Sitting of 14 June 1976

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

    Nuclear Waste
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied that planned capacity for reprocessing nuclear waste will be sufficient to meet the total needs by 1985.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): Discussions are taking place with BNFL and the generating boards about the investment required to meet planned reprocessing needs over the next 10 years.
    Mr. Steel: Are there any plans within the next decade for the storing of untreated waste either underground or under the sea? If so, will the hon. Gentleman give us an idea of the quantities?
    Mr. Eadie: If the hon. Gentleman puts down a specific Question on that matter, I shall be pleased to answer it. A number of Questions on this aspect have been answered before. Those answers had a fairly satisfactory reception. If the hon. Gentleman wants a detailed answer, I shall be glad to reply to a specific Question.

    Energy Sources
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the Government's plans for more research into renewable forms of energy, such as solar and wind power.
    Mr. Eadie: We have recently announced a £1 million programme on wave energy. The other renewable forms are being assessed and, where appropriate, research and development programmes are being drawn up.
    In 1975–76 my Department spent about £½ million on research into these sources. The estimated spend on non-nuclear non-marine research and development is about £4 million in 1976–77 rising to some £7 million in 1979–80. Most of this money is expected to be spent on the renewable forms of energy.
    Mr. Lane: I am grateful for that answer. Bearing in mind the pioneer work that has been done in my constituency on both solar and wind power, can the Minister assure us that the possible scope for all renewable forms of

    3
    energy will be discussed fully at the one-day conference next week?
    Mr. Eadie: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There are papers out which embrace a discussion of that subject at the conference.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is it not a fact that by the year 2000, despite North Sea oil, we shall not be self-sufficient in energy? Is it not therefore necessary to have long-term projects and studies not only of the sources of energy mentioned but of tidal power, particularly in terms of the Severn barrage scheme, which was first considered in 1921?
    Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend is correct. Various projections have been made about the energy resources that we shall have in the year 2000. I assure my hon. Friend that, in addition to the plan that he mentioned, all kinds of geothermal and solar energy are being duly considered.
    Mr. Rost: As the Department regards wave energy as potentially the most interesting renewable source, why is it allocating only £1 million over the next two years, which most authorities involved in the research regard as inadequate?
    Mr. Eadie: I am sure that the House would agree with the hon. Gentleman if we could spend more on these resources. However, I think he knows that the studies that are taking place on this matter are "at large" studies. Once the results are clear, without our embarking on gigantic, colossal sums of capital expenditure, it will be for the Government and this House to agree on the kind of expenditure that the hon. Gentleman visualises.

    Electricity Pre-payment Meters
    Mr. Mike Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied that the electricity boards are now pursuing his policy of removing obstacles to the installation of pre-payment meters other than for the largest customers.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Gordon Oakes): Electricity boards install pre-payment meters on request in appropriate cases.
    Mr. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer is not strictly true, al-
    4
    though I am sure it is not the Department's fault? Is he aware that one of my constituents, who has a sick husband and children at home, recently asked the North-Eastern Electricity Board to install a pre-payment meter and was told that she would have to wait a minimum of two years before it would be prepared to do so? Will he now see that the boards carry out the spirit of the policy laid down by the Secretary of State and recently readvocated by my hon. Friend in his report to his right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Oakes: I shall certainly draw the attention of the board concerned to the case mentioned by my hon. Friend. The information that the boards have given to me and my colleagues on the committee is that they will install such meters on request in appropriate cases. My report on this matter is clear—that wherever a consumer requests a pre-payment meter, unless there are dangers it should be supplied.
    Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we should be very grateful if he would consider sympathetically the installation of pre-payment meters, particularly if action on that front would enable the Government to disregard the recommendations of the review body in respect of the powers of disconnection held by the electricity and gas boards? Is he aware that there is a hard core minority of feckless people for whom debt is a way of life, and that the vast, silent majority of those who pay on time would bitterly resent their tariff having to be increased to cross-subsidise that small clement?
    Mr. Oakes: My view is that there has been a great deal of exaggeration in the figures put forward by both sets of boards as to the effect of ceasing the practice of disconnection. However, as my right hon. Friend said in his statement, my report is going to him and the boards are at liberty to put their views on the report to the Government before the Government contemplate action.
    Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the installation of pre-payment meters is an essential element in any new policy of ending disconnections? Should not the Secretary of State first meet the electricity and gas boards to press them to end the practice of disconnecting anyone

