Sitting of 29 January 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.

SUFFOLK COASTAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (by Order)
Read a Second time and committed.

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (by Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Trees
    Mr. David Jamesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many trees were planted in 1973, 1974 and 1975.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): Precise figures are not available, but it is estimated that 113½ million, 106½ million and 103 million trees were planted in Great Britain in the years ended 31st March 1973, 1974 and 1975 respectively.
    Mr. James: As we spend £2,000 million a year on importing timber, is not that a singularly disgraceful Answer? Is it not a fact that the fall in the planting of timber has been largely due to uncertainty in the private sector following the removal of tax incentives for the planting of trees, the private sector being responsible for nearly 50 per cent. of total plantings? Furthermore, a doctrinaire refusal—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is getting very near a speech.
    Mr. James: I shall put a brief question. Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his refusal to consider the proposed legislation in Command 5999 of 1974, which would have helped private growers from EEC sources? Finally, what will the hon. Gentleman do with the 6½ million elm trees that have died, the loss of which will make the South of England look like a graveyard in 12 years' time?
    Mr. Strang: I shall confine myself to the hon. Gentleman's main points. First, I cannot agree that it was a disgraceful Answer. If he considers the figures that I have given, I think that he will find that they are not as disappointing as he suggests. Secondly, he must recognise that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated the importance that we attach

    647
    to private planting by affording relief to private woodland owners in the capital transfer tax.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House briefly whether the tree population is increasing or decreasing and by how much?
    Mr. Strang: The problem with all these figures is that it takes some time before they are compiled. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the latest figures reach only 31st March 1975. I think that he will recognise that a considerable number of factors have affected the recent planting in the private sector, not just the depressed state of the economy. A general factor has been the poor prices for timber throughout Europe.
    Mr. Watt: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the £162½ million recently granted to save Chrysler would have planted nearly a million acres of timber? Does he not agree that there is an urgent need for a rethinking of our entire economic policy?
    Mr. Strang: No, I cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's first point. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, coming from an agricultural constituency, would recognise that we always have to strike a balance between farming and forestry.
    Mr. James: As the Minister has answered only one of my three supplementary question, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Beef
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what facilities are available for the storing of beef which may be withdrawn under the proposed intervention scheme.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) on his appointment and on his restoration to good health, as I see.
    Whenever the Intervention Board intervenes on beef it makes use of commercial cold storage facilities.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the proposed
    648
    intervention-only scheme may result in production for storage only? Will the right hon. Gentleman maintain his position vis-à-vis the beef premium scheme?
    Mr. Peart: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's first point and I am glad of his support in achieving the retention of our variable premium system by means of the negotiations in Europe.
    Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that much more important than looking for facilities for intervention is to try to move to a situation in which we do not use the misguided policy of intervention? Secondly, will he note that I back him in his efforts to provide a testimonial to our traditional forms of beef in this new form of beef premium? More than 104 signatures have been applied to the motion backing my right hon. Friend in this attempt.
    Mr. PeartI have noted the support that my hon. Friend has given me. I believe that that support is reflected in all parts of the House.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Minister in a position to give an assurance to beef producers that the present beef régime will be allowed to operate here in the next five or 10 years?
    Mr. Peart: I have said publicly in Brussels what is our negotiating position. I am glad to have the Liberal Party's support.

    Seed Potatoes
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he estimates will be the price of seed potatoes for 1976.
    The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): My Department does not collect the detailed information necessary to calculate an average price for seed potatoes over the season as a whole. Average prices for seed are very high at present, although many growers will have contracted for seed in the autumn at substantially lower prices. Without knowing what proportion of seed was marketed earlier in the season, I cannot give a firm estimate for the 1976 crop.
    Mr. Mawby: I am grateful for that reply. Is the Minister aware that all hon.

    649
    Members are glad that the loss through bad weather in Scotland, where most seed potatoes are grown, was less marked than in England? We naturally expected that prices in Scotland would not be so bad. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that because of the inadequate award to growers last year, about 50,000 acres were grown under quota—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to impart information, or is he asking a question?
    Mr. Mawby: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister satisfied that the award to be given this year will give sufficient confidence to farmers to plant the full quota acreage?
    Mr. Bishop: I agree that the situation in Scotland, owing to better weather conditions, was not as bad as it was in England and Wales. In his comments on the Annual Review award, the hon. Member seemed to be confused about the guaranteed price, which relates to potatoes sold for human consumption, not to seed potatoes. These factors will be taken into account in the review.
    Mr. Torney: Will my hon. Friend prevail on the Government to introduce a form of price control of potatoes—indeed, the few potatoes that are now available? Will he also take steps to purchase potatoes from outside the Common Market and in so doing will he try to sweep aside Common Market controls?
    Mr. Bishop: No doubt my hon. Friend refers to the main crop ware potatoes, but the amount of seed potatoes sold by retail is only a small proportion of the total seed potato crop. The difficulty is that if one seeks to control the retail price, it is possible that there will be a diversion of seed supplies to elsewhere.
    Mr. Pym: May I thank the Minister of Agriculture for his kind words about me when he replied to an earlier Question?
    Is the Minister of State aware that prices for seed potatoes are now being talked of in terms of as much as £350 per ton? Will he take that factor fully into account in his review. Is he aware that before the prices for seed potatoes rose to this level the Potato Marketing Board said that the cost of producing a
    650
    ton of potatoes in 1976 would be about £50 a ton? Will he ensure that the next review is at a realistic level?
    Mr. Bishop: I am unable to confirm those figures. There have been estimates of high cost in relation to both seed potatoes and main crop ware potatoes. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all the facts of the situation will be considered in the review now under way.

    Sugar Beet
    Mr. MacGregorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in expanding the capacity of sugar beet refineries, in order to deal with the increased production proposed under the White Paper "Food from our Own Resources".
    Mr. Pearl: The British Sugar Corporation tells me that work on the first two of its factories to be expanded, York and Newark, is progressing well. Expansion at York is virtually complete and that at Newark will be finished by October.
    Mr. MacGregor: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he confirm that the vital proportion of United Kingdom supplies coming from home-grown beet should be substantially increased? Will he ensure that he observes a careful monitoring of other crops and the capital investment programme to see that processing capacity keeps pace with increased output? Will he take appropriate action if for any reason there is a shortfall?
    Mr. Peart: I am anxious to see increased sugar beet production and the industry is serving the country well. This is our purpose, as we said in the White Paper. Unfortunately, last year, because of bad weather, there was a poor crop, but I am confident that we can expand our production.
    Mr. John Evans: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is grave anxiety among sugar workers in my constituency about job prospects? Will he take steps to urge the farmers in the North-West to grow more beet sugar to be refined at suitable refineries such as those in Newton-le-Willows and Liverpool?
    Mr. Pearl: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the worries of many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and certainly members of my

    651
    trade union are anxious about the ratio of supplies from abroad to home production. I note what he says. I do not think that any conflict should arise between cane sugar and sugar beet.

    Potatoes
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of potatoes were grown in 1973, 1974 and 1975.
    Mr. Bishop: The acreage planted to potatoes in the United Kingdom was as follows: 1973, 555,000 acres; 1974, 532,000 acres; 1975, 504,000 acres provisional. The percentage reduction in 1975 was broadly in line with that in the preceding years, and with normal yields supplies would have been in balance.
    Mr. Lawrence: I appreciate the effect of last summer on the potato crop. Is the Minister of State aware that the reduced acreage in 1975 had something to do with the inadequate guarantee price for 1975? Will the hon. Gentleman see that the returns offered to growers this year reflect the true cost of production? Does he not agree that it is by encouraging farmers to grow more potatoes that prices to housewives can be reduced?
    Mr. Bishop: What matters is not just the target acreage, but the acreage planted. This depends on a large number of factors—including bad harvests, labour difficulties, the competitiveness of alternative crops, and the amount of capital investment required in the potato industry.
    Mr. Loyden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the suppliers of seed potatoes have been selling them for immediate consumption? Does he accept that that amounts to an act of irresponsibility, because it will affect next year's crop? What steps is he taking to curtail these activities?
    Mr. Bishop: I said earlier that the price control of seed potatoes could lead to a diversion of supplies to other areas. The price of seed and main crop potatoes is consistent with the shortfall that has overtaken us. There has been a severe shortage. We believe that the steps we have taken to ban the export of potatoes, to lift import bans and to change riddle sizes will assist the situation. Although we have taken these steps, there can be
    652
    no guarantee that they will obviate the shortfall.
    Mr. Freud: Until there is an adequate supply of home-grown potatoes, will the Minister confirm that he will not interfere with the purchase of foreign-grown potatoes used by the potato-processing industry in my constituency?
    Mr. Bishop: Suspension of the common external tariff on main crop potatoes has been agreed. The import of foreign potatoes depends on plant health and other safeguards.
    Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is considerable anxiety among housewives and proprietors of fish and chip shops about the large quantities of potatoes being bought by large-scale users leading to an inevitable reduction in supplies? Does not this result in higher prices? Will he assure the House that he is pursuing the matter with the Potato Marketing Board? Is he satisfied that the Board is using its best endeavours to achieve a stable price?
    Mr. Bishop: Some farmers sell their crop on the market as soon as it is lifted, but a far greater proportion of the main crop is put into store for release throughout the season. Orderly marketing is essential at this time if supplies are to continue. On the question of price stabilisation, I would refer my hon. Friend to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection in her speech to the National Farmers Union last week when she said that any action by the Government or the trade to restrict prices artificially would encourage consumption and lead to a rundown of stocks which we need to market in an orderly way.

    Agricultural Incomes
    Mr. Boscawenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the level of agricultural incomes in 1975 compared with 1974.
    Mr. Peart: Information on United Kingdom farming net income in 1973–74 and 1974–75 is given in the 1975 Annual Review White Paper (Cmnd. 5977). A revised figure for 1974–75 and a forecast for 1975–76 will be published in the 1976 Annual Review White Paper.
    Mr. Boseawen: It is very convenient for the Minister to be able to answer the Question in that way, but would he not agree that last year was the worst in living memory for a very large number of farmers? Does he realise that if he is prepared to admit that and the fact that much of it was due to Government mismanagement and doing too little too late, he would give us confidence that he has learned from his past mistakes?
    Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. It is a convenient way to reply because it is accurate. If the hon. Member reads the White Paper, he will appreciate some of our difficulties. I do not accept his conclusion. Confidence has been restored in many parts of the industry.
    Mr. Corbett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a dramatic and welcome improvement in the income of dairy farmers in the last few months, particularly with the price increases and the remarkable level of production that has been achieved? However, does he realise that if we are to reach the guidelines laid down in the White Paper, dairy farmers will need a further incentive, although we must remember that there is a limit to the extent to which consumers can fund this expansion?
    Mr. Pearl: In any price-fixing decision—and the review is still going on here and in Europe—we shall take note of producers' returns. They must have adequate returns, but we must also have regard to the consumers' interests. We need to strike a reasonable balance.
    Mr. Pym: As this question is central to the review, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that, as a result of the review, he will be able to bring long-term confidence to the industry and give life to the White Paper he published in April which was, in a sense, a non-event? Can he also assure us that in going for the beef premium scheme, in which we support him, he will not bargain away the competitive advantages of British producers?
    Mr. Pearl: The right hon. Gentleman's party ended the guarantee scheme when it entered Europe without any safeguards.
    Mr. Jopling: Humbug!
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Member has been demoted. He should shut up. He is being too offensive. If he wants to ask me a question, I will give way. You are an absolute humbug yourself.
    Mr. Speaker: There are a great many "you's" going about. Even right hon. Gentlemen are addressing the Chair.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mr. Corrieasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will renegotiate the Common Fisheries Policy.
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the progress in the Common Fisheries Policy.
    Mr. Bishop: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) on 22nd January.
    Mr. Corrie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the United Kingdom has the longest coastline in the EEC and therefore has most to gain or lose by renegotiation? As 200-mile exclusive economic zones are likely to be enforced in the next two years, would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is of the utmost importance in renegotiating the common fisheries policy to ensure that Great Britain gets at least a fair share of the fish in its waters, which it is not getting at present?
    Mr. Bishop: The hon. Member is concerned about the urgency of renegotiations. I remind him that my right hon. Friend gave notice in Brussels as long ago as last April that we wanted an urgent re-appraisal of the policy and that we were not prepared to wait until 1982 when, under the Treaty of Accession, the common fisheries policy is to be reviewed. The Commission and all member countries are involved and these consultations take time. There have been consultations between the Commission and officials at which we have taken every opportunity to stress the need for an acceptable solution.
    Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Member aware that this question is of such importance that it merits a reply from the Minister of Agriculture himself? Will the hon.

    655
    Gentleman indicate when the fishing industry will be told the aims being pursued by the Government in the course of their renegotiation, if there is such a thing?
    Mr. Bishop: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that all Ministers in the Department speak for the Government with equal authority. As I have said on many occasions, our aim in the review of the common fisheries policy will be to ensure that our fishermen can take catches which meet the needs of fishing communities and take proper advantage of the wealth in some of the waters around our shores. The United Kingdom has the biggest fishing industry in the Community. We want to make sure that the interests of the industry and the consumer are protected.
    Mr. James Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that although the odious features of this policy stink in the nostrils of every hon. Member from any constituency—
    Mr. Skinner: You voted for it.
    Mr. Johnson: —there is a much more delicate and dangerous issue before us at the moment? Can my hon. Friend tell us what is happening in the Icelandic fishing dispute, particularly as we have been told that our ships have sailed and that the Icelanders have been given orders not to harass our vessels.
    Mr. Bishop: The Commission has produced a working paper on the CFP review which is being considered. I refer my hon. Friend to the statement on the Icelandic situation by the Prime Minister yesterday which is still relevant to the current situation.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Can the hon. Member confirm the word "renegotiation" as at the last session of the European Parliament I was told by Commissioner Lardinois that there was to be no renegotiation? Is there to be a renegotiation or not? Who is the liar in this matter? Someone, either here or in Europe, is lying to the fishermen of Great Britain about this matter. What is the position on the coastal State preference which the EEC is to consider? Unless we have a 50- or 100-mile exclusive area, our rich pond, which has been preserved
    656
    by our fishermen, who are preservationists, will be used up by European fishermen—[Hon. Members: "And the Russians."]—who have been the opposite.
    Mr. Bishop: As various Ministers, including myself and my right hon. Friend, have been involved in discussions for at least four days on the Icelandic situation, on which we are awaiting the outcome, and as negotiations for a 200-mile limit will take place soon at the Law of the Sea Conference and as I have already given information about the common fisheries policy renegotiations, there is no reason for the hon. Lady or any other hon. Member to think that nothing is taking place on these fronts. As I have said, we recognise the importance of the industry to our economy and to our fishermen, and we shall certainly make sure that in all these negotiations our point of view is put most firmly.
    Mr. Pym: May I give the Government the opportunity of issuing a categoric denial of a belief that is held, rightly or wrongly, by the industry—that the United Kingdom fishery interests may be or could be traded in some way for other objectives of the United Kingdom in the Community? Secondly, is the Minister aware that feeling in the House about the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy is very strong? The longer renegotiation is delayed, the more difficult it will become. There is a feeling that we are dragging our feet. Will the Minister make sure that we get on with this job?
    Mr. Bishop: For the second time this afternoon I remind the right hon. Gentleman and his Front Bench colleagues that they were the architects of the common fisheries policy. They were the people who got rid of the fat stock guarantee. They negotiated the Treaty of Accession. The Government are committed, as my right hon. Friend has observed, to renegotiation of the common fisheries policy before 1982. We have said that we cannot wait long. We are pressing the matter with a sense of urgency. The right hon. Gentleman can leave us to look after British interests this time and to make the necessary changes in the terms which he and his party agreed to accept originally.

    Tenant Farmers
    Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of farms were let under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 in 1950 and 1975.
    Mr. Strang: 64 per cent. of agricultural holdings in England and Wales were rented wholly or in part in 1950 and 54 per cent. in 1974. Figures for 1975 are not available. These percentages are not strictly comparable because of alterations in the coverage of the agricultural census.
    Mr. Cooke: The percentages represent a decline and the Government should be seeking to look after the interests of agriculture as a whole. Will the Minister try to ensure that there are still farms to let to those in the industry and to those young people well qualified to enter it? Will he ensure that such tenancies as are available are let to those best qualified to take them up?
    Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman seems to be referring to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The Government have made it absolutely clear that they are considering whether to give sons of tenant farmers who work on the holding a statutory right to succeed. That is what the new provision is all about.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr Gouldasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in amending the Common Agricultural Policy so that it more nearly meets the needs of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the EEC stocktaking document.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy were discussed at the recent meeting of EEC Agriculture Ministers.
    Mr. George Rodgersasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the
    658
    negotiations to reform the Common Agricultural Policy.
    Mr. Peart: The Commission's proposals for EEC agricultural support in 1976–77 take account of the discussions of its stocktaking report and include important proposed changes, especially in the milk and cereals sectors. The proposals were discussed at last week's Council. I believe that, when decisions are taken, further progress will be made in improving the operation of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Gould: Given that the price of most basic foodstuffs is now much lower outside the EEC than within it, and given the increasingly desperate attempts being made to deal with growing food surpluses, particularly the beef mountain, which is now largely inedible, does my right hon. Friend agree that the next meeting of Agriculture Ministers is likely to be of crucial importance? Does he accept that it is essential he gets major reforms which will allow us to move away from the senseless intervention system and go back to the system which served us so well in the past?
    Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend should realise that Governments, including Labour Governments, have always practised intervention in this country for cereals and potatoes. We have said that we do not accept that permanent intervention should be the sole method of support for beef. That is why I made my statement in Brussels on the matter. The talks are continuing.
    Mr. Marten: Is the Minister aware that £54 million which should have been used for restructuring agriculture was transferred from the Common Market budget in order to subsidise the skimmed milk mountain and similar projects? Does he accept that that is an absolute scandal for the CAP which should be put right in the stocktaking document and in the next price review? May we have an assurance that that will be done?
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) is a member of the Scrutiny Committee and he will remember that I spoke to it in detail about this matter. I believe that we should have co-responsibility in relation to milk surpluses and price fixing based on the efficient farm. These are all matters

    659
    which have been raised by the British in support of our German colleagues, who initiated the stocktaking document.
    Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the CAP must force the cost of food to ordinary people in this country ever upward, irrespective of the trend of world prices, at variance with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection is trying to do and completely contrary to the Government's anti-inflation policy?
    Mr. Pearl: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's comment. I believe that some commodities are cheaper within the Community than on world markets. It is our aim to improve the CAP, which will enable us to guarantee adequate supplies for our consumers.
    Mr. Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from increasing the price of food artificially, thereby sitmulating inflation, the CAP is absorbing no less than 75 per cent. of the total Community budget? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that we have entered an economic madhouse?
    Mr. Peart: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestions. The CAP is practically the only policy which is working specifically in Europe. We must have a pricing system which gives a fair return to the farmer as well as to the consumer.

    Milk
    Mr. Newensasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest EEC proposals for the standardisation of milk and other regulations likely to affect the production and marketing of liquid milk in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bishop: On the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, I would refer him to the statements I made during the debate on 15th January about the latest Commission proposals relating to the fat content of whole milk.
    On the second part, there has been no further substantial discussion in Brussels of the Commission's proposals on the quality and marketing and health and hygiene of milk since they were debated in the House on 20th February 1975.
    Mr. Newens: Does my hon. Friend agree that permission to import milk of a lower average butterfat content than the average set by British producers would lead to a price war in which British producers would be forced to lower the quality of fresh milk and in which door-to-door sales could ultimately be damaged? In the end the consumer could be provided with a poorer product and the producer with a much smaller market. Is he prepared to do something to prevent that?
    Mr. Bishop: I am not sure that my hon. Friend was present during the debate on 15th January. These matters were discussed then and assurances were given that we should certainly do our best in the Brussels negotiations to protect the present situation. The choice is between standarisation and non-standardisation of milk. So far as possible we want our present system to continue.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If a standardisation policy were introduced in the EEC, it would lead inevitably to greater butter surpluses. Will the hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance that the Government will stand out against standardisation? I believe that it would endanger the future of the daily pinta in this country.
    Mr. Bishop: The effect of the fat content proposals on the Community's surpluses of butter and skimmed milk powder were mentioned in the debate on 15th January. I believe that the hon. Gentleman took part in that debate. In the recent discussions in Brussels on the price proposals, my right hon. Friend has made very positive proposals about surpluses generally with a view to their elimination. This subject is being considered.
    Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend remember that on 15th January he told the House that he would try to get an agreement with the EEC that no unstandardised milk of less than 3·4 per cent. butterfat content would be imported? Will he tell us what progress he has made?
    Mr. Bishop: The argument was between 3·5 per cent. and 3·76 per cent. or 3·8 per cent. There has been no further Community discussion since the debate, but we shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

    Dartmoor National Park (Brucellosis)
    Miss Fookesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to include the Dartmoor National Park as a brucellosis eradication area.
    Mr. Strang: Yes. As I stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) on 19th January, compulsory measures for the eradication of brucellosis will be extended to the rest of Devon from 1st November 1977.—[Vol. 903, c. 338–340.]
    Miss Fookes: Will the Minister explain why there is to be a delay of nearly two years, especially as he has not admitted to any shortage of "vets" in response to a Written Question which I took the precaution of putting down?
    Mr. Strang: I am glad that the hon. Lady has noticed that the Government have achieved remarkable success in the staffing of the State Veterinary Service. In Devon there is a fixed number of veterinary officers, and their time will be taken up with the eradication programme for the eastern part of the county.
    Mr. Gould: Will my hon. Friend declare the whole of the United Kingdom a "Brussels-osis" eradication area?
    Mr. Strang: The Government went a long way towards achieving their objective by announcing earlier this month that we intended to complete the eradication of brucellosis in this country in the early 1980s.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister consider ghosting on Dartmoor, as replacements for the Moor have to be borne and reared on the Moor and a gap of two or three years would result in heavy losses to the hill farmers on Dartmoor? Will the Minister accept the principle of ghosting?
    Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that a considerable number of herds—our latest figure is 560—are currently registered as accredited within the voluntary eradication scheme. He will also appreciate that the Ministry is encouraging other herds to enter into groups and to become voluntarily accredited, which is all to the good in the supply of replacements.

    Glasshouses (Storm Damage)
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is able to assess the degree of damage sustained to glasshouses during the storms on 2nd and 3rd January 1976.
    Mr. Strang: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) on 16th January.—[Vol. 903, c. 286.]
    Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that the financial embarrassment caused to horticulture by the increased price of oil has been exacerbated by the storm damage? Is he satisfied that a sufficient quantity of fresh vegetables grown under glass will be available in the spring?
    Mr. Strang: We are conscious of the serious damage caused to certain horticultural producers by the recent gales. Our assessment of the position is that the overall effect on the national supply of horticultural produce is likely to be insignificant.
    Mr. Fernyhough: As it is the policy of the Agricultural Commissioner in Brussels to reduce the acreage of glasshouses, will my hon. Friend say whether the damage caused by the recent storms is welcomed in Brussels? Will Brussels be prepared to pay as compensation for the damage inflicted by nature what it was prepared to pay to get its way?
    Mr. Strang: I cannot speak for the European Commission, but my right hon. Friend will appreciate that Her Majesty's Government successfully opposed the Commission's proposal for demolition grants for the destruction of glasshouses.
    Mr. Jopling: Does the Parliamentary Secretary understand that the storms have further lowered morale following the Government's refusal to support the glasshouse industry in the way it was supported in the other Community countries? Will the Government give an undertaking to come to the aid of the glasshouse industry if it runs into severe problems, as they did for the fishing industry?
    Mr. Strang: I utterly reject the hon. Gentleman's implication that all other

    663
    member States are paying an oil subsidy. We have made clear repeatedly that that is not so. It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman from the Opposition Front Bench to berate the Government for refusing to pay additional subsidies to private industry when at the same time the Leader of the Opposition complains that the public borrowing requirement is too large.

    PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
    Mr. Wrigglesworthasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to North-East England.
    The Prime Minister ( Mr. Harold Wilson): I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the economic difficulties affecting the North-East, £2 billion will be invested on Teesside in the coming five years in manufacturing industries, but that even so there will still be unemployment among unskilled workers? Will the Government introduce further schemes for the training of unskilled workers and untrained school leavers so that the pool of unskilled workers is reduced?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. In addition to the £250 million ICI programme, the expected 7,000 jobs directly related to North Sea offshire activities and the consequential secondary employment, my hon. Friend will know that of the 45,000 people who will benefit from increased training opportunities as a result of the £70 million provision the Government have made for the Manpower Services Commission, many will be the region's younger work people.
    Sir W. Elliott: Is the Prime Minister aware that the unemployment figure in the Northern Region of 103,000 is the highest since 1940 and has risen by 13,000 since Christmas? As a matter of urgency, will he visit the whole region to discuss with those responsible for employment the fall in the level of investment due to this Government's policy?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept the last few words of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I share
    664
    with him the anxiety he has expressed about the unemployment level in this and other regions which traditionally have had many difficulties. In a few minutes' time the House will be debating the wider subject of unemployment, when the matter will be dealt with in greater detail by my right hon. Friend and hon. Members.
    Mr. Beith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware from earlier visits to the North-East, particularly in the rural parts, that it is an area of low wages? Therefore, the people in the North-East have an interest in the second stage of the incomes policy continuing to discriminate in favour of those who are on low wages and also in such reforms of the tax system as ensure that the increases they get are not taken away in tax.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's diagnosis as it affects the rural areas in the North-East and other regions, although it would be premature for me to try indicate what might come out of the second stage of the incomes policy, because it has to be discussed with industry.
    Mr. Trotterasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to visit Tyne-mouth.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
    Mr. Trotter: When, despite the good industrial relations in the North-East, unemployment is worse in modern times, does not the Government's apparent lack of concern for the shipbuilding industry and its problems contrast with the enormous amount of aid poured into Chrysler? Will the Prime Minister tell the ungrateful leaders of the irrelevant and irresponsible strike at Linwood that no more public money will be poured into Linwood until they change their attitude?
    The Prime Minister: While I do not know his constituency as well as the hon. Gentleman does, I have a strong feeling that Linwood is not in his constituency and that he has departed from the Question. On a number of occasions during the Chrysler negotiations last year I gave strong warnings that the provision of public money in the event of disputes would not be forthcoming. Although I welcome

    665
    the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the state of industrial relations in the North-East since the Government came into office—
    Mr. Trotter: I did not say that.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman did not say it, but it happens to be a fact. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes it. He will know that the loss of man-days through disputes last year was very much less than it has been at any time since 1968, and about 75 per cent. less than it was in one year under the Conservatives.
    Mr. Horam: As my right hon. Friend is in favour of Socialism, industrial regeneration, regional development and of being even-handed about devolution for England, Scotland and Wales, can I count on his personal support for my Private Member's Bill, which seeks to establish development agencies—comparable with those already conceded to Scotland and Wales—in each of three English development regions—namely, the Northern, Merseyside and the South-West?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, there is no Governmental responsibility for Private Member's Bills, but I shall certainly give very close consideration to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend so that I may decide—if I decide to vote—which way I should vote.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I should like to refer to the Prime Minister's Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Government are responsible for the maximum number of working days lost through unemployment in the post-war period and that Labour's present level of unemployment would represent some 300 million man-days in a single year? The responsibility is his.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is, of course, falsifying the facts. Only last week even Conservative newspapers like the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, although being a little critical of us for not acting more quickly on inflation, said that the responsibility was that of the Conservative Government before us. The right hon. Lady should
    666
    take a little more time off to study what the Conservative Government really did.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he fought the last election in speech after speech on the basis of having got unemployment and inflation down and under control? Unless he fought that election on a false prospectus the present level of unemployment is Labour's level of unemployment.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is totally wrong, because we warned in the summer of 1974—before the election and during the election—as did the then Leader of the Conservative Party, no doubt while the right hon. Lady was offering her election bribes, that we were in for heavier unemployment in 1975. [HON. MEMBERS: "8·4 per cent."] We so warned and we said that this would be a world-wide problem. It was a worldwide problem arising from events in 1973 affecting all countries. The Conservatives Government did nothing about it.
    Dr. John A. Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Whitehaven.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
    Dr. Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that he would be welcomed as a long-standing friend of the community in West Cumbria? Will he also accept from me that there is considerable dissatisfaction in that area with the Government's policies towards compensation for pneumoconiosis? Does he recall his speech to the NUM conference last year when he rightly praised the decision to compensate miners in the coal mining industry? However, does he recognise the incidence of this dreadful disease in other industries, principally, iron ore mining? Is he aware that the Departments of Energy, Employment and Health and Social Security have not made any positive response on this issue? Will he initiate Government action so that all sufferers from pneumoconiosis can be afforded similar treatment?
    The Prime Minister: I have, of course, been much concerned with the area and with the introduction and development of a number of factories in my hon. Friend's

    667
    constituency. The problem of pneumoconiosis outside the coal mining industry and especially in the iron ore industry has been extremely serious in that area. My hon. Friend will remember the part played by Lord Adams of Ennerdale in this matter.
    However, I must tell my hon. Friend that it is not possible for the NCB scheme to extend outside the coal industry. It is a very generous and imaginative scheme in the coal industry which we have encouraged and helped during the past 12 months or more. However, as my hon. Friend knows, the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury is studying this matter and we must await its report.
    Mr. James Lamondasked the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Malaysia.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans for such a visit, Sir. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited Malaysia from 11th to 16th January.
    Mr. Lamond: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Malaysian Government in a brochure designed to attract foreign investment have stated that they are prepared to introduce restrictive controls on imports to protect their industries and that this is similarly offered by many other countries? Is there any chance of our following their example?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that an agreement under Article 4 of the GATT Multi-Fibre Arrangement was concluded last October between the EEC and Malaysia. It came into force at the beginning of November in relation to movements of textiles and clothing.
    My hon. Friend referred to a brochure or an advertisement. I have heard some mention of this but, unfortunately, I have not been able to lay my hands on a copy of it. If my hon. Friend has one or knows where to procure one—I see that the Liberal Chief Whip is indicating that he has one—the right thing would be for him to give it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade so that he can study it.
    Mr. Amery: In view of the deteriorating international situation, will the Prime Minister consider getting in touch with the Malaysian Government, the Singapore Government and the two new Governments in Australia and New Zealand to see whether it would be a good thing for this country to rebuild the small presence that it had in South-East Asia and on the island of Gan?
    The Prime Minister: We are in close touch with the Malaysian Government, although the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, tragically, their then Prime Minister recently died. However, I have already had exchanges with his successor. We are in constant touch with Singapore and with the two new Governments in Australia and New Zealand. We are in touch with those countries concerning all the problems and dangers that may face those areas. However, I am not at all certain that either they or we would feel that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal was sound and right in the circumstances. Indeed, I think that it would certainly accord ill with the general desire of the whole House for economy in public expenditure.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Douglas Crawfordasked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for 29th January.
    The Prime Minister: I chaired a meeting of the Cabinet this morning and will be holding further meetings with my Ministerial colleagues and others during the course of the day, Sir.
    Mr. Crawford: As the Prime Minister is holding further ministerial meetings, will he discuss with his hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council the subject of devolution now that the devolution debate has finished in another place? Will he confirm recent newspaper reports to the effect that the Scottish Assembly is to be given full control over trade and industry and the Scottish Development Agency in Scotland and that the hated veto will be removed.
    The Prime Minister: There is no ministerial responsibility for what the newspapers report, as has been said by many speakers at this Box. I was not

    669
    aware that I was having any meetings on devolution today. The House fully discussed the problems of devolution over a period of four days. It happened to seem longer, but it was, in fact, four days. As a result of that debate, I think that all parties have taken the view—as became clear from my exchanges with the deputy Leader of the Opposition last week—that they want to sit back and reflect on the debate. I see that the Scottish nationalists are shaking their collective heads. Of course, they do not want to sit back and think. They have not thought it through at all. However, I believe that the whole House will want to reflect on the very important issues raised in the four-day debate.
    Mr. Heffer: If my right hon. Friend finds time today, would he phone his representatives on Merseyside? He will then discover that 549 workers have been given their notice from Western Shipbuilders, adding to the already high level of unemployment on Merseyside. Would he make representations to his fellow Cabinet Ministers that it is high time that the ship owners were requested to have their repairs done and ships built in this country rather than going abroad and so causing further unemployment of workers in our shipbuilding areas?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, although it might not arise out of this Question, I am aware of the further redundancies caused by the circumstances described by my hon. Friend, coming on top of some other serious redundancies in other areas of the industrial sector. With regard to the placing of contracts for both shipbuilding and ship repairing, the Government have made clear, as have my hon. Friend and other hon. Members for shipbuilding constituencies on both sides of the House, the desire of all of us to see more orders placed in this country. My hon. Friend will know that, on a recent visit to Merseyside—
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Come on, Harold, it is after 3.30.
    The Prime Minister: I notice the frivolity of Tory Members about unemployment, a frivolity which they also showed earlier on pneumoconiosis. Whatever disagreements we may have, at least my hon. Friend treats this problem seriously. I was about to say, which is relevant to his question, that on a recent
    670
    visit to Merseyside, as he will know, I spent a good deal of time with the shipping companies in the course of which I urged them to place more orders at home.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I revert to a matter, Mr. Speaker, which you have discussed with the House before—that of the grouping of Questions and the rights of hon. Members in this regard? On a previous occasion, you said that there needed to be some flexibility, but I think that the House would appreciate more guidance from you.
    For example, today the Minister of Agriculture grouped Questions Nos. 10, 15, 38 and 46 together, which I believe many of us would regard as going a long way down the list, whereas the Prime Minister is not grouping at all. This raises considerable difficulties for hon. Members and it would be helpful if you could give us some guidance.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that this is a matter on which the Chair should give guidance. I think that it is a matter for Ministers.
    The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been well recognised, by the Select Committee on Procedure and others, that this is one of the most difficult problems we have and that it is not possible to lay down an absolute rule as between individual Ministers. In the case of my own Questions, there were complaints when, like my predecessor, I grouped my Question No. Q23, for example, with Question No. Q1. I have tried to group Questions up to No. Q10, but, because of the development of syndicates, this meant—[Laughter.] Oh yes. It meant that my Question No. Q1 was grouped with Nos. Q2, Q4, Q6, Q8 and Q9 and no other hon. Members got a look-in. I therefore announced to the House—I am surprised that this was not referred to—that from now on and until further notice, until the House could lay down some rules itself, I would not group at all, so as to give all hon. Members, not just members of the Tory syndicate, a chance to have their Questions answered.
    Mr. Hastings: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. While we are on

    671
    the subject of Prime Minister's Questions, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you have noticed that of the 25 down today, 13, I think—over half—ask that he should visit some place, almost any place, from Penzance to Peru, and that two or three ask him what he is up to today. Would you accept—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very important debate to come. About 60 right hon. and hon. Members want to catch my eye later. There will be a debate on procedure on Monday and I should have thought that that was the time to raise these matters.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a Member from the North-East of the United Kingdom—as long as it is united—may I ask for some clarification of the use of the phrase "in this House", including the use by the Prime Minister today of the phrase "the North-East"? As one of the North-East MPs, I resent the fact—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2ND FEBRUARY—A debate on Procedure.
Motion on the Community Land (Excepted Development) Regulations.
TUESDAY 3RD FEBRUARY—Proceedings related to the Chair.
WEDNESDAY 4TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Education Bill.
Motion on the London Councillors Order.
THURSDAY 5TH FEBRUARY—Supply [7th Allotted Day]: Until about 6 o'clock there will be a debate on Communications in Wales, and afterwards a debate on the Scottish Economy.
Motions relating to the National Health Service (Charges) and (Remission of Charges) Regulations.
672
FRIDAY 6TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 9TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Motions until 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, motion to appoint a Select Committee on Abortion.
Mrs. Thatcher: With regard to the Supply Day on Thursday, I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would make it clear that this is one of two Supply Days that the Opposition have agreed to make available to other opposition parties and that the choice of subjects on this occasion has gone to Plaid Cymru and the SNP. Second, although the right hon. Gentleman is aware that we have not pressed him for time for a debate, because of the delicate state of the negotiations with Iceland, would he say that he hopes to make available a day for a debate on fishing fairly soon, because a number of matters are becoming very urgent?
Mr. Short: The right hon. Lady is correct on the first point. The Opposition have made that day available to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. On the second point, I cannot undertake to find a day for a debate on fishing in the near future, but I will bear in mind what she has said. No doubt there will be a statement some time, as soon as possible, on the Iceland situation.
Mr. Noble: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the debate which has gone on in the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments recently about the new arrangements under the Multi-Fibre Arrangement and the fact that this year there is a fresh round of negotiations on the GATT? In those circumstances, would he agree to find time for a debate on international trade?
Mr. Short: I cannot offer any time in the near future for a debate on that subject, but it is the kind of subject which could well be brought into other debates. However, I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On which day does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Prime Minister to move a motion concerning the appointment of the Chairman of Ways and Means? Does he expect that to be on Tuesday or Wednesday,

673
and if on Wednesday, at what time? Since this is not a motion that requires notice to be given, it would obviously be for the convenience of the House if he would let us know when we can expect the motion to be moved should the occasion arise.
Mr. Short: Just at this moment I cannot say, but I will take steps to see that the parties opposite are informed in good time about this.
Mr. Stonehouse: In view of the great interest in détente, as shown in the questions to the Foreign Secretary yesterday, and the continued interest in the implementation of the Helsinki Declaration, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate soon on those subjects?
Mr. Short: No, Sir, but there will be a debate eventually on foreign affairs—I cannot say when: not in the near future—and that would obviously be an appropriate subject for such a debate.
Mr. Cyril Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a little more information about the debate on procedure? Is it to take place, for example, on some Select Committee's Report or will there be motions before the House altering the present procedure? Second, can he now advise us whether we may take it for granted that the Government have dropped their controversial Dock Work Regulation Bill?
Mr. Short: The answer to the second question is, "No". The Bill has of course been introduced and will have its Second Reading within the very near future. On the first point, as I said last week, the debate will be on the Adjournment. I shall hope to open the debate myself. It will be a perfectly open debate. The Government will listen carefully to the views expressed and as soon as possible thereafter bring forward terms of reference and the proposed composition of a committee of inquiry into the custom and practice of the House.
Mr. Henderson: Is the Leader of the House aware that my hon. Friends and I in the SNP and Plaid Cymru welcome and appreciate the gesture by the major Opposition party in making available a Supply Day and in recognising that the Opposition now consists of several parties and not just one?
674
Is he further aware that this will be the first opportunity the House has taken to debate the Scottish economy since the Government came into office in February 1974?
Mr. Short: I am sure that the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is incorrect.
Mrs. Jeger: Will my right hon. Friend say what is happening about the Select Committee on Cyprus? Is he now able to accept the amendment on the Order Paper?
Mr. Short: I hope that my hon. Friend and the whole House will realise that this Select Committee raises matters of exceptional sensitivity. As long as it is absolutely clear that there may well be matters before the Committee on which neither the Foreign Secretary nor any Government representative will be able to give information, I am certainly willing now to set up the Committee and I would propose to put the motion above the line.
We ought to be absolutely clear that neither this Select Committee nor any other Committee can expect to receive information which the House itself cannot receive from Ministers. As long as that is clearly understood and the sensitivity of the subject recognised, I am willing to set up the Committee.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In view of the large number of names on an Early-Day Motion on the Order Paper supporting the speech by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—a speech which appears to have the qualified approval of the Prime Minister, at any rate—may I ask the Leader of the House whether we could debate these matters—and not at some distant date? In view of the mounting urgency, and the degeneration of the position of the United Kingdom and the West, will the Government consider this as a matter of urgency?
[That this House warmly congratulates the Leader of the Opposition on her recent speech on defence; endorses her warning that our defence forces must be maintained at a level consistent with the threat, and with our obligations to our allies; recognises that the aggressive posture of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, its massive and growing armament and its ubiquitous subversive

675
activity are wholly inconsistent with any true concept of détente; and condemns all attempts by the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to frustrate free speech, either in this country or elsewhere.]
Mr. Short: The right hon. Lady raised this matter. I suggest that she uses one of her Supply Days to debate it.
Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Law Officers of the Crown have given a series of stunningly complacent answers to questions about the future of the legal profession and the provision of legal services? Is he aware that there is widespread public disquiet about the operation of the legal profession and about the failure to provide legal services for thousands of poor people?
Will he therefore arrange for an early debate next week, especially in view of the fact that over 100 Members have signed Early-Day Motion No. 135, asking for a Royal Commission on the legal services and on the legal profession?
[That this House calls on the Prime Minister to recommend the setting up of a Royal Commission to examine and report on the condition of the legal services and the way in which the legal profession is organised to serve the public.]
Mr. Short: I shall certainly discuss this with the Law Officers and contact my hon. Friend, without accepting either of the propositions with which he prefaced his question.
Mr. Rees-Davies: Further to the question concerning the reappointment of the Select Committee on Cyprus, will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Foreign Secretary the view of the Committee at the time that, while he was willing to give evidence before the Committee—as were also the Department and the Foreign Office—there was never any question of cross-examining him on questions relating to confidential discussions between himself and the Turkish Ministers? According to what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, this was the reason he was not willing to give such evidence.
As to other general matters of policy, the Committee have already indicated a
676
desire to question him and other members of his Department on them. Is that not in accord with the proper procedure of the House?
Mr. Short: I do not think that this is the place in which to pursue this matter. Today I am only underlining the peculiar sensitivity of this subject. So long as that is fully recognised, I am quite willing to put the motion above the line and to put it before the House.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the reply he gave me last week concerning the Bewbush land deal in which Lord Ryder was to some extent involved? Will he take on board the analogy that has been drawn so clearly today by a Government Department in respect of another legal public figure? Is he aware that—to paraphrase the statement—if the person concerned had spoken out or noticed the problems within the company earlier, the resulting bankruptcy could have been lessened or prevented?
Therefore, on the basis that we expect public figures—as the Department of Trade suggests—to act with a great degree of propriety, will my right hon. Friend prevail upon Lord Ryder to make a statement about this matter, so that his involvement in it can be finally cleared up?
Mr. Short: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the question has nothing whatever to do with next week's business, and it is certainly not a matter for me.
Mr. Hastings: Reverting to Early-Day Motion No. 143, on the subject of defence and the activities of the Soviet Union, to which there are now some 140 signatures, will not the Leader of the House accept that it is the responsibility of the Government rather than the Opposition to provide time for a debate—particularly because, since then, we have had the statement or speech from the Secretary of State for Defence which, to many people, seemed to place him on the side of the Soviet Union, although, appropriately, the Foreign Secretary is still on our side?
Is not the best way of resolving this unhappy affair to have a debate and a Division, so that we can see how many members of the Cabinet want a people's

677
democracy and how many want a free society?
Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman has not pointed out that there are, I believe, as many names on the contrary motion on the Order Paper.
I repeat what I said before—that the right hon. Lady generated this controversy and that she can find time to debate it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of what I said earlier about the next debate, we must move on.

EMPLOYMENT DEBATE (AMENDMENTS)
Mr. Arthur Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance and significance of the vote that will take place at the end of the debate on the employment situation, could you give confirmation of the position concerning the first amendment on the Order Paper, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and myself and over 100 other hon. Members?
There are three matters that I wish to raise. First, in your statement to the House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you acknowledged that you had on your own authority decided to extend a recommendation of the Select Committee on Proceure by allowing a second amendment to be called after a four-day debate. Could you make clear to the House why more importance should be attached to the duration of a debate—four days—than to the fact that over 100 hon. Members have signified their support of a particular amendment?
Secondly, will you make it clear, Mr. Speaker, whether I am right in understanding that, because no motion was tabled by the Government last night, any option open to you to rule differently today—if you were so minded—has gone?
Lastly, would you confirm that I approached you last night, Mr. Speaker, concerning the possibility of the Government tabling then a precautionary procedural motion which would leave open to you the possibility of considering and affirming or changing the ruling you gave
678
yesterday? You said that you in fact passed this thought to the usual channels, who failed to respond—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I deprecate any reference to a private and confidential conversation that I may have had with the hon. Member.
Mr. Latham: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. It certainly was not my intention that that should be the case or that the approach should have been regarded as confidential.
Having been advised by you that I cannot proceed with that point, Mr. Speaker, may I simply underline the fact that there was no initiative taken through the usual channels last night which would have left open to you the option to which I have just referred?
May I add that there are many of us—as you may appreciate, Mr. Speaker—who are very angry that, whoever is to blame, there is now to be no chance for us to vote for our own amendment? We are left with no option but to demonstrate our belief in our alternative point of view by withholding our support from the Government on the main motion tonight.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you confirm that it would have been quite improper for me to try to table a motion last night—the Table would not have accepted it—to facilitate the calling of an amendment which you had already decided not to call?
May I now inform the House of something that you do not know, Mr. Speaker? In view of what you said at Question Time yesterday about looking at it again, before leaving the House last night at 11 o'clock I prepared a motion and gave instructions for it to be tabled if you changed your mind. Had you changed your mind, that business motion would have been put down. You have not done so, the decision being entirely your own, as is quite proper in your case. The Table would not have accepted a motion from me to call an amendment which you had decided not to call.
Mr. Speaker: I must express my own point of view. I take full responsibility for that decision. The reason I accepted the other motion was that it was a four-day debate. If I allow that innovation on

679
a one-day debate, it will probably happen every time we have a three-line whip on a one-day debate. It is a difficult procedural point. I could not make such a serious innovation in our practices without the full authority of the House. I take full responsibility for that decision.
Mr. Latham: May I establish whether I was given wrong advice when I was told that it would have been proper for the Government to table a contingent motion which would not have pre-empted your decision, Mr. Speaker, to confirm or change your ruling today?
Mr. Speaker: That is an interesting procedural question. Perhaps it will be debated on Monday. I am not sure what the answer is. The selection of amendments is a matter for me, not the Government. If the House chooses to mate new rules, let it do so. As the rules are, I must exercise my authority and discretion.
Mr. Peyton: I should like to put two quick points to the Leader of the House. The first is to express our gratitude to him for responding to representations that there should be no other business after the election of the new Speaker on Tuesday.
Secondly, will he press his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is here, for a firm date for the publication of the White Paper on Public Expenditure?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We seem to be going backwards.

EMPLOYMENT
3.52 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): I beg to move,
That this House, while welcoming the reduction in the rate of inflation and the improvement in the balance of payments as an essential basis for economic recovery, expresses its deep concern at the continuing rise in unemployment and its determination to take all possible effective measures to reduce it so as to ensure continuing growth with stable prices.
At this moment the nation stands at what is always the most critical point in the path of an economic recovery—the point at which output is beginning to increase again but employment has not yet begun to respond to the increase in output. If at this point the Government or the public panic, if there is a collapse of nerve, the consequences can be disastrous, as was proved when the Conservative Party was in power. Therefore, this afternoon I want to describe the situation as I see it and to suggest what can be done to deal with the present intolerable level of unemployment without jeopardising all the advantages that the British people have won so painfully through their sacrifices in the last year.
In recent months our economic prospects have been transformed, largely as a result of the agreement reached between the Government and the trade unions last July on dealing with cost inflation in the current wage round. But the major areas of improvement which we can already record for 1975 were predictable and, indeed, were predicted even earlier. I forecast in my Budget speech last April that in the second six months of last year the rise in the Retail Price Index would be between 12 per cent. and 16 per cent. at an annual rate. In fact it was 14 per cent.—well under half what we endured in the first half of 1975.
The main effect of the £6 limit on pay increases is yet to be felt, but few would now dispute that the Government have a very good prospect of achieving their target of reducing the annual rate of inflation to under 10 per cent. by the end of this year.
The £6 limit has been universally observed. To date we know of major settlements within the policy covering well over 3 million workers. In addition

681
15 wages councils, covering over 750,000 workers, have agreed new statutory minimum remuneration in line with the policy. The Department of Employment has also been notified of 3,000 settlements covering smaller groups, and none of these is currently in breach of the policy.
The policy is now overwhelmingly supported by those whom it affects directly—by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, by the rank and file of the trade union movement and, according to reports of a survey recently conducted by Political and Economic Planning, by conveners and shop stewards throughout industry.
I hope I am right in saying that, whatever its earlier hesitations and conclusions, the Opposition Front Bench, at least in its majority, now recognises that the White Paper which it asked the House not to approve in July is in fact making a major contribution towards the resolution of our economic problems.
In addition to its direct impact on our own affairs in Britain, the new policy for incomes has also transformed our reputation throughout the world. When I was in Jamaica for the IMF meeting a few weeks ago, I found my colleagues unstinting in their admiration of what we in Britain had achieved and for the relationship between the Government and the trade unions which made it possible. The House will note that at least five other Governments are currently attempting to imitate our policy.
It is worth recording that the new relationship between the Government and the trade unions has brought an immense improvement in industrial relations too. Britain lost fewer days last year through industrial stoppages than in any year since 1968—less than one-third of the massive 24 million days clocked up in 1972 when confrontation was the order of the day.
We have made equally good progress on the balance of payments. Our current account deficit last year was well under half that in 1974. It fell from £3·7 billion to £1·7 billion in 12 months. It is true that this improvement, as in all industrial countries, owed much to the effects on imports of the world recession and to the improvement in the terms of trade compared with the savage blows we all suffered in 1973 and 1974.
682
But the world recession also involved a heavy fall in world demand for our goods. Indeed, the fall in demand was a good deal sharper in most of the main manufacturing countries than in Britain. Despite that, however, our share in the manufactured exports of the main industrial countries rose from 8¾ per cent. in 1974 to 9½ per cent. in the first half of 1975. Figures for the second half of the year are not yet available, but it looks as if we actually increased our share in world trade last year, although the competition was a good deal stiffer than in normal times. I hope the House will agree that that was an encouraging achievement by any standard.
There are encouraging features also in our performance on import substitution. The volume of our imports of finished manufactures fell by 7½ per cent., whereas the fall in manufacturing production was substantially less—about 5½ per cent. in the first 11 months of the year.
Of course, it is dangerous to build too much on our trade performance in a single year, particularly one as exceptional as last year. But the fact that our record has been better on both exports and imports than might have been expected gives us real grounds for satisfaction and for hope that a further increase in our exports will take place as world trade picks up.
In fact, there are growing signs that the world recession has already bottomed out. In 1975 the total volume of world exports probably fell by about 6 per cent., but there seems to have been some pick-up in the fourth quarter of last year. There are obviously great uncertainties, but at present we would expect world trade to rise by about 7 per cent. in 1976 as a whole, accelerating throughout the year, and this will offer immense new opportunities to our exporters.
Here in Britain the signs are multiplying that our recession may be coming to an end—if recovery has not already begun. As always, evidence about the immediate past is patchy, but such figures as we have are encouraging. For example, in the three months to November last year industrial production rose by 1·6 per cent. and manufacturing production rose by 1·2 per cent. The CBI's monthly survey shows in December more firms reporting an increase rather than a fall

683
in the volume of total new orders over that latest four-month period—the first time that this has happened for 18 months. Looking ahead, the CBI survey has shown for two months running a balance of firms expecting the volume of output to rise in the four months ahead—a better result than any seen earlier in 1975.
Clear evidence that the recession in Britain may be ending also comes on the demand side. In the third quarter of last year gross domestic product by the output measure fell just ½ per cent., compared with 2½, per cent. between the first and second quarter. GDP on the expenditure measure was virtually unchanged in the third quarter, and total final expenditure—that is the sum of consumption, all investment and exports—actually rose by ½ per cent. Destocking has also fallen back sharply and may have passed its peak.
We can now extend the evidence on the demand side into the fourth quarter of last year. The provisional estimate for consumer expenditure in the last three months showed only a very marginal fall—very much less than the 1½ per cent. fall in consumer spending during the third quarter. Exports have done well, too, particularly on food, materials and chemicals. They grew over 7 per cent. in volume terms in the fourth quarter, partly, I believe, in response to improving world trade, particularly in North America and European markets. All this suggests that Britain is now beginning to pull out of the recession so far as economic activity, output and demand are concerned.
The one exception to these encouraging statistics is, of course, the main subject of this debate. Unemployment figures are still rising, as I forecast they would in our recent debates. The figures here must give us all profound concern. But they do not need the sort of exaggeration that they have received in some parts of the Press, and the more alarming predictions made in some quarters last year have proved very far ahead of the reality. The fact is that we ended 1975 with unemployment under 1,200,000, as I predicted we would in September.
The January figures are serious enough. For the United Kingdom as a whole, the seasonally adjusted rate, excluding school
684
leavers and adult students, reached 5½2 per cent., a total of 1,205,000, and an increase of 42,300 over the December level. Most of the newspapers preferred to headline uncorrected figures.
"227,000 increase in a month"
said the Daily Telegraph. "Nearly 1½ million men out of work" was the general cry. Of course, this is true enough if one eliminates the seasonal corrections which all Governments have made to take account, for example, of the normal winter fall in tourism and building, and if one includes over 116,000 students who signed on the unemployment register, on an entirely temporary basis, over the universities' Christmas break. But I wonder whether we shall see headlines in equally bold type next month screaming "Jobless fall 100,000" because those students have now gone back to college.
The main exception to this type of exaggeration—apart from The Times—was the research organisation run by the Conservative Party and headed by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition and her Front Bench economic adviser, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). They claim that the true level of unemployment was 800,000, little over half the figure trumpeted by most of the newspapers and 400,000 fewer than the seasonally corrected figures issued by the Government.
I must ask the right hon. Lady whether she will confirm that that is indeed her view. If it is, how can she justify her hysterical intervention at Question Time last week? The political editor of The Times asserted on Monday—I quote his words—the utter impossibility of the Shadow Cabinet
"wickedly exploiting the rise in unemployment for cheap party and electoral purposes."
But if the right hon. Lady accepts the view of her own research organisation, that is exactly what she did last week. I wonder whether Mr. David Wood will ever recover the virginal innocence that she so brutally outraged.
Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: The Centre for Policy Studies is not the Conservative Research Department and is not related to it. Whichever set of figures the Chancellor uses, both show that unemployment has risen under the present Government and is still rising.
Mr. Healey: The right hon. Lady, as so often, has refused to answer a very relevant question. She is a director of the research organisation to which I have referred. Her Rasputin or Malvolio, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, is another director and, we are told, manages its studies. What we want to know is whether the right hon. Lady will tell us what her view is. Does she agree with her right hon. Friend, does she agree with the Daily Telegraph maximum figures or does she agree with the Government? If she believes that the figures issued by her Centre for Policy Studies were gross under-estimates, let her say so, and let her abolish her research organisation and replace her right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East as her economic adviser by the right hon. Member for Worcester(Mr. Walker)because he has made it clear that he would be only too glad to have the job.
As it is, the right hon. Lady's whole attitude towards unemployment, like that of many hon. Members who were infected by her hysteria last week—if I may quote the words of another newspaper which commonly supports her policy, the Daily Mail—" stinks of hypocrisy."
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that many hon. Members on the Government side of the House are in no way affected by the hysteria of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition or any other Opposition Member? What we are deeply concerned about is the rise in real unemployment to the extent that areas in my constituency—
Mr. Dan Jones: And mine.
Mr. Heller: Certainly, but I am now talking about my constituency. Twenty per cent. of the people there are unemployed. That is what we are talking about, and not figures which come from Conservative Central Office or any other office. We are talking about the reality of our people's unemployment, and we are not going to have it.
Mr. Healey: I am well aware of the very deep and genuine feelings of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Indeed, I assure my hon. Friend that it is shared by the whole Cabinet. I propose to tell him this afternoon what we are planning to do about it in order to meet
686
it. [Interruption.] The hypocritical humbug of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), who has never shown the slighest sympathy in his whole career for ordinary working people, makes decent people retch.
Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman will recall coming to speak for me in my constituency in 1974, where, I may say, he was a great help. His principal theme was unemployment, and he implied to my constituents in a very industrial area that it would be lower if they voted Labour than if they voted Conservative. Today in the North-West there are 117,000 more people out of work than there were when his Government came to office.
Mr. Healey: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stretford. He is of considerable help to me, and if he thinks that I am of help to him, so much the better. However, I shall demonstrate in a moment that what I predicted in that election speech, which I fear did not do enough to turn the tide against the hon. Member for Stretford, was the literal truth and was stated to be so by the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), who, we much regret, is not assisting in our deliberations today.
The fact is that the seasonally corrected increase in unemployment this month at 42,300 was broadly the same as it was over the last three months of 1975 and less than the average from June to September. In this it reflects the slowing down of the recession in the middle of last year, but it does not yet reflect the bottoming out which appears to have occurred in the last quarter. That will produce a levelling off in unemployment in some months' time, and the actual fall in unemployment will then follow.
An indispensable condition for successful economic management is to take account of the substantial lags between a change in overall demand for goods and services in the economy and the change in output which it generates and of the similar lag between the increase in output and the consequent fall in unemployment. Such lags between an action and its consequences are the very stuff of what used to be called political economy, and

687
they occur in almost every field. For example, changes in exchange rates and money supply are even slower to produce their effects. That is why it is essential always to consider the management of the economy over a period of years and always to be thinking as much of the likely situation in 12 months' time as of the situation tomorrow.
In the current state of economic knowledge, it is not possible to be precise about the length of these lags. But it is prudent to assume that both between demand measures and output and between output and employment it could be about six months. For this reason, macro-economic measures taken to increase demand—for example, the reflationary measures which some of my hon. Friends may press upon me today—may take a year to have much effect on unemployment.
It is because of these lags that if I now increased domestic demand by macro-economic measures, this could have little significant effect on unemployment during the rest of this year. Domestic demand reflation now through a reduction in income tax, for example, would take some six months to have a noticeable effect on output and would take a further six months to have a significant effect on unemployment. The full effects of the measures would take even longer to come through. The great bulk of the output effect would take about a year and a half and the bulk of the unemployment effect would take up to two years to come through.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Healey: I suspect I know the point that my hon. Friend wishes to raise, and I shall be coming to it in a moment. If I am mistaken, I shall give way to my hon. Friend with the courtesy that I always display to him.
I know that some of my hon. Friends believe that it is somehow possible to escape these lags and reduce unemployment faster by keeping out imports and thereby increasing the demand for British goods in Britain. But this might be even slower to affect employment. There would bound to be some administrative
688
delay, and employers in the sectors which might hope to replace the excluded imports would be less inclined to take on additional labour or put up new plant or machinery to meet an increased demand for their products if they thought that the import controls would be temporary and the rise in demand would not be maintained in the long run.
But there are more powerful arguments against such import controls. They would be unlikely to obtain the acquiescence of the foreign Governments concerned, especially at a time when our balance of payments was steadily improving and our rate of unemployment was in line with that of most of our competitors and substantially lower than in some countries like the United States. In that case, retaliation would be almost certain and this could cost us as much through loss of exports in terms of both jobs and the balance of payments, as we could gain from the increase in domestic demand.
Mr. Mikardo: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his courtesy, as always, in giving way to me. But he mistook my point. He has not met it. It is a very different one. It is that, if it takes some time for measures to find their way into extra employment, why is that a case for delaying them? Surely it is a case for getting on with them. Indeed, if my right hon. Friend had taken these measures when some of my hon. Friends and I first advocated them last summer, we should be seeing some results now.
Mr. Healey: I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend, as I am so often. I shall deal with those two important points in a moment.
As I was saying, if we adopted general import controls they would be unlikely to obtain the acquiescence of the foreign Governments concerned, retaliation would be likely and, in addition to the risk of losing as much through the loss of exports, in terms of both jobs and the balance of payments, as we could gain from the increase in domestic demand, there would be a real risk of starting a world trade war in which all countries would lose heavily, and the less-developed countries most of all. I must remind my hon. Friends who are attracted to that solution that that would risk turning

689
what is already the worst recession since the 1930s into a prolonged slump such as the world had to endure 40 years ago.
I do not believe that any hon. Member would want to run that risk and that is why, for example, the Labour Party conference last year set itself against general import controls and was prepared to consider selective import controls only if they were not likely to provoke retaliation.
To sum up this part of my argument, there is nothing that any British Chancellor of the Exchequer could do now by general reflation of domestic demand —whether by tax reductions, increases in public expenditure or import controls—which could reduce unemployment significantly this year in the months when it may still be rising. The time to have acted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) suggested, would have been in my Budget last April. But as I warned the House as long ago as November 1974, 18 months ago, the intolerable increase in wage inflation which took off in the autumn of that year ruled out that option.
If I had continued in my Budget last April the stimulus that I gave the economy in July and November 1974, I would have brought the whole economy down in ruins. In fact I was compelled instead to increase taxation and not to cut it. But, thank God, the British people learned their lesson in time—I may say with no help from the Opposition Front Bench.
The unprecedented success of the attack on inflation that we launched last July—
Mr. Peter Tapsell Mr. Peter Tapsell(Horncastle) rose—
Mr. Healey: The House will recognise that I have given way several times already and that I must be allowed to get on with my speech—
Mr. Tapsell Mr. Tapsell rose—
Hon. Members: Give way
Mr. Healey: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) presently, but not just now.
The unprecedented success of the attack on inflation that we launched last July, against the wishes of the Opposition
690
Front Bench, has given me a freedom of action this year which simply did not exist last year. But it will still be a difficult matter of judgment to decide whether any increase in domestic demand is called for in my next Budget.
At the moment it seems likely that the increase in both output and employment, particularly in manufacturing industry, will be rather fast next year. Demand will also be rising fast. An increase in world trade will be increasing our exports. Industry has already declared its intention to make a big increase in investment next year. Stock-building will have resumed. There will also be some increase in consumer spending. If that proves to be the case, a further big stimulus to demand by action this year might turn out to be as ill-timed and disastrous as the piling of one reflationary measure on another by the previous Administration when they panicked in July 1971 and started a consumption boom which they pumped up still further in the Budget of 1972
Mr. Tapsell: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about a reflationary boom being pumped up by the Conservative Government and the British people having now learnt their lesson, may I ask him to bear in mind that when he reduced taxation in July 1974 my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and I warned him of the effects of that and divided the House against him? He claimed that the measures were necessary at the time. Will he bear in mind that the inflation and unemployment from which we are now suffering are very largely the result of those electioneering tactics?
Mr. Healey: I know that that is the hon. Gentleman's view and the view of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who, I am delighted to see, has now joined the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, although the official Opposition tabled a motion against those measures in July 1971, in the event they skulked in the back rooms of the House of Commons and failed to vote. Only 30 hon. Members joined the hon. Member in the Lobby. Good luck to them. At least they had the courage of their convictions, if that is what it was—unlike the right hon. Lady now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.

