reproach on an occasion such as this, but I note that he cheerfully accepts that degree of responsibility for the passage of this Bill through Parliament, therefore confirming the point I made in answer to the first supplementary question. I take the point the noble and learned Lord makes about the use of peremptory challenge; but, of course, this is a matter which, if it was examined, would have to be looked at in a wider context. What I am clear about is that this is a matter which, in cases of this kind, is properly left to the jury to determine.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the fault lies not so much with the Statute as with the selection of books which are prosecuted under the Statute? Would he agree that far more attention should be paid to the pornography of violence and far less to the pornography of sex?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, these are difficult matters which the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions have to consider. It is not, in my view quite rightly, for the Government to take a view; it is for the prosecuting authorities to arrive at a conclusion as to what is right, and it is for them to decide what is right in the difficult circumstances of these cases.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether I am right in thinking that under the 1959 Act literary merit was to be taken into consideration, and that, if this had been taken into consideration in regard to this horrible book, it might have been banned, or it would have helped to do so?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, my noble friend is right. That is one of the factors to be taken into account. It is one of the matters about which the jury has to reach a decision. But I must repeat that it is a matter for the jury to make a decision in cases of this kind. They are the people who read the book, and it is for them to decide to bring in a verdict of guilty or not guilty.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the silent majority in the community look to the Government of the day to protect them against the publication of obscene material, and that this was the purpose of both the 1959 Act and the 1964 Act? Is the noble Lord aware that, following the failure of this recent prosecution, there is a great disturbance of public opinion, and something much stronger and more responsive than the noble Lord's reaction today is needed to meet the occasion?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the Government will certainly take into consideration any representations which they may receive on this matter. But I must emphasise that Parliament has looked at this matter on a number of occasions. The 1959 Act was put on the Statute Book because Parliament was not convinced, at that stage, that the state of the law was satisfactory. It may well be that the matter will have to be considered again. It is not a simple matter, as the noble Lord seems to suggest. Certainly, if the noble Lord, or anybody else, wishes to put forward proposals the Government will be glad to look at them.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, the noble Lord will bear in mind, will he not, that no one except himself has raised the question of jury trial in this connection this afternoon? It may be that others have done so outside. One cannot really ride off on the necessity for a jury verdict because juries have to be directed according to law, and if the law is itself defective they will not come to a sane verdict.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is perfectly right in saying that the question of whether these matters should be put to a jury to resolve has not been raised in
188
your Lordships' House this afternoon, but, as he implied, it has been raised in the country by some members of a not so silent majority.
Lord MOYNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the fact that it has been suggested in the Press that juries are being picked in this matter for their probable opinions?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this is the point which the noble and learned Lord raised, the question of the right of peremptory challenge. What I said—and I think that the noble and learned Lord would agree—is that if this matter was going to be looked at it would have to be looked at in a wider context.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the Minister bear in mind that there has been support and anxiety from all sections and all parts of this House? Would he look at this with a greater sense of urgency, because the country is deeply disturbed about the standards now being set in literature of this sort? No doubt this is the sort of measure that might be started in this House, and it would be nice to have something we could all agree about, instead of dividing about.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the Government will certainly look at any proposal put to them, but I emphasise that changing the law in this matter is not as simple as some Members of your Lordships' House seem to believe.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend—and I do so as a virtuous young man—whether it is probably not a mistake to launch prosecutions against books of this kind, because the only result of those prosecutions is to swell their circulation a hundredfold?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as I have indicated, it is a difficult matter for the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions—it would be, I suspect, whatever the state of the law was—to decide whether to launch a prosecution against a particular book. No doubt the noble Lord's point is one factor at the back of their minds. Nevertheless, we should be a little hesitant before we reproach them in this particular situation.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, the noble Lord says that it is not so easy

189
to change things as might be thought, but may I ask him whether he would agree that where there's a will there's a way?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. I know that this is a matter over which there is considerable concern, but my concern at the moment is that we have been on this Question for eight minutes and we have 36 speakers in a subsequent debate. I think that we ought to try to bring Question Time to a reasonably early conclusion.

MR. NKOMO: DISCUSSIONS ON SOUTHERN AFRICA
3.16 p.m.
Lord ALPORT: 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 recent discussions between the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Nkomo.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, during an adjournment in the current talks between himself and Mr. Smith, Mr. Nkomo visited London at his own initiative from 1st to 5th February. In the course of his visit he had wide-ranging discussions with my right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the political situation in Southern Africa in general and in Rhodesia in particular. By agreement with Mr. Nkomo details of the discussions are confidential.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they would be willing to use their good offices to try to create the conditions whereby it would be possible for Bishop Muzorewa, and his part of the ANC, to be associated with the constitutional negotiations which are at present going on in Salisbury? At the same time would they make it clear, since they have given the impression that they are not concerned, or, at any rate, wish not to be involved in any way with what is happening and the very serious situation which exists in Southern Africa at
190
the moment, that Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to give practical help where they can in ensuring that any negotiations which exist reach a satisfactory and successful conclusion?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that, since I met Mr. Nkomo while he was in London, I have no doubt about his sincere desire to secure a settlement on the basis of majority rule? May I further ask him whether Her Majesty's Government are taking any steps to secure an extension of the consultations between Mr. Smith and Mr. Nkomo to include the chairman of the other faction of the ANC?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I entirely endorse what my noble friend has said about Mr. Nkomo's sincerity in the talks that he is now conducting with Mr. Smith. On the second point, which is a variant on what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, quite rightly put to the House and to the Government, we will take every possible step to help to create what I have described from this Box: a cohesion and a co-operation among the various parts of the African National Council, and that of course includes Bishop Muzorewa and his friends.

MR. KEVIN AGNEW AND MRS. M. DRUMM
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have studied the statements made in Londonderry on Sunday, 1st February, by Mr. Kevin Agnew and Mrs. M. Drumm.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the statements, but the question of prosecution, which is no doubt what the noble Lord has in mind, is a matter for

191
the chief constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. As my learned friend the Attorney General said in a Written Answer in another place on 9th February, the chief constable's investigations are not yet completed; when they are, he will report the evidence to the Director, who will consider whether there should be prosecutions and, if so, for what offences.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, which must give him as much misgiving as it does me—the fact that a prosecution has not already been started—may I ask whether the Government are aware that many millions of people in this country on television heard Mr. Agnew, in referring to the Britishers, say:
"Let it go from here that they have seen nothing yet compared with what they will get in the not too distant future."?
Are the Government aware that the failure at this moment for a prosecution to be established is further proof to the people of this country that they are gutless and ambivalent in the establishment of law and order in that part of the United Kingdom which is Northern Ireland?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the epithets applied seem rather inappropriate but, leaving that on one side, I do not think the noble Viscount really can press that the Government should interfere with the basic rule of law, which is that the evidence has to be provided by the police to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director then has to make up his mind. It is most unjust to suggest that difficulties, of which the noble Viscount and I are not aware, amount to reluctance. I can assure the noble Viscount that if the Director of Public Prosecutions thinks that he has a case which will stand, there will be no reluctance to bring it.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE:My Lords, while not quarrelling with the noble Lord over what he said about the rule of law, may I ask him to take note of the immense patience and restraint of the British people against whom these vile threats of intimidation and murder are placed?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I not only take note but share in it.

ELIZABETH GARRETT ANDERSON HOSPITAL
3.22 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have yet decided on the future of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, and, if not, when they intend to do so.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Yes, my Lords. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has given careful consideration to the representations made about the future of the hospital and is anxious to preserve the concept of treatment of women by women so long associated with the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson and its maternity home. However, the continued use of the existing hospital would entail excessive capital expenditure and running costs at a time of scarce resources. My right honourable friend has decided, therefore, that the best solution is to transfer the facilities provided by the hospital and the maternity home to a district general hospital within the same area in an identifiable form which preserves the original concept of the hospital. She has asked the Area Health Authority to work out a plan to put this into effect as quickly as possible.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, in view of that somewhat disappointing Answer—tempered as it was by a wish to provide the work that this hospital does for women in some other form—may I ask the Minister to say when this is likely to come about? Does he realise that the present hospital is breaking up while the morale of the staff and patients is breaking down?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are not unmindful of the present situation and the views and feelings to which the noble Lord has referred. I can only say that my right honourable friend is anxious that this should take

193
place as quickly as possible and that she has asked the Area Health Authority to go ahead with all speed. But obviously there are various considerations, not least among them the traditional facilities at the hospital which must, in her view, be provided, and the knowledge that this is a small and ageing hospital which, if it were to be continued, needs over £500,000 immediately in capital expenditure; also, for a variety of reasons, it is costing over £1 million a year to operate. For ail these reasons we shall proceed as quickly as possible.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, as the choice of other hospitals in this area is rather limited, may I ask my noble friend to indicate which particular hospital he has in mind for the transfer of these facilities?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we have no particular hospital in mind. There are a number of hospitals in the area of the Area Health Authority concerned and they are exploring the facilities in certain hospitals in the area.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, what is to happen to the site of the present building?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I just do not know. I know that it is a very valuable site and should be worth a great deal of money.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, rightly or wrongly, the feeling will now be abroad that "small" is not "beautiful"? Is he further aware of the strong feeling among women that the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital represents something very special as she was the first woman to break into a very difficult profession? Will my noble friend therefore convey to his right honourable friend the fact that these feelings are very strong and that she should think very carefully before she breaks up something which is a peculiar institution in the present Health Service?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are aware of that, and we have been aware of it for some considerable time. The noble Lord has tabled this Question because he is not satisfied with the progress that has been made in considering this issue; and that is because so much time has been given to these particular
194
matters. I have myself been present on occasions and I know how much thought has gone into this consideration. We just cannot, for sound economic reasons, retain this particular hospital, but we shall provide in an identifiable form the treatment and facilities which have always been available at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the name Elizabeth Garrett Anderson will be preserved, for is it not highly important that it should be?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I should have to pass that supplementary question on for consideration by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
Baroness LLEWELLYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on unemployment measures. This will be followed by a Statement on the legal profession which will be repeated by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make further provision with respect to school commencement and leaving dates and the supply of milk in schools; to provide for the remuneration of members of Independent Schools Tribunals; to make provision with respect to the construction of education endowment schemes; to make minor amendments to the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 and the Education (Scotland) Act 1969; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord kirkhill.)
On Question, Bill now read la, and to be printed.

ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT) BILL [H.L.]
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to restrict the importation and exportation of certain animals, plants and items; to restrict the movement after importation of certain live animals; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Baroness Stedman.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

SHOPS (HOLIDAY RESORTS—SUNDAY TRADING) BILL [H.L.]
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Shops Acts 1950–1965 in relation to Sunday trading at holiday resorts. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Baroness Phillips)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

DAMAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Damages (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

INCURABLE PATIENTS BILL [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I think that the Bill may best be introduced by a statement of what it is not rather than what it is. It is not a Bill that legalises euthanasia, or what is often called mercy killing. It leaves totally unchanged the present law about homicide, so that any person, be he layman, doctor or nurse, who administers a lethal dose deliberately and knowingly, or otherwise destroys the life of another person, is liable to a charge of murder—and will be liable under this Bill. We know that these things occur and that charges are not very often brought, but that is neither here nor there.
However, the Bill has been grossly misrepresented in the Press and in correspondence in various quarters—particularly I notice in correspondence to myself from the area of Birmingham where somebody must have done a very good anti-propaganda job. Last Sunday, even in the BBC's religious programme called "Sunday" it was announced that they were about to introduce a discussion on "the controversial Euthanasia Bill". There is no "Euthanasia Bill" before your Lordships' House. If I may use an analogy, there have been before your Lordships' House on many occasions Bills relating to the services and organisation of the Church of England. I think that the right reverend Prelates who are present here today would feel it most injudicious and most improper if these Bills were constantly referred to by the media as "Disestablishment Bills". That is strictly analogous to what has happened.
I am fully confident that your Lordships, having obtained the Bill, read it and studied it, will not have these ideas implanted into your minds but will form your own decisions from what you have observed from reading the Bill and that you will be far more discriminating and accurate than the media. This is a Bill to relieve the sufferings of incurable patients and not to kill them. I am indeed conscious of both the medical and the religious objections to euthanasia and, although a layman and an Agnostic, I sympathise very strongly with some of them.

197
I pass now to the positive objects of the Bill. First, it declares the right of incurable patients to receive the drugs necessary to give full relief from pain, even if this should cause unconsciousness. I have been told repeatedly that this provision is unnecessary because it is already possible to control terminal pain. I am in no position to deny that. I fully accept that it is true on the authority of many distinguished doctors who are Members of your Lordships' House, although it is said that there is a tiny minority for whom these measures are not successful. I know, too, that in the few small hospitals specialising in the care of the dying such treatment is successfully given—and all credit to them. But it is one thing to say that pain is controllable and another to say that it is generally controlled. Although I accept the first proposition, I emphatically deny the second.
Now for my evidence. First, I would ask your Lordships to pick up any newspaper such as The Times or the Daily Telegraph. In those newspapers you will most days find notices of people who have died after long suffering or after long and painful illnesses. It has been suggested to me that I have misinterpreted these notices and they have been referred to as "contentious notices". I cannot see how I can have misinterpreted them. I have merely recorded them and not even interpreted them, and I cannot see what is contentious about them. But since this matter has been raised I will say two things. I will say first that people who are well enough off to afford to announce in these newspapers their relatives' deaths are not likely to be drawn from what the Americans call the "disadvantaged social classes" who are too timid to say anything in a hospital or in the presence of people in authority, or who are, perhaps, too inarticulate. I will say, secondly, that I can find no conceivable motive why people in such a position should go out of their way at their own expense to publicise lying statements about the last days of their relatives.
Thirdly, perhaps I may quote some experience of my own. One correspondent has said that this Bill had its origin in what he called unfortunate and possibly atypical experiences which had created an emotional reaction, though understandable, in myself. That is not the
198
case. Had I been speaking purely from my own personal experience I should have introduced this Bill at least 10 years ago. My attention has been called far more recently to the need for clarification and amendment of the law relating to the matters with which we are dealing today. I would, however, add that had I been speaking solely from my own experience I should not have regarded this as insufficient justification for introducing such a Bill. When even a small number of persons suffer injustice or injury from the law I regard this as a sufficient reason for trying to put the law right for the sake of the whole community. A handful of cases is not statistically significant. Humanly it is. If I may again draw an analogy, I would remind your Lordships that new legislation about the protection of children has recently been introduced as the result of certain tragic cases which have happened through the ill-treatment or neglect of children. So in the light of this experience I shall unashamedly quote some experience of my own.
Nobody can live to my age without being frequently brought into contact with the fatally ill. During the past 15 years, nine of my relatives, friends or former colleagues have all died of various forms of cancer. From my own knowledge I can say that in seven out of these nine cases full relief, such as I am told is generally available, was not obtained. In the remaining two cases, who happened to be brothers of my late husband, my contact was less close and I do not speak so much from my own personal observation. However, I have every reason to believe that the same was true. In two of these cases I found myself in the position of next-of-kin, and in that position throughout illnesses which lasted for a period of about three years. During that time I had close and intimate contact with many medical institutions—I might say with two private nursing homes, six National Health Service hospitals and four consultants, not to mention one dedicated general practitioner who gave great support throughout.
I have learned from this experience that attitudes and practices vary very greatly, whether through differences in knowledge, skill or resources I do not know. Certainly it is not for me to say. I have been accused of laying the charge of lack of

199
compassion against the medical profession. That I do not do. I merely record my experience, and I hope that the doctor, also in the Birmingham area, who has written to say that I am totally ignorant of accepted medical practice will, in the light of this information, be inclined to withdraw his statement.
I turn now to the second main proposal of the Bill; that is, that we should have a right, while we are of sound mind —if indeed we ever are—to make a binding declaration like a will, that, should we become totally incapacitated, we do not wish to be kept alive, or perhaps I should say returned from death, to an existence which offers none of the normal experiences of human, or indeed animal, living. Here I must emphasise two points relating to the doctor.
First, the Bill strenuously upholds the principle that only a doctor can make the decision when the point of incurability has arrived, and of course in many cases this decision cannot be made at short notice. If a person is lying unconscious on a road after a road accident, a doctor cannot come up and say: "This chap is no longer likely to recover. He has no reasonable chance of recovery. I might as well say that he is already dead, though he could be resuscitated. Is there a declaration? Steps must be taken to find out whether there is a declaration and the procedures will be followed accordingly." That is not what will happen. Cases of unconciousness and of possible brain damage are treated very seriously in hospitals, and a patient is not declared to be incurable, as I know, until more than one medical opinion has been obtained and great care has been taken in the diagnosis. That is the first principle; that is, that only a doctor can say whether or not there is a reasonable prospect of recovery and, if he says that there is, the patient is altogether outside this Bill.
The second principle which the Bill upholds is that only a doctor knows whether or not a person is dead, and he does not always seem to be very certain, because the criteria on which this decision is made seem now to some extent in dispute in the medical profession. Is the person dead when the heart and lungs cease to function, or is he dead when the brain ceases to
200
function? But it is for the doctor to say, on whatever criteria he thinks proper, whether a person is alive or dead. One correspondent in the British Medical Journal goes further:
"It is fundamental medical practice that treatment is based upon a doctor's competence and judgment."
That is a quite unexceptional statement in most ordinary circumstances. If one consults a doctor, one expects, and ought to expect, to listen to what he recommends and to do one's best to carry out what we would call his instructions. If one does not, one is wasting his time and it is wrong to consult him. But even when we are helpless and when we are patients; we are not slaves; we are not inanimate objects;we are not even helpless animals.
When it comes to the point of life or death, or life that is not life or death, it may be that the price of carrying out what we habitually call doctor's orders is too high. We have indeed a right, as we all recognise now, to refuse a surgical operation, if we do not want to have it and would rather die; and a doctor who performed the operation against our known wishes would be guilty of a criminal assault. So the Bill proposes that we should have a right to protect ourselves in advance, while we are capable, from any contrived prolongation or renewal of what has ceased to be life in any meaningful sense, if we have already recorded our wishes on that point. This would give some protection for the doctor. If he has an incapable patient, he has two decisions to make. First, he has to decide whether there is any hope of recovery. Secondly, if there is no hope of recovery, he has to ask himself whether he is to switch off the machine which keeps the patient's lungs and heart going while his brain is dead. He will still have to make the first decision, and if he makes the first decision—that there is no hope of recovery—then, if the patient has made a declaration, he is relieved of responsibility for the second decision, and, I might add, of the possibility that this raises of dispute with the relatives. For an adult, so far as one's own life is concerned, I think that it is more our concern even than that of relatives; and the Bill recognises this.
I shall be told that the Bill is a first step towards euthanasia, but I am never

201
very greatly impressed by the first-step argument. Rational human beings, when they take one step, consider whether they will take another. I imagine that a number of your Lordships have, like myself, fortified yourselves for an apparently long and formidable debate by taking a glass of wine with your lunch. My Lords, you have taken a further step in the direction of alcoholism! But you trust your judgment to know when to stop, and the same is true in the context of the dying. There is never any compulsion that one step should inevitably involve another. If one does not like the first step, one should not take the second. But in this case there are some special differences. This Bill, far from precipitating the second step as a result of the first, would greatly reduce the clamour for positive euthanasia. If we were to establish that in certain cases, where there is no hope of recovery, nature should be left to take her course, there would be far less demand for the administration of murderous—as they still are—lethal doses.
I have in my own correspondence letters from cases of patients in the last stages of such diseases as multiple sclerosis who constantly pick up infections and are brought back again to life from the point of death by the administration of antibiotics. There was one particularly pathetic case in which, against the wishes of the husband, against the wishes of the patient, and against the instructions of the doctor, the administration of these antibiotics was continued—so the husband says—again in the absence of the doctor, by the sister in charge of a ward.
I contend that if the Bill became law, the arguments for mercy killing would be undermined, and that therefore it is a strength for those who, like myself, have very great respect and reverence for the maintenance of human life. In any case, those who do not wish to avail themselves of the opportunities offered by the Bill are under no obligation to do so. If one does not wish to receive pain-killing drugs in one's last illness one need not. One can ask the doctor not to give them, if one so desires. If one does not wish to make a declaration not to be kept alive by mechanical means when one is no longer in the ordinary sense a human being, one
202
need not make the declaration, and then the responsibility will remain exactly where it is today. It will make no difference whatever to the present law.
That is my summary of the Bill. I now propose to look quickly at the clauses to show how these coincide with what is proposed. We should begin not with the first subsection of Clause 1, but the second subsection, which defines the key to the whole matter, which is incurability. A patient is here judged to be incurable,
"if he is judged by his attendant physician to be suffering without any reasonable prospect of cure from a distressing physical illness or disability that he"—
the patient—
"finds intolerable."
We ought to stiffen that provision in Committee by providing for not one medical opinion, but two. That would be an obvious Amendment that I should be very happy to support. I now turn to subsection (1) which provides for the right of the patient, as he now has, to refuse life-sustaining treatment, but nevertheless to be given drugs, even to the point that may produce unconsciousness.
I have here a quotation from the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who will be speaking later in the debate. The quotation is from a debate held on 25th March 1969 when a euthanasia Bill was before your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount said:
"If pain cannot be relieved by drugs except in such a dose that will make the patient unconscious, then those drugs are so prescribed."—[Official Report, col. 1217.]
I have given reasons to suppose that they are not always so prescribed, as I have seen from my own experience. But this would establish that the patient has a right for them to be so prescribed, even if unconsciousness results. But it does not authorise—I say again—lethal doses.
Clause 2 relates to suicide; first to successful suicide. Under the Bill successful suicide would be reckoned as death by misadventure and not by suicide. Suicide is not now a crime in this country, but it sometimes causes distress to relatives if a verdict of "suicide" is given, and sometimes there can be legal complications regarding insurances and such matters. That is really the primary purpose of this part of the clause; it is not the most important part of the Bill.