    5
    who cannot pay and, secondly, initiate legislation to deprive the boards of the power to disconnect?
    Mr. Oakes: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for all the work he did on the review body. My right hon. Friend is meeting both kinds of boards in the very near future and has said that we shall hear the boards' views before any legislative action is taken.
    Mr. James Lamond: Is my hon. Friend aware that even when a pre-payment meter has been installed the consumer's problems are not at an end? If a request is made for a meter to be emptied at other than the regular time, either because it is full or because the consumer is going on holiday and does not wish to leave a considerable sum of money in the meter, a charge of £2 is made by many boards for this service. Will my hon. Friend look into this matter?
    Mr. Oakes: I have already considered the matter. My report strongly recommends that the making of charges for emptying full meters should cease.
    Mr. Marten: Is not the question of disconnection the prime responsibility of the social security services rather than of the people who pay their bills?
    Mr. Oakes: The Department of Health and Social Security has a responsibility for those consumers who come under its aegis, but many poor people who find difficulty in paying their bills are not in receipt of any form of social security benefit.

    Offshore Oil (Production Platforms)
    Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State of Energy if he will give details of any orders placed with the platform construction industry, or anticipated, during the course of 1976; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): No orders have been placed so far this year for major production platforms for the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea. I hope to be in a position shortly to say something further about future prospects.
    Mr. Gray: That is a disappointing reply. Will the Minister of State consider adopting a new line of approach? Will he try to persuade his right hon. Friend, and his other right hon. Friends in the Cabinet, that a strong case exists for offering a further tax concession to companies which are prepared to develop marginal fields, for which many platforms could be required?
    Dr. Mabon: I hope to make an estimate of the number of platform orders likely to be placed between now and the end of 1977. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about marginal fields. We have had only one application for consideration for the remission of tax. I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says and look again at the matter.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is there any joy in the contacts which Ministers have with Red-path, Dorman Long, and Albert Smith and other full-time officials of the AUEW and the shop stewards?
    Dr. Mabon: I have had a discussion with a deputation representing the yard. Graythorpe and Methil are the two most affected yards, inasmuch as work will shortly be complete. It will be in the summer or autumn of this year. The other four yards already have, on balance, reasonable work until the middle of next year. I am hopeful that there will be some developments here, but it very much depends on the oil companies.
    Mr. Skinner: Is a platform construction a ship, or is it just a run-of-the-mill platform construction? My hon. Friend should tell us, before we get into any more trouble.
    Dr. Mabon: You and I, Mr. Speaker, are not the authorities of Lloyd's Register of Shipping. I leave it at that.

    Energy Forum
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to establish an energy forum on a permanent basis as a development from the one-day energy conference.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I intend to develop ways by which a much wider public than at present can participate in the formulation of energy policy, but

    7
    before deciding how best to do this I shall take account of any views expressed by participants in the conference.
    Mr. Rost: As some critics are already suggesting that a one-day energy forum will create more heat and hot air than will be required to solve the energy gap, will the Minister consider formalising the forum on a permanent basis as an advisory body, more or less along the lines of the NEDC?
    Mr. Benn: I am considering even at this stage how we may follow up the conference. Large numbers of people, including, for example, the CBI, representing industrialists, and consumer organisations which have felt excluded from energy policy-making, have asked to come. As it is, about 435 invitations are out. After that, we shall have to decide how to proceed. My own belief is that by proceeding in this way we are more likely to reach a consensus, and I am anxious to build upon a consensus, which we must do if we are to make sense of our policy.
    Mr. Skeet: Will the Secretary of State tell the House why he is introducing an Energy Bill when he is only just establishing a forum? Would it not be better to have the discussions first and the legislation later?
    Mr. Benn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Energy Bill flows from international obligations and is in part the successor of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 introduced by the Government he supported. If we are to make sense of energy policy, the hon. Gentleman will have to accept that on-going decisions have to be taken. We want to open up the options for the future. I hope that the conference will help us to do that in a meaningful way.
    Mr. Madden: As the conflicting personalities and policies of the energy industries are once again emerging from private into public, does the Secretary of State think that the time is fast approaching for the establishment of an energy commission responsible for all the energy produced in this country and the allocation of resources?
    Mr. Benn: The last session of the conference is to consider how energy policy should be formulated, but I hope
    8
    the understandable Press interest in the conflicts of policy that are known will not obscure the fact that the development of a sound energy policy is of great interest to this country and everyone who lives in it. I am sure that all those who come to the conference, including the leaders of the industries, the unions and others, will wish to contribute constructively, and this will make it possible to build new forms of policy-making for the future.