691
I was referring to the measures taken by the previous Conservative Government in 1971 and 1972. I have been delighted to see, during the last 10 minutes of my speech, that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East has been steadily nodding his agreement with what I have been saying. Indeed, there is no need to look into the crystal ball when we can read the book. The consequences of excessive reflation in 1971 and 1972 are now history. They brought about the collapse of the Barber boom in 1973 amid the most severe economic dislocations since the 1940s.
Let me remind the House of the facts. In the autumn of 1973 bottlenecks and supply constraints appeared throughout industry. In the CBI survey of October 1973 a total of 51 per cent. of firms were reporting shortages of skilled labour as a factor limiting their output—two-thirds as much again as in the previous peak in 1969. A total of 49 per cent. of firms reported shortages of materials and components—three or four times as many as in 1969. Shortages of plant capacity were widely reported too.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) will listen to what I and his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East are saying, because if he is to speak later in the debate he will have a lot of explaining to do as to how he interprets his rôle at that time. The fact is that the short-lived recovery generated by the reflationary measures of 1971 and 1972 was strangled in the autumn of 1973, even before the oil crisis hit us. The consequences for the balance of payments were equally disastrous. As the reflationary programme gathered pace through 1972, imports rose 11½ per cent. compared with an increase of only 2·1 per cent. for exports. In 1973 the experience was repeated, though in a less extreme form.
On top of this body blow to our balance of payments the boom dealt a heavy blow to our manufacturing industry. The proportion of our total expenditure taken by manufacturing imports rose from 6½ per cent. in 1971 to nearly 9 per cent. in 1973. Parallel with these immediate economic catastrophes this consumer-led boom set a monetary time bomb ticking away which has certainly helped to bring about the explosion of inflation in the
692
past two years. I gather that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East and the hon. Member for Oswestry share the monetarist view that the last Government's monetary profligacy in 1973 was the main cause of the inflation which reached its peak last year. Perhaps they are too unfair to the Government they then supported.
It is a fact that through 1973 the money supply, M3, grew 28¾ per cent.—well over twice the rate of money GDP. As a result, lending for property rocketed, the price of housing, land and building followed and when the bubble burst the secondary banking system suffered a shipwreck from which it has not yet been finally rescued. The House may feel that it is not altogether suitable for the crumbling relics of the disastrous administration which brought about that unprecedented catastrophe in our economic affairs to table an amendment telling me how to deal with the same problem today.
The country can count itself fortunate that the leaders of our trade union movement have not forgotten the lessons of that bitter experience. They have explicitly made it clear again and again in recent months—and repeated it this week —that they are not asking me to engineer a general reflation at this time.
Mr. David Crouch: The right hon. Gentleman said a few minutes ago that he would say something more about investment. I believe that he may be in danger of inadvertently misleading the House. The view of the Government was apparently expressed by the Secretary of State for Industry two weeks ago when he said he was dismayed that the rate of investment by manufacturing industry was the lowest for 12 years. He was depressed to think that it would not rise in time to meet an upturn in world demand. Surely this should be one of the matters at which the Chancellor ought to be looking if we are to resolve the unemployment problem.
Mr. Healey: I shall deal with this point. I agree that it is one of the keys to improving our economic performance. So far I have been explaining why I cannot at the moment consider a general reflation of the type which the last Government engineered so disastrously four or five years ago. I am coming now to the measures that I believe I can take.
Sir Keith Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman is quick to make accusations of humbug and hypocrisy. Will he accept that in 1971 and 1972 the Labour Opposition Front Bench was clamouring for increased demand and went on clamouring for increased demand and was nothing like the responsible Opposition which the Government now face?
Mr. Healey: With respect, I find it scarcely possible to parallel the levity of the right hon. Gentleman.
It is too soon at present to decide whether some reflation of demand would be desirable when I present my Budget in a few months' time. What is already clear, however, is that the scale of any measures which may be desirable when that time comes will depend to an important degree on the assumptions I am then able to make about the likely course of inflation once the current pay round is completed. This in turn depends, above all, on what voluntary policy for incomes can be agreed for the next wage round.
If we can safely plan on continuing to reduce the rate of inflation right through 1977, my freedom of action as Chancellor in the next Budget will be substantially enlarged. Our exports will be that bit more competitive, the readiness of industry to invest will be increased. Indeed, there are few areas of our economy which will not benefit. Above all, we shall be able to look to a faster reduction in unemployment than would otherwise have been the case. Just as inflation produces unemployment, so a fall in the inflation rate will produce more jobs.
I know that millions of trade unionists, like all of my right hon. and hon. Friends, are deeply disappointed that the level of unemployment is not already falling. But I have been warning the country for many months that there would be a delay of some months between the recovery in output and the fall in unemployment. This afternoon I have tried to explain why.
No one can deny that because the £6 limit on pay has been maintained unemployment now is lower than it otherwise would have been. I was glad to see that Mr. Hugh Scanlon accepted this point on television recently. I hope he would also agree that, whatever his disappointment at the latest unemployment figures, this
694
would be no ground for refusing to continue the pay policy in any form for another year. He must accept that the only result of that would be to make unemployment next year worse than it need be.
But no one should underestimate the real strains imposed upon the leadership of the trade union movement by the present appalling unemployment level or the demoralisation of those who cannot obtain a job. The Government are firmly convinced that the future of our economy depends on maintaining the sort of co-operation between the Government and the trade unions—and working people as a whole—which contributed so much towards improving our economy last year. We have proved that cooperation is infinitely preferable to confrontation, and we shall not neglect any measure which may help to relieve the strains and sufferings imposed by unemployment.
As I made clear in September and again in December, the Government are determined to take any effective steps open to them to reduce the level of unemployment. We shall continue to do everything that can sensibly be done to save and protect jobs in the next few months and bring forward the coming decline in unemployment to the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: One of the things that trade unionists have been saying to my right hon. Friend for some time is that now is the time to make available resources for the manufacture of capital goods, not consumer goods, goods to be put on the shelves for use when the upturn comes. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the EEC Commissioners responsible have told the Government that they will not permit resources of that kind being made available? That has been widely reported in the European Press, on the basis of statements issued. Is it true that the Common Market is preventing the Government from making resources available to meet the request made to them by the trade unions?
Mr. Healey: I understand the impatience of my hon. Friends, and I have given way to them as I have to Opposition Members. I shall deal with this point. An argument is proceeding with

695
the Commission, but the Government are determined to adopt whatever measures may be helpful in this area. I shall refer to some in a moment.
I have said that we shall do everything we can to save and protect jobs and bring forward to the earliest possible moment the decline in unemployment. I wish I could feel that that objective was shared by the Opposition. But the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East made clear the other day that he wants steps which will increase unemployment in the short term, just when the need for action to reduce it is at its peak. In his speech last Thursday he made clear that his party will continue to press for cuts in public spending now. He added—and I think this was the first time he has admitted this in a public speech:
"There is no escaping from the fact that this will increase unemployment in the short term."
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not here this afternoon. I had planned to take advantage of his first flush of frankness and ask him to answer the question I have put to him in vain so often. I now put the same question to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). Even if he is not prepared to itemise the cuts in public spending which he wants this year, can he tell us at least by how many hundreds of thousands he is prepared to see unemployment increase in the short term as a result of those cuts? Unless he is prepared to do so, we must regard the welcome honesty of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech last Thursday, however valuable it may have been in seeking to correct the instant opportunism of his Leader at Question Time two days earlier, as just another flash in the pan. Evasion, humbug and hypocrisy continue to rule on the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Nigel Lawson: Is not the Chancellor aware that only last Friday his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, speaking in Anglesey, said that, if public expenditure were not cut now as a proportion of GNP, democracy and freedom would be in danger?
Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman does not read very carefully, nor does he listen very carefully. What my right hon. Friend was talking about was cuts in
696
public expenditure after the next financial year.
Mr. Lawson: No. He said that we must cut so as not to exceed the present 60 per cent. of GNP.
Mr. Healey: Nonsense. My right hon. Friend was talking about cuts in public expenditure after the next financial year, cuts which will maintain employment in the public sector as a whole but also enable employment to be maintained in manufacturing industry, particularly in the capital sector which my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) is, like me, so anxious to expand.
We on this side of the House totally reject the right hon. and learned Gentleman's approach. As the House knows, my right hon. Friends and I have in recent months introduced two sets of measures calculated not to raise unemployment still further as the right hon. and learned Gentleman demands but to save and create more jobs in the immediate future. We have been discussing with our friends in the trade union movement what more can now be done.
Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Healey: No.
I told the House in December that the Government would be announcing further measures early in the new year to provide still more and better training. I hope that it will now be possible to go well beyond that and to present a further set of measures in several fields within a few weeks from now. The trade union leaders have made some valuable suggestions which we are already considering. The Manpower Services Commission has also put proposals to us, and we shall listen very carefully to proposals made by hon. Members in this debate.
The most immediate need is for further measures to protect existing jobs and to provide new jobs in the coming months. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is considering bringing forward the operation of the Employment Protection Act for this purpose. We may also find it useful to extend the temporary employment subsidy, which has already helped to save over 15,000 workers from

697
redundancy. The recruitment subsidy for school leavers has helped over 15,000 young people to get jobs. An extension of this scheme, too, may be worth while. The scheme of job creation has already saved thousands of young men and women from the demoralisation of the dole and should ultimately provide 36,000 people with temporary jobs within the money already available. I hope that it may also be possible to give some further help to the construction industry.
But perhaps the most important single objective which the Government must set themselves is to take whatever action can now be devised to ensure that the decline in unemployment, once its starts, is not frustrated once again by the sort of bottlenecks and supply constraints that brought recovery to a halt in 1973. This requires action on training, stockpiles and investment.
Incidentally, I totally reject the view shared by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft and Mr. Clive Jenkins that unemployment is bound to remain over a million into the 1980s. This Prior-Jenkins axis is an entertaining novelty in our affairs. But I hope that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition will tell the House at this moment that she totally rejects the defeatist nonsense to which her Shadow Secretary of State for Employment yesterday committed himself and his party.
Hon. Members: Come on.
Mr. Healey: My hon. Friends are asking the right hon. Lady to tell us whether she rejects that nonsense. I sometimes find it easier to interpret her silences than her remarks.
The speed at which we can get unemployment down and the level to which we can reduce it will depend not only on the success of our industrial strategy in reducing unit costs and making better use of existing investment but on ensuring that there is an adequate supply of the necessary skills available at the right place and the right time as the economy expands, that there are adequate supplies of essential materials and equipment and that there is a steady increase in investment to get that expansion going.
As the House knows, since my Budget last April the Government have already increased expenditure on industrial training by £67 million. The new pro-
698
posals of the Manpower Services Commission offer us the opportunity of a further expansion for the coming year. But I do not believe that we can be satisfied until we have developed a much more extensive training system on a permanent basis, along the lines of the Labour market policy which has been so successfully running for many years in Sweden.
A few weeks ago I announced Government assistance to the British Steel Corporation to permit the stockpiling of £70 million worth of steel in the current year. We are now considering the possibility of similar assistance for stockbuilding in other areas where future needs can already be identified. This, too, can help to prevent the appearance of critical shortages of materials and equipment during the recovery, such as happened in 1973, as well as providing profitable employment in the coming months.
But the key to full employment in the longer term lies with industrial investment. Here, too, there is a case for giving priority to areas where shortages of capacity may otherwise appear when the recovery is under way. Getting new investment started as soon as possible will also help to bring down unemployment in the short term.
There are obvious limits to what the Government can do to influence decisions on investment. But we are already doing very much more than has been done in similar situations in the past. As the House knows, we have introduced a scheme to provide financial assistance for investment projects which can be started by September this year but which have been stopped or postponed. About £34 million has already been earmarked for 10 major projects, including important expansions of capacity in ball bearings, pumps for diesel engines, and pharmaceuticals. The original allocation for this scheme was £40 million, which we later boosted to £70 million, and £20 million was added for modernisation projects.
As the scheme gets better known, and no doubt also as the deadline approaches, applications are coming in at an increasing rate. We have therefore decided to make available a further £30 million and to consider applications for projects below the £½ million threshold. This is making this help available to smaller projects than we have hitherto envisaged.

699
and it will be of help particularly in the engineering sector.
Most of this money goes in the form of interest relief grants, lowering the effective rate of interest on the investment financing. This means that the total value of projects brought forward is much higher than the Exchequer cost, by a factor of five or six to one. If the whole £120 million is spent, around £600 million of new investment will have been stimulated. Although not all of this investment will take place in 1976 and 1977, it is equivalent to 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. of the total manufacturing investment foreseen in the investment intentions survey. That is a very significant addition. We cannot be precise about the number of jobs this will create, either while the installation work is being done or permanently when the new plant is operating, but it will certainly help.
There remains enormous scope for a rapid increase in investment without such Government assistance. If we are to believe the recent inquiries made of industry, there are still thousands of firms in this country, particularly the smaller ones, which at present plan to cut investment once again this year, yet these same firms express a firm intention to increase investment very substantially in 1977. If they wait that long, I believe they will be taking a very short-sighted view of their own interests. The capital goods that they want are likely to be cheaper and more readily available this year than in 1977. Moreover, investment this year can be relied on to meet the peak of world demand. Delay, as so often in the past, could mean missing that peak. Many big British firms, like ICI, learnt this lesson long ago. If firms wait until the surplus capacity which they have at present it brought fully back into use, it may well be too late to order new plant and bring it into operation before the demand has gone elsewhere, with markets lost to overseas competitors.
There is one apparent impediment to early investment which I can remove immediately. As the CBI and others have told me, this is the uncertainty about the future of deferred tax liability on stock appreciation. My last two Budgets gave a very large measure of relief to industry for increases in stock values, and I know that in spite of reassurances some com-
700
panies are still apprehensive that this was a temporary measure only and that they may have to repay it this year. Let me say firmly that my next Budget will contain proposals for the continuation of stock relief in some form. I cannot yet say what form it will take nor how it will be related to the previous relief, but I can say that there is no question whatsoever of any general withdrawal of past relief.
I have tried to give the House some idea of the measures the Government are now considering to get unemployment moving down as soon as possible. We intend to announce our decisions by the middle of next month. As I have said, our purpose is not only to save and create jobs in the coming months but in doing so to strengthen our capacity for continued growth with stable prices in the future.
Thanks to the efforts made in the past year by all sections of our people, we now have it within our power to start moving up the interational league table once again—to enter the upswing of an international trade cycle with our economy moving into balance, with our inflation rate still falling, and with a steady improvement in our industrial performance under way.
Mr. Patrick Cormack Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West) rose—
Mr. Healey: The last time an opportunity on this scale lay before us was in the autumn of 1970, thanks to the sacrifices made by the nation in the preceding two years. That time the opportunity was thrown away because a Conservative Government which won power by exploiting the strains imposed by those sacrifices squandered their patrimony and lost their nerve. I have rehearsed that lamentable story in my speech this afternoon. This time we must not panic. We must not lose our nerve. That is what the nation asks of us. I know we shall not fail it.
4.48 p.m.
Mr. John Nott: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"regrets that unemployment will be higher and will endure longer as a direct result of the Government's failure to take early and

701
decisive action against inflation; endorses the Government's apparent determination not to undertake a general reflation of the economy nor to impose import controls; but deplores the lack of an effective long-term strategy for a sustained economic recovery based on a prosperous private sector and the reduction of State spending and borrowing".
The Chancellor has made a characteristic speech, reeling out Treasury statistics on the one hand and throwing around charges of humbug and hypocrisy on the other. I think I can say that what he said was not entirely unexpected either in tone or in content. When he remarked that the new policy for incomes has transformed Britain's position in the world, I think that he was partial to a little exaggeration.
I hope I shall not disappoint the right hon. Gentleman's Tribune Group friends, his brothers in the movement, if I tell them straight away that I shall be treating the Chancellor more in sorrow than in anger. I note that he is now a confirmed monetarist and that he finds himself in substantial agreement with one or two of my hon. Friends. At Question Time he may have heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition talk of what his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 9th October 1974, the day before the election. This was reported at the Press conference at Transport House. The Prime Minister said:
"Unemployment is beginning to fall.… The pace of inflation and price rises are moderating."
On 26th September the Prime Minister said at Bury:
"Price rises in the shops are slowing down. All these results point in the same direction—to a significant reduction in price increases."
There seems to be a substantial difference of view between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the causes of our inflation. Perhaps when the debate is over they will sort it out among themselves.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Employment are becoming the star performers in these debates. The Government put them on the stage with increasing regularity, although the audience seems to get less and less hysterical about their performance. Watching the Chancellor today, it suddenly occurred to me that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment are becoming more and
702
more like Laurel and Hardy. Hardy comes on first, rumbustious, self-confident and brash. Then at the end, on comes poor old Laurel, looking more and more downtrodden in each debate. He reels out a string of adjectives—"ghastly", "terrible", "appalling"—and yet nobody, and certainly not the right hon. Gentleman himself, seems to appreciate that he caused the trouble in the first place.
During the past few months the volume of comment about the nation's problems has swelled into a veritable flood. It becomes almost self-defeating to try to absorb the mass of newsprint now being devoted to the structural, monetary and resource problems facing our society. But we, as politicians, have much to learn from personal observation as we do from highly competing and, to use the Chancellor's term, macro-economic theories of the time.
Advisers have their place, but every hon. Member has present experience of unemployment in his or her constituency. We can all see the problems on the ground. The statistics produced by the Chancellor today and pumped out by the machine each month not only mask personal distress, anxiety and growing fear of unemployment but conceal, within broad regional averages, communities where whole towns and villages are out of work.
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) made this point the other night when speaking about the towns of Ormskirk and Skelmersdale. In an intervention in the Chancellor's speech today the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that what he and other hon. Members were concerned about was the reality of unemployment in their constituencies. That was the right answer to the Chancellor's statistics.
I hope that the House will bear with me if I briefly talk about the one community I know best. I refer to the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) and myself. That area is an industrial, mining, ship-repairing area as well as containing a large agricultural and tourist interest. Other hon. Members will instance West Midlands, Scotland and Merseyside as their examples.

703
Let me give the House the situation in my area. The population in the combined areas is 150,000. Over an eighth—12.5 per cent.—of the working population are now without a job. In Helston, a small manufacturing and service town, the current rate of unemployment is 16 per cent. and in another town in my constituency the figure is as high as 17 per cent. That town has a population of 8,000. The number out of work in this area is nearly 75 per cent. higher than it was a year ago.
In the construction industry, well over a third of all construction workers are now unemployed. I was told this morning that the unemployment rate in the construction industry in West Cornwall is now 45 per cent. The last sum of Government money allocated to the construction industry in our area was £90,000. I do not criticise the figure, and I have not done so locally because the construction industry would get off the ground if the Government abolished the Community Land Act. That is one way to get the construction industry moving again.
What does the Chancellor think the men in the construction industry in my area say when they see over £100 million guaranteed to one American-owned multinational concern apparently just because it is big? What will the construction workers in my constituency say today about Chrysler and the support given to it by the Government? It seems that the workers of Linwood, who are now voting with their feet, are a better judge of these matters than are the present Cabinet members.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Is not the level of unemployment in the construction industry of Devon and Cornwall to a large extent due to the freeze on public expenditure and the failure of local authorities in Devon and Cornwall to take up offers made by the Labour Government in regard to housing, schools and hospitals? Would not the policies advocated by the Conservatives, aimed at cutting public expenditure, increase that level of unemployment in Devon and Cornwall?
Mr. Nott: The lack of development flows overwhelmingly from the developments following the enactment of the
704
Land Community Bill and the tax legislation which we are all awaiting.
Mr. John Pardoe: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. He was present at a meeting of construction industry representatives who came to the House from Cornwall last week. I did not attend that meeting because I had a separate meeting with them. However, unless those representatives told him something different from what they told me, the Community Land Act bears little responsibility for the decline in activity in the building industry in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or mine. He should not mislead the House.
Mr. Nott: I do not believe that to be the case. However, I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the Community Land Act. I thought that the Liberal Party was against it.
Our nation is not made up solely of large factories in vast urban conurbations. For every Linwood and Ryton there are hundreds of small firms and factories and shops and offices employing a few men here and a few women there. Over 6 million people work for that kind of firm. No Opposition Member would decry the importance of the nationalised industries or the function of local government, but it is on the private sector that we rely for most of our innovation in terms of technological change and our exports. For every inefficient, and capital-intensive firm that we subsidise, we do so at the expense of industry generally. For every job preserved in Chrysler, several jobs are destroyed throughout the country.
The burden on the small and medium-sized employer has become greater year by year. But it is only under the regime of the Secretary of State for Employment that it has become intolerable.
If the presence of the right hon. Gentleman in the Cabinet is the price we have to pay for the unity of the Labour movement, the currency of that payment has now been debased and bad money is driving out the good.
I do not deny that aspects of the Employment Protection Act and the Health and Safety at Work Act are good, but the cumulative effect of new legislation, rules and regulations, permits and

705
permissions, visits by factory inspectors, redundancy payments and social security upratings is increasingly undermining the whole employment structure in these firms.
Most employers in this large sector, who employ 25 per cent. of our working population, would do almost anything to avoid re-employing somebody. I refer not to the financial burdens on a firm meeting the £6 limit but to the administrative problems.
The Government are turning businesses into bureaucracies. They are seeking to recreate industry in their own image. The Secretary of State for Employment has now abandoned the concept of the right to work for the right to go on receiving wages unrelated to any economic contribution. Work is being divorced from production, cost from benefit, reward from performance. This is a recipe for 2 million unemployed.
It is worse than that. For some members of our society there are pleasures and attractions in taking commercial risks. The upside potential under this Government and under the tutelage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has become virtually nil, while the downside risk is unlimited. The rewards, starting from scratch today, would not permit the accumulation of a capital sum equivalent to the value of a Permanent-Secretary's pension, yet bankruptcy is the downside risk facing virtually every small company in this country.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has described this situation as our Socialist anti-enterprise climate with indifference, ignorance and often distaste on the part of politicians for the processes of wealth creation. Even if this attitude is not shared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he has still introduced penal taxation on capital, particularly the capital transfer tax.
I agree that many of our nation's problems can be laid at the door of management as well as at the door of the antiquated attitudes and structures of the trade union movement, but if management is to be blamed for our performance, it must surely be sensible to try to put it right. We shall not do it by continually diminishing its status and remuneration, narrowing its differentials and recruiting all the best brains into
706
the Civil Service. The relative attraction of the Civil Service as a career with its freehold tenure is now out of all proportion to the needs of our society.
A consultant in the National Health Service overtakes the wages of a docker only at the age of 44. Throughout his working life, a consultant, who has probably spent eight years in training, only just receives more in average lifetime earnings than the man working in the docks who left school at 17. I am not saying that dockers are not doing a valuable job, but until some differentials are re-established in our society, management will continue to decline.
Manchester University Appointments Board recently published a report showing that the starting salaries paid by the Civil Service are 50 per cent. higher than those in the rest of British industry. If the Labour Party, because of its beliefs and its membership, is incapable of reducing the higher marginal rates of tax on earned income, it should give way to a party which will do so.
I have dwelt on these matters because I regard them as being as important in the debate on unemployment as the broader economic arguments to which I shall now turn. Before I do so, however, I wish to deal with the Chancellor's recent measures.
Mr. John Mendelson: Talk about unemployment.
Mr. Nott: If the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), who called for this debate, does not realise that management is at the root of most of this country's problems, he has a lot to learn.
Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman says that he is dealing with unemployment, but he quite clearly differs from his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) who has signed the same amendment. Will the hon. Member make clear which unemployment figure he is dealing with?
Mr. Nott: I do not think that is very relevant to the debate. If the hon. Member wishes to study the figures put out by the Centre for Policy Studies, he will find that they show unemployment rising at an even steeper rate than the figures

707
published by the Government. The hon. Member's intervention is not particularly helpful.
The Chancellor may have been trying for a year or more to deal with the unavoidable consequences on jobs and prices of the social contract and, given the degree of understanding of some of his colleagues, he has been having a remarkable degree of success in some areas. But that has not prevented him from gratuitously destroying jobs.
In the Adjournment debate on 22nd January, the problems of the television tube factory in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ince were highlighted. I remember the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) warning Treasury Ministers of the consequences of imposing 25 per cent. VAT on television tubes. The Financial Secretary himself admitted that the higher rate could cost up to 20,000 jobs. It is rather ironic that the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection should come forward with her plan to restrict price rises of certain essential food to 5 per cent. when her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed a 300 per cent. tax increase on essential home repairs in one fell swoop a year ago.
I know that the Chancellor is very proud and cocky about his success as a monetarist and I will deal with the points he made on monetarism now. The borrowing requirement is now three times the size of the requirement he inherited. I will save him embarrassment by leaving aside his forecasts. In order to prevent that borrowing requirement leading to massive inflation, he has had to borrow ever-increasing sums from overseas until our international credit is virtually exhausted. Treasury guaranteed stocks are now selling on the world market at yields of more than 1 per cent. higher than medium-sized cat food manufacturers from Chicago. That is the extent of the fall in the international credit of the British Government following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's overseas and other borrowing to support his public sector borrowing requirement. The increase in debt interest alone between now and 1980 can hardly be less than £4 billion at present interest rates assuming that we can scale down the borrowing requirement to nil by the early 1980s.
708
We have to look forward to a situation where debt interest alone in the 1980's will be equivalent to the whole of the public sector borrowing requirement inherited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Yet still in front of the Chancellor is the major problem of what to do about bank advances when the economy picks up. Does not the great monetarist himself understand that the nightmare in monetary policy is not the public sector borrowing requirement, if one can borrow money from overseas, but the borrowing through bank advances in the private sector when confidence returns and when industrialists go to the banks for money to re-stock and invest? The problems we face as soon as that situation arises are frightening to contemplate.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer claims that the Conservative Administration overstimulated the economy in 1971, I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend said in an intervention during the Chancellor's speech—our judgment was shared by every member of the present Cabinet and by most economists and business men. I remember very well the mood around the country in 1971.
I have not time to repeat the long list of contemptible and vicious charges made against us by the then Opposition at that time. I will content myself with one. In a debate on 24th January 1972 the then Leader of the Opposition made an absolutely grotesque speech. It was one of the most vicious, low and disgusting speeches I have ever read. He said, referring to the then Prime Minister:
"I wish he could have seen the Kirkby juvenile register—351 boys and 273 girls; some of last Easter's school leavers still without a job".
And so it went on. Right through the speech there were vicious attacks on my right hon. Friend then Prime Minister. The then Leader of the Opposition said:
"Last Friday he left these shores, the first dole queue millionaire to cross the Channel since Neville Chamberlain.—[Official Report, 24th January 1972; Vol. 829, c. 999.]"
I hope that when the Prime Minister crosses the Channel knowing that 1½ million are unemployed in this country he will reflect, when he refers to Neville Chamberlain, on the part that he played in the miners' strike. The attitude of the Prime Minister at that time was much

709
more hysterical and contained far more humbug than anything Labour Members have heard from us.
I am afraid that I do not like the Prime Minister. I think that he has degraded the profession of politics, and history will not divorce his record as Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister from the decline of Great Britain as a proud and self-confident nation. Although the temptation is substantial, I hope that my hon. Friends will not follow the Prime Minister's example and descend into that domestic fitting which he can occupy with such natural distinction, because I do not think that anything is to be gained by following his example.
Apart from being a symptom of our deeper troubles, unemployment will inevitably accompany the conquest of inflation. As the rate of inflation declines, all those who have depended upon it for their jobs will lose them. We are not encouraging the Chancellor to reflate or to impose import controls, which was what Labour did when we were in office. We will back the Government in any stand they make as an employer in the public sector against outrageous pay claims. However, to support the Government against their critics on their own Benches should not preclude us from reminding the country of what we said persistently about the social contract, of what the Government did artificially to stimulate real incomes and consumption in the short term, of the cut in VAT to produce that famour 8·4 per cent. put forward by the Chancellor, and of the attack on profits before the October election which the Government won. The Chancellor pushed British industry into a financial deficit of £3¼ billion in the period that led up to that election.
These were the measures which ensured that the traumas of unemployment would go deeper and last longer than need have been the case. It is only now that the spiral is unwinding. The Chancellor said to one of his hon. Friends that if he had given the stimulus of July 1974 he would have brought the whole economy down in ruins. But he gave that stimulus in July 1974, and the economy has been brought down in ruins. The right hon. Gentleman did that so that he and his colleagues could win the October election. It was a fraudulent prospectus and every Labour Member knows it.
710
I come now to the charges made against us on public spending. I stress that we would not have started from this point. Public spending now is about £25,000 million more in money terms than when we left office. We do not know the exact figure, but it is probably £5,000 million higher in real terms, and that has all arisen in an environment of virtually no economic growth. The position inherited by the Government was fully under control. Within two months of the oil embargo in October 1973 we had planned a reduction of £1,200 million which left the total for 1974–75 lower by 2 per cent. than for 1973–74. The Government cannot claim that these cuts were never made, because they took full account for them in their White Paper. The gross increase by the Government in 1974–75 turned out, against a planned decrease of 2 per cent., at 11 per cent., and throughout that period the economy was virtually stagnant.
In last year's Budget the Chancellor claimed that in the current year he would hold public spending to planned levels, but it now appears that the real increase may be as much as £1,000 million more than was planned at that time. The consequences of this profligacy, contrary to the Labour Party's myths, has been most severe on the lower-income families. The massive increase in subsidies of every kind has to be financed and the burden inevitably falls hardest on those earning around the national average wage.
The poverty trap is now a real scandal. It is becoming virtually impossible for the family earning below the average wage to improve its position. A man earning £40 a week—and that is a reasonable wage in my constituency—and with four children is now actually 49 per cent. worse off in tax and social benefits if he earns an extra pound. In other words, he goes backwards. He does not even get an extra 1p. What can this man think when he sees the kind of abuses which are undoubtedly existing in the social security system, about which Professor Donnison wrote an article which was referred to by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) last week?
We are being challenged on our view on public spending. Has it never occurred to the Chancellor that if he had held control of public spending he could have used the extra £5,000 million in real terms which has gone into State spending to

711
reduce the borrowing requirement, to put more resources into British industry and to raise the tax threshold?
When we were in office we tried to unravel the enormous administrative problems of the overlap of social security benefits and tax which has been much exacerbated by the Chancellor's failure to raise the threshold. But the Labour Government abandoned our tax credit scheme, and, so far as I can see, there are no plans in Government to deal with this the gravest of all social problems, a problem which is worsening year by year.
I conclude by saying what I think should be done, but I emphasise again that we would not have started from this point.
The overriding need at this time is to make British industry alive and well again. It is an exciting challenge and it can only mean far higher profits or, to put it another way, a much higher surplus for investment out of earnings for stock building and for new jobs. I do not know what the profitability gap, as it has been called, is in British industry, but it must be somewhere in the region of £5,000 million to £8,000 million. The latest Price Commission Report, the latest figures from the Central Statistical Office, show that the fall in the profitability of British industry has reached the most dangerous levels, and that profitability is now about half what it was some three years ago.
Second, we must return to ordinary people the freedom to choose. Without it there can be no incentive to work or to save. This must mean fewer subsidies, fewer benefits, and more discretionary expenditure with, ultimately, lower taxes.
Third, if we believe in those two things, which I believe my party does, we have to face the consequences of these requirements. If we need more investment in industry, more exports and a rising standard of living, whether we live in a Socialist society or a capitalist society, the resources can only come out of public expenditure. It is the residual. It is the only place left, and our resources are finite. Our public spending must be regarded at present as a residual.
It means a drastic cut in transfer payments and the political will to resist public sector wage demands which were surrendered to for between six and nine
712
months by the Government, and which led to our present problems. It means there must be a public sector manpower policy, and natural wastage alone in the public sector could throw up £2,000 million of additional resources in three years.
Mr. Healey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making much clearer than have any of his predecessors what the Opposition Front Bench believes in. In referring to a drastic cut in transfer payments, I presume that the hon. Gentleman means unemployment benefit, old-age pensions and disablement benefit. Will he tell us which transfer payments he wants to cut drastically? He may recall that he and his hon. Friends supported every increase the Government made in the last three years and pressed for a twice-yearly up-rating of the old-age pension.
Mr. Nott: Yes. I will tell the Chancellor right now to which subsidies—transfer payments—I am referring. Subsidies are largely transfer payments. I said that we must cut drastically transfer payments. I am referring to subsidies. Instead of subsidising people to remain in dying industries and industries dependent on inflation, we have to encourage people to move. That encouragement includes retraining. With Socialist housing policies it is impossible for anyone who moves to find another home. It is madness to subsidise houses and not people. It enslaves people in their existing homes. I do not have the figure in front of me, but I believe that housing subsidies under the Chancellor's direction have grown by about £1,500 million since he came to office. I will check that figure but it is not far wrong.
Unless we change our housing policies, people will go on being unemployed, as they are, and, when the pick-up comes, will go straight back into declining industries. All this unemployment will have been to no avail. Unless we can achieve more mobility the trauma we are going through will be of no avail.
Mr. George Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman refers to cuts in housing subsidies. Does he apply those cuts to owner-occupiers and mortgage repayments?
Mr. Nott: We should look at the whole range of subsidies throughout the

713
economy. Subsidies have got completely out of hand. I am in favour of a review of every subsidy so that we can get the matter straight.
We need to publish our long-term targets and not keep them wrapped up in Treasury obscurity. We noticed the little niceties in the Chancellor's letter to the IMF. He excluded debt interest from public spending. Of course, he had to exclude it. He has borrowed so much that he does not dare to include it in the figures. We must publish our long-term targets so that everyone—the Treasury, the House of Commons, the Opposition and the country—knows them and makes sure that the Government keep to their long-term targets which are essential to put our economy right.
Sound monetary policy is very important, but it is not an end in itself. Sound monetary policy, with fiscal policy, is a precondition for stability. In itself monetary policy cannot solve our structural problems. It has rather the opposite effect. If tight, it will tend in a recession to transfer resources into the public sector, which is thoroughly insensitive to economic conditions. Therefore, with a sensible monetary and fiscal policy, we have to have as well a policy for the public sector to reduce its size and get resources back into the private sector, otherwise nearly 66 per cent. of our activity which is in the public sector will remain relatively insensitive to turns of the economic cycle. If that happens, inflation will grow and grow.
Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer rose—
Mr. Nott: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I referred to him in my speech and I am just drawing to a close.
None of the principles which I have enunciated is new. Most of what I have said is broadly acceptable to Social Democrats. There is a common ground between us. It is no use deriding that term used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East. We owe a lot to him for having the guts to speak out and challenge some of the economic assumptions which many of us followed for too long.
However, the impression I gain is that although there is much common ground between us, a leader of the Labour Party
714
or a Chancellor in a Labour Government can hold one belief, express another and pretend a third. He continually has to con his hon. Friends—and they know it. The Chancellor will try to hide this by accusing the Opposition of hypocrisy and humbug, and by claiming that two years after he took office, in spite of what the Prime Minister said at the October General Election, it is all our fault. It is apparent to everyone why he does this. He cannot answer the questions asked by his hon. Friends because he is the biggest humbug of the
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled that I will not have that word applied to an individual. I do not mind it's being applied to an argument.
Mr. Nott: I apologise, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Victor Goodhew: I apologise for encouraging my hon. Friend to use the phrase, but I think that the House rather feels it.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member is fortunate in that I shall not be in the Chair for much longer.
Mr. Nott: I have one final principle, which is not for the House but for the Press. There are no gimmicks left to make the headlines. No magic and dramatic answers, no changes in the system, no juggling with personalities will save the British people from themselves. The move back to a prosperous society will be a long and painful business, and the going will be extremely hard, but the gravamen of our complaint against the Government is that they have not yet begun. If, as I suspect, the Chancellor is a prisoner of his party and his circumstances, the Conservative Party must do these things, for we are prepared to see through a long-term strategy for full employment and a free society. As things are going, I predict that it will not be long before we have the opportunity of doing so.
5.28 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: You have informed the House, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment standing in my name and the names of 112 other right hon. and hon. Members will not be called for a Division. With your permission, I intend to make the speech I would have made if the procedural position were

715
different, because it is appropriate and it is the only speech I have prepared. I am reinforced in this determination by the two speeches we have heard. I see no reason for introducing any changes in my prepared speech.
The basis of the amendment is that there is an underlying agreement on economic strategy between the two Front Benches, and that assumption has been confirmed by the opening speeches. We are undergoing a singular experience in that the official Opposition have put down an amendment to the Government's motion which attacks not the motion but my amendment. The two major pillars of the amendment which the motion attacks are the proposal for early measures of controlled reflation and the proposal for import controls.
The main purpose of the speech of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) was to praise my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for this underlying agreement and to tell the House how glad he and the Conservative Party are that the Chancellor is not moving away from his opposition to reflationary measures and import controls. The hon. Member for St. Ives, shortly before he concluded his speech, said that he attached great importance to the freedom to choose. Against a background of 1½million unemployed, that comment reminds me of the great French writer Anatole France who also coined the phrase "Freedom to choose". He pointed to the homeless in the City of Paris who could choose the kind of bench upon which they wished to sleep and the kind of park where they wished to sleep.
The freedom of choice which the hon. Member for St. Ives and the Conservative Party support was indicated in the poverty of the proposals he offered to deal with the problem of unemployment. During his speech he speedily moved away from any proposals for dealing with the problem of unemployment, in sharp contrast to the deep concern of Labour Back Benchers, the Labour movement both within and without this House, and the trade union movement. Those people have personal experience of unemployment and therefore will not make the type of Oxford Union speech which the hon. Gentleman made in the face of 1½ million unemployed. [Interruption.] The
716
laughter and the sneers are an indication of the frame of mind in which the Opposition approach this problem. I shall take no correction from hon. Gentlemen who shout. They are not in the least bit interested in reducing the level of unemployment.
Indeed, the charge of hypocrisy levelled against them by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor stands and is fully justified. They want to use it as a stick in the party battle against my right hon. Friend, but they have no proposals to put forward and they are not interested in the matter. Indeed, if one carefully reads the policy speeches made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen one realises that each one leads to the same conclusion—namely, further unemployment and no measures to reduce it. Let there be no doubt about it. No speech or political decision by a Labour Member can be in any way complete unless it starts from the point of analysis from which I have tried to start.
As the House knows, the origin of this debate is not the sins of the Opposition but a lobby of 12,000 unemployed people and their trade union representatives to this House. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) is nodding in agreement. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who met their constituents on the day in question will remember that it was a most interesting lobby. After we had met the lobbyists, some of us decided that we would give this matter the highest priority and ensure that the maximum amount of time was given to a debate on unemployment.
We must now face the issues which divide the policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Cabinet from the policy proposed in the amendment. That does not in any way preclude that there is a good deal of common ground. It does not in any way indicate any indifference to the sincere attempt made by the Government, especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, to produce alleviating measures. That is not the argument today.
It was my purpose in framing the amendment to bring to a head the points of disagreement. I admit that quite freely. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has often asked us in the past, what is the

717
House of Commons for if not for the serious discussion of political principles and policies? It is a place where people can honourably disagree. This is not a mutual admiration society. I shall concentrate on the disagreement.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor says, and obviously he is well advised by a number of people—some pre-Keynesian, some post-Keynesian and, I regret to say, very few obviously Keynesian—that it is not possible at present to engage in any significant measures of reflation. For my sins I am old enough to have listened to the great man Keynes himself when he lectured to the Marshall Society. However, I point out that I am not old enough to have been one of the original students. I remember that during his lectures to the Marshall Society he warned that if there were another deep, profound, international economic crisis in the system, the most terrifying and dangerous thing that could happen would be for the psychology of the business man to spread to the politicians. I am often reminded of that dictum. It is not my own dictum because I am not capable of coining such a phrase. I believe that that is what has happened to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
Let us consider the two neuroses which Keynes warned us about concerning the business man or the entrepreneur, as he always called him. The first neurosis is that when we are on the upswing, when trade is booming, everything is on the up and up, the sky is the limit, everything goes—secondary banks, property booms, loosely knit companies, enterprises galore, South Sea Bubbles—it does not matter which century one lives in—money flows. Such conditions feed upon the illusions which they create for each other.
When we get into the downturn and into the crisis, the second neurosis takes over. Everything is bad. Nothing will succeed. There is no profit at the end of the road. Wherever one goes there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Therefore, we get rid of everything and we do not invest. We hear that the banks are bulging with money and offering entrepreneurs money to invest. However, the entrepreneurs do not want to take it. Many people are saving but they do not want to invest their savings. They go to Harrods and buy two fur coats instead of one. I do not
718
know why a decent man wants to buy two fur coats—one should be enough—but that is what people do. I shall leave the question unanswered. Will people invest—not on your life. What is most dangerous is that a reflection of that is seen in the City.
Mr. Richard Lamb, a reputable journalist, is often heard on the five o'clock programme on a Saturday, "PM Report". When speaking directly to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor he said, "The City hopes that the Chancellor will hold fast and let unemployment rip". I know that many of my hon. Friends heard him say that. Many of us take an hour off on Saturday afternoon to hear what Mr. Lamb reports. We do not always have the same access as hon. Gentlemen do to all the City tycoons. We get our information from wherever we can because we are humble people.
It is remarkable that when unemployment figures go up so do share prices. We have experienced the same crazy, topsy-turvy situation before. The termination of the upswing cannot be left to the City. That is one of the lessons we must learn.
I do not share my right hon. Friend's confidence about the end of the crisis. We have heard many forecasts and some have been of mixed economic and political origin.
Some people have said that they cannot conceive that the Republican Party in the United States or the Social Democrat Party in Germany will go into an election year without manufacturing a boom. But we cannot bank on that. I have carefully followed—I am sure that my right hon. Friend has followed even more carefully—the pronouncements of Dr. Friderichs. My right hon. Friend will have many assistants to monitor these matters for him. So far as I can tell, Dr. Friderichs is not too optimistic. He has warned German industry and the trade unions of the need for caution and the fact that there is no certainty about an upturn in the United States. Many voices have said that there might be delay, that the boom might not happen at the end of this year but might be delayed until well into 1977.
In a recent television interview, the Chancellor had to face this question and

719
he gave an honest answer when he said that if it came to a hard choice he would have to face the problem and think again. This amendment—were I able to call a Division on it tonight—wants the Government to face the problem now—and precisely for the reason that the Chancellor himself gave, because of the period of gestation involved in doing something if things were to go wrong.
It is no argument to say that if the process started now it would take time to come to fruition. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) intervened effectively to say that my hon. Friend should have started a year ago and that if he did not start a year ago, he cannot use the same argument for not starting now. We are therefore very concerned and insistent that certain measures of controlled reflation should be started.
Mr. F. A. Burden Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham) rose—
Mr. Mendelson: I do not want to give way. There are some right hon. Gentlemen, men of great political past and experience, from whom we can all learn, who should give way. But it is not important that I should give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Burden: On this point.
Mr. Mendelson: Very well.
Mr. Burden: The hon. Member said that his right hon. Friend took no measures to reflate the economy. But in July 1974 he said that steps that he had taken then would decrease unemployment by between 20,000 and 40,000 and increase employment by between 100,000 and 150,000. Surely that was an attempt to reflate.
Mr. Mendelson: I deliberately did not want to go back to the hustings—
Mr. Burden: He said this in the House.
Mr. Mendelson: There is an answer to what the hon. Gentleman said. I gave it in my election address but I will not give it today. I want to return to what matters now—unemployment and how to deal with it. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will be much happier if we do that.
720
My first major example is the construction industry. It is a sign of the obscenity of the economic system under which we operate that there should be 175,000 unemployed construction workers while homeless people are walking the streets. It is quite wrong for a Labour Government not to say, "We must now risk the investment of large sums to put those construction workers to work". The one perfunctory sentence that my right hon. Friend devoted to the construction industry was totally inadequate.
We want to hear real plans. Several hundred million pounds should be spent on this matter right away. There need not be a long delay, nor should there be a large import bill. We have the building workers and the institutions. All that would be required is the import of timber from some Scandinavian countries. The oniy other thing that is needed is a Government decision.
The other industry that I want to mention is the television and tube industry, which has recently been discussed a good deal. Here I move to the second leg of the amendment, import controls. This reference was not put in wilfully. I am not unmindful of the danger of retaliation or the importance of free trade for a large trading country like Great Britain. Those who are concerned that it should remain a united Kingdom for the sake of its economic future must be particularly concerned for its trading position. It is all of one piece.
But the talk of retaliation has been exaggerated. After all, many countries are interested in the British market where 25 million people are gainfully employed. They will not cut Britain off without a penny and say that they are not interested in her. It is a scandal to talk about import controls only in such propagandistic terms.
My proposal is much more precise. In preparation for the debate, I have taken advice from some importers. I am told by some people who are not in principle in favour of general import controls that there is a proper place for them, particularly in the period to which the Chancellor referred today. They fear that, in the months before an expected upturn, the Chancellor's own policy would be gravely in danger if, just at that time, when people were beginning to earn more —particularly if he accepted some of my

721
proposals for earlier reflation—they could not find the things that they wanted to buy on the home market. Retooling would not have been carried out, so there would be a flood of imports. It would be just then that we should need a certain amount of protection.
If temporary protection is not allowed, then—I do not expect the Treasury and the Department of Trade to tell us how "temporary" it would be—we could not do anything about the imports problem. The flood would come in and no one would want to invest in the necessary retooling. Import controls then would bring an outcry.
It has been suggested in Whitehall and elsewhere that we are under a binding commitment to the EEC, that it would be ultra vires for us to impose certain import controls and that the Customs and Excise might feel that they were illegal. If that is so, the nation should be told and should be given the reasons. Such obstacles would not be insurmountable. They could be overcome by de novo legislation. This is a national crisis and temporary de novo legislation could overcome it.
There would be criticism of us, but other countries, like Italy and France, who are members of the EEC and who have imposed controls, have accepted such criticism. I am not asking for controls lasting until the end of the century. It would be for the Government to decide how temporary was temporary. That is what an Executive is for. Our amendment does not prescribe in detail. We do not want the House of Commons to assume the rôle of the Cabinet. This is a carefully-prepared and thought-through proposal which the Executive would have to put into effect.
Even an amendment which has not been called does not give the potential mover the right to speak all day and to prevent everybody else from taking part, so I must draw to a close. My right hon. and hon. Friends who have signed the amendment are convinced that the Government's policy is too timid to deal with this serious problem, the seriousness of which exercises us as much as any other member of the Labour Party, here or outside. There is nothing between us on this. No one here sets himself or herself up as being more concerned about
722
this problem than any one with responsibility in the Executive. But the Government are too timid.
We want to change or shift their policy. We want them to make a start in shifting or changing their policy. To indicate that we are serious about it, this will be done in different ways tonight by different groups of my hon. Friends. The best way would have been for the House of Commons to be able to support the amendment, but we want the Government to take warning—as they ought to have done already—from the the developing discussion.
I do not take kindly to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and sometimes the Prime Minister, telling us time and again that the last Labour Party conference and Trades Union Congress accepted the policy of the £6 limit. It is historically true that the two conferences and the movement accepted the £6 limit as a sound policy only on condition that there would be a policy of reducing unemployment at the same time, hand in hand with it. If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone to either conference or to both conferences and said, "Accept the £6 limit and higher unemployment", the conferences would not have accepted either policy from him.
This is not a matter of being right or wrong, because there was wisdom in the attitude of the movement—[Interruption.] Perhaps I may give myself an extension of two minutes, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]
As I was saying, the historic record is clear. The movement, being responsible for the people who are its members, knows that unemployment will always be regarded by the working people of this country as the gravest problem.
The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, who sat through the beginning of the debate, said haughtily at her first party conference—I want to put this on record before I conclude—that "This unemployment is not due to capitalism" She added, "I support the capitalist system", and nailed her colours to the mast. She did not talk about the ugly face of capitalism, as other Conservative leaders have sometimes done in the past. She said proudly and haughtily, "I support the capitalist system. This