203
Attempted suicide is covered by the next subsection, where it is provided that a person must not interfere with action taken by a patient likely to cause his own death—that is to say, attempted suicide—and that any action so taken against the patient's known wishes will be unlawful. Let me repeat that this applies to patients suffering from incurable diseases. There still remains the obligation on a doctor, or indeed on any competent person who can give the "kiss of life", to attempt to resuscitate, let us say, a girl who has taken an overdose in a fit of despair about a love affair which she will have forgotten all about in a year or two, if she recovers. This clause applies solely to a patient certified by one or, as I would say now, two doctors as incurable, without reasonable hope of recovery, who is taking his own life; and it requires that he may be left in peace for nature to complete what he has begun.
Clause 3 refers to the declaration which I have mentioned. This declaration will be made exactly like a will. To be binding it must be made before two witnesses; and it will also include, under subsection (3), the name of a person whose business it is to see that it is enforced, like the executor under a will. One can see situations in which a person might find himself incapable and when nobody would know that such a declaration existed. That is covered by Clause 3(3).
I am very well aware, my Lords, that this Bill is imperfect in detail and in drafting. What Bill ever emerged from the Back Benches which did not have those defects? I shall be very happy to receive help and guidance at later stages in translating it into that curious language known as "statutory dialect". There will be many opportunities for that. At the moment, I am asking merely for your Lordships' approbation in principle, and the principle for which I am asking approval is a very old one. It is contained in the commandment:
"Thou shalt not kill—but thou needst not strive officiously to keep alive".
I ask your Lordships to combine that commandment with the development of modern medical technology. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
3.52 p.m.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY The Earl of CORK and ORRERY rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day six months"). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move my Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading. In so doing, of course, I move the rejection of the Bill, which is a rather unhappy thing to do in the light of what the noble Baroness has just said in introducing it. I imagine there cannot be anyone in your Lordships' House who is not totally convinced of the sincerity with which the noble Baroness has spoken, nor who can fail to be entirely at one with the motives that she has described as being behind the drafting of this Bill. How, then, is it possible to be opposed to the Bill itself? My Lords, it is that which it is my task to explain.
Perhaps it will be not unfair if I dispose (if that is not too strong a word) of a little of the evidence which the noble Baroness gave at the beginning of her speech, when she referred to newspaper notices about how patients had died after long suffering and painful illness, and to certain cases which had been within her own experience. She did not—I think it is not unfair to say this—give any reason for us to suppose that any of these patients would have fallen within the definition of an incurable patient who found their disability intolerable. That is perhaps a small point, but it may be worth making.
What I hope to be able to show are four things, none of which perhaps leaps immediately to the mind on a first reading of this Bill. Firstly, that indeed it is a euthanasia Bill. I do not like the word, and I know that the noble Baroness does not like it; but she has used it, and it is difficult to do away with it, loaded and distorted though it may have become. And, not only that it is a euthanasia Bill, but that it is in fact in some respects more dangerous than the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill which we rejected in March 1969. Secondly, that if it were amended, as it could be, so as to remove that particular effect from it, its main provisions would become almost wholly inoperative in law. Thirdly, that some parts of it are so strange that it is difficult to take them altogether seriously. Lastly, that, amend we it never so

205
skilfully, it will still be fraught with danger to the very people whom it is devised to help, chiefly because it would damage, perhaps beyond repair, the doctor-patient relationship which is, and must be, based on trust.
My Lords, I would invite your Lordships' attention first to Clause 1. Here we find that in certain circumstances a patient is entitled to receive enough drugs:
"to give him full relief from pain and physical distress, and to be rendered unconscious if no other treatment is effective to give such relief."
Now the intention there is unquestionably humane, and as the noble Baroness has said, if I may paraphrase it, this has no particular effect, it does not change the law in any way. The reason is that, although it gives the patient a certain entitlement, it imposes no corresponding obligation on the doctor to honour that entitlement.
In extreme cases, the doctor may have to explain to his patient that "full relief" in his case must mean permanent unconsciousness; and if he has already refused life-sustaining treatment, he cannot while unconscious be fed. He is therefore asking, in effect, to be allowed to die from lack of nourishment, and if he continues to insist the doctor may not refuse, because in Clause 2(2) we find these words:
"No person shall be under a duty to interfere with any course of action taken by an incurable patient to relieve his suffering in a manner likely to cause his own death…"
By demanding permanent unconsciousness while refusing life-sustaining treatment, and knowing what the result of this will be (because the doctor has told him), the patient has taken just such a course of action. I read on:
"…and any interference intentionally undertaken contrary to the known wishes of the patient shall be unlawful".
By these words the doctor is not only empowered but actually required by Statute to end his patient's life, and no safeguards are proposed. Am I told—indeed, I am told—that such a thing is far from the intentions of the Bill? If so, I am bound to ask how anything so deadly ever got into it. I know that such a situation is unlikely to arise, but it can.
Now I turn to Clause 3(1). I note at once that it refers to "a patient" and
206
not, as do Clauses 1 and 2, to "an incurable patient". I take it that that is not a mistake; it is intended to be like that. Very well. The whole clause then appears to have strayed in from some other Bill, since this one is supposed to deal with incurable patients only, as defined by Clause 1(2). This is the part of the Bill that I find the most objectionable, not to say appalling. Here we have a patient who, by reason of damage to or degeneration of the brain, is unable to make decisions—and may I ask in passing whether a person who is unable to convey a decision is to be regarded as necessarily, for that reason, being also incapable of making one? He may not be, in the words of the Bill, suffering from
"a distressing physical illness or disability that he finds intolerable".
On the contrary, he may be in good spirits and bodily health, and leading a contented and even useful life. He may be old or he may be young; but if he has at some time signed the necessary statement he is now to be regarded as refusing life-sustaining treatment. What—no food? Well, yes, all right—food. I suppose it does not mean that. But no resuscitation if he should have a first heart attack at the age of 40? No succour if he should be poisoned by a leaking gas fire, or fall into a swimming-pool and be half drowned, or fall through a plate glass window and be bleeding to death?
Here again, my Lords, we have a patient who has taken a course of action —in this case the signing of the statement likely to cause his own death. This is a type of situation infinitely more likely to occur than any arising under Clause 1; and in every case the doctor will be obliged by law to let his patient die.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, may I point out that Clause 3(1) covers only a patient who has by reason of brain damage or degeneration become permanently incapable of giving directions and therefore presumably incapable of saying whether he wishes to live or not live.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, that is my point. That is the only thing of which he is incapable—nothing else. He may be in good health, he may be young. It is because he is

207
incapable of making a decision or of expressing it, for that reason and for that reason alone, he must die. Not only must the doctor or the nurse allow the man to die but so too must any informed person who may happen to be there at the moment of emergency.
The 1969 Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, proposed to allow euthanasia in certain carefully defined circumstances but never proposed to make it mandatory. It had its safeguards. This Bill goes beyond that; for it not merely allows but requires a patient to die even if he demonstrably enjoys life but cannot say so. It is not even voluntary euthanasia, it is compulsory. It is not permissive only but mandatory on everyone responsible for his care, and there are no safeguards proposed. I have known and I know still many people in both categories covered by this clause who could have been wrongly caught by it if they had been misguided enough to sign so dangerous a declaration. With the sad phenomenon of brain degeneration, in particular, I dare say most of us are acquainted. I, myself, have been acquainted with it too closely and for too long. The implications of this clause leave me horrified.
We are being asked to say that a person who at some time in the past has signed a paper saying that if he ever becomes incapable of making such a decision he, for himself, should in no circumstances receive life-sustaining treatment. Now, in imagination we are confronted with such a person. We do not know at the moment whether he is old or young, immobile and incontinent or living a reasonably full life at home or in hospital; lonely or outcast or surrounded by a loving family. We do not know whether he understood the paper that he signed, whether he were persuaded to sign it or whether it was of his own free or comprehending will. We do not even know whether he is ill. All that we know is that, if a sudden emergency arises, the law forbids us to save his life. No matter what the nature of the emergency, or whether or not we think we are acting humanely or reasonably, we must let him die.
To prolong a life when there is no medical or moral requirement to do so, is meddlesome medicine and bad practice.
208
To decline to do so, is good and accepted medical practice as I think the doctors who are to follow me will agree. In that case, it is not euthanasia. On the other hand, to fail to save a life on no better grounds than that the person is unable to tell us whether he wants to live or to die is to flout every accepted canon of Church and State. Again, it is not euthanasia. It is murder, by deliberate neglect. I nominate this clause with some confidence as the most dangerous notion ever drafted into a Bill. I shall have to return to this clause later; but I will pass to my second leg, to the possibility of amendment and what might be the result of that. The noble Baroness has said that she would like it to be amended in certain ways to remove any euthanasia clement it may be shown to contain. As I hope I have shown, the euthanasia element is contained (and the dangers of it) in Clause 2(2). What would happen if they were to be removed so that it is no longer possible to describe this in any way as a euthanasia Bill? What should we be left with? We should be left with practically nothing. The Bill would fall to pieces like a house of cards.
My Lords, may we return to Clause 1(1) and consider how that would stand after Amendment; that is, after the removal of the lethal provisions of Clause 2(2). This clause gives to the patient an entitlement without at the same time imposing on the doctor any obligation to provide him with that entitlement. Thus, the doctor would still be free to rely on his own clinical judgment and to decide, after consultation with the patient's family, to do what the patient asks. That is as it should be. In the case of terminal patients, this would leave the doctor in precisely the position that he is now in and accurately reflects the normal standards of good medical practice. As moral support for the doctors' freedom of action in such cases, I pray in aid these words from the speech of the late Bishop of Durham during the Second Reading debate on Lord Raglan's Bill:
"…there is no moral difficulty, on any theory, about administering analgesic drugs that would at the same time both lessen pain and shorten life".—[Official Report, 25/3/69; col. 179.]
Clause 1 makes an extension of this principle to non-terminal patients. So the definition of an "incurable patient" in Clause 1(2) makes no suggestion that

209
his condition should be terminal, that it should be only incurable. But no new benefit accrues even to the non-terminal patients since the ultimate deciding factor is still the judgment of the doctor; and he is inhibited by the law of homicide which the noble Baroness says she has no wish to disturb. So Clause 1(1) and with it, for the same reason, Clause 3 would become inoperative in law, a mere declaration of approval of what is already being done; and we hardly need an Act of Parliament for that.
I return to the Bill as drafted and pass on to my third leg; that is, to those parts of the Bill which appeal to me as curiosities. It is at this point that I miss my late and greatly lamented noble friend Lord Conesford. Clause 2(1) states:
"An incurable patient who causes his own death by overdosing or by other intentional action shall be deemed to have died by misadventure."
In a Second Reading debate on the British Standard Time Bill, Lord Cones-ford said that it could have been drafted more simply by saying that in future:
"…'the winter shall be deemed to be the summer'."[official Report, 23/11/67; col. 1208.]
He would have been quite at home, I feel, with the notion that suicide shall be deemed to be an accident. If you can say that, you can equally well say that accidents shall be deemed to be suicide; and I have no doubt that is what would happen.
I understand the intention and, indeed, I applaud it. It is to remove the stigma of suicide from suffering persons; to give, as it were, a more honourable status to certain kinds of suicide. Unfortunately, it would also give a less honourable status to certain kinds of accident. A man falls asleep while driving his car which dashes him lethally against a tree. "Death by misadventure," says the coroner, with perfect truth. "There you are," says a knowing neighbour to a friend, "I always thought there was something wrong, you know. Always in and out of hospital, he was. Cancer, if you ask me. Couldn't stand it and took the easy way out." "But the inquest said death by misadventure," says the friend. "Of course," says the knowing one. "They always say that
210
about incurables. You know that." Such an accident is assumed to have been suicide; and unwitnessed accidents are more numerous than suicides of incurable patients, are they not? And how about insurance? I should be interested to hear the comments of an underwriter who found himself obliged to pay out on a life insurance policy because a suicide had been deemed to be an accident.
Now here is Clause 2(2) again. An incurable patient tries to relieve his suffering in a manner likely to cause his own death and it shall be unlawful to interfere. What, never? If an incurable patient crawls to the ward window and throws himself out, is the nurse to stand by and watch, in full view of the other patients? If she does will she be liable to be prosecuted for abetting a suicide, which is still a crime? Will it be an offence, knowing him to be an incurable patient, to try to prevent a man from throwing himself off a bridge or under a car, with the attendant risk to the lives of others? And how about the incurable patient who takes sleeping pills, awakes half doped, thinks he must have forgotten to take them, takes some more and is discovered in extremis? Is lie to be allowed to die in the belief that he has done it on purpose? What would happen then?
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, this clause only comes into operation against a patient's known wishes. If he has accidentally taken a lot of sleeping pills and they have had this effect, his wishes in the matter are not known; and there there is the right and the duty to resuscitate the man.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, his wishes may well be known. I am not suggesting for a moment they are not but the fact that he took sleeping pills will be taken as evidence that he wants to put those wishes into effect, when in fact it was an accident. He would be found to have died by misadventure when all the time he would have been murdered by Clause 2(2). And what of the large class of suicides, of incurable patients again, that are in reality cries for help—as likely as not the very kind of help that this clause expressly forbids?
Now we have Clause 3(1) again dealing with the written statement attested by

211
two witnesses. All that is said about this possibly fatal document is that it shall exist at the material moment. It is irrevocable except by destruction. If the signatory cannot get at it to tear it up, it is still in force. Of course he has to have been of sound mind when he signed it. The Bill says so in the last line on page 1. But, good gracious me, look what comes next! The patient should be presumed to have been of sound mind when making the statement. Well, what is the point of mentioning it, then? Fancy saying that he must have been of sound mind, then going on immediately to say that it does not matter whether he was or not! You must in any case presume that he was. Yet he or she may have been a case of arrested development, or a psychopath, or a manic-depressive, or on a trip", or in a post-natal depression or simply drunk, and, what is more, the attendant physician (a term, incidentally, that is used in the Bill but nowhere defined) may know this perfectly well but still be bound to let his patient die.
My Lords, I really do think that this is in some ways not a very good Bill. Finally, as I have said, no matter how we might amend the Bill it would still be full of danger. In the name of compassion it strikes at the whole root and principle of care of the dying and irremediably ill. What then is this root and principle? I will answer that question in the words of a doctor whose name is well known to your Lordships' House, and in the world outside, as that of a leading figure in the world of care: Dr. Cicely Saunders, Medical Director of St. Christopher's Hospice at Sydenham. Doctor Saunders was speaking at a symposium of the British Cancer Council (of which I am now President and Executive Chairman) and she said this:
"The aim of the relief of pain and other distress is that the patients should not only die peacefully, but also that they should live fully until they die, giving what they have to give not only to their families but also to the rest of us who meet them."
My Lords, in this Bill there are no people. There are just two shadowy characters labelled "the doctor" and "the patient" facing each other at a moment of crisis—not a moment of decision, for the decision has already been made for them by this Bill. Where are
212
the patient's wife, husband, children, friends, family? Where is the nurse, the therapist, the health visitor, the medical social worker, the psychologist, the almoner, the priest? Where, in short, is the caring team of which the doctor is only the captain? "Noman is an island", said Dr. Donne. Another doctor, speaking at the symposium that I have mentioned, said much the same:
"When we speak of the care of the individual we must be continually aware…that an individual is always part of a set-up, and therefore we cannot speak of an individual as though he were an entity in himself…".
Those were the words of the Russian Orthodox Metropolitan, Anthony, Archbishop of Sourozh, who was a doctor before he was a priest. And that, in my submission, is what this Bill does. It presents to us the patient as an individual, an island, alone with his pain, his distress, his loneliness, despair and fear. Alone but for the doctor whom he can no longer wholly trust, the law being what, thanks to this Bill, it has become.
I think I hear a voice protesting:
"But of course. The Bill deals solely with the ultimate situation as it exists as between these two people, the patient and the doctor or someone who has taken over from the doctor. By the time this moment comes all those other people you have mentioned have played their part".
Have they, my Lords? If they have, then this situation will be so unusual as to be a freak. If a patient comes to the pass described in Clause 1(2) then somebody somewhere along the line has failed.
Whether or not such persons should receive life-saving treatment in any particular circumstances is a matter for the caring team to consider, probably (but not always necessarily) in advance. Remember, there is no one in the land so isolated that no caring team exists for him. At the end the doctor will decide what is best. Do not let us try to make laws to tell him what to do. The relief of suffering is what he is there for, and he will not try needlessly to prolong a suffering life. If, as may occasionally happen, he does do just that, then he is falling short of the accepted standards of his calling; and if you try to correct his shortcomings by means of dangerous laws, you will not only fail, you will kill a lot of people who ought not and do not want to die.

213
Even if that were not so, even if the Bill could be so transformed that nothing of that sort could happen, we should be left with a useless, but still dangerous Bill. Once it was law a new and frightening pressure would be on the suffering old. They are not just units, to be bunged into a Bill as with a rubber stamp; they are actual people and are all different. They may be intelligent, educated and wise; or they may be simple, uneducated, bewildered and frightened. One of them may think: "I am a burden. The children cannot look after me properly and they need the room. I am old and I know I cannot get better. I am ready to go and the health visitor says that if I cannot stand the pain I have only to ask the doctor. I can really, but if I were to pretend a little, perhaps that would be best; perhaps that is what I had better do."
If we were to enact this Bill in whatever form, we should be proclaiming to the medical profession that it is in order to think of drugs in terms of quantity—the word actually used in the Bill—rather than quality, which is all that counts. We should be proclaiming to all people with incurable complaints that at the end of the road there waits a doctor with a merciful syringe. We should do possibly irreparable damage to the whole trustful doctor/patient relationship simply by announcing that we thought the medical profession so frequently failing in its caring duty as to make such a proclamation necessary.
That is not the message that should go out from this debate. The message which should go out is this: pain and physical distress are controllable and are controlled. Suffering resides not in the body but in the mind or soul or spirit, and is also controllable by numerous techniques, but chiefly by patient understanding and loving care. If there are still places where these enemies are not being fought as well as they might be—and few deny that there are—the reason is not lack of technical capacity, or lack of nurses, or lack of time, not necessarily even lack of money, and certainly not lack of drugs; it is lack of knowledge. This knowledge is spreading ever more widely from an ever-increasing number of centres which I could enumerate if I had time.
The cure for ignorance is education not legislation. The battle is to be fought by
214
educators not politicians, and here I quote Dr. Saunders again:
"We have not won the battle against pointless pain and indignity in dying yet, but this Bill makes it more difficult for the doctors to give proper care and for patients to ask for it."
I have no doubt that the same message will sound again and again in the speeches that follow. So far as possible, I have kept myself to empirical arguments, leaving more philosophical ones to those better qualified to set them forth. I have spoken long, and perhaps for that matter it will seem impertinent for me to ask your Lordships to be brief later in order that, when we come to the vote, I may have the opportunity of asking as big a majority of your Lordshipsas possible, as I ask you now, to say that this Bill will not proceed. I beg to move.
Moved, That, as an Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day six months").—(The Earl of Cork and Orrery.)