    Steam Generating Heavy Water Reactor
    Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the steam generating heavy water reactor project.
    Mr. Benn: The Nuclear Power Company and the electricity boards have agreed the main parameters of the SGHWR design. The NPC is now preparing the documents describing the reference design and these will shortly be submitted to the electricity boards. Work is being carried forward in parallel on the component development programme.
    Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the statement made recently by Mr. Peddie, a member of the CEGB, to the effect that the steam generating heavy water reactor was proving more difficult to build than Concorde? If so, as our nuclear energy development is founded on the SGHWR, is not special investigation required by my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Benn: As my hon. Friend knows better than most—because the Select Committee of which he was chairman recommended it—the Government decision on this was announced in 1974 and it was not a view shared unanimously at the time. I have made it my business to maintain close contact with the chairmen and officials of the main organisations connected with the programme. Although there has been some delay, design work is in progress and I am satisfied that there has been no obstruction of the programme. I regard it as my responsibility to take a very close interest in this matter.
    Mr. Hannam: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report of the Cavendish Laboratory in today's newspapers that by the late 1970s we could be once again a major importer of

    9
    energy? Is he aware that the report recommends that we should therefore increase our efforts in the use of coal and nuclear capacity? In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) about the steam generating heavy water reactor, should we not be examining alternative systems, such as the light water reactor or the AGR?
    Mr. Benn: I am not reopening the question of the decision taken in 1974. The AGR has now come onstream and the early operating experience of it is, I am advised, very satisfactory.
    As to whether, when, and to what extent there is an energy gap is disputed between the industries. The British Gas Corporation does not take the same view about margins of energy gap as some of the other industries do. Nobody doubts—and this is the basis of present policy—that coal, nuclear power and conservation, in appropriate proportions, will be central to the meeting of our long-term needs. The fact that there can be a conflict between two fuel industries about this basic question indicates the need for a harmonisation of forecasts before we reach a decision to invest many thousands of millions of pounds.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the importance of turbo-generation and its effect on the employment of thousands of people in C. A. Parsons, in my constituency? Will he give some indication of the state of the turbo-generator industry and say whether he is considering advancing the hardware orders from March 1977? Will he give an assurance that there will be no more slippage in the timetable, and that it will be adhered to?
    Mr. Benn: I think it would be wrong to advance by political fiat decisions in many important matters, including safety standards. At the same time, I am aware of the problems of the turbo-generator manufacturers, although this is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. But there is pressure from the mining industry for the advance of the Drax B station, and we must not think of turbo-generator orders only in connection with nuclear generation.

    North Sea Oil and Gas
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the development of the North Sea oil and gas fields during the 1976 season; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: So far this year one new gas and seven new oil discoveries have been announced, one new oil field has come onstream, and by the end of the year a further four are expected onstream. I am satisfied that 1976 will be another successful year for the development of our North Sea resources.
    Mr. Renton: Does the Minister of State accept that the political activities of his Government have held back for up to two years decisions on the question of whether or not to develop viable fields? Is he aware that while the Government are relinquishing some of their Draconian powers this delay has caused lasting damage to supporting industry and to Britain's cash flow from the North Sea?
    Dr. Mabon: I do not think that is true. The Chairman of Conoco told us recently that the North Sea was the most attractive investment area in the world. The rate of development and of discovery is remarkable. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Brown Book that we have just published he will see that the figures are consistent with the development that was expected.
    With regard to the smaller fields—and this relates to the question asked by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) about the tax policy, which may be a little unfair on the smaller fields—we have taken power under the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act to refund royalties where we feel that it is in the national interest that a field should be developed. We have received precisely one application, and I regret to say that that application has not succeeded. As I have said, I shall look at the criteria to see whether we could be wrong. We may be wrong. But we are not doing anything to inhibit development. On the contrary.
    Mr. Dalyell: On the immediate problem of the events in Sullom Voe, which could jeopardise the whole of the North