723
is the unemployment of the Labour Government." That was nonsense. It is the unemployment of the capitalist system. It is not the Labour Government that is responsible for unemployment.
There are 25 million people unemployed today in various categories and countries. It is not only in the United Kingdom that there is unemployment. There are 8½ million unemployed in the United States of America, the strongest of all capitalist countries. There are 1,400,000 unemployed in West Germany.
That is the system. The right hon. Lady can have it. She will not get away with it. The Conservative Party do not deserve to get away with it. At the right time we shall remind the electorate of the Conservative Party's responsibility. But my right hon. Friends carry the responsibility for the country and for curing unemployment as best we can. It is to call them to their duty that the amendment is being moved and will be supported in the House and in the country today.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just seen a demonstration by young people who are obviously deeply concerned—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have not seen anything. It is the convention of the House not to refer to what happens in other parts of the House. We are concerned only with what happens on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Whether we saw it or not according to the rules of the House, I actually saw some young people throwing something on to the Floor of the House, and something hit my hon. Friend.
I have in the past come into the House from outside when there have been demonstrations, and I have asked that the people who have been demonstrating —when they have been involved in conflict—should be treated leniently because of their deep feelings. I am asking that the Officers of the House should recognise the deep feelings of these young people about unemployment—wrong as they no doubt are in their demonstration—and treat them with leniency. People have the right to tell
724
us how they feel about unemployment—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is for me to decide, and I have not yet decided to take any disciplinary action against anybody.
5.56 p.m.
Mr. Peter Walker: We have listened to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) with some interest and I should like later to comment on some of his proposals, particularly on those concerning the construction industry.
Regional policy was not mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer but I hope it will be mentioned by the Secretary of State for Employment when he winds up the debate tonight. The people of the Midlands will be very depressed that in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech there was no suggestion that there are any specific problems in the Midlands or in other regions.
There is a tendency at the present time, with rising unemployment in the North-East, the North-West, Scotland and Wales, for some hon. Members on both sides of the House to suggest that regional policy has been a failure. I believe that regional policy has contributed considerably towards reducing unemployment, which would otherwise be far higher in the regions.
Although I very much agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) about the importance of increasing mobility, retraining and housing facilities,, it would be a disaster if the House ever pursued a policy of encouraging people to move to more buoyant regions, leaving behind them immensely distressed communities of old people and completely misusing the very substantial social capital that exists in the regions.
Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stour-bridge): I understand my right hon. Friend's point of view. He will know—as I do only too well—that one of the most successful movements of population was from Wales to the West Midlands in the 1930s. The people involved were very grateful, and the move greatly contributed to our prosperity.
Mr. Walker: I also recognise the immense hardship suffered by the people of Wales at the time when they had to move in order to find work in that way. But I much prefer to see industrial development taking place in Wales, so that communities can flourish there, rather than that type of movement.
As one who, as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and also as Secretary of State for the Environment, pursued many positive regional policies, I believe that it is time the Government reviewed the situation in the West Midlands. There has been a trebling of unemployment there during the last two years. We have had the biggest increase in unemployment and the biggest decrease in job vacancies.
It must be wrong to continue pursuing industrial development certificate policies and policies of financial discrimination when, for a number of reasons, the West Midlands has become a depressed region and one of high unemployment. With the Chrysler closures and other events which are likely to take place there, the situation is deteriorating. I hope that the atmosphere on both sides during the debate will be to wish to do everything positive that we can to reduce unemployment.
One might sometimes feel that a cycle of unemployment is necessary in order to get things right, but one must not underestimate the permanent damage caused by unemployment. It is a permanent damage that affects people's attitudes to work. The worst restrictive practices existing in the trade union movement today are much more related to the high unemployment between the wars than to any other possible circumstance.
In view of the present rise in unemployment, we must recognise the nature of some of the grave social problems that it is creating and will create. Mention has been made of school leavers. A young person leaving school and finding it impossible to obtain work has a frustrating and shattering experience.
I regret that the Centre for Policy Studies is seeking to remove from the unemployment figures people between the ages of 60 and 65. Some of the greatest distress and hardship is felt by that group of people. Their family responsibilities have probably passed and they feel that
726
they can save for retirement, only to find that this is a period of considerable financial strain and stress.
One problem which the House has grossly underestimated, and will continue to do so at its peril, is the current incredibly high unemployment rate among young West Indians, which has increased from 3,600 to 14,000 in the last two years. That is only part of the story.
Some people say that the unemployment figures are lower than the published statistics. The 1971 census shows that unemployment among young West Indians is not higher but considerably lower. That is because about half of them do not register for unemployment. Therefore, the figure is probably about 21,000. In the Midlands there are 4,000 unemployed West Indians centred on Birmingham. In London the figure has gone up from 2,000 to 8,000, as recorded, but in reality it is probably 12,000.
That means a massive increase in crimes of every nature. It is no use this House eventually blaming the immigration policy of successive Governments for the increase in mugging and other crimes associated with young West Indians if we pursue economic policies which make it impossible for them to get work. I hope that the Government will concentrate some specific policies on that area. They have the urban aid programme and a multitude of agencies, but they have failed dramatically to make any impact on that problem.
I turn now to the national position. We should recognise that there is no national interest in having substantial public sector payments for 1½ million people to produce nothing. That is an inflationary policy. Those who rightly comment on the size of the public borrowing requirement deficit should also recognise that unemployment payments, social security payments and rent and rate rebates without any production on the other side are not particularly good for the public sector borrowing requirement.
I shall analyse the reason for the increase. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives rightly dismissed the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer argued that he had inherited this situation and that it had gone on from there. That would have been plausible if we

727
had only one General Election and not two General Elections in 1974. The Government fought the last election on the basis of the notorious 8·4 per cent. rate of inflation and the Prime Minister saying that unemployment had declined. The Government cannot, after winning an election on that bandwagon, claim that the previous Government were responsible for what happened thereafter.
What is the real difference which has taken place? It was not mentioned by the Chancellor, it was not mentioned by the hon. Member for Penistone and—this is no criticism—it was not particularly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives. The real difference in the last two years is the colossal gap which has opened up between the increase in earnings and the decrease in production. We ignore that gap at our peril. That gap has contributed more than anything else to both unemployment and inflation.
I want the House to reflect on the figures. In the calendar years 1972 and 1973—the last two years of the Conservative Government—manufacturing production went up by 13·4 per cent. and earnings went up by 29·1 per cent. There was a gap between earnings and manufacturing production of 15·7 per cent. That in itself was inflationary and would perhaps eventually contribute to some degree of unemployment. But a gap was unavoidable in that period. According to the Financial Times commodity price index, during those two years commodity prices world-wide very nearly trebled. It was impossible for any democratically-elected Government to pass on the whole weight of that burden at once to the people. It would have been an intolerable burden to bear. Therefore, we had earnings going ahead of production by 15·7 per cent.
Consider what has happened in the two years of the present Government, taking the period from when they came in to the latest available figures. Manufacturing production has gone down by 8·6 per cent. and earnings have gone up by 50 per cent. We cannot have a gap of 58·6 per cent. between earnings and production and not expect inflation and unemployment on the scale that we are suffering today. That is why the Secretary
728
of State for Employment reluctantly went over to an incomes policy and why the Chancellor has decided that his greatest asset is the success of an incomes policy.
I remind the House that in the whole of the five days of the Budget debate last year only two voices—one on the Government side and myself on this side of the House—advocated the necessity for an incomes policy. I am not sure what the total is now. I do not know whether anyone is against such a policy. Certainly nobody would doubt that the continuation of the free-for-all would have been disastrous. I should like a situation in which there was no necessity for an incomes policy because I know as well as anybody the difficulties and absurdities which are created.
We have not had this desire for a 50 per cent. increase in earnings with falling production because the unions were hostile to the Government. Indeed, they are friends of the Government. Nor has it been because the unions have negotiated with employers and found that it was reasonable to have such an increase. The monetary argument that if they are short of money they do not give wage increases, and that if there is control over that aspect it is all right is not true. In fact, if they are short of money they give way on wage demands quicker than if they have plenty of money because they cannot afford a breakdown in production and cash flow. The Government sat back during that period until the election. After the election they could not stop it, so the situation drifted on. Now we have this gap of 58·6 per cent. between earnings and production. That is the major cause of our problems.
My hon. Friends constantly kept on about the public sector borrowing requirement. It has gone up from £4 billion when we were in office to £12 billion this year. The free-for-all in wage increases added £6.6 billion to public sector wages and salaries. Most of the increase is accounted for by the massive increase in public sector wages and salaries in that period.
Therefore, if we on our side are concerned, as we should be, about the size of the public sector borrowing requirement, we must also be concerned about what has been proved correct in the last

729
two years—and, indeed, when we were in office—that, as long as the unions negotiate on the basis not of considering what the employer or local authority can afford but of competition of one union against another, one saying "They have got 20 per cent. so we must get 22 per cent", there is a basic necessity for an incomes policy.
The hon. Member for Penistone pleaded for consideration to be given to the construction industry. He underestimated the figures. The latest unemployment figure for the construction industry is 211,000. The traditional argument on both sides of the House is that one must not reflate and do anything about it now. I would do something about it and act now in relation to the construction industry.
What would be the cost? When I was Secretary of State for the Environment—and now, seemingly, criticised by the present Chancellor for doing so—I reflated for the construction industry. I started an enormous campaign of housing improvement, for putting in bathrooms and so on. The cost was £450,000 a year. It has come down under the present Government to £168,000 a year. One can do that type of reflation on a short time scale, and one can phase it out at the end of the time scale and say "If you do it in the next 18 months you will get the grant. If you do not, it ends there"
If the Government decided to reflate in that sphere to, say, £450,000 a year, as we achieved only two years ago, and if they decided to bring back Operation Eyesore, which I introduced, and the house improvement campaign, it would probably cost £300 million and an additional £70 million for Operation Eyesore, making a total of £370 million. I would guess that it would reduce unemployment in the construction industry by 70,000 people.
However, the net cost would not be £370 million. One would save 70,000 unemployment payments, social security payments and rent rebates and rate rebates, and one would draw tax on all those people's income and probably some corporation tax from the firms by which they were employed. Therefore, the net cost of reflating is relatively small. It is tiny when compared with the £6,600 mil
730
lion public sector wage increases during the recent period.
The next phase of incomes policy is the key to all this. The Prime Minister has now come out with the phrase "A fair day's work for a fair day's pay". The difficulty that the present Government are in is that they have given the fair day's pay before they have got the work. Now they should be asking the country to do the work for the enormous pay increases that have been awarded—and that is a very uncomfortable thing to do. I would certainly support the Government in a tough incomes policy. I would bring about tax reductions, particularly increasing the threshold, to help the lower-paid sector, and I believe that general reductions in taxation are much more related to productivity or production than any flat-rate increase or incomes policy.
Let us try to persuade the country as to its position. Listening to the Chancellor's speech today one can appreciate that there is a tendency to feel that it is all beginning to go rather nicely, all moving along, that next year there will be great demands and that world trade is picking up and we are doing rather better than most. However, let the Chancellor remember that we still have thousands of unemployed to come from the steel industry, and still 20,000 unemployed to come from the Post Office. Chrysler unemployment is still to come. The shipbuilding industry has its worst order book for years. The building industry is getting its worst order book for years. Then there are firms in the aerospace industry, Britsh Rail, Post Office equipment manufacturers and the machine tool industry, probably quite a few will be going out of business. If we look at the geographical pattern of these closures, we shall find some ghastly, awful social problems involved with them.
The Chancellor said that the balance of payments was improving. He said that we were doing jolly well and had halved the deficit last year. But we must look at it relative to what has really happened. If it did not fall in a period in which commodity prices fell by nearly one-third and in a period when British industry was destocking as never before, that would indeed be a very remarkable circumstance. But what was the position? Our deficit last year was $3·8 billion. Germany had a $4 billion surplus and the United

731
States had a $10 billion surplus. In 1974 France and Italy had almost the same adverse balance as we had, or slightly less. Now France is in balance and Italy has reduced its deficit to half of ours.
We should not underestimate the colossal danger to the British economy when we restock, after all the other countries, when commodity prices have increased. If we have a $3·8 billion deficit when we have destocked, what will be our position when restocking with far higher commodity prices?
The Chancellor talked about the position that he inherited in relation to exports. He failed to say that he inherited the biggest export orders in history. Exports continued to rise until August 1974 and then reached a peak. If we had continued at that level, without increasing it further—which we could have done without the massive wage inflation which took place—we would have had £1,000 million-worth more in export orders last year than we did.
The Chancellor said that inflation rates are improving, and that in the last few months they have come down to between 14 per cent. and 15 per cent. He mentioned the success that we are having. However, we should look at the position of our industrial competitors. In the last three months—the period in which we have been boasting of the figures—our rate of inflation has been half as much again as that of Japan, Italy, and France, double that of America and treble that of Germany.
I believe that the basic weakness of the British economy, not merely over the last two years in which I think that this disastrous wage inflation has done immense and permanent damage, can be illustrated quite simply.
I hope that the House will reflect upon two simple facts which are terrifying in themselves. When I first became a Member of the House, in 1960, we were beginning to negotiate Britain's entry into the Common Market. I was one of its leading opponents. At the time when we first negotiated to go into the Common Market, had we then gone into the Community Britain would have contributed 27·9 per cent. of the GNP of the then Community. Fifteen years later, taking the same Community countries
732
and leaving aside the new member countries which joined, apart from ourselves, the figure is not 27·9 per cent. but 16·5 per cent. of Community GNP. In 1960 the exchange rate was 11 deutschemarks to the pound. Now it is less than six. Relative to our major industrial competitors in Europe, there has been, in 15 years of British government—eight years Labour and seven years Tory—this relative decline of this country.
I believe that it will be a very tough and hard road. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives when he warned that to recover from this position means, first, that the British people must understand the factors of what is our situation. We would then have the toughness to beat it. We must make progress as never before in areas such as employee participation. I remind those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are nervous of this by statute or any other means that I know that a delegation of Labour Members from the trade union group recently went to Germany to study these matters there, and there is much to be learned from the greater participation in that country. We need a new climate of industrial relations.
We must, alas, have a period of a tougher incomes policy. We have to attract inward investment, because there is no way in which the British economy in its present position can generate sufficient capital to create a basis upon which we can genuinely compete. That will mean many different policies to attract that inward investment and to make progress. Only when we do that with a sense of reality will the real recovery commence.
6.18 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Jay: I will say for the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) that he has been talking about subjects which ought to be before the House today. It is a rare pleasure for me to be able to agree with the right hon. Gentleman about almost anything, but I agree most warmly with what he said about the importance of regional policy and the great contribution which it has made in recent years to unemployment in the areas concerned. Indeed, there is nothing which would make unemployment worse in Wales and Scotland in particular than to sever the

733
economic and industrial link between those countries and the United Kingdom as a whole.
I also agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about incomes policy, but it was his Government who, in 1971, abolished the then Pay Board. That, I believe, was one of the tragic mistakes made in recent years.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said today about the temporary and rather minor measures that he is adopting to keep unemployment down. I must say that I could wish that some of them had been more vigorous and more effective than what we actually heard—
Mr. Mikardo: And earlier.
Mr. Jay: I believe that, whatever else the Chancellor of the Exchequer does, he must take steps in his coming Budget to raise the tax threshold on the lower earned incomes, because the present position is untenable.
Nevertheless, this is a sad occasion for many of us, including some like myself who have been advocating full employment policies ever since 1931 and in my case who also had a hand in the drafting of the employment policy White Paper in 1944. Although I agree with the right hon. Member for Worcester that the permanent effects of unemployment must always be kept in mind, I am now reluctantly forced by the hard facts of the case to the conclusion that, at any rate, the basic policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right, that he should not substantially relax or reflate until at least two main conditions are satisfied: first, that a continuing incomes policy to operate after next August is devised and agreed with those concerned; and, secondly, that the annual rate of rise in the Retail Price Index is at least brought down to single figures. If my right hon. Friend does that, I believe that by 1977 prices will be held in check, unemployment and the payments deficit will be falling, and production and real incomes will be rising again. On the other hand, if he lets go altogether now, I believe that we shall be back some time in 1977 with accelerating inflation, a widening deficit and a sense of crisis once again.
Those who ask for immediate sweeping reflation now—and I know how strongly they feel about it—are genuinely
734
ignoring some of the basic facts about the modern industrial economy—not just ours but those with which we are surrounded. Putting it, as one must, briefly and summarily, I believe that the basic fact is that, if unrestrained collective bargaining persistenly pushes up pay rates in money terms faster than the rise in production, one of only two things is bound to happen: either the Government allow the money supply to increase fast enough to finance that higher pay for the whole of the employed population, in which case prices must rise; or else, if, as some advocate, the Government refuse to let the money supply increase, unemployment must rise correspondingly.
That is just a statement of arithmetical fact. But in the last few years I believe that we have learned something more than that. It is that if, in the next pay round, the attempt is made to recoup the loss in real earnings due to previous rises in prices, the rate of inflation must tend to accelerate almost continuously, and then, of course, the attempt to escape from it will be more prolonged and more painful than if we had acted earlier.
My reason for decisively rejecting the alternative of indiscriminate reflation now is that I believe that when the rise in prices had reached 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. a year, the public simply would not stand for it continuing,and the hangover, when it was stopped, would be even more painful than we are experiencing now.
Those who demand wholesale reflation are failing to grasp this basic dilemma—
Mr. Mikardo: We do not demand wholesale reflation.
Mr. Jay: I hope that no one thinks—
Mr. Mendelson: The amendment refers to "controlled" reflation.
Mr. Jay: The process that I have described is roughly what occurred in this country and in industrial countries throughout the world in 1973–74, but it occurred particularly acutely in this country.
Mr. Flannery: On two occasions now my right hon. Friend has referred to "sweeping" or "wholesale" reflation. In the amendment which has not been selected and which in my opinion is the only relevant one, nowhere do we see

735
any other expression than "controlled" reflation. Therefore, it is in those terms that we should be debating this matter.
Mr. Jay: I was not referring to any specific amendment. If we are all agreed about what I am saying, I am only too happy that that should be so. I am arguing that any reflation beyond a moderate extent at the moment would cause greater difficulty in the future.
If that is true, the responsibility for today's unemployment cannot be laid at the door of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that it can be laid in two other directions: first, those who prompted or at any rate allowed the grotesque credit inflation that we had in the period 1972–73. I do not know whether hon. Members realise, even now, that from the end of 1971 the money supply in the United Kingdom was actually doubled in three years. Certainly none of us ever advocated that. That extraordinary increase had little or nothing to do with the public sector borrowing requirement in those years. It consisted very largely of private advances stimulated by the misconceived policy of what was called "Competition and Credit Control" and the indiscriminate tax relief for overdrafts interest.
Secondly, if we look at it dispassionately—and I am being quite impartial between the parties—the responsibility also rests on those who in 1974 took advantage of that credit inflation to demand all the way up the scale to doctors and highly-paid public servants, extravagant and absurd pay increases of 25 per cent. and 30 per cent.—far beyond any increase in productivity which would have been possible.
Those two factors together made the price explosion of 1975 inevitable. Therefore, it is not true, as even the Chancellor of the Exchequer said today, that inflation causes unemployment. It does not. The truth is that inflation on that scale forces any Government into an absolute dilemma in which they must either let the price rise continue and accelerate or check it and face unemployment. Having got to that point, there is no way out of the dilemma and, the longer they wait, the more prolonged will be the unemployment before
736
it is safe to take off the brakes. That is where the Government found themselves last summer.
Not being wise after the event, if I have any criticism to make of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it is that in my view he should have acted sooner than he did last July. But Governments never act with ideal timing, and they have to have the agreement of most of the people concerned.
Thus, it is now fairly well established by the experience of the past 30 years that the only way of combining genuinely full employment with reasonably stable prices is by a continuing and agreed but flexible incomes policy. Incidentally, I have little doubt that if Keynes were alive today, that is what he would argue. If hon. Members care to look at the employment policy White Paper of 1944, they will see that that was stated as long ago as then and that what we have learned now is the truth of it rather than it being a wholly new idea.
But the practical crux is what sort of incomes policy we should have after next August. If we are to operate a continuing and workable policy, it will not he practicable beyond these 12 months if it is to be based on a fixed rate for everyone of £X a week. I say that for two reasons with which I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will agree. The first is that we cannot suppress and distort the differentials between the skilled and the unskilled and all the other differentials very much longer without producing a violent reaction. The second and more important reason is that, if we are to have full employment in a mixed economy, the ratio of pay rates in different occupations —the "relativities", as they are called—must be allowed to change; otherwise we shall get intensifying shortages in one industry and overmanning in another.
If the price of oil is quadrupled, the wages of coal miners have to rise. To neglect that fundamental fact seems to me to be precisely the mistake that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made which cost him and his Government so much.
Frankly, I do not see how we can achieve a workable incomes policy of this kind in future without some national pay tribunal of the last resort something

737
similar to that which operated from 1966 to 1971. As long as we have a series of so-called review bodies competing with one another as they did in 1974–75 we shall get this spiral. They will generate a scramble and give to it the polite name of "comparability". Although any incomes policy after next August would certainly be better than none, I believe that any successful policy must be agreed with industry. I urge the Chancellor, if he can, to work towards some sort of last resort pay tribunal or pay board to operate as soon as possible.
There is one other reason for trying to secure agreement on such a firm incomes policy before next August. if the underlying forces now at work are similar to those I have described, we can begin to understand, among other things, why it was that the intense world boom of 1928–29 was followed by the most intense depression ever known and then by a weak and slow international recovery I see certain signs that the world recovery over 1976–77 will probably also be weak and slow. That is a clear warning that we certainly cannot afford to let things get out of hand. For those reasons, and with the minor criticisms I have made, I believe that we should support the Chancellor.
6.32 p.m.
Sir William Elliott (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): I want to comment on a number of points made by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). He and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) have enormous experience of development areas. It is to the development area of the Northern Region that I wish principally to refer once again. I say "once again" advisedly, because during the time that I have been a Member of this House I do not know how many debates I have taken part in dealing with unemployment. Certainly unemployment has been the subject on which I have spoken most. I have thought most about it and tried to make some contribution to the solution of this problem more than I have tried to do anything else.
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North about the success of regional policies in the past. Certainly in the Northern
738
Region we would not be in the comparatively reasonable position that we are in today but for the policies introduced by both Governments during the past two decades.
In making this contribution—one of a long line for me—I wish to suggest that for the Northern Region and for development areas generally there is now a new dimension to the problem of unemployment For years it has been the old industrial areas like mine which have suffered from massive unemployment because of the decline in traditional industries—in the case of the North-East of England, the decline of the coalmining and shipbuilding industries.
What is the position today? Falling employment is no longer confined to the development areas. It is the traditional areas of high employment which now know this problem. I note from a map produced in the Financial Times last week that in the Northern Region the January rate of unemployment was 6·6 per cent.—very much higher than it was a year ago—but that in the West Midlands the unemployment rate was 5·4 per cent. Quite often in these debates I have referred to the West Midlands as an area of high employment and tried to assist Ministers of both Governments to persuade industry to come to my region from that area.
Even in the prosperous South-East the unemployment rate is 3·7 per cent. Such regions as mine can therefore no longer expect the spin-off employment which we have been getting over the years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester is right to suggest that we need a new approach and that development certificates and such things must be considered as things of the past. With or without the high employment areas and the underemployed areas, the problem is still the same as it has always been. If central economic policy as put forward by the Government is not working correctly, there is little hope for any reasonable level of employment in such areas as mine. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, who during their periods of high office operated regional policies which to some degree have worked. These now must be rethought.

739
I was interested in my hon. Friend's suggestion about reintroducing Operation Eyesore. I have before me an appeal I made, together with other hon. Members, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment asking that Operation Eyesore should be continued. I quote from his answer to me when he said:
"But circumstances have changed and, with employment rising fast and growing pressure on resources, I have concluded that a general extension cannot be justified."
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester that something in the nature of Operation Eyesore would be of the greatest possible assistance to the building industry in the Northern Region at the moment when 38 unemployed skilled operatives in the building industry are chasing each vacancy. It, as the Secretary of the Building Employers' Federation said a while ago, is a position of extreme crisis.
What we have to do in such debates as this is to try to find the common ground. I shall resist travelling up those paths which some hon. Members have travelled today in trying to determine where responsibility lies. I am clear about that. It dates back to 1974, the two elections and the wages free-for-all. I have no doubt on that score. On this occasion I shall leave it at that. I agree with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North that we shall need a continuation of some form of prices and incomes policy. It was the greatest possible tragedy that the earlier policy was abandoned.
In seeking the common ground we must be wholly honest about the position. In this respect I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowes-toft (Mr. Prior) on what he said on television recently. We have to be honest about the fact that there will be a continuing high level of unemployment for some time yet. We must get our heads out of the sand. We know that the Chancellor has to bat for his side and justify his policies, but he was over-optimistic today. His theme was that it has been terrible but it will be all right. I think that it will be a long, hard pull. There is no quick or easy answer if we are to
740
attain a reasonable level of employment in development areas such as mine.
We have to be honest about overmanning in industry. I find it distressing from time to time to talk to employers in my region who make it clear that there is overmanning in industry. Unless we face the problem of overmanning and over-realistic rates of pay in industry, we could face an inflation rate of more than 20 per cent. and 2 million unemployed.
With his considerable experience in office and since, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester was right to emphasise that there has been a disastrous gap between increased pay and decreased production. We have somehow to correct that gap. There is no easy or short-term answer, but we must face the fact that we cannot have over-realistic rates of pay alongside poor production. We must relate increased pay to increased production. All parties in the House must face this hard and inescapable fact before it is too late. It is the enormous challenge of our time. Debates such as this are of no use whatever—we have had them in the past—unless the message goes out to the country that there is no bottomless pit of wealth on which to draw. The propping up of inefficient industries with taxpayers' money can only be a short-term palliative. It is not the answer.
Secondly, we must deal with the problem of the continuing shortage of skilled labour. Are we doing enough about that? In my region I do not think that we are. The appeal for action on this matter has been constant when both parties have been in office. In the Northern Region we are still deplorably and dangerously short of skill.
A few days ago I asked a Question about skillcentres in the Northern Region The number of places now available is more than it used to be. This is good. But when I asked about the intentions for providing additional places in the Northern Region I was told:
"A new skilicentre is due to open at Bradford by the end of 1976 with 120 training places which will eventually increase to 170." —[Official Report, 26th January 1976; Vol. 904, c. 80.]
All I can say is that Bradford is quite a long way from Newcastle, and in the area of the Tyne and the Wear there are

741
many unskilled people. It is time for a new look at training, and in this respect the Chancellor's speech was encouraging, although other parts were certainly not.
Mr. Burden: The question of retraining is of interest to every hon. Member. Training centres are required to be custom-built. Therefore, it is essential that a programme for building them should be organised immediately if they are to operate soon and be effective.
Sir W. Elliott: I agree with that. We have been crying out for additional training for a long time and something has been done. When the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) had responsibility for these matters, I asked her whether we knew enough about the skill requirements of new industry in the Northern Region. I still do not think that we know enough today.
I was distressed to see in our regional newspaper that unemployment in my area is at its highest level since 1940. It has risen by 13,000 in one month to 103,000, and yet in that same newspaper one of the North's leading firms, Clark Chapman, was advertising for skilled personnel. We have not got enough skilled personnel. Therefore, we need to do a lot more about training. I hope that the Government will take account of such areas as mine in their new measures. There is only one answer to the present level of employment in the longer term: work must pay. It has not paid enough in the last two years. We must encourage small and medium-sized businesses. One of my hon. Friends is initiating a debate in the House on this subject, as I initiated one a year ago. I appealed then, and I appeal now, for a raising of the taxation threshold for small businesses especially and for the easing of the taxation burden for small and medium-sized businesses. We must have more investment. In my area this is vital. For too long we have thought in the short term in such debates. It is no good talking about advance factories and bringing more and more of them to the regions. In the North-East advance factories could become monuments to good intentions of both Governments unless we think in the long term. We must think of the sort of future production we want in development areas. We must think not of this year or next year but in the long term.
742
We must recognise that investment is not just a matter of taxation but is a matter of the general policy of the current Government.
I was distressed to read in the Financial Times of falling American investment. This is attributed to world recession to some degree. The Financial Times states that American business has had to look hard at loss leaders and has had to cut back. But falling American investment is attributed also to steadily increasing burdens placed on management. It becomes more and more difficult to employ people. It is right to refer to management's increasing burdens. There is less and less encouragement because of protective legislation to employ workers. It is only common sense to realise that there are places in the world such as the United States and Brazil that do not have national interference with employment.
I end yet another speech in the House on the subject of employment, as always, with just a note of optimism. I believe that a solution can be found, but the hour is late for my own region, which has the highest unemployment since 1940. Action is needed quickly.
6.49 p.m.
Mr. Brian Walden (Birmingham, Lady-wood): An American friend of mine said recently that he thought Britain was a bewildered nation with an uncertain future. I did not dissent very strongly but I added that I believed that the whole industrialised West was a bewildered area with an uncertain future. I confess fully to my share of bewilderment and uncertainty.
Perhaps that accounts for the fact that I have managed to agree with quite a bit of every speech that has been made in this debate. To my astonishment, and no doubt to his, I managed to agree with a huge chunk of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). When he explained what he meant by a controlled reflation I began to realise that he was not arguing for a general and sweeping reflation. I then realised that there was almost nothing between us.
I think that my hon. Friend must accept the logic of my decision to vote for the Government when I say that I do not think that the Government, since they

743
changed their strategy in 1975, have made any substantial errors, except, perhaps, being somewhat tardy and unimaginative. If my hon. Friend thinks that we are as close as I believe us to be he may take the same course of action when the Division takes place. Perhap I might give him some cause to think about that when I refer to the speech of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) that was made from the Opposition Front Bench.
Although it is very seldom that I agree with the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), I think it would be unjust—I know that that is not the intention of my hon. Friends, from the reception that they gave to the right hon. Gentleman—if acknowledgement were not paid to the right hon. Gentleman's remarkable speech. I am far from agreeing with some of the policies that his Government pursued, especially their monetary policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was on a sound point when he referred to that policy. None the less, the right hon. Gentleman's speech was informed by the kind of understanding of the social and economic damage that is caused by widespread unemployment. He showed an understanding that one would like to feel is shared by all hon. Members and that it could be taken as read that there was no need to discuss it further. Perhaps all hon. Members do feel like that. I am prepared to believe that that is the position, but I am less sure that every commentator in the Press and in the media shares that feeling. Sometimes their view of unemployment seems not only callous in human terms but socially, economically and politically irresponsible.
No man in his right mind can want as a preference the waste of human resources. There is some strange psychological argument that we shall somehow give encouragement to those who are employed when there is heavy unemployment, but all that it has done in the past is to encourage all those in employment to be much more afraid and unadventurous than they otherwise would have been. I hope that the speech of the right hon. Member for Worcester will be studied as carefully by some commentators outside the House as I am sure it will be studied by those who
744
did not have the privilege of hearing it. It was a very fine speech.
I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for St. Ives so that I can swing on to what I regard as the main issue of the debate—namely, unemployment. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber, but as he is a friend I know that he will not mind my saying that he had relatively little to say about the measures that his party would take in the short term to reduce unemployment—for reasons which do not altogether surprise me. He is an honest man and he was not prepared to say from the Opposition Dispatch Box that there was an element in the official policy of his party that would reduce short-term unemployment. He must be almost convinced in his own mind—he might in private confess that this is so—that if some of the policies of his party were carried out we would see a sharp increase in short-term unemployment. I give the hon. Gentleman credit for not trying to pretend otherwise.
I took the hon. Gentleman's main point of view to be rather like that of the yokel who was asked the way to Birmingham. The hon. Gentleman was saying that we should not start from here anyway. It seems that he takes the view that it is all the fault of the Labour Party for having created short-term unemployment, and that he is not called upon to judge the present situation. That may be a very good view in paradise where time does not matter, but it is not of much use to the country at the moment.
I remember the hon. Gentleman when he was a Treasury Minister, when I sat on the then Opposition Front Bench as a Shadow Treasury spokesman. I used to ask the hon. Gentleman about the money supply, about which I felt rather worried. I shall not discuss the arguments that used to take place between the Shadow Treasury team about the money supply. Suffice it to say that there were differing views. I was always allowed to do much as I liked, and I used to ask the hon. Gentleman and others about the money supply. I was told that there was nothing to worry about, that the situation was being carefully regulated and well looked after. I was told that one should not take too much notice of the various indices. If I could

745
demonstrate that an index was rising alarmingly I was told that it was not one that mattered anyway. The argument was switched depending which index was going through the ceiling.
However, I must say to the hon. Member for St. Ives—I wish that he were present but I know that he will read my comments—that he presided at the death bed of one orthodoxy, and that he should not go too far overboard for another—namely, monetarism. That is an orthdoxy which is at least as fragile in its economic theory as anything that a misunderstood Keynesianism ever was.
I do not wish to go into the argument of the monetarist issue as I do not want to get involved in all the technicalities. We want to talk about unemployment and I know that other hon. Members want to speak. However, monetarism is the most important of all policies in this context. It is politically and socially impossible to impose it in this country over any period so long as we choose to preserve a democratic Government.
It is easy enough to pursue the policy of monetarism if it is decided that there will be 3 million unemployed. With that sort of unemployment it might be possible to break labour monopoly bargaining power. It might be possible to get a free market price for labour which would force down real wages. If one were irresponsible enough to want to do so, it would be possible also to make massive, instantaneous cuts in public expenditure which would add to unemployment. But if that were done, do the supporters of monetarism believe that this country would be governable? Do they think that there is any substantial section of the community that would be prepared to tolerate a remedy that savage?
Mr. Lawson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what on earth 3 million unemployed has to do with monetarism and what he understands by that term, which he uses very loosely?
Mr. Walden: Then I am in very good company. The hon. Gentleman knows very well how difficult it is to secure a monetarist who will supply a precise definition of what he wants. I am assuming that what is wanted is what is generally arguedt in the speeches of, for instance, the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr.
746
Biffen), the hon. Member for St. Ives and, if I may dare to make reference to a person who is no longer a member of the Conservative Party, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I assume that they represent the pyramid of political monetarism. I believe that the application of their policies would mean a dismantling of welfare and would produce for a time an unemployment figure of at least 3 million. I think that at least one of those three would be prepared to pay that price.
Mr. R. B. Cant: As a monetarist I ask my hon. Friend whether he is not speaking a great deal of nonsense. Does he accept that the great difficulty that he has described arises because some people feel that we can have enormous monetary acceleration? What we are now experiencing is not the dethronement of monetarism but difficulty in applying the brakes to the car. Will my hon. Friend put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that the case for those who say that we should have a little reflation in the economy can be derived most substantially from monetarism, which shows that during the last four months the growth of the money supply has been negative in real terms?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): There is still a large number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. I strongly deprecate interventions that are tantamount to speeches.
Mr. Walden: I take note of that comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to meet the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Mr. Cant). I want to be clear and wish to deceive nobody. I did not say that monetarism was economic nonsense. I said that it did not matter whether it was or was not because it was of no practical use to the Government whatever. It could never be applied as a policy in a democracy. There is a measure of wisdom in what my hon. Friend said.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone that the House of Commons has a responsibility to discuss these issues seriously, taking full note of the gravity involved and not to search for scapegoats. No one class or group or political party has brought us to our

747
present position. There are important factors relating to the whole theory of politics, government and economics that have brought us to the present situation. These matters should be taken seriously, and I am attempting to do so.
For a long time what has happened is that the industrial economies of the West have, by misunderstanding the process of Keynesian techniques, used demand management to regulate the level of unemployment and the rate of inflation. We now know that demand management—which is shorthand for Government control over spending—was all based on a fallacy. It looked as though it was working because we took too short a run of time. In the long term it does not work. Demand management, as we have traditionally applied it in the West, means that we can affect the price level but cannot guarantee stability. Demand management does not give stability.
There is no way that we can regulate the rate of inflation or of employment with the now discredited Phillips Curve. It is over and gone, and we might as well accept the reality. It does not mean that the work of Lord Keynes is not valuable. Nothing could be less true. But that is not the point. The point is that that kind of fine tuning is now obsolete and will not work. The god has failed, because it is a false god. Having failed, it does not matter how exotic or choice are the sacrifices offered to it. It will not perform miracles anyway. That is where the misunderstandings arise among many people. I am talking not of the ordinary citizen but of the whole army of offshoots of the Phillips Curve who are used to seeing rituals performed. That is not the way in which to find a solution, and we shall not be able to patch the thing up in that way. It is over and done with.
We must examine the situation as we now find it and see whether there is anything in the theory we have inherited initially, and in recent experience or practice, to help us in the future. That is what matters. It is not only a matter of regretting unemployment now but of examining how we shall get over this situation in the short as well as in the long term.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North and the
748
right hon. Member for Worcester that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is being somewhat optimistic about the recovery cycle. I believe that the industrial West is in a serious and deep crisis which is not cyclical. Let us not worry too much about see-saws or of moves up or down. There will be some moves up, but there will also be some moves down. We have a trans-cyclical crisis which goes to the root of our system.
Let us deal with that aspect for a moment before coming to the specific issues of unemployment. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North that this matter has a great deal to do with the price of labour as opposed to the creation of jobs.
Let me say a word of warning about wages policy. I am somewhat sceptical. I am not saying that I am other than deeply grateful for having such a policy. I cross my fingers and hope that we shall achieve that end again, and then again and again. But running the economy is not like keeping order in a classroom. We are not able to tell economic variables to behave themselves and expect that they will. In my judgment, mankind's worst ideological delusions and follies have arisen from the belief that one can order economic variables to behave themselves and that they will. When they do not do so we start killing people to make sure they do. I hope that we shall not regard incomes policy as an everlasting constant to be delivered to the Government year in and year out. It is bound to reach a cycle of ambiguity by which, although it is put on paper, it loses all meaningful content.
Yet it is to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that the Government have made enormous progress with the TUC on wages. One of my objections to the speech made by the hon. Member for St. Ives is that he appeared to regard all improvements as illusory. He thinks that nothing has gone right. In saying that, he is quite wrong because a great deal has gone right. Who would have supposed a year ago that the TUC would co-operate in a wages policy with the present Government or indeed any other, when it knew that a large number of workers would suffer a reduction in real

749
wages? It is extraordinary that that has happened.
Even more extraordinary is the fact that for the first time publicly the trade union leadership has confessed that there is a market clearing price for labour, and that if the price of labour is pushed too close to, or even beyond, the value of output, jobs are inevitably destroyed. If some people work at wages above what would be the free market wage, many other people cannot get jobs at all.
That attitude by the trade union leadership is an extraordinary step forward. I appreciate that it would not greatly impress an academic economist, but anybody who knows the Labour movement appreciates that it is an enormous step forward. Trade union leadership now sees a close correlation between inflation and unemployment. When inflation hits a certain level the Government have to intervene, and their very intervention inevitably produces unemployment.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: My hon. Friend has made an important comment. He said that the trade union leaders have accepted that there is a market clearing price for labour. I suggest that is not what they have accepted. They have accepted that there is a price which is not a market clearing price, which is not at all the same thing.
Mr. Walden: In view of the observations by the Chair a few minutes ago, I shall not go too deeply into that matter. I think there is a market clearing price for labour and it is important that the trade union leadership has, in effect, admitted it. It is not that I want to see a market clearing price operate, but it helps us to be much more sensible about what the Government can do in the real world if we can at least get the theoretical concepts right.
Of course, the rates of unemployment are intolerable and some of the justifications for them are not true. I want to stress very strongly the cost of unemployment. I do not blame the Government. When one is in a situation where the normal regulators do not appear to work, where it is not possible to depend on the guarantees one thought one could depend upon, and where the international situation does not respond in the way it is expected to respond, Governments inevit-
750
ably tend to side with caution because there is a real danger of hyperinflation. It is not invented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to excuse himself. It was predicted by many people, including the son of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North. He says that inflation is so built into our practices that it is bound to happen whatever we do. This is a real issue and a real danger.
I understand why the Government have been reluctant to have any kind of general reflation. They would need bigger and bigger injections of spending power and higher and higher rates of inflation even in order to attempt, let alone achieve, a given level of employment now. That is what I meant when I said that demand management techniques are not working. The patient is so stuffed full of dope that enormous amounts have to be poured in to get anything out of him at all.
Consumers and pay bargainers discount for expected inflation and once they have done that they lose all the stimulative benefits of having it. But if we cannot have a general reflation, as I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), I came to see how strongly I agree with them that there can be some measure of controlled reflation.
There is infinitely too great an underestimation of the cost of having people unemployed. This is not a criticism of the poor men and girls who do not have jobs. Much of the unemployment today is outside the traditional working class, particularly among men over 50, where many technicians and managers are involved. Having them out of work is an enormous drain on our resources. I estimate it might be adding £1 billion to our public borrowing requirement. If we could get them off the dole and into work we would get a clawback from their taxes and the taxes their companies would pay by virtue of employing them. A properly balanced equation would take these factors into account.
I am not against the Government when they say they intend to subsidise the production of jobs. I would like to see it done on a much larger scale, particularly in the construction industry, but generally as well. I am not saying I foresaw all this months ago, because I did not. I understand why the Government did not react as swiftly as they might have done.

751
Perhaps some of my hon. Friends are right and the Government should have reacted earlier. Anyway, they can do it now. The charge on our resources would not, in any way, produce dangerous consequences leading us to hyperinflation. It is a policy we ought to consider very seriously indeed.
We also ought to consider, though not place too much reliance upon, import controls. If other countries protest about what we are doing to treaty obligations I would courteously suggest that they should check their own economies and industrialists to see whether their observance of the GATT is as simon-pure there as they claim. I think a considerable number of exports to this country are carrying a hidden subsidy. However, if we do use import controls, we should not expect too much of them. If they become so general as to give us a siege economy it is almost inevitable that there will be economic nationalism of the kind talked about earlier. If they are not that general, the benefit to employment will not be as great as has been suggested in some quarters. It will certainly be nowhere near the figure of 500,000 I have seen quoted.
Let no one underrate the gravity of the situation we face. Anyone who knows the son of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North will recognise that he is one of the most outstanding practical economists and economic theorists in this country. Yet he has practically given up on democracy. He says there is an inbuilt contradiction between economic common sense and democratic government, that democratic governments will always be compelled, by the need to buy votes, to perpetrate economic lunacy, and that this will bring down the structure. That does not come from a foolish young man of totalitarian convictions, but from one of the most shrewd observers of Western economies. That is the challenge we have to beat. We have to prove him wrong and show that the democratic system can overcome these difficulties. I believe that the Government have done their best. If they adopt the suggestions of some of my hon. Friends they will do better. They will have to do better if we are to save the very fabric of our civilisation.
7.18 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Some time ago I made a slip of the tongue and referred to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden), who used to represent Birmingham, All Saints, as the hon. Member for All Souls. Hon. Members who heard his speech tonight will feel that that slip was pardonable.
The hon Member got me very depressed at one moment. He said that monetary policy was no help in dealing with unemployment, that incomes policy did not really work, that we could gain nothing by inflation and that no general reflation was possible. I began to feel like a passenger on a ship with one of the crew saying that the wireless was broken, the radar did not work, the compass was inaccurate and the navigator did not know his job. It turned out not to be quite as bad as that. The hon. Member was merely warning us that these matters require practical, rather than theoretical, solutions.
We are charged not only with the duty of discussing these problems in economic terms, but also, and far more important, bearing in mind, at all times, their impact on people. In his speech the Chancellor made it quite clear that he had no intention of embarking upon a general reflation. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) agreed that this was correct and said that reflation should not happen until there was an effective incomes policy and the increase in the Retail Price Index had been reduced to single figures.
There is a further criterion to be added: financing the deficit. The Secretary of State for Employment, who, I believe is to reply to the debate, could allay this one of our fears, a fear which was voiced by the hon. Member for Lady-wood. He might say something about the problem which will face the Chancellor in financing his public sector borrowing requirement when the industrial upsurge which the right hon. Gentleman forecast diverts funds from the Government to industrial investment. If there is to be upturn in industrial investment, it is bound to be to some extent at the expense of the money that is now financing the public sector borrowing requirement. Any

753
Chancellor in these circumstances must face that problem.
The main tenor of most of the speeches this afternoon was admirably captured by an article published last week in the Daily Mirror which said:
"With unemployment at the appalling level of 1,430,369, the temptation is strong to increase public spending and to start creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs. If this is done—and done for the best and most humane of reasons—inflation will be unleashed yet again. Result: more people will be out of work."
That states the dilemma which all hon. Members have been seeking to resolve.
I wish to be brief and I shall therefore raise only two of the many points which arise in this debate. They are, first, investment, particularly in relation to overmanning, and, second, the question of how Government spending and investment should be directed.
On investment, the Chancellor has reassured many of us in business who were concerned about the cash flow problems which might arise if he were suddenly to rescind his deferment of corporation tax. He has given indications of further financial assistance to industrial investment. Particularly welcome will be the extension of such incentives to individual projects costing below £500,000. All these inducements are effectively methods of reducing the rate of interest on capital investment in new projects. But the obstacles which exist to the creation of new wealth by new investment are not wholly or even mainly financial. I do not believe that a high rate of interest is necessarily a deterrent to an investor in a profitable and reasonable enterprise. The certainty of his being allowed to maintain profits to provide a large enough surplus to reinvest and finance the continuation of his growth is far more important.
The smaller businesses, particularly the unquoted companies and unincorporated businesses, will need different incentives if they are to find it worth while making the type of investment which the Chancellor is suggesting. By definition they are not likely to qualify for the sort of help he has in mind. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) made an extremely interesting speech, part of which, he will be surprised to hear, I did not quarrel with. In it he quoted Keynes,
754
referring to the "neurosis of business men" through which they did too much when things were good and not enough when things were bad. I do not believe that Keynes was at his best on this point. I believe that this is the neurosis of financiers. Keynes was much better at making money as a financier than as a business man.
The non-financial disincentive to investment for ordinary business men particularly in the private company part of the private sector, is far greater than many people realise. What is the point of borrowing money to put in new equipment if it will not lead to increased productivity because it is impossible to negotiate the manning agreements required to justify its expense?
We all know that one of the more serious problems facing the country in this highly competitive world is that we are not getting out of the same equipment the same output per man hour which is achieved in other countries. It is no use trying to excuse our poor performance as a country by saying that managers have not put in good enough machinery and that the labour force cannot give of its best on inadequate capital equipment. The reality is that, comparing capital equipment like with like, the output in this country is lower than in almost any other country in the world.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State for Employment, to whom these remarks should rightly be addressed, because he is the greatest advocate of overmanning and restrictive practices ever to have held office, is not even listening to what my right hon. Friend is saying? He is seeking to deny himself the opportunity of hearing my right hon. Friend's words of wisdom.
Mr. Macmillan: I do not think that it would make much difference if he did hear them. He does not appear to take advice from in front of him or from behind, much though he would benefit from so doing. But my hon. Friend is right.
One of the reasons why a quite large number of business men are buying equipment from overseas is that they find that the product they want and the goods

755
they need are not only more readily available but delivery dates are better. Because of the greater productivity in those countries the goods are cheaper even though the wage levels there, both in money and real terms, are higher than ours. This seems to be a cruelly self-imposed wound by our labour force on itself. I do not think that anyone would wish to see unemployment at the present level for a moment longer than is necessary. Therefore, remedies are suggested. What worries me, however, is the element of self-deception that could lie behind this approach, even for persons as clear-sighted as the hon. Member for Lady-wood and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) who say that it is worth while creating some jobs for the sake of creating jobs because it is cheaper than leaving people unemployed.
What worries me is that it may not be realised that the result depends on how it is done. All too often it has been done by paying or encouraging employers to add to their wage bills in a way which increases the unit cost of their output. It is criminal to do that. It means that people turn overseas for their investment and their goods, not because they want to do so but because they have to in order to compete in exports and in many cases to survive.
What is so sad is that now, where demand is increasing and British entrepreneurs are selling more and more goods abroad, those goods are manufactured or semi-manufactured abroad rather than exported from the United Kingdom. Yet if there were not overmanning there would be plenty of work for all the people in the industry concerned, because the unit cost would be brought down and it would once more pay British entrepreneurs to use British investments, British resources and British labour.
There is only one area in which there is a need to create jobs in the long term. I am not referring to the short-term solutions mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester and the hon. Member for Ladywood. I feel sure that they will agree with what I say about overmanning and in their plans for the short term do not wish to jeopardise the longer-term future. Getting the
756
longer term under control depends on the growth of enterprises which will create wealth and not simply, as the Daily Mirror said, creating jobs for the sake of jobs.
The one area in which we should create new work is in the general area of defence. I understand that the current defence review will reduce the number of Service people by about 38,000, or 11 per cent., and reduce the civilian backing by another 30,000, or 10 per cent. That is a total of 68,000 lost jobs—new people on the labour market. The Manpower Services Commission is asking for a further £90 million to produce 60,000 jobs. I understand that there is to be a further cut of 25,000 in the civilian staff connected with defence in a couple of years' time.
The Government would do well to consider the need to employ more people in the defence industries and to have regard to their longer-term future. Some of our most vital industries, especially in areas of higher technology, are largely dependent on the defence programme. Those industries include aerospace and shipbuilding, which without Government support cannot continue to exist, not because of their inefficiency but because the Government, by definition, are one of their main customers. They are industries which are required for the future creation of wealth in the sense that they are an essential part of our technical and technological development.
Their destruction means the destruction of skilled design teams, the break-up of groups and, alas, in many cases the removal of highly-skilled technical personnel to other countries. Their preservation, on the other hand, has its own repercussions in helping to preserve the prosperity and effectiveness of the smaller firms which operate as their main contractors and sub-contractors. The main financial impact on the management of the economy from the Chancellor's point of view does not come until the later years, when, as he said, it would be more easily carried.
There is no doubt that we need to rearm to safeguard our country, or that we should spend more on the defence programme to match our European allies in terms of equity. We spend about $200 per year per head on defence, compared

757
with expenditure on defence by Germany, France, Norway and the Netherlands of between $264 and $216. Belgium and Denmark spend slightly less per head than we do. Our forces are not large. Our manpower is about 345,000 compared with the 495,000 men under arms in West Germany, 500,000 in France and about 3½ million in Soviet Russia.
Therefore, by employing more people on defence we should safeguard our country, rebuild our economy and create jobs, not simply to provide work whether or not it is useful but to provide work which is essential to produce the spin-off which inevitably comes with any industrial expansion, especially in high technology. The Government would do well to consider carefully my right hon. Friend's argument about the balance of advantage between public expenditure on new jobs and the cost of unemployment in this field where the need for security means the need for new employment.
These are the matters which I should like the Government to consider. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) referred to the distorting effect on the economy of individual taxes. He was referring not to the overall impact of taxation or the level of taxation but to the distorting effect of individual taxes on investment, manpower and the economy. We must find a means of tackling overmanning and thereby restore our competitive position in the world. In the process of so doing, we should consider seriously the need to safeguard our country by stopping defence cuts and contemplating the possibility that the time has come for the expansion of our defence forces, rearmament and investment in the industries concerned.
7.38 p.m.
Mr. William SmallAs an earnest of my good intentions I shall throw away half the speech I had prepared. I take issue with the economic scholasticism to which we have to listen in the Chamber as if it were the real world. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden), who made an excellent speech, and advise him to read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason".
758
Like Socrates, I am not an Athenian or a Corinthian; I am a citizen of the world. Unlike Socrates, I refuse to accept the dram of hemlock and say that we shall perish today. I want to see Britain rate high in the world.
I am old enough and experienced enough to have walked the streets for years. I am not claiming to be better or purer than anyone else. I know what unemployment means to people. One cannot make a happy home in a dole queue —the spirit departs. Intelligent people and skilled apprentices who feel that they have a potential are thrown on the scrap-heap. It is the worst thing that can happen to a democratic society.
I have lived in the days of the razor gangs in Glasgow. I can remember when "Love on the Dole" was the most popular theatre show. I can remember when Leningrad was Petersburg.
The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition became an hon. Member the same year as I did, but she has achieved fame while I am still probably the most modest and humble Back Bencher in the House. I have visited every city in Europe, both East and West.
In the intellectual and technological caravan which started rolling after the war, the Germans set out on a search for the soul of the German nation. They turned to simplicity and away from the philosophy of the economic scholastics. They wanted to leave behind the days when they had had to live with the Gestapo looking over their shoulders. They got off their knees and became free. They built opera houses, cafes and cinemas so that people could mix. They searched for an economic philosophy of co-determination so that their nation could survive.
In Japan, under the MacArthur plan, they were not allowed to produce anything relating to armaments, not even a radio valve. Yet that was the nation that had produced the Zero fighter, the equal of the Spitfire. Twenty-five years ago people were advised not to buy Japanese goods because they were cheap. The same applied to Japanese cameras. But then they brought out Leika and Zeiss and flooded us with cameras. Then came Honda, which now sells cars across Africa, and Datsun and other names.