UNEMPLOYMENT: GOVERNMENT MEASURES
4.20 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I were to repeat now a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"Two weeks ago this House debated unemployment, and resolved by a very large majority to 'take all possible effective measures to reduce it'. In that debate I said I hoped to present a further set of measures within a few weeks, taking account of proposals by the Manpower Services Commission and by the TUC and of other views expressed inside and outside the House. This I now do.
"Wherever possible the Government have been concerned to ensure that measures to reduce unemployment in the short term shall also reduce constraints on growth and employment in the medium term when recovery reaches its peak. I have therefore examined, with the Secretary of State for Industry, the scope for improving our industrial base by further expenditure under Section 8 of the Industry

215
Act on schemes for the modernisation and restructuring of important sectors of industry. The £110 million so far earmarked for such schemes is now largely committed. I therefore propose to allocate a further £55 million for new schemes such as printing machinery and non-ferrous foundries, and to make available further funds for existing schemes, particularly ferrous foundries. Some £15–20 million of this sum will be spent in the next fiscal year.
"On a smaller scale, the Development Commission has told me that it could usefully spend £1 million more than the additional sum allocated to it in September last year, for building small factories in rural areas during the next 12 months or so. I am authorising this expenditure since I recognise that unemployment has affected some rural areas with particular severity.
"I told the House in the unemployment debate that we were looking at the possibility of further assistance to stock building to help industry during the recession in fields where it is possible to foresee future demands with reasonable certainty. I am now pleased to be able to tell the House that the National Enterprise Board is discussing with the industry ways of providing finance for the stockpiling of machine tools of types which are expected to be needed during the recovery. The intention is to devise arrangements which will be a good bargain for the NEB and for the industry, and will help to maintain capacity and provide employment during the remaining months of the recession. I believe honourable Members will welcome the role which the NEB plan to assume in the field of stock building.
"One of the worst-hit sectors in the recession has been the construction industry, although there are signs that demand is beginning to revive in some parts. We have taken steps in the last two years to provide it with some extra work in the public sector. In considering further measures of this nature, I have had to make sure that there is no risk of expenditure slipping into future years, when public spending must be contained so as to permit the
216
movement of resources into exports and investment. We have therefore decided to concentrate on the improvement of public sector housing, which can be started quickly and finished before the end of the financial year 1976–77. We propose to provide £50 million for house improvements, where the effect on employment and the social benefit will be greater than in any other field of construction.
"I turn now to the two temporary subsidies for employment which the Government announced last year. The Temporary Employment Subsidy, which was introduced last August for a year, provides £10 per week per worker for six months for an employer who agrees to postpone a redundancy of 25 or more workers. It is now estimated that 55,000 workers will be covered by the scheme. I propose to make two changes.
"First, I propose to extend the length of the period of payment. The first firms to use it will very soon exhaust their six months' entitlement. The maximum period of entitlement will therefore be extended from six to 12 months. This means that the 55,000 jobs affected may be preserved for a further period beyond six months. Secondly, I propose to reduce the minimum size of a qualifying redundancy again, from 25 to 10 workers. This is estimated to bring a further 3,000 or so workers within the scope of the scheme.
"The gross Exchequer cost of extending the period of payment to 12 months is estimated at £14½million, and the cost of reducing the minimum qualifying redundancy at £1½million. There will be savings in unemployment benefit and gains in National Insurance contributions and income tax; these will depend on the circumstances of the workers covered by the subsidy, but in aggregate they are likely to mean that the subsidy will have little or no net effect on the public sector borrowing requirement.
"Next, the recruitment subsidy for school-leavers through which employers who recruit unemployed school-leavers receive £5 per recruit per week for 26 weeks. The scheme is at present limited to those who left school last summer or before, but I propose that it should now

217
be extended to those who left at Christmas 1975. The cost of this will be about £ ¼ million.
"The Manpower Services Commission has been considering what more it could do to employ and train those who would otherwise be out of work. It has proposed an extension to its scheme for job creation. So far, £40 million has been allocated to this programme, which should provide some 30,000 to 35,000 jobs. If proposals continue to come in at the present rate, the whole of that £40 million will have been pre-empted by bids received by about the end of April, and approved by the end of June. The Scheme would thus begin to taper off in the autumn, just when there is a particular need to provide extra jobs for those of next summer's school-leavers who fail to find other work. We have decided to allocate a further £30 million to the programme, as the MSC proposed, to keep it going at peak level until the end of the year. We shall need to consider before then, in the light of the latest prospects for employment, how quickly the scheme should be tapered off in the early months of 1977. This extension should permit the creation of some 20,000 to 25,000 extra temporary jobs. The net effect on the PSBR will be small.
"These are measures to maintain or create extra jobs while unemployment remains high. I am convinced that they are both necessary and cost-effective for this purpose. But as well as these measures to provide jobs in the immediate future, we must do everything possible to build up the scarce skills which will be in demand when the economy is running nearer to full capacity. The Manpower Services Commission have put forward proposals to provide, from next August, some 30,000 to 35,000 extra training places in industry, at a cost of approximately £55 million. About £45 million of this applies to new first-year apprentice training and the rest to second-year apprentices and to other measures, including schemes for non-craft training of the kind that the engineering industry is considering. Again, the Exchequer cost of this is very largely offset by the savings on benefits for the unemployed, and this expenditure will be a valuable addition to the effort
218
which is already going into providing training in industry. First-year apprenticeship grants will be available to employers who take on extra apprentices under arrangements to be worked out by the Industrial Training Boards in consultation with the Training Services Agency. I greatly welcome the speed with which the Manpower Services Commission has reacted to current needs and I am glad to be able to accept these proposals in full.
"I know the whole House is concerned that we should do everything possible to avoid the demoralising effect of long periods out of work on young people just out of school. The further education system should also have a role to play in this field. Therefore I shall be considering with my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment what more can be done to make the best use of the further education system for this purpose during the recession.
"The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be announcing the details of a comparable set of measures costing £8 million, of which about £5 million will be spent in 1976–77.
"The estimated total cost of all these measures is about £220 million. But less than £140 million of this will be spent during the coming financial year. The large items of expenditure on training and on industry schemes are phased over the next two or three financial years because training is organised by academic years, and industry schemes are partly financed by interest relief grants spread over a period. But, in both cases, most of their real effect on employment will be felt in the coming year. Because of the offsets which I have mentioned earlier, the net cost to the public finances is likely to be less than half of the gross cost, or about £60 million in 1976–77. Altogether the measures are likely to provide about 140,000 jobs or training places—though not all of these jobs will last as long as a year and some may be at the expense of other jobs. Over the coming financial year the net effect on employment could be about half that figure.
"I am convinced that this set of measures is the most cost-effective way of providing more jobs as quickly as

219
possible and of improving our industrial capacity, without a general reflation of domestic demand which is widely recognised to be inappropriate at this time, and within the limits on public spending which we must respect if we are to achieve stable prices and steady growth in the upturn. I shall of course want to consider in my Budget whether by then there is scope for doing more along the same lines."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.30 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating that extremely long and very detailed Statement. I am sure that in the middle of an important debate on another Bill it would be quite wrong to go into the merits of the various proposals, even if one could have taken them all in in the course of hearing that Statement. Let me say, in general, that of course we support any measures that will minimise the tragedy of unemployment, regardless of the differing degrees of responsibility for it that we may place on the Government.
May I ask three questions of the noble Lord? First, I would ask him to confirm that there is no intention in the Government's mind at present of reflating the economy, which would only result in a worse long-term unemployment problem? Secondly, may I ask him for an assurance that the extra public expenditure which is involved in these measures can be contained within the ceiling of £12 billion, which I understand was agreed with the International Monetary Fund for the year 1976–77? Lastly, wearing another hat, may I ask the noble Lord to confirm that some of the £1 million which is to be spent on building small factories in rural areas will be spent in Wales?
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to thank the noble Lord for the Statement that he has just read. We recognise the cruel dilemma facing the Government in wishing, on the one hand, to avoid premature reflation, which could only have the result in the long-term of making the existing situation very much worse, even if it provided temporary alleviation, and hav
220
ing to deal with rising and very grievous unemployment on the other.
To some of these measures we can only give the most hearty welcome. It can only be right to stockpile against greater demand when recovery takes place —stockpiling of material and stockpiling by improved training, building up to the level of resources that we are going to need. We should also like to support very strongly all efforts being made to provide for school-leavers, the effect of unemployment on school-leavers being plainly of a far more serious kind than in any other area.
I am not entirely happy that the employment provisions being made for school-leavers are necessarily the best that could be made. The idea that any job is better than no job is not a very satisfactory solution. Therefore, we are very glad to see the provisions for further education, which seem a far more appropriate way of dealing with the unemployment facing school-leavers than just putting them into any kind of job. Perhaps we have more reservations about some of the other provisions which have been included. The idea of delaying redundancy is attractive in the short run, but, if you are only delaying redundancy which will in any case eventually take place, it is a very shortsighted way of dealing with the problem, when all one is really doing is maintaining, and indeed encouraging, overmanning, which is a large part of the problem that we face.
In the midst of a debate as important as the one we are having this afternoon, I do not wish to prolong the comment from these Benches, but I should very briefly like to make two points. One is that the kind of unemployment we have today is of a different order from that which we faced in the inter-war years, and I would ask noble Lords opposite whether all interested parties could have an opportunity to explore the importance of those differences. It remains true that there are still labour shortages. Only this morning I was at a factory which is unable to recruit labour; and I think we have all had experience of that. The Training Services Agency stated only six weeks ago that there were shortages of labour in a number of important areas, and we really must explore this aspect in detail as soon as possible. With those

221
reservations, we should like to support the Government.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I apologise to the House for the length of the Statement. I was placed in a difficulty yesterday. I had the option of not repeating it or of having it printed, but it was put to me that if I, as Leader of the House, regarded it as an important Statement then it ought to be repeated; and I think the House will agree that it is an important Statement and that it was right that I should repeat it. May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that I agree with her about the young school-leavers. This is not just a question of providing any job for the job's sake. Perhaps in the early days of the job creation scheme there could have been grounds for criticism, but I understand that the Manpower Services Commission now have concrete plans for extending this scheme, mainly with training as part of the job, and I think that this is to be welcomed.
To the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I would say that I have no doubt at all that the "rural areas" will include the Principality, or, shall I say, that some parts of the Principality will be regarded as rural areas. The amount involved here is covered and is within the agreement which we have with the IMF. I am very happy to give the noble Lord an assurance that at present the Government do not intend a reflation. Perhaps we have learned the lesson provided by noble Lords opposite in 1972 and 1973. I fear that there is another Statement, and I wonder whether we ought to have that now.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I am very grateful that there is to be £1 million for small businesses in the rural areas, but what about the towns and cities? There are a great many small businesses in them, particularly craftsmen; craftsmen in the bookbinding industry, craftsmen in all the conservation crafts where there is a tremendous shortage of workshops and of people to carry out the work that we know. Are they included? Will they get any help?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Viscount must be well aware that
222
at the present moment we are operating under very severe financial constraints. I should have thought we would have been open to criticism if we sought to do all the things we should like to do. The £1 million is specifically to help some of the smaller towns and villages in the rural areas, where there are crafts. The other towns will, of course, gain by some of the other measures which have been proposed. I hope that the House will now allow my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to make the Statement on behalf of the Prime Minister. After that, we can very quickly move back to the debate in which I believe there are some 34 speakers to take part.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, at the risk of appearing to disobey the suggestion made by the noble Lord, may I say that there was one sentence in the Statement of the Chancellor which is disturbing. The Chancellor said that he is looking to his Budget to do more along the same lines. But the only lines in the Statement are tinkering about with subsidies, and unless in the Budget, which must come soon, there are fundamental tax changes which will encourage genuine and subsidised investment, we shall not solve the problem of unemployment or lack of trade. I hope that merely doing more along the same lines, tinkering with little lines, will not be the action which the Government take in the Budget.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I cannot prevent the noble Lord from intervening despite my plea, but can only say that he does not do himself justice by so doing.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, one approaches this subject, when one comes from the industrial Midlands, with a deep sense of responsibility and I do not feel that the Statement made from the Dispatch Box reflects the responsibility and urgency of this question which is placed before the nation. I do not believe that any Member should be chastised, even as mildly and delightfully as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, does it when he is pursuing a subject of this fundamental importance.

THE LEGAL PROFESSION: ROYAL COMMISSION
4.41 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"I have recommended to Her Majesty The Queen that a Royal Commission should be established with the following terms of reference:
'To inquire into the law and practice relating to the provision of legal services in England and Wales and to consider whether any, and, if so, what, changes are desirable in the public interest in the structure, organisation, training, regulation of and entry to the legal profession, including the arrangements for determining its remuneration, whether from private sources or public funds, and in the rules which prevent persons who are neither barristers nor solicitors from undertaking conveyancing and other legal business on behalf of other persons'.
"The House will have seen this morning that the Bar Council and the Law Society have issued a joint statement saying that,
'they would welcome the opportunity to participate in a comprehensive examination of the structure of the profession, its funds, its remuneration and the services it provides'.
"The Commission will have all the usual powers to call for evidence and information, to make inquiries and visits and to submit interim reports.
"An announcement will be made in due course about the chairman and membership of the Commission."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am sure that the legal profession has nothing to fear from any form of inquiry before an impartial tribunal, if such can be assembled by the Prime Minister. I am also sure that the two branches of the
224
profession have been wise to say that they will co-operate in any such inquiry. As to the composition and chairmanship of the Commission, we know nothing as yet, but I must express my own opinion which is, unequivocally, that this is a foolish and unnecessary inquiry. I believe that one of the important contributory causes of our present national unease is the number of inquiries which we initiate about our various institutions. Time was when our nation was proud of its institutions—proud of its Parliament, of its Judiciary, of its professions, of its Armed Services, and proud of itself. However, the disease of "inquiryitis" is doing us infinite damage and this is a particularly bad example of it.
I wonder when successive Governments will learn—and here I am not making a Party point—that inquiries are an infallible recipe for an increase in Government expenditure. One can see that writ large over the present inquiry. The British Legal Association wants professional judges in place of unpaid magistrates. The Legal Action Group wants more law centres in place of voluntary services. No doubt the two branches of the legal profession will make perfectly legitimate but enormous demands for an infusion of Government money into legal education. I am thoroughly sorry that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has had to submit to this idiotic process of "inquiryitis" and can only say that I expect nothing good to come of it
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, may I take a slightly different view and say that we on these Benches welcome the establishment of this Royal Commission? We have become increasingly perturbed over the last few years at the fact that there are large numbers of people who are being deprived of legal aid and legal assistance, either because their means are inadequate or because legal aid is not available in certain courts. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack whether it will be within the province of the Commission to recommend the extension of legal aid to all tribunals so that we can obviate the present situation in which, as the noble and learned Lord knows, there are a large number of members of the Bar who give their services entirely free of charge to litigants before tribunals because no

225
form of formal representation is permitted?
I should like to add a word speaking under another hat—or wig. As a member of the Bar, I am happy that the Bar Council has willingly accepted the recommendation that there should be a Royal Commission. We at the Bar believe that it can only lead to the exposure of a number of malicious and ill-informed myths which are at the moment being propagated by certain people who are only concerned to obtain cheap publicity for themselves.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the fact that two distinguished lawyers have taken opposite views on the announcement which I made is, I suppose, yet another illustration of the many-sidedness of truth. I should like to give an assurance to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that it is certainly the intention to set up an impartial Royal Commission. The statement which was issued by the President of the Law Society and the Chairman of the Bar Council, said,
"In recent weeks there has been criticism of the legal profession in Parliament and the Press, coupled with demands for the setting up of a Royal Commission to examine legal services and the legal profession."
The setting up of the Royal Commission is a recognition of those matters to which the President of the Law Society and the Chairman of the Bar Council refer. However, I feel that perhaps I owe it to them to say that their statement concludes with the words:
"What, however, is vital if the rights and liberties of the subject are to be preserved is that the legal profession should remain independent."
In regard to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, about the extension of legal aid to tribunals, that will of course be one of the matters which will come within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission. I would only say that the big block in advancing in this field of extension of legal services is the harsh fact of financial restraint, but I may myself be in danger of pre-empting any conclusion if I go further in indiscreetly expressing views on the matter at this stage.

INCURABLE PATIENTS BILL [H.L.]
4.49 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we all listened with close interest and attention to what my noble friend Lady Wootton had to say in support of her Bill. I shall not pay tribute to her sincerity that has already been done— because I doubt whether there are many, if any, Members of your Lordships' House who are held in higher respect than is my noble friend. We know from past experience that she holds her views very sincerely.
The declared main purpose of the Bill, as I understand it, is to protect incurable patients from avoidable suffering and to strengthen their rights. The principle behind the Bill—that the disposal of his life is, in the extreme circumstances specified, a matter for the patient alone—is something on which an individual's own conscience must decide. Your Lordships will no doubt think hard and carefully on this crucial matter. However, leaving aside the essential decision, we still have to look at the practical consequences of the Bill and it is to those that I propose to address my remarks.
The Bill needs to answer four questions. First, does the right to which it refers need strengthening? Secondly, could such extended rights be adequately codified? Thirdly, might not such legislation impose new and unwelcome pressures on the very people it is designed to protect? Fourthly, are the problems of ethics and implementation which might face the caring professions most involved, acceptable?
The view of the Government is that, as it stands, the Bill does not fully meet these points, as I will endeavour to make clear as I proceed. In addition, there are practical considerations that make it undesirable for the Bill to be enacted in its present form even if its basic proposals were to be accepted. As these questions are intertwined in each aspect of the Bill, I feel that I can best explain myself by examining the Bill clause by clause.
The first clause provides that an incurable patient shall be entitled to receive whatever drugs will give him full relief

227
of pain and physical distress, including being rendered unconscious if no other treatment is effective, even if he has refused intensive care or any other life sustaining treatment. My noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger dealt with this very carefully but I believe that such a provision is unnecessary as it does no more than reflect what I and many other people believe to be existing good medical practice. I expect it has been included in the Bill in an attempt to remove the anxieties some doctors feel about drastic measures to relieve pain when these may shorten life. If that is so, it may well prove counter-productive, because in attempting to clarify the law one risks unintentionally restricting the doctor's clinical freedom by drawing clear lines between what is not legal as well as what is. In fact I do not think that at present a doctor would be prevented from doing all that the clause seeks to empower. The crucial fact here is that any conscious, sane patient is, at the present time, entitled to refuse any item of treatment to which he objects. Doctors, too, already have a professional duty laid upon them to try to control pain as best they can. I think it is also fair to say that this is accepted as a proper course of action even in those cases where such measures may hasten death.
Clause 1 makes a specific reference to providing a right to be rendered unconscious in the pursuit of pain relief. Given the clinician's duty to which I have just referred, the production of unconsciousness or not seems irrelevant, even if this state could be satisfactorily defined. The difficulty which there would inevitably be in defining unconsciousness to the satisfaction of all highlights a problem which this Bill repeatedly presents, perhaps inevitably, given its emotive subject-matter —the problem of defining terms in a generally acceptable way.
Taking only this clause, how can such words as "intolerable" and "distressing" be objectively interpreted? What is intolerable for one person may be only distasteful or irritating to another. Moreover, the Bill makes no provision for restricting such terms to physical suffering, so presumably mental suffering would qualify for relief also. Both these examples point to the conclusion that the only arbiter is to be the patient himself,
228
however unbalanced, depressed or simply mistaken he may be in judging his own condition.
These represent only two of a number of such difficulties. Although it is not my intention to catalogue them all, I should like to point out one more because it is the word which stands at the centre of the Bill, the word "incurable". Could there be general agreement on what constitutes an incurable condition? Surely, there is now an almost endless series of cases in that grey area between curability and incurability, a grey area that is continually shifting as medical knowledge improves. To take a quite straightforward example of the difficulty, in the case of an incurable and ultimately fatal disease where substantial remission is possible, is the patient to be regarded as incurable for the purposes of the Bill?
I should like to refer to two other points that I feel would cause problems, before passing to the later provisions of the Bill. First, Clause 1(2) refers to the patient's attendant physician, implying only one person being involved, and that he has overall charge of the patient. I am aware that my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, during the course of her opening, said that it might well be necessary to have two. In fact in hospital care and supervision will generally be shared among several doctors, and a number of nurses, too. If the Bill were to progress, account would have to be taken of such a problem, by specifying a clearly indentifiable physician or physicians.
The second point I wish to make refers to the misuse of drugs legislation, whose control is based on the clinical discretion of the doctors attending the patient and the entitlement to receive drugs provided by Clause 1(1). The relationship of the Bill to this legislation would need to be clarified in order to avoid conflicts, for there would certainly be cases where overriding the physician's discretion to prescribe drugs could lead to serious abuses.
I am rather unclear about the purpose of the second clause. The provision of Clause 2(1), that an incurable patient who takes his own life shall be deemed to have died by misadventure would do no more than perpetrate a legal fiction. This point was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, but, if I may say so, I am putting the point of view of

229
the Government. Presumably the only reason why self-deliverance in these circumstances should be treated differently from any other suicide would be to exculpate the person who supplied the drugs or abetted the suicide. If this is so, it could involve exposing the seriously ill to intolerable pressures from those who might be better off without them. The whole vexed question istied up with the Suicide Act of 1961 across which this Bill cuts, directly but inexactly. Section 2(1) of that Act makes a person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, liable on conviction to up to 14 years' imprisonment.
It may be argued that if a patient chooses to take his own life it is not unlawful and therefore others should not interfere. However, there are legal, ethical and humanitarian reasons for not accepting this. On the legal count, it has been held that in certain circumstances health authorities are liable to very substantial damages when potential suicides have succeeded in only sustaining permanent injury. On an ethical count, some doctors and nurses would undoubtedly have conscientious objection to this provision. But even more worrying, to punish a doctor for attempting to preserve life seems to be totally unacceptable and against all the ethics of medicine.
The humanitarian problem lies in the fact that a suicide does not always take place in total isolation. Even the most thoroughgoing supporter of the principle of this Bill would have to accept that from time to time there would be violent attempts at self-deliverance. If doctors and nurses were debarred by law from intervening, considerable distress would be caused both to them and to any patient spectators, not to mention the possibly mutilated unsuccessful suicide. At present, a doctor or nurse faced with such a case could intervene and subsequently seek to ensure that treatment concentrated on establishing peace of mind rather than prolonging life.
I have two other more mundane difficulties concerning Clause 2 as it is at present phrased. First, the declaration that, "any interference …shall be unlawful", does not create a criminal offence for enforcement purposes and there is no provision elsewhere in the Bill making
230
it so. Secondly, for the provisions of the clause to operate, it would be necessary for the relatives, nurses and doctors involved to know both of the patient's wish and of the patient's incurable status under the Bill. Detailed administrative arrangements would have to be evolved to cater for this, if it could be done. The final clause of the Bill is presumably intended to make it easier for doctors to discontinue treatment, since to treat a person against their declared wish could be an assault.
My Lords, I accept that the problems posed by the brain-damaged patient who is maintained by mechanical means are very real. There are questions to beexamined and answered and this is an area at which the medical profession must look—and are doing so—long and hard. The chief medical officer of the Department of Health and Social Security has asked the Royal Colleges to examine the concept of brain death and I hope that it will prove possible to issue meaningful advice. I feel that such advisory measures are more appropriate and, indeed, more helpful than legislation. Otherwise my objections to this clause are largely repetitions of those I mentioned earlier.
On the question of definition, what does degeneration, for example, signify? Is the process of ageing itself not a sort of degeneration? On the question of the signed statement, the Bill does not indicate what should happen in cases where a statement was known to have been made previously but could not be found at the crucial time. I am also rather puzzled about what would happen if a patient changed his mind, and the means by which the statement should be brought to the attention of the doctors involved. Would there be a central register, or perhaps a card carried by the patient? It could be argued that these are matters of detail.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will allow me to interrupt him for a moment, I think the points he is now raising are covered under Clause 3(3), which allows the appointment of someone like an executor under a will, whose business it is to call attention to the declaration.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I shall accept that from my noble friend