    11
    Sea production programme, do not the Government think that the conciliation procedures of the Department of Employment ought to be brought in?
    Dr. Mabon: I am hopeful that the delicate position in Sullom Voe will be resolved. Reports indicate that we may have an agreement shortly. The situation looks better than it was.
    Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that this is Scottish independence day for oil, and that Scotland's requirements can now be met from production? Will he also make sure that the Department makes this fact known as widely as possible?
    Dr. Mabon: There is no doubt that there is a success story to be told about North Sea oil, and we shall tell it.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend say what is the total Government stake, as a percentage, in all the oilfields? Will he also say how much the National Coal Board lost as a result of the participation of the Government in the Gulf-Conoco deal? This knowledge will be important to the miners when they debate other issues at the forthcoming conference in a fortnight's time.
    Dr. MabonMy hon. Friend, who is a very good Socialist, must recognise that when assets are transferred from one public concern to another they are within the public sector. National Coal Board assets are not owned by the miners; they are owned by the State, by the people. There is no loss in that regard.
    In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, it is difficult to make an estimate, but I shall have a look.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the country that there is no such thing as Scottish oil, any more than there is such a thing as English national gas, which at the moment is used in Glasgow? Will my hon. Friend also make it clear that most of the financing in "Scottish" oil, so-called by the Scottish National Party, comes from the British people as a whole, from British industry rather than from Scottish industry?
    An hon. Member: It is American oil.
    Dr. Mabon: It is not American, English or Scottish oil. It is God's oil, and we should be thankful for it.
    Mr. Biffen: May I congratulate the Minister on his appearance at the Dispatch Box after an absence of six years, and say how delightful it is to see him there?
    Arising out of the question asked by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), does the hon. Gentleman agree that the events at Sullom Voe, which we all hope will come to a speedy and happy conclusion, are a healthy reminder of the caution and prudence with which we should deal with all the forecasts of the benefits that we hope will flow from North Sea oil, because they depend on many delicate and, to some extent, imponderable conditions?
    Dr. Mabon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I agree absolutely with what he said.
    Mr. Tom Ellis: Can my hon. Friend estimate what proportion of ongoing capital from this country is being spent on developing the North Sea?
    Dr. Mabon: Not enough.

    Offshore Oil (Licences)
    Mr. Skeetasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will help to reduce the uncertainty felt by certain of the major oil companies by bringing forward the date set for the fifth round of North Sea licensing applications.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has for a further round of licences to maintain oil and gas exploration activities in the Continental Shelf.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will now make a statement about the consultations he has had about the next round of offshore oil drilling licences.
    Mr. Benn: As I announced in my reply on 27th May to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell), I have published a consultative document setting out my proposals for the fifth round. I am in touch with the industry and trade unions about their views on these proposals.
    Mr. Skeet: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for responding to my Question.
    May I ask whether this will be an annual affair? Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much the Government are free to commit in annual exploration and development? Will there be a separate allocation to the BNOC and the British Gas Corporation?
    Mr. Benn: I thought it right, and I thought the House agreed, that after the experience of the last round of licences we should consult about the terms and conditions which would get the best bargain for us without endangering the success of the round. As to the rôle of BNOC in exploration, it is of such critical importance that the British people should have some extra knowledge of this exploration. The cost of exploration is nothing like as high as the cost of development, and at a modest guess BNOC should normally be—
    Mr. Skeet: Taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman says that it is taxpayers' money, but the benefits accruing from exploration are formidable, and why we should seek to support foreign countries against our own investment I do not understand. How quickly we do this depends upon the pace at which we can settle the median lines with the French and Irish, but I think it better to do it in tranches rather than by means of the enormous round that was held in 1972 followed by a long gap, which tends to create problems with industrial development to meet the demands for equipment.
    Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the participation agreements under the next round will make BNOC a full and active partner with at least a 51 per cent. stake in all oilfields with a majority say in decision-making, including the placing of orders to help employment prospects? Can we have real public ownership instead of the "phoney" negotiations carried out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?
    Mr. Benn: It is intended that BNOC, when negotiating for licences, should satisfy us that the national interest is safeguarded. Whereas before we have had
    14
    the problem of trying to change the thoroughly bad licensing arrangement reached by the previous Government, this time we are starting afresh. Therefore, our opportunities are greater and the BNOC rôle will be the development of the policy for which I have now assumed responsibility. We have in the case of Gulf/Conoco achieved a real participation through the NCB(Ex) investment. There is also the Gas Corporation involvement. In the case of Burmah, BNOC has taken over the major responsibility. Shell and Exxon are now ready to enter into talks with BNOC, and this makes meaningful the policy on which we are determined.
    Mr. Biffen: Is the House correct in assuming that both the number of blocks offered and the stricter time limit covering the relinquishment of blocks have been designed to facilitate a level of expansion and development which will bring orders and relief to the hard-pressed offshore industries? If that is so, will the Secretary of State indicate what he hopes will be the advantages in terms of additional orders for drilling rigs and production platforms that might be expected in this year and in 1977–78?
    Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman will recall that when I announced the fifth round last September I publicly said that we wanted to give a fillip to development in the North Sea, with the possible spin-off of more jobs in this country. We have published the consultative document, and the Minister of State, whom I welcome back, is involved with me in the consultations. We shall seek applications and we hope to award licences to get the 1977 drilling season under way. We hope to optimise and maximise the benefits to the United Kingdom industry deriving from the new round.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the benefits from North Sea oil will go to the whole of the British people and that a minimal amount will go to foreign investors who wish to exploit it quickly?
    Mr. Benn: It is not for me to speak for the Almighty, but the Prime Minister allocated those responsibilties to the Minister of State. We are trying to get