759
Japanese industry is now part of the international scene: it is our competitor.
Japanese shipbuilding represents unfair competition for the Clyde. I pay tribute to the £70 million that the Government intend to put into steel, but there are redundancies threatened in every shipyard in Britain. Even after keels have been laid down, men can be made redundant. Plumbers, joiners and artificers are thrown out of work. Then the soul goes out of that industry, because building a ship is a three-year project. I hope that the Government will make money available for the steel industry so that we can maintain the continuity between the steel and shipbuilding industries.
There are 5,000 American technicians working 30 miles from Moscow, yet people in Britain are screaming about the cold war and gaining us the title "two-faced Britain". The Prime Minister went to the Soviet Union and made a £500 million deal not as a continuing element of detente but as a way of helping this nation to rise again.
We must get on our feet again. America has double-digit inflation at the moment but is hoping that output will rise by 3 per cent. Europe hopes for a rise of 2 per cent. and Britain for 1½ per cent. as a result. Therefore, anything that this nation can do to raise itself again depends on forces outside Britain. That is why I am trying to put the scenario into perspective. I blame no one But the price of victory must be to avoid complacency in the work force and management.
In the meantime we are up against it hard. The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) now supports industrial democracy. I have read papers on this subject from Brussels. The abolition of collective bargaining has been introduced by stealth into this country and we have accepted the £6 pay limit. How long can we go on with the interests of technicians and instrument artificers set against those of the men on the shop floor?
Although I am a craftsman I would not make a case for differentials on their own, but differentials are part of the means of improving our minds and our quality of life. They can be held back only so long. For that reason we may
760
have to reintroduce resale price maintenance for a short time.
Without going into all the details, there is an alternative to a fixed incomes policy. I have read what OECD and the Observer have said about income tax indexation, which has been tried in Canada, Denmark and elsewhere. As an element of industrial justice in regulating the amount of money a man can spend, it has its place and is worth examining.
I appeal to the Government emphatically to do something about shipbuilding, where we are already being held to international ransom. We have to bring in goods and services at someone else's freight prices: if we cannot do it for ourselves, we are in trouble.
7.48 p.m.
Mr. John Pardoe: I welcome many of the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small), particularly that about indexation and its relationship to the tax system. Many of us are being forced by outside commentators into a false choice —a false choice which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) put his finger on. They are forcing us to choose between "general" reflation, whatever that may mean, and specific projects which we can recommend and which will create jobs and get the economy moving without creating mass inflation.
That is why I particularly welcomed the speech of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), with which I largely agreed. I was particularly delighted by his reference to and defence of Keynes. There is, of course, a real fear of inflation, and the present reduction in inflation has to be qualified. There are already indicators that we may be turning up. The input of costs to British industry, for instance, is already rising. It rose at an annual rate of 30 per cent. in the last quarter of 1975, having risen rapidly throughout the previous two quarters. That is the tell-tale sign for the future.
Therefore, we do not have to be too optimistic about our success on inflation at this stage while recognising that the rate has come down. We are not out of the wood yet. But when I read some commentators who have been pouring out their advice for our benefit and that of the Government I believe that there is far too easy an acceptance among them

761
of high unemployment. It is easy to say that unemployment is cushioned by benefits. Of course it is, but the social consequences are still severe. The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for Ladywood pointed that out.
I should like to refer to a vital document of our time, referring to a part of the country that I do not know well —a report prepared by Chief Superintendent Norman Chappell of the Merseyside Police on vandalism and juvenile delinquency in Kirkby. He went much further than one would expect a policeman to go in analysing the causes and the problems. There is no doubt that he viewed as the major single cause the social conditions created by, as he put it, in some cases third-generation unemployment.
It is no good commentators and outside monetarists telling us that all we have to do is sit there and let it happen. There are many social consequences of crime, vandalism and total social disruption which we have to take into account as politicians and which they can conveniently ignore. Therefore, these armchair economists are too ready to attack any method of job creation in rather similar terms—the hon. Member for Penistone will be interested in this—to those used by a leader in The Times
in 1929:
"Unemployment is too organic a disease to yield to a method of which the repercussions are quite uncertain."
After referring to the "facile architects of prosperity", it went on:
"It will require more than a tendentious pamphlet to convince the public."
That was a reference to what it called the "somewhat vainglorious pamphlet" of Mr. Lloyd George, in other words "We Can Conquer Unemployment", largely written by the great man himself, Lord Keynes.
In an article last week in The Times, Mr. Ronald Butt seemed to be going in exactly the same wrong direction as that leader of 1929:
"Today, the Keynesian theory can be seen to have solved the unemployment problem only at the cost of accelerating inflation."
What absolute balderdash that is. What a total travesty of the facts. If that were true, why is it that it has only recently happened? For two-thirds of the post
762
war era the Keynesian theory did no such thing. It is only recently that something seems to have gone wrong. But it is not what Mr. Butt says has gone wrong. The essential distinction that he failed to draw is between the quality of Keynes's ideas and the quality of the men and institutions who have put them into practice.
I should like to say something about the rôle of the Opposition when it comes to unemployment—as part of an opposition, but not the Opposition. Last week we heard the phrase "the natural party of unemployment". It is easy to say that sort of thing, but it is no more true than if I were to say that, on the record of the events between 1970 and 1974, the Conservative Party should be christened the natural party of inflation. That would be just as true. Indeed, if one reflects on those words of Ronald Butt and the whole of that article, the distinction that I mentioned has to be made particularly in relation to that period of government between 1970 and 1974.
Keynes's greatest contribution was to liberate us from automatic standards, whether of the gold standard or of the balanced Budget. There are dangers in liberation. It gives the Government much greater discretion, it requires that those who exercise that discretion are rational, responsible and wise, and it requires that the institutions through which they work are equal to the task.
In his great biography of Lord Keynes, Sir Roy Harrod said:
"He deemed England a sufficiently mature country for it to be possible to assume that the authorities could be trusted to carry out a policy of monetary reform faithfully and would not indulge in an orgy of feckless note issue."
It is not good enough to blame Keynes for not realising that several years later, in 1970, a Conservative Government would be returned to power who would set out exactly on an orgy of feckless note issue. In three and a half years—that is the period that Peter Jay gave today—they doubled the money supply. One does not have to be a monetarist to know what that will do to the rate of inflation. One cannot play around with the money supply to that extent and get away with it.
The Leader of the Opposition severely embarrassed her Shadow Chancellor,

763
because the next day he put it about that her explosion here on Tuesday of last week was not exactly the line that the party would be taking. On the following day The Times reported him as saying that they
"would not use the rising unemployment figures as a stick with which to make political capital".
The exchanges on that day were precisely an example of using the unemployment figures for that purpose. In fact, it is political capital that the Opposition amendment tonight is all about. That is one reason—there are others—why we shall certainly not be voting for it.
There is nothing constructive about the amendment. Its only positive suggestion is that we should get on with cutting public expenditure. Again, how easy that is—
Mr. George Younger: It is not.
Mr. Pardoe: As the hon. Member says, it is not easy. The Opposition did not find it so when they were in office. Indeed, they increased it at a rate of knots, and nowhere faster than in the budgets of the Department of Education, over which the Leader of the Opposition presided at the time. As the Shadow Chancellor has said, however, cutting public expenditure at this stage could do nothing but raise unemployment. On a rough calculation, over the last year or 15 months an extra 300,000 jobs have been added to the public sector. I am not saying that all those 300,000 jobs were worth while or needed. Of course they were not. Many may be doing things which not many of us really want done. But one must accept that, if they had not been created in the public sector, the figure that the right hon. Lady complains about would be not 1,400.000 but 1,700,000.We deserve something slightly better from her party.
But the Government are not guiltless. They would not expect me to say that they were.
Mr. Nott: The Liberals are, of course.
Mr. Pardoe: Yes, we are, as the hon. Gentleman says.
The Secretary of State for Employment is certainly guilty of one thing. That is that neither he nor his colleagues fore
764
saw the present level of unemployment as a natural consequence of the chronically high level of inflation that they inherited.
In the Sunday Times last Sunday, Eric Jacobs wrote:
"Soon after Labour was re-elected to government two years ago, an official told Michael Foot, the new Employment Secretary, that he was preparing contingency plans to meet unemployment levels of between I million and 1·25 million. Foot rather huffily told him he need not bother. Unemployment would not reach such levels—at any rate not while he was minister—and anyway he had an Employment Protection Act up his sleeve."
I do not know whether that is an accurate report, but it is good enough to hang a comment on.
It was fairly obvious that those levels of unemployment would be reached. In an election pamphlet published by the Liberal Party for the last General Election, we said:
"On present trends unemployment, now at 606,000, will rise to 780,000 by the middle of 1975, and will certainly exceed one million in the winter of 1975–76."
That was reasonably accurate, with some help from OECD, the International Monetary Fund et al. We were a lot more accurate than the Government, and to a large extent the Government's problems are due to their failure to get the figures right.
It was back in 1967 that the Liberal Party committed itself to the view that positive Government intervention on pay and productivity, backed by realistic sanctions, was the proper price to pay for full employment. Some of our problems are due to foreigners, and some of our problems are imported—that is the excuse of all Governments—but a large part of our problems is due to the fact that Governments have never been prepared to pay the proper price for full employment.
Governments have come to power with a firm commitment not to intervene on pay. They have always wasted precious months in trying to square the inflationary circle without such intervention. They have usually resorted to price controls, which, except in a monopoly market, are an economic madness and, as a result, reduce the profitability of big industry to dangerously low levels, sabotaging the will to invest, which would have created the jobs which are now in such desperately short supply.

765
Gradually, successive Governments have finally surrendered to the logic of events and proposed an incomes policy hastily cobbled together at the eleventh hour. In each case it has been bitterly attacked by the Opposition of the day, who only a few years before were trying to produce their own hastily cobbled incomes policy. That has been the pattern of events. This is the insanity of adversarial politics, and it will bedevil us until the British people decide to certify their present political system and lock it up in an institution for psychopaths.
It is a sorry tale, as has been said, and there is no reason for any of us to deny it. We have had stop-go. Each stop has been longer than the last. Each go has been shorter. Each recession has seen higher and more sustained unemployment. Each recovery has seen higher inflation. Although we should all be deeply concerned about the present situation, it is the "fire next time" that worries me even more—the fire next time of unemployment, the fire next time of inflation.
I make no apology for being specific in what we are asking the Government to do and in dealing with some fairly minor or small areas of this country, particularly referring to my own area, in the far South-West, as an example of what we want the Government to do in terms of regional policy and helping employment in the regions on a selective basis.
First, we want the Government to look carefully at the regions of high unemployment. Secondly, we want them to look carefully at those industries which could be stimulated without pulling in excessive imports. In my own area of the far South-West male unemployment in December was 12·8 per cent. In Wade-bridge, a town in my constituency, it was 21½per cent. Whatever else may be said about the country and the economy as a whole, it cannot be said that in the jargon of the day, these areas are near to overheating. They are a long way from it. Therefore, we have a long way to go before we run up against the old bottlenecks.
The biggest single disaster area within the economy of the far South-West is the construction industry. I had a little fracas with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) over his statement to the House about what the construction
766
industry representatives did or did not tell us concerning the causes of the decline in construction. All I can say is that we were presented with a letter that those representatives had written to the Prime Minister. I went with them to Downing Street to present it. We were presented with a memorandum of several pages, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that nowhere in that document, or in the letter to the Prime Minister, is there any mention of the Community Land Act.
I do not think that it serves the Cornish construction industry, or the construction industry of the South-West, particularly well to emphasise things that they do not believe to be crucial to the argument. I opposed the Community Land Act and voted against it, and I do not believe that it is crucial to the argument about how construction can be increased in the area.
The building industry is not so heavily dependent on imports as are some other industries. The unemployment figures are truly disastrous. The figure for the whole South-West Region is 18·5 per cent. of building operatives out of work. In Cornwall it is nearly 28 per cent. These are very distressing figures indeed, and there are towns throughout the South-West where the rate of unemployment among construction workers is well over 50 per cent.
I am not asking for massive public works from the Government. That would create buildings just for their own sake. Let us be very selective, therefore, and look now at housing improvement. Mine is a region of small, self-employed builders, and house improvement grants are very important. Under the Housing Act 1974 these grants were limited to houses with a rateable value of no more than £185. This has resulted in a major reduction in improvement grants.
Mr. Stephen Ross: The figure is £175.
Mr. Pardoe: This has resulted in a major reduction in improvement grants. I do not ask for any general increase in the level, but it would be very helpful if the level were increased to £350, but only in cases where improvement leads to an additional unit of accommodation for letting purposes.

767
We have great under-occupation of housing in the United Kingdom compared with many other countries, and that is a very inefficient use of our housing stock. If the Government wish to limit it even further for social purposes, I make no objection to raising the limits in those circumstances where the individual houseowner makes a commitment to the local authority to let the house to the local authority for onward letting to someone on the housing list—as indeed, the Department of the Environment has asked local authorities to do.
A little carrot would be useful, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to allowing the individual houseowner, who owns one but not more than one house, to have, say, the first £500 or £1,000 of rent from that arrangement with the local authority tax-free, for a tax holiday of three to five years, that would also help enormously.
In the construction industry there is also the problem of the "moving shelf". This is a point that some members of the Tribune Group have made, with the TUC, on the question of capital plant for industry. It is absolutely vital that, when the time comes for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take off the brake, these projects should be ready and available for building—not for planning at that stage or for design, but for building. They should all be ready with the planning and design already done. This would mean a commitment of public funds but of very limited sums.
In a letter dated 22nd July, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said:
"We are now considering the feasibility of developing a rolling programme of projects."
I gather that it is still being considered. It is time for the consideration to cease and for the "moving shelf" to get going.
What are the Government prepared to do about planning agreements in the construction industry? No industry in this country has been more bedevilled by the lack of any long-term planning with the Government. The industry has been used rather in the manner that a maniac would use a motor car, with one foot on the accelerator, the accelerator going through the floor and the
768
next minute the other foot hard on the brake. Planning agreements with the construction industry would engender confidence, and I hope that we shall hear something about this.
Many of us must have asked why in the 1930s, with so much unemployment and so much needing to be done—the scars of that neglect are all round us today in all parts of the country—the unemployed were not put to work to do what was needed. What I fear is that we are getting ourselves into a situation in which our children will be able to ask that same question of us.
There are still a vast number of jobs to be done—slum clearance, renovation of schools, transport improvement and work related to the infrastructure. There is also the reclamation of polluted areas of land and water. All these things are crying out to be done while unemployment and supplementary benefit is being paid to men and women for doing nothing. A simple change in public accounting would help to solve this problem. We should allow local authorities to put these men and women to work and to claim the national insurance funds and the supplementary benefits which are now paid out.
The hon. Member for Ladywood, in a depressing and gloomy speech, said that in the Wincott lecture Mr. Peter Jay had come to the conclusion that he was deeply sceptical of the capacity of modem industrial democracies to solve their problems and wondered whether industrial democracy could survive. I did not get that meaning from Mr. Peter Jay's Wincott lecture. I agree with his scepticism, but it seemed to me that he was saying something more hopeful—that we had to adapt our political institutions to meet that situation. That is the challenge before us.
The Government's strategy appears to be twofold. The first part of it is to wait for the upturn. Many hon. Members have already drawn their own conclusions on how long we shall have to wait. This recession will be more difficult to emerge from than others. Business men and economists have been telling me for months—almost years, it seems—"Do not worry. The American economy is about to move. The Japanese economy is about to move." It is not happening on schedule. The upturn is a little late

769
this year. Therefore, we shall need a better strategy than waiting for that.
The second part of the Government's strategy is waiting for North Sea oil. On the latest forecasts, by 1990 we shall no longer be self-sufficient in oil. The demand curve will overtake the supply curve at about that time. What are we doing to plan for that? That is no long-term solution for the British economy.
We face a political challenge—a challenge to adapt and to create new democratic institutions to meet the challenge which Mr. Peter Jay and the hon. Member for Ladywood have put before us. Many of the failures in so-called fine tuning are failures not of Keynes's theories but of the institutions of government through which we have to work. It is those institutions to which we must direct our efforts if we are to ensure that Peter Jay's desperate forecasts do not come to pass.
8.13 p.m.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: When one has been in this House for as long as I have, one experiences almost everything. I never expected to sit through a debate and find myself agreeing with almost every word of a speech by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). Still less did I expect to find myself agreeing with nearly everything in a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden).
I am not at all surprised to find myself agreeing with every word of what was said by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). I say as more than a conventional compliment that it is always nice to follow him, except that his speeches are so full of meaty material that if one were tempted to comment on everything he said one would have no time for one's own speech. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind, but I cannot for the life of me understand why he should waste so much of his time and considerable talents reading, cutting, commenting on and bothering with the load of rubbish that is printed about this country's affairs in the newspapers. I must tell him how I maintain my sanity as well as my physical well-being.
Mr. Eric Ogden: And charm.
Mr. Mikardo: And charm. I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I read only the football scores in a newspaper. Sometimes I buy a second paper to check the accuracy of the first.
When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose to speak this afternoon I sat up, leaned forward, cocked my better ear and listened very carefully to every word. I was not listening for things to criticise. I knew that there would be some of those. On the contrary, I was listening for anything he might say that would diminish or, still better, get rid of the predilection I had in advance of the debate to oppose the Government in the decision that we must take this evening. I was looking for any kind of excuse to support my right hon. Friend. I was looking for any ray of hope in my right hon. Friend's speech which would lead me to say "They have not been doing very well up to now, but it looks as though they are beginning to get some fresh ideas". There was not one word of encouragement. I was deeply disappointed at my right hon. Friend's speech after all the hopes I had entertained.
My right hon. Friend did not begin to deal with the point which I ventured to put to him in an interjection. He keeps saying "It is no good starting a controlled reflation, because, although it would do some good and reduce unemployment, it would take some months before it got there". I repeat what I said then. The fact that a thing takes a long time to operate is no reason for delaying its commencement. Indeed, it is a reason for hastening its commencement. If a man has a slow-acting cure for a headache he takes it quickly. He does not wait and say "It is no good taking this, because, even if I do, my headache will not be cured for another two or three hours". This is the challenge of too little, too late, which my right hon. Friend did not begin to meet.
I have a horrible nightmare—I hope it is only a nightmare and will not turn into reality—that we may have a debate at the end of January 1977 precipitated by the fact that the January 1977 unemployment figures are 150,000 more than

771
they were in December 1976, and that my right hon. Friend, with his customary bonhomie, will stand at the Dispatch Box and say "It is no use my hon. Friends calling for reflation because, if I did it now, it would not take effect till next year."
My right hon. Friend should have moved very much earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood was right about that. If the Chancellor had taken even a bit of the advice given to him from these Benches —and from other quarters, too—in the middle of last year, we would not now be having this debate and we would not have the high unemployment figures and atmosphere of crisis which we are facing.
I was very disappointed when my right hon. Friend trotted out the hoary old myths about import controls—"We cannot do that, because it will lead to retaliation". I do not know why it is felt that, because something issues from the Treasury, it becomes true and even more true if it is reiterated day in, day out, week in, week out. After all, we are not without evidence. We do not have to theorise about the effect of import restrictions. We are not doing it for the first time in the recorded history of man. It has been done over and over again in many countries. We do not have to guess whether there will be retaliation. We have some evidence of past imposition of import controls to look at and from which to see to what extent, if at all, they invoke retaliation, before we come theoretically to consider the possible future events.
We had import controls under a Labour Government twice in the second part of the 1960s. From 1964 to 1966 we put a specially high tariff on finished products in order to limit their import, and it did that very considerably. From 1968 to 1970 we had a special deposit scheme which limited imports very much indeed. Of course there were protests, and our then EFTA partners were particularly upset about this. They protested loud and long. So should I have done had I been in their position.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Am I not right in thinking that in the case of Japan, if we put import controls on goods from that country, there could be
772
no retaliation of any consequence as Japan is flooding us with cheap goods and refusing to accept our goods in exchange?
Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend, with his usual prescience, has precisely forecast a point to which I was about to come.
Mr. Tuck: I apologise to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Mikardo: We get no retaliation in those two cases.
The Italians ran very tough import controls for over one and a half years, from June 1974 until just a week or two ago, with no retaliation at all. if someone tells me that we cannot do it because of GATT, I ask how the Italians did it. If someone tells me that we cannot do it because of the EEC regulations, again I ask how the Italians did it. They had protests, just as we did in 1960s, but no retaliation whatever. If someone tells me that we cannot do it because of EEC regulations I shall ask about the French putting restrictions on imports of wine from Italy. Those two countries are both members of the EEC.
I have gone through all the history of all the import controls in the last decade. There are quite a lot of them. I have found one single instance of retaliation. That was by Turkey against us. Turkey switched an intended purchase of a plant worth about £2½ million from us to another West European country. It was not a very damaging retaliation, because the plant was bought by aid funds which we were going to give Turkey but which the other country gave. That is not very serious retaliation because we would have been paying for the thing ourselves. That is the only example that I can find.
Now let us look at what might happen potentially in the future. Here I come to the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) foresaw I was coming to. Looking at the breakdown of what has caused our problem in this regard, one finds that almost all our import of manufactures and semi-manufactures comes from eight countries. Every one of those eight countries has a surplus in its trade with us. For every one of those eight countries we are the biggest customer that it has. It follows, then, that

773
they would all have far more to lose in a trade war with us than they would have to gain. Business men do not go around spitting in the eye of their best customer. Even if the customer gets a bit shirty sometimes, they still do not spit in his eye.
There is no basis for the belief, on an examination of the figures, that we should invoke retaliation. The lessons of history and any reasonable examination of the contemporary position both lead to the conclusion that the story about retaliation is merely a story and is really a myth.
Most of all, I was disappointed by my right hon. Friend's speech because I thought that he never really tackled what has been agreed by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House to be the basic problem, which is the unemployment caused by—and in itself further creating—the decline in investment. We had a fall of 14 per cent. in investment in 1975. From the way that it is running at present it looks as though we shall have a further fall of 10 per cent. in 1976. How much there is in the pie-in-the-sky talk of what will happen in 1977 none of us really knows. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North said that the turn-up is not coming on schedule. He is right, but I add to that the opinion that when it comes there is no guarantee that we shall get our whack of it. The Treasury does not know, either, that we shall get our whack.
Really, therefore, unless something concrete and practical is done about this problem we shall not get in our economy an upturn which will seriously lower the unemployment figures. The palliative measures which the Government are taking are very welcome. I applaud them. They are all right, but these are putting plasters on the pimple. They are not curing the blood impurity. They are not getting at the root of the disease. We shall not get at the root of the disease unless we do something effective about investment.
My right hon. Friend described something of what he was doing—giving money to this one and to that one. He and I were both members of the group which produced Labour's programme for 1972. If Opposition Members will bear with me while I talk about Labour Party affairs I think that they will find it not
774
uninteresting. That programme was updated into Labour's programme for 1973, which became the basis of our two election manifestos in 1974. We said in that programme, spelling it out on page after page—it is worth re-reading; it is good stuff—that what had gone wrong with our economy was that nothing that successive Governments, Labour and Conservative, had done to cajole the entrepreneur into investing, or to bully or bribe him into investing, had succeeded in getting the job done.
We had had regional employment premiums, investment grants, loans, allowances and free handouts like the one that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving now. They had not done the job. Therefore, we said that we had to have a brand new approach. It involved a new industrial strategy based on the National Enterprise Board and on planning agreements which, we said, would do the job. We adopted it.
The Government abandoned it by watering it down. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North spoke about planning agreements in the construction industry. As a result of the watering down of the Industry Bill no one will have a planning agreement unless he asks for it, and the very people who most need it are the very people who will not ask for it, and, therefore, they will not get it.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), in what I thought was a very superficial speech which was not at all directed to the subject before us, said that we could solve the investment problem easily and that all we had to do was to let business men make a lot of profits because, when they had a lot of money, they would invest.
Mr. Stokes: Quite right.
Mr. Mikardo: But do they? If that was not just an emotional reaction on the part of the hon. Gentleman I invite him to consider the facts.
One outstanding fact is that, in the three full years of the Conservative Government of 1970–74, profits went up by two-thirds, taxes on companies were lowered by £300 million, and investment fell by one-third. They had all the lolly. What did they do with it? They did two things. They speculated in land and office blocks,

775
and they invested overseas, including investment in property overseas. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stour-bridge (Mr. Stokes) should go to see some of the office blocks in Brussels financed with the money made out of the surpluses of manufacturing companies in Great Britain and which they put into office blocks in Brussels instead of into machines in their own factories.
It is obvious, then, that all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke about was a little continuation of the policy which we ourselves proved conclusively had failed, which we therefore said we would abandon, and which we immediately readopted as soon as the Government got into office.
This is the real burden of my complaint against the Government. Unless the Government have the guts to have a real go at solving the problem, the sacrifices made by workers under the social contract will have been made in vain. They are not inconsiderable sacrifices. Real disposable earned income fell by 3 per cent. in the first half of 1975. We do not have the detailed figures yet for the second half, but, on a reasonable estimate of the trends, it looks as though in the two years from the beginning of last year to the end of this year real disposal earned income will fall by between 6 per cent. and 8 per cent.
It was my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood who said that a great many people, including many at the low end of the income scale, have suffered a fall in their living standards. That is the sort of sacrifice that they have made. Every time that they make that sacrifice, every time there is an upsurge in unemployment, there is a little boom-let on the Stock Exchange. Some people do not make the sacrifice. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends, who is giving a year for Britain? Some people are and some are not.
What is the contribution of the combination of rising unemployment and financial speculation with profit on the end of it towards the
"fundamental and irreversible shift of wealth and power to working people and their families"?
Those words are from the manifesto on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
776
and I and 633 other people fought the General Election. That is really the nub of the complaint that my hon. Friends and I have against the Government's policies on unemployment and the main reason why we tabled our amendment.
I must draw to a close, but may I take a couple of minutes, having dealt with the global problem, to deal with a narrower but terribly important matter in which I declare a constituency interest. In this I follow the example of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North who told us in an interesting way what is going on in his part of the world.
There have been many references today, starting with that by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) to regional policy. Regional policy has made a notable contribution to national welfare over the years. Many hon. Members have affirmed this today. But it has become fossilised. It is much too macro, much too broad brush, in its effect. It is not sufficiently discriminating and discreet. It has become a blunt tool.
One of the things which make regional policy such a blunt tool is that it is based on assessments of large regional averages. What is not understood is that within a region, which is not of itself at the top of the unemployment league, there can be pockets where the unemployment rate is among the highest in the country. What is also not understood is that changes can take place in a short time. Hon. Members who represent the West Midlands will know that. That area has gone from being Boomtown to Slumptown tertibly quickly. There is nothing in regional policy which reacts to that. It is not sufficiently flexible and adaptable.
There is no regional policy applied to the South-East at all because that is a prosperous area with only—mark the "only"—3 per cent. average unemployment. What is happening in the South-East is that the inner city areas are running down in the most awful way. They are becoming economic and social deserts. We are doing much more damage to them than did our forefathers as a result of the hideousness and heartlessness of the Industrial Revolution a couple of centuries ago.
In my borough of Tower Hamlets in East London, an area which has been hit over and over again in many ways—it

777
was badly hit during the war—the percentage of unemployment has nearly doubled in a year. The number of unemployed in Tower Hamlets has increased by 84 per cent. in a 12-month period. By coincidence, male unemployment has now reached exactly the same figure as that quoted for his constituency by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North—namely, 12·8 per cent.
Since that figure was published the Port of London Authority has announced the closure of the West India and Mill-wall Docks. The Authority followed the best practices of consultation; there was consultation with the workers. The Authority made the announcement of the closure at 10 o'clock last Monday morning and began seeking consultations at 3 o'clock on Monday afternoon. I shall not go into the details because the issue is outside the main debate, but I am bound to say that I believe this to be a mistake which, on purely commercial grounds, represents a business miscalculation of the worst order. But the Authority can do it, never mind what the Government say. Here is a public body which chucks 3,700 men out of work. There is a big multiplier factor here and that figure will ultimately be nearer 5,000 to 6,000, but the Authority does not want to know. It is public policy.
No one stops to do what one of my right hon. Friends used to call the total sum. The only sum that is done has to do with the effect on the profit and loss account. I think that the Authority has got that sum wrong, but that is a different matter. It does not do the sum which involves working out what will be paid in unemployment pay, the loss of tax paid by the men on their earnings, and all the rest. No one does the total sum, taking into account the social consequences and the loss of revenue for London Transport. There are all sorts of consequences, but no one in this day of the computer, when cost-benefit analyses can be carried out very effectively indeed, sits down with the responsibility for doing that sum. That is why we go wrong.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks upon each item as one statistic given by the Treasury. The Port of London Authority, Chrysler and
778
other organisations just look upon it as one statistic in their profit and loss account. Nobody puts the items all together. Nobody but the Government has the capacity to put them together. When they begin to do this, I think they will find, even on their own analysis, which I think is restricted, fossilised and unimaginative, that the total sum will lead them to different policies from today's.
I deeply regret having to speak in those terms. I meant it when I said that I listened to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor today hoping for something that would enable me to abate my opposition, if not to rationalise it out of existence. He has let us down.
8.42 p.m.
Mr. Churchill: I share much of the disappointment expressed by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) about the content, or lack of content, of the Chancellor's speech, especially because it avoided the question of industrial investment and the means of promoting it. However, I cannot join him in his prescription that we should impose import controls. That would have a disastrous effect, above all, on the high flyers of the British export industry on whom must depend so much of our future prosperity and job creation, once we move into a period of expansion.
All sections of the House have shown recognition of the great and grievous social consequences of the unacceptably high level of unemployment. Whatever differences there are in the methods advocated across the Floor of the House, and between different sides of the Gangway, there is no doubt about our common determination to see a reduction in the level of unemployment at the earliest possible moment.
I regret that the Chancellor devoted so much of his lengthy speech to the period for which he had no responsibility, and spent much of the time shuffling off responsibility for the periods when he was in office. Above all, I regret that he said so little about any Government plans for generating resources for productive, job-creating investment. The Chancellor appeared to confine himself to waiting for events to take their course. This is unacceptable to both sides of the House.
When the Chancellor was referring to the period between 1972 and 1974, I was

779
surprised that he complained that there were then shortages of skilled labour, raw material and industrial capacity. My constituents in Trafford Park would infinitely prefer the problems created by a shortage of labour to those of a glut of labour and a shortage of jobs, which face them today.
Unlike the Chancellor, I do not intend to indulge in cheap personal abuse. I prefer to rely on the sounder judgment of my electorate in Stretford as to who it feels should represent its interests. It was not only the Chancellor who came to speak for me at the last election. I am glad to say that the Secretary of State for Employment favoured us with his attentions. The one clear theme that ran through their speeches and the speeches of the dozen or so ministerial heavy and mini gangs that were brought up to Stretford at the time of the election was unemployment. There was a clear implication in all their speeches that a Conservative vote would be to let oneself in for a high level of unemployment, the reverse implication being that a similar situation would not develop under a Labour Government.
Mr. Tom Litterick: Before the hon. Gentleman makes too much political capital of that point will he reflect on how many Conservative Governments are in office in Western Europe and the level of unemployment in each of those countries?
Mr. Churchill: In the time available I cannot discuss each of the countries involved. If the hon. Gentleman were to study the figures that are published regularly he would understand that, with the exception of the Irish Republic, Britain has the highest rate of unemployment of all the EEC countries.
Mr. Litterick: What about Germany?
Mr. Churchill: Far from turning the corner, we seem to be the last in the race to do so. I am bound to say that the scaremongering tactics that were used at the time of the last election and the false promises implying that there would be a reduction of unemployment under a Labour Governments are viewed sourly by my constituents and people throughout the whole of the North-West.
780
At the time that the Labour Government took office in the first week of March 1974 there were 110,000 people out of work or temporarily stopped in the North-West Region. There are now 217,000 people out of work or temporarily stopped, approximately double the number in that position when the Labour Government came into office.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There are three times as many people out of work in my constituency, not twice as many.
Mr. Churchill: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I was talking about the North-West as a whole. No doubt there are areas where the situation is even worse than double what it was when the Conservative Government left office, when the effect of the three-day week was being felt. That is some condemnation of the policies pursued by the present Government.
How did all this come about? If we are to believe the Chancellor or the Prime Minister the present situation is entirely due to world factors. They suggest that it is the fault of the wicked Arabs for increasing the price of oil or the failure of the anchovy crop in Peru. These alibis are beginning to wear a bit thin. Today there are over 100,000 more breadwinners in the North-West who have been thrown on to the slag heap of unemployment. This is a situation which demands a critical assessment of the policy that the Government hay been pursuing for the past two years.
The greatest disappointment in the Chancellor's speech—maybe the Secretary of State for Employment will repair the omission—was that there was no recognition of the grievous mistakes made above all in the first year that the Labour Government were in office. We have these unacceptably high levels of unemployment because we have a Government who entered office with the clear policy of declaring open warfare on the free enterprise sector, a sector of the economy which accounts for two-thirds of all employment and 90 per cent. of British exports. So far as that affected industrial and investment confidence it was an absolute catastrophe and killed stone dead any hopes of an early industrial expansion.

781
Secondly, the Labour Government have heaped on the private sector a massive legislative tax burden, the Employment Protection Act, the capital transfer tax, and other bureaucratic and fiscal burdens which are making British industry today bankrupt or in many sectors unprofitable. The by-product of this decision to impose a Socialist straitjacket on what was largely a free enterprise economy has been the root cause of our problems.
Finally, and most recklessly of all, a Socialist Government—a Government who claimed to have a special relationship with the trade unions—stood aside and watched—this applies particularly to hon. Members below the Gangway—or applauded the success of powerful trade unions which used their industrial might to secure inflationary wage claims. Those aims had the effect of putting people out of work by pricing them out of the market a year or so later.
The Government have been responsible for releasing a holocaust of wage and price inflation on the British people. At the time many hon. Members below the Gangway looked to inflation as their principal weapon in reactivating the class war on which they are so keen. They saw it as a means of attacking private enterprise industry and of securing the greatest transfer of wealth that has ever been seen in this country. That transfer took place on a wholly haphazard basis. It grieviously harmed many sections of the community least able economically to protect themselves.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Like you."] No. Not like me. I am referring to those who were unable to protect themselves against the powerful unions which were able to demand unrealistic wage levels.
These were short-sighted demands and they have led to the present situation. Even today the Government seem to be more concerned with propping up uneconomic jobs in unviable industries than in channelling resources into the sectors of British industry that can make the best use of them through cost-effectiveness and economic job creation.
The principal yardstick that seems to be used by the Government for channelling investment through the much-vaunted NEB and the controversial Lord Ryder is that assistance should be given to those places where the political
782
squeals are loudest and where the noise is strongest. We know that jobs at £5,000 a time are being put into Linwood, British Leyland, NVT and the Scottish Daily News. The Government are taking advantage of the borrowing requirement and using resources which would otherwise be available to profitable sectors of British industry. In that way the Government's actions are leading to a situation in which more people are out of work. These have been the fruits of the supposed regeneration of British industry under a Socialist Government. We have seen an over-hasty attempt to impose hard-core Socialism on what is still a free enterprise economy, and the time is long overdue for the Government to stop this squeeze on the private sector.
Mr. Litterick: Sit down!
Mr. Churchill: I recognise that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) will support the Government even though unemployment in his constituency has doubled during their lifetime.
The principal job creation effort of this Government has been to over-stuff an already bloated bureaucracy which, in the past 20 years, has been growing at 10 times the rate of employment in manufacturing industry.
The Government are presumably looking for ways of stemming the rising tide of unemployment.
I agree with the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) who called for the restoration of the defence cuts. In the North-West we have suffered enormously through the loss of employment in the textile industry. High technology industries in firms like Vickers, the British Aircraft Corporation and Hawker-Siddeley are among the principal sources of employment in the region. If the Government intend to nationalise the aircraft industry solely in order to change the name of Hawker Siddeley Private Enterprise to Hawker Siddeley British Government they will not be creating a single new job. If Labour Members spoke to shopfloor workers at Hawker Siddeley they would know how bitter they are. They argue that if the Government use these massive resources merely to change the firm's name and impose a more bureaucratic management it will be

783
a great waste. It would be far better to use the resources by placing contracts for equipment. This would save jobs and provide employment in the North-West. It is a waste to channel resources into nationalisation. People in the industries want orders and jobs.
The Government must realise they have deliberately lost 80,000 jobs in the Services and defence industries and that this has contributed to a large degree to the unemployment in the North-West. If the defence cuts were immediately restored, many jobs could be saved, even at this late stage. Nothing could be more immediately beneficial to the employment situation in the North-West.
I hope the Secretary of State will give serious consideration to this point. Great Britain's defences are at a dangerously low level, and although we hope to achieve mutual balanced force reductions with the Russians, through negotiations, they must not be on the basis of Britain disarming unilaterally, as has been happening in the past two years.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Stretford, (Mr. Churchill) may have learnt a lot since he came to Lancashire to represent his constituency. He has a lot of facts and figures, but he has yet to convince me as a Lancastrian that he can even begin to feel with his heart as he thinks with Iris head.
It was my intention to help reduce the average length of speeches in the debate. Some of them have been brilliant at the expense of brevity. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has kindly agreed to give up a few minutes of his time to enable me to speak.
In these debates Members speak with the knowledge and experience of the region from which they come. For Liverpool and Merseyside, the two greatest needs have been for jobs and homes. The number of homes has increased, but the number of unemployed is greater than ever before in my lifetime. We do not ask for short-term, temporary, passing advantages which will inevitably increase inflation and unemployment in the long term. We want the Government to work out with the trade unions, employers and
784
all parts of industry and commerce long-term proposals, decide what needs to be done, and secure the agreement of Parliament and people. Then they must stick by their decisions and carry them through. We have all had the experience of supporting unpopular measures, going out on to a limb to support them and then finding later that the Government have sawn off the branch. That is not a comforting experience. Our discomfort is not important, but the effects on employment of uncertainty and weakness can be disastrous.
Within the limited measures referred to by the Chancellor this afternoon—and we all have our own opinions about his speech—I hope that the Government will give some priority to the construction industry. Proposals have been brought forward on Merseyside by a "consortium" of the district council, the county council, the trade unions, and finance, both public and private, for the construction of an advanced office block and a police headquarters. Private capital, which would normally have gone into town centre redevelopment, would be used to boost the local construction industry with the building of these projects. These and house building would help to get things moving. There are also the proposals to change development status and to involve giving help to a particular industry in an area rather than to the area itself.
The Chancellor spoke of stockpiling. There are two major concerns in my part of Merseyside engaged in the electrical industry and concerned with supplying the Post Office with switchgear and fusegear. They are Plessy and General Electric. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a scheme of cost-only contracting which would enable these concerns to carry on production and to bring forward advance programmes for the Post Office on reduced profit margins. The plant would be used and operations would continue to the advantage of the P.O. workers and the electrical companies.
We on Merseyside are aware of the dangers which could come to the North-West from the present proposals for devolution. The problems of the North-West and Merseyside will not be solved in the North-West alone. It is all very well for the SNP amendment to talk in terms of Scotland being prosperous while

785
the rest of the United Kingdom is in peril. The nationalists talk about Customs controls, but these could apply to both sides of the border, and it might be, if they continue with their present approach to the English in these matters, that in 30 years' time when North Sea oil has run out the English will be existing on devolution at Scotland's expense. I do not want any in the North-West to join in the folly of saying that we can be independent and prosperous at the expense of any other part of the country. That is industrial and economic suicide.
I hope that my hon. Friends will look at the amendments on the Order Paper and consider all the speeches that have been made. They will notice that the differences of attitude expressed in the speeches are fewer than the differences between the amendments.
The Government are doing all they can with the alternatives available to them. They deserve our support in the Lobby and in the country.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Henderson.
Mrs. Maureen Colquhoun: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The two Front Bench speakers who are to wind up the debate have generously agreed to take five minutes off their time. Therefore, we have another five minutes available and I call Mr. Douglas Henderson.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Henderson: I was beginning to wonder whether there was to be any protection for the rights of minority parties in the House. The length of speeches has averaged about 25 minutes and I was wondering whether there would be any opportunity for many hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to speak. I shall not comment on the abuse of the time of the House by both Front Bench speakers at the beginning of the debate. They told us nothing. They merely played the game of cops and robbers. I thought that we were here to discuss the problems of unemployment and what could be done about it.
Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirling-shire): Get on with it.
Mr. Henderson: I am quite capable of getting on with my speech without any assistance from the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan).
In Scotland, unemployment is no new phenomenon. In 1949, unemployment in Scotland on average was 2·9 per cent., whereas in England it was 1·2 per cent. Ten years on, in 1959 unemployment in Scotland was 4·1 per cent. compared with 1·7 per cent. in England. Ten years later, in 1969 the figure was 3·7 per cent. in Scotland and 2·1 per cent. in England. No one need be surprised that we are perturbed by the unemployment figures.
Mr. Canavan: Will the hon. Gentleman give the unemployment figures in Scotland when he had deserted Scotland and migrated to South Africa to seek his living in that racist State? [Interruption.]
Mr. Henderson: I have only five minutes. I had hoped that I should be listened to in that five minutes. I shall ignore the childish intervention of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire.
When I hear Ministers of the Crown, from the Prime Minister downwards, telling us that every industrial country has a high rate of unemployment and that we in Scotland should not be alarmed about our unemployment figure—
Mr. Canavan: What about South Africa?
Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman is obviously an expert on South Africa. He can give us that figure. The unemployment figure for Norway is 1·3 per cent., for Sweden 1·6 per cent., for Finland 2·1 per cent. and for Austria 2 per cent., and in Switzerland unemployment is so small that it cannot be measured.
Scotland must be compared not with areas of the United Kingdom but with progressive, industrial, small European countries which have many of the same characteristics and resources and many of the same problems. Those countries have one difference in that they have the opportunity to solve their problems for themselves. The difference between Norway and Scotland is that Norwegians run their own economy and their own affairs, but Scotland's affairs are run from this

787
place. What an indictment of the Union with England and all the advantages of economic integration are the present unemployment figures in Scotland.
The regional policies and the remedies have been tried time after time over the years since 1934. We have had 40 years of it. They have not cured the basic problem that there is no power or decision-making in Scotland. The ordinary working man in Scotland, whether he is unemployed or whether he is in a job but looking over his shoulder and thinking that he might be unemployed in the weeks to come, is beginning to see the real position. He will have economic security and a future only if there is independent control of the Scottish economy by the Scottish people.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mrs. Colquhoun: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that during this unemployment debate not one woman Member of the House has been called? I should like to be reassured that Mr. Speaker's Department does not think that women Members should be restricted in debates to their own areas of understanding as defined by men. I am referring to subjects like social services and mental health. If these debates can be constantly rearranged for five minutes to enable mere males to speak, why cannot they be extended for mere females?
Mr. Douglas Crawford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us be fair and reasonable. We have had a reasonable debate. I shall deal with the hon. Lady's point of order first. The question of the selection of speakers has been done on a regional basis. Mr. Speaker decided on a process of selection which I think is very fair. However, I assure the hon. Lady that there is no sex discrimination so far as Mr. Speaker's Department is concerned.
Mr. Crawford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that speakers had been selected on a regional basis. The authentic voice of Scotland has had five minutes whereas the average
788
length of other speeches has been 25 minutes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Prior.
Mr. Richard Kelley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To my knowledge, not one unemployed person has been called to take part in the debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Speak for yourself."]
Mr. George Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate has been conducted on a reasonable basis. I hope we shall be able to conduct the conclusion of the debate in the reasonable and sensible fashion in which we have conducted the rest of it. Surely we can get on with the winding-up speeches.
Mr. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With respect, some of the language directed towards these Benches has not been reasonable. I am referring in particular to the words of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who used the words "Afrikaaner" and "racialist" in relation to these Benches. In fact, he used a phrase which was heard on these Benches, "racialist swine". I ask the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire to withdraw those remarks.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Prior.
Mr. Canavan: I was merely pointing out that the hon. Gentleman had attributed—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Prior.
Mr. James Prior Mr. James Prior (Lowestoft)rose—
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) has raised a point of order which I ask the Chair to answer. Is the phrase which was used by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) a parliamentary one, and is it not correct that he should be called upon to withdraw it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Did he not rephrase it?
Mr. Wilson: On a point of order—
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Ewing: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that, as the occupant of the Chair, I am as reasonable an hon. Member as there is in the House or in any party. I appeal sincerely to hon. Members to allow us to conduct the final stages of this debate in a reasonable fashion.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Further to the point of order that I raised, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is on record that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire has used the unparliamentary expression of "racialist swine" directed against my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson). Is it not in order for you, Sir, as Deputy Speaker to exercise the authority of the office which you hold by authority of this House and instruct or ask the hon. Member to withdraw that disgraceful expression?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can only rule upon expressions that I have heard. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not hear that expression.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Well, we did.
Mr. Prior: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to submit to the House that it is doing itself no good in what is an extremely serious debate by behaving in this manner. I would submit that, although tempers may get frayed and people may get upset, we should do ourselves far more good on both sides if we now settled down and got on with the debate.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Prior.
Mr. Prior Mr. Prior rose—
Mr. Reid: Further to the point of order—
Mr. Prior: Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Donald Stewart: There is a point of order here.
Mr. Prior: The background to this debate has been cool and collected—
Mrs. Winifred Ewing Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose—
Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order.
Mr. Prior: The background to this debate has been cool and collected, and I think that we do ourselves an immense amount of harm in the eyes of the public if we go on—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not heard the expression. I have assured the House on that point. What was the expression supposed to be?
Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) addressed the remark to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) that he was a "racialist swine". Further, after you yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had said that the Chair had not heard that remark, he was heard by me and other hon. Members to say "So he is," or words to that effect. I now ask you to exercise the authority of your office and ask him to withdraw those expressions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), did he use that expression?
Mr. Canavan: I referred to the fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) left what he called his beloved country, Scotland, in order to seek his living in South Africa, a racialist country. He left Scotland, a democratic organisation, in order to exploit a racialist organisation in South Africa.
Mr. Prior Mr. Prior rose—
Mr. Charles Irving: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That statement is quite untrue. He did call the hon. Member a racialist swine.
Mr. Speaker: I think that we should get on with the debate.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order—
Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order. I realise that tempers might be frayed at this stage, but this is a very important point. Is an hon. Member of this House entitled to use such an expression? Is he entitled to repeat it? Is he entitled to make a statement that he did not make it only to have an hon. Member from another party attest to the fact that he was not stating the truth?
In defence of the rights of hon. Members of this House, may I ask the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire to withdraw his accusation? If he were to do so, we should be perfectly willing to drop the whole matter, but in view of the expression used by the hon. Member I feel that we are entitled to press the point.
Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly examine carefully the report of what has been said. if I consider that a rebuke or an explanation is needed, I shall try to insist on it, but not at the moment.
9.20 p.m.
Mr. James Prior: It is now 20 minutes past nine, and there has been a good deal of "injury time". I therefore suggest that we try to divide the remaining time between the two Front Bench speeches. Part of the difficulty arose because we were trying to cut down the amount of Front Bench time. That has led us into trouble.
This has been a very sober and serious debate. I should hate to think that the excitement of the last few minutes has in any way obscured the fact that the House has taken the problem of unemployment extremely seriously. A number of very important speeches have been made, and many deeply held views have been put forward on both sides. No doubt we shall, regrettably, have many more debates on unemployment over the next few months.
I thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech today was absolutely characteristic. It was just what I expected of him. He started by taking the credit for everything that had gone right and blamed us for everything that had gone wrong. He spent most of his speech not in addressing himself to the problems we face but in going back to the problems of 1971 and 1972.
792
The truth is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has consistently underestimated the problem of unemployment. Time and time again he has led the country astray by his optimism. He has always spoken of sunny times around the corner. They have been round the corner again today. He is still waiting for a pickup in world trade to solve all our problems.
In April, when unemployment was just over 700,000, the right hon. Gentleman was talking about being close to the bottom of the trough and stating that, fortunately, the alternative to inflation was not a continuing rise of unemployment over the indefinite future. How wrong the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been. He would have done himself and the country a little more credit if he had been a little more sincere and a little less hypocritical in many of the remarks he made. We all know that we face—and will continue to face for many months, if not years— a very serious unemployment problem.
I received a letter only today from the National Federation of Building Trades Employers in which it is pointed out that by the end of the year, unless something happens to prevent it, the building industry alone will account for 300,000 of the unemployed in this country as compared with the 200,000 unemployed for which it accounts at the present time.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks about the growth of world trade were adequately deal with by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) and by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who both thought that the likely impact of increasing world trade would be nowhere near what it was in the last decade.
Most sober commetators looking at world trade today regard the prospects for growth in the next few years as being very limited indeed. It would be totally wrong to believe that we can sit back and wait for growth to take up the slack in our economy. We have reached the situation where we must admit to ourselves and to the country that at each period in the cycle we are now getting greater unemployment at the trough and less growth at the peak. If

793
we do not do that, we do not do ourselves justice and we do not do any credit to the country.
I fear much higher levels of unemployment. I shall come later to what I think we must recognise about it. It is no use hon. Members going on talking in terms of the old economic conventions. Some people are monetarists, other are Keynesians. As the hon. Member for Lady-wood said, it is no answer to suggest that we can cure everything by a monetarist policy. After all, if a man is on a diet he can still die if it is not a balanced diet. The same applies to the monetarist as to Keynesian policies. If a man fills himself full of drugs he can still die. That is no answer either. We need a balanced economy. We are not getting it at the moment.
The Government cannot reflate because the bankers and the overseas money that we need prevent this happening. In any case, the Chancellor dare not reflate because of the risk of hyperinflation. That is why our amendment is framed as it is.
In The Times today Peter Jay, in the last paragraph of his article, says:
"By contrast a conventional reflation now, with or without benefit of import controls, will guarantee a decade of massive unemployment and political chaos in the 1980s."
We should he careful to avoid falling into that trap.
The Chancellor spent much of his speech attacking the Opposition. He has a short memory. What a contrast this debate has been to the shrillness of debates in earlier years when the problem was so much less serious than it is today. What were the sober, cautious and responsible comments of the Prime Minister at that time? I shall not have time to go through many of his comments. However, when unemployment was below 1 million in November 1971 the Prime Minister told us that it was "intolerable". Just over two months later, with unemployment at just over 1 million on unadjusted figures, he told the House:
"In the dole queue there is no freedom; there are no differentiations. For them the universal leveller is the denial of freedom to work."—[Official Report, 24th January 1972; Vol. 829, c. 1001.]
In the same speech the Prime Minister said that unemployment was "a social tragedy". It was then that he branded my
794
right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) as
"the first dole queue millionaire to cross the Channel since Neville Chamberlain."— [Official Report, 24th January 1972; Vol. 829, c. 999.]
That remark has already been referred to this afternoon.
Now the Prime Minister always talks about world factors. I do not recall him or the Chancellor spending much time in 1971 and 1972 talking about world factors. Memories are conveniently short on these matters. I wish that the memories of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side would stretch back a little further than the last few months. If they think that they are adopting the same responsible attitude towards this serious problem as we are adopting, no one, certainly on this side of the House, will believe them for a moment.
In February 1974 the Prime Minister campaigned on the slogan
"Back to work with Labour."
In October he told the voters of Preston
"We will not have our own people unemployed."
Unemployment in Preston, where there are two marginal seas, is 2,600 more than it was a year ago. The day before polling, the Prime Minister said that unemployment was beginning to fall. Really, therefore, the Prime Minister stands condemned. Either he is telling the truth now about the position or, if he is doing that now, he was deceiving us at the time of the General Elections in 1974.
If there is anger about the situation, I am not surprised. Unemployment will be higher and will last longer as a result of what has happened in the last two years. Listening to the speech of the Chancellor today, it seems that collective responsibility has given way to collective hypocrisy.
What can be done? When we have put forward suggestions on public expenditure, as we have done for about one and a half years now, saying that it must be cut, we have been told every time that if we cut public expenditure temporarily unemployment will rise.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: It will.
Mr. Prior: But what has happened for the last 18 months without any cuts in public expenditure? Unemployment has

795
risen. This is the weakness of the argument of Labour Members. If they had cut public expenditure when they should have done, by now they would be getting through the difficulties which we still have to experience.
Incidentally, it is no good telling us about what is happening overseas. If Labour Members look at the up-to-date figures they will see that unemployment is now falling in nearly every other country. Taking the last three months for which figures are available, one can see that the rate of increase in unemployment in Britain is higher than it is in any other country.
This is the message. I have the figures produced by the right hon. Gentleman's Department to prove that this is so. If we had cut public expenditure at the right time, we would certainly be in a better position now.
There is no easy answer or painless solution to this problem. Anyone who thinks that there is is not living in the real world. We simply have to make room for the private sector. If we do not make room for the private sector of the economy, there will be no new jobs created to create the wealth on which the country depends. It is the easiest thing in the world to increase public expenditure and to increase the number of jobs which are created in the public sector. But they are not productive jobs, and it is productive jobs on which the whole future of the country depends.
The Government are talking with two voices on all of this. They are now saying that we should encourage private enter—at least, they say that for a little while and then they drift back into others things. However, if we are to encourage private enterprise to invest, which is what the Chancellor wants to do, he must make changes in the price controls. That is the only way in which he can do it. There are manufacturers all over the country who are now saying that they will not invest in new plant and machinery or in new buildings until they know the future of price controls.
Price controls at present may not be hurting manufacturers a great deal, but they are worried about when the upturn comes and new investment is made. They are worried about the effect of price con
796
trols at that time on any investment they could make. Price controls at present are prohibiting investment and destroying confidence, and thereby destroying employment too.
Manufacturing investment means more cash to be earned and ploughed back into industry. If right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side of the House do not recognise that, they do not recognise anything.
Again, we have to do far more to cut out legislation which at present affects the level of employment. We warned the Secretary of State for Employment when he was putting through the Employment Protection Act that the effect of that legislation in the long run might be beneficial but that in the sort run it would stop people taking on labour. That is precisely what it has done. It is especially true of small businesses.
Then, at the time of his Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was warned that to put a 25 per cent. rate of VAT on small boats, yachts, television tubes and so on would affect employment. That is what it has done.
It is no good the Government coming back to this House a few months later to push a lot more money into regional employment premiums or any of the other temporary employment subsidies, because the damage is done. This is what the Government have never understood.
Then we have the Bill to regulate dock work coming up. I do not know one person on the management side, and I know very few on the union side, who actually believes—
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): I do.
Mr. Prior: The Patronage Secretary is one, but he is in the minority most of the time anyhow. There are very few people who believe that the Dock Work Regulation Bill will do anything other than damage investment prospects and employment. This is known.
It would be far better if the Government started by telling the people the truth. This has plainly not happened. If they start by telling people the truth, there is some chance that they will be able to get people to understand the long-term problems.
Mr. Reginald Eyre: Is it not a fact that, as a direct consequence of the Government's policies which my right hon. Friend has outlined, unemployment has grown most rapidly in the great industrial areas in which the Labour Party got most support?
Mr. Prior: Yes, and during the debate on unemployment before Christmas I asked the Government what was their policy on IDCs. We have still not had an answer. We still do not know the Government's policy towards IDCs in the West Midlands.
If the country accepts, as I am certain that it will, that unemployment will be a lot higher in the next two or three years than we have known for a very long time past, perhaps we had better start looking at proper schemes of retraining. Let us use all that spare capacity in industry for proper schemes of contracts with private industry to get people trained. That would now he a better use for any cash that we have than going on with the process we have at the moment of palliatives towards short-term unemployment. We have to recognise now that we shall need a massive retraining and training exercise spread over a long time.
The Secretary of State for Employment has a special responsibility because he was very largely responsible for stoking up the inflation of 1974 and part of 1975. It was he who gave encouragement—almost a blessing—to every large wage increase in the public sector and elsewhere, and he is now reaping the whirlwind of what has happened. He sits in his place as Secretary of State for Employment knowing that it is the policy which he adopted—and he more than anyone else—in that period from March 1974 to July 1975 which has resulted in the inflation that we have experienced, and the bringing down of that inflation now is the cause of the unemployment from which we suffer.
At one stage the right hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that he was not prepared to remain in his Department and preside over mass unemployment. That was when unemployment was running at a level of 600,000. Today it is 1·2 million and increasing.
798
The truth is that the last two years have been disastrous years for our country and for our people. The only coherent alternative strategy that we have heard from the Opposition has come from the far Left of the Labour Party —[Interruption.] I meant from the Government Benches. For one moment I thought that I was back in the Government. The only coherent alternative strategy comes from the far Left. If we accepted it, it would fundamentally change the nature of our society. Let us have no doubt about that. Half-hearted mutterings about private enterprise from the Government—a Government who bend to the winds of expediency and Left-wing pressures—are no answer to our problems.
We need a Government who know what has to be done, mean what they say, tell the truth for a change, trust the people and lay down the foundations for restoring confidence and prosperity to all our people. I believe that this Government have failed the nation. They have failed to tell the truth. That will result in unemployment lasting longer and being worse than necessary. We need a properly-run economy. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for our amendment.
9.41 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): One of the problems of replying tonight, particularly in the abbreviated time left to the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and myself, is that we have had at least two major debates compressed into one. There have been criticisms from the right hon. Gentleman to which I will seek to reply if I have the time, and we have had the criticism from my hon. Friends who were unable to move their amendment but who nevertheless put their case—my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). In saying that I mean no disrespect to the spokesmen from Scotland and elsewhere, but the problem we are discussing is not only a Scottish or Welsh problem, although both Wales and Scotland suffer severely from the unemployment afflicting so much of our country.
In a sense it is not only a British problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] 1

799
say that partly because the right hon. Gentleman misquoted the facts. If the seasonally adjusted figures are taken, and they are the right ones to take, serious and deplorable though the level of unemployment in this country is it is none the less still the case that in the United States, and Canada, Germany, France and most of the other countries of Western Europe, unemployment is worse. These are the facts which in themselves dispose of a considerable number of the accusations made by Tory Members.
I begin by referring to the speech of the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). I think that all who heard it would agree with what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) and Bethnal Green and Bow, namely, that it was a remarkable speech. I agreed with many parts of it. I agreed with what the right hon. Member said about the psychology of unemployment and how debasing and deplorable can be its long-term effects for the whole of our industrial society. I agreed with what the right hon. Member said about the advantages of regional policies as we have had them. I do not think that they should be despised.
I also have sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, who said that in some respects regional policies have become fossilised and we must find more flexible ways of applying them.
I agreed with the right hon. Member also when he said that the construction industry probably presents the most tragic and absurd contrast of all with its unemployed building workers at a time when people want houses. I agreed also about the necessity to count the cost of unemployment, any inflation in the public borrowing requirement, and all the other factors. The House is deeply indebted to him for the way in which he put the case. Everyone who heard his speech will agree that it pointed to some of the ways in which we should approach the question.
I also agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood said, although he had some criticisms of the Government. They were not very
800
fierce criticisms, nor were those he made of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood argued that he was presenting much the same case as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone, but said he would support the Government the more because he believed that we were right, too.
The criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone formed the central feature of the debate, and it is proper that we should try to answer them. I thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow for the way in which they referred to our so-called alleviating measures. They did not deride or reject them. They said they were not enough, and I understand that. It would be a mistake for anyone in the House to minimise that part of what we are doing.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft stressed the necessity for training. I agree with him. In this recession more has been done to assist training than in any previous recession, thanks to the Government's measures, although I agree that training is not confined to what can be done by Government expenditure. Other expenditure is even more important. The training that has been done has been extremely important. The number of apprenticeships taken up by the engineering industry in this recession has been kept up, whereas in the last recession the number fell by about 25 per cent. The millions of pounds provided by the Government for training last year, the millions provided for the temporary employment subsidy, the millions for the job creation scheme and for the construction industry are of some importance, but I agree that much more has to be done for the construction industry.
The packages introduced just before Christmas will have saved jobs for several hundreds of thousands of people, and the further measures that we are preparing, which will be introduced and announced in a week or two, will also contribute. Whatever hon. Members may say, in all the discussions we have had with the trade unions, they have agreed that these measures are of great importance, despite their insistence about the desirability and urgency of still further measures.