231
Lady Wootton of Abinger, but, as she will appreciate, there are difficulties in relation to the production of it and the possibility that the declaration could not be produced at the appropriate time. At any rate I think everyone would agree that it would be essential not to place any onus on a doctor to find out if such a statement existed, before instituting lifesaving treatment. Finally, as with the self-deliverance clause, there is the disquieting problem of external pressure possibly being put upon people to sign a statement which, left to themselves they would not have signed.
The problems to which I have referred are far from being exhaustive, but your Lordships may find them sufficient to show that the Bill as it stands is largely unnecessary, in certain respects undesirable and in some respects unworkable. I know that my noble friend Lady Wootton has specifically disclaimed any association of the Bill with euthanasia. She mentioned it quite properly. It was also mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and I know there are a number of your Lordships who are thinking of the Bill in those terms. Certainly, it has been referred to in those terms by people outside your Lordships' House.
Nevertheless, I think I ought to be perfectly frank and tell your Lordships of a correspondence which passed between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the late Cardinal Heenan. On 7th August of last year, in reply to a letter from the late Cardinal Heenan in which the letter referred to the possibility of legislation for the killing of old and incurable folk, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote these words:
"Such a policy of euthanasia would be wholly abhorrent and there is absolutely no possibility of this Government—or I believe of any Government—ever giving it support".
My Lords, I have tried this afternoon to demonstrate that legislation is unnecessary—I know that my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger will not accept that—and, if enacted, might cause as many problems as it solves. In addition to the obvious shortcomings in the drafting of the Bill, the Government have carefully considered this matter, and have given careful consideration, also, to the
232
principles involved. They have come to the conclusion that they cannot support this Bill.
5.7 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we have all listened with profound interest to the explanation of her Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and to its Amendment explained by my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery. I should like to begin by saying that I have great sympathy with the intentions of this Bill, for it is, I believe, a Bill to relieve suffering—and who can be against that principle? Indeed, no one who has watched someone suffering in the last stages of an illness or, indeed, at the last stages of old age, can be unaware of the great pain and suffering both by those who suffer directly and those who suffer because they are watching the suffering of someone they love and feel powerless to do very much at all. We all want to die with dignity and in peace, and it is something that we want for others.
This debate obliges us as well to consider the great issues of life and death, and to talk about death. We cannot often do this, for we have developed a series of euphemisms for death nowadays, talking only about terminal illness. Indeed, as a generation we are as reluctant to talk about death as the Victorians were to talk about sex. Yet death is a fundamental fact of life. Thinking people want the opportunity to talk about this fundamental principle, to think through their beliefs, and to decide whether the fundamental principles which have governed our lives for centuries should be altered in the light of present-day conditions, or, if they still hold good, why they still hold good. This Bill gives us this opportunity, and for this reason, too, I believe we should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, for bringing it to your Lordships' House.
On my part, I feel some diffidence at speaking at all, as I am neither a doctor, a lawyer nor a theologian. In the society of today, with its very rapid changes in the practice of medicine, the techniques for the relief of pain, and the definition of death itself, it is necessary for each individual to think through his own belief. I should like to make it clear that the views I express today are entirely my own. In view of the large number of speakers, I shall deliberately keep my remarks very

233
short, although the more I study the Bill the more I believe there is to say about it. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, will realise that it is time, not care and thought, which is preventing my saying as much as I would like.
Turning to the Bill, in particular to Clause 1, it would seem to me—and it so seemed, I think, to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell; I was most interested to hear what he had to say—that, on the best advice I can get, Clause 1 is an attempt to legislate for good medical practice. The question to be asked is: Will this legislation, and in particular Clause 1, help to relieve suffering? Of course, no patient ought to suffer unnecessarily, but it would seem to me that what is needed is far greater medical skill spread among far more doctors and nurses, more pain units—that is units specialising in the treatment of pain—and more qualified staff.
A community physician with whom I discussed this Bill gave me what he believed to be a quite typical example of what might happen with a person who was suffering. The specialist had offered a certain amount of a pain-relieving drug to be given at intervals, and this was done. In the middle of the night the patient suffered more, and the nurse on duty looked at the instructions and carried out to the letter what the specialist had advised. It might well be that the patient ought to have had more, but would Clause 1 make this possible? After all, the nurse on duty could only do what she was asked to do by the specialist. The answer to that, surely, is more training, both for the doctor and for the nurse, and better specialist care in hospitals. I believe it to be true —and I shall be most interested to hear what the doctors have to say when they speak on this Bill—that if the best help was available to all, almost all suffering could be relieved. At present any patient is entitled to drugs in sufficient quantity to keep pain under control. The tragedy must be that this is not always what happens to patients. Nevertheless, the question needs to be asked: Would Clause 1 make this possible? I find it difficult to believe that it would, and if that is the case it seems to me that Clause 1 is unnecessary. I would go further and suggest that it could be harmful, because I believe that the attempt to legislate for good medical practice
234
could indeed undermine the trust between doctor and patient.
But I should like to look at a further practical side and ask: If this Bill became law who would be responsible for enforcing this clause? Who would decide when pain was intolerable, and for how long the pain should be intolerable before something was done about it? But, above all, on this matter I am an optimist. All politicians have, in the nature of things, to be optimists, but perhaps over medical practice we have more reason to be optimistic than on many other subjects. For surely, some of the greatest advances made in the 20th century are in the practice of medicine. We, as a generation, are indeed fortunate that we have so little physical suffering in comparison to our forefathers. Modern developments in medicine mean that there is less and less physical suffering; not that all is ended, but that there is less than there was. It does not seem to me that this piece of legislation will produce any more money for more doctors, any more money for more research, either into illness or the relief of pain; nor will it provide better hospitals, and ultimately that is what is needed in order to relieve physical pain of this sort.
Turning to Clause 2, my concern here is of a different order, because it seems to me very difficult to write into legislation something which is not true. To say that a person who has caused his own death has died by misadventure must, surely, not be a true statement, for that person has killed himself deliberately. To go further and to say that it is unlawful for a doctor or any other person to prevent that person from taking his own life not only comes between the professional judgment of the doctor and the patient, but must surely put an intolerable burden on those who are caring for the person; and I think in this instance particularly of the relatives of a patient who may be looking after him at home.
I am not sure that Clause 2 is intended to be—as I understood the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, to imply, if not to state—a declaration that is a matter for an individual only. But I wonder whether this really is the case. Alas, sin is ever with us, and it seems to me that great pressures could be put on a person to end his own life, even if that person

235
might not wish to sign such a declaration. It would put great pressures on the doctor. What advice would he give to a patient about his condition, knowing that if that patient knew that his disease was incurable he would take his own life, and that pressures might be put on him to do so?
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, if the noble Baroness would allow me to intervene, while this clause may be badly drafted, it does refer to a patient who has taken that course action taken by the patient. It does not deal with the prevention of that action; it deals with the action after it is taken, and it is intended to deal with the attempt at suicide, not with the prevention of suicide.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for making that clear; but I am not quite sure that it invalidates my argument. After all, if one sees someone attempting suicide, I believe it would be one's duty to try to prevent it, even if one did not wish to do so.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, this is dealing with someone who has taken a course of action, not someone who is proposing to take it or to attempt it.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, this is perhaps an argument that we should pursue at some other time. I still believe that even if they had actually attempted that course of action it would be right for someone to intervene to prevent it. Furthermore, I believe that there is a real possibility, if this Bill is enacted, that it could lead to the neglect of the patient, since someone might then ask for his life to be ended because he was suffering and others might ask for him to be put out of his misery.
If I may again be very practical, I was very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said about the implementation of this Bill. I tried to imagine the Government circular that would accompany it to explain the circumstances in which it was to be carried out. It seems to me that the drafting of the advice which would have to be given to doctors and to health authorities, would be very difficult indeed. But it
236
would not simply be advice to doctors and health authorities. Advice would have to be given to everybody. If relatives nurse someone who is very ill at home, even if this is relatively rare, the relatives would have to know where they stood in law and when they were acting unlawfully.
My Lords, most difficult of all must be Clause 3, for it seems to me, like Clause 2, to open up an entirely new concept; that is, the right of people to choose whether to live or to die. I believe that in many instances this option will itself cause suffering. Everyone would now have to ask himself the question: "Should I sign a declaration, if not because I particularly believe it, but (if one was an unselfish person one might say) for the sake of my family? I ought to sign such a declaration, even if my family would not wish me to do it. "We might think that our families would wish us to do it, or that it ought to become a new moral principle that we ought to do it. Then one would have to ask what would be its effect on those who would have to carry out the task. I do not wish in any way to be involved in discussions on the effects of the Abortion Act, but I believe it to be true that it is often distressing to young nurses and doctors. I cannot see that the situation under this Bill could be anything else but deeply distressing in some circumstances to those who would have to carry it out. I wonder whether one has a right to put this kind of pressure on other people.
Again, who would enforce Clause 3? When it became law, could the family say: "Well, you did not allow so-and-so to die. You have broken the law". It could have most undesirable effects because statistics could be kept in different areas as to the numbers of people who had died under this Act, as, of course, medical statistics are kept of all other sorts of illnesses and operations, and so on. We could have the ghoulish situation in which some areas could become better known for this kind of death than others. The more one considers it, Clause 3 is certainly not for the squeamish. There is, indeed, a singular lack of definitions, and one of them seems to me to be on the question of "sound mind". I appreciate that this phrase is used in law, but I wonder whether it really means that an 18-year-old might

237
make such a declaration, witnessed by two other 18-year-olds, or alternatively by an old person who might be confused at one time but perfectly lucid at another.
Above all, I believe that this Bill could well have the opposite effect to that which is intended. It could well increase suffering by offering options which at present do not exist, and it could increase suffering to those least able to bear it—the elderly. It seems to me that it could take away a major incentive to relieve suffering, because it could well be argued that resources of money and of medicine need not be used for improvements in the techniques of relieving pain because the techniques themselves would have become unnecessary. It could well interfere with the relationship between a doctor and his patient, and to attempt to legislate for what is good medical practice may cause some people to suffer more. After all, there are times when a doctor does not officiously strive to keep alive, but it is better not to put into legislation what they are.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers, who is very sorry indeed not to be here today, wrote to me a long letter indicating what he would have said had he been here. I should like to quote one paragraph from the letter:
"The administration of a drug to give comfort, or to relieve pain may hasten death. This is wholly different to giving, or refusing, drugs in order to terminate life. My answer to the reply 'lives are terminated now, make it lawful' would be this: what in law may be legally wrong may, in the totality of all the concepts of life, be justifiable, but to make that which in the totality of life may be justifiable become legally right is totally different."
I think that he has made a very great and profound point there. If it is enacted, I fear that this is a Bill which could be used by the unscrupulous, and I regret to say that I believe that it would be the thin edge of the wedge to further legislation. Even if this is not a Bill strictly about euthanasia, it could lead to it.
I enjoyed, as I am sure we all did, Lady Wootton's amusing analogy about having a glass of wine at lunch. But perhaps the analogy is not quite right, because who is to say that if we were starting again we would believe that it was right for people to drink, because after all drink can cause a lot of evil. The fact of the matter is that we do it,
238
and we have done it for hundreds of years, and we are unlikely to stop it. But if we are starting something completely new, when we have the opportunity to consider carefully what the consequences may be, this is the time to pause to say, "We really ought not to do it at all". I think this is the view that we should take at this time.
On considering this matter carefully, I shall vote for the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery, but in so doing I believe that the Bill has certainly caused me, and I am sure many others, to think far more deeply about the question of dying and the relief of suffering than I would have otherwise done. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, will recognise that we all want to relieve suffering, and that we all believe profoundly that society needs far more care, skilled and compassionate care of every kind, than it has at present.
5.25 p.m.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I am sure that I am voicing the opinion of every Member of this House when I say that we entirely agree with the intention of the noble Baroness in bringing her Bill before us, but I feel, and have felt since I saw the Bill the first time, that the Bill itself is unnecessary and might possibly have dangerous effects. To start with a minor point, we do not really know what is meant by "incurable" except as something which the doctor is said to say. I have been involved for a very long time with the Royal Hospital for Incurables at Putney where we have people not, I admit, suffering a great deal of pain—that can be coped with, and is coped with—but suffering from the gravest disabilities and deformities. In all the time that I have been involved there, there has been no question at all of their wanting drugs to make death come, or to dispose of their disability or deformity.
It is now becoming more and more the practice in medicine that we know a great deal more about the management of pain and the treatment of pain, partly because drugs are used more intelligently and partly because the variety of drugs available is a great deal greater than it was. Reference has already been made to the work of Dr. Saunders at the St. Christopher's Hospice at Sydenham. I

239
am pleased to be told that there are about thirteen or fourteen similar places working in the country where the same kind of work is being done and, what is more important, where teaching is being given to students and young doctors in the way to cope with pain.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, may I intervene to offer a correction? I think the number is not 13 or 14 but 28 such places.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I did not know that it had gone up so far as that. I knew that there were quite a number. There is another way in which training and teaching is being done. I am involved in a large student group, called the London Medical Group which does work in the 12 London teaching hospitals. It carries out its work by means of voluntary lectures, voluntary seminars, and a big annual conference. Great interest is taken there by the young medical students and the young doctors in the management of pain and the relief of suffering in the care of the dying, if you care to put it like that. Therefore, a good deal of training is being carried on in that kind of way as well. The practice has now spread to quite a number of the medical schools in the country. Again, I am not very good at figures, as the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, pointed out, but I think that there are about seven or eight similar groups working in other medical schools in the country. That is why, although I am not at all complacent about the situation, the outlook for the care of such patients is far better now than it was some time ago.
Where it can also be dangerous, as has already been pointed out, is in a disinterested elderly person—and, shall we say, an interested relative—using pressure to have himself or herself declared in intolerable pain and, therefore, to be "put away", as you might say. Personally, I do not mind sometimes calling it "killed", just to be certain what one is talking about. I am not so sure about the value of changing the verdict "suicide" to "misadventure", because if a verdict of misadventure were to be brought in—and I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Cork, who said this—people might say, "We knew there was some-
240
thing wrong there", and they would assume that it was a case of suicide.
I should not have thought that one would want to amend the Suicide Act to remove the penalty of 14 years' imprisonment for those who assist people actively to commit suicide because, again, that might be looked at wrongly by interested people.
I have some sympathy for the last clause in the Bill, because I think it is morally and ethically wrong to keep alive by artificial means somebody who has no possibility of a normal life. However, I am not sure that it can be done in this sort of way. I would leave it to consultation between the relatives and the doctors, and they should learn when to withhold their therapeutic hand and not try to keep somebody alive as long as is humanly possible. The purpose behind the Bill is admirable and it has been of great value to this House to have been able to discuss the measure and the points behind it. However, teaching, training and experience are better than law and, for goodness' sake! let us keep the law out of the relationship between doctor and patient.
5.32 p.m.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I am happy to speak following the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, because we differ in what I might call degree but not in spirit. Nearly seven years ago I sponsored a measure called the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill. The word "euthanasia" has, it seems, acquired some unfortunate connotations; in many people's minds it means bumping off in a painless way somebody who is not particularly wanted. Certainly I was accused of wanting to do away with harmless old people and sometimes I would be told, "I agree that we should not allow handicapped children to survive."
One sees from these remarks how muddled people are about the purposes of a voluntary enthanasia Bill or a Bill of this nature which, as my noble friend said, is not, strictly speaking, a euthanasia Bill. However, Clause 8 of the Bill which I introduced had the same purpose as Clause 1 of this Bill, and the declaration referred to in my Bill had a similar purpose to the written statement referred to in Clause 3 of this Bill.

241
When the Bill which I sponsored was published it caused a great stir, one for which I was not well enough prepared at the time. There was a long debate in this House; there were articles, leading articles, radio discussions, books published for and against a Church of England investigation, no less. I was asked to give lectures, I took part in debates, I wrote articles, reviews and so on. I had much opportunity, therefore, to form opinions on the subject, some but not all of which it might be helpful to put to your Lordships; not all because I intend to make a short speech in view of today's list of speakers.
The adoption of stances which are firmly pro or anti has frequently obscured the issues, just as I know that there have been many misapprehensions, not to say misrepresentations, as to what my Bill was about and what this Bill is about. I am not so sure now as when I spoke to my Bill that it would have achieved what it set out to do. I say that not because I think its objectives were wrong but because I have come to the conclusion that it would have taken better drafting than any I have seen so far to produce an acceptably worded Bill. The same criticism could be, and has been, levelled at this Bill, but we are here discussing the principles of the measure and not the details of necessarily amateur drafting. But what I am sure of is that the very debate over this Bill—and my Bill—and the fierce discussion it has provoked has advanced the cause of its supporters by drawing attention to the very real deficiencies in care which so widely exist and of which my noble friend gave examples from her own knowledge. The discussion which this Bill has aroused is having the same effect as mine; the Bill's opponents are having to defend their position by bending their minds towards improving the state of affairs which the efforts of the Bill's supporters are directed to correcting and improving.
Extraordinarily little attention has been paid so far in our society to psychological understanding of the aged. We know a great deal more about babies than we do about the old, which is strange considering how little babies know. Gerontology is in its infancy; the science, if it is a science, of geriatrics is not a glamorous occupation. As for the
242
care of the dying, perhaps your Lordships will be as astounded as I was to hear that, in something like half the teaching hospitals in London, including University College Hospital, there is still no education given on the care of the dying. This is the garden in which we are asked to believe that all is lovely and that if only we leave it to the doctors, everything will be all right. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who has done more than his share towards improving matters and has certainly very much helped me, it is partly because it has been left only to the doctors that it is not all right, for in doctoring as in other disciplines, which I shall not mention today, we suffer from time to time from the effects of the experts making their own rules and conventions and saying, in effect, that they are above criticism. They are not above criticism and what your Lordships are witnessing in this Bill is another attempt to change conventional medical practice by consumer pressure.
I have had the privilege of being taken round an establishment where the experts did not stick to the rules and are pioneers. I refer to St. Christopher's Hospice in Streatham which is run by Dame Albertine Winner and Dr. Cicely Saunders, mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery; they are both very splendid people. I do not know, but I guess that, if all other hospitals aspired to the standards of this hospice and were infused with its ideas and ideals, Clause 1 of this Bill might never have been brought forward. But it is not for my noble friend Lady Wootton to defend Clause 1; it is for its critics to set about demonstrating in a practical way throughout the country, in every hospital and home, why it is not necessary to pass it into law. It is not enough just to talk about good medical practice; we must do something.
Clause 3 differs from the major part of my Bill in that the word "euthanasia" is not mentioned, since the clause refers only to the refusal of life sustaining treatment and not to the administering of a lethal dose. There is, I suppose, a difference between cutting off a means of life and inducing a means of death; but I do not find it very clear, for both mean killing. If one accepts that good medical practice sometimes entails removing life-sustaining equipment, one

243
inevitably accepts that good medical practice sometimes entails killing. I think that we must not shy away from facing that fact in those terms.
Of the written statement referred to in Clause 3, much has been said. It has even been called a death warrant and dear old Aunty Times which, Bill or no Bill, we all hope will go on for ever, yesterday called it a death warrant. In my opinion, no written statement can ever be more than an invitation to a doctor of a patient's preference at the time that that document was signed. The doctor would legally be required to take notice of it but there is no legal duty for him to act upon it if it is against his better judgment at the time, and nothing in any declaration that I have ever seen places on the doctor a legal obligation to withdraw life-sustaining support. May I read from paragraph 8 of the declaration which was attached to my Bill:
"I wish it to be understood that I have confidence in the good faith of my relatives and physicians and fear degeneration and indignity far more than I fear premature death. I ask and authorise the physician in charge of my case to bear these statements in mind when considering what my wishes would be in any uncertain situation."
That is not a death warrant.
Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of supporter for a Bill of this nature. There are those of a kindly and merciful disposition who cannot bear to see suffering prolonged. As I have tried to indicate, I do not think that they are as foolish and ignorant as they are so often made out to be. There is a second group who, in my belief, are just as important, but who are usually left out of account. I have had the luck to know a large number of people who are vigorous, able and of a lively intellect—the sort of person one goes to for advice or for the sheer pleasure of their company. They enjoy their vigour and intellect and are proud of it. This is their life. They cannot bear the idea of being senile or being smitten ga-ga with a paralytic stroke, those of their friends who are left coming to see them out of a sense of duty and not for pleasure or instruction. Occasionally, I am sure, one or two of these strong-minded people arrange their own deaths, but others are liable to become afflicted before they can do anything—if, indeed, they ever wanted to do
244
anything. But surely these people merit consideration. They do not want to be kept alive after their personalities have changed. These are the people who are most likely to want to sign a declaration. Partly, you may say, it would be a protest against frailty and old age, but principally they want to retain in their dotage some of the power to resist compulsory medication which, as my noble friend pointed out, they possessed when they had all their faculties.
I think that Clause 2 refers to the same kind of people, only in that case they would be presumed to know what they were doing. I would not venture to say whether the clause would encourage suicide or, on the other hand, would not discourage it. I think that my noble friend would say the latter. But here we are on ground where I would tread carefully. Once or twice I have been asked to defend the proposition that there is a right to die and I have refused, because our rights can be construed only in relation to the people among whom we live, and there are times when I would say that someone might have a duty to stay alive. But circumstances alter cases, and deliberately to withhold a means of suicide out of the mistaken principle that in no case should anyone be allowed to take his own life is, in my view, mere paternalistic busybody ness, to put it no higher than that.
We are discussing a subject which is very complex and highly emotive and it is one that is exceedingly difficult to discuss on the Floor of the House. Noble Lords who are uncommitted, if they sit through the debate and hear all the pros and cons, will still have many questions to ask at the end of it. I know I will, much though I have become acquainted with the subject. I think that the debate—which, if it is like the last one, is a very serious one indeed—will not clarify issues when there is so much forceful opinion on both sides. I should like to ask questions of both pro and anti.
If your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading, even though you may disapprove strongly of parts of it, or if you are in sympathy with some or all of its ideals but do not agree with how the Bill proposes to translate them into practice, or even if you think that it may not properly be a subject for the law

245
at all yet believe that the matter merits deep investigation, I will move that it go to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. I will do so because, first, I have the highest opinion of your Lordships' Select Committees as instruments for acquiring knowledge in a skilled, unbiased, unsensational and methodical way. Select Committees have no power to subpoena, of course, but they can ask for evidence and opinions from all who care to give them, including doctors and lawyers. They can meet in their own time and all the proceedings would be printed and published and could be studied at leisure. And after that your Lordships can act upon that evidence just as your Lordships please.
The other reason why I think that this is a subject eminently suitable for study by a Select Committee is that the very fact that a Bill of this nature (whatever your Lordships may have thought of me and my Bill) is being brought by someone so sane, intelligent, perceptive, able and undramatic as my noble friend, means that something is very wrong with regard to our care for the dying. It causes very deep worry and concern to many, many people. It needs investigation and correction. It really is too serious a matter to leave only to experts. Awkward though the subject may be, it is too important to brush under the carpet and pretend it is not there, which would be the effect of voting against the Bill tonight. I very much hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading so that I may move that it go to a Select Committee.
5.49 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of DURHAM: My Lords, so many excellent things have been said in this debate so far that I am sure that, like myself, many of your Lordships who are to follow me as speakers are already mentally tearing up a great deal of what they were planning to say. I particularly wish to associate myself with many of the detailed comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I also wish, even at this late stage in the debate, to add my tribute to what has been said about the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, to express my sympathy for her motives in bringing forward this Bill, and to express concern about the abuses which it seeks to remedy.
246
I remind your Lordships that clergy, like doctors, have a particular concern with this area, and like those in the medical profession, we perhaps see more of those who might come within the category of this Bill than do most people. It so happened that during the past few months I myself have been very close to a person who might easily have come into this category—a young woman dying of cancer, who was seemingly unable to die. The illness dragged on for week after week, to the enormous distress of herself, the hospital authorities, and her family. Knowing that this debate was to take place, I asked myself, in that very real and practical situation, what effect would this legislation have on this woman's attitude towards her illness, and what kind of effect would it have on her family?
I came to the conclusion that, despite all the pressures, I would regret profoundly any legislation which could add to the burden of guilt and possible recrimination of people who took a certain action and then perhaps spent the rest of their lives—and I am referring here to the family wondering whether it was right, wondering whether such a person might, perhaps impossibly, have recovered after all. A fortnight ago I had the privilege of addressing a conference of doctors and nurses as part of a symposium on the care of the dying. This was part of a normal training programme in a large general hospital. As part of my remarks I gave the doctors and nurses assembled a brief resume of this Bill. The immediate reaction from one doctor was that this is a horrifying indictment of the medical profession. The more considered reaction of the symposium was that this was a plea to the medical profession to listen to symptoms, to listen to what patients are actually saying about fears, distress, pain and so forth.
I believe that this debate will do good if it is widely reported and makes the medical profession more aware now of the deep disquiet felt by many ordinary people about some cases. Having said this in partial criticism of the medical profession, I believe, as some of your Lordships have said, that awareness of the needs of patients in this kind of situation is growing; there is better education of doctors taking place; and the conference of which I was a part is a witness to it. I also note that recently

247
a Working Party of the Council of Europe has made recommendations that there should be more discussion of this kind of issue and greater facilities for educating doctors about it.
There is also a great need for moral support and guidance for doctors in the exceedingly difficult decisions which they often have to make. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, proposed a Select Committee—I am not very familiar with the actual procedures—but it seems to me that already a great deal is going on among ethical committees and groups of doctors. Mention has already been made of the London Medical Ethical Group. It was interesting in the conference to which I referred, and which, so far as I know was entirely unselected, that of 100 or more doctors and nurses not one single voice was raised in support of this Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, referred earlier to the phrase "meddle-some medicine". I suggest that this Bill might be called "meddlesome legislation"; legislation which could do only harm by intruding a very blunt instrument into a very delicate area. I will not repeat some of the dangers that have already been mentioned at length. But we have many sad examples, have we not?, of the perpetual problems of liberalising legislation; of good, noble and sympathetic people who, for the highest motives, attempt to put through legislation which in fact brings new pressures to bear on the very people whom it is designed to help.
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, referred to the small, strong-minded, minority who might be the beneficiaries of this kind of legislation. But, alas!, the very things which ease the lot of the small, strong-minded, minority always have widespread and unintended side effects. Several of your Lordships have been through the clauses of the Bill in detail and I will not weary you by going over the same ground. I believe that the deficiencies are not just in drafting. But before saying where I believe the main objections to it are to be found, I shall refer again to the genuine fears which underly it; the feeling that there are doctors waiting with a whole battery of techniques—with syringes and what-have-you—trying to keep miserable patients alive.
248
This is a subject which has been discussed now over a period of 10 years, and if any of your Lordships are unaware of it I should remind you of a report produced for the then Church Assembly, entitled Decisions about life and death, published in 1965. This made the fundamental point, which I believe is still valid; namely, that the right question to ask, from the medical point of view, is how far does one go in treatment; and the right point to recognise is that one goes so far and no farther. I hope that we shall not go on quoting the couplet,
"Thou shalt not kill; But needst not strive Officiously to keep alive"
as if it were some kind of commandment. As your Lordships well know, this is satirical. One could quote other couplets from the same satirical poem—for example,
"Thou shalt not covet
But tradition approves
All forms of competition",
which no doubt would set your Lordships talking about other matters at great length.
The point is that we are concerned with good medicine, not with legal rights. In looking at the clauses of the Bill I should like to give two illustrations which perhaps highlight points already made. Under Clause 1(1) of the Bill, I wonder how one would exclude the drug addict who, in certain circumstances, might well be certified as incurable, who is certainly suffering from a distressing physical illness, and who might easily therefore demand unlimited drugs, and in terms of the Bill, be entitled to receive them. One can perhaps illustrate the ambiguities of the notion of incurable from the example of the patient who learns that he has multiple sclerosis. Here is a disease which is certainly incurable and which certainly causes great distress. Certainly in the first stages of discovering that one has the disease, one might well find the thought intolerable. Yet the very fact that the option of suicide or unlimited drugs is not open to a patient makes him come to terms with it.
In fact, those dealing with this kind of patient testify again and again to the way in which people can come to terms with that illness and are glad to have done so; and I believe that this Bill could

249
undermine the will to tackle this kind of condition.
Now let me turn to the central point and say that I myself do not believe that this is a euthanasia Bill, and I very much hope that the debate will not extend into that territory. But it does introduce a new and potentially dangerous concept which is referred to in many circles as "the right to die". Perhaps I may spend just a moment or two trying to distinguish three senses in which that phrase is currently used, so that there can be no confusion. There is, or there could be claimed, the right to have one's life ended by another person. This is euthanasia strictly so called; and, at the risk of advertising, may I remind your Lordships of the extremely good report on this particular subject, which is to be debated by the General Synod of the Church of England the week after next, entitled On Dying Well. That is euthanasia. Secondly, by "the right to die" people mean the right to end one's own life, and this, it seems to me, is what Clause 2 of this Bill is about.
But thirdly—and this is where the confusion often takes place—by "the right to die" people mean the right to die in peace and dignity, and this surely is a right which exists already. If one endeavours to strengthen it by the kind of legislation proposed here, then inevitably one widens it to include, for some people, a presumed duty to die, because rights always have the dangerous propensity to turn into quasi-duties. This, I believe, is where the real harm of this Bill could lie: in the kind of pressures which it would put on people, the kind of expectations which it would arouse, both among society at large and in the medical profession, who in the long run would become conditioned to taking the easy way out.
My Lords, one final point about the third clause of the Bill.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate comes to that, perhaps he will allow me to interrupt him. I have just had to face this: a very dignified, very honourable, very distinguished man—my father—lying and dying in a most undignified way. It was not quite clear why the right reverend Prelate said—and I speak as an Anglo-Catholic—that one should watch the most undignified demise of a once very dis-
250
tinguished man. It did not seem to me, if I may say so, that the right reverend Prelate really answered the question. I would myself have been ready to administer, not only the last rites but the end of his life. Would the right reverend Prelate just develop his thoughts a little further on that?
The Lord Bishop of DURHAM: I think all of us, my Lords, and probably from our own experience, can think of distressing cases of this kind, but (and I am afraid that it is a platitude) hard cases make had law. The point I want to make is simply that legislation to relieve individual cases of an extremely distressing kind, may be passed with the best will in the world. Whether it was necessary here in terms of good medical practice, I do not know; I will not judge. But, granted that there may be some cases of this kind which are still inescapable: nevertheless, if one legislates to make the quick way out possible, one is in fact creating profound social consequences which have all sorts of unintended effects on many people who were never envisaged in the original legislation. This is my point, and this is my main point.
As I was saying about Clause 3, on the face of it this is less objectionable, but some weighty arguments have been levelled against it. I would simply ask this question: In the case of those who did not sign some document saying that they did not wish to receive intensive or life-sustaining treatment, would a clause of this kind create a presumption that they did want to receive it? I am not sufficient of a lawyer to know, but I would at least wish to express this fear. I would conclude by repeating that this Bill deals with real fears and abuses, and I therefore hope that the medical profession will take very careful note of this debate. Legislatively, I believe it could be a disaster, because it is not a marginal affair dealing with a few hard cases and with relieving the condition of a minority. It deals, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, with one of the most profound and important facts of life; namely, the fact of death—and beliefs, attitudes and assumptions about death have an enormous effect on the society which holds them.
Recently, a fascinating work has been written by a certain James Dunn called The City of the Gods, in which he has

251
tried to write a history of civilisation in the light of people's attitudes towards death; and I would suggest that this might be a document well worth study by those who are concerned to legislate in this area. I would simply say that it is no light matter to legislate about death; but we may be thankful for this Bill, which has brought the matter into the open, and we may be thankful for much that is already happening in medicine to make this kind of Bill unnecessary. Our debate will, I hope, encourage the better education of doctors and their better moral support in the extremely difficult decisions which they have to make, but I trust that we shall allow the Bill itself to go no further.
6.8 p.m.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, feels as I do about the need for more to be done for patients with distressing and incurable complaints. Like every other speaker, I am full of sympathy for the compassion which has prompted her to bring this Bill before us today. It has made us all think hard once again about the extremely difficult, emotive and complicated problem of ensuring for everyone
"a quiet and easy death; and the means of procuring this",
which is the Shorter Oxford Dictionary definition of "Euthanasia"; and I agree with what my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery has said, that we cannot accept that this Bill is not about any type of euthanasia.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, that in the past there has been considerable confusion over this term, which has now been in use in our country for more than 300 years. I believe that we shall think more clearly about it in future if, when it is used in any context other than "quiet and easy death", it is always qualified: "natural euthanasia", as when an old lady dies peacefully in her sleep or after being unconscious for some time, as most people die; "voluntary euthanasia", which is suicide, or complicity in suicide, which is manslaughter; and "enforced euthanasia", which is murder as our law stands at present.
It is with the second of these divisions of euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia
252
through a signed statement, with which I believe this Bill is largely concerned. The border-line is ill-defined between natural euthanasia (helped by drugs for severe pain or discomfort) and enforced euthanasia as we have described it. Almost every doctor must have been worried at some time or other as to how much of a drug he might, without breaking the law, give to a dying patient to relieve discomfort and distress. Forty years ago Lord Dawson of Penn said in this House:
"Surely, in such cases, our duty and our privilege is to do what we can to make that passage between a painful illness and the inevitable end as gentle as we can."—[Official Report, 1/12/36; col. 481.]
In 1960 Sir Patrick Devlin, a famous judge, now Lord Devlin, speaking to the Medical Society of London in a lecture on "Medicine and the Law", agreed with this; and he added:
"The deliberate acceleration of death must prima facie be murder…"
Where I, as a family doctor, differ from the noble Baroness is that I believe good doctors now already do, as they have done for centuries, the things which are essential to achieve a quiet and easy death for their patients without contravening our present laws by entangling themselves in the second and third types of euthanasia. These, according to our present laws, can so easily become involved in the criminal offences of complicity in suicide and manslaughter. Better training is needed of medical students, young doctors, nurses, priests, health visitors, and social workers in how to help nature achieve a gentle and painless death for everyone. Such training is being carried out so well now in St. Christopher's (under Dr. Cicely Saunders) and St. Joseph's Hospices, and in about 50 others like them which are already working (or are planned) in enlightened medical schools, and in many other places by various medical groups around the country largely run by students, and by organisations for cancer relief medical and religious. More geriatric hospitals are needed and more research. I am quite sure that very few seriously ill patients, even those with generalised malignant disease, need suffer severely, now, from intolerable pain and distress if they are properly treated.
My Lords, to turn to the details of the Bill that we are discussing. Many

253
of us doctors disagree profoundly with the suggestions made in Clauses I and 3 about the premeditated drugging of some of our incurable but not necessarily dying patients, up to the point of unconsciousness which might, quite often, lead to death. We are horrified at the suggestions about suicide in Clause 2. As an example: a pretty young girl is badly scarred and maimed in a car accident and her engagement is broken off because of this. She is seriously thinking of suicide because of her incurable and intolerable physical disabilities and distress. If someone finds her half out of a fifth-floor window and encourages her to jump, or pushes her out, she would be deemed (according to this Bill) to have died by misadventure (or "ill luck" as my dictionary defines that term). Any attempt by her mother, father or doctor to dissuade her from jumping or to pull her back into the room would be unlawful and liable to be punished, if this Bill becomes law. It would be hard to think of anything much more extraordinary than that.
Through the kindness of your Lordships' librarians, who made me photocopies, I have read carefully through the debates on euthanasia which took place in this House in 1936, 1950 and 1969. I was a little surprised that in only the last of these were Arthur Hugh Clough's words in a poem on the Ten Commandments, written more than a century ago, quoted; and then by Lord Brock:
"Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive officiously to keep alive."
No Christian teaching urges us to prolong life at all costs. Some years ago when my eldest son, then my only son, aged 5, was dying of leukaemia, uncomfortable and being sick, the specialist said that he might live a few more weeks if he was given a blood transfusion. My wife and I decided not to prolong his unhappy little life in that way; and I am sure we were right.
Other doctors will speak today from their experience as specialists. For myself, over the years I have cared for many incurable and dying people, both in hospital and in general practice. More than half a million people die in Britain every year and about half of these deaths occur in patients' homes or in the houses of their relatives and friends. A family doctor, as I am now, is in contact with
254
patients throughout long illnesses and is often left responsible for terminal care, in their homes, when specialists and hospitals can do no more. Looking after such patients is never easy.
I had one middle-aged woman who was ill at home for many months with a generalised muscular weakness which grew steadily worse until she could not move a single muscle in her limbs, nor speak. But she was comparatively comfortable and was being well-nursed. Her relatives said to me one day that they could not stand it any longer. "Why can you not give her an injection, doctor, and put her at rest?" I replied, "There are four of us here; any one of us can put a pillow over her face and she will be dead in three minutes." They said, "We could not do that; it would be murder." I told them "Neither could I. If I gave a large injection to kill her in a few minutes that would be murder, too." They understood and did not mention the subject again. This patient died a few days later of respiratory weakness, having been given enough small injections to keep her comfortable.
Many families, particularly those of the Jewish faith, feel that they have special responsibilities to support and care for those of their members who grow old and frail and ill. We are told that there are about 1 million old people in Britain now about one-fiftieth of our total population—who live in single rooms and seldom, if ever, leave them. Many of them say: "This is no life, doctor. I don't want to live much longer." But, paradoxically, they do not want to die, either. Few of them attempt suicide, or refuse food, antibiotics or operations. With what seems extraordinary tenacity, some of them cling to life and some may say. "I must wait until I am called, doctor".
I look after one old lady who has said this sort of thing to me many times over the past 26 years. She is now 103 and remarkably bright, tough and aggressive for her age. She is in no pain or great distress; and she is liable to hit, even to bite, anyone who comes near her with a syringe! Very few doctors, nurses or relatives want to assume or usurp the role of the Almighty and be personally responsible for the death of these old folk, however incurable, difficult, tiresome, crippled, incontinent, mentally

255
confused, blind or deaf they become. Many of them have lived, and perhaps fought, through two world wars; have survived the blitz and the 1929 to 1931 depression; have done good work and have brought up their families under, perhaps, difficult conditions. At the end of life they are dependent on others, as they were at the beginning. I feel that it is our duty to look after them and keep them as happy and comfortable as possible.
At the other end of the scale are the children with severe birth injuries or gross deformities—tragic problems which we doctors and their parents solve as best we can. They are not mentioned in this Bill. Will parental consent take the place of patients' consent? To illustrate some of the difficulties. Not long ago one of my newly-married patients had a "blue baby" which we put into an oxygen tent and sent to a teaching hospital for investigation for a possible hole in the heart. Tests showed that its heart was sound but it had too little lung to survive on this planet outside an oxygen tent. There was talk of a possible lung transplant later. so we were not sure that it was incurable. It remained in that little plastic oxygen tent for a year. It had its first birthday there with its toys. The parents visited daily. The nurses and doctors became fond of it—it was a sweet kid—and no one would turn off the oxygen. A short while later it crawled out of the tent one night and was found dead beside it—a merciful release without any guilt felt by the parents, doctors or nurses.
Under Clause 1 of this Bill, a man who is totally blinded and finds that he has also lost both his hands in a severe accident, might easily feel, at the time, that his world had come to an end; that he had nothing more to live for and would welcome an easy way to die. Clause 1 of this Bill makes such a man, with seemingly incurable and unbearable physical disabilities entitled, with his consent, to be given drugs to give him full relief and even to make him unconscious until he will surely die. I happen to be on the Council of St. Dunstans. In October 1971 I dined in the Dudley Hotel, Hove, near Brighton with 12 such men and two women—some of the 21 handless St. Dunstaners—all blind with
256
no hands. A more cheerful and happy dinner I have seldom attended. Most of them were married (their wives and husbands were there), many had children. All were doing jobs. One who was very deaf too, with a hearing aid, could not come to the meeting before the dinner because was too busy in his travel agency taking messages and bookings!
Just after being wounded, any one of these men or women, with such terrible disabilities, could easily have been persuaded to agree to his or her life being ended and to accept a gentle and easy death. What this Bill does not take into account are the marvellous results of encouragement and modern rehabilitation, the wonderful resilience of the human spirit and the courage of people to overcome even the worst disabilities in a truly heroic way. They come to terms with superadded depression and with troubles which are at first truly intolerable. This does not apply only to accidents. A young or middle-aged person developing bad multiple sclerosis, or an old lady with severe rheumatism or paralysis, may feel hopeless and wish to die at one stage of the illness; but, as morale improves, they may adapt themselves remarkably well and, later, have second thoughts about wanting to end their lives. All such patients need protection and much encouragement at the height of their illnesses and in the depths of their unhappiness and distress; rather than someone suggesting to them, as one of their options, that they could sign forms giving permission for them to be given large doses of drugs. Many suicidal attempts, even in the presence of incurable disease, are cries for help rather than for termination.
I shall do no more than mention how difficult it is, sometimes, to say that a condition is really incurable. Illnesses which were hopeless a few years ago can now be put right, as with some cases of leukaemia. Medical diagnosis is not infallible. I heard of a man who jumped out of a window after being told he had cancer. The post-mortem showed no malignant disease at all. Another point about Clause 1. Who will give the injections if the doctors and nurses are unwilling to do so on ethical or religious grounds? Will each district and each district hospital have its own mercy doctor? How will he or she be protected from

257
prosecution under our present laws of manslaughter and murder? Or will it be suggested that these laws be changed first? Will young doctors not be appointed to the staffs of hospitals, or to partnerships in practice, if they are unwilling to act in this capacity?
What will the doctor write as the cause of death on the death certificate and perhaps on the cremation certificate? "Poisoning" would be the truth, by whatever drug is used. By law all cases of poisoning must be referred to the coroner. Will he ask for a post mortem examination, as he must do as the law stands at present? What will the postmortem diagnosis be? What verdict would the coroner bring in? Would it be manslaughter or premeditated homicide (which would be the truth), and if so by whom? Would the culprit be punished?
In Clause 2, in the case of a young girl jumping out of a window, the coroner's verdict could not, surely, be "misadventure" or ill luck. That a coroner should record a false verdict is an intolerable suggestion, besides falsifying the Registrar General's statistics. As our law stands at present, the verdict must be suicide, complicity in suicide or manslaughter, or even murder with malice aforethought if she was pushed out. As in suicide pacts, when one of the two people concerned survives, the deliberate encouragement, or aiding and abetting of suicide (complicity in suicide) is now manslaughter, liable to imprisonment not exceeding 14 years.
I have an uneasy feeling, and I know that many others have it too, that the encouragement of suicides, as this Bill suggests, might be open to abuse and even corruption by unscrupulous people. It is sometimes comparatively easy to get an old person to sign a document, if this is done in a persuasive enough way saying that it is for his own good, and perhaps after he has been given a tranquillising pill or a drink. He can be persuaded to think that he is not wanted and is a burden on his relatives or on society. How long, one may ask, will voluntary suicide under these conditions remain truly voluntary? How easy to put an open bottle of 100 sleeping pills beside an old patient's bed and say, "Two should help you to sleep; but if they do not work take some more". In the morning they are gone—both the pills and the patient.
258
In conclusion, nearly all of us (except those who wish to die in battle) want to bow out of life peacefully and with dignity, in reasonable comfort under good medical care given by a doctor whom we trust and who will not allow us to suffer too much. That is natural euthanasia, helped when necessary, by drugs given to control pain and distress. Doctors with compassion, understanding and discretion, have not done too badly in the past when making these life and death decisions. Bonds of sympathy and confidence have been forged between them, their patients and the patients' relatives. With more training in this special subject they should do even better in future.
My Lords, I do not want to be too unkind to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, with whose merciful feelings I agree. But I have discussed this Bill with many medical men and women, specialists and general practitioners, who have had wide experience of treating incurable and dying patients, I have discussed it with the president of the General Medical Council, with two coroners, two bishops and other clergy, with one of Her Majesty's judges with special experience in criminal law, and with several other members of the legal profession. They all tell me they believe that this is an appallingly misconceived and dangerous Bill, bristling with formidable, practical, difficulties with many omissions and with serious inconsistencies in relation to our present legislation on suicide, manslaughter and murder. Much of it is so wrong that we do not think it can be put right by rewording or by reference to a Select Committee. I urge your Lordships to accept the Amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery which will ensure that it goes no further.
6.30 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, I am glad to support the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery. As a Christian and a Roman Catholic, I found his speech an excellent and most persuasive one. I fully support all that he has said and what has been said also by other speakers who have expressed agreement with him.
I am certain that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, is completely sincere in presenting her Bill, but I cannot agree with her that it will operate in any way