801
I now come to the argument of my hon. Friends who said in their amendment that they wanted controlled reflation as soon as possible. That is what I want, too. I believe that is what the country wants. We want to see the expansion of our economy as soon as we can do it safely. My hon. Friends are asking not for great, sweeping, indiscriminate reflation but for controlled reflation. I do not believe we should protest against pressure of that character. The sooner we can arrive at that situation, the better.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow asks "What is the answer to the argument that it should have been done months ago?" Even on the argument as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor presented it, my hon. Friend says that action should have been months ago. He says that it takes so long for the controlled measures for reflation to take effect that there is all the more reason for having taken such action earlier. That is what my hon. Friend argues, and I understand the argument. Some of my hon. Friends are suggesting that the Chancellor should have embarked upon a course of controlled reflation at about the same time as we were introducing the £6 limit and the controls over inflation which we then sought to establish. It seems that that is one of their principal criticisms.
On further consideration I do not think that they or anyone else will believe that that would have been the sensible course. I am sure that that will be their conclusion, when what we had to do in the interests of the nation, and what we did in full collaboration with the trade union movement, was to take measures to try to stop the runaway inflation which would have swept away all our policies and our Government in the same process. I do not believe it was possible at that time to embark upon a controlled reflation.
We wish to secure a controlled reflation as soon as we can and as safely as we can. We wish to do so without plunging ourselves into the same sort of inflation which led to all these problems and difficulties.
802
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow then said—I understand his argument, and it is one that must be considered by the House and the country most seriously—that controlled reflation must be combined with some form of import control. Of course, my hon. Friends' amendment—I do not complain about this—leaves open the issue of whether there should be selective controls or controls going across a wide area.
I believe that my hon. Friends will accept that there are different arguments for different controls at different times. For example, some months ago when most of the great industrialised countries in the world were suffering from heavy deficits in their balance of payments, it would have been impossible for a British Government to have embarked upon controls without running the great possibility of widespread retaliation. My hon. Friends have said that they can cite examples of what happened in the past, and so can I. There was retaliation during the great slump of the 1930s. Resort to such measures in those circumstances led to retaliation and deepened the nature of the slump. But that does not mean that there are not other circumstances in which the Government should consider import controls as one of the methods for assisting a reflation.
I am not excluding what my hon. Friends are proposing. I believe that it is a proper thing to be considered. When right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition exclude it altogether they are proving that they are the doctrinaires. Perhaps they are so carried away with the oratory of the Common Market debate that they believe such a course should be excluded altogether. I do not believe that that is the case.
I now come to the accusations of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft. I am sorry that we do not have much longer to debate these matters tonight. However, I know that we shall have plenty of time to discuss them in other places, although I agree that the discussions are urgent. I fully accept what my hon. Friends say—namely, that the sooner we can get the National Enterprise Board, planning agreements and all such measures into full-scale operation the

803
better. We shall only see the possibilities if we can keep a Labour Government in office. We shall not be able to expect much from the Opposition.
That is illustrated by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman began his speech by trying to make accusations against me. He talked as if I am the sole author of inflation. Others have been into the history of the matter a little more carefully. It is sometimes called the Barber inflation. I think that is most unfair. It was not the Barber inflation. It was the Barber-Heath-Thatcher inflation, or the Barber-Heath-Thatcher-Joseph inflation. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) is nodding agreement again.
I know that many Opposition Members have not listened to the debate. [Interruption.] Indeed, they seem determined not to listen to it now. If they had been present they would have observed the wonderful contrast between the speeches made from the Opposition Front Bench and those delivered from below the Gangway.
We did not have the advantage of hearing the right hon. Member for Sid-cup (Mr. Heath), who played a leading part in the last Tory Government. I am sure the right hon. Member does not deny that. We know that the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition used to exchange a few words, but we know that they never speak to each other now. We have the most extraordinary pantomime horse in political history—one in which the front legs never communicate with the back legs. Whoever would want to ride on such a ramshackle steed?
Mr. Churchill: When will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the unemployed?
Mr. Foot: I am dealing with the unemployed. We know the Tory attitude on the unemployed because we have examined their voting record. It is not a question of theory or of having to put arguments about public expenditure, but of examining the Opposition voting record when the Government have tried to save jobs for the people. In British Leyland 160,000 jobs were saved, but the Opposition voted against. More jobs were saved at Alfred Herbert. Again, the Tories voted against that. They also voted against our proposals for Chrysler. In that case 17,000 jobs were saved in Chrysler itself and 40,000 in the rest of the country. If the Tory vote had been effective, those workers would have lost their jobs. How can they talk about unemployment? They have neither the policy nor the will to deal with it.
Mr. Churchill: What is the right hon. Gentleman's policy?
Mr. Foot: I understand the criticisms made by my hon. Friends, and I have in mind the party manifesto on which we won the election. I agree with them that in the interests of the country we must stay in power and carry on. That is what we intend to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] It is precisely because the Opposition have not the courage of their convictions that they will lose the vote tonight.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 299.

Division No. 48.]

AYES

10.0 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Clegg, Walter

Aitken, Jonathan

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Cockcroft, John

Alison, Michael

Braine, Sir Bernard

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Brittan, Leon

Cope, John

Arnold, Tom

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Cormack, Patrick

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Brotherton, Michael

Corrie, John

Awdry, Daniel

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Costain, A. P.

Baker, Kenneth

Bryan, Sir Paul

Crouch, David

Banks, Robert

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Crowder, F. P.

Bell, Ronald

Budgen, Nick

Davies, Rt Hen J. (Knutsford)

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Bulmer, Esmond

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Benyon, W.

Burden, F. A.

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Berry, Hon Anthony

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Biffen, John

Carlisle, Mark

Drayson, Burnaby

Biggs-Davison, John

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Blaker, Peter

Churchill, W. S.

Durant, Tony

Body, Richard

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Dykes, Hugh

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Bottomley, Peter

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke'

Elliott, Sir William

Kitson, Sir Timotthy

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Emery, Peter

Knight, Mrs Jill

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Eyre, Reginald

Knox, David

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lamont, Norman

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Lane, David

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Fell, Anthony

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Ridsdale, Julian

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Rifklnd, Malcolm

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Lawrence, Ivan

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lawson, Nigel

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Fox, Marcus

Lloyd, Ian

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Loveridge, John

Royle, Sir Anthony

Fry, Peter

Luce, Richard

Sainsbury, Tim

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

McAdden, Sir Stephen

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

McCrindle, Robert

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Macfariane, Neil

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

MacGregor, John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Shepherd, Colin

Giyn, Dr Alan

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Shersby, Michael

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Silvester, Fred

Goodhart, Philip

Madel, David

Sims, Roger

Goodhew, Victor

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Sinclair, Sir George

Goodlad, Alastair

Marten, Neil

Skeet, T. H. H.

Gorst John

Mather, Carol

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Gow, Ian (Esstbourns)

Maude, Angus

Speed, Keith

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Spence, John

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Mawby, Ray

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Gray Hamish

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Griffiths, Eldon

Mayhew, Patrick

Sproat, lain

Grist Ian

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stainton, Keith

Grist, Ian

Mills, Peter

Stanbrook, Ivor

Grylls, Michael

Miscampbell, Norman

Stanley, John

Hall Sir John

Mitchell David (Basinastoke)

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Moate, Roger

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Molyneaux, James

Stokes, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Monro, Hector

Stradling Thomas, J.

Hannam, John

Montgomery, Fergus

Tapsell, Peter

Hastings, Stephen

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Tapsell, Peter

Havers, Sir Michael

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Tebbit, Norman

Hawkins, Paul

Morgan, Geraint

Temple-Morris, Peter

Hayhoe, Barney

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Heseltine, Michael

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Townsend, Cyril D.

Hicks, Robert

Mudd, David

Trotter Neville

Higgins, Terence L.

Neave, Airey

Tugendhat, Christopher

Holland, Philip

Nelson, Anthony

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Hordern, Peter

Neubert, Michael

Viggers, Peter

Howell, David (Guildford)

Newton, Tony

Wakeham, John

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Nott, John

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Hurd, Douglas

Onslow, Cranley

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Osborn, John

Wall, Patrick

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Walters, Dennis

James, David

Parkinson, Cecil

Weatherill, Bernard

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

Pattie, Geoffrey

Wells, John

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Percival, Ian

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Jopling, Michael

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Wiggin, Jerry

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Pink, R. Bonner

Winterton, Nicholas

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Price, David (EasNeigh)

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Kershaw, Anthony

Prior, Rt Hon James

Younger, Hon George

Kilfedder, James

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Kimball, Marcus

Raison, Timothy

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Rathbone, Tim

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Mr. Michael Roberts.

NOES

Allaun, Frank

Bidwell, Sydney

Callaghan, Jim (Middieton & P)

Anderson, Donald

Bishop, E. S.

Campbell, Ian

Archer, Peter

Blenklnsop, Arthur

Canavan, Dennis

Armstrong, Ernest

Boardman, H.

Cant, R. B.

Ashley, Jack

Booth, Albert

Carmichael, Nell

Ashton, Joe

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Cartwright, John

Atkinson, Norman

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Bradley, Tom

Clemitson, Ivor

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Coleman, Donald

Bates, All

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

Bean, R. E.

Buchan, Norman

Concannon, J. D.

Beith, A. J.

Buchanan, Richard

Conlan, Bernard

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Corbett, Robin

806

807

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Price, William (Rugby)

Crawshaw, Richard

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Radice, Giles

Cronin, John

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

John, Brynmor

Richardson, Miss Jo

Cryer, Bob

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Davidson, Arthur

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Davies, Bryan (Enfleid N)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Davis Clinton (Hackney C)

Judd, Frank

Rooker, J. W.

Deakins, Eric

Kaufman, Gerald

Rose, Paul B.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Kelley, Richard

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Kerr, Russell

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Delargy, Hugh

Kilroy-Sllk, Robert

Rowlands, Ted

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Kinnock, Neil

Sandelson, Neville

Dempsey, James

Lambie, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Dolg, Peter

Lamborn, Harry

Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lamond, James

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Dunn, James A.

Leadbitter, Ted

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Dunnett, Jack

Lee, John

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Eadie, Alex

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Edge, Geoff

Litterick, Tom

Sillars, James

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Loyden, Eddie

Silverman, Julius

Ellis, John (Brlgg & Scun)

Luard, Evan

Skinner, Dennis

English, Michael

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Small, William

Ennals, David

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

McCartney, Hugh

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

McElhone, Frank

Spearing, Nigel

Evans, John (Newton)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Spriggs, Leslie

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Stallard, A. W.

Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.

Mackenzie Gregor

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Mackintosh, John P.

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Maclennan, Robert

Stoddart, David

Flannery, Martin

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

McNamara, Kevin

Stott, Roger

Fool, Rt Hon Michael

Madden, Max

Strang, Gavin

Ford, Ben

Magee, Bryan

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Forrester, John

Mahon, Simon

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Swain, Thomas

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

Marks, Kenneth

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Freeson, Reginald

Marquand, David

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Freud, Clement

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

George, Bruce

Meacher, Michael

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Gilbert, Dr John

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Tierney, Sydney

Ginsburg, David

Mendelson, John

Tinn, James

Golding, John

Mikardo, Ian

Tomlinson, John

Gould, Bryan

Millan, Bruce

Tomney, Frank

Gourlay, Harry

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbrlde)

Torney, Tom

Graham, Ted

Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)

Tuck, Raphael

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Grant, John (Islington C)

Molloy, William

Wainwrlght, Edwin (Dearne V)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Moonman, Eric

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Grocott, Bruce

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Harper, Joseph

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefleid)

Moyle, Roland

Ward, Michael

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Watkins, David

Hatton, Frank

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Weetch, Ken

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Newens, Stanley

Weltzman, David

Healey Rt Hon Denis

Noble, Mike

Wellbeloved, James

Heffer, Eric S.

Oakes, Gordon

White, Frank R.(Bury)

Ogden, Eric

White, James (Pollok)

Hooley, Frank

O'Halloran, Michael

Whitlock, William

Hooson, Emlyn

O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

Willey Rt Hon Frederick

Horam, John

Orbach, Maurice

William, Alan (Swansea W)

Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Ovenden, John

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch ch)

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Owen, Dr David

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Huckfield, Les

Owen, Dr David

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Palmer, Arthur

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Pardoe John

Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Park, George

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Parker John

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Hunter, Adam

Pavitt, Laurie

Woodall, Alec

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Woof, Robert

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Pendry, Tom

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Penhaligon, David

Young, David (Bolton E)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Perry, Ernest

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Janner, Greville

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Mr. J. D. Dormand and

Mr. Peter Snape.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House division: Ayes 234, Noes 25.

Division No. 49.]

AYES

[10.14 p.m.

Anderson, Donald

Freeson, Reginald

Moonman, Eric

Archer, Peter

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Armstrong, Ernest

George, Bruce

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Ashley, Jack

Gilbert, Dr John

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Ginsburg, David

Moyle, Roland

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Golding, John

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Barnett, Rl Hon Joel (Heywood)

Gould, Bryan

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Bates, Alf

Gourlay, Harry

Oakes, Gordon

Bean, R. E.

Graham, Ted

Ogden, Eric

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Grant, George (Morpeth)

O'Halloran, Michael

Bishop, E. S.

Grant, John (Islington C)

O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Grocott, Bruce

Orbach, Maurice

Boardman, H.

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Booth, Albert

Harrison, Walter (Wakefleld)

Ovenden, John

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Owen, Dr David

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Hayman, Mrs Helens

Padley, Walter

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Palmer, Arthur

Bradley, Tom

Hooley, Frank

Park, George

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Horam, John

Parker, John

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Pavitt, Laurie

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Huckfield, Les

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Buchanan, Richard

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Pendry, Tom

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Perry, Ernest

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Campbell, Ian

Hunter, Adam

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Cant, R. B.

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Price, William (Rugby)

Carmichael, Nell

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Radice, Giles

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Cartwrlght, John

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Janner, Greville

Roderick, Caerwyn

Clemitson, Ivor

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Rooker, J. W.

Coleman, Donald

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Ross, Rt Hon w. (Kilmarnock)

Concannon, J. D.

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Rowlands, Ted

Cornlan, Bernard

John, Brynmor

SandelBon, Neville

Corbett, Robin

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Shaw, Arnold (IIford South)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Crawshaw, Richard

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Short, Rt Hon E. Newcastie C)

Cronin, John

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Judd, Frank

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Kaufman, Gerald

Silverman, Julius

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

Kelley, Richard

small, William

Davidson, Arthur

Lambie, David

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Lamborn, Harry

Snape, Peter

Davis Denzil (Llanelll

Leadbilter, Ted

Stallard, A, W.

Davis Clinton (Hackeny C)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Dealins. Eric

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Stoddart, David

Deakins, Eric

Luard Evan

Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

Dean, Joseph (Leeds Wesi)

Lyon Alexander (York)

Stott, Roger

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Lyons Edward (Bradford W)

Strang, Gavin

Delargy, Hugh

McCartney, Hugh

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

McElhone Frank

Summersklll, Hon Dr Shirley

Dempsey, James

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Dolg, Peter

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Dormand, J. D.

Mackenzie, Gregor

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Mackintosh, John P.

Tierney, Sydney

Duffy, A. E. P.

Maclennan, Robert

Tinn, James

Dunn, James A.

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Tomllnson, John

Dunnett, Jack

McNamara, Kevin

Tomney, Frank

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Madden, Max

Torney, Tom

Eadie, Alex

Magee, Bryan

Tuck, Raphael

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Mahon, Simon

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

English, Michael

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Ennals, David

Marks Kenneth

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

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Marquand, David

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Evans, John (Newton)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Walker, Terry (Klngswood)

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Ward, Michael

Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Watkins, David

Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Meacher, Michael

Weetch, Ken Weitzman, David

Ford, Ben

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Wellbeloved, James

Forrester, John

Millan, Bruce

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)

White, James (Pollok)

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

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, ltchen)

Whitlock, William

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Woodall, Alec

Mr. John Ellis and

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Woof, Robert

Mr. Joseph Harper.

NOES

Bain, Mrs Margarat

Kllfedder, James

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Beith, A. J.

MacCormick, lain

Watt, Hamish

Crawford, Douglas

Pardoe, John

Welsh, Andrew

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Penhaligon, David

Wigley, Dafydd

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Reid, George

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Freud, Clement

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hooson, Emlyn

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Mr. Douglas Henderson and

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Thompson, George

Mr. Cyril Smith.

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, while welcoming the reduction in the rate of inflation and the improvement in the balance of payments as an essential basis for economic recovery, expresses its deep concern at the continuing rise in unemployment and its determination to take all possible effective measures to reduce it so as to ensure continuing growth with stable prices.
Mr. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this evening the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) referred to hon. Members on these Benches as racialist swine and racialist rats. The fact that these remarks were made was confirmed not only by those on these Benches but by Members of the official Opposition sitting behind us. The hon. Member himself, when challenged, said, sotto voce, "That's dead right".
Earlier this evening, Mr. Speaker, you said that you would consider the matter, and I ask for guidance. First, is the use
812
of such language in this House right and proper? Secondly, what action do you consider it right to take in this matter?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Canavan.
Mr. Canavan: May I say in explanation, Mr. Speaker, that in an intervention in a speech by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) I said that he had left his native and so-called beloved land, Scotland, in order to emigrate to a racialist regime and take part in racialist exploitation. That was what I said in public and I do not withdraw it. I think that the hon. Member's action was unpatriotic, amounting to racialism on his part.
Mr. Speaker: I shall not at this time of night have a discussion on the merits of the question. I shall look at the Official Report. If I think that any right hon. or hon. Member has gone too far, I shall take the appropriate measures, whatever I consider them to be.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/818/75 relating to data processing.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
DATA PROCESSING (No. 2)
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/2297/75 relating to data processing.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
IMPORTS OF TEXTILES FROM INDIA
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. S/1185/75 relating to Imports of Textiles from India.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
IMPORTS OF TEXTILES FROM PAKISTAN
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. S/1212/75 relating to Imports of Textiles from Pakistan.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN TEXTILES AND MODIFICATION OF EEC REGULATION1439/74
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/2685/75 relating to International Trade in Textiles and Modification of EEC Regulation 1439/74.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

IMPORTS OF TEXTILES FROM THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. S/1235/75 relating to Imports of Textiles from the Republic of Korea.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN SECONDARY LEGISLATION, &c.
Ordered,
That the Order of the House of 18th November in the last Session of Parliament relating to the Quorum of the Sub-committees of the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation, &c., be amended by leaving out the word "Three" and inserting the word "Two" instead thereof.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

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

SEA DEFENCES (WHITSTABLE AND HERNE BAY)
10.29 p.m.
Mr. David Crouch: I wish to draw the attention of the House to what I consider to be a very serious situation in my constituency concerning flooding from the North Sea.
In 1953, as the House knows, there was very serious flooding from the North Sea in the Thames Estuary, and on the East Coast. At Whitstable, in my constituency, the sea defences were breached and the central area of the town was flooded to a depth of 5 feet. The sea level was 15 feet 4 inches above ordnance datum. There were 1,550 properties flooded and 5,000 people had to be evacuated. The extent of the damage to property and services was very severe indeed. Mercifully, there was no loss of life.
After that disaster steps were taken to improve the defences at Whitstable in line with the defences for the whole length of the East Coast where this needed to be done to meet the recommendations of the Waverley Committee. At Whitstable the height of the sea wall was raised to match the conditions laid down by that Committee.
Last week the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when speaking about sea defences on the East Coast, said that
"the defences should be improved to a standard sufficient to withstand another flood of the same proportions as occurred in January 1953."—[0fficial Report, 21st January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 1057.]
That is the relevant part of what I seek to say tonight. The defences were raised to meet a situation such as occurred one night in January 1953 in order to face a similar surge of water at high tide and wind at the same time.
I maintain that these repairs in the area of Whitstable and Herne Bay were inadequate and are no longer sufficient to protect my constituents in the centre of Whitstable. I do not wish to exaggerate

815
or to put fear into the minds of my constituents, but I believe that there is always a possibility, particularly in winter, of a disaster of major proportions.
I am advised by the Canterbury City Engineer—the Canterbury District Council covers this area of coastline at Whitstable and Herne Bay—regarding sea defences that
"major lengths would collapse under the conditions for which they were designed."
Those conditions were to cope with the tide and storm conditions of 1953. He estimates that 3,000 properties would be within the flood area and that nearly 1,000 would be flooded by more than 8 feet of water.
That was over 20 years ago. A few weeks ago, on the night of 3rd-4th January, there was a great storm in the North Sea and we came very near to such a disaster in Whitstable. We were saved from such a tragedy only by the clock. I shall explain. We had an emergency situation that night at 11 o'clock. The police had to go out issuing public warnings to people in the flood danger area to be ready that night to evacuate with their families. Luckily that did not happen.
As I said, we were saved by the clock. The surge of the North Sea—the Minister will know what I mean by that—of nearly 10 feet occurred before high tide. Had it come at the same time, we would almost certainly have suffered severe flooding in central Whitstable.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that a plan has been prepared to protect the town at this most vulnerable point, the low-lying part. There has been close consultation between the city engineer's department and the Department of the Environment, in particular with the Government research station at Wallingford, and advice has been given to improve the sea defences there to the same standards as have been approved by the Department for the Thames Barrage.
The estimated cost in today's terms is £5 million. This scheme is not exceptional. It is on the same lines as has been planned for the Thames Barrage for Essex and for sea defences across the North Sea in Holland. There is nothing exceptional about the case that I am making for the coastline at Whitstable.
816
Of course, many of my constituents do not want these new defences, not only because of the cost, much of which would fall on them in the form of rates, but because a higher sea wall would spoil their sea view and might even rob them of it. I can understand and sympathise with their views, and so also, presumably, did the Minister when he ordered a public inquiry a year ago, in February last year. It sat for eight weeks taking evidence and hearing both sides of the case. We are still awaiting an answer from the Minister nearly 12 months later. I hope that it will not be long before we get that answer.
I am very concerned at the prospect of the sea breaking through. My concern is not so much with the view, but a view of the sea breaking through the sea wall is something which no one wants. That would be a terrifying prospect. But we in this part of Kent live with such dangers all the year round, and particularly, as I have said, in the winter months. We face the threat of invasion by the sea—nothing more, nothing less.
The coastline in question is subject to continual change. The shingle, itself a vital sea defence, is constantly moving and drifting away. I want to put before the Minister a remarkable piece of evidence. I am advised that this part of England is actually sinking and that the land is settling at a rate of half a metre each 100 years. The question of maintaining our sea defence is, therefore, a matter of top priority in my constituency. It is a never-ending task and a never-ending charge on the ratepayers.
That is what I think is so extraordinary. One would think that the responsibility for the defence of our island against the sea was a national responsibility—but not a bit of it. The Government pay us less than half the cost. They used to give us as much as 57½ per cent. in grant towards local government expenditure on sea defences. Now, in recent grants, they give us only 41 per cent., and the balance of the cost has to be shared between the district council and the Kent County Council on a fifty-fifty basis.
The Minister has told me that as local interests are involved it is right that we should carry some of this burden, with the greatest respect, I find that a

817
very thoughtless remark. The burden is that people's lives are in danger and that thousands of houses are at risk. What sort of advantage is there in that sort of local interest? The Minister should think again. Our burden is great. It is much too high and very unfair.
I am not talking about a few new groynes, a few lorry loads of shingle and keeping the promenade in good repair. Our requirement in central Whitstable is a scientifically designed sea wall capable of withstanding a North Sea gale and a tide and surge 18 ft. above normal. As I have said, the cost is about £5 million. In the last two years we shall have spent nearly £2 million on cliff stabilisation and beach and groyne repairs.
I am asking the central Government to carry the whole financial responsibility for sea defences. I believe that there is an uneven apportionment of costs at present throughout the country. It varies from district to district. Only last week the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food disclosed that it was his Department that was responsible for administering sea defences, and, as he said, with generous grants of up to 85 per cent.—that is where the sea defences are administered locally for the Ministry of Agriculture by the water authorities. I understand that where sea defences are the responsibility locally of water authorities, they automatically get an 85 per cent, grant from the Government.
Imagine how people in my constituency, in Whitstable and Herne Bay, feel as they look along the coast towards Faversham Creek and up the River Swale, because that stretch of coast comes under the Southern Water Authority and enjoys an 85 per cent. grant—more than double the grant that we get for a similar piece of coast.
Why are there these differences? What age-old custom decreed that low-lying coastal areas should come under water authorities and that high-level coastal areas should be the responsibility of the local district council? Why is there a difference in the grants?
In my constituency I know that it is the earnest aim of the district council
818
and of the county council to reduce expenditure and to tighten their belts. They recognise the economic dangers that we face if we do not take such economic measures. They are under great pressure from the Department of the Environment to do just this. Certainly they are continuously reminded by the ratepayers that they must do it.
But we face danger from another quarter—from the North Sea. It is wrong that we should be forced to say that we cannot afford to do anything about that real danger. We know, however, that if we achieve any growth in local government expenditure, even for such vital defences as these, the Government will automatically reduce the rate support grant. So we are caught.
I believe that this is a national problem and a matter of life or death. It is for the Government to put it right, to protect the people and to pay the bill.
10.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I listened with great interest and considerable sympathy to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I well understand his anxiety on behalf of his constituents about these difficulties and about the cost of erecting a sea wall, a cost which inevitably under our present arrangements must be shared between the local authority and the Government.
We had an interesting Adjournment debate in the House last week answered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The reason for the difference in grants about which the hon. Member for Canterbury complained is the difference between sea defences, which are mainly to do with questions of land drainage and which attract one sort of grant, and general works against erosion and defence against the sea for which my Department is particularly responsible and which involve different considerations. The Ministry of Agriculture is concerned with land drainage matters. It may be that we ought to have another look at whether the difference is tenable these days, but that is the historic situation which I offer by way of explanation.
The hon. Member for Canterbury told us a great deal about the situation at Whitstable and Herne Bay, and I want

819
to say first that he was quite right to draw our attention to the severity of the gales and storms which occurred recently and which, presumably, gave rise to this debate. Very properly, he drew attention to the fact that, after the previous very serious flooding and gales in 1953, all these matters were looked at, the sea walls were erected, and a great deal of resources went into providing them.
The extraordinary features of this year's gales, which, 1 understand, were even more severe than the gales of 1953, when so many people lost their lives, is that the work on the defence walls, especially on the East Coast, stood the test this time. Fortunately, we had none of the terrible experiences of deaths and so on that we had on the previous occasion. Therefore, we must pay tribute to the engineers, local authorities and everyone else concerned for having in the interim erected defences against the ravages of the North Sea which in the event proved to be reasonably satisfactory.
Mr. Crouch: I know that the right hon. Gentleman's advisers, especially his engineers at the Wallingford Research Station, are warning the Department and local authorities that the conditions which could obtain in the North Sea obtain only when there is a combination of wind of a certain force from a certain direction and a surge of the sea raising the water level, as well as a high tide at the same time. It did not happen like that during the most recent gales, but it could. The engineers estimate that it could happen once in 1,000 years. That "once" could be next year.
Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman is quite justified in drawing my attention to that. If the engineers in my Department have advised us on that, the advice has not yet got to me. I undertake to look into this and to write to the hon. Gentleman again during the continuing discussions that I have no doubt we shall have.
Perhaps I may deal with this question of grant in a little more detail, Before local government reorganisation, which incorporated the Whitstable urban district and the Herne Bay urban district within the Canterbury district, Whitstable had qualified for a grant of 59 per cent. towards the cost of coast protection works
820
in its area. For reasons which I will explain in a moment, schemes in the area which have been undertaken since reorganisation—I refer particularly to a scheme at Tankerton costing about £220,000 and another known as Preston Phase 3 costing about £412,000—have qualified for a 43 per cent. grant.
The position is broadly similar in Herne Bay. The authorities had undertaken a number of substantial schemes in the years preceding reorganisation and received grant aid ranging between 59 per cent. and 79 per cent. of the total cost. I refer particularly to the work at East Cliff for which the various schemes so far completed amount to a sum of money approaching £1½ million. A further substantial scheme for deep drainage works is in progress, although the rate of grant which would be applicable in this case has not yet been determined.
It will be seen from the figures I have quoted that the cost of sea defences is shared between the Government and local coast protection authorities. The hon. Gentleman had some pertinent points to make in this to which I shall try to reply. These local coast protection authorities are empowered by the Coast Protection Act to undertake schemes to protent land in their area from erosion or encroachment by the sea. The same Act empowers my right hon. Friend to pay a grant towards the cost of the work.
Over the country as a whole grant aid to the local coast protection authorities has amounted to about half the total cost of all the schemes which have been undertaken since 1949. This division of responsibility between Government and local authorities did not begin in 1949. It is important to understand the history of the matter. The hon. Gentleman said that some earlier remarks were thoughtless. Even though he may not agree with them, I can assure him that they are far from thoughtless. A great deal of thought has gone into this problem.
The issue was examined by a Royal Commission in 1911. Our present arrangements date from then, when the Royal Commission took the view that it was right for there to be a combination of national and local interests because that would appropriately express the division of responsibilities. However, 40 years

821
later, after the floodings of 1953, another committee of inquiry was established, the Waverley Committee. This was set up in the wake of those disastrous floods to reexamine the arguments. It came up with the view that the Royal Commission's proposals were still valid and said that there should be this division between national and local interest, reflected in the financing of the works. The committee rejected the concept of the whole cost being borne by the national Exchequer.
Although I undertake to re-examine the case, I am bound to say that the force of the argument that the financing should reflect the distinct interests still seems to hold good. Local authorities know the problems in their area. Therefore, they must be closely involved. We cannot superimpose on the local situation a national view on the matter, to the complete disregard of the exercise of local authority. Therefore, the philosophy that the cost must be shared must be right.
The Coast Protection Act authorises the Secretary of State to pay grant towards the cost of improving existing defences or building new ones. Grant may also be paid for repairs to coast protection works where exceptional damage has occurred—for example, in severe storms. The cost of maintenance is totally borne by the coast protection authority, the local authority.
The assessment of the level of grant to be awarded to each of the 80 authorities takes into account four main factors. They are: first, the cost of the proposed project; secondly, the cost incurred by the authority on other coast protection projects since 1945; thirdly, the financial resources available to the authority, calculated by reference to the project of a 1 p rate; and, fourthly, the burden on the rates if the project were totally paid for by the authority.
Depending upon the calculations using that formula, coast protection authorities are awarded grant aid of various set percentages, which vary between extremes as great—I was astonished to find in preparing for the debate—as 24 per cent. and 79 per cent. There is a tremendous variety, but it follows from the examination of the criteria which I have read out.
Some authorities are very wealthy and have undertaken very little work, so they find themselves at the bottom end of the
822
grant-aid scale, whilst others which are not so wealthy and have had a great deal of work to do tend to be in the higher bracket. The rate burden which the hon. Gentleman mentioned is one of the factors taken into account.
Local government reorganisation has also been a factor which has caused variation in the percentage rate of grant offered. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the reduced levels of grant which had been awarded to Whitstable and Herne Bay compared with grants for previous work. There has been no significant change in the level of grant. The proportion which the Government pay for the country as a whole is slightly more than 50 per cent of the total cost. But reorganisation has led to changes in particular areas, and among those affected in this way is the area which is the responsibility of the Canterbury City Council.
The reason for this change is that many of the coast protection authorities formed after April 1974 covered a much larger geographical area than their predecessors. Where that was the case, the new authorities had a larger number of ratepayers among whom to share the burden of paying for coast protection works. On the formula I have read out, that has become a significant factor. Within many new coast protection authorities there are now ratepayers who formerly paid nothing towards the cost of these works but who now have to do so because reorganisation has brought them into the new authorities. Equally, ratepayers in the former coastal authorities now have to contribute towards the costs of projects inland. In both cases the ratepayers also benefit from services within the larger community.
One result of reorganisation has been to combine coast protection authorities into larger units. This has had the effect of reducing the difference between the richer and the poorer authorities. In other words, the load is being spread far more widely. In cases where previously the coastal protection authorities were severely stretched by the costs—this was the case at Whitstable and Herne Bay—there is now scope for sharing the costs with more people. In other places the comparative burden on a coast protection authority has tended to increase, so that whereas in the first case the rate of

823
grant to be received from the Government is likely to diminish, in the second the rate of grant is likely to increase. The effect of reorganisation has been to reduce the previous extreme disparity between coast protection authorities, resulting in less variation in the rate of grant towards one local authority in comparison with another.
It is hardly necessary for me at this moment, given the country's serious economic circumstances and the serious economic situation facing local government, to do anything other than to say that we shall be able to move from the existing situation, which has been recommended to us by two inquiries, only if there is an overwhelming case. Following the previous storm, we were overpoweringly forced by what happened to the sea defences to conclude that that was vital, but we are not forced to that view by the latest storm. Further, we are not forced to that view by the financial results of the local government reorganisation.
All the schemes submitted to my Department for grant aid are considered carefully and dealt with in accordance with principles agreed by the Treasury. Those principles apply to the country as a whole. That is only fair since there is a limited amount of money available for such grants. Special pleading is bound to mean that there will be less money available elsewhere.
824
Although I entirely agree that the hon. Gentleman is right to raise this matter as a result of the experience in his constituency earlier in the year, difficult decisions have to be made about what is urgent and what must wait. There are difficult decisions to be made about what can be afforded and what cannot. The right place for such decisions to be taken is at local authority level. At that level it is known which schemes are really urgent as opposed to schemes which are desirable but less urgent.
The way in which our coast defences stood up to the recent battering is vindication of our present arrangements and responsibility, and the coast protection authorities have shown that they are well able to discharge their obligations. That was the position in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Although the hon. Gentleman and I probably disagree about some financing matters, we are probably at one in believing that it is the work that has been done by the local authorities that has led to a happier result on this occasion. So far as we are concerned—
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 one minute to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Agricultural Buildings (Depreciation)
  Agricultural Buildings (Depreciation)
  Widows
  Widows
  Betting Duty
  Betting Duty
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Incomes (Aggregation)
  Incomes (Aggregation)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Motor Industry
  Motor Industry
  Travellers' Currency Allowances
  Travellers' Currency Allowances
  Films
  Films
  Unemployment Costs
  Unemployment Costs
  Farm Tenures (Scotland)
  Farm Tenures (Scotland)
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
  Tax Revenues
  Tax Revenues
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Broadmoor Patients (Subsequent Offences)
  Broadmoor Patients (Subsequent Offences)
  Queen's Silver Jubilee
  Queen's Silver Jubilee
  Juveniles in Prison
  Juveniles in Prison
  Scottish Parliamentary Constituencies
  Scottish Parliamentary Constituencies
  Attendance Centres
  Attendance Centres
  Paroles
  Paroles
  Great Train Robbery
  Great Train Robbery
  Age of Consent
  Age of Consent
  Equal Opportunities (Leaflets)
  Equal Opportunities (Leaflets)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Drunkards
  Drunkards
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Conspiracy Law Reform
  Conspiracy Law Reform
  Diplomats (Parking Offences)
  Diplomats (Parking Offences)
  Licensed Premises
  Licensed Premises
  Treason
  Treason
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Rates and Fuel Charges (Arrears)
  Rates and Fuel Charges (Arrears)
  Sex Discrimination
  Sex Discrimination
  Community Groups
  Community Groups
  Community Centres
  Community Centres
  Community Relations
  Community Relations
  Murders
  Murders
  Government Departments
  Government Departments
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Smallholdings
  Smallholdings
  Horticulture
  Horticulture
  Food Supplies
  Food Supplies
  Beef Premium
  Beef Premium
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Loan Charges
  Loan Charges
  Butter
  Butter
  Storm Damage
  Storm Damage
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Iceland (Fisheries Dispute)
  Iceland (Fisheries Dispute)
  Production Costs
  Production Costs
  National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers
  National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers
  Fertilisers
  Fertilisers
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  Shelter Belts
  Shelter Belts
  Grazing Land (Drainage Grants)
  Grazing Land (Drainage Grants)
  Agricultural Cottages
  Agricultural Cottages
  British Trawlers Federation
  British Trawlers Federation
  Upland and Hill Farms
  Upland and Hill Farms
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Beef Stocks
  Beef Stocks
  Land Use
  Land Use
  Hill Land Reclamation
  Hill Land Reclamation
  Whales
  Whales
  Sheep Scab
  Sheep Scab
  Machinery (Noise Regulations)
  Machinery (Noise Regulations)
  Tractor Cab Regulations
  Tractor Cab Regulations
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  Marketing Boards
  Marketing Boards
  Watercourses
  Watercourses
ENVIRONMENT
  Boreholes
  Boreholes
  Sheltered Housing
  Sheltered Housing
  Sewerage Charges
  Sewerage Charges
  Taxi Licence Plates
  Taxi Licence Plates
  Merseyside Regional Consultative Committee Meeting
  Merseyside Regional Consultative Committee Meeting
  Office Premises
  Office Premises
  Councillors' Allowances
  Councillors' Allowances
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Transport Policy
  Transport Policy
  Lorries and Trailers
  Lorries and Trailers
  Hotels and Guest Houses (Rating)
  Hotels and Guest Houses (Rating)
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
  National Freight Corporation
  National Freight Corporation
  British Waterways Board
  British Waterways Board
  British Railways Board
  British Railways Board
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  M54 (Wellington Bypass)
  M54 (Wellington Bypass)
  Asbestos Waste
  Asbestos Waste
  Health and Safety at Work
  Health and Safety at Work
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  NATO
  NATO
  SPECIAL ADVISERS
  SPECIAL ADVISERS
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY (SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY (SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  PRICES AND INCOMES POLICY
  PRICES AND INCOMES POLICY
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  EUROPEAN HEADS OF GOVERN- MENT (COPENHAGEN MEETING)
  EUROPEAN HEADS OF GOVERN- MENT (COPENHAGEN MEETING)
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  HIGHER INCOMES FROM EMPLOYMENT
  HIGHER INCOMES FROM EMPLOYMENT
  ROYAL COMMISSIONS
  ROYAL COMMISSIONS
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
SCOTLAND
  Mental Patients
  Mental Patients
  Geriatric Beds
  Geriatric Beds
  Companies
  Companies
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Direct-grant Schools
  Direct-grant Schools
  Oceanspan
  Oceanspan
  Rolls-Royce Factory, Blantyre
  Rolls-Royce Factory, Blantyre
ENERGY
  Plutonium Fuels and Actinides
  Plutonium Fuels and Actinides
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Double Summer Time
  Double Summer Time
  Electricity Supply
  Electricity Supply
  Conservation ("Save It" Appeal)
  Conservation ("Save It" Appeal)
  Electricity, Gas and Coal Industries
  Electricity, Gas and Coal Industries
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Animal Research Laboratory
  Animal Research Laboratory
  Bargees' Children
  Bargees' Children
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Pocket Money
  Pocket Money
  Direct-grant Schools
  Direct-grant Schools
  MANCHESTER CITY MAGISTRATES' COURT
  MANCHESTER CITY MAGISTRATES' COURT
  ACTS OF PARLIAMENT (COURT PROCEEDINGS)
  ACTS OF PARLIAMENT (COURT PROCEEDINGS)
  MAGISTRATES COURTS AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES
  MAGISTRATES COURTS AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES
  BRITISH WITHDRAWAL FROM NORTHERN IRELAND CAMPAIGN
  BRITISH WITHDRAWAL FROM NORTHERN IRELAND CAMPAIGN
WALES
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
TRADE
  Woollen Goods
  Woollen Goods
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Heathrow (Night Flights)
  Heathrow (Night Flights)
  British Airways
  British Airways
  Whale Products
  Whale Products
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Attendance Allowance (Form JDS2)
  Attendance Allowance (Form JDS2)
  Geriatric and Psychiatric Patients
  Geriatric and Psychiatric Patients
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Walsall General Hospital
  Walsall General Hospital
  Broadmoor Patients
  Broadmoor Patients
  German Federal Republic
  German Federal Republic
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Earnings Disregard
  Earnings Disregard
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
INDUSTRY
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Government Aid
  Government Aid
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Giro
  Giro
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Aviation Establishment (Manchester)
  Aviation Establishment (Manchester)
  North-West Region
  North-West Region
  Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited
  Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Govan Shipbuilders Ltd.
  Govan Shipbuilders Ltd.
  Oil Rigs
  Oil Rigs
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Regional Fund Grants
  Regional Fund Grants
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nuclear Bases
  Nuclear Bases
  Chile
  Chile
  Argentina (Chilean Refugees)
  Argentina (Chilean Refugees)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Newspapers and Periodicals
  Newspapers and Periodicals
  Garage Owners
  Garage Owners
  Consumer Credit Act
  Consumer Credit Act
  Bread Subsidy
  Bread Subsidy
EMPLOYMENT
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Employment Protection Act
  Employment Protection Act
  Employment Transfer Scheme
  Employment Transfer Scheme
  Market Harborough
  Market Harborough
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Job Creation and Protection
  Job Creation and Protection
  Cornwall
  Cornwall
  Thanet
  Thanet
  Unfair Dismissal
  Unfair Dismissal
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.
  Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
  Strikes
  Strikes
  Training
  Training

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

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE LORD DE LA WARR
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, the House will have heard with sadness that Lord De La Warr died yesterday at the age of 75. "Buck "De La Warr was a genial Member of the House with friends on all Benches. Though he left office in 1955, we were glad that he continued to sit here from time to time and, in fact, did so only quite recently. He was always a welcome figure surrounded by an aura of warmth and patience and with a dry good humour. Speaking from this Box, I am naturally conscious of his progress from one side of the House to the other, though it was indeed remarkable that he held Office under a Labour Government, under a National Government and under a Conservative Government.
I pay tribute to his great versatility and stamina in the number of posts he held. In addition to becoming a member of Neville Chamberlain's Cabinet in 1937 as Lord Privy Seal, he held Office over a period of 31 years from 1924 to 1955 with, of course, some intervals. He served in seven different Ministries, the War Office, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board of Education, the Colonial Office, the Office of Works, the Ministry of Supply and also as Postmaster General. He was also a past Chairman of the Royal Commonwealth Society. That is indeed an astonishing record.
My Lords, as we note Lord De La Warr's passing, I know that the House will join with me in expressing deepest sympathy to his widow and family, and in expressing a very real sense of loss at the death of a longstanding friend and colleague.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, from these Benches we should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said
1098
in tribute to my late noble friend Lord De La Warr. Lord De La Wan came from an old and distinguished family, and he lived up to all its best traditions in a life of unusually long and varied public service. He was a very popular Member of this House and his death has come as a great shock to a number of his friends who saw him here only last Tuesday. It was typical of him that, despite his early pacificist leanings, he enlisted as an able-bodied seaman in the Royal Navy in the First World War immediately on leaving Eton, and served until the end of the war on board a minesweeper. He is said to have been the only person to have sat on the steps of the Throne in this House in the uniform of an able-bodied seaman. He had a remarkable political career—as the noble Lord the Leader of the House has reminded us—holding Ministerial Office first as a member of the Labour Party under Ramsay MacDonald, then in the National Government of 1931 and later as a Conservative in Sir Winston Churchill's Government of 1951. That is an example of political wisdom I would warmly commend to noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite.
He held many high political Offices, some in the Cabinet, none perhaps more testing than when as Postmaster General he had to pilot through this House proposals for the introduction of commercial television in which he had not the wholehearted concurrence of your Lordships; but he succeeded in this difficult and delicate task largely thanks to his tact and good humour. Outside Parliament he was well known and very well respected in agricultural circles. He was a pioneer of new agricultural methods on his own very well-run farm in Sussex and, despite his busy life, he also found time to take a leading part in local affairs. He was a JP, Deputy Lieutenant for Sussex and from 1932 to 1935 he was Mayor of Bexhill. Those of us who knew him only comparatively recently will always remember his kindness, friendliness and constant good humour. We should like to express our sympathy to his widow and family.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to add to what the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal I and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, have

1099
said about the late Lord De La Warr. I knew him quite well in a rather different capacity, because he and my father were both members of Ramsay MacDonald's Government in 1929, and then they both followed Ramsay in the National Government in 1931. My other connection with him was at the end of the war. He went out to Ethiopia when the Emperor was installed there. I had certain contacts in the past with that unfortunate country. The late Lord De La Warr was always a very good friend to Ethiopia and did a great deal to help that country. I should like to add to what has been said in expressing our sympathy to his widow and family.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, as a humble Back-Bencher. I wish to join in the tributes to the late Lord De La Warr He was a colleague of mine in the first Labour Government, he was Lord in Waiting, he then became a Member of the second Labour Government and we were colleagues in the War Office, I as Financial Secretary and he as Under-Secretary. He was a man of the most friendly disposition, and although he joined Ramsay MacDonald in the Coalition Government in 1931 I believe he sincerely felt himself to be right to do that; I would apply the same appellation to Ramsay MacDonald himself. In spite of Lord De La Warr's association with the Conservative Party in later years, he remained as friendly as ever and when I read about his sudden and very tragic death, while he was walking in the street, I recalled at once how friendly we both had been at the War Office. I have the impression that now that Lord De La Warr has gone, I happen to be the sole survivor of the first Labour Government. How long that situation will remain, I have not the faintest idea.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to add to the tributes which have been so charmingly delivered. I valued very deeply Lord De La Warr's friendship. He was an extremely loyal Member of this House and up to the end was immensely conscientious. He would sometimes say to me: "Do you think I stay here long enough?" He kept coming here, although he did not take a very active part in our proceedings. My chief recollection of him is of his great
1100
humility, as one who, as we have heard, had held high office for a considerable period. There was a total absence of pomposity in his disposition and the idealism which he showed from his very early youth was never in any way clouded by rigidity of outlook.
His passions were the Commonwealth, about which he felt very deeply, and agriculture. Nowhere was he more at home than on the land; and he loved it. I remember that the first time I stayed with him he went so far as to eat some grass from his grass-dryer. The machine had just been introduced and that gave him immense pleasure. We have lost a great Member of this House. I wish to add my sincerest sympathy to Lady De La Warr and all other members of his family.
Lord GARNER: My Lords, as one who once served as Private Secretary to Lord De La Warr, may I add a short tribute from these Benches and testify to the extraordinary flair that he had of establishing personal relations of great warmth with all classes of people, as I witnessed when he attended the Sesquicentennial Celebrations in Australia?

AIR FARES AND IATA MEETING
3.16 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) on 12th January concerning the introduction of cheaper fares on regular flights within Europe; and whether they will support the principle of cheaper fares in view of increasing consumer dissatisfaction with the structure of international air fares.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. The IATA meeting, which began on 12th January, was not concerned with intra-European fares. However, I understand that the fares proposed to apply within Europe from 1st April 1976 have yet to be agreed by all the IATA

1101
airlines concerned and have not yet, therefore, been submitted to the Civil Aviation Authority for approval. With reference to the last part of my noble friend's Question, the Authority informs me that it is working in consultation with British airlines on both the level and complexity of European fares. A satisfactory solution of these problems would, of course, require international agreement.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as long ago as February 1971 I raised the question of the lack of cheaper air fares available to the public without strings on the major routes of scheduled airlines? Does my noble friend realise that air fares in Europe are higher than those elsewhere and that we still have a confusing variety of booking and short-stay conditions attached to European fares? May I ask my noble friend whether that could be looked at, too?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am certain that that is an important factor which will he considered when the moment comes. Obviously the simplification of these fares must be of advantage to everyone in the long run.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I raise another matter? Following what the Minister said about British Airways, and perhaps as a welcome change, may I ask if he is aware that British Airways' European Division has been a consistent advocate of a cheaper fares policy, that such simplification as we have had in the fares structure in Europe has been due largely to its efforts, and that I pay it that tribute for the work it has done?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is it possible to say whether the higher level of fares obtaining in Europe relates to the higher level of costs experienced by airlines operating on those routes? Is there any evidence to show that European airlines are earning excess profits on their European routes?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as far as I know, several airlines are finding it difficult to earn profits.

PARLIAMENTARY VISITS TO NATO AND SHAPE
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many Members of each House of Parliament have, in the past 12 months, visited either NATO or SHAPE at Government expense.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, there have been no such visits at Government expense, since no Government funds are allocated for visits of this kind. However, in the past 12 months 6 Members of this House and 11 of another place have visited the NATO Headquarters and SHAPE at NATO's expense. A further 10 Members of another place went at the expense of the United States Embassy.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, which was a little more satisfactory than I expected, may I ask him whether, when the diminishing echoes of Helsinki are only barely being overtaken by the rumble of an American re-armament programme, he does not at this juncture find it rather alarming that the only institution charged with the preservation of the liberty, independence and democratic organisation of this country should have such an extraordinary lack of interest and regard for the only institution which is organised to defend the liberty and independence upon which that democratic organisation depends?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I should need a little time to study that supplementary question. But if, as I am quite sure, the noble Lord means that it is necessary to increase the interest and the participation in discussions with the North Atlantic Assembly and the British Atlantic Committee, I fully agree with him.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, as one of those who had the honour of going on the recent trip to NATO, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Winter bottom, may I ask

1103
the Minister whether he agrees that it is most important that Members of this House should have greater information about the activities of NATO, and that they should make that information more available to the public, having regard to the amazingly fine deterrent policy which has been adopted by NATO, but which is not adequately known to the public at the present moment?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I entirely agree, and fully endorse what my noble friend Lord Winter bottom said in reply to similar questions last week on this matter. I should like to re-affirm that the active support of NATO is a priority of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords. may I also ask the noble Lord—and he may consider that this is not a question which follows naturally on that put to him my the noble Lord, Lord Elton—whether he considers that the fact that there was an all-Party group which went to NATO under the noble Lord, Lord Winter bottom, is a useful precedent in relation to adopting some kind of all-Party policy committee in this House in relation to defence?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I warmly agree with the first part of the noble Lord's question and I am sure that I will, on reflection, equally warmly agree with the second part.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, apart from these visits, will my noble friend say how many Members of this House have been to see NATO as members of the North Atlantic Assembly?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not have such precise information by me today. But I can say that the 18 members which this country contributes as a delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly, five of whom are drawn from this House, pursue the policy and practice of which my noble friend is evidently in favour in their fairly frequent attendances at the meetings of that Assembly. If he wishes for facts and figures about other attendances I shall try to get them, although I do not think I shall have free access to information about individual visits.

LONDON RECEPTION CENTRES:CHRISTMAS INTAKE
3,23 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many people were given board and lodging in their reception centres in London during the five days and nights of the Christmas period.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the numbers accommodated in the Supplementary Benefits Commission's reception centres in London during the Christmas period were as follows:

Christmas Eve 965,

Christmas Day 986,

Boxing Day 1,021,

Saturday 27th December 1,145,

Sunday 28th December 1,106.

Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Will he agree that there is very grave concern among most people in our cities about the single homeless people in the community? May I further ask him whether he is aware that a charity has been set up, the sole object of which is to try to take care of some of these people who are without homes at this time; and that, as a result of the creation of that charity, during the five days of Christmas over 11,000 meals were served by volunteers, over 500 people were given shelter and over 426,000 cups of tea were made, all by young people in our society?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Baroness may be referring to the St. Mango Community Trust—and she may well not be, having shaken her head—and we are aware of the work which is being done by a number of voluntary organisations. The one to which I have referred provided accommodation during the Christmas period for an average of over 900 people each night and accommodated the people fed by the Crisis at Christmas organisation. But the noble Baroness is talking about single homeless people. I must remind your Lordships that the Question relates to the Supplementary Benefits Commission's

1105
reception centres, and the Commission are required under Section 34 and Schedule 4 to the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966to maintain reception centres for the provision of temporary board and lodgings for persons without a settled way of living. They have no powers to provide accommodation for single homeless people as such.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that any of us who happen to be out in London late at night are appalled by what we see under the railway bridges of London and in sheltered corners—fellow citizens sleeping on the pavement covered with newspapers; that we appreciate all that is being done by the State and by the voluntary associations, but that it has still not grappled adequately with this terrible problem of almost sub-humanity living like animals in the streets at night?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am personally very familiar with that situation, having observed it over a period of years. But one has to face the fact that there is an enormous amount of accommodation available every night, much of which is not taken up, and we have no compulsory powers to deal with people who appear to be anxious to sleep out, because they will not during daytime accept the invitation to sleep in a proper bed.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, arising from that reply, can the noble Lord tell us what number of people lie every night in the streets of London? Has he any figures which would help on that?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, my Lords. I do not have them. I doubt whether there is an exact figure. I know that over a period of years professional social workers have tried to assess the situation, but I will make a point of finding out whether there is a reasonably accurate figure and will let the noble Lord have it.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what means are adopted to inform these people that these services are available?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, a large number of people sleeping out in London are, I believe, visited at some
1106
stage of every night by members of voluntary organisations running soup kitchens and things of that kind, and they are made aware of the facilities that are available.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, can my noble friend say to what extent, since the end of the war, vagrants' institutions have been closed down because of alleged lack of use?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, my Lords. I cannot answer my noble friend's question.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether those who go into these centres and may be in need of psychiatric care and assistance are then referred to a psychiatrist?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there is an obligation on reception centres to see each individual personally on entering the centre. There is a preliminary interview immediately those individuals arrive, but on the following day, if it is felt necessary, the person is examined by a doctor in case there is evidence of mental or physical illness, and appropriate action is then taken. Help is given to obtain employment if they are fit for work. If they require other accommodation, which many of them do as single homeless persons, efforts are also made to assist them in that respect. However, I think that the answer to the noble Lord is, Yes.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that in fact it was not the St. Mango Community Trust but Crisis at Christmas?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not want to prolong this Question but it was the St. Mango Community which took in a large number of people and fed them as a result of the Crisis at Christmas campaign.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to accept that we share his concern and admire his implementation of it. Does he also share our anxiety that there should be research into the way in which these people's lives degenerate to a position where they are virtually lost?

NORWEGIAN FISHERMAN LIMITS
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their proposed negotiations with Norway on fisheries have been postponed and what considerations apply to the timing.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have not proposed any such negotiations. Norway is, like us, working for general acceptance of 200 mile fisheries limits at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, and has begun a round of consultations with other States about the implications of a Norwegian 200 mile zone. Following informal talks last October, my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. Ennals, and Mr. Evensen, the Norwegian Minister of Fisheries, agreed that the two countries should keep in touch on fisheries matters. This is at present being done through diplomatic channels.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. Is he aware that it was reported in the Press last week that negotiations with the Norwegians on the subject had been postponed? Such negotiations are inevitably connected with the Icelandic situation. Without disturbing the delicate stage which has now been reached, can the noble Lord give to the House the latest information about the Government's reaction to the message from our trawlers? Apparently they were asking for a reply by mid-day today.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I am not in a position to add to the Statement made yesterday in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Lord LOVATT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is an increasing scarcity of herring in the North Sea, and that they have long since been fished out of the Baltic? Will the noble Lord further agree that it is becoming increasingly
1108
important to conserve our fish stocks rather than to rob the ocean?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly. This is fairly generally agreed, but the issue for all fishery nations is not only to control the catch but to conserve fish stocks.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, as soon as is convenient after the heat has died down over the present Icelandic dispute, will the noble Lord consider laying before Parliament a White Paper, or some other kind of document, that will set out the future consequences of fishing, bearing in mind that we are in the presence of something like an international tragedy in which everything cannot be said on one side or the other?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that the whole House will agree with my noble friend that this is a matter of far-reaching importance, not only to coastal States but to others as well. I take particular note of what he has said. I am quite sure that my right honourable friends have this under advisement and will be glad of the reinforcement which my noble friend's interjection has given to this very important issue.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, does the noble Lord know whether the Royal Navy have sent out their ships for protection, as requested by our fishing fleet? If I understand the position correctly, the fleet said that the Royal Navy must be sent out, otherwise they would stop fishing. It would be of great interest to the House to know what has or has not happened.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am afraid I am in no position to assist the House on this matter at this stage.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in view of the great difficulties which are likely to confront not only this country but many others regarding fish supplies in the coming years, can the Government take specific action to encourage fish farming on a large scale, so that instead of being a mere hobby as it is at the moment it could become a great British industry?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this is a worth-while suggestion

1109
which is the subject of increasing examination by experts and, indeed, by commercial interests. It is well worth considering whether or not fish farming could be more extensively pursued than it is at present on the high seas as well as in inland waters.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, while recognising the modern principle that it is indecent to resist blackmail so long as the blackmailer is small, can one still ask whether we have Norwegian approval for the submissions which which we are making in Iceland?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not think that this is a question of blackmail.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, of course it is!
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not think that this is a question of blackmail. It is a question of careful consultation between friends and allies.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, when the negotiations with Iceland are concluded, we hope satisfactorily, will the Government consider exploring with the Norwegians and other countries concerned arrangements for fisheries in the North-East Atlantic area, whether or not agreement on a 200 miles economic zone is reached at the Law of the Sea Conference which is about to take place?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we shall have to consider that eventuality. We hope that the movement towards general agreement, which is now descernible in the various stages of the United Nations' Law of the Sea Conference, will prove that international agreement is possible. If that is not so, however, the situation which the noble Lord has mentioned will clearly call for British Government appraisal, and appraisal by other Governments for the same purpose.

COMMODITY PRICES
3.38 p.m.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): My Lords, on behalf of the Chairman of Committees. I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Third Report from the Committee of Selection be agreed to and that the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

E. Lauderdale,

V. Simon,

L. Campbell of Eskan,

L. Davies of Leek,

L. Gainford,

L. Lee of Newton,

L. Redmayne,

L. Roberthall (Chairman),

L. Terrington;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, delivered out; and
That the Committee do meet at a quarter before Four o'clock on Thursday the 5th of February next.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

INSOLVENCY 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 Insolvency 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 WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Winter bottom.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING DATES) BILL [H.L.]
Considered on Report.

SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, is interested in supporting this Bill and we did, so to speak, toss a coin as to whether he should promote it or whether I should, because in this House we are not allowed to have more than one sponsor. I say this for two reasons: one is that I am glad to have his support and the second is to indicate that this is in no sense a Party Bill.
The Bill is promoted by the Law Society of Scotland and the purpose of it is to exercise closer discipline over its own members. The powers here are fairly strong, but I should say that allpractising solicitors are members of the Law Society of Scotland and the recommendation and support of this Bill is unanimous, in so far as anything can be unanimous in a council of 40. It is interesting that we in this country have long pursued the policy of expecting professions to exercise discipline over their own members. To a large degree this is not the practice on the Continent and many of your Lordships will agree, I am sure, that ours is a better practice. As in other professions solicitors should be responsible for ensuring that their own profession maintains the standard which they would like to see.
The explanation of this Bill will cause me a little difficulty and I will try to do it with such skill as falls to me. In the first place, there is no common thread in this Bill. It is a series of points by which the Society can be strengthened. Secondly, it is a clarification and strengthening of five previous Acts from 1933 to 1965.
Perhaps I should say one word about the growth of the Society itself. In 1933 the General Council of Solicitors was formed; it was only charged with the examination and admission of students, and it kept the roll of solicitors. This
1112
was slightly clarified in an Act of 1934 and the main Act came in 1949. The Law Society was then formed. The Bill to do this had been drafted before the war and indeed had been passed by this House, but it did not become law until after the war was over. At that time there had been added to it considerable duties in regard to legal aid. It was given fairly extensive powers and it was given the responsibility for issuing certificates. This Bill was extended in 1958, which gave power to the Society to strike off solicitors for misconduct. In 1965 further powers were given to make rules applicable to the manner in which clients' money should be kept.
In principle, this Bill is not greatly dissimilar from one passed in England in 1974 and. if I may deal with the details of the Bill, Clauses 1 and 2 deal with the case of solicitors who for one reason or another are incapable of carrying on their business. In such cases, the performance of their duties can be taken on by the Law Society; that is, they may take over the documents and, in the normal case, would hand over the business to one or other of their own members. Clause 3 entitles them to obtain reasonable expenses for their services.
Clause 4 strengthens the Act of 1958. It applies to the situation in which a judicial factor can be petitioned for. It can be petitioned for in any case where the accounting rules are not being fully or satisfactorily carried out. There is an addition to this in this clause: it is not only when they can show that they are not being properly carried out, but if the Council have reasonable grounds to assume that they may not be so carried out. If these powers should be wrongly observed, there is an appeal to the courts.
Clause 5 regulates the banks and other places in which clients' money may be deposited. Here I must declare an interest, because I am president of the Building Societies Association and one of the places in which money will be enabled to be deposited is in building societies. In general, the position is that they were entitled to put their money in banks. "Banks "as a word by itself is not very closely defined, so it is now restricted to banks which appear under the Protection of Deposit Act 1963, along with savings banks, Post Office savings banks and building societies. There will require to

1113
be a small technical amendment to this clause which, if I get your Lordships' permission for the Second Reading, I will move at a later stage.
Clause 6 gives, I hope, the answer to that woe of the world referred to by Hamlet, the law's delay, because it enables the Society to bring pressure to bear on solicitors who are guilty of delay. This is something which few people in the world from time to time would not like to see improved. Clause 7 deals with the appointment of lay observers. This is a matter which falls to the Secretary of State for Scotland and I very much hope that the noble Lord who will be speaking for the Government will find this appointment one which he can generally accept. The Secretary of State for Scotland, after consultation with the Lord President of the Council—that is the Lord President of the Court of Session—can appoint a lay observer who will examine the manner in which complaints are handled by the Society. He does not resolve the problems he merely sees that they are properly looked at and that their manner of examination is satisfactory. The terms of his appointment will be settled by the Secretary of State, and such fees, and so on, as may be necessary.
Clause 8 deals with professional indemnity. In some cases a client may sue his solicitor for professional negligence and it can happen that, having won the case, the client finds that the solicitor is unable to pay the compensation which may be due to him. This is grossly unfair to the client, but this clause enables the Society to cover this point by insurance in one way or another. Clauses 9, 10 and 11 deal with the training of apprentices and the issuing of practising certificates. I do not think I need go into that, except to say that under Clause 11(f), if a solicitor does not reply to a complaint or to the reporting of a complaint of a client by the Society, he may have his professional practising certificate withdrawn.
Clause 12 deals with the position of consultants and limits the field of their liability in certain cases. Clause 13 deals with what is called the effects of "covering"; that is, it sometimes happens that solicitors employ another solicitor who has already been struck off the roll. That will be prevented by this
1114
clause, except by special permission of the Law Society. These cases, of course can be appealed against to the Court of Session. Clauses 14 and 15 deal with discipline. First, the name of the Discipline Committee is changed to "Solicitors Discipline Tribunal ". The reason for that is to make it quite clear that the Tribunal is not part of the Law Society at all and acts in a judicial capacity. To this Tribunal will be appointed two lay members, who will be appointed by the Lord President of the Council and any meeting or session will be valid only if one at least of the two lay members is present. In this case the money will be paid by the Secretary of State, or at such level as will be approved by him.
My Lords, Clause 16 enables the Society to deal with any client account of a solicitor who has been struck off. Clauses 17 and 18 specify a slight change in the date of a solicitor being struck off. In such case, he will cease to be allowed to handle his clients' accounts from the moment of intimation of the fact that his name has been struck off. Now it is true, of course, that an appeal may run, but none the less a lien on any moneys in his hands is effective from the moment when intimation of striking off is received. It is possible that the court may order otherwise, but from that time onwards the solicitor cannot in any way operate that account, which is a safeguard which may be necessary in certain circumstances. Clause 19 to 21 are minor amendments which I do not think I need go into. Clause 22 increases the annual fees to the Solicitors' Guarantee Fund from £10 to £25—this is partly the result of inflation —and also increases the special fee which can be raised in any one year to £25, if it should appear to be necessary. I think this is necessary in view of the change in the value of money. Clauses 23 to 26 are consequential and relate to interpretation.
My Lords, I hope that this Bill will receive a Second Reading in this House. I think it is important that the profession should have the power to exercise discipline on its own members. I believe it is by far the most satisfactory way in which that discipline should be exercised. There is nothing that anyone holds more dear than the respect of his peers, and that, I am sure, is a view very strongly held in

1115
the profession of solicitors as, indeed, in other professions. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
3.52 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is a most useful measure and its general aims, as the noble Earl's admirable exposition of them has clearly shown, are to provide additional safeguards for ordinary members of the public. Some of these safeguards will be operated by the Law Society themselves, as guardians of the high standards of the solicitor profession in Scotland. Others will strengthen the existing statutory tribunal which considers formal complaints against solicitors. For the first time, however, it is proposed to introduce a lay element into the consideration of complaints against solicitors in Scotland and the Government welcome particularly the provisions giving effect to these proposals. The principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done may have become something of a cliché but it is no less valid for that. It cannot be denied that there is a certain public suspicion of arangements for dealing with complaints which do not involve some external and independent consideration, and it is hoped that the proposals to appoint alay observer and to include lay representatives in the composition of the disciplinary tribunal will create public confidence in the machinery for considering complaints against solicitors.
The Government are also glad to see the arrangements in the Bill dealing with the question of indemnity for solicitors against professional liability. These provisions also provide, of course, a new and additional safeguard for the public. Your Lordships will have gathered from what I have said that the Government are fully behind the principles embodied in the noble Earl's Bill, and would be very glad to see your Lordships' House give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Selkirk on introducing his Private Bill. He is a lawyer I am not. The Scottish Law Society commends this Bill. We find a situation in which the legal
1116
profession in Scotland are recommending safeguards and remedies for clients where there are complaints against solicitors. In particular, as has just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, the Bill introduces a scheme under which non-lawyers will play an important part in the procedure. There may be points for discussion at later stages in the Bill, or possibly need for some changes, but this is a measure which is needed in Scotland. Certainly a Bill of this kind is needed. Similar action has been taken in England and Wales. I believe this House can welcome this Bill as one which is not controversial, and which will improve the remedies open to members of the public.
3.57 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, although my name does not appear on the list of speakers, may I be permitted to say that the House is in the debt of the noble Earl. Lord Selkirk, for his introduction of this very useful measure. Speaking as one who, prior to the Second World War, acquired the qualifications of a solicitor in Scotland but who has never, unfortunately, practised as such, and as one who since then has had a good deal of association with the solicitors' branch of the legal profession, particularly those working in the courts, I would say it is highly desirable that this Bill should, if your Lordships see fit, make speedy progress through this House, and indeed in the other place.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the support for the Bill brought forward by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I did not put my name down on the list of speakers because I had another commitment in the House and was not certain whether there would be a clash of time, but that clash has not arisen. My Lords, I was particular interested in two of the points made by the noble Earl in relation to remedies against delay and holding where a client has sued his solicitor and then finds he cannot get the compensation to which he is entitled. As did, I am certain, many millions of other people, I watched a programme on television the title of which, unfortunately, I cannot remember but which everyone talks about as the Esther Rantzen show. There were a number of rather distressing cases quoted on that programme about the difficulties

1117
of people—I think they were all English cases; I do not know whether that means it cannot happen in Scotland—particularly when they are seeking to sue a solicitor for negligence.
It seemed to be extremely difficult for some of these people to get a solicitor to represent them. It was argued that the principle arising was that dog does not eat dog. I do know whether I am right in this, but it seemed to me that some of the points put forward by the noble Earl touched on this. It seems as if the effect of this Bill at least would be to make it easier for people to get the same degree of justice when their complaint was against a solicitor as when it was in any other direction. I hope I am right in that assumption. I would be even happier if the answer were to be given to me that here is no such difficulty in Scotland.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: My Lords, I did not put my name down to speak either, but I should like to associate myself with the Bill which is now before your Lordships. With regard to the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, as I understand it, the clause giving power to the Society to deal with cases of undue delay is really intended to deal with cases where delay is not so great as to amount to professional negligence—something with which the Society already has power to deal. It is intended to deal with the sort of case where the solicitor has seemed dilatory and the client is dissatisfied, but it is not possible to "get him" for professional negligence. It extends the power of the Law Society to relatively less serious cases, but cases which may cause some trouble to the lay client. I would respectfully commend this Bill for your Lordships' approval.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, is perfectly right in what he says. There is not only power to take up the question of delay, but if the solicitor does not answer the letter complaining about delay he can be struck off, or rather have his practising certificate withdrawn. I think this provision meets the point. And the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is absolutely right: this indemnity service is vitally important. It is not a question necessarily of any criminal offence, but it may none
1118
the less be professional negligence for which the client can obtain no other remedy at all.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. I did not even know we had a solicitor in this House; it adds greatly to the value of your Lordships' House that we should have one. May I thank Lord Campbell, too, for the support he has given. I am very glad the Government find that they are able to support this Bill, and very grateful indeed for what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said. I hope that if this Bill goes through this House the Government will consider seriously whether time can be given to it when it reaches the other place. It is something which is urgently needed in Scotland. May I also say it is something which is not wholly unconnected with the extended debate we have had over the last two days.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FATAL ACCIDENTS AND SUDDEN DEATHS INQUIRY (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.1 p.m.
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.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I would not like this occasion to pass without marking what I think is the first Bill the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has taken through all its stages in this House; and it was introduced in this House and not in the other place. Moreover, it is a technical Bill emanating from the Lord Advocate's Department. I wish to express our thanks for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, answered many of the questions which were put and for the fact that he accepted a number of Amendments and made Amendments to meet our points. There

1119
was one difference of opinion on which clearly the Government had made up their mind and were not prepared to change the Bill, but I thank him for the way he handled it.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, may I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, as one who has been perhaps a small thorn in his flesh—I hope not too serious a thorn—both in the House and behind the scenes? I am most grateful for the consideration he gave to the representations which were put to him.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for their very helpful suggestions for improving the Bill, some of which, I am glad to say, the Government have been able to accept. I also pay tribute to the contribution which my noble friend Lord Wilson of Langside made to our deliberations. Finally, I thank all noble Lords who have assisted me in piloting this Bill through your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

DIVORCE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I should explain to the House that on this occasion I do not propose to move the Third Reading of this Bill; a similar Bill has been drawn in the Ballot in the other place. It has been represented to me that there might possibly be a slight element of complication in the other place if two identical Bills are before the House. Such complication is certainly not necessary and the course I propose might even facilitate the future passage of that Bill when it comes here from the other place. I propose, therefore, to defer asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Third Reading for the time being and, accordingly. I do not propose to move the Third Reading of the Bill today.

RATING (CARAVAN SITES) BILL [H.L.]
4.5 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Rating of caravan sites in England and Wales]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) Except in the case of a site not previously rated as a caravan site the valuation officer shall not exercise his discretion to treat all or part of a site as a single hereditament less than two months before the beginning of the rating year in which that discretion is to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: This small Bill is perhaps more complicated than appears on the surface. Together with my noble friends, I have tabled a number of Amendments the principal object of which is to give an opportunity for Her Majesty's Government, in the person of the noble Baroness, to explain the operation of the Bill and to show good reason why the ends which our Amendments seek to achieve cannot be achieved by the Government accepting them or by some better means. We shall therefore be in a better position on Report to judge what should be done. My first Amendment also relates to Amendment No. 6, and the noble Baroness has agreed that it would be convenient for me to speak to both at the same time. The object of the Amendment is quite simple; it would avoid the effect of retrospection in the Bill, firstly in Clause 1, where the valuation officer is to exercise his option, and secondly in subsection (6), where an option can be exercised to alter the valuation list.
It is common practice for site operators to collect rents at the beginning of the year. They are, by this Bill, required to

1121
incorporate in the rent demands they send out an apportionment of the rates which are to be charged on the whole site, where the valuation officer exercises his option under Clause 1(1). If that option is to be exercised after the beginning of the valuation year, then site operators will not know how much the bill should be that they will be sending out to their tenants. They may in fact not know until after the letting season is over, by which time the caravan site occupants will have gone back to whatever smokey and wintry fastnesses they occupy in the unsunny months of the year. The operator will be required to pay the rates on their behalf, not having had an opportunity to collect them. I hope the noble Baroness will not feel that I have broached this subject too precipitately at the beginning of the debate and that she will be able to help us. I beg to move.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, explained, the purpose of this Amendment—and I am grateful to him for taking Nos. 1 and 6 together—is to ensure that the option which may be exercised, at the valuation officer's discretion, to rate caravan sites as a single unit must be made at least two months before the beginning of the rating year in which it is to take effect. The noble Lord is suggesting in a later Amendment that the Bill should not be effective until 1st April 1976. He will have seen that there is an Amendment down in my name, Amendment No. 7, more or less to the same effect. When we come to it, I shall explain why I think that the drafting of the Government Amendment is preferable. As we now agree with this, this means that the valuation officer cannot exercise his discretion until 1st April 1976 at the earliest.
If the noble Lord's Amendments are accepted, any proposal resulting from the exercise of this discretion made during the 1976–77 rate year would not be effective until April 1977. In addition, for procedural reasons, the second Amendment could cause a year's further delay, which will bring us to 1978. Thus, the rating authorities would have to continue to levy rates on all of the 250,000 separately assessed holiday caravans for the
1122
whole of the 1976–77 rate year, since the provision of the Bill could not be put into practical effect until 1977–78.
I agree with the noble Lord that this is a much more complicated Bill than I thought at the beginning. I think that we should stop calling it a little Bill. So far as contents are concerned, it is a large Bill in small clothes. In this case I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish to press an Amendment which would delay for a whole year the large savings in local authority expenditure which are the primary purpose of the Bill. I appreciate that site operators who have already collected rent for 1976–as we know the collection is usually some time in advance —may need to ask for an additional payment in respect of the caravans which are included in a single assessment. Nevertheless, as I am sure the noble Lord appreciates, site operators have been aware that this legislation is impending, and most will have ensured that any agreements would take account of the proposed changes. I have a copy here today of what I understand is a typical agreement. When it refers to the necessity to increase the licence fee, et cetera, it goes on to say:
" Since no decision has been arrived at regarding individual rating assessments of caravans, any adjustment brought about through Government legislation will have to be made at a later date as and when a final conclusion has been reached."
Therefore, I think that one can assume that most of them are taking this into account and are already acting on it.
Any site operator who is about to enter into an agreement for the next year would be advised to ask his local valuation officer if he intends to apply the provisions of the Bill; so that is a further step that he can take. This information will help both site operators and caravanners to determine their commitments. Site operators are all fully aware of their opportunities to discuss matters with the valuation officer, and from our information there is usually a fairly constant to-in and fro-in and discussion between them. I should have thought that this would take care of the matter. The deletion of the words on page 2, line 25, from "it"—Amendment No. 6—to the end of line 27, would mean there is no date.
Lord ELTON: As this is a complex subject, would the noble Baroness allow me to intervene? Although we are considering these two Amendments in relation to each other, might it be helpful if we have an exchange on what she has said so far before we go on to the next half. I am in her hands. If she would prefer to extend her line of concentration further, I am willing for her to do so.
Baroness BIRK: No; this is onlya simple point. I was not going into an argument about it. I was going to say that, as Amendment No. 6 is drafted, it would mean that there is no date from which the deletion would have effect. There is a date crossed out altogether. I think that this hangs together, and I have now dealt with all of the difficult stuff. Finally, I think it would be inequitable to delay this because of the number of caravans which have already been separately assessed, and for the reason which we discussed. I explained at Second Reading that we have a situation in which some have been assessed separately and some have not, so there is a certain injustice. This would be perpetuated. It is complicated, I agree, but I think it is the core of the first part of it which is most complicated.
4.15 p.m.
Lord ELTON: I am indebted to the noble Baroness both for the lucidity of her reply and her concurrence with my view that this is a complicated Bill. What the noble Baroness seems to be smiling upon is a piece of legislation which can require a site operator to deliver to the Government monies which he has not been able to collect unless he has been very fortunate. Can the noble Baroness assure me that at the time when site operators customarily send out their bills, every site operator will not only be aware of the intended legislation, will not only assume that the intended legislation will pass both Houses of Parliament in its present and intended form, but that he will also be aware of the firm intentions of the local authority and of the valuation officer as to whether or not their options will be exercised under Clause 1(1)? Furthermore, will he know how much that option is to amount to. If not, we are asking him to make provision for an unknown quantity, which may not yet be required of him.
1124
I accept that a person of great prudence will make provision in contracts entered into for Acts of government which have not yet come to fruition, but to assume that they all will, and to imply that they all must do this, could be inequitable. I think, also, that perhaps one ought to know more than I precisely do—I hope that my noble friend Lord Wakefield of Kendal will put me right on this—about the degree of transits of these site occupiers. If one is to have the sort of condition written into a contract to which the noble Baroness alluded earlier, it implies that the person who has not paid the first time round will be there to pay the second time round.
I ought to make two other points, one of which I hope is implicit from my opening remarks. None of these Amendments is intended to be perfect, and would not be pressed, as such at this stage. The other point is that I do not quite follow the noble Baroness's reasoning on the specific and, as she put it, simple point that a date had been deleted in Amendment No. 6, line 25 after "it ' to the end of line 27, because the Amendment specifies a date "less than two months before the beginning of the rating year ", so a date exists. It is in effect 1st April in any year, as I understand it. I do not think that there is a lack of precision. I do not think it matters too much whether or not we have some imprecision. because it is the principle of this and the mechanics of putting it right that we are after.
I should not be happy to save time at Committee stage by leaving this without a clear idea of how the difficulty can be overcome, because I think then we should quite possibly waste a good deal of time at Report stage. I accept, if the noble Baroness wishes to go away and think of that up to Report stage, that would be perfectly understandable. We are then in the procedural difficulty that Report stage is only seven days hence, and we could not reasonably expect her to reply to us before Wednesday or Thursday of next week, and she could not reasonably expect us to make up our minds on her reply by this day seven days. That is why I am anxious to discuss this coolly and at length at the present time.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: I should like to support what my noble friend has said. This presents a great difficulty not only for the site operators but for those in occupation of caravans because of the uncertainty. We all know that where there is uncertainty there is bound to be difficulty. We appreciate the information already given by the noble Baroness in this complicated situation, but further information or, if need be, further exploration of the intentions behind this clause would be very acceptable, The important thing is to try to get this information over to the people concerned—that is, to the site operators and the quarter of a million occupants and owners of caravans who may be affected. There is not much time in which to do it and it will not he easy, but I suggest that it is important that whatever information is conveyed to these people is conveyed in very clear terms indeed so that there can be no uncertainty. We want no disputes or arbitration or other matters of that kind if they can possibly be avoided, so I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Elton has said.
Lord AVEBURY: I wonder whether I may intervene at this stage to raise a matter which has been put to my noble friend Lord Amulree by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I apologise to the noble Baroness for not having given notice of this point but it has only just come to my attention. As she knows, I am not by any means an expert in the province of pleasure caravans, although I have always taken a great interest in the problems of residential caravans. The point which has been raised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities is that, although the Bill provides for the collection of rates by the site owners, it does not specify how the owners will allocate the rates to the individual lessees. Nor does it include any provision that the site operator must notify the tenants of the amounts he will charge.
As the debate so far has made clear, the site operator would be in no position to do that at the moment because, until the valuation officer has exercised his discretion to treat the site as a single hereditament for rating purposes and the site operator has had the opportunity of considering how the amount is to be
1126
apportioned among his tenants, there will be no figures which he can impart to them. Because the noble Baroness has referred to an Amendment which she is to move later to ensure that the provisions of Section 1 do not come into operation until 1st April, I believe I may point out that it may be some way into the 1976–77 fiscal year before the valuation officer has exercised his discretion, the amount of the rateable value of the heraditament has been approved and the site operator has made his calculation of the apportionment among his tenants and finally notified them of the amount for which each is liable. I am not quite sure what will be the contractual position.
Perhaps the noble Baroness can explain what will be the position if the site operator charges in advance for six months or a year and finds that there is an additional amount which has to be recovered by way of rates. In the event that the contingency is covered in the agreement there will be no problem and, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, there is a clause in the model agreements provided by the site operators which enables the operators to recover any rates for which they later find themselves responsible. However, as we discovered when talking about residential caravans, there are many site operators who belong neither to the National Caravan Council nor to the National Federation of Site Operators. Such people can adopt any agreement they please and it may or may not contain a provision such as the noble Baroness read out. I believe that it would be for the convenience of the Committee for it to be told what would be the contractual position as between the site operator and the tenant if there were no clause in the agreement to cover this eventuality. Perhaps the noble Baroness could at the same time discuss the notification to tenants, which I agree is not a matter for this year, since, until the discretion is exercised, there is nothing which tenants can be told. Does she not, however, think that in future years there should be some provision in the clause requiring the site operator to inform the tenant at the beginning of the financial year what amount of rates he will be liable for separately from any other charges which are to be imposed on him?
One further point occurs to me as a result of the second intervention of the

1127
noble Lord, Lord Elton. It is that in many cases the tenancy of an individual pitch may change part of the way through a year. If the tenant is entitled to pay his rates by instalments as he would be under a residential agreement, and if, to take an example, he is present on the site for the first six months of the financial year 1977–78 and is paying the rates on a monthly basis, the site operator, assuming that he does not immediately re-let the pitch, will be saddled with the liability for the second half of the year without having a new tenant from whom to recover the amount. I should like the noble Baroness to explain how that would be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: The question of being aware of the situation already applies to some extent. It is clear from the form of contract that the site operators are reserving their position on the amount of the rates and, in any case, they already have to pay rates on the site itself. All that is new about this is the introduction of the leisure caravans and the pitches on which they stand. The rates for the rest of the site and the common ways and paths have anyhow had to be paid until now. So each year the site operators have had to wait to see what is the amount of rate from the relevant local authority. They appear to have managed quite successfully, considering the amount of business which is done and the increase in the number of caravans used in this country, and, to put it mildly, to make ends meet over this.
It is quite clear from what I read out from the model form that, as the decision has not been arrived at, any adjustment will have to be made at a later date. That is accepted by the caravanner who will have had to sign his contract and pay in advance and whose caravan will be in situ anyway. He will have committed himself to paying any additional amount which may arise. I should also point out that it is possible that the amount of rates may come down. It will be interesting to see what arrangements will be made for that to he passed on. In adopting a discretionary approach at this point, we are here following closely the provisions set out in Section 24 of I he General Rate Act 1967, which
1128
allows the valuation officer discretion to assess certain hereditaments as a single unit. The same discretion and the same problems exist in many other fields, but they seem to have been surmounted.
On the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, came back, it might be easier if I wrote to him about it as it is very technical but, as I see it, taking Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 together, he takes out the discretion. We have the following wording:
"… such a deletion shall not be made less than two months before the beginning of the rating year in which it is to have effect ",
and we have no date at all. So this comes out altogether. There is no criticism of drafting here. Drafting is extremely difficult and I am bringing forward drafting Amendments myself.
The core of this Bill is concerned with facilitating matters for the rating authorities and it is to be of benefit to the caravaners. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, does not agree about this, but having had an opportunity to look into this matter since the Second Reading I cannot see that the site operator will be at this great disadvantage. I say this because up until now there have always been included in what we now call the site charges charges for electrical supply, insurance, water and services, and these have had to be collected with the rent. All one is saying is that there is this other slight extra ingredient, and proceeding in this way should be of benefit all round.
A point has been raised about a tenancy changing through the year and how this change will be known. The valuation for the single assessment will have regard to the rent which the site operator would pay on a year-to-year basis. It would also have regard to the average number of caravans on his site. He also has the right to make a proposal for a reduction at any time; a reduction in the number of caravans would be a ground for this. I believe that problems such as those which have been raised would be very unlikely because the same position would apply to the site operator obtaining rent and other charges. But if he is able to show—certainly in the first year—that through no fault of his own he has great difficulty in collecting what he considers is the rate contribution, he would be at liberty (and indeed it would be to

1129
his own benefit and it would be his duty) to discuss the matter with the valuation officer. This discussion between the site operator and the valuation officer must not be overlooked. Perhaps noble Lords are inclined to overlook this very important stage of the negotiations in the early part of the change-over. This discretion and this change affects so many things when something comes within the rateable area or goes out of it.
This brings me to another point which I shall deal with only briefly now, because I intended to refer to it in relation to a later Amendment. It is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about how the caravaner will know what is the rate ingredient in the payment he is making. I am very exercised about this point. It was not possible to bring forward an Amendment at this stage, because in the Department we were formulating our proposals on this matter. My line of thinking at present is that we should take steps, at any rate in the Bill, to ensure that the caravaner will at least be able to obtain information about the rating of a site as a whole and the number of rateable caravans. Speaking personally, I should like to be able to go further than that and, if possible, find a means of assessing the rate contribution for each separate caravan and have that stated on the notice or demand.
However, there are tremendous difficulties involved here, because we return to the main point, as expounded in Clause 1, which is that it is rated as a single hereditament. The result will be a lower rating for the individual caravaners—the general contribution should benefit the site operator as well—due to this rating as a single hereditament. Here the single should be smaller than the accumulation of the parts. I am entering into some form of pseudo-mathematical language on this point, but I am very concerned about it. If noble Lords are agreeable, I should like to come back on this at the Report stage.
I will take a careful note of the other points raised and I shall be able to examine them with greater care when I read them in Hansard tomorrow. As the noble Lord rightly said, this has been a probing Amendment, and it is important that the matter should be very carefully and fully discussed at this stage. But, having aired his views, I hope that the
1130
noble Lord will not withdraw the Amendments.
Lord AVEBURY: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her remarks about the problem of information for the individual tenants on the site. This will go a long way to reassure the Association of Metropolitan Authorities about the general principle it has raised that a ratepayer is entitled to know what is the just amount of the charge. As I understood the noble Baroness, the Amendment which she is contemplating will require the site operator to give the tenant information about the total rate charged on the hereditament and the number of caravans to which it refers; so that, presumably by a simple division, he will be able to calculate what is the proper amount of rates chargeable on his individual pitch. But that does not quite get round the other point which the Association of Metropolitan Authorities made; namely, that there is no requirement in the Bill for the apportionment to be determined in this specific manner.
The implication of the remarks by the noble Baroness is that normally every pitch on a site would bear an equal portion of the total rate charged, and one would agree with that in most circumstances. But one can imagine certain sites, and indeed I know of some, where some caravan positions are far more favourable than others. For example, on holiday sites some pitches will be more adjacent to the beach than others, while some will be more remote than others. In such circumstances it might be quite proper and reasonable to have a different rate contribution according to where the caravans are placed.
I do not know how this point can be got round in drafting, and I can see that the noble Baroness has a difficulty, particularly as there are, I understand, only seven days before the Report stage. I certainly would not push this point at the Committee stage, knowing that the noble Baroness has it under consideration, but if she could say what general principles she thinks ought to be applied in determining the apportionment, it would be helpful to those of us who are considering whether or not we should put down Amendments before the Report stage.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for what she said. On the whole, we are friendly to the aims of this Bill. It reduces the cost of both administration and tenancy, and we are in favour of that—I see that the noble Baroness looks surprised. But the noble Baroness has not altogether answered the points which I put forward, as she will find on reading through what I said earlier. I am encouraged that she has already met a point I was going to raise later, and which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has now raised, about the information being given to the tenant, which bears on the related matter of an appeals procedure. I take it that she has in mind some sort of printed form on which the necessary information on the breakdown of the charge made to the tenant would be shown by the site operator. May I ask that it should not be a hideously complicated piece of paper, but a very simple one, when everybody's life will be both happier and longer.
Perhaps I may revert (so that the noble Baroness can consider this when I withdraw the Amendment) to the matter of the uncertainty in retrospection introduced by this provision in the Bill. The noble Baroness has said nothing to enable us to suppose that the site operator may not be faced with the duty of filling in this form, which we do not yet know about, when he does not know what is to go on it. Obviously that must be attended to in the drafting of the Bill. But the noble Baroness said that this is only a small part of site charges and that the operator is accustomed to collecting a number of other items and putting them into the whole. If that is so, would it not be possible, at the point at which she says there should be discussion with the valuation officer, for there is to be a procedure whereby a site operator who was unable to meet his commitment under the Act, as it will be, to collect the money for reasons beyond his control, could have a remission, if it is such a small amount, of the rates? This would avoid an inequitable charge or the man being compelled, in effect, to commit a misdemeanour.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, as he has indicated he will—and I am grateful to
1132
him—I should like to say another word on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and, again, by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as I pointed out, this is at a formulative stage, and some of the remarks I am making will, I fear, fill the lawyers in my Department with horror. So when I am speaking on these legal matters I am speaking on my own, and am just feeding it in to see how it works out.
The big problem here, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is probably aware —and I have been through this myself in discussion—is that the site operator is for these purposes the ratepayer. It is a single hereditament. It is extremely difficult—and I have been arguing with lawyers over this for three days to try to find a way in which one can really get an apportionment of that part of the rate. The noble Lord put his finger on some of the difficulties when he pointed out that some caravans may have a better position and, also, some will be bigger than others. There is also the whole question of the mixed hereditament, which again is of advantage to the caravanners, because it gives them the domestic ingredient. Because of these really extremely difficult problems, at the moment I am advised that it is virtually almost impossible to apportion separately what would be an individual caravan's contribution, if you like, to the general rate of the single hereditament, short of going back to the system which we are trying to depart from because it is so costly and needs so many personnel at a time when we are trying to reduce costs and personnel that is to say, without going back to a separate assessment. So we are between the two.
So the line we are following at the moment—and this is without prejudice to anything I may say at Report stage—is really to use a rather rough yardstick in order to give an indication, so that when a caravanner is told, say, that the charges have gone up by so much because of the rate ingredient in them, he has some idea by means of, for instance, a notice posted on the site or a leaflet, which he can be given on demand, explaining what the situation is in broad terms. I can promise the Committee that if we can find a way to be more detailed and also practical about it, certainly we

1133
shall do so, and I shall be only too happy to come forward with an Amendment which covers it as far as possible.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made the point that, if we are able to propose a form, it should not be hideously complicated. He is pushing at an open door there because I feel very strongly that we should explain things as simply as possible. At the moment, on an Amendment, I do not think I can discuss the question of remission. We are now getting down to individual cases; and, in any event, not only in the case of caravans but with all sorts of rating problems, arrangements are made between the ratepayer and the valuation officer. I think that at this stage I must leave it at that. I do not think it would be possible to write into this Bill something about a remission without it being not only extraordinarily complicated but also inapplicable.
I would say finally that if a site operator is quite prepared to go ahead—and these are the lettings for the 1976 season —and to say that, since no decision has been arrived at, any adjustment will have to be made at a later date as and when a final conclusion has been reached, then one must accept that the site operator is going ahead with his business, is making arrangements and is arranging contracts with caravanners, and is content to do so. If not, he would not be proceeding in this way.
Lord ELTON: If I may take the noble Baroness's points in reverse, I think she should not assume, because she has encountered one prudent soldier, that everybody's powder is dry and we are concerned with the less prudent. She also said, as I expected, that a remission would not be something she would smile upon; but she further said that discussions could be held between the person who had to pay the rates and the valuation officer. When she originally raised this matter it was in the context of the person who had to pay the rates not having received the money with which to pay them. Therefore, unless the valuation officer had some authority to vary his activities as a result of those discussions—because he will already have made the valuation—the discussions, it seems to me, would be of little value. However, I hope it
1134
will be possible for there to be a communication from the noble Baroness before we come to Report stage, which would make it easier if we are to take the Report stage early, though I recognise that this will place a great burden on her and her advisers. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.49 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, leave out (" including ") and insert (" excluding ").
The noble Lord said: We are probing again. Here, what we are saying is that where a caravan is not on a site valued as a single hereditament the caravan site occupier should be rated and the the site operator should be only the agent for the collection of the rates. This relates to the new clause tabled as Amendment No. 9. It is only probing. It looks straight at the basic concept of the Bill, and in fact bears very strongly on the remarks made by the noble Baroness at the end of the last Amendment. Case law has established that a caravan can be rateable if it satisfies given conditions. This places the rate burden fairly on the owners of caravans, and this principle has not been objected to by caravan owners in general experience, provided that the level of the rate is reasonable.
If the method now proposed by this Bill is adopted, it would distort the appeal court decision by transferring the liability for the rates on the caravan accommodation from the caravan owner to the park owner. It could be preferable to see the individual caravan owners continue to be rated and the park owner made responsible for the collection of the rates. This could in part answer some of the difficulties already encountered. This could be done under Sections 55 and 56 of the General Rate Act 1967. The purpose of this Amendment is to make way for the later new Clause 9, and I think that I have said enough now to give the noble Baroness good cause to say where she stands on this approach to the problem.
Baroness BIRK: As I understood when reading it and from what the noble Lord has said, it does not seem to make such difference which way round it is put; so at this point I would say that, subject to

1135
any second thoughts between now and Report stage, I accept this in principle; but I should prefer to redraft it because it could be drafted in a slightly tighter way and bring it back on Report. This is provided that some awful, knotty, problem is not shown to me in between. At the moment it would appear that there is no objection in principle to this.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. We will not press it at this stage, and I hope that no thorny problem will arise. It is something that we can discuss outside the Chamber before the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.52 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: May I speak at the same time to Amendment No. 10? We here broach the difficult matter of the basis on which the decision is made whether a site is commercial, mixed or domestic. The effect of the Amendment is to leave out subsection (4), and I hope that it will also have the effect of giving the noble Baroness the opportunity to explain in some detail what will be the effect of subsection (4) if it is left in. It seems to me that most caravan sites will have the option exercised upon them. There are factors which could make them mixed, more in favour of the commercial than the domestic part of the mixture. If on a mixed hereditament a large proportion of the caravan owners opted to become individually rated under Clause 1(7)—and I know that the noble Baroness has assured us they will not and that it is intended this shall be done only by people suffering from a disability which will enable them to claim benefits they would not otherwise get—it remains the fact that if they are not satisfied with the opportionment of rates they receive and if there is no clear appeal procedure between them and the site operator (that is, nothing more clear than that existing in the Bill), the recourse for anybody who feels hard done, anybody in the position, as Lord Avebury suggested, who is paying the same rates at the back of the park next to the sewage works as does
1136
one who is at the cliff edge, his simple recourse is to say:" This is not fair. I don't trust you. I will have myself rated individually ". If a quarter of the site did that, the remainder could be deemed to be commercial for the balance would be changed and even the caravan owners who do not opt for individual rating would become commercially rated to their disadvantage. It is not dear whether these consideration; are taken into account in the drafting. This is in the nature of a probing Amendment to discover the Government's intention and to ensure that caravans are subject to the domestic rate. Later, we approach this in another way and if the noble Baroness could lead us through this particular thicket now we should be much obliged.
Lord HAWKE: I would support my noble friend in objecting to the involved wording of this particular subsection. This subsection must be understood by the Inland Revenue, and they can understand anything. It must also be understood by the valuation officers, and I suppose they can understand it; also by the rating authority, and I think they might understand it. But it must also be understood by the fellow who owns the caravan site. I defy the noble Baroness to tell us that more than one in ten of those will have the least idea of what it means.
Baroness BIRK: I shall attempt to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, what the subsection means. I am grateful to them for finding this rather hard going. I thought that I was the only one who did so and it is nice to find others, obviously highly intelligent, who find it difficult. I learned that our rating law is very difficult to express in simple language. I had believed that anything, however difficult, could be expressed in simple language; but I think that rating foxes me; it is the exception to the golden rule. I believe that if the noble Lord, Lord Elton, looks again at subsection (4) he will find that it has the same objectives as he has and is trying to insert by means of his Amendments.
The aims of this clause are to ensure that the impact of rates on the caravanners will be less than would have been the case of the partly domestic and partly separately assessed and they continued

1137
to be liable to the local authority for rates. He raised that point when he made the distinction between the hypothetical case of the partly domestic and partly commercial site. First, we have allowed for the hereditament to be valued direct to the net annual value. I have already written to the noble Lord about this. I hope that he now appreciates that this provision in the clause ensures that a lower and more realistic net annual value will be proposed than if the hereditament was first assessed to gross value, which would be the approach if it were not for this clause and this subsection.
Secondly, it provides that all caravans in a single assessment occupied by anyone else than the site owner should be treated as private dwellings. The affect will be that in the majority of cases that the new single hereditaments will be classed as mixed hereditaments and will qualify for half domestic rate relief. That is one of the points the noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned. To qualify as a mixed hereditament, the value attributable to the domestic part of the property must be greater than the value attributable to the rest of it otherwise there would be no benefit. If Clause1(4) is deleted, the new single units will be automatically classed as commercial and in that case they would not get half the domestic rate relief. Furthermore, they will be valued initially to gross value and this means that the resulting net annual value will be higher than it would be under this clause.
The noble Lord also spoke to Amendment No. 10. This Amendment is puzzling, because it is what we are seeking to do under subsection (4) which the noble Lord wishes us to delete. Our view is that if our subsection stands and then he withdraws his Amendment No. 4 there is no need for his Amendment No. 10. I do not see how this explanation could possibly satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, but it is correct. I agree that this is complicated language, but I have already sent a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I hope my explanation has helped. He will see that the objective he is after, which I appreciate, is dealt with in Clause 1(4), the very subsection he wants to delete.
Lord ELTON: I said at the outset that this Amendment was something of a stratagem to enable the noble Baroness
1138
to say what she has said. I thank her for her full letter in which she justified the rating to net annual value, and explained that this assures the availability of domestic relief. However, from that point she began to lose me. She said that the effect of subsection (4) is that when the proportion of caravans in the hereditament that are rated together as one item falls below half the value of the site, then those caravans will not be rated domestically but commercially.
If I withdraw Amendment No. 4, we are left with the fall-back of Amendment No. 10. That would have the effect that Clause 1(4) would be in force. It would provide all the benefits which the noble Baroness used to extol its virtues, but it would not have the effect of causing those caravans that were on a hereditament which had lost its balance of 50 per cent. of domestic rating to be commercially rated.
Our Amendment No. 10 is therefore a great deal more important than Amendment No. 4, which was what in the Army used to be called "speculative fire", provoking a response which is useful and informative. That has already been done. I think the noble Baroness will accept it that if we agree with her explanation on Amendment No. 4, then Amendment No. 10 will have the virtue of extending the panacea which she attributes to subsection (4) to all the caravans and not just 49 per cent. of them.
Lord HAWKE: I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation. I may be dense, but there is one point I do not understand; that is, what is the difference between the types of site? In one case the site owner may let a site to other people who pay him a rent. The other case is where he owns the caravans and lets them out. If he lets the caravans out, I cannot see any difference in rating between a commercial undertaking and a domestic one because it appears to be a commercial undertaking. I wonder whether the authors of the Bill have defined a difference between these two types of undertaking. I imagine they have somewhere or other, but I have not been able to follow it.
Baroness BIRK: As I understand Lord Hawke's point, if a number of caravans are occupied by the site operator, it is likely—he will not be living in them all

1139
—that they will be used for commercial purposes. Where they are let out to different occupiers, they attract the domestic relief because they are being lived in by the caravanners. Listening to what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, I will consider further whether it is necessary to cover a rare case where the site would not be a mixed hereditament. That seems to he the one outstanding point to which both noble Lords referred and if the noble Lord will withdraw Amendments Nos. 4 and 10I will undertake to consider it.
Lord HAWKE: The noble Baroness did not cover the point regarding a bare site let either permanently, by the night or week, to people who bring their own caravans to the site. I am not sure whether that case is covered.
Baroness BIRK: The noble Lord is referring to touring caravans. This Bill is concerned with leisure caravans situated on a site for longer than a transient period, which means not less than a year. This Bill has nothing to do with the "one-nighters "to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord ELTON: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. Of course she needs to look at this. If she can find means of showing the likelihood of a frequent occurence of the situation I have described, that would be helpful. If she would also consider the principle that caravans covered by the Bill might always be considered as described in Amendment No. 10 which is possibly a slightly different proposition, and that it will not involve too major research, then I happily withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.7 p.m.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 14, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 together. Amendment No. 5 seeks to confine a site owner's right of appeal to the whole hereditament without reference to any part of it. Surely this must be wrong in equity, because the valuation
1140
officer has had to have regard to all the separate parts in drawing up his valuation. It ought to be possible for him to be questioned and perhaps challenged upon any such part. If this is not allowed, how can it be possible for any determination to be made of the fairness and the accuracy of the proposed valuation?
The valuation of the whole hereditament is mixed. There will be the commercial part, and again it ought to be possible to have the details of how that part of the hereditament is valued. It must be right for the site owner to know how the domestic part of the hereditament comprising the pitches and caravans is calculated. He should be entitled to know the basis of the valuation of this domestic side of the total valuation of the hereditament as well as of the commercial part. If a site owner is to be left completely in the dark regarding these matters, it is not fair to him or the caravan occupier, upon whom the cost of this imposition ultimately falls. Site owners would then have to decide on the charge to be made to the caravan owner or occupier and, if challenged, would be in no position to justify the amount proposed to be charged.
In this connection, I would suggest that it is desirable that provision be made in the Bill for the settlement of any dispute which may arise. That is the purpose of the proposal to include a new subsection (9), according to Amendment No. 8. It is suggested that in the event of a dispute over this matter there should be a reference to arbitration. I would suggest that in view of the provisions of the Bill, the owner or occupier of a caravan could challenge the right of a site owner to pass on the charges. I hope the Government will look sympathetically at this problem with a view to ameliorating what I am sure the noble Baroness will agree is an unfair and unsatisfactory position, one which ought to be tidied up. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to know that in Amendment No. 11, which is a new clause, subsection (3) advances an alternative method of appeal. If the noble Baroness wants to draw that into her net at this stage I would not object, though she may wish to discuss it later.
Baroness BIRK: I have rather a lot to discuss. The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, brought in his Amendment No. 8 with this one and perhaps we might take those together, even if it means our having to go over the same arguments again, although we do not want to become too confused. I can see exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, is aiming at in his Amendment regarding the right to object, and as it seems on the surface very much in line with the line of thought I have been following on the rights of the caravanner—rights which concern me as much as those of the operator—I can see the motivation behind it. However, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment; after much careful thought I have come to the conclusion that if we were to allow individual caravanners the right to object to the new single assessments, which is different from objecting to the assessment for themselves, then it is important that we do not confuse these two things. We could find ourselves in a situation where one caravanner on a site, which might have hundreds of caravans on it, could, by objecting, hold up the entry of the rateable value of the combined unit in the list. One could therefore find just one caravanner objecting to a proposal that it should be treated as a single hereditament, which is quite different from somebody objecting to being part of it themselves, and we feel that this would be grossly unfair.
But we have taken steps to protect the rights of the individual caravanner in another way, and it may be that the noble Lord is referring to this by enabling the caravanner under Clause 1(7) to opt for a separate assessment, although we feel, for the reasons I gave in our extended discussion of the first Amendment, that it would be rarely in his interests to do so. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the position would be similar in the case of a disabled person. The site operator has the right to object to the valuation on the new single assessment and the valuation officer would always be willing to discuss how the assessment had been arrived at, so he could discuss the quantum of it. This is not a case of something strange appearing in the Bill; there are many instances where the ratepayer, whether living in a house, in a block of flats or in some other property where there is a mixture of commercial
1142
and domestic property or where there may be complications, discusses the assessment with the valuation officer. The site operator is in exactly the same position here. Where the caravanner wants a separate assessment—although, as we have seen, it would rarely be to his advantage to do so, and therefore it is unlikely that he would ask, unless he is disabled—then he has the right to say so. This right is not taken from him.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: I am obliged to the noble Baroness for what she has said, but I am afraid I have not understood it. Subsection (5) clearly says:
" … the reference to any part of the hereditament shall be omitted."
That refers to the right to object, so when the noble Baroness says that the site operator can discuss with the valuation officer how the valuation is made up, I do not see how that can be possible, for the Bill says that he is not allowed to do it. It specifically says, as I understand the words, that he is not allowed to do it. That is the point of my Amendment; it is really an exploratory Amendment to try to resolve the position because, quite frankly, what the noble Baroness said did not seem to tie up with what is in the Bill. I would be grateful if she would explain how a site operator can discuss an assessment with a valuation officer when in fact the Bill says he cannot.
Baroness BIRK: The Bill does not say that he cannot discuss it with the valuation officer. The noble Lord wants to leave out the whole of that subsection, but all that the subsection does is to remove from the individual caravanner the right to object to the valuation officer's proposal for the new single hereditament. I think, with respect, that the noble Lord has become a little confused about this. The subsection refers to any individual being able to hold up the whole proposal. The noble Lord then went on to discuss the difficulty a site operator might have if there was no right to object to the assessment, and I pointed out that in the new single assessment, which would then be a single hereditament, the valuation officer would always be willing to discuss with him how the assessment had been arrived at. The objection there is that of a caravanner saying, "I do not