259
as she seems to imagine it will. All of us from time to time have to make painful decisions in regard to sick domestic animals, cats, dogs and so on. One knows how difficult and painful a decision that is to make. In this Bill, the noble Baroness wants the sick person to make that decision or to have it made antecedently. All this sounds very nice until one realises that it means that someone must kill someone else or put them in a position to kill themselves. It is true that we no longer punish attempted suicide, because we recognise it as a form of mental disturbance: sometimes only temporary. The Bill put forward by the noble Baroness goes one step further and encourages the incurably sick towards what she is pleased to call "self-deliverance", which she most curiously defines as "death by misadventure". My Lords, misadventure—hardly! I always thought that misadventure is when one slips on a banana skin, or something of the kind.
All that is to be desired is already available to us within the law. As several noble Lords have said, it would be monstrous to impose upon a doctor a decision of life and death in these circumstances. It is surely sufficient that he should be able to administer a narcotic for the purpose of relieving pain, even if it should result in the shortening of life. It can only be an invitation to murder if it is claimed as a right directly to dispose of life. The noble Baroness is no doubt aware of the very detailed and explicit statement of the late Pope Pius XII, entitled Relief of Pain, which was discussed at great length recently in a letter to The Times by an eminent neurologist. I must apologise to the noble Baroness for not having the reference by me but if need be I can find it, no doubt, in the Library.
In Clause 2(2), we have the situation that anyone interfering with a would-be suicide "contrary to the known wishes of the patient" is deemed to be guilty of an unlawful act. I have sat for 12 years in your Lordships' House, and I think this is the strangest clause that I have ever seen in a Bill. It seeks to make it unlawful to prevent another from committing suicide. It provides no penalties for such proposed unlawful action, nor does it state who is to determine it as being
260
such an action. My Lords, I know of a case in point. He has been a friend for many years, and turned out schizophrenic. Eventually, he tried to jump out of a hospital window but was caught in time. Today, he is quite fit again after treatment and according to the last I heard is doing a useful job. What would have happened to those who saved him had this Bill been law and had he antecedently signed for himself, when still sane, a self-condemnation to death? When this man was mentally ill, his illness occurred several hundred miles from his normal residence, and thus from any declaration he might have signed previously. Were those who saved his life to be deemed guilty in terms of the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness? My Lords, this is an absurdity, and speaks for itself.
6.34 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, I shall endeavour to support the principle of this Bill. In the first instance, I should like to say that I am grateful to the noble Baroness who introduced it and who has spoken to its Second Reading, because it has to do with suffering. I have had no profound experience of suffering under a bodhi tree, but over the years I have seen so many old people suffer unnecessarily and within a context which I believe to be unchristian and certainly unwarrantable. I am sure there is another reason for which your Lordships will be grateful for this debate, whatever may be its outcome. Attention has been drawn to one of the most deplorable yet one of the most immediately important facts of contemporary life; that is, the need for much greater care for those who are in a terminal condition or who are close to death.
I find the intention and purpose of the Bill acceptable and I have given considerable thought to this. I find it is set within a contemporary framework which I believe deserves rather more attention than hitherto it has received. It is true that we are living in an age in which the competence and capabilities of the medical profession have fundamentally questioned certain principles which have remained more or less sacrosanct until this day. One of these to which the Roman Catholic Church has been committed is the indissolubility of marriage. It has to be taken in a new context when

261
a medical profession, if it cannot produce, can facilitate, a total sex change. The very competence which the medical profession has today for altering the circumstances in which views have to be taken and principles have to be worked out, is at one and the same time a potential blessing and a very grave danger. If my noble friends and noble Lords in the medical profession will not misunderstand me, we in the spiritual field of the ecclesiastical affairs of a Church know how dangerous it is to be encouraged to "play God". There is a real danger here, which was referred to a moment or two ago, by the noble Lord who is a doctor, that questions of life and death are in the hands of the medical profession. I find that this is a dangerous as well as a hopeful situation, and I want that capacity to be stiffened and to be set within a framework of such public discipline as will safeguard the medical profession itself and will see to it that the effects of its competence are not dissipated or reserved for a comparative few of those who can benefit from that competence.
This I believe to be one of the essential characteristics of any approach to Clause 1 of this Bill, which does no more, so far as I have understood from the speeches that have been made up to now, than confirm in many respects what is already happening. If indeed there is infelicity in the actual wording—and I grant that—I have no hesitation in saying that the wording of the Bill, as it stands, is unacceptable. But if, for instance, the intention of the "terminal" in Clause 1 is in the mind of the noble Baroness, as I am sure it is, then that practice of so prescribing as to produce a short-term effect of the assuaging of pain, even if a longer-term effect of death is consequential, is already followed occasionally and should be practised with much greater certitude and uniformity. I believe that in circumstances of that description the august words of the Methodist Conference Declaration on these matters are worthy of repetition. It is in fact that:
"Doctors should have the support and protection of the law when they take these decisions."
I turn now to Clause 2. I find myself in considerable trouble here over the moral question of suicide. One of my boyhood heroes was Captain Oates, who
262
said, when he was near to his death (because his life prolonged was an in cumbrance to his confrères), "I am going out into the snow and may be some time". He committed suicide. He died not by misadventure but by faith; and before we make a moral judgment about the ending of life we must take into consideration what are the purposes for which life is cursorily ended. In some cases it is the highest and most sublime form of human courage and is in entire conformity with the principles of the Christian faith.
I shall speak only very briefly, and now come to the third part of this Bill. Here I find to my astonishment—and I have no doubt that this will be put right by my ecclesiastical friends—that no reference has yet been made to the fact that to a Christian death has to be seen sub specie aeternitatis. It is not the end: it is the beginning. It has always struck me as peculiar how those who believe ardently in the next world take the utmost precautions to stay in this one.
It was Mark Twain who on one occasion said that when the roll was called up yonder he proposed to be absent. He was an Agnostic and he did not think that his name was on the list, anyhow. But when, for instance, Methodists sing a hymn which contains the words,
"Linger shivering on the brink, And fear to launch away",
they are being reprimanded by Isaac Watts, because they do not take the very positive action of entering eternity but wait for the next tide. Though this is not necessarily a cogent argument for those who have no concept of a future life, it has everything to do with those who believe that in some cases it is perfectly right for human beings to put a term to that kind of life in which they believe they can properly serve the generation in which they live, and to secure the opportunity, when that office of service is no longer valid, to opt out.
As the doctors in your Lordships' House are aware, there are many old people in terminal conditions—and we are talking about terminal conditions, and not those conditions of difficulty and suffering and sorrow, which I would as cordially agree as anyone else in your Lordships' House should be treated with

263
care; and we should remember that miracles happen which are irreparable. In those conditions I believe that those of sane mind and judgment can, in advance, declare their intention of no longer causing suffering to those who are round about them, the intention being that they should relieve the doctor of the requirement to go on prescribing the kind of drugs which will just keep going the mechanism from which life in any real sense has long since departed.
It is for those reasons that I commend the Bill, though I believe that it needs radical transformation in its wording. But I believe that we are moving into a world in which something of this kind will sooner or later be inevitable. It is the right way to do it; not to turn our backs upon it and say that this is some process to which we should give no assent, but rather to believe that the ministries of science, and particularly of medicine, can not only conduce to the benefactions of this world, but can usher us into, first, a better concept of, and then a deeper enjoyment of, that life which follows.
6.42 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, this is an interesting debate on a very serious subject. I want briefly to make three points. The first is that, as a Christian, I cannot agree with the principle that it is within our prerogative to decide when to die. The second is that medical knowledge of the relief of pain is increasing daily and is used more and more. The third is that I do not feel that at this stage legislation is needed to supersede the trust which is usually built up between doctor and patient. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery.
6.43 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, so much has already been said that I shall be as brief as I can. It seems from the amount of criticism to which this Bill has given rise, that it cannot possibly go through in its present form. But I must confess that the two speeches which are nearest to my point of view are those of the noble Lords, Lord Raglan and Lord Soper. I personally believe that there are circumstances in which one should terminate one's life, and should be allowed to do so.
264
I have heard only two references, though I may have missed some, to the effect on the relatives of a dying patient who goes on dying for perhaps as long as five years, when the wife or daughter or somebody else has to give up her profession in order to look after somebody who can no longer move without help, whose bodily needs have to be attended to every day, and who is incapable of communication. I myself have signed a document to say that I hope that, if I find myself getting into that position, nobody will try to keep me alive. I unashamedly belong to what I think the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, referred to as the minority of people who think very deeply about these matters and have come to the conclusion that they do not want to end their lives like that, and would rather take an overdose of drugs before it happens. Not only do I believe in this, but I know people who have said that they were going to do it and have done it.
Many speeches have been made by people who, naturally in this House, tend rather to think of the ideal conditions, the conditions in which grandma or grandpa can be perfectly well looked after by a nurse or by relatives. Questions of money do not seriously come into it. If they have to go into a home, it can be a carefully chosen one where conditions are as nearly ideal as possible. That, I believe, is not the end of most people. I think that when they reach the stage when day and night attention is needed, they are pushed off into a geriatric ward and, although I am quite sure that if they were in a ward of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, they would get the best possible attention, many of them are absolutely miserable. They feel that their independence has been taken away from them. Their only company is some old people who are more ga-ga than themselves. These points have not been brought out by anybody.
So I suggest, whatever our feelings about this Bill and its shortcomings, that we should give it a Second Reading on the assurance that we have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, that he will then move that it be sent to a Select Committee. There is a great deal to be discussed here, as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, among other speakers, has most forcibly pointed out. It is quite wrong to

265
say that all doctors are against this kind of thing. When there was a national opinion poll of doctors, I think 70 per cent. said that they believed in hastening death in certain circumstances. The first euthanasia Bill to be brought before this House was the Bill of Lord Moynihan, a very distinguished President of the Royal College of Surgeons, in 1936. Unfortunately, he died before the Bill could be brought in and it was introduced instead by Lord Ponson by. Whether his death at that moment was an act of God, I do not know, but that is what happened.
As regards the disadvantages, I am impressed by the arguments about pressure being brought to bear on people. I am frightened of that. One has to realise that although most of one's friends are honest and scrupulous people, there are a very large number of people in this world who are certainly unscrupulous. So I am worried as to whether any Bill, whether it be a euthanasia Bill or something leading in that direction, can be drafted with sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse. Your Lordships must realise that the points of view which have been expressed are not universal. Every time I have spoken or written on the subject of euthanasia, I have received sheaves of letters. I only remember one that was abusive. The others were from very old people who said, "We are tired of it. Can't you find a way of hastening us out of the world? Can't you bring in a law quickly? We have nothing left to live for. We don't like our surroundings. All the things we really care for in life are over." I have certainly received at least 100 letters strongly in favour of that point of view.
6.50 p.m.
Lord CHORLEY: My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships very long in this most interesting debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, pointed out, it raises fundamental principles of liberty. What is the citizen's right to remove his own life when it has become a burden to him and when he feels that he is losing his humanity? Important aspects of this kind have not been much touched upon this afternoon, although there have been notable exceptions such as the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, with whom I found myself not only very much
266
in sympathy but also very much in agreement.
Earlier discussions of this kind, concentrating on voluntary euthansia, have been referred to. As one of those who introduced a discussion on this subject some 24 or 25 years ago my mind naturally went back to that particular occasion, but what determined me to take part in this discussion was the receipt of a letter from a well-known Birmingham medical practitioner to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, referred during her speech. In that letter he set out his argument which was to the effect that this was all completely unnecessary because he had been operating a terminal clinic for a number of years and was completely satisfied that everything was very happy in the garden. He saw no need for anything of this sort to be done.
That makes one feel very angry. It recalls to my mind that exactly the same sort of argument was advanced in the debate which was initiated by Lord Horder, who was once the most authoritative medical specialist of the time. He assured your Lordships that it was all nonsense about drugs failing to remove the terrible pain and cruelty of the final stages of terminal cancer and other such scourges of the human race. Naturally, coming from an authority of Lord Horder's quality, this assurance enormously impressed your Lordships' House. I could feel the ground slipping from under my feet as a fairly full House listened to what his Lordship said. I was somewhat mollified by the fact that, during the succeeding weeks, I received letters from nurses, sisters and others working in hospitals where there were many such cases, telling me not to pay any attention to what Lord Horder said. They pointed out that he did not see the results. He merely administered the narcotics to the patient, who appeared soothed, and away he went. But they were left to look after the unfortunate people and they said, "Don't you believe that by giving these injections all pain is removed, and that the unfortunate sufferer from cancer or whatever it may be is made comfortable."
Indeed, cancer is not the worst of these diseases which call for the sort of treatment which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, is commending to us. We have had some examples this afternoon

267
of this rather too easy self-assurance of the medical profession. Naturally, one has a very high regard for the doctors and particularly for those Members of your Lordships' House who are members of the profession and who give us the advantage of their views about these things. However, they do not seem to feel the responsibility which the invention of these special new machines, which enable them to keep people alive as vegetables rather than as human beings, places on them. In many ways, these new gadgets are of the very highest value and many patients up and down the land have enormously benefited from their use and have been brought back to health.
Surely, however, the invention of such a machine and its use places responsibilities on the inventors and on the medical practitioners who use it to see that it is not used in the way which the noble Baroness is trying to prevent by means of the Bill and which everyone who has thought about the matter must have realised is one of the real terrors of modern life. To think that one may be struck down by a stroke and kept alive for month after month as a sort of vegetable lacking in any real humanity, is one of the things which casts one into a terrible state of frustration and lack of confidence in the profession in which one ought to have so much confidence and in which, on the whole, one has such confidence.
This matter was strongly brought into my mind and I want to dwell on this aspect that cancer is all too far from being under control. It is still one of the great killers. I have been in this world for four score years and ever since I can remember it has been a worry to the medical profession and to tens of thousands of citizens and it has become more worrying as time has gone on because efforts to find cures fail time after time. It is true, and we are grateful for it, that doctors have in many ways succeeded in keeping down the terrors of the terminal stage, but they have only done so up to a point. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, that this is too important a matter to be left entirely in the hands of doctors. It is not right that we should be asked to accept the
268
ipse dixit of doctors on so fundamental a point.
Only the other day I had a letter telling me that a cousin of mine had died after three years of cancer, borne, as his daughter who had nursed him throughout said, with great fortitude and peace of mind at the end. However, she said that it had been a terrible servitude—or, rather, not a servitude because she had loved doing it for him; but it had been terrible to see him suffer and to be able to do so little and to see the doctors able to do so little for him. I said to myself, "Euthanasia is the answer." This is not a euthanasia Bill but it goes some way in that direction. I am a convinced believer in voluntary euthanasia in proper cases and I welcome and accept this Bill because at least in certain aspects it helps us along that road.
7.0 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: My Lords, I think all of us are in debt to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, for making possible what is perhaps one of the most serious debates that we have had in this House, certainly for a number of months. I believe all of us have a recognition that behind nearly every speech have been personal experiences of suffering, often in the family circle in which we live, and most of us remember the letter that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, wrote to The Times on 16th December. It was by coincidence of course that the letter beside it happened to come from a Member of the other place, written as he was dying and printed "from the late Member for Coventry, North-West", reminding us that people can and do work right up to the last moment of what I was brought up to call their "home call". In the dishevelled world in which we live I think that is not a bad word to remind ourselves of again.
Having said that, I feel that we could not pass this Bill, and we could not pass it for the basic reason that the sanctity of human life is bound up in this particular Bill and in the very heart of it. I believe there is a sense in which life comes from God and goes to God and that the great phrase of St. Augustine,

269
"Oh God, thou has made us for Thyself. Our hearts find no rest till they find their rest in Thee"
underlies the very deep notes that are being struck throughout this debate because the simple principle which has been held to and which is basic to so much of our national life, that human life is sacred, in fact comes right through our discussions.
But I believe it is a wrong time historically to bring in this particular Bill. I believe it would cut the nerve of a wholly new movement which is taking place in our country. It has been referred to time and time again. For want of a better word I call it simply "the hospice movement". Although the name of Dr. Cicely Saunders has often been mentioned, she would be the first to want to say that she is part of a whole new team, both of Christian doctors of all denominations and of doctors of general good will but not of specifically Christian outlook, whose aim in the care of the dying is based on realism and on confidence and on trust: realism that death in fact comes to all of us one day at least the insurance companies know this and work from that point of view; confidence that there is help which can increasingly be given through this last adventurous and sometimes very difficult stage of the human pilgrimage; and trust so built up between patient and caring team that the patients know at the deepest level that they are in the hands of those who are seeking their deepest and greatest care.
One of the young doctors working in this still very new sphere of the 1970s reminds us first about pain, and in the terminal malignancy cases he deals with he finds that 50 per cent. of patients suffer no pain, 10 per cent. have moderate discomfort and 40 per cent. have severe pain. He then speaks of the fact that a patient with unspoken fears and anxieties bottled up inside him—and compassion compels me to say that the clauses of this Bill seem to make it more lonely for the patient who wonders whether those around him hold these views or will support him through the dark valley—may suffer agony and be resistant even to powerful drugs; yet if the same person is given an opportunity to talk, to unburden himself and to discuss his fears his pain may radically alter, becoming
270
less in intensity and altogether more responsive to pain killing drugs. In a caring environment, with good nursing care and modern drugs no patient need wholly and bitterly suffer. Of course the irrevocable response of this Bill means that the pressures, the problems and the adventure of this caring work cannot go on.
I believe we are at a time when, having given so much concern to the care of little children we are beginning to see, in the caring nation which is developing, that we have a new duty and a new opportunity to care for those who have cared for us down the years and in this way to develop new medical and Christian and social caring techniques in the hospice movement. I do not want to disappoint the noble Baroness by saying this so bluntly, but although I hope sincerely that this Bill will not go any further I believe she is doing us a great service by bringing the seriousness of this debate before us, because if from it a new emphasis of national money and caring and research and medical and Christian support can develop, the hospice work can go forward in increasing ways. We shall have this sense of responsibility, literally of caring for people, as on 5th July 1948 was written across the headlines when the National Health Service first started: "Security from the cradle to the grave". People will be taken through the dark valley into the world beyond and we shall have this compassion at even deeper levels of caring for people all the way home.
7.7 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, there is really only one point that I want to make and it is not about the real merits of the Bill as such, although for the record I should declare that I believe firmly in the right to commit suicide and therefore even more so in the right to commit suicide at the moment when one may very deeply want to and not be in a physical condition to do so. But it is not just because I am in favour of the principle behind this Bill that I ask your Lordships to let it go to a Select Committee. I say that because I think there is a great deal of investigation and examination to be done about the matters which have arisen from this Bill. There are many different ideas as to what are the facts that we are talking about; very different ideas as to how

271
much pain can be controlled; how much our society can afford to use up its resources on the hospice movement, and matters like that.
One of the main points on which I differ from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham is that, as I see it, he seems to think that what we are dealing with in this Bill is just the exceptional case. I think it is far more than that, and the problems outlined which this Bill seeks to deal with are widespread indeed. It is not just a matter of hard cases making bad law; that applies only when they are in a tiny minority. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham drew attention to the fact that a very interesting document had been drawn up as a working paper by the Council of Europe. This came up three weeks ago at Strasbourg, where I had the honour to be present as one of the British Parliamentary representatives. After a long and fascinating debate, a Motion was passed by a very large majority commending the study of these problems to all the Member countries.
This Motion was passed on 29th January this year. Among other things, it recommended that the Committee of Ministers,
"invite the Governments of the Member-States among other things to establish national commissions of inquiry composed of representatives at all levels of the medical profession, lawyers, moral theologians, psychologists and sociologists to establish ethical rules for the treatment of persons approaching the end of life ".
As one of the things that should be considered, the Motion mentioned the question of written declarations made by legally competent persons authorising doctors to abstain from life-prolonging measures, in particular in the case of the cessation of brain function. The Committee of Ministers will meet and in due course will probably approve the suggestion, which will then go to the Member-Governments, and a number, including, I suspect our own, will do absolutely nothing about it. I think something ought to be done about it.
I cannot think of a better place than a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to go into this question much further and much more deeply. We would be doing a very real service to everyone. No one, whether he be in
272
favour of or against this Bill, can want the matter to end with no one being quite certain what is being done, or with a large number of guesses about what is the situation, what the numbers are, what the state of medical knowledge is, what the patients really think, and what people really want.
The best way to try to answer all those questions would be to give this Bill a Second Reading, with all its imperfections. I entirely agree with a number of criticisms made, but let us give it a Second Reading. Let it go to a Select Committee, and let us go into these matters in detail. Even if it goes no further, and I suspect if there is a Select Committee it will go no further, it seems to me that we will have done a real service to the community at large.
7.12 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, in bringing forward this Bill. Her efforts in this direction over a period of years are well-known. However, like my noble friends who have spoken, I find it impossible to go along with this Bill. I do not want to repeat the arguments made. In fact every argument has already been made, so I will just pinpoint two matters which I think are worthy of being pinpointed.
My Lords, I happen to agree with the view expressed that the majority of the medical profession do not regard this Bill as necessary. I believe the medical profession is capable of relieving pain adequately, and of not forcing life in a body when life is no longer able to be kept there by normal means. I do not, I must confess, subscribe to the philosophy expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, that because Heaven is round the corner, we are entitled to take short cuts to get there. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich that life is God given and sacred, and is not for us to tinker with. As a Christian I firmly hold that view, and as a Christian House I hope we are able to say this with a loud and resounding vote tonight.
The other aspect I really dislike about this Bill is in Clause 2, the legalising of assisted suicide, the putting of whatever medicine or poison it may be beside the

273
person concerned, who may be a relation, a friend, or indeed a complete stranger. But the putting there of something which may well take their life I find most repugnant. What is more, as was said by my noble friend Lady Young, how could one stand by and see it happen to someone who, because at that moment they were probably unwell and suffering, wanted to do away with themselves? Could one really stand by and see it happen? I agree with my noble friend that to do so would be very difficult. How many of these patients who think they have incurable trouble, within a matter of months have perhaps taken a particular drug which has been found to cure them, or have had performed a particular operation which has cured them?
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, quote the words in the Bill which authorise someone to put the poison beside the bedside of a would-be suicide?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I would not personally approve of any form of assisted suicide by lay people.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, would the noble Lord quote the words in the Bill which would make that legal?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, when I read Clause 2, it is perfectly simple. Clause 2(2) says:
"No person shall be under a duty to interfere with any course of action taken by an incurable patient …".
Above that sentence, we read:
"An incurable patient who causes his own death by overdosing or other intentional action shall be deemed to have died by misadventure."
Such persons are probably quite capable of pointing to the poison and, as I read it, presumably you would be hindering them. It can be interpreted that way. That is the objection I see in this Bill.
My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for too long, but the other objection I see is the grave danger that old people who are getting what the noble Lord, Lord Platt, called "ga-ga", will be wished out of the way by well-meaning people who find them a bit too much like a cabbage, on the grounds that they are not doing much good to
274
mankind, themselves, or to anyone. It is quite possible, I would have foreseen, if such a Bill as this became law and became common practice, that when our day came to go to an old peoples' home, we could be given forms to sign, which will be for our next of kin and so on. We would be told, "Just sign that", and, "big brother needs this". There is a danger that old people might sign something without fully realising what they are doing, and that this could be used against them later. Old people are very susceptible to persuasion. I am sure that we all know of old people who, on being told to say something which they do not really mean, are quite capable of saying it because they want to be kind and helpful. There is a great danger in this Bill that that form of coercion or persuasion, albeit with the best of intentions, could be used. That is something to which I should not like to be a party.
7.18 p.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, will understand if I do not follow him in his arguments in what I shall say. I support the Bill of my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, because I should like to take advantage of these measures if they should ever become law, but especially because it is not compulsory for those who oppose it. It is for myself that I endorse it. I support this Bill because I know my noble friend speaks from a wealth of sad experience of prolonged and painful deaths of a number of her friends and relations. She is not one who has just witnessed their suffering but for several of them she speaks from the experience of nursing them until their end. For her, this Bill is not just an academic exercise.
Also, I have great sympathy with my noble friend Lord Raglan who made an outstanding speech. I have seldom heard a better speech on all the aspects of this emotive subject. I began by feeling very strongly against the idea of a Select Committee, but I have completely come round to the idea of a Select Committee if we achieve a Second Reading for this Bill. But I think there should be a Select Committee in this House, not in the House of Commons, which goes in for so many Select Committees which I think are unnecessary, and sometimes come to wrong conclusions.

275
I support my noble friend's Bill because it seeks to enlarge and declare the rights of incurable patients, and because the Bill is limited to the patients who consent. I spell this out because so many noble Lords have spoken and given just the opposite impression, as if this Bill is compulsory on those who do not agree with it. I support it also because its objective is to get relief from pain, which, with some medical practice—I know not with the best medical practice, but with a great deal of medical practice, in my experience—has been very inadequate. Also, I support it because it regards the wishes of the patient as paramount. It states that, and I do not know why many of us have gone off at a tangent denying this. It seeks to counter the condemnation of the Church and society when Patients obtain relief from pain by unconsciousness. I need not spell this out: I think your Lordships know exactly what I mean.
My Lords, it is not the prospect of death or pain or incurability that fills me personally with terror. What fills me with terror is the thought of senility and brain damage and the results of these two. On this I am in the greatest sympathy with the purpose of this Bill. I find that this part of the Bill accords with my personal feelings and desires. It embraces aprocedure which I would welcome for myself, and I speak only for myself. Though I support this Bill, I would not, as I have told my noble friend, campaign for it, because there are other issues that I feel more strongly about.
Reading the many letters on this issue in The Times, I find myself moved by two particular ones, one from the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and one from Dame Albertine Winner. The one that least affected me was from the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and others who wrote:
"…to uphold the great ideal of the sanctity of human life."
—lumping this Bill with euthanasia and abortion, a package deal which I absolutely refute.
The truth is that, in this debate, I have noticed that very few people have referred to the sanctity of human life, even from the Bishops' Benches. I welcome this, because I often feel very uneasy when the phrase about "sanctity of human
276
life" is trotted out. There is no moral logic when we start discussing morality and the sanctity of human life. The prevalence of wars throughout the world makes a mockery of this phrase of sanctity. The latest example, a very small example I will give before I end, is allowing mercenaries to go to Angola, making it legal for them to kill themselves as well as others. This is only one of the examples of the complicated and conflicting emotions and irrational reactions to a Bill like this. I hope that we shall give this Bill a Second Reading and that it will then go to a Select Committee.
7.24 p.m.
Lord BROCK: My Lords, the simplest point I want to make is that I wish to associate myself with those who oppose this Bill, and I hope it will not be enacted. I acknowledge the compassion it contains, but also recognise the dangerous complications that can flow from it. The most dangerous of these is the fear that it will engender of the nurse and the doctor. Many patients will ask themselves, "Is this doctor, this nurse, going to kill me, as he or she may now do, instead of helping me in my illness?" I criticise the title for two reasons. First, it is not fully informative and fails to disclose that it is really, indeed essentially, a Bill to permit euthanasia. I do not know whether or not this is deliberate, but it certainly could be so. Secondly, it contains no proper definition of what "incurable" means. I exclude Clause 1(2) from this, as it is entirely unacceptable as a definition. A much more precise and satisfying definition is not only necessary but essential.
This is no new problem. It was, in fact, encountered 250 years ago by the Governors of the Hospital founded by Thomas Guy; at one time, that was labelled, "Guy's Hospital for Incurables". Parish authorities and private individuals saw a means of ridding themselves, not at that time by euthanasia but by passing it on to others, of the burden of the care of persons of whom they were glad to be relieved. It was, and still is, tempting, for anyone burdened with the care of an elderly, infirm or virtually helpless individual, who cannot take care of himself or herself and is a nuisance, to seek to pass the responsibility on to someone else.

277
This Bill would open the door to another more radical way of dealing with the problem, and would provide a means of persuading the unfortunate individual that the law now permitted a way by which the burden borne by others could be completely taken away. The criticisms of the Governors of Guy's Hospital became so numerous and insistent, that they were not fulfilling the terms of Guy's will, that the Governors were driven to issue a disclaimer and to show that the terms of the will had been quite clear in laying down what Guy intended and what they should do. The special mandate that Guy gave to his hospital was that it was not to rest content with the immediate cure or control of disease, but he wished his hospital to strive in every way to rebuild the convalescent so as to make him lit enough to return to his usual life and work. He laid down that his hospital was to receive and care for poor persons labouring under any disorder thought capable of relief by medicine or surgery.
When we recall the enormous advances made in medicine and surgery by curing all sorts of disorders thought at that time—that is 1725—to be incurable, we at once should realise how unsatisfactory it was at that time to label any disorder as incurable. We should realise also that, although very great advances have been made, there are still many striking advances to be achieved. I think I have had adequate clinical experience as a doctor to state that many disorders can today be considered as incurable whereas tomorrow it will have been found that they can be cured, or at least satisfactorily relieved, by advances in medicine and surgery. In my experience of half a century, Irecall the profound advances that have been made in many groups of diseases, such as, for example, diseases of the lungs and of the heart. Cancer of the lung was once considered to be a uniformly fatal disease. Today, many can be cured.
The story of pulmonary tuberculosis is even more striking. The old days of consumption have gone, when a young person with the disease was almost certainly doomed. Now the position is totally different. The horrible sufferings of John Keats, the poet, are not seen today. Today he would not have had to inquire:
278
"How long is this posthumous life of mine to last?"
Not only is the disease largely under control but its incidence is far less. An incurable state is now eminently curable, and once more I contrast this with the horrible sufferings of Keats, from which he would have welcomed euthanasia.
I see also the whole range of heart diseases, both congenital and those caused by rheumatic fever and by coronary artery disease. It is, to me, a very vivid memory. Countless patients with rheumatic heart disease who endured years of disability and distress with no hope of relief, and were generally accepted as incurable, can now be cured or restored to a reasonable, acceptable and enjoyable life which provides pleasure and contentment to them and to their families. The same is being achieved in many cases of severe coronary artery disease only a few years ago considered incurable and now open to cure in many cases. It is when I look upon these great achievements, and especially on the way in which successful treatment was considered unlikely or impossible by many, even by doctors, that I am very disturbed by the proposal that what is accepted as incurable today may be judged as deserving a death sentence.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I am trying to follow the logic of what he is saying. I understood him to say that nothing can be considered as incurable. The question is this: would he then therefore use every possible means of keeping a person alive, whatever the disease he was suffering from and whatever the pain he was suffering, in the light of his argument that all illnesses might become curable?
Lord BROCK: No, my Lords that argument is entirely incorrect. All I am discussing is the Title of this Bill, which refers to Incurable Patients, and I am pointing out that the definition is completely inadequate. Noble Lords are postulating something which I did not suggest. It is an entirely different matter. I am pointing out that the Title of the Bill is totally unsatisfactory, because it is talking about incurable people and it is impossible to say that a condition is necessarily incurable.

279
I do not wish to argue this matter along the many lines which control and direct it. I take it that deliberate killing is not a part of the doctor's task. This is not a matter to be controlled in detail by legislation. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has referred to meddlesome legislation. I am also concerned about the way in which doctors are thought to be unreliable in their judgment in this matter. Of course we all vary in our ability and achievements, whether we have been men of science, footballers, athletes, or doctors. It is suggested by many, and apparently also by this Bill, that the innate wisdom of a layman must often be superior to the training of many a doctor; that doctors can well be guided or instructed by laymen as to how they could look after their patients better than they are doing; that an intelligent layman can tell them when they shall alter their treatment so as to render their patient unconscious, or destroy him. I am afraid I can in no way accept this. We all know that the spectators at football matches are allowed to shout free advice to the players, but who would accept that these amateur advisers should be permitted to join in and take over the part of the professionals?
I view with much alarm the suggestion that a well intentioned lay person should interfere clinically with even an indifferent doctor. There is a great temptation to become deeply involved in arguments about this matter on ethical, moral, religious and legal grounds.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord?
Lord BROCK: My Lords, may I just finish this sentence and then I can sit down entirely. I resist temptation and confine myself to some random thoughts that I think are important and relevant.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, it really is improper to import into this Bill things that are not there. The suggestion that laymen should interfere with medical opinion according to this Bill is not there, and it is quite improper to suggest this.
Lord BROCK: My Lords, I would just suggest that the fact that the Bill has been introduced by a lay person suggests this.
7.34 p.m.
The Duke of NORFOLK: My Lords, I should like just for a few moments to emphasise one or two fundamental principles, which you all know very well but which have sometimes got rather lost in this debate. I think that it is true to say that Christians and all religions believe in the sanctity of human life. Humanists and most other philosophies share this ethical view. Our medical profession has followed this tradition, which in their case has also been enshrined in a code of honour based on the Hippocratic oath. On the one hand, our medical profession has aimed to relieve a patient of suffering and pain and return him to health; on the other hand, when death has become inevitable through the onslaught of an incurable disease or the misfortune of a fatal accident, our doctors rightly accept the will of God and stand aside and do not seek to prolong life nor challenge the course of nature.
I emphasise that the artificial prolongation of life that has no chance of recovery, as in the Quinlan case in America, and as is happening in many American hospitals, has always been contrary to our medical code. I had a New York doctor spend the weekend with me. He is a doctor at the Presbyterian Medical Centre in New York. He has told me of a terrible situation: how many doctors there are afraid of being prosecuted for negligence unless they prolong life unnecessarily. Our medical profession, in its wisdom and in the lack of having too many laws, has never been in that position and it does not find itself liable to be sued for prolonging life unnecessarily. It allows the will of God, or the course of nature, however you wish to describe it, to take place. I personally can find no need for this Bill. Where it exonerates those who assist suicide it is based on the cold comfort of despair. It would destroy the hope and trust which is the relationship that our doctors have with their patients.
7.37 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, may I make one or two points. First of all, we have to realise that there are large numbers of people who, in their middle age, are of an Agnostic humanistic turn of mind and are prepared dogmatically to lay down what they think ought to be done to themselves 20 to 30 years later, but when it comes to that time

281
they do not feel the same. My own father, then a widower in his early forties, gave me, a 14-year-old, Warwick Deeping's book Sorrell and Son with instructions that I should do likewise. I noticed that in his seventies he had changed his mind.
Secondly, doctors know full well that patients often have to be protected from themselves, especially at the height of illness, and especially just before they turn the corner. This is where, to my mind, Clause 2 is so dangerous, and Clause 2(2) an invitation to those responsible to neglect their patients. I think that this clause is fraught with possible misuse by relatives who want to "get rid of granny ".
Clause 3 rings a personal bell. As many of your Lordships know, my eldest son had a serious accident last August resulting in brain damage, and for weeks he was certainly, to quote the Bill, "incapable of giving directions". Now if my wife and I had been abroad and his younger brother had been of evil intent, surely this could have led to awful skulduggery in order to inherit the title and a bankrupt estate. If this Bill had been on the Statute Book 50 years ago, Agatha Christie would have been out of a job. Who, in these circumstances, may I ask, can define the word "permanently"? If a £500,000 EMI scanner could not do it in the case I am referring to, how can you expect anybody, either in the law or a doctor, to make that decision? Even quite normal people do stupid things when young, like signing declarations, joining the Communists. The unscrupulous could, therefore, following on from that, enforce a suit under Clause 3(3) before the patient has time to regain his compos mentis.
This is extremely unfair on doctors, and it seems to me—I do not know, but I feel that most of your Lordships would agree—that if any body of men should be left alone to make their own judgment according to their own training and their Hippocratic Oath, then the British medical profession is such. To try legalistically to bind them to a scientific, humanist charter such as this is anathema.
I asked a doctor, for whom I and my noble friend Lord Platt have great regard, for his comments on the Bill. They were short and succinct:
"Re Clause 1: I regard it as an insult to the medical profession to put this forward.
282
Re Clause 2: This is beyond the scope of any legislation. The patient is often incapable of determining the curability or otherwise of his illness with all known cases where apparently sane people have taken their own lives in the mistaken conviction that they were suffering from cancer.
Re Clause 3: Here again, any legislation seems quite inappropriate; brain damage is more than difficult to define."
He ended by saying:
"For the sake of God—and I do not write this irreverently—do not meddle with what in this country at least works reasonably well and is understood by both laity and the medical profession."
If we had had this legislation years ago, think of all the drugs that probably would not have been invented. But I will not go into that now. There is and must be a distinction between making a patient unconscious at the risk of killing him and killing him to make him unconscious. I would reiterate the dangers of Clause 2: surely inheritances could be wangled, trusts altered, wives and husbands got rid of by acquisitive mistresses and even straightforward wills put prematurely into effect. I finish, as I did in 1969, with the old doggerel:
"They bumped old grannie off, you know;
She only had a cold,
Her sufferings, they were told in court,
Were dreadful to behold.
The judge was kind
'Besides', he said 'she's getting rather old,'So they left the court and went away To share old grannie's gold."
7.42 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, at this stage in the debate there can be nothing new to add to the many splendid contributions that have been made by so many distinguished noble Lords, by Lords Spiritual, by those in medicine and by others who have feelings about this Bill. I regret that my noble friend Lady Wootton, for whom I have great regard, must learn that I cannot support this Bill. I start from the very simple standpoint that as a Christian, and one who attempts to be a reasonably good Catholic, I simply believe that one does not have the right to take one's own life. I do not think that anybody has actually stated that fact, although I believe it to be the philosophy on which the whole Christian doctrine is founded.
In my view, this is an attempt to thrust on the medical profession a responsibility and task they do not wish to accept. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of

283
Fawley, the noble Lord, Lord Brock, and others have emphasised this. I well recall talking to the doctor in my family, when he was in general practice, about the Bill that was before the House earlier and he said. "In all my years in general practice I have never once had a patient ask me to be put out of life". He added, On the other hand, I have had many relatives ask me to help dear grannie or auntie"—unfortunately, I notice, it always seems to be the female who lives on—"to leave this world, but never have I had a patient ask me." What right have we to ask someone else, as he put it, to commit murder three times a week? It seems significant that those who clamour for capital and corporal punishment are the kind of folk who would certainly not wish to carry out the very dictates that they would lay down for others, and so it would be the case with this Bill. This would thrust the responsibility wholly on the medical profession, the members of which already have to take many serious decisions.
We have heard from eminent scientists that we cannot define what is incurable. I had the experience of seeing my husband, when he collapsed from brain damage, lying in hospital speechless and unable to write and this at a time when nobody knew precisely the damage. That could easily have been the kind of thing that might have been described as incurable, but six months of going to and from the neurosurgical unit, which I did, taught me, first, that those with brain damage invariably do not seem to be in pain and, secondly, that many of the brilliant operations bring them back to a reasonable degree of life. I would, therefore, challenge what is incurable; indeed, we have heard that what was considered incurable in our own lifetime has changed completely. It would also suggest that it might act as a disincentive to seek cures if there were so many ways of dealing with this situation. We have no right to take even the life of an animal, let alone that of another human being.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I must declare a personal interest in this Bill. I have been an incurable patient, and no doubt if I get ill again at some time I will again be an incurable
284
patient in hospital. When I had my accident 17 years ago I was taken to the casualty department of an accident hospital with a fractured spine, a suspected fractured skull, several fractured ribs, internal haemorrhage and semi-conscious. The doctor on duty, after examining me, said to my fiance, "If she lives through the night she will never move again". The view of my attendant physician was that I was suffering without any reasonable prospect of cure from a distressing physical disability and he may well have thought it intolerable. Under the cover of a Bill like this, that doctor might well have let me die. For one or even two doctors to be able to take such decisions on behalf of a person would, in my view, be totally unacceptable. In that instance the doctor was foreign and very likely not of my faith. Clause 1(2) does not make it clear who decides whether the condition is distressing. Is it the patient or the doctor?
I do not know how one measures pain. I know that in the first three weeks of injury my pain was indescribable. Had I had the chance to demand pain-killing drugs I would most likely have died many years ago as a drug addict. When one is suffering and sweating pain there is somehow a light at the end of the tunnel, and that is the light of hope. Even with patients with a terminal condition who should, and generally do, have drugs, there is the hope that they will have blessed peace and, if they are Christians, that they will reach Heaven. It is encouraging to hear of the many new hospices being set up and of the increasing concern towards the care of the dying. If a patient can die in calm dignity it is a relief for all concerned, but the individual legal and spiritual rights must be safeguarded. Education is surely better than legislation in this case.
I do not believe that the intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, have been to frighten people, but all sorts of complications occur with some legislation, and already this Bill will have caused a great deal of harm. Only a few days ago I heard the Minister for the Disabled say at a public meeting that far fewer disabled people than had been expected had come forward for their benefits. Is it surprising that they do not want to register? The Royal College of Nursing has stated that this Bill could

285
well pave the way for euthanasia; disabled people suffering from all sorts of incurable conditions may feel that it could be paving the way for extermination camps.
In the last few days I have received many disturbing calls for help from disabled people who no longer can work and the Government are taking away their only means of transport, their three-wheeler invalid tricycles, leaving them isolated and rejected. I have also received two desperate letters from men injured at work, each with a wife and four children, who cannot go home because they cannot get rehoused. They have to remain in Hexham General Hospital when they should be at home with their families and thinking about work. It amazes me that the miners who are so successful at campaigning for more wages do nothing for their members who are injured at work and who need a suitable house. If incurable patients are to be protected from avoidable suffering and their rights strengthened, their social conditions and accommodation needs are vital, otherwise they will lose all hope and feel not wanted. Is it to ease our consciences that we have here the phrase, "Death by misadventure"?
Last Friday I spent the morning in the casualty department of a large teaching hospital. How could a Bill like this operate in that atmosphere? There is one aim and that is to try to save life. If a patient arrives in casualty with a written statement deciding that medical survival is to be withdrawn, is he to be pushed into a corner to die? What happens if a person in sound mind makes a statement and then has a stroke and cannot talk or write, and then realises that he wants to live? How does a doctor know whether an attempted suicide is just a call for help or whether it is serious? On Friday an elderly woman was admitted and was being wheeled in a bed from casualty. She was calling out, "They are killing me, they are killing me! This will be the end of me". So often when people come into hospital they are confused and frightened and not in a normal state of mind. This Bill will only increase the fear of patients entering hospital. It will do nothing to build up the confidence so needed between patients and hospital staff.
Clause 2(2) is contrary to the ethical principles of most nursing and medical
286
staff and it would be morally wrong to enforce this pressure on anyone. In fact, the senior consultant in casualty told me that if this ever became law he would resign or emigrate. The Bill says nothing about children. Would a parent have the right to sign? The death penalty has been done away with for criminals of all kinds, yet it is being recommended today for incurable patients.
I should like to pay a tribute to all the people who do a wonderful job in looking after so many incurable patients so well. But there are, my Lords, sadly, far too many dishonest people in our society. To give them a licence to murder would be putting many helpless people in a position of terrible risk. Therefore, my Lords, I support the Amendment.
7.53 p.m.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, I must apologise for the fact that I had not noticed that names had been crossed off the list of speakers. May I say that I will spare your Lordships a prepared speech—not because it is not prepared but because it would take much too long to give—and that I will concentrate on only two points. I agree very much with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that all the arguments on either side are before your Lordships. I have an interest in this matter. In fact, I have two interests. One is an interest in death. The other is an interest in what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and that is the interest which I should like to mention first. On only one occasion have I felt any distinction in this House. That was when I was one of two Members of your Lordships'House—the noble Baroness was the other who were members of a delegation to the then Home Secretary on the subject of the sanctity of life that asked the Minister to look into the working of the Abortion Act, which even at that time was thought to be quite unsatisfactory. I say that only in order to convince the noble Baroness, if she were here, that if anybody could persuade me that this was a Bill to which a Second Reading should be given it would be she.
I thought that her speech was brilliant but I will confine myself to the last remark in it, which was a quotation. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich hoped that nobody else would