1143
think that this should be a single hereditament ". That objection we are not allowing, and I think that when the noble Earl considers it he will find that it makes sense. We are not saying that somebody who says, "I am personally opting out ", should not be able to do so, although I gather it would probably be to his grave disadvantage to do so.
Lord HAWKE: I cannot find anything in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to say to what particular type of tenancy this refers. If the owner of the site is to be assessed for rates and is unable, or refuses, to pay them, will it be possible for the rating authority to sell up the private caravans located on the site? I do not know whether that point could arise, but if it could, how would such an injustice be impossible under the Bill?
Baroness BIRK: On that last point, it is very unlikely to arise. I think I should like to write to the noble Lord so that I can be quite correct about it. On his other point, what I want to stress is that the site operator still has the right to object to its being a single hereditament. What we are saying is that you cannot have odd caravanners standing out and stopping the rating process for the whole lot. If the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, would prefer it, I will write to him on the other point, and I will also write to the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield. Although we have had a rather lengthy discussion, it will probably be helpful if I set out the position in case I have missed out any points.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: I believe that the noble Baroness was intending to go on to Amendment No. 8, which we are taking with this Amendment, but I interrupted her and she very kindly gave way.
Baroness BIRK: If we speak to it now, perhaps the noble Lord will not wish to move it later. For the benefit of the Committee, I should explain that Amendment No. 8 provides for disputes between caravanners and site operators over the amount of rates payable in respect of a caravan pitch to be referred to arbitration. I can appreciate what is behind this Amendment, but again I am afraid that I cannot advise the Commit
1144
tee to accept it. I should begin by pointing out that there is a technical defect in the drafting—although that is not the main objection—which conveniently explains my argument against the substance of the Amendment.
The Amendment refers to the,
" amount of the rate payable in respect of such pitch".
But under the Bill rates as such will not be payable in respect of the pitch; they will be payable only in respect of the composite new unit of assessment. What the caravanner will be paying is a rent or charge to the site operator at a level fixed by the site operator to cover rates, among all the other expenses of running the site. Unless the site operator himself states that a specific amount is intended to cover the rates, it is not possible to identify the precise sum which is attributable to rates. As I explained, this is one of the problems of not being able to set out the rates ingredient precisely, as one can in many other cases.
Let me for a moment assume that one has identified a rates element in the site operator's charges and knows precisely how much it is. If the Amendment were accepted. somebody might go to arbitration about the amount. Let me further suppose that the arbitrator finds in favour of the caravanner and reduces the sum. We then have the position that the site operator has apportioned his rates bill among all the caravanners, and one apportionment has been found to be wrong in one direction—either too high or too low. But if the operator is to be able—as clearly he must—to charge the whole of his rate bill, this must mean that at least one of the other apportionments is wrong in the other direction; indeed, they may all be wrong in one direction or other. That indicates the kind of chaos into which one could be led if one pursued this Amendment—however worthy its intentions—to its logical conclusion.
I am afraid that site operators would simply load their total charge sufficiently to cover the risk of arbitrators' findings going against them, which would be another ingredient going into the site charge—not to mention the cost which they would have to bear in bringing proceedings—and the total situation would

1145
thus be thoroughly inflationary. Remembering what the noble Lord said on Second Reading about inflation, I do not think he will want to pursue this very interesting probing Amendment now that I have explained the position in some considerable detail.
5.26 p.m.
Lord ELTON: May I ask the noble Baroness to imagine a hypothetical situation? Let us suppose that, full of years and honour, she decides in her declining years to take a caravan on a site such as we are talking about. Her identity is not known in the first year, but in the second year it is revealed to the caxavan site operator, who, I am sure, would be unique in such unpleasant conduct, that she has a political background of which he disapproves, or perhaps he does not like people with red hair—the reason is immaterial and we would sympathise with her in her predicament —and he then transfers £1,000 of the £1,025 rates on the site on to her pitch. What would she do about that? I am sure that she would remonstrate; she is a person of resource and vigour and will, I am sure, continue to be so in her declining years. Under this Bill, could she do anything except hitch her caravan to her motor car and go elsewhere?
Baroness BIRK: I do not like the words" declining years ", which the noble Lord repeated so often. I have tremendous admiration for people who live in caravans, but caravanning is the last thing that I would ever dream of doing in either my declining or ascending years. But I do not think such an iniquitous situation would arise. One reason is that we are starting at a much lower level of differentiation. As I explained earlier on Amendment No. 1, I am very seriously considering the best way of making known to caravanners what is equitable. The hypothetical example of the noble Lord would immediately indicate that I was being asked to pay very much over the odds, and I should at once protest to the rating authority.
Lord ELTON: Is there a provision in the Bill for the noble Baroness to do that?
Baroness BIRK: Anybody always has a right to go to the town hall and see the valuation officer. What I think would
1146
happen in that situation—if the noble Lord would allow me to finish—is that the caravanners on a site would probably get together and form a tenants' association, such as one sees elsewhere, and would try to make sure that they were treated as equitably as possible. One hopes that they would demand to know why their site charges had gone up enormously, and would ask the site operator what it was all about. If he said that the increase was due to the fact that the rates had gone up by what seemed an outrageous amount, they could make inquiries as to whether that was so. If I were put in that position—in the unlikely event of my having a caravan—I could ask for a separate account. In a case such as the noble Lord mentioned, it would obviously be beneficial to me to have a separate assessment, rather than be part of the whole hereditament. Beyond that, if somebody really wanted to "rook" an individual caravanner like that, he could do it today by including in the rent agreement, the site charge, the contract or whatever it is called, a clause stating that it covers insurance, rent and charges. In fact, the model form which I read out begins, "I am sorry, but I have to increase your charges this year ". Finally, as the noble Lord said, I could hitch it to my back and move or sell it to him.
5.30 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: Could the noble Baroness explain the position which might arise on a site that at the beginning of a season was only two-thirds occupied and had a previous history of partial occupancy? If the total site charge is to be spread it can be spread only over those who are under contract. If more people enter into the contract as the season, or seasons, progress, how are adjustments to be made? I do not have quite the same faith as the noble Baroness has in the site operator. This kind of arrangement suggests to me that under one very large umbrella get lumped a number of charges, including the rate, the water rate, the electricity, the ground rent and any other charges. It is a very strong-minded person who will sort this out. Mostly he is prepared to accept it.
I can assure the noble Baroness that steadily over the years charges on this kind of site have gone up and up. For

1147
example, let me take the electricity charge. This, and I quote:
" for convenience of administration will be charged at 2.1p per unit ",
whereas, in fact, the charge is 2001p per unit. Therefore, the site operator is making a great deal of money, but it is not really worth arguing about. Exactly the same can happen with the rate, only here a much larger amount of money is involved. After all, the site operator is human and it is unlikely that he will say, "I'm going to challenge this ". The easy way out for him is to say, "That's too bad. I have 500 or 1,000 tenants or licensees and I will just spread it ". The trouble with this kind of bulk charge system is that it becomes a great big envelope into which everything is swept and nobody knows the answer. From all that the noble Baroness has said so far, I do not see any way out of this.
Lord HAWKE: I support what my noble friend has said. Admittedly, ladies with red hair and Socialist principles are not very plentiful, but they are by no means unique. I feel that the site operator has the opportunity to discriminate in favour of his friends and against his enemies; but he will be put in a quite impossible position in the event of a site not being fully occupied, because presumably the site will always he rated as if it were full. If it is supposed to cover 50 and for part of the year only 25 people are there, how does the operator charge? Does he divide the total rate bill among 25 and then discover a few months later that there are 50 people on his site? Either the money will go into his pocket or he will have to make very complicated returns to these people in respect of varying periods of occupation. I am sure that the Bill is well meaning but it absolutely bristles with practical difficulties of this kind.
Baroness BIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has raised basic points, some of which were discussed earlier. I should have thought quite the reverse. I do not know whether the noble Lord was in the Chamber at the time, but I explained at some length my anxiety about caravanners not knowing what was the rate ingredient and said that I was trying very hard to find a way round it so that they would know at least that part of the charge. This
1148
is the only area with which this Bill is concerned. The noble Lord widened his argument to cover all the other charges —rent and so on—but this Bill is concerned with rating. ft was because I was aware that it becomes a package that I wanted, so far as is humanly possible, to find a way by which one could protect the caravanner who would be subjected to exploitation in respect of this extra ingredient as well as the others. I am hoping to try to find some way round the problem so as to be able to introduce an Amendment on Report. I am well aware of the problem and of the difficulties. But it is not new. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me that it has not arisen as a result of the Government's plans to introduce this legislation that lie is referring to a much wider issue.
The price controls are applicable so far as site operators are concerned. In most circumstances, the charges made by them are subject to the counter-inflation legislation, certainly where the occupation of an individual plot on the site is by licence and where some element of service is provided. This will be the case on almost all of the sites covered by this Bill. Therefore, the site owner must relate any increase in charges to increases in costs specified as allowable by the price code. The owner will also be subject to control of his net profit margin, and where the sites are owned by companies and many are—with sales in excess of £5 million they will be required to notify the Price Commission of intended price increases. The profit margins of smaller firms are liable to check by the Price Commission's regional offices. There are, therefore, checks, if they are used. The noble Lord implied that many people unfortunately accept these charges without taking any action. I agree with him. That is why the discussions on these points arc of importance and of even wider application.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, supported these points and I believe I have answered the points he raised in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. If, however, I have omitted a reply to a specific point made by him, perhaps the noble Lord will be kind enough to remind me of it.
Lord HAWKE: My principal point is that presumably the site owner is rated

1149
on the whole of his site as if it were fully occupied. In practice it may be half-occupied for a portion of the year. He pays the rates, and charges the full rates to the "half-occupiers ", but when other occupiers come on to the site he gets the same out of them also.
Baroness BIRK: I thank the noble Lord for reminding me of his point. The number of caravans on which the assessment will be made will bearrived at after discussion between the site operator and the valuation officer and it will have to be an average figure. So supposing the site should hold 300 caravans but in fact it is usually occupied by 250, then the assessment would be made on 250. If in the following year the number dropped to 200 it would be up to the site operator to discuss the matter again with the valuation officer. If the number rose then the valuation officer would have to approach the site operator for an adjustment to be made. But this again is not peculiar to this situation.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: Arising out of that reply, what is the position, if the rate is to be levied upon the site and van as a complete unit, when on one pitch you have a four berth van while on the next pitch you have a six berth van? Or what happens in the event of one or the other of those vans being changed on a pitch during the season? This is quite a likely possibility, provided a site operator allows a variety of vans on his site. It would he quite wrong, of course, for a four berth non-luxury van to be rated precisely the same as a six-berth luxury van.
Baroness BIRK: But the rating is on the site, the single hereditament. Within that sphere the site operator has to adjust or apportion the amount. If in the charge to the person with the smaller caravan he says, "It has been increased by £x because of the rates ", and that person suspects that he is being overcharged, because it would be part of the whole site charge, he has the right to object. He also has the right to go direct to the Price Commission. Also, if the caravanners get together they will soon find out who is paying for what. But that is the way in which the operator apportions it. He is responsible for the whole sum. It is not for the valuation
1150
officer to say to him, "You put so much on the site charge for this caravan or that caravan ". That is what might be called the domestic housekeeping, and where that is not done equitably it is the fault of the site operator, and then it becomes a matter between the site operator and the caravanners.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I do not wish to pursue this any further because the noble Baroness has been generous in her responses. However, as a parting shot and not meaning to be too acid about it, I think it is grossly unfair that the site operator—and, as I have already said, from my personal experience, I do not have quite as much faith in site operators as perhaps the noble Baroness has—is doing the job of the valuation officer, and I can foresee a great deal of dissent and disharmony in what in the past have been peaceable little caravan retreats. On the wider issue, in my view it is quite wrong that it has been inherent in local affairs and business affairs over the past few years (whichever Government have been in power) to saddle the individual businessman with the responsibility for that which has normally been carried out by the authorities.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: We must all be grateful to the noble Baroness for the very full explanation she has given on Amendments Nos. 5 and 8. I should like to consider carefully what she has said. There has been a full discussion, which I think was most worthwhile and desirable. Many people are interested in this matter and no doubt it will be possible for them to read in Hansard what has been said. In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 5.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.43 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 25, leave out from (" it ") to end of line 27 and insert (" such a deletion shall not be made less than two months before the beginning of the rating year in which it is to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: We spoke to this on Amendment No. 1 and therefore I shall not pursue the matter.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert—
(" (9) This section shall not come into force before 1st April 1976.").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment arose because during the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, expressed the fear that if the Bill came into force before 1st April, it would be possible for site operators in England and Wales to be made liable for rates on the whole site and caravans for 1975/76. As I said in my speech during the Second Reading debate, this was not our intention, but to put the matter beyond doubt, and in order to please the noble Lord, I have tabled this Amendment. I hope that the Committee will approve this in preference to the Opposition's Amendment on the same point. That provides that the Bill shall come into force on 1st April. If the Bill does not get the Royal Assent until after that date, it will require further amendment on this point. The Government's Amendment has been drafted in such a way as to overcome this difficulty, and the effect of it is that the Act will come into force on the date of Royal Assent or 1st April whichever is the later. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: I am grateful to the noble Baroness because this is helpful to us also. It ties in with the question of retrospection, and on that we await what she has to say between now and the Report stage. Beyond that I would say that it is a small step in the right direction.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord ELTON: I think the briefer we can be on this, the better. There is some doubt about how soon this Bill can be got into operation even if it comes into effect on 1stApril. There is one point left over from the Second Reading debate which the noble Baroness might like me to refer to; it is the question of the incompatibility of water rating and general rating when it comes to certain provisions for remissions which are retrospective. The noble Baroness was kind enough to write to me at length on this and I accepted her explanation: the legislation is piecemeal throughout
1152
the country. As well as the two pieces of legislation not matching each other, it applies beyond the area of effect of this Bill and I am glad the noble Baroness has assured me that the whole problem is being looked at in order that the process may be harmonised in all areas for the future.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Collection of Rates
Where a caravan park has leisure caravans sited on it which are capable of being individually rated, the owner (or occupier) of the land comprising such park shall be responsible for the collection of the rates in respect of the accommodation afforded by such caravans when they are in separate ownership. The valuation officer shall separately assess and enter on the valuation list all leisure caravans that are on the park and not in the ownership of the park owner and the rating authority shall levy rates on these valuations but shall appoint the site operator as their agent for the collection of such rates (without liability for the default of any rateable person) and shall be authorised to pay such site operator a commission.
The noble Lord said: We have covered a great deal of this ground already. This is a way of converting the site operator into a rate collector and thus relieving him of the burden which alarmed my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth a few moments ago. It is not closely drafted and I hope the noble Baroness therefore will not feel it necessary to spend time on the effects of errors. She may like to summarise briefly her view of why it would not be possible to resolve the difficulty in this way, as she has already outlined.
I believe I am right in saying that the great majority of individual pitches have already been assessed under the existing law, so that there would be no enormous, crippling burden of work on the local authority to be performed immediately, although, of course, there would be a sustained burden in running a system which I think she may well convince us we should like to see wound up. I beg to move.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: I have some difficulty in understanding how this new clause fits into the Bill because although the

1153
noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said constantly that he is basically in favour of the Bill—but has just picked out certain points about which he is concerned—it adopts such a fundamentally different approach to the whole problem that if this were accepted it would beat at the central core of the Bill. As an additional clause, it would be quite meaningless unless the whole of Clause 1 were dropped. As we are not prepared to do that it does not have any place in the Bill. However, the noble Lord quite rightly asked me to explain the reason and I will try so to do.
When we orginally considered how we might tackle the problem of collecting rates on leisure caravans, we considered the possibility of a Section 55 approach. Section 55 of the General Rate Act 1967 gives local authorities discretion to rate the owners instead of the occupiers, of certain hereditaments and provides that if the owner pays the rates demanded before the end of the first half of the period to which the demand relates, the rating authority must make an allowance equal to 10 per cent. of the amount payable. This provision cannot apply at the moment to the caravan situation because in the majority of cases the site operators are not the owners of the caravans. It would have been a relatively simple matter to introduce legislation to meet this point, although after seeing the Bill and hearing the complicated Amendments moved today, I hesitate to say that rating is a simple matter. The Section 55 approach would have relieved many of the rate collection problems faced by local authorities once the rateable values on the separately assessed caravans had been entered in the valuation list. But as noble Lords must be aware, the problems which can arise before the assessments go into the list are legion.
The valuation officer has to make a proposal for each caravan, identify the individual caravans and serve the notices. To do this, he must have access to the caravans. This involves crossing the site, which many site owners have resisted. Invariably, caravan owners are not present to take delivery of the notice, so it is attached to the caravans, which are often on exposed coastal sites; the notices are blown away or otherwise lost. Finally, there is the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, force-
1154
fully drew attention on Second Reading that of identifying individual caravans when one has what we might call a shifting element in the caravan population. The kind of approach which is being advocated in this new clause would do nothing whatever to alleviate the considerable problems arising in valuing caravans as separate units; nor would it completely remedy the problems of local authorities. They would still have the task of listing the separate assessments on the rate demand, and for those authorities with thousands of such caravans this would not be an easy matter.
I am rather surprised to see that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has attached his name to this Amendment because he has already brought before your Lordships a proposal for Scottish legislation, similar in principle to the present Bill. During the course of the debate on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill in April 1975, at columns 23 and 24 of Hansard, the noble Lord withdrew his Amendment because all this legislation was in hand and because he agreed that the exact form in which his Amendment was drafted was not acceptable. In fact, his Amendment then was along the lines of the Bill and not along these lines.
Lord ELTON: I think the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has now said what I was hoping to save her the necessity of saying. I put down this Amendment in order to give her a chance, if it had not yet become clear, of explaining the philosophy behind the approach to the rating. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has not asked to dissociate himself in any agony of embarrassment. I put down his name so that if I fell off a bus between putting down my name and speaking to the Amendment, someone could speak to it.
Baroness BIRK: I would hate the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to fall off a bus, but I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, should be "doing a somersault" on this. We have come to the conclusion that this solution would leave unresolved too many problems. Unless the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has changed his mind—which was so excellent in its direction when he spoke on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill—then I think he will agree with me, certainly on this point.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will allow me to say at this stage that I am reserving my ammunition until Clause 2, which applies to Scotland. I shall be wanting to say quite a lot about the matters which she has raised.
Baroness BIRK: I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has devolved from us. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, in speaking to this Amendment, once again emphasised the unfair burden placed on the site operator. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, obviously cannot bear to hear the words "site operator "any more because he is leaving. Before he goes, he must accept that the Government—and I am speaking on behalf of the Government—are equally concerned, if not more so, for the caravanners who are "on the end" of this and who are the people paying the site operator. I should not like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to leave the Committee stage feeling that there was any unfair balance in taking any particular group of people. Because of our awareness of this, we are concerned to get an equitable arrangement in the Bill, winch is why we are spending so much time on these Amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, when speaking on Second Reading, felt that it would be unfair for the site operator to have to collect the additional sum from caravanners. The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, suggested that as the site owner was effectively acting as a rate collector, he should be given a commission, as he would get under Section 56 of the General Rate Act 1967. I should set the record straight at once. We are not envisaging that site operators will become rate collectors. We are deeming them to be the rateable occupiers of this single hereditament. Although we appreciate that the owners are in business, and rates would be a cost which they would have to pass on to their customers, as they have always done, we are concerned that they should not tip the balance and pass on more than they themselves are being asked for. Frankly. I cannot see why site operators should be rewarded for passing on this cost by receiving a com
1156
mission. It will not involve them in extra work. They already pass on a certain rate element because the site is rated, anyway. All that they have to do now is to pass on a rather larger element which is attributed to the caravan and its site.
The question of liability when a caravanner defaults on payment to the site owner, which I think the noble Lord raised—if he did not, I am sure he will; and if he did not, he should have done so because I have a note on it—is not a new problem, either. All site owners have arrangements for the recovery of debts from caravanners. I suspect, because of the very nature of their business, that it is difficult to unhitch and make off with a heavy load such as a caravan, so I think that site owners are more successful in recovering such debts than the average commercial undertaking. As a result of my researches I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that site operators seem to cover themselves very well for any eventuality of this sort. So I reject any attempt to enable the site operator to get commission for something which really is part of a site charge, which he is collecting anyway.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: Of course, it is the practice at the present time in some areas and in some places for the site operator to receive a commission on the amount he has collected. There are a number of site operators who have collaborated with the local valuation officers and have saved all the expense of collection to which the noble Baroness has referred, and which is in fact one of the main reasons for this Bill. By this collaboration that has taken place the local authorities have been relieved of a lot of trouble and expense in collecting the individual rates from the caravanners. The site operator has done this satisfactorily and everybody is quite happy.
It is a great pity that when Whitehall —which we know, of course, always knows best—sent out their directions for the collection of individual rates from caravans they did not at the same time give guidance and suggest this kind of arrangement. It is done, I think, very successfully in Scotland—no doubt my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy will say something about that in a moment—and in certain parts of this country. On

1157
Second Reading I was suggesting that it was a pity that what is already happening quite easily and satisfactorily in parts of England and Wales could not be extended; in that way there would have been no need for this Bill. As I see it, all this new clause does is to authorise a practice which is taking place now, very satisfactorily and to the mutual advantage of everybody.
Lord ELTON: I think the best procedure here would be for us to consider what the noble Baroness has said and to return to it at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.2 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Powers of site operators
.—(l) A site operator may recover as a specialty debt enforceable by action from the occupier of each caravan pitch owned by the site operator a proportion of the general and drainage rates which may be levied upon the site as a single hereditament such proportion being calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.
(2) The proportion of general and drainage rates recoverable under subsection (1) of this section shall be such proportion as shall be reasonable having regard to the size position and general amenity of the caravan pitch and the caravan sited thereon in relation to the site as a whole to the total number of caravan pitches on the site to the period of occupation of the caravan or the caravan pitch during the relevant rating period and to any other matters which ought reasonably to be taken into account.
(3) Within 28 days of the service upon him by the site operator of a notice to pay a proportion of the rates due on the site, the occupier of a caravan pitch may object to that proportion; and for this purpose sections 70 to 74 of the General Rate Act 1967 shall apply as though for the words "valuation officer" the words "site operator" were substituted in each place where they occur.
(4) A rating authority may remit an appropriate proportion of the rates attributable to a caravan pitch where—

(a) the caravan previously occupying such pitch is removed from that pitch during the relevant period; or

(b) the site operator has made diligent attempts to recover the due proportion of such rates from the, occupier of an individual caravan pitch but has been unable to effect such recovery.

The noble Lord said: We return at a different tangent to the same problem, though we have drawn the Amendment rather wider to cover a number of points, and I hope this may have the effect of expediting rather than confusing our proceedings. Under subsection (1) of the new clause, we have provision whereby the site operator may be empowered to recover, as a specialty debt enforceable by action, from the occupier of each caravan pitch monies due to him as rates. We also have some sort of guidance under subsection (2) as to how the rates should be apportioned. We are in this difficulty: if we are to save the great burden of local authority work involved in the assessment of individual pitches and caravans, to which the noble Baroness has alluded already, we have, almost as a corollary of that, to transfer the burden of apportionment to the site operator.
At least in concrete terms which I have been able to understand, the noble Baroness has so far denied to that person any recourse for the redress of what he considers to be an unfair apportionment to his pitch and caravan, other than opting for individual rating. When she referred to her own hypothetical case, she said that that would be the effective course open to her; she would be able to remonstrate and take advice, and so on, which owing to the force of her character, might be effective, but which, for the general public, would not. In the third subsection we have, therefore, put in a right of objection, and we have used existing statutory machinery to do it. The wording may not be perfect, but, if she would be kind enough to comment on the intention, I am sure this would satisfy the Committee. On subsection (4), the noble Baroness has already spoken about remission. She has said that she will be in touch on the matter—although she is not very optimistic about the content of her communication—before the next stage. Therefore, I think it would be possible for her to refer to that only briefly, if at all. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for explaining so fully and clearly his intention in tabling this new clause. Although he described it as covering powers for the site operators, I should like to say that I think he rather underplayed it. I have a great deal of

1159
sympathy with one of his objects, which is to give some protection to the caravanner on the amount of rates. His clause is really covering both the site operators and the caravanners included in the total charge for rates made by the site operator. Nevertheless, I have considerable misgivings about the form of protection he proposes. Perhaps I can deal first with this point, the protection of caravanners, because I think it is worrying a number of us, although it is not the first point in his proposed clause.
The scheme, as the noble Lord explained, is that the rates bill on the whole of the new composite rating unit should be apportioned by the site operator according to the criteria laid down in subsection (2), and as a check on the equity of this apportionment each caravanner would be able to appeal against it in the same way as a ratepayer can appeal against the rateable value of his property as entered into the valuation list by the valuation officer. If agreement cannot be reached, this involves reference to the local valuation court, with a further avenue of appeal to the Lands Tribunal, and so on. It is this invocation of the whole elaborate machinery of rating appeals into a scheme for apportioning the rate element in a caravan site operator's charges which gives me such great misgivings. We have been trying to simplify matters for everybody, bring down cost, personnel and all the other things which we are all at one in believing need doing at the moment. Having brought it down to the single hereditament with the one ratepayer, so to speak, the site operator, we are now invoking a very elaborate machinery which was not really set up for this situation. As I say, the main purpose of the Bill is to simplify the present procedures with an aspect of rating which makes fewer demands on manpower.
Much more fundamentally, if we did this and invoked all this machinery, I cannot see that we would have achieved anything worth while, in the light of the fact that there is no similar machinery under which the site operator's charge as a whole can be questioned; that remains an individual bargain. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to see machinery set up for this purpose; I do not know. I think there are great
1160
merits in that, and I am sure everything Lord Lucas of Chilworth said adds weight to that argument. But I am sure the noble Lord would agree with me that we could not do this with the Bill now before the House, because what he is really covering in this Amendment is the whole question of the composition of the site charge, how it should be dealt with and how there should be a way of appealing against it. This goes much further than what will turn out to be the smallest ingredient of it, which will be the rate content.
I can assure the noble Lord that the Government have in mind importing into the Bill at a later stage, I hope at Report stage, a provision which, while recognising the impossibility in all cases of identifying the rate element without throwing away the desirable simplifications we are seeking through this very unsimple Bill, will nevertheless enable caravanners to form a reasonable judgment about whether they are getting a fair deal. I do not think that I can go into that matter in more detail because I went into that when the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised it on another Amendment, when in fact I was going to discuss it on this one where actually it is more appropriate.
Although again I sympathise with what is behind this clause, for those reasons and a number of technical and other reasons, it would be extremely difficult to do it in this way. It seems to me that this is much more tied up with the whole process and make-up of the site charges and, if you like, relationship between site operators and caravanners than to do with the far more specific and narrow question of rating.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged for that useful and helpful explanation that the noble Baroness has succinctly made, particularly on subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. I recall what she said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I think that that, if it materialises in a satisfactory form at Report stage, would go some way towards allaying our fears which are, I suppose, also tempered by the reflection that here we are dealing with people's second homes. They are not anchored or trapped in them to the extent that people were in the Caravan (Mobile Homes)

1161
Bill with which we dealt earlier. To that extent I am in sympathy with what the noble Baroness said.
As to the question to which she did not refer very closely in her reply, covered by subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, I am not entirely happy about the situation of debt recovery. It meshes in with the very thorny problems raised by my noble friend Lord Hawke earlier on, and with the whole philosophy of the Bill. I should like to read with care what the noble Baroness said and take advice on a number of matters, including the probable frequency of the difficulties we have in mind and the probable proportion of the total demand the site operator will be making on the caravan pitch occupant, which she frequently assures us will be a very small one; and I am sure that she is right. If we might satisfy ourselves on these points before we go to the Report stage we might well have a meeting of minds on that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Valuation and rating of caravan sites in Scotland]:
6.13 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 10, leave out (" shall ") and insert (" may ").
The noble Lord said: Now we come to Clause 2, which is the clause applying to Scotland. The systems of valuation are different North and South of the Border, and also the legislation is different. It will be noted that all the references to legislation in Clause 2 are to Scottish Acts of Parliament. It is evident that when I moved an Amendment on the rating of caravans to a Scottish local government Bill in your Lordships' House on 8th April last, and drew attention to the need for some action for Scotland, I appear to have started something, because the noble Baroness, in her introduction of the Bill at Second Reading on 15th January, referred to that. I, of course, was suggesting that something needed to be done where Scotland was concerned. I was somewhat surprised, but gratified, to think that the Government had decided to take similar action in regard to England and Wales, which
1162
of course is in Clause 1, which we have just been considering.
I was surprised when the Bill appeared. I saw it when it first appeared in the Printed Paper Office, and then suddenly realised that the Government were proposing to do something where Scotland was concerned, which I had suggested some months ago, and I had not received any previous warning. I had not expected to, but my noble friend Lord Elton was aware of my surprise. If, in raising this question where Scottish legislation is concerned, I have contributed to producing a complicated Bill and raising a complicated subject, I apologise to your Lordships on both sides of the House.
Where Scotland is concerned the valuation system is different and so are the terms in legislation. For example, there is no such thing as "hereditament", which constantly occurs in the English legislation. In Scotland it is "lands and heritages ". Therefore, the Government have had to draft a completely separate clause where Scotland is concerned. I think there is some consolation in grappling with what the noble Baroness has agreed is not only a complicated Bill but one that has more content than previously had been thought. When she told us that it meant that those in caravans would be overall paying less in rates in future than they paid in the past, I think we can all reckon that the effort we are making on this Bill is worth it. She gave that assurance to us, and it is one we welcome.
Against that background, this Amendment is to inquire why it is that the Scottish clause is not permissive. It says "the assessor shall", whereas in the equivalent for England and Wales the valuation officer "may"—that is the word— "if he thinks fit ". In the equivalent part of Clause 1 the valuation officer, if he thinks fit, "may", whereas in the Scottish clause he is obliged to by the word "shall".This seemed strange, and it seemed curious that there should be this obligation where Scotland is concerned. There may be a perfectly good explanation, but this was naturally a matter which immediately came to my attention. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could tell us the reason for it. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, explained briefly and succinctly that there were two different systems in Scotland and England, and that this applied to Scotland. In order to save the Committee's time, unless I am asked to I shall not go into a long explanation of the difference between the two systems, except to point out that while it is true that in England and Wales a valuation officer has discretion to adopt the comprehensive basis of assessment or not as he thinks fit, it is true that in Scotland the assessor has not. There are good reasons for this difference in approach. In England and Wales there is a precedent for the exercise of discretion by valuation officers. Valuation officers are appointed by Central Government; they are not the servants of the local authority.
It is true that where a building is occupied in part, Section 24 of the General Rate Act 1967 allows the making of a single entry in the valuation list, or separate entries. A discretion of this kind is unknown to the Scottish valuation code, and after its 120 years of history we feel its introduction would be unfair to assessors and ratepayers alike. There is in Scotland the crucial difference that the assessor, as I have already pointed out, is a local government official, engaged by a local authority, and much more closely involved in its working than is the English valuation officer, who is a Central Government official.
The choice of the basis of assessment is not academic. The amount of rates payable will almost certainly be affected and the assessor could be placed in an invidious position if he had to weigh administrative convenience against rate yield. He could be put in such a position and any decision could generate irritation with an operator, a caravanner or within a local authority. With the proper safeguards provided by Clause 1, discretion has advantages in England and Wales, but, though I hesitate to put my toes too deeply into Scottish waters, I understand it to be fundamental to the Scottish code that the law should be certain and applied uniformly.
What I myself do not understand is why it is that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made the provision mandatory in his original clause—a clause from which, as he rightly said, a
1164
great deal appears to stern. Now he has returned and wants this provision to be discretionary for Scotland. I suspect that on the earlier occasion he was thinking of the Scottish system and was seeking to make that universal, but that he now likes the English system better and is trying to apply it to Scotland where it does not belong.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Amendment was put down to a Scottish Bill in April and, as I indicated just now, I was not seeking to make the provision universal. In April I was merely dealing with Scotland because it was a Scottish local government Bill. At that time I was moving an Amendment which I began by saying I did not expect to be accepted because it was simply moved in order to put forward the proposition that we needed action in this field to clear up the situation so far as Scotland was concerned. When the present Bill appeared and I found that the Government had decided to act on what I had suggested, not only in relation to Scotland but also as regards England and Wales, I noticed the difference between the two clauses and put down the Amendment out of curiosity to see why it should be mandatory in Scotland whereas it was not proposed that it should be so in England and Wales.
I thank the noble Baroness for the information which she has given us. As I imagined, this arises out of the two completely different systems and, as I understand it, she thinks it necessary because in England and Wales the valuation officers are appointed by Central Government whereas their Scottish equivalent, the assessors, are officials of local government.
I should like to take this opportunity of saying that, as my noble friend Lord Wakefield of Kendal said, both today and, at greater length, on Second Reading on 15th January, in many areas there have been very good working arrangements. What the Government are proposing in the present Bill has been happening successfully in Scotland. My noble friend was inquiring why it should be necessary to do this in Scotland so I should like to make it clear that when I put forward the proposal last April that there should be some action in Scotland it was because doubt had been

1165
thrown on those good arrangements by a court case. The courts had not agreed with the interpretation which had led to very satisfactory arrangements. The case in question was that of Redgates in Ayrshire about four years ago. That was what threw into doubt the satisfactory systems which had been operating in Scotland on the lines now proposed in the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will realise that that was why I put forward the original suggestion and why I have now put down Amendments to seek information concerning the present clause which applies only to Scotland.
I agree with the noble Baroness that there is no need for her to give us a long dissertation on the differences between the English and Scottish systems. It is enough for both of us to have said that they are very different and that that is the reason why there are two clauses. Indeed, had it not been for the greater ease in passing through both Houses of Parliament, these might have been two separate Bills because, as I pointed out, these matters where they affect caravan sites North of the Border are dealt with entirely in Scottish legislation. However, I accept that it was convenient to deal with them in one comparatively short Bill. I am grateful for what the noble Baroness has said in reply to the Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.28 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 10, leave out from (" shall ") to (" for ") in line 11.
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which affects timing because the following words would be omitted:
" As regards the year 1976–77 and subsequent years ".
We have just accepted an Amendment put down by the Government to Clause 1 and which related to England and Wales. As far as they were concerned, that Amendment will bring the Bill into effect on 1st April 1976. However, it does not apply to Clause 2 and there is therefore no effective date for Scotland. I feel that that is probably right because the reorganisation of local government in Scotland took place a year later than in England and Wales. This was done by
1166
a separate Bill to which I gave up many hours because I was the Minister in charge of it when it went through Parliament.
The reorganisation in Scotland therefore took place comparatively recently and the new local authorities are still finding their feet. As the noble Baroness said, the assessors in Scotland are officials appointed by the local authorities and it has been put to me by people in Scotland that it would be better not to try to rush this, nor to have an early starting date in so far as Scotland is concerned. I repeat that satisfactory schemes are already operating in Scotland on these lines, so that, again, there is no special need to bring this in early. It is a matter of clarifying the law so that schemes of this kind can continue or can be set up without dubiety where the courts are concerned. I therefore think it unnecessary to have these words which would indicate that the assessor was to start in the year 1976–77, and I should be glad to hear the Government's views.
Baroness BIRK: I take the noble Lord's point but, as I have said, it is a major objective of the Bill to allow the assessment and collection of rates on sites and caravans without disproportionate cost in manpower and ratepayers' money. To introduce the new arrangements at a random date would almost certainly entail additional trouble and expense rather than a saving. If a firm starting date is not very soon known to assessors and rating authorities, many thousands of separate demands will have to be sent to individual caravanners. That is what we are trying to avoid.
In Scotland, the normal mode of paying rates is by monthly instalments and a change to the new basis at any time other than 1st April would mean several thousands of cancelled demands and the calculation of several thousands of small refunds or balances due. This would be an intolerable burden on rating authorities, an expense to ratepayers and an unnecessary irritant to caravanners. It also seems to me that there is no reason why the major benefits of the Bill should be postponed. On the other hand, I take the point made by the noble Lord, that the timing of the operation may be complex in particular cases and I can

1167
tell him that the matter is being considered to discover any possible anomalies.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am glad to hear that it is being considered. I should add that in Scotland this Bill took many people by surprise. Those organisations concerned have been in touch with me and have said that they did not know of the existence of the Bill until it was published, or until I let them know that it had appeared, following the Amendment I moved last April. This is another reason why they have not had time to consider the matter in the way they would have done had they been consulted beforehand, although of course they welcome in principle the fact that action is being taken.
I agree that it is appropriate to start at the beginning of the rating year, and I hope that the noble Baroness will consider postponing the start for a year. I am not suggesting that it should happen at random. By putting down this probing Amendment I have drawn attention to the matter, and I hope that the Government will consider inserting "a year later", or "two years"if they think that more appropriate. A postponement would be beneficial and would be welcome among all those concerned in Scotland, though the system in principle which is being proposed is one which we regard as an improvement because it clarifies the law.
Baroness BIRK: I do not want the noble Lord to be misled over my saying that I would be looking at this point because there were anomalies in particular cases. It would be quite wrong of me to lead him astray in such a way that he would think that I would come back at the Report stage with an Amendment to postpone this for one year or two years. This is extremely unlikely, unless I receive other information between now and then.
I am concerned with the possibility that a disabled person may suffer from the absence of discretion in Scotland. I have this point under consideration, and I hope to bring forward an Amendment at the Report stage. I do not know whether the noble Lord got the point I was making about the disabled. This afternoon I suddenly realised that Scotland did not appear to be covered in this
1168
respect. Unless the noble Lord objects—and I am sure he will not—I will bring forward an Amendment to cover that point.
The noble Lord has gone further and suggested longer term postponement of the date in Scotland. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities was consulted a week or so before presentation and discussion with the assessors' association started as early as last October. Thus it is not quite right or fair to say that Scotland was entirely taken by surprise, especially as so much regarding this matter emanated from the noble Lord himself, with his connections in Scotland. But I will certainly look at the question of anomalies and see what weight there is in it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. I understand that the assessors' organisation had been approached, but I think that it was the other people concerned—the whole caravanning world—who were taken by surprise. I acknowledge that I understand that the assessors' organisation received some indication that the Government might be legislating, although the, answer which I received in April was that the Government were not to legislate because they felt that it could not be done within the foreseeable time.
I intended to raise the matter of the disabled on consideration of clause stand part, and indeed I shall still do so, along with one or two other matters. But I am grateful for what the noble Baroness has said at this stage. I ask her whether she, or the Scottish Minister concerned, would, between now and a later stage of consideration of this Bill, consider with the Scottish assessors the question of the date, because they are the people most concerned in this work. They can consider whether it can be done in time, or whether it would be a rushed job if they have to do it in the forthcoming rating year. If the Government will consult again to see whether or not too many difficulties would be created, then I should be glad to leave the matter there.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: I wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about postponement. Surely the very fact that

1169
the system is now working so well in Scotland suggests that postponement might be a help rather than a hindrance. I hope that the noble Baroness will look into this matter further. If the system is working well, then to try hastily to change to something else might be a disadvantage rather than an advantage. Therefore I strongly support the request for further consideration of postponement.
Baroness BIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, also raised this point on Second Reading, when he suggested that the Bill would be unnecessary if the example of Scotland had been followed. But, with great respect, I must tell him that this is nonsense, because the problems in Scotland relating to this matter have been just as great as those in England and Wales. The need for, and the benefits of, the Bill are just as great in Scotland as in England and Wales. I will look at any anomalies which may arise and consider carefully what has been said during the Committee stage. Nevertheless, there is no basic reason for any long-term postponement in Scotland, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I was not intending a long-term postponement. The noble Baroness herself indicated that it would be appropriate and convenient to start from the beginning of the rating year; 1st April was the date she gave. It was on that basis that I reckoned a period of a year if it was to be postponed, and I should not regard that as long-term. However, I have made my point, and I hope that the Government will consult further with the assessors and others concerned with this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.37 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 23, leave out (" tenant ") and insert (" occupier ").
The noble Lord said: The occupier may not necessarily be the proprietor or his tenant, and I believe that in the Bill the Government do mean the occupier. Therefore I suggest that in this clause there should be inserted the word "occupier" instead of "tenant". This would be correct. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: The significance of being the proprietor, tenant or occupier of property is that one is so named in the valuation roll and has a right to a notice of assessment and, most important, to appeal against the assessment in the valuation roll. The only persons with a material interest in the assessment of a caravan site are the proprietor, tenant and occupier of the site. Individual caravanners have no direct interest which would justify their being allowed a right of appeal and the issue of notices of assessment would only mystify and confuse them. Clause 2(1) deems the site operator to be the occupier of the whole complex, so he will get a valuation notice. He has the major interest in that he will pay the rates, but in line with the Scottish valuation system the proprietor and tenant, if different from the operator, will get notices also.
Taken together subsections (1) and (3) of Clause 2 produce the sensible result that the occupier, tenant and proprietor of the site are deemed to have an interest extending to the whole complex. The Amendment would leave in doubt the position of individual pitch tenants, and for this reason I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: If the noble Baroness is satisfied that the present wording in the Bill carries out the intentions. I will not contest that. I thought that this would be a helpful Amendment which would clarify what was intended, but in view of what has been said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 24, leave out (" and any area comprising it ").
The noble Lord said: This, too, is simply a short matter of drafting. The words "and any area comprising it "seem to be unnecessary and could be misleading. When used in conjunction with the term "caravan pitch ", the words simply seem otiose, and we wonder whether the Government might be assisted by this Amendment in deleting the words in question. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for drawing our attention to this. I should like to take it back and

1171
consider the point, because I think there is some merit in what the noble Lord has said. So if he would withdraw his Amendment I will consider it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having recognised the point. We on this side are only trying to be helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 28, at end insert (" section 6 of ").
The noble Baroness said: This is a very simple drafting Amendment. It is to overcome an omission in the Bill as presented, which provided an incomplete reference to the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956. The section was left out, and there should be inserted the words, "section 6 of". I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: I do not wish to delay your Lordships, but are we not to have two "ofs" in succession if this Amendment is accepted? I am sorry; I think I now understand what is intended. I apologise for rushing in so swiftly.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I would only say that this requirement had been drawn to my attention by so many people that I was not surprised when the Government put down this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: This is another Amendment which your Lordships will be glad to hear involves a very brief point. Is it necessary to have subsection (8) and these explanations? It is purely a matter of drafting, but I would ask the Government—I have given them notice by putting down this Amendment—whether it is really necessary to have subsection (8) at all. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I think the noble Lord is now pushing his luck. While I am still ready to listen, I think I have been very generous over some of his other suggestions and Amendments.
1172
There are a number of expressions in Clause 2 which have a particular meaning in Scottish law, such terms as "lands and heritages", "valuation roll" and "assessor ". They are used in a series of Scottish Acts which go back to 1854, and are rather different from the expressions which we use; by "we" I mean those of us who are unfortunate enough not to be Scottish.
The subsection which the noble Lord would remove has, I feel, the indispensible function of importing the settled definitions of these and similar expressions in the Bill. But, more than that, the subsection ensures that any change in the valuation code—for example, if it were necessary to implement some recommendation of the Lay field Committee—will affect this Bill with all the other valuation Acts. Without the subsection this Bill would need to be explicitly mentioned. I think, if I may say so, that it is because this is a Scottish part of a whole Bill, instead of being a Bill on its own, that, understandably, the noble Lord has nicked up this point. But now I have explained it. I hope that he will withdraw his Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said, because it does become clear now. This subsection would probably not appear if this were a completely Scottish Bill, because these expressions would be understood but I now see that in a Bill which covers the whole United Kingdom it is helpful if these expressions are spelt out in the Bill. I also take the point about the Lay field Committee and any changes which may be introduced later. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I should like to raise a point here. The noble Baroness mentioned the disabled and gave us notice that she intended to introduce an Amendment to the Scottish clause as well as to the English clause at a later stage. I think that is what she said. I should like to raise the question of rate rebates. When I spoke on this subject in April 1 recognised that there might be difficulties in carrying out a

1173
scheme of this kind arising from the eligibility for rate rebates of some of the persons living in leisure caravans. I thought that, having given notice of that matter at that time, this would be a subject which would come up, and I apologise for not having given notice that I was going to raise it. I shall absolutely understand if the Government are not fully ready to reply on this point at short notice. I hope that there will be no undue difficulties. I was simply foreseeing them when I was speaking on this subject last April. I hope that the scheme can include, without complications, the rate rebate system, so that nobody who is eligible for a rate rebate will suffer because of this scheme.
Baroness BIRK: That, if I may answer briefly and simply, is quite a direct point. Since leisure caravans are a second home they are not eligible for rate rebates, so that matter really does not come into the Bill at all. It was not that it was overlooked in any way, but that it is not applicable in this case.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness who has been able to give us an absolutely clear answer to that point.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Interpretation and application]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 16, after (" if ") insert (" paragraph 4 and ").
The noble Lord said: Certain organisations are exempted from the duty to apply for a site licence, and I can give as examples the Camping Club and the Forestry Commission. They usually cater only for touring caravans, but I think we have also to be prepared for their going in for a policy of accommodating long-stay caravans because there is nothing to prevent them from doing so unless there is invariably going to be a prohibition as a condition of the certificate which is granted in those cases. In Scotland there are sites of this kind, and we feel that in Clause 3 there ought to be a reference, not only to paragraph 11 of the Bill but also to paragraph 4, in order to cover this kind of situation. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: Perhaps I can say at this stage that this will certainly be accepted in principle. I can see no reason why the examples which the noble Lord has given should not be included in the Bill. If he would not mind leaving it with me so that we can bring forward a draft—it may be the same wording or it may need different wording—I would prefer it that way. But certainly the principle of it is completely acceptable, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: In view of what the noble Baroness has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

EEC: THIRTY-SECOND REPORT ON THE TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF NUCLEAR SAFETY
6.50 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE The Earl of LAUDERDALE rose to move, That this House takes note of the Thirty-second Report of the European Communities Committee (Session 1974–75) on the Technological Problems of Nuclear Safety (R/681/75). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Before anything else is said, I should like to make it quite clear that nothing I have to say is intended in any way whatever to reflect upon or diminish our Committee's gratitude to the staff of the Department of Energy who always help us most readily and, very often, I know, at great cost in time and trouble to themselves. We on the Committee are very grateful indeed for the constant help that we receive from that quarter. I want therefore to stress that nothing I am going to say is intended in the slightest degree to be a reflection on their kindness and willingness always to help us.
My Lords, there are three reasons for asking for this debate. The first is the Government's treatment of our Committee and, through our Committee, of this

1175
House. I am reminded of a writer of the 18th century who said that what Bishops most like in their clergy is a drooping and submissive aspect. Our second reason is the Government's now familiar practice with regard to apparently harmless resolutions and the Government's readiness to assent to these in the Council of Ministers. I can only think that ignorance is the mother of admiration. The third reason is the actual content of the Commission's document which the resolution carried—and if I were to coin a phrase to illustrate our thinking on that, I would call it "transcendental moonshine ".
I shall not say much on the last point; others will deal with it more effectively; but let me take the question of the Government's behaviour. Before our Committee was able to take evidence—that was on 3rd July last year—the Government had agreed in principle to the resolution that we were examining at the Council of Ministers a little while before, on 26th June. The Council had referred the resolution back to the Committee of Permanent Representatives who, in turn, refer such a resolution and such subject matter to the Atomic Energy Group. That was done so that the resolution could be revised in the light of points made by the several Governments. We on our Committee were not—and I repeat "not "—given to understand that, once the revision was done, the amended version would be taken through the Council as we would say in Parliament "on the nod" and, as they say, "as an ' A' item ". We did not understand that. Had we done so, our treatment of the situation no doubt might have been somewhat different. But because we did not understand that it was now going to go forward, once revised, "on the nod", we asked for a sight of the re-draft believing, of course, that if we saw the re-draft we could scrutinise it before anything final took place.
We were indeedassured—and this appears at Question 7 in our evidence taken on 3rd July—that we could see the revised draft. Two weeks went by and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the Department of Energy, Mr. Eadie, was good enough to respond to our invitation and come to our Com
1176
mittee. The first thing he did was to contradict that assurance. After a bit of to-ing and fro-ing, I, as the Chairman, made this remark, which appears at Question 137:
"We are in the dark, having the pleasure of your company and discussing a document the text of which we cannot see and which we were led to believe from previous evidence that we could see?"
The answer Mr. Eadie gave us was:
" … the point is that it is a working document, and this is the difficulty. This is a very practical difficulty since this is a working, on-going document."
It is, indeed, true that the following day we got the revised text. But if Mr. Eadie carried anything away from his exposure to questioning by our Committee it must have been that we were very concerned indeed about the content of this document; and I think that a careful reading of the evidence will show that he must have got that impression. If he did get that impression, did it have the smallest effect on the Government's behaviour? Only four days afterwards, the Government assented to this resolution without further discussion. The Government, their heart crammed with arrogancy, as might have been said in a different connection, just let it go and ignored our manifest anxieties, anxieties expressed on behalf of this House. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Chairman of our Select Committee, my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir, in correspondence with Mr. Hattersley at the Foreign Office. I have to say that his reply to my noble friend was not strictly correct, if not actually misleading.
He said two things. He said that our Committee was already aware that the revised resolution would go through on the nod. We were not so aware. Mr. Hattersley was misinformed when he signed that letter. He added that as the primary responsibility of the Scrutiny Committee was, in any case, relating to legislation and this was a mere resolution, it did not really matter very much anyway; and, in any case, it did not call into action the Government's assurance of 11th June 1974 that when Parliament wanted to look at something they would put a reserve on the subject in question in the Council.
In fact—and this is worth stressing through the medium of this House to Ministers in another place—our remit is

1177
critically different from that of the other place in that our instruction by Parliament is to look at all proposals; not just proposals for legislation, but all proposals. That means really any document that the Commission produces. Whether they are legislative or otherwise, we are expected to look at these things and we are expected in the course of it to look at the relative resolutions being submitted to the Council. So we have an obligation to scrutinise these things, and although the Government commitment to put a reserve on certain matters if Parliament is anxious about them pending a debate relates, it is true, only to legislation, it is well that the Government should understand that we are not altogether happy with that situation and that we would ask for, and would expect, some similar consideration to be given when resolutions coming before the Council excite our anxiety.
My Lords, the difficulty about the resolutions that come before the Council is that they are usually phrased in very general terms. Often they invite the countries involved to take note, or ask the countries to do something without requiring them to do these things. It may readily be inferred from the gentleness of the language of these resolutions that they have no cutting edge; but, by a process of accretion the passage of successive resolutions, even in those general terms, builds up a negative consensus which accumulates, which establishes a legacy of precedent and is in danger, finally, of being established as an all-embracing policy.
On that ground we are cautious about these resolutions; we believe that the Government should be much more cautious than they have been, and we took particular exception to this resolution for a number of reasons, of which I shall cite only one. In this particular case the Government assented to the proposition,
" That it is encumbent on the Commission to act as a catalyst for initiatives in the field of nuclear safety to be taken on a broad international plain."
In other words, the Government accept the view pushed steadily by the Commission that although an immense amount of work is being done in this field by competent people, the European Commission should add another layer of
1178
examination, protection, activity or verbiage to it all. This concept that the Commission must be a catalyst—and that is their phrase—in this highly technical field, which is already being handled by other agencies, reminds me of Samuel Butler's words:
" Learned nonsense has a deeper sound than easy sense, and goes for more profound."
Our Committee found that the European Commission is not only trying to do what others were doing already, but trying, as in the energy field, to widen and therefore disperse the focus of Community action. In this case it would add to the workload of the very few experts available. We found the Commission's own detailed technical information is limited to that provided by the experts of the Member-States themselves, and its own staff are mainly administrative and therefore not competent in these matters. So we said in our Report that consequently the Commission is not technically equipped for this action. We reached the conclusion that the creation of a new Community focus for nuclear safety questions would only proliferate the number of international organisations already active and, as a result of that, it could only overtax—as we put it—the
" resources of the comparatively small number of experts available "
which could well be
" at the expense of those experts' pressing obligations in research, design, operation and inspection ".
Our Report has an annex to which I commend the attention of your Lordships. That gives an indicative or illustrative list of some of the international activities in the field of nuclear safety which are claiming the constant, the peripatetic, attention of the limited number of real experts available. To give one or two examples, the International Energy Agency, in its first year's work, set up no fewer than three working groups with all the inevitable derivatives from them. The International Atomic Energy Agency held no fewer than 40 meetings in 1975 —that is almost one a week—and somebody has had to travel from the Member countries to Vienna, or wherever the meetings have been held, has had to be briefed and has had to take time off from urgent work to support that. I am not saying that should not be done; but one should have some pity on the experts in

1179
their opportunities to get a decent rest and refreshment. The OECD has an energy steering committee with no fewer than five sub-committees; and one of those sub-committees held no fewer than eight conferences last year; that is, every six weeks.
These are the pressures to which the limited number of experts are exposed, and the EEC Commission proposes that it should act as a catalyst in addition, and the Government here have assented to this. The European Communities Advisory Committee on the Safety Research Programme for the Euratom joint research operation is served by no fewer than ten separate bodies, all of whom need to be serviced with information, and all of whom are taking up the time and draining the energy and nerves of the very few—only a few thousand—number of experts available.
When we saw Mr. Eadie he could also have noted from our questioning that we were worried on one or two other aspects. I refer to the Commission's proposal on standardisation of design, manufacturing procedures, safety standards and quality control in power stations. From our evidence we concluded—and he must have taken this away from what he heard—that even the Commission's general statements about safety could never be of universal application, simply because there are different types of reactor in use, and design is continually developing. Then we were worried because we found the Commission was urging approval procedures for nuclear power stations to be speeded up, and the word we used in our Report was "centralised ".
Commissioner Spinelli, who was good enough to see us in Brussels on our visit there, was kind enough a few days back to write me a letter commenting on our Report. I have taken care to circularise this letter to those Back-Benchers who had put their names down to speak in this debate. I wanted them to have the information about what Commissioner Spinelli wrote to me, and I should like the Commissioner to know we appreciated the trouble he took. He said. among other things, the words "centrally" and "centralise" do not appear in the resolution and, by implication, we had got it wrong. He was good enough
1180
to quote the relevant passage from the resolution which calls for
" appropriate action at Community level ".
That is the phrase which we took to amount to a centralising proposal. We as a Committee viewed with concern this suggestion, and we felt that the ability to make direct representations on this sensitive subject to accessible elected representatives, or at a public inquiry, would be a valuable safety valve which would be lost if approvals
" were in effect centralised in Brussels ".
That is how we interpreted the phrase "at Community level ". We may have misunderstood what the Commission had in mind.
Others will enlarge on what I have said. I would only conclude that the Government are inclined from time to time to be high-handed. The Government knew we were concerned; the Government had led us to believe that we could see the text before it was too late. The Government denied that to us, and never told us they would agree to the revised text going through "on the nod". The Motion I move before this House is mildly to take note of our Report, but there are other and stronger types of Motion which are possible. Indeed, it is perfectly possible to move a Motion in this House and press it to a Division. Perhaps it may be well that the Government should realise that this could happen one day. Threatened folk live long. This Committee and this House have not been set up to be browbeaten or ignored, and any repetition of the treatment we have had will elicit a very different reaction. My Lords I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Thirty-second Report of the European Communities Committee (Session 1974–75) on the Technological Problems of Nuclear Safety (R/681/75).—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
7.11 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, my intervention in this debate should have occurred after a characteristically charming speech by the noble Baroness. Lady Elles; but unhappily I find myself in the rather invidious position now of having to speak after the distinguished Chairman of Sub-Committee

1181
F, who has just sat down, and immediately before the world's greatest technical expert on nuclear matters, the noble Lord. Lord Hinton of Bank side. My technical experience of nuclear matters is limited to an immediate post-graduate stage and to some military research during the last War, but I am not proposing to talk about technical matters. I wish to raise what I feel is a serious political issue arising out of the Government's attitude in relation to this Directive on nuclear safety.
It is inevitable, when we are discussing anything concerned with nuclear safety, that the element of fear must always be present. Therefore it seems to me politically important in this area of fast-moving technology, as a matter of vital public policy, that the aspect of fear should be entirely removed from the public domain. Indeed, the public must be encouraged, particularly by Government action of all kinds, to have the highest confidence in nuclear activities, particularly in the commercial field in the United Kingdom. Many of your Lordships will remember the anxiety which arose a number of years ago in agricultural areas in the North of England around Wind scale. Happily, those fears were rapidly dissipated.
When this EEC Directive on nuclear safety first came to the notice of the Sub-Committee of which I have the honour to be a member, many of us were very much afraid that the Commission, with every good intention, was, to put it quite crudely, perhaps "messing about" in an area in which it had insufficient expertise. Therefore, its persistent attempt to produce a so-called "harmonisation" in this field could be dangerous and cause public unrest. Indeed, some of us, after reading the draft Directive, felt that representations should be made immediately in Brussels. As the Report of the Sub-Committee indicates and as has been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, we have pointed out on page vi that we feel the Commission was not technically equipped for action in this field. Indeed, in the fifth paragraph on the same page it is recorded that the view of the Committee was that
" Uniformity might be only achieved by levelling down ".
1182
That would produce a certain political anxiety. As the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, pointed out, there were times when members of the Committee could not understand the attitude of the Government. The Committee had the opportunity, as your Lordships have heard, to get evidence from the Under-Secretary of State for Energy. I was particularly anxious about the political aspect of public anxiety which this kind of Directive might have produced, so I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Energy specific questions on these vital matters. I must say that his replies were, to some extent, helpful and reassuring in regard to the technical attitudes of the Government in these matters. I should like to refer to page 29 of the Report, where the replies are recorded. The Under-Secretary of State said (line 4, left-hand column):
" On the other hand, harmonisation Will be difficult and the time estimates could be in error."
Lower down in the same reply to my question about anxiety which might be caused by the attitude of the Commission, as expressed in the Directive, in the nuclear field, he said:
" We are anxious to ensure that our excellent record in nuclear safety is maintained and that our nuclear programme may be advanced in a controlled manner."
It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the Government there recognise the desirability of relieving public anxiety over any matters dealing with nuclear safety. At the end of his reply to my question, the Under-Secretary of State said this:
" … I did say that we are perhaps fortunate in this country in that the concern felt about the safety of nuclear installations is less intense, largely because of the record and because of the contribution made by a member of this Committee."
Those remarks are, of course, to some extent reassuring from the technical point of view. But, like the noble Earl, I feel anxiety over the attitudes of the Government about this Directive as regards their official actions within the Community. However, it is essential for this House to be ever watchful in the interests of the public of the United Kingdom as regards the progress of EEC activities in this field, and I join with the noble Earl in asking for the assurances of the Minister in this connection.
7.18 p.m.
Lord HINTON of BANKSIDE: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, made it clear when introducing the Motion that Sub-Committee F was not happy about some of the procedural incidents which took place during our consideration of the Report; but I do not think I need underline or enlarge on what he said. The Report of the Select Committee makes it clear that we found objection to the draft resolution, but I do not think we would wish to give the impression that we disagreed with the Preamble to the Report, many parts of which were quite wise. For instance, the Preamble said:
" It is essential to take note of the increasing criticism which is being directed against the growth in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and which in some countries takes the form of a struggle between the environmental protection movements and the promoters of nuclear development."
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was making this point.
With that statement I fully agree. It was where the Commission went on in its resolution to call for the harmonisation of standards, and where it apparently envisaged setting up its own organisation, that Sub-Committee F felt extremely ununhappy. It considered that the proposals of the Commission were not merely un-unrealistic but might, indeed, be obstructive rather than useful, because, as the noble Earl said, the additional organisation would take up the time of a very limited number of experts. But those points are made in the Committee's Report, and I am sure that they will be emphasised by other speakers in this debate, so there is no need for me to enlarge on them or to emphasise them.
But I feel that this occasion gives us an opportunity of looking at the broader problem of nuclear safety, and of trying to get it into perspective with other manmade hazards which we constantly and happily face, either because we have become acclimatised to them or because we are unconscious of them. In his evidence to the Sub-Committee, Mr. Farmer said:
"When one examines, in the detail that is currently given to reactors, the possible hazards from other industries, one gets the feeling that one should be discussing all major hazards in a country and not concentrating on one source of hazard such as nuclear. I believe
1184
that we have been isolated in the nuclear community far too long."
With that statement of Mr. Farmer's I find myself in very full agreement, and I believe that the public evaluation of the relative importance of hazards is based far too much on emotion and far too little on logic.
Last year, the Health and Safety Executive of the Ministry of Labour set up an Advisory Committee on Major Hazards. How much that Committee intends to publish, I do not know. But I gather from conversations with people who are interested in it that it is likely to recommend the use of the statistical approach to the evaluation of hazards, which has been advocated and developed by Mr. Farmer at the Atomic Energy Establishment at Risley over the last 25 years. In the simplest possible terms, the philosophy which underlies that system of evaluation accepts the fact that absolute safety is absolutely unachieveable; that accidents involving only minor hazards can be accepted quite frequently, but that accidents involving major hazards and probable loss of life ought not to be accepted unless they are extremely infrequent.
I have already said that the Advisory Committee on Major Hazards has not yet published any figures, but there is an article by Mr. Farmer in a recent number of the Atomic Energy Authority's information bulletin, which discusses the hazards that can be expected from nuclear plants and compares those hazards with risks arising from other causes. In that article, Mr. Farmer reproduces graphs which were prepared by Rasmussen in the United States for the Regulatory Commission there. Of course, Rasmussen's calculations apply to American conditions, but when allowance is made for that his figures are very closely in line with those prepared by Mr. Farmer for British conditions. The curves which are reproduced in that article by Farmer show the relationship between the extent of the hazard which can arise from a given accident, and the frequency with which that accident can be expected.
I am quite sure that neither Rasmussen nor Farmer would claim absolute accuracy for any of their figures, but the graphs which were prepared certainly show an order of magnitude. They suggest, for instance, that air crashes causing 100 or

1185
more deaths can be expected on average once every three years; that fires causing 100 or more deaths can be expected every eight years; that failures of large dams causing 100 or more deaths can be expected every 12 years, and that releases of chlorine gas causing 100 or more deaths can be expected every 80 years. By comparison, the figure which Rasmussen gave for the probability of a nuclear incident causing more than 100 fatalities shows that for every 100 reactors in use such an incident could be expected less frequently than once every 10,000 years. Extensions of Rasmussen's curves show that for accidents causing 1.000 or more fatalities the probability is that failures of large dams will occur 10,000 times more often, and that chlorine releases causing 1,000 fatalities are likely to occur 1.000 times more often, than similar failures of nuclear power plants.
If I may put those figures into more human terms, the man in the street ought, if he thinks logically about it, to be worried far more about the risk that he runs from the transport of substantial quantities of toxic or dangerous materials, such as chlorine, ammonia, high test hydrogen peroxide or even propane and butane, than by the proximity of a nuclear power plant. However, if his sense of logic is really fully developed, he will inevitably realise that by far the greatest hazard that he faces throughout his life is that of dying from natural causes.
There is, of course, an inevitable degree of uncertainty in both Rasmussen's and Farmer's estimates of the probability of a district hazard which arises from a nuclear power plant. Engineers have learned most of what they know by making mistakes; the bridges, cooling towers and buildings that collapsed, the aircraft that have crashed, the boilers and turbo-alternators that have broken down or have proved to be unreliable have taught them far more than they have learned from the corresponding buildings or plants that have been successful. But that easy progress from one disaster to the next has been denied to nuclear engineers. The implications, both physical and psychological, of failure of atomic energy plants have been so serious that from 1946 the tendency was to make cost and convenience secondary to safety. Whether the extrapolation of unit rating and of design parameters has destroyed
1186
that philosophy, I do not at the moment know, because I am not sufficiently closely in touch with the industry. But the policy of the early years was such that there was no bracket between success and failure within which one could determine with reasonable statistical accuracy what was the chance of accident.
However, by using the data available both from laboratory experiments and operating experience it is possible—although one has to make some arbitrary assumptions—to predict the amount of radioactivity which might be released in accidents of varying degree of severity. The aim in reactor design is to ensure that there is a safeguard against every foreseeable accident. After all, design is done by human beings who are neither infallible nor omniscient. Even if design is perfect, safety still depends on quality assurance in manufacturers' works, on the construction sites and on the quality of operation and of maintenance. In the debate in your Lordships' House on 2nd December I suggested that the very large nuclear programme which was planned by the EEC might have made quality assurance difficult; but with a reasonable programme of construction and cautious extrapolation of design, experience does give a guide to the possible incidence of engineering failures in nuclear plants and shows that the hazard which arises from them is, as I say, far less than the hazards which we happily face day by day.
In the assessment of those risks, Mr. Farmer has 25 years of experience of risk assessment in the atomic energy industry. I know that in arriving at the figures which he has used he has made allowance for all of the hazards which have to be taken into account and that he has also carefully analysed the hazards from the more conventional types of accident. I accept his assessment of risk; but the fact that I, as an individual, accept that assessment of risk is of comparatively little importance. What really matters is what the man in the street thinks about it; whether that risk worries people at large.
I believe that in the public assessment of atomic energy hazards, ground has been lost over the last few years. Both before and after the first nuclear power programme was announced in 1955, facts and hazards were made clearly and

1187
frankly available to the public. Looking back, it is interesting to remember that at the inception of the nuclear power programme there was no public inquiry into the construction of the nuclear power plant at Berkeley because no material objections to the construction of that plant had been raised. It seems to me that over the last 10 years the public image of the nuclear industry has deteriorated. To some extent I think that this has resulted from over-ambitious extrapolation of designs and I doubt whether the authorities have done all that they could to reassure the public. I think, too, that in some cases they have played their cards very much too close to their chests.
In the debate on 2nd December last year I spoke of the shortage of energy which it seems will face both this country and the EEC at about the end of this century. In the light of that threatened shortage, it is, I suggest, important that nuclear power, including the fast reactor, should be developed as quickly as is technically wise. It is important that the public should be shown the need for nuclear power and that it should be explained to them in such a way that they understand that, with wise and careful development, the benefits of nuclear power far outweigh the disadvantages. As is said in the Select Committee's Report:
"Standardisation generally, as proposed by the Commission, must imply that decisions would be taken centrally and therefore by an agency remote from the public affected."
The British Organisation for Safety Assurance may be imperfect in detail, but I believe that in principle it is right and that it has the advantage of being near to the man in the street. I support Dr. Franklin's written evidence in which he says of a proposal to set up any central safety organisation in Brussels:
" The best line of action for the Commission would be the encouragement of others … rather than anything that could be represented as direct participation and therefore an increasing remoteness of those who set the safety standards ".
I do not believe that safety and confidence can best be secured by remote control from Brussels, nor do I believe that standardisation is possible in this rapidly growing branch of technology.
7.38 p.m.
Lord SHERFIELD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, for introducing this subject and to the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bank side, for his informed comments. It is fortunate that the House has the benefit of Lord Hinton's great experience of nuclear engineering, and one follows on after him at one's peril! I am not a member of the Sub-Committee and I intervene in this debate only to make a couple of general points which have struck me and which are, perhaps, worth bearing in mind. Both of them have already been made, in substance, and I shall only try to underline them from a rather different angle.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, suggested, the circumstances in which nuclear power originated created apprehension and fear in the public mind. This has led to the application of criteria and regulations to the nuclear industry quite different from those applicable to other industries: for example, the chemical industry or the steel industry. As the Committee's Report points out the result has been that there are a great many organisations and authorities, national and international, which concern themselves with various aspects of nuclear power and which, in their turn, have spawned a perfect jungle of committees. Since nuclear safety is a highly specialised and technical subject, there are, as the noble Earl observed, only a limited number of experts qualified to sit on or advise these committees.
There is, therefore, an ever-present danger that progress in the construction and operation of nuclear reactors may become completely bogged down in a morass of regulations, inquiries and requirements for authorisations. Even on our own national ground it is apparently taking two years to evaluate the steam generating heavy water reactor, although the prototype has been running for nearly 10 years. I suggest that it is in this light that the EEC Commission's proposals to the Council for harmonisation need to be viewed. I do not suppose that anyone would question the right of the EEC to become involved in the question of nuclear safety or other aspects of the civil applications of nuclear energy.
The question is what action can usefully and helpfully be taken in this field

1189
in the present evolving state of nuclear plant design, without placing a yet heavier burden on the available experts, in the first place, and on the hard-pressed nuclear industry, in the second place. The answer seems to be very little, beyond the assembling of information. It is surely much too soon to attempt to standardise design or to centralise control, but it is not too soon to put the issues of nuclear safety into better proportion. The nuclear industry has suffered by being singled out for special and exceptional treatment. The safety record of the industry up to the present time is second to none. Uniquely, and due to its characteristics, safety was a first priority from the very outset.
It is always rash to make statements of the kind that I shall make, but they are based on the record up to date. So far as I know—I may be out of date—in the whole history of nuclear power development only one death has occurred through a nuclear accident, and that was 20 years ago in a small experimental American reactor where the accident was due to human folly. In the same period, very serious and lethal accidents in the chemical industry, the steel industry, the transport industry—indeed in almost every branch of industry—have taken place. Of course, I am not talking about people falling off ladders—ordinary accidents which happen everywhere—but accidents due to plant failure and the like. Recent statistics available from the Atomic Energy Authority are relevant in this connection. I read in the recent report on their operations last year:
" Since 1962, when accident statistics were first compiled on a central basis we have had a total of four fatal accidents inside our establishments";
that is, accidents in the "failing off the ladder "category. More generally—and I quote again:
" … for virtually every medical group, the death rate for atomic energy employees, properly corrected for age distribution, is lower than the comparable figures for the population at large as published in the Registrar General's statistics. This applies to our employees of today and to our pensioners."
The nuclear industry and Governments have not yet been successful in securing public acceptance of the fact that the hazards of nuclear installations are, on the record, far less than those of older industries. It is quite time that questions
1190
of nuclear safety were handled on the same level and together with questions of safety in industry. This brings me to a suggestion which I fear may be unpopular and may in any event come too late.
The EEC are just beginning, as the papers before us show, to feel their way into questions of nuclear safety. Would it not be much more productive. instead of trying to duplicate what other agencies, national and international, are doing in this field, for them to approach the matter from a fresh angle, to relate nuclear safety specifically to the safety of industrial plant in general, and start the process of harmonisation on a broader front? This might be the more practicable, as we are, I think, dealing in present context only with plant safety and not with radiological protection, though there again the realities are wildly different from what the public apprehends.
Let me quote once more from the report of the Atomic Energy Authority for 1974–75:
"The radiation injuries "—
that is, among the Authority's employees—
" have been no more "—
that is since 1962—
"than four cases of skin burns on the hands and only one required significant medical attention. This should be compared with the 66 off-duty employees who have been killed outside our establishments in traffic accidents during the same period."
It is I believe of urgent importance that Governments should make a real effort to educate public opinion in these matters, and not pander to environmental lobbies. In the United States of America, these lobbies have already been responsible for holding up, under the flimsiest of pretexts, the development of the nuclear power programme. In the process, they have brought much aid and comfort to the members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Let the EEC Commission address their minds to this problem rather than complicate still further the arduous but necessary progress of the nuclear industry. Some of the problems, especially in the reprocessing field, are admittedly more complicated and difficult than they were when the spent fuel was dealt with at a relatively low level of irradiation. But

1191
these problems are, I feel sure, perfectly soluble with time, especially if the industry is allowed to develop in relative freedom from strangling by red tape, national or international, or from choking in clouds of misplaced popular emotion.
7.48 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I do not think one can start a speech on this subject without also entering into the field of the risks. From the environmentalist's point of view there are really three difficulties with nuclear reactors. The first is the safety of the reactor itself, and the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bank side, has dealt with this very adequately. All I would add, from my little knowledge, is that I support everything which he said on the subject. Here I think it should be said that one must realise that life is not completely safe and that perhaps one is, or ought to be, almost as much concerned with the quality of life as with life itself. We have to face it: whatever people may say about new methods of energy production, there is not at the moment, and there is unlikely to be for the next 20 years, any viable alternative to the nuclear reactor unless we are going to forgo our present type of society and completely change the industrial society we have. I think few people faced with that alternative—though they may talk about windmills because they do not know any better, but this does not solve our problem—would really assume, with the minimal risks we have, that we should not continue with this programme.
On the other hand, a balanced view might well be that we do not regard it as an ideal. It has disadvantages and it may be that in the long run there are other, cleaner methods of obtaining power and we ought to press on with research into all the other possible methods, such as energy from the sun, by photo-electric and other means. But this will not come about until our present generation of nuclear reactors which we are likely to be building now have come to the end of their useful life.
The second trouble about nuclear reactors that is referred to by the environmentalists is the explosion of the fission products. Nobody is particularly keen on this. They do not like leaving this
1192
heritage to future generations; but I do not think any of us, looking at the problem, regard it as too serious, provided again that we do not continue to do this for perhaps 100 years. I think the sensible conclusion is to deal with this generation of nuclear reactors until something new comes on to the scene. I believe that this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
My Lords, the third objection is that a lot more plutonium will be moved about. There is a real danger that this might get into the wrong hands, and might be used for making some elementary atomic bomb. Having made that elementary atomic bomb, it might also be used for holding people to ransom. I regard this as a rather unpleasant possibility. But we must see this against the background that, whatever we may think and whatever we try to do in the world today, we shall not stop the developing nations having their own nuclear reactors. There was a time in history when we would have told them they could not have things like nuclear reactors, and that would have put a stop to that. But I do not think this can happen today. Nuclear reactors they will have, and these nations will be able to use them as weapons for blackmail if they wish. I therefore submit that the increase in plutonium which may be hijacked is only a question of degree; but it is by far the most unpleasant possibility, and far more important than either of the other two factors I have mentioned.
My Lords, in relation to putting these risks in perspective, I might have said, when talking about the quality of life, that we have to accept at least some road accidents. Nobody has yet gone so far as saying that they are prepared to take extreme measures to reduce road accidents. Let us not forget that we could reduce them to any degree we really wanted, if we were prepared to pay the price.Reductio ad absurdum, all one needs is a man with a red flag walking in front of every vehicle. Along the way from that extreme to what we have today, there are many passing points where we could reduce the accidents by almost any number we wished. It therefore follows that in nearly everything in life we have to take a certain risk. That was my earlier argument when I said

1193
that we could not do without the nuclear reactor if we were to keep our own quality of industrial life, and the quality of life in general.
Having said that, one comes to the point at which one asks: is anything the EEC is going to do in the way of legislation likely to be useful? First, nuclear physics is a relatively new science, and its implementation in reactors is relatively new. Improvements and variations are still being made at a considerable rate. When faced with a situation like that, it is utterly impossible to standardise one's requirements without inhibiting development. In this context, I am talking about development for safety as well.
Secondly, if one tries to achieve an agreed code of safety, inevitably it will be that of the lowest common denominator of the people sitting round the table. I have a good deal of experience of electrical safety standards on domestic equipment. Although I shall not go quite so far as saying it always lands up with the lowest common standard, it will nevertheless not be with the highest. We have also to remember that in the EEC we are dealing with a number of responsible, experienced and industrialised nations. To a greater or lesser extent, in all these nations there will be a strong environment lobby pushing for safety. I simply do not believe that EEC legislation in detail is likely to improve the safety which nations will produce on their own at this time. I go so far as to say that it will be quite the reverse. If the EEC say they are worried about tariff barriers being erected in this new area, it is certain that if they try to prevent them, their legislation will be both stultifying and on a low common denominator in terms of safety. So I should think that they were convicted by that very statement.
My Lords, is there anything that usefully could be done at this stage? The EEC could put down some general principles, but would this really help? Would it help safety at all? The general principles are accepted, and the details and further developments are being considered by the other Committees, so I rule that out. What else could they do? I think they could usefully look at the security of plutonium. That was the third thing I mentioned about which I am very worried. But not to put too fine a point
1194
on it, I regard the proposals as a monumental piece of bureaucracy, stimulated by the incentive of "jobs for the boys ".
7.58 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am not sure that everyone would agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that there is no alternative to nuclear power, because in other scenarios a continued growth in the use of nuclear power would require a fundamental alteration in the quality of our industrial life. If I may suggest it, there are many who would like to see a different outlook and philosophy applied to the future of this country, a scenario which would be based on alternatives to continued growth of the production of energy and of raw materials, which some of us, in any case, think are not sustainable very much beyond the end of this century. I would like to discuss that with the noble Viscount on some other occasion.
Meanwhile, may I say that apart from the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bank side, this debate seems to me to have been less concerned with the safety of nuclear processes than with the political niceties of our relationships with the EEC. That is what the Report is mainly concerned with. My noble friend mentioned this explicitly. He also said, and I agree with him on this, that the Government must produce in the public a sense of confidence in any nuclear plans that we follow. Draft EEC Directives are not the ordinary bedside reading of the average citizen, and I do not suppose the Reports of Select Committees are best sellers either. But even if the majority of people in this country did read the draft resolution which is before us, and the Report of the Select Committee, I am not at all sure that they would be much reassured.
My Lords, I am looking at the draft resolution which, as the noble Earl. Lord Lauderdale, pointed out, was before the Committee when it started its deliberations, but which he informed us was altered half-way through. The final text of the document, I have ascertained, is not available in the Printed Paper Office. I am using the one presented to the Select Committee, dated 9th March 1975. If I may say so this is a flaw in your Lordships' procedures which perhaps on

1195
some other occasion the usual channels might like to look into.
This draft resolution contained in its preamble the statement that:
" Nuclear power is required to play a privileged part in the supply of energy to the Community ".
I would suggest that as long as there are so many fundamental problems in the field of nuclear safety which remain unresolved it would be foolish and dangerous for the Community to become heavily dependent on it, and some of the enormous budgets now being devoted to nuclear research in the Member nations of the Community might possibly yield a higher and more certain return if they were diverted into the conservation of energy. For instance, if we were to spend as much as the cost of even one single nuclear reactor on insulating domestic buildings it would be a far better return for the money invested.
The noble Lord, Lord Hinton, gave us some figures about engineering risks involved in nuclear reactors. He quoted the findings of Mr. Rasmussen and Dr. Farmer; the latter was writing in a recent issue of Atom. I must say that when one looks at figures such as these they offer a spurious air of scientific accuracy which is given to any statement by the insertion in it of numerical calculations. I do not think, quite honestly, we are in any position at all to make predictions of the risks on the lines that these experts purport to do. The noble Lord, Lord Hinton, mentioned some of the other engineering developments that we have seen in our lifetime, which he said proceeded by way of catastrophe: the large buildings, the box girder bridges, and so on.
Nobody actually predicted when we started to use very large crude carriers that there would be explosions in their tanks, caused by the cleaning methods used, that would involve the loss of life and the loss of very large vessels, to the consternation of the designers and no doubt of the insurance companies who had to bear the cost. Nobody said when we started manufacturing caprolactam that enormous explosions might take place in plants like Flixborough, again involving serious loss of life. When the DC.10 went into operation nobody predicted
1196
that because of the fault in the design of the rear door those aircraft might crash and the loss of many lives result.
I think we are in no better position to say what are the likely risks of the reactors which are coming into operation now, some of which have been tested only on a prototype scale: our own advanced gas cooled reactor, which was scaled up from a 30 Mw prototype to the 1200 Mw plants now under construction, some of which are approaching completion; the steam generating heavy water reactor, of which we have only a 100 Mw prototype, which we are now proposing to take straight up to 1200 or 1300 'Mw; and the fast breeder reactor, for which we have an intermediate stage of a 250 Mw plant, but which is then to be scaled up to commercial size. I do not think that many engineers would care to stick their necks out and make a guess as to the likelihood of technological failures resulting in these full-scale plants when experience has been gained only on prototypes of a very different character.
What I wanted to say principally—and this follows, to some extent, the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth—is that if one looks at the Annex to the resolution, which is in very general terms, there is one passing reference in just over 32 pages to the need for consideration to be given to external events which might affect the safety of nuclear plants, events such as earthquakes, explosions, riots, wars or sabotage. These are not, of course, technological risks, though technology obviously must have a role to play in their prevention or the minimisation of their consequences. I believe that the risks involved in the huge expansion of nuclear power now being contemplated, up to 200,000 Mw of installed capacity, in the Community by 1985—and I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, agree that it would be difficult to maintain standards of quality assurance with a programme of that scale—are not principally of a technological nature, and that to discuss safety solely in technical terms is to prevent the public from recognising the true implications of the political and external risks.
One must also note that if the United States and Western Europe greatly expand their nuclear programmes, because that

1197
turns out to be a cheaper way of satisfying what they see to be their energy requirements, then we can scarcely deny the same economic benefits to other nations, including those who may be less responsible in the degree of control they exercise over both the operation of plants and the use of the fissile material contained in them. We have already seen that India has used material derived from its peaceful nuclear programme to manufacture a bomb of sorts. We know that there are many other nations approaching that stage of development, among which one might mention, just as examples, Korea and Argentina. I am not suggesting that at the moment either Korea or Argentina have any intention of entering the military nuclear race, but I am just pointing out, as Herman Khan did some 10 or 15 years ago, that almost inevitably with the spread of peaceful nuclear technology more and more nations would be tempted into developing their own military capabilities. I think that is a very serious risk which is encouraged by the great expansion of nuclear plants in Western Europe.
Reverting to the external risks which I mentioned a few minutes ago, and which were merely listed in the Annex to the draft resolution of the EEC, obviously we do not need to cater for earthquakes in this country, and we have siting restrictions on the location of nuclear plants to keep them well away from potential fire or explosion hazards. But that leaves the very serious problem, to my mind, of deliberate interference with the operation of nuclear plants by either criminals or terrorists, or the theft of nuclear material by such groups mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I think one is in something of a dilemma even in raising this subject; because one may be accused of putting the idea into the heads of the criminals and terrorists simply by referring to the appalling consequences that theft or sabotage might imply. On the other hand, if one fails to mention this problem at all, how could the public be adequately reassured that Governments have properly considered the matter and taken steps to prevent these consequences from arising.
In fact there have been attacks on nuclear installations; already there have been thefts of nuclear materials. I think,
1198
unfortunately, those who would be likely to contemplate threatening or endangering the lives of their fellow human beings are not going to require any prompting. If I may give a couple of examples, in May last year the nuclear power plant at Fessenheim on the Rhine was damaged by two explosive charges. I understand that the responsibility for this outrage was claimed by a group associated with the Bader Meinhoff gang. The explosions are said to have damaged a steam generator pump and the system for lowering uranium rods into the core. On the 6th June two bombs exploded simultaneously at nuclear sites in France. One damaged Framatome's main computer at Courbevoir, and the other exploded in nuclear workshops at Argenteuil. The responsibility for those outrages was claimed by an urban guerrilla group. Finally, on the 15th August two explosions occurred damaging equipment at the Monts d'Aree (EL4) nuclear station. The responsibility for that outrage was claimed by Breton nationalists.
On the question of nuclear materials, I mention just two examples from Britain. In 1966, 20 uranium fuel rods were stolen from the Bradwell nuclear power plant in Essex. They were subsequently recovered, I believe, by the police, and the reasons for the theft were not reported at the time. In 1971, five uranium rods disappeared somewhere between the fabrication plant at Springfields in Lancashire and the nuclear plant at Wylfa, Anglesey. This loss was discovered only after an investigation of some 120,000 numbered elements. The reports do not go into any detail as to how these uranium rods were stolen or whether anyone was subsequently charged with the theft.
I hope that I have said enough to show that the risk of the great expansion of the nuclear programme is not principally technological and I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, here—but the theft, the purloining of nuclear material, and the possibility that terrorists, or other criminal elements, will cause damage to nuclear installations far worse than anything that might result from technological failures in equipment. I should like to be assured that either the EEC Commission or some other authority was properly taking this on

1199
board, and was not simply attempting to reassure the public by saying—and I am sure it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bank side, has claimed—that some of the best engineering minds in the world are concentrated on this problem of nuclear safety, when the problem we are really trying to cure is not a technological one at all.
8.13 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, contrary to the last contribution, by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who was addressing himself principally to security matters, when we have been talking about technological matters we have had a very typical House of Lords' authoritative debate which, on the whole, has been reassuring without, I hope, being complacent. When it comes to the Report from the Committee I should like to start by expressing agreement with the second paragraph on page vi, where the Committee said:
" The Commission's general case might have been more acceptable if it had included a survey of the considerable national and international activity in this field, had identified deficiencies. had explained why the Commission was thought to be the body best suited to remedy them, and had shown how its present resources, would need supplementing for the purpose."
On balance, I would agree with the general view that these proposals should be viewed with British caution and reserve.
Let us start by applauding the objectives set out in the Document 681/75 which seek to avoid a number of things happening. They mention the proliferation of trade barriers, divergence on licensing procedures, lack of uniformity in presentation to the public, possible development of disparities in quality of public protection, and the duplication of applied research. The danger seen by the Committee is that in order to achieve these objectives we run the risk of making a further addition to the already formidable bureaucratic edifice which is exemplified by the 12 Agencies listed in the annex to the Report. The point has been made several times by a number of noble Lords this evening that we run the risk of wasting the time of valuable people. I suppose, in fairness to the Commission, they would claim they are
1200
seeking in fact to save these people time by not duplicating so many of the bodies they have to attend.
Then the Committee also points out that the United States is represented on the IAEA, the OECD, and the IEA. I am bound to say that I was not very impressed with the argument in the letter which the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, kindly sent us from Mr. Spinelli. The Commissioners advanced the argument that the exclusion of the United States does not matter because their interest is limited principally to the light water reactors (the pressure water reactor and the boiling water reactor) whereas Europe is interested in all types, including our own gas-cooled route and steam generating heavy water reactor. In passing may I say that I have been glad to hear recently that this particular route appears to be coming back into favour among a number of the experts whom I have heard talking.
We should also admit that the danger points must differ from reactor to reactor, and hence the safety standards must differ, and it is difficult to draw up all-embracing standards when you are dealing with so many different types of reactor. In the light water reactors you are principally concerned with these large pressure vessels but some of the other types of reactor have pressure tubes and some have sodium coolant;and anybody who is familiar even in a superficial way with the great variety of reactors which are being proposed, and indeed manufactured, will know very well that while many of the principles are common the danger points must differ markedly in each case.
This country is probably more experienced than anyone else. I think we still have more installed capacity than any country in Europe. This changes by about 1980. Our experience goes back over 20 years or more. As the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, among others, pointed out, our record is extremely good. It is a perfectly fair comparison, which was made by a number of noble Lords, to distinguish the record of the nuclear industry from that of almost any other industry you like to mention—including, I suppose, the industry of walking about on the roads. or driving a motor car on the roads, which is probably the most dangerous one of all.

1201
One of the reasons for this good safety record is the early appreciation of the inherent risks and the awareness of the danger. I think that that is one of the answers to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the very large crude carriers. Real care has been taken in the nuclear industry to look for causes of possible accidents, whereas people blundered into the dangers of the VLCCs totally unaware of what they were getting into. In the nuclear industry, great pains were taken to guard against every conceivable and, indeed, inconceivable accident.
I am reminded of the old adage which was the watchword of the Sappers when handling explosives. It was, "Explosives arc not dangerous until you forget that they are." In view of these stringent precautions, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that the dangers can readily be exaggerated. It was Professor Heisenberg in Germany (one of the fathers of fission) who said publicly that he would rather live next door to a nuclear reactor than to a conventional power station. This was also the import of some of the quotations and statistics of Dr. Farmer referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bank side.
In the report presented to the European Parliament by Mrs. Walz, this country is specifically commended, in particular for the way in which it has educated and carried the public along in an awareness of nuclear safety. The report mentioned that there had been less public worry about recent power stations than there had been over some of the earlier ones. There, I found myself at variance with the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, and, if one finds oneself at variance with the noble Lord, one is almost certainly wrong. I am distressed that he feels that we have fallen down, though I feel that we should listen to him if he tells us that that is the case.
Our approach to the standards of nuclear safety has been typically pragmatic and British. Rather than trying prematurely to lay down standards which might easily become unrealistic and might create a straitjacket leading to ossification and ultimately to delay, my understanding of our system is that anyone wanting to build a nuclear power station has to satisfy the nuclear inspec
1202
torate that what he is proposing to do is a safe method of procedure. That has the great merit that, in these early, experimental days, all the options are left open.
Here, I believe that we should be warned by the absurdities which we have been led into in our building regulations. We are all familiar with the nonsense about larders, ventilated lobbies and the ratio of window height to floor—for instance, in one county one can have a ceiling of 7 ft. 10 in. and in another it must be 8 ft. 1 in. Let us not get into the kind of situation which has happened there. I should like to go a stage further and suggest that it is reasonable for this country to have a somewhat isolationist view of the matter. I believe that a measured and leisurely approach may be appropriate for us, because our modest nuclear programme means that we shall only be ordering two more stations between now and 1985. So, for once, we may benefit from the experience of the mistakes of others rather than being in the position of blazing the trail and spending all the money from which others will derive the benefit.
I also think it fair to point out that the impact of some of these dangers has slightly receded since the early EEC document suggesting the installation of 200 gigawatts by 1985. This has been curtailed to 150 gigawatts and I understand that it is likely to be further reduced since it looks very much as if the Commission has overestimated the demand for electricity in Europe up to that time. We are probably still talking about something of the order of 190 reactors by 1985, however, and that is quite a lot. I have not done the mathematics of the risks of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, but I believe that we still come out on the basis of 200 reactors with about one accident in 5,000 years, so I do not feel that that will be of very great interest to me.
There is one rather curious point which the noble Lord may perhaps be able to elucidate for me, though it is not a Government attitude. Do the different pressures which exist according to where a station is to be sited justify different criteria for safety? If the place is sufficiently remote, it is clear that a higher degree of potential risk may be

1203
tolerable, but are we suggesting that we want different standards or that we are ready to accept different degrees of risk?
I think we may have been a little harsh on the Commission this evening. It has a good track record on harmonisation and it has taken a great deal of care not to offend national susceptibilities. Perhaps we on our part should not be unduly defensive and should not tell them not to trespass on our own self determination where possibly no such trespass is intended. I believe that harmonisation is a proper and laudable objective and I believe that we shall get there in the end. On the other hand I feel it would be unwise to rush and push too hard, too early.
I should like briefly to turn to two parochial matters of procedure. The first is a truly trivial point which is addressed to the Printed Paper Office. We want to educate ourselves and the public, but we do not want to proliferate papers. However, when we have these pink demands for papers passed round it is singularly uninformative to be told that we are now offered the Sixth, Seventh Eighth and Tenth Reports of the Select Committee unless we have some indication as to what they are about. Would it be possible for that information to be put on this piece of paper, so that we shall not have to order the lot and then throw away nine-tenths?
The second and more important matter is that of congratulations to the benign chairman of this august Committee on the way in which the Committee has succeeded in condensing the large quantities of documentation which will undoubtedly have passed across its desks into a commendably brief Report which has enabled all of us to read it before appearing here this evening. I am also glad that we are now seeing a gradual trend towards the Committees of the two Houses working slightly more together than has been the case in the past. This must mean a saving of time and. in particular, I like to think that the other place will benefit by being the recipient of the great degree of expertise which this House deploys in this Committee.
But, my Lords, I feel bound to support the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, when
1204
he complains that co-operation between the two Houses has not been aided by the behaviour and the demeanour of the Under-Secretary of State for Energy. Indeed, when I read the Report I was astonished that the entire Committee had not walked out in a huff. I have some difficulty in understanding the language of the officials, but of course they are talking about an extremely difficult and complicated subject. But what was worrying was to find the Minister declining to supply a document on the grounds of what he called "practical difficulties". When he was pressed by the chairman, it turned out that what he really meant by "practical difficulties "was that he was unwilling to produce the paper because it was what he called a "working document". I do not know whether he was labouring under the conclusion that Sub-Committee F had come to this House to play games, but I suggest that the Committee was undertaking a very serious and painstaking task.
This struck me as being a highly provocative way to behave. I can only hope that the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate has some acceptable explanation of this extremely ungracious behaviour; or, conceivably, the Minister was covering up for the fact that he did not know what he was talking about. While we are on the subject of consultation, confidentiality and responsibility, can the noble Lord tell us whether it is the policy of his right honourable friend to leak documents on this kind of subject to the Press? Can he deny that it was a document leaked by the Department of Energy to the Daily Mirror which started the extremely unfortunate scare—and it was pure scaremongering—about the reprocessing contract with Japan?
This is an industry in which this country has established a great reputation—I see the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bank side, nodding, thank goodness !— and a great degree of knowledge. We even stand to make a profit out of it. To try to stir up a scare in this way is not calculated to enlist responsible support from a body such as this House.
I regret that I have had to introduce these two contentious notes into the debate, but I cannot honestly apologise for doing so. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will be able to reassure the House, without, I hope, resort to the

1205
rather dubious stratagem of what was once euphemisticallly called the use of a "terminological inexactitude", and that both he and his colleagues will treat the matter with the proper degree of seriousness and respect in the future.
8.35 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Lovell-Davis): My Lords, the Government attach the utmost importance to the subject of nuclear safety and protection of the population. I should, therefore, like to thank the members of Sub-Committee F of the Select Committee for their penetrating examination of the Document R /681/75 Technological Problems of Nuclear Safety. The Sub-Committee obtained views from all sectors with responsibilities in this field, for licensing, research, construction and operation. Its Report raises questions about the relative responsibilities of the Commission and Her Majesty's Government in the field of reactor safety. As has been pointed out during the debate, reactor safety is, of course, only one aspect of nuclear safety. Others, for example, are radiological protection, transport of nuclear materials and radioactive waste management. These subjects are being considered separately at Community level and are not our primary concern today.
The importance to the Community of reactor safety is highlighted by the ambitious Community targets for nuclear power capacity mentioned in the Report of the Select Committee. Although we do not regard the targets as realistic, there is no doubt that the Community is embarking upon a programme of rapid expansion of nuclear power. All are agreed that an essential prerequisite is the ability to ensure that nuclear reactors meet proper safety standards, and that these are arrived at in such a way that the public can be confident, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, stressed, that its safety is protected. In answer to the noble Lord, I should point out that the subjects of harmonisation of safety standards and health protection are part of the Euratom Treaty, to which we are a party.
The stated purpose of the resolution is to ensure that the nuclear objectives of the Community can be achieved under
1206
economically viable conditions without prejudicing safety, by pursuing and intensifying action in two main areas. These are the gradual harmonisation of safety requirements and criteria, and the coordination of applied research programmes. Noble Lords will be aware that since the resolution was adopted in July, 1975, the Commission has made further proposals to implement the terms of the resolution. These proposals, which are being considered by the Government, may go some way towards meeting the doubts expressed by the European Parliament when it called upon the Commission to "submit practical proposals ", and by your Lordships' Select Committee in its concern for the potential overtaxing of the resources of the comparatively small number of national experts available. We shall study these proposals with care and with the advantage of the opinions of noble Lords as expressed in today's debate.
We have debated the place of nuclear power in the Community's Energy Policy Strategy. In that debate on 2nd December 1975. the urgency of making good the shortfall in fossil fuel supplies between now and the end of the century was emphasised. This deficiency will have to be met mainly from nuclear sources. We in the United Kingdom are more fortunately placed with reserves of fossil fuels than are our Community partners, and our own immediate nuclear programme is a relatively modest one, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, pointed out. But this does not allow us to be complacent about the subject of reactor safety, and as he said we are certainly not showing any complacency about the subject in this debate. Our safety organisations have our regulatory procedures under constant review and are always ready to discuss our arrangements with our European partners. Our regulatory experience dates from the first Nuclear Installations Act and the setting up of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in 1959. We, therefore, have a major contribution to make to Community thinking and activity in the nuclear safety field, and other matters to which the noble Lord referred.
As I have said, we are always ready to discuss our procedures and standards with our European partners. We have much to gain from such discussions.

1207
Even if the Community's programme is not fully realised, it will, by the 1980s, be very much larger than that of the United Kingdom on its own, and will provide a strong base for international co-operation on nuclear safety, from both the organisational and technical points of view. We welcome, and intend to continue, to participate in this co-operation.
I should at this stage, my Lords, make it absolutely clear that co-operation within the Community on the technological problems of nuclear safety is already well established. We play a leading part in the working groups of experts representing the Member-States. The expertise is drawn from these national representatives, and not from the Commission. The Commission can only reflect the consensus of the representation within the working groups. These groups are concerned with both water reactors and fast reactors. They cover, for example, the exchange of information on research and development programmes, comparison of computer codes, classification of national regulations, and investigation of information systems. The more recent proposals by the Commission, to which I have referred, make it clear that they accept this method of operation and seek to strengthen secretariat support for the work of these groups, and increase their efficiency.
My Lords, I should like to turn now to some of the specific points in the Select Committee's Report under the heading "Opinion of the Committee", and I must address myself first of all to the complaint made by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. On reviewing the matter, I have come to the conclusion that he really has few grounds for complaint against the Government, and there is no question whatsoever in my mind of the Government treating the Sub-Committee in any arrogant or high-minded way. The fact is that copies of our 681/75, which was annexed to the draft resolution, were available to the House from the 7th April. Sub-Committee F knew that the resolution would be taken at the 26th June Council. However, they did not commence their consideration of it until then. They were also aware that the June Council, in remitting the draft text to Coreper for revision, had asked that the final
1208
text should be adopted without discussion by the Council before the end of July.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him for one moment? I am much obliged to him for giving way. I wonder whether he could indicate the point in our evidence which makes it clear that we knew that the final text would be adopted "on the nod".
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Yes, my Lords. If the noble Earl would be so kind as to refer to his own words in the document on the 3rd July, for instance, he will see that he there makes a specific reference. It is paragraph 3 of the Minutes of Evidence of the 3rd July. That shows quite clearly that the noble Earl understood that the draft resolution had been referred back, and that, after Coreper had dealt with it, it would be treated as an A item.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way again. What I said was,
"…it may well be treated as an A item ".
There then followed much evidence to show that we were gravely anxious about it, and we naturally took it that our anxieties would be noted and understood by the Government.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, the noble Earl said:
"…it may well be treated as an A item. in other words, be adopted formally in the Council. Is that correct? "
The answer he received was, "Yes". I do not think it could have been much clearer than that, my Lords.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am very sorry to press this, but this is really the nub of the matter. Could we go on? We asked:
"Can you tell us what amendments have been made? ",
and they could not tell us. Then they promised us a revised text, which we did not get.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, it was, of course, impossible for them to say what provisions were being made.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am very sorry to press this, but

1209
this is why we are having this debate. We wanted to know what were the amendments the Government were trying to get. They would not tell us.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, the fact was that my honourable friend Mr. Eadie made the point quite clearly that these were working documents which contained Member-States' reservations, and he felt that he could not go into detail about them. I am sorry, my Lords; I am confused. This is to some extent a debating point. The noble Earl has implied that the Government have paid no heed to his concern about the text of the revised resolution. This is not so. In his evidence to the Sub-Committee my honourable friend Mr. Eadie explained the type of amendments necessary for the draft resolution which the noble Earl wanted to see, and stated:
" The latest text we have seen includes all the changes considered essential to the United Kingdom."
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again. I know he is very patient, and I shall keep my flashpoint as low as I can this evening. But on the first day that we took evidence we asked:
" Would the Department be able to let us have a re-draft before it goes back to the full Council? "
That was the question that we asked on the 3rd July, and the answer we got was that the Department thought that that would be possible:
" Would you be able to communicate this draft to us?—I should think that it would be possible."
A fortnight later we are putting our questions to Mr. Eadie, and I have to say with the very greatest reluctance—I did not want to be drawn into saying this—that some of his answers were obscure, if I put it no stronger than that, and we did not get from him a picture of the amendments which the Government were trying to introduce; and, we having been promised, as we understood, a sight of this text, he said we could not have it. With all respect to him, I must get this on the record. I know that the noble Lord is seeking to be co-operative and wants to get through this thing as quickly as possible and I will not interrupt him again, I hope.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, the point is that we did not receive the text to which the noble Earl refers until the 18th. At the time the Committee pressed Mr. Eadie for the document, it was explained that the text was a working document. In fact, that was on the 17th July, before the working text had even been seen by Coreper. We had expected that the working text would have been ready for submission to them before then, but in the event it was not submitted to Coreper until the 18th July. On the 18th July we sent a copy to Sub-Committee F. That was on that same day. Immediately we had it, we sent a copy to Sub-Committee F. I think that the Government have taken great care to ensure that the Sub-Committee was kept fully informed about the progress of the resolution in all the Council stages. The type of amendments being made following the June Council, and the fact that the final text would include all the changes considered essential by the United Kingdom, were explained, as I have said, to the Sub-Committee by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy on the 17th July. I do not think, my Lords, that we could have done any better than we did.
The noble Earl has referred to the correspondence he has had with my honourable friend Mr. Hattersley, and I stick by the point he made. This is not legislation. There is no commitment in the document, as he explained to the noble Earl. It may be that the noble Earl can extend this, but the fact is that the Government did not give specific assurances outside this matter. This is not legislation; there is no commitment being made in this document. Therefore, the Government are not bound by what they have said to give specific assurances on this matter.
Now, hoping that I have satisfied the noble Earl, I will try, if I may, to pick up where I left off. I am convinced that anybody who really looks at this and looks at this matter of the timetable carefully, will see that the Government have given the greatest attention to this matter. They could not have done more than they have in fact done. The Committee have suggested that a survey of national and international activities, with the identification of deficiencies and an explanation of how the Commission was

1211
equipped to deal with them, might have been a more acceptable basis for action.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, has repeated this suggestion. This type of work is implicit in the existing Community programme, but it is the Member-States rather than the Commission who carry the responsibility. National experts in the Community's Working Parties are able to identify gaps in the work being done and to coordinate action to fill them without unnecessary duplication of effort. They are greatly assisted in their work by the technical secretariat provided by the Commission. The close association and common interests of the Member-States, and the correspondingly free interchange of information, ease the problems of agreeing a common approach, and when the Community is able to reach a common view this assists the work of the larger organisations in which its Member-States participate.
There is no question of Community discussions replacing our independent participation in, for example, the IAEA, the NEA and the IEA. One of the objectives of the Euratom Treaty, in Article 2, is to,
"…establish with other countries and with international organisations any contact likely to promote progress in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy ".
We are satisfied that the resolution provides a framework in which this activity can progress in the field of reactor safety. In answer to the point raised by the noble Earl, the Commission can be said to act as a catalyst, for instance, in the sense that members of the Secretariat of Community Committees also participate on behalf of the Commission in the meetings of Committees of the international organisations referred to by the noble Lord and covering a broader field than that of the Community.
I understand the Select Committee's concern—as expressed by the noble Earl and by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield—that proliferation of organisations might make calls on our expert resources which could be met only at the expense of our domestic nuclear programme. There is, however, no proposal to increase the number of existing Community organisations following the adoption of the resolution. We shall look to existing working groups —if necessary with strengthened secre-
1212
tariat services—to provide the means to carry on this work.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Select Committee's view that the ability to make direct representations on this sensitive subject to accessible elected representatives or at a public inquiry is a valuable safety valve. In its report to the European Parliament, the Parliament's Committee on Energy, Science and Technology highlighted and commended United Kingdom procedures in this field. The resolution in R/681/75 requests Member-States and the Commission to continue and strengthen their efforts to ensure that the public is given the best possible information. This is entirely consistent with our own policy and supports the case made by the noble Lords, Lord Hinton and Lord Sherfield.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, on the question of safety standards for other industrial activities, the House has been informed that the Health and Safety Executive, which came into being last year and has set up a major hazards unit to look into these problems, has drawn together the various inspectorates in this country (including the nuclear installations inspectorate) and will no doubt take advantage of their experience in safety matters in their efforts to reduce the hazards in other industries to the low levels applicable to the nuclear industry. On the time taken to assess the safety of steam generating heavy water moderated reactors by the nuclear inspectorate, a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, the nuclear inspectorate take great care in the assessment of every reactor for which a licence is requested. This involves detailed examination of design which may differ significantly from the prototype. This approach has contributed greatly to the safety record of the nuclear industry.
The matter of transport of nuclear materials was raised. I can assure noble Lords that arrangements for the safe transport of radioactive material conforms to standards laid down by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the basis of the stringent requirements set by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The requirements include provision as to the leak tightness of the container (which is a massive steel flask) under both normal conditions and accident con-

1213
ditions of transport. Tests or ability to withstand these conditions include subjection to impact, fire, immersion in water including seawater.
On the subject of information raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which as I say, is covered in the resolution and is entirely consistent with our own policy, I will not follow his argument through fully as to how best information might be transmitted to the public; but I agree that it is an aspect which merits consideration. I trust that note will be taken of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, about publications shown on the list issued by the Printed Paper Office. On the subject of individual papers, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that he has not been able to see a copy of the final text of the resolution. A copy of this text appeared in the Official Journal of the European Communities for 14th August 1975 and copies of the Council-approved resolutions are also supplied to the Printed Paper Office in your Lordships' House.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the point I was making was that no doubt these documents are available somewhere but that when it is known that a debate is to take place on the same afternoon, the documents ought to be mar-shalled together in the Printed Paper Office. So, when one goes in to ask. "May I have copies of the resolution and their annexes which are to be debated this afternoon? ", one is handed the actual text and not something which was published six months earlier.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I hope that attention will be paid to the request that he has made.
Noble Lords have expressed concern during the debate (and perhaps none so well as the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bank side) that the safety approval of nuclear installations in the United Kingdom might be centralised in Brussels. But that is not proposed or foreseen in this resolution. Your Committee also suggested—and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, referred to it again, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth—that uniformity of standards might be achieved only by levelling down. International experience in the nuclear field
1214
suggests the opposite. Standards are consistently being improved. In any case, we will maintain the right to superimpose on Community standards or precedures any additional measures which our independent regulatory authorities consider necessary to protect the public.
The resolution itself does not deal, as some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, indicated it might, with standardisation of reactors, components or fuel. I agree with the Select Committee that this is a very long term matter. It is true that the Commission's Document R/681/75 suggested the possibility that the Commission might at some future date be able to present Directives to the Council on the basis of Article 100 of the EEC Treaty. Your Committee questioned the propriety of invoking this Article, which the Treaty provided for commercial purposes, in order to achieve objectives in the field of nuclear safety. If such Directives are eventually put before the Council we shall consider them carefully, but we could not accept the furtherance of trade at the expense of safety.
The harmonisation to which the resolution refers is concerned with "safety requirements and criteria "rather than hardware. Even this may be a long and difficult road, but the difficulties should not prevent the Community from continuing along it. The areas for harmonisation identified by the Select Committee as potentially more rewarding, relating to, for example, siting and radiological protection. are already the subject of Community activity in which we are participating.
The Committee considered that the proposals raise important matters of policy and principle to which the special attention of the House should be drawn. What are these matters? The rÔle of the Commission, the proliferation of international organisations, the potential centralising of approvals, a possible ultimate goal of standardisation, the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to the United Kingdom public. None of these is changed by the resolution.
My Lords, before I come to the end I should like to refer to a matter raised at the end of his own contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal. His criticism was that a leak had been made from the Department of Energy. I feel that I should scotch that

1215
straight away because it is an important matter. I can assure the noble Lord that, so far as I am concerned, I am aware of no leak whatsoever from the Department of Energy.
This debate has provided a valuable opportunity for noble Lords to explore the scope and intention of the Council's resolution and the Government's attitude to it; I am grateful, as we must all be, to the noble Earl for initiating it. Our objectives in this field are clear. They are to secure for all our people the benefits of nuclear power while ensuring that their health and safety are fully protected. The United Kingdom's record in this is good and the Government intend to see it maintained.
9.0 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, once again I must preface my remarks by saying that nothing I have to say is in the smallest degree intended to be a reflection on the staff of the Department who have always been so helpful to our Committee. Many points have been made by the noble Lord; too many to answer at this time of night. The critical question as to whether or not it was made clear to us that "willy-nilly" the revised text would go "on the nod"is one that I leave to others to judge on reading the evidence. I was in the chair, and we were clearly under the impression that there would be a chance to look at the text, and comment on it if we were not satisfied, before it went to the Council at the end of July. In fact it went to the Council on 18th or 19th July. I will not go into those details, and how it was we came to look at this document so late (frankly, due to the fact that we were swimming in a bog of paper on the Community's energy policy and were just bogged down) as those matters are not really of prime importance.
What is important is the Commission's tendency to meddle in matters that they really know nothing about. We have on our Committee eminent experts who are able to question our witnesses and to form a judgment; and, indeed, to go to Brussels and form an impression from people there. To say that these resolutions commit us to nothing is, in my submission, incorrect. There is little point in passing resolutions unless they commit you to something. I was struck by the
1216
fact that we were not given a list of the changes that the Government wanted in the resolution. We were given no sign of the text until it was too late to do anything about it. The noble Lord stands "pat"on the position of the Government as enunciated 18 months ago, that they would put a reserve on legislative proposals but not on anything else. We are pressing for proper consideration to be given to the idea of putting a reserve, if necessary, on resolutions. I shall come back to that in a moment.
We are told there is no extra burden on the experts, but the evidence is the opposite. I ask anyone who reads the report of this debate to judge for themselves, and I also ask them to take a good look at the evidence given by Mr. Eadie, on which it is kinder not to comment. I invite anybody who reads this debate to look at this Report and read Mr. Eadie's evidence and judge whether he even knew the documents on which he was giving evidence. I did not want to say that, but I have been somewhat provoked by the line of the noble Lord's answer. I consider the answer to be about the most unsatisfactory one I have ever received within the past eight years in this House, outside the field of sex education for the under-thirteens.
Somebody once said:
" Peril is the cheapest way to happiness."
Somebody else said:
" Act if you like but do it at your peril."
If the Government treat this Committee in this way another time, it will not be a mild "take note" Motion that we shall put down. There are various grades of Motion, there are Unstarred Questions and Motions for Papers. Some Motions for Papers have been pressed to a Division. I think I owe it to fellow members of my Committee to make it clear that we are not satisfied with the answer we have had; we are not satisfied with the way we were treated, and we look for better treatment next time. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, relying on a rather restricted brief, could not go further than he did just now, though my guess is he would have liked to have done so. My Lords, having said that, and wishing the noble Lord the best of British luck in the future, I come back to the original Motion, which is to take note.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL COAL BOARD (FINANCE) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Second Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
  OFFSHORE SUPPLIES OFFICE STAFF
  OFFSHORE SUPPLIES OFFICE STAFF
  CONTINENTAL SHELF EXTRACTIONS
  CONTINENTAL SHELF EXTRACTIONS
  FAMILY PLANNING: ADVERTISING COSTS
  FAMILY PLANNING: ADVERTISING COSTS
  FAMILY PLANNING SERVICE PERSONNEL
  FAMILY PLANNING SERVICE PERSONNEL
  FAMILY PLANNING ORGANISATIONS GRANTS
  FAMILY PLANNING ORGANISATIONS GRANTS
  NON-ACCIDENTAL INJURIES TO CHILDREN
  NON-ACCIDENTAL INJURIES TO CHILDREN