287
refer to it, but it illustrates the point that I want to make:
"Thou shalt not kill; but needst not strive Officiously to keep alive".
The right reverend Prelate pointed out that that was satirical, but it states the law of England as it is and as I think it should be about death generally: that it is a crime to kill, but not a crime not to prevent death. That is to say, if I watch a child drowning in two feet of water I am not committing a crime (although I would be in France) unless I have a "duty of care." We are talking about doctors, who have a duty of care to their patients. The question is, what are those duties of care? That is what the whole of this debate is about.
All of us are agreed that one of the duties of a doctor is to alleviate pain, so far as possible. Another duty is to preserve life, so far as possible. Those two duties often lead to very difficult decisions which we have heard about today: how far to alleviate pain, even if it endangers life; how far to preserve life, even if it means increasing pain or inflicting it. We have all had these problems. I had it when I was asked by a doctor what he should do about my mother who had cancer. I had no doubt whatever: by all means alleviate pain but do not do it in order to kill.
This Bill would give a third duty to doctors; that is, to help people, to put it bluntly, to kill themselves. That is the opposite of the duty to preserve life. Whatever one's views on suicide—and I have very great sympathy with those who contemplate it because, like some of your Lordships, I have been rather close to it myself and possibly it might have been better for your Lordships if I had committed suicide but whatever one's views on suicide, I cannot agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that taking one's life for a good cause, like Captain Oates who has been mentioned, is the same as taking one's life in order to opt out of it. But in either case, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Soper, may say about the timidity of those who fear to launch away, I would rather have a doctor who feared to launch me away than one whom I knew was ready to do it. Without being frivolous, that is a very serious objection which has
288
been brought out in all these cases. I mean that even good doctors could be tempted to do it. I do not mean people like Dr. Crippin.
Further, it is a fact that if you have two doctors—let us call them by impersonal names like Edward and Henry—and if you allow this Bill to go through, with all kinds of Agatha Christie minded members of families in the background, the danger is that all the running would be made not by Dr. HenryJekyll but by Mr. Edward Hyde. For that reason, I think that this is one of the cases in which the first step—which this Bill would be even if it were sent to a Select Committee—would be a very dangerous one to take, and I think that we ought not to take it.
7.59 p.m.
Lord HARVINGTON: My Lords, I know that your Lordships are anxious to come to a conclusion upon the business before the House and I shall detain you only for a few moments. I seek to make one point. Throughout the 1960s I was chairman of an independent hospital in London, the Hospital of St. John and St. Elizabeth. It is a Catholic hospital, but one which takes patients who are overwhelmingly non-Catholic—perhaps of the order of 80 or 85 per cent. Naturally, during that time I had to live very closely with this problem, because we had two or three geriatric wards. I was in close touch with the doctors and found that this never presented itself to us as a serious problem—at least, not from the point of view of the patients. What does present a problem is the pressure which is often brought to bear upon the staff and, indeed, upon the patients themselves by their relatives. However, it is not a problem which has bothered patients personally to any extent because we have been able to give the type of nursing which has brought them to a happy death. Therefore, I think that this Bill really ought not to receive a Second Reading. It is utterly unworkable, unnecessary, and un-Christian, and I hope that your Lordships will deal with it as it should be dealt with.
8 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, practically everything that I intended to say has already been said during this debate, so I will content myself by saying that I

289
support entirely the noble Earl's Amendment and everything that has been said in support of it. In particular, I should like to agree with the point with which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, opened her speech; namely, that it is not our right to decide when we shall die. With that I wholeheartedly agree.
8.1 p.m.
Lord SUDELEY: My Lords, despite all that has been said, I should like to call attention to one or two weaknesses in the Bill. The first clause is an instance of how the Bill does not recognise current realities in medicine, and much has been said already on how pain can be relieved by modern drugs. It is worth observing, in connection with this clause, that there is no objection in Christianity or law to shortening the life of a patient by the administration of pain-killing drugs, because when the patient dies the question which arises is: what did he die of? The answer is: of cancer or of some other incurable disease—not of the drugs which weakened his resistance.
The second clause lays the door open to the activities of unscrupulous persons and so turns this into a euthanasia Bill. The lethal dose would be prescribed by the physician, who would then tell the patient that he was going to have a "hell of a time". As the pain can be relieved by modern drugs, this statement would not be true, and after death occurred it would be hard to deny that the patient had not been murdered by his physician. And who could tell whether the physician had not been bribed to commit the murder by relations of the patient who had an interest in the patient's inheritance? Subsection (2) of Clause 2 is an instance of the practical difficulties which would arise if the Bill became law. Accident wards are very busy places which accept many suicides. If the Bill became law, it would appear that if the suicide is revived, which is just standard treatment, and then it was subsequently found that the patient had an incurable disease with a death wish, the casualty officer would have acted unlawfully, and under the provisions of the Bill legal proceedings could be taken against the casualty officer.
The second subsection of Clause 2 should also never become law because it ignores the reality that few who attempt to commit suicide really wish to die. If
290
all who attempted suicide really wished to die, then it is not very likely that the number of attempted suicides would have dropped so sharply during the junior doctors'40-hour week. Both Clauses 2 and 3, involving as they do the actual death of the patient, ignore the fact, made plain already, that, particularly within the first stages of brain damage, a doctor's prognosis may be far from infallible. To support the statement I have just made, I should like to quote from the writing of Dr. Lamerton, Chairman of the Human Rights Society, who runs St. Joseph's Hospice, in Hackney. Dr. Lamerton has written:
"Anyway, doctors are not always right. On several occasions in which I have been asked to provide terminal care it turned out that the patients were not dying at all. Irreversible brain damage which recovered, cancers which turned out to be cysts, despite all evidence to the contrary, proven cancers which regressed and disappeared—all these have come my way. Diagnosis of medical conditions is still largely an art. It is only partly scientific."
My Lords, I have torn up the rest of my speech dealing with what is wrong with suicide and euthanasia, because the hour is late. It seems that the argument against the Bill has already been won, and I should not like to spoil the Division.
8.5 p.m.
Viscount INGLEBY: My Lords, I should like to speak for a moment or two on the likely consequences of the Bill if it is passed. I am thinking now of the ordinary man in the street, or perhaps I should say the ordinary elderly disabled person. I believe that to them the idea will become established that in certain circumstances it is now legal for a doctor to remove life sustaining treatment. Of course I know that there is a voluntary declaration to be signed, but as a disabled person I also know how easy it would be for pressure to be put on to disabled people. It could easily be said that the most unselfish thing that I, or even the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, sitting beside me here, could do with ourselves would be to get ourselves out of the way. Particularly in families with difficult housing problems it might be said how much easier Mary could get on with her exams if she had a room in which to study. This is a pressure which should not be allowed to be put on to disabled people.

291
I wish to say only one more thing. As it is at present, I feel that this Bill, no doubt without the intention of the noble Baroness, is a Bill of despair. Instead, I should prefer that there goes out from this House tonight a message of hope to the dying. Recently I visited St. George's Hospice and I talked there to three people with advanced cancer. It did me a great deal of good to talk to them. Their pain was being controlled—in one case breathlessness, in another case vomiting—and they were able to enjoy visits from their family, and to give and to receive from all those about them. The message I should like to give tonight would be a message that we should all do all we can to give the kind of care to the dying that we should like to receive when our turn comes.
8.8 p.m.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I shall address my very few remarks—and your Lordships will be relieved at this late hour to hear that my remarks will be few and short—to the need for an inquiry by a Select Committee of the House. as suggested in the Motion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, into the proposals in this Bill. We should all agree that the care and treatment of the incurably sick has become, with recent advances in medical knowledge and technology, a major social problem which has caused widespread public concern, not only here in this country, but among our neighbours in Western Europe. It is symptomatic of the growing public concern that we have had so many speakers in the debate. My memory goes back further than I care to think, and I cannot recollect a larger number of speakers on the Second Reading of a Private Member's Bill. The speeches to which we have listened were marked by extraordinary and exceptionally deep conviction.
Further evidence to the same effect is that the Assembly of the Council of Europe which, as your Lordships are aware, reflects public opinion in 19 West European countries, discussed this subject at great length only last month, January. The recommendation which it decided to make to the Council of Ministers, representing the 19 Member Governments, was to set up in each country a national commission of inquiry. The
292
purpose of this inquiry would be to consider all the questions arising from the care of the incurably sick, including—I quote:
"written declarations made by legally competent persons, authorising doctors to abstain from life prolonging measures, in particular in the case of irreversible cessation of brain function, and…the application of extraordinary measures to prolong life".
My Lords, I suppose the nearest approach to a national inquiry here would be a Royal Commission, but time presses and a Royal Commission would take too long, I think, to find an effective answer. On the other hand, a Select Committee of this House which could call evidence from all those morally and professionally responsible for the incurably sick would report to your Lordships without undue delay on the precise question before the House this evening; namely, whether legislation as proposed in this Bill is required and, if so, what form it should take.
My Lords, those who have opposed this Bill have done so, I think, either because they consider it is unnecessary—the view that is held by a very large number of members of the legal profession—or because they think that the changes it would make in the law are simply undesirable. But whether legislation is either unnecessary or undesirable can surely be decided with much less risk of error after evidence has been heard from those with the greatest knowledge and experience of the incurably sick. That is why I would venture to hope that your Lordships, whether you approve or disapprove of the proposals in this Bill, would endorse the expression of European Parliamentary opinion in the Strasbourg Assembly (which included, of course, the opinion of our own Parliamentary colleagues) by deciding that public concern justifies an immediate inquiry by means of a Select Committee of this House. I would therefore ask your Lordships, however strong your personal feelings may be, to suspend your judgments about the merits of the Bill until they have been examined with outside help, and to allow the Bill to have a Second Reading so that it can can be referred to a Select Committee.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, a little while ago it looked as if the end of this debate would be about

293
1.30 a.m., but owing to the courtesy of your Lordships in making very succinct speeches we have greatly improved upon that—and I hope the improvements in medical care will be as rapid. First of all, may I say how gratified I am that, in raising this subject, there was, at least at the outset, such a very wide audience in your Lordships' House. It is clear that a very large part of the population represented here and, undoubtedly, from my mail, represented outside, is deeply interested and concerned in this subject.
I should particularly like to refer to the speech of my noble friend Lord Raglan and to his proposal that this measure, if your Lordships aregood enough to give it a Second Reading, should be referred to a Select Committee. In general, I am not very enamoured of the procedure of the Select Committee as a way to collect evidence, and in this particular case, of course, the unfortunate fact is that a great deal of the relevant evidence is by definition dead. But I would do nothing whatever to put obstacles in the way of my noble friend, and I hope that the Select Committee, if your Lordships should agree to the appointment of such a Committee, will succeed in producing a very much improved Bill. I fully agree that the Bill needs a great deal of improvement, and as your Lordships have been speaking I have been grateful to a number of noble Lords for the detailed improvements which they have suggested. Your Lordships do not want me to go over those, I am sure, one by one, but I should like to say that those which were suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and also by my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell mostly took the form of producing hypothetical cases which could arise out of the existing words of the Bill. This is an ingenious exercise in which civil servants, anyhow, have extremely high skill; and I think that those are things which could very well be put right by suitable Amendments to the Bill.
I noticed that nobody took up the facts, which were not hypothetical, which I quoted in support of what I still stand by —my declaration that, although there may be adequate drugs available, they are not in fact used. I sometimes wonder, my Lords, if I may say so, whether those distinguished doctors who have arrived at the eminence of this House are really still
294
aware of what goes on up and down the country in small local hospitals. I have already mentioned that I have had a good deal of experience, and some very close experience, of it. I am trying to group the objections by subject rather than by name. A number of the objections were raised to the clause about the declaration. These objections were that there would be external pressure—"You make that declaration, because I do not want to have you on my hands when you are old and ga-ga. You might change your mind; and, after all, you may be ga-ga already, and I will get somebody to say so". These are very familiar objections, and I might say that they all apply to wills. People are under external pressure to make wills—"You leave all your money to me or I will see about it; I will see that you do not last. You are not really of sound mind, and I will get a suitable range of psychiatrists to say so". If you change your mind, you make a new will. Some people make a new will every other week, I understand from my solicitors. I do not do that myself. I seriously suggest that these are objections, all of which could be raised if I was now proposing as a new idea that people should be allowed to make testamentary dispositions of their property.
I then have to deal with the objection that we should not make legislation but should train doctors, nurses and the whole medical profession, and others, better. Nobody could support this more warmly than I would; but, my Lords, this is a very long process. This is what is always suggested when some immediate action is taken: Do not take any immediate action now so that consumers can get their rights, but let us better train those who supply them". Eventually, it will happen; and in fact I know that the climate of opinion is changing, that gradually new techniques are being developed and that new techniques are being widely used. But nobody has disputed the facts I have quoted to show that they are not used in a number of places where you might expect them to be.
To the noble Lord, Lord Brock, whose patients will be in terror that he is going to give them a lethal dose, I may say that he can ease their terror because he can tell them that, if he does so, under this Bill, he will still be liable to a charge of murder, just as much as he is now.

295
This Bill does nothing to interfere with the present law of homicide; and I would be quite willing to accept an Amendment to say so—"that nothing in this Act shall alter the present law as to homicide".
Then there is the argument that this is the wrong time. My Lords, I have lived a very long time, and it is always the wrong time. All through my life I have decided that the right time to say something is the wrong time. If you say things at the wrong time, when they are held to be impossible—not the art of the possible—as the years go by they become potential, they become possible, they become probable, they become commonplace; and if you live as long as I have you will see that process happen very often. If it is the wrong time, I am very happy to make these proposals now.
Then: "We have hospices; let us wait until the hospices have spread and the treatment given in the hospices", of which nobody could be a greater admirer than I am, "is available for everybody". But how many persons in this Chamber at the moment will be alive when they are available to everybody by that process? It is a very slow process, this growth of hospices, to when there will be successful and painless treatment of the dying available to everybody.
Now, perhaps, my Lords, I might make a few specific references suggesting that perhaps even some of the members of the medical profession may be behind the views of their own time. It is 14 years ago since an editorial in The Lancet said:
"A clinician who persistently seeks to maintain a parody of life may end in serving nobody and nothing except pride in his own technical competence".
That is one. May I also make a quotation, for the benefit of my Catholic friends here, from Pope Pius XII. Perhaps the later Popes have changed their minds, who knows? Asked whether the suppression of pain and even consciousness by means of drugs, when it is demanded by medical indications, is permitted by religion and morality, His Holiness replied that the administration of drugs, even if it shortens life, is justifiable if there is no other means in given circumstances of relieving pain.
296
Finally, I do not know what the views of the present Archbishop of Canterbury may be, but I quote from an address given by his predecessor in 1971. He said categorically:
"When a patient is lingering in a state of great distress without any possibility of continuing life or happiness it is not for the doctor to keep him alive."
I commend those two quotations to my friends who feel very strongly the medical and religious objections to my proposal.
I should also like to say a few words about what is called the sanctity of life. It is, perhaps, not for me to use the word "sanctity"; but I should point out that those of us who believe that the brief interval between birth and death is the only certain experience that we know are not likely to attach less importance to that period than those who believe that there is a greater future beyond. I think that if anybody is good enough to look at my own personal record, they will not accuse me of introducing a Bill which is injurious to the sanctity of life. It was I who introduced into this House the Bill for the abolition of capital punishment and I am on record as being in opposition to unconditional abortion on demand. I also share to a great extent the views of my noble friend Lord Soper, on killing in warfare. The last thing that I would ever do would be to introduce here, with that record, something which was treating lightly the value of human life. I think that that is all I can say in reply, except to repeat the hope that your Lordships, especially in view of the proposition of my noble friend Lord Raglan, will be willing to give this Bill the Second Reading which I hope I may have succeeded in persuading you it deserves.
8.23 p.m.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, it has been a long debate. Now it comes to an end and I find myself faced with precisely the difficulty with which I was faced when I stood up at 3.30 this afternoon. It happens that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, ended her speech by putting her finger almost precisely on it. I do not and cannot believe, and I do not believe that anyone else in this House can either, that she could possibly, knowingly or intentionally, introduce a Bill that could endanger life or in

297
any way derogate from its sanctity. That I do not believe. The noble Baroness shakes her head. I am not sure that she does so because she agrees or because she disagrees with what I say. I hope it is because she agrees. She is going to disagree with me in a minute, but, I hope, not yet.
I think that the fact is—and I think I am not alone in this—that although this could not be her intention, it is what has happened. I am not persuaded away from any of the opinions that I held earlier which have been substantially upheld by a large number of noble Lords. This is a disagreeable situation. I do not believe that anybody in this House would wish to be unkind to the noble Baroness. I know that I was rough earlier in the debate. I think it was necessary but it gave me no pleasure. The noble Baroness may not believe that either.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I have already assured the noble Earl, in writing, that no difference in personal relationships will occur through differences on policies.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, I have received that letter with pleasure and satisfaction. The noble Baroness has said that nothing in this Bill threatens the present law of homicide. I started my introductory speech by explaining why I was certain that it would do so. A number of noble Lords reinforced me in saying that it would do so; so that I think this is a subject that we had better drop, for clearly on this matter there is no communication between the noble Baroness and me. All I can say honestly is that I still believe it would do so. I think that it knocks the law of homicide for a loop.
My Lords, I shall take another point. The noble Baroness made an analogy between the signing of this document that people would have to sign in advance under Clause 3 with the signing of a will. Pressure, she rightly said, can be put on people to sign or not to sign in favour of this or that person—just as pressure can be put on them in the matter of this declaration. The fact that you can put pressure on the signatory of a will to his or anyone's detriment is surely no good reason in favour of admitting another kind of document to which the same principle
298
could be applied. There is an interesting distinction between the declaration, which is made earlier in life, and a will which, admittedly, may be made at the same time. The will takes place after death, the declaration takes place before. Death is something of a dividing line. We ought not to compare the two things. Furthermore, you can contest a will; but not the other declaration, for you are dead.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I do not mean to be offensive, but I cannot hear what the noble Earl is saying. Will he be so kind as to speak up a little?
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: The noble Lord's request reminds me of an occasion when my uncle said in this House: "I cannot hear what the noble Lord is saying. Will somebody sitting next to him tell me whether it is worth while to complain?". My noble friend Lord Aberdare can hear me. I am sorry, I will speak up. Perhaps there is something wrong with the sound system.
My Lords, it is invidious to pick out speeches at the end of a long debate. I have picked out one and I think nobody could have failed to be moved and impressed by that of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton. The other—and I hope that nobody else is going to be offended—was that of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who to my mind produced an excellently argued case in favour of sending this Bill to a Select Committee if it gets a Second Reading. That is the apotheosis: if it should do so. I approve of that argument. I think there is an excellent case for sending it to a Committee. I think the case was extremely well argued and was supported by the noble Lords. The only thing is that I do not think there is any case for letting this Bill have a Second Reading. I think that we are back to where we were at the end of the debate on the noble Lord's own Bill when the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, produced the same Motion without warning—although the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, had put it on the Order Paper—for the same purpose.
My answer is the same as it was then. Certainly we should have an inquiry into all the matters, an inquiry of the deepest kind, designed to discover whether you can draft legislation of this kind in this field. I do notbelieve you can, but I think it would be excellent for some more

299
authoritative answer to be given. One might well arise out of some inquiry. But an inquiry by a Select Committee would be by a Select Committee on this Bill.
By the time the Select Committee met, this Bill would have had its Second Reading and the fact would have been published in the newspapers. The message from this House and Parliament would be exactly the message that I said ought not to go out. Whether or not the Bill ever becomes law it would already have been said by Parliament that we need a Bill of this kind because the medical profession are not doing their job. This would cause pressures on old people and create fear. The noble Baroness is not correct in saying that nobody took up her point—I forget for a moment her words.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, this was factual evidence that drugs are not adequately used. I quoted a number of cases.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Greenway, L.

Peddie, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Grenfell, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Amulree, L.

Harvington, L.

Perth, E.

Barrington, V.

Hawke, L.

Phillips, B.

Berkeley, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Beswick, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hylton, L.

Reading, M.

Brock, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Rochester, Bp.

Cathcart, E.

Ingleby, V. [Teller.]

Russell of Killowen, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Coleraine, L.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Helens, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Salisbury, Bp.

Cork and Orrery, E. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Sandford, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lothian, M.

Sempill, Ly.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lytton, E.

Somers, L.

Denham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stamp, L.

Derby, Bp.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Durham, Bp.

Monck, V.

Sudeley, L.

Eccles, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Swinton, E.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Elton, L.

Newall, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Norfolk, D.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Falkland, V.

Northchurch, B.

Wigg, L.

Falmouth, V.

Norwich, Bp.

Windlesham, L.

Gainford, L.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

Young, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Oram, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, not much was made of this point but it was not glossed over. I admitted—and it will appear in the Official Report—that there are cases where pain is not controlled as well as it might be. The noble Baroness put it more strongly; I concede she is entitled to do so. This is a lack of education and knowledge. But the knowledge is spreading and will continue to spread, and any authority which could be given by Parliament should be placed behind the spreading of the knowledge, whereas to enact a Bill in this field can do nothing but harm. I ask your Lordships to agree with me. This debate has been a long one and we might now bring it to an end and go home. The recommended way is to follow me through the Division Lobby, my Lords.
8.32 p.m.
On Question: Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 23.

Seear, B.

Stow Hill, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.[Teller.]

Segal, L.

Vernon, L.

Shackleton, L.

White, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE AND BIRMINGHAM MUNICIPAL BANK BILL [H.L.]
8.40 p.m.
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM SUPERANNUATION FUND BILL [H.L.]
  GREAT NORTHERN LONDON CEMETERY BILL [H.L.]
    SAMUEL MONTAGU & CO. LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
    Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
WIMBLEDON AND PUTNEY COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
  OVERSEAS AID STATISTICS
  OVERSEAS AID STATISTICS
  CIVIL SERVICE: MANPOWER STATISTICS
  CIVIL SERVICE: MANPOWER STATISTICS