    15
    the best possible bargain for the people of this country, compatible with the need to utilise the technology and massive investment required to develop the resources. We can achieve a better deal than the previous Government. We think that oil companies are coming to realise that we are determined that our 51 per cent. policy will be carried through. In the new round of licensing we have the chance to maximise the benefit for the people.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Does the Secretary of State agree that the way to get the best possible bargain is to make sure that the criteria for the granting of new licences is the performance and resources of the oil companies rather than meekness in the face of the Government's participation proposals?
    Mr. Benn: I do not wish to be sharp with the hon. Gentleman, but if I had taken the Opposition's advice during the passage of the Bill the country would be no better off in any respect, and a great deal weaker in its capacity to defend its national interest all over the world. The nation States and Governments are seeking to achieve a commanding position for their own people in the benefits deriving from oil, but we must also proceed to participation by way of understanding with the oil companies, and by legislation. The legislation that we have adopted has been absolutely right. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that Shell and Exxon are meek in their approach to the Government—and I see that he hopes that they are not—I will leave on the record that in the event of conceivable difference of opinion the hon. Gentleman hopes that Shell and Exxon will maintain their position.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend tell some hon. Members on the Government side of the House, without equivocation or qualification, that what he is about in the future licensing deals is not something that is a bit better, is not to increase Britain's rôle, but is to take over the majority ownership of those licences with which he will be concerned? Is he aware that we are not terribly interested in what will happen in the long or medium term, but we are interested in what he will do in the short term, with the licences that are coming on to his table?
    Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend knows the answer. Not only has our policy been made clear; the consultative document is out, to give the trade union movement, the oil companies and industries concerned an opportunity to comment. My hon. Friend knows that in order to develop the North Sea substantial investment and technology are required, and that we intend that the British interest in that is represented by 51 per cent. participation. It is no good my hon. Friend dismissing that, because it was the policy on which he and I were returned to the House, and we are seeking to apply that policy in the next round of licences.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: I approve the Secretary of State's laudable intention to give us as much local employment as possible, but will he consider definitely moving the headquarters of the BNOC to Glasgow, where it is alleged to be, instead of the decision-making and work being done at the branch office in London?
    Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman knows about the arrangements for the headquarters. He also knows that BNOC works from Scotland but that there is some work that requires to be done in England and some in Aberdeen. He would be making a great mistake if he supposed that the work of BNOC is not of itself helpful to the development of resources which are for the benefit of the whole of the United Kingdom.

    Energy Policy
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has recently had with the chairmen of the gas, electricity and coal boards and the Chairman of the British National Oil Corporation regarding the formulation of a national energy policy.
    Mr. Benn: I am in regular and frequent contact with the chairmen of the nationalised industries for which I am responsible. I last met the coal, gas and electricity chairmen on 20th May, and I look forward to meeting them again, with the Chairman of BNOC, at the National Energy Conference on 22nd June.
    Mr. Evans: May I thank my right hon. Friend for taking the initiative in

    17
    calling the conference? Does he recognise that while offshore oil and natural gas resources are a bonus to the energy needs of the country, coal will play an important part for many years to come, and that when gas and oil are exhausted we may wish to exploit our coal resources?
    Mr. Benn: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend was in Cardiff on Saturday, when I said that when the present oil and gas reserves were exhausted, and present nuclear power stations had been concreted over, we should have 300 years of coal reserves at our present rate of consumption. Although much of the glamour attaches to oil and gas, coal remains the foundation of our energy policy. That is reflected in the energy planning that I have in mind.
    Mr. Gray: When the Secretary of State is drawing up a national energy policy, will he bear in mind that the profit motive that is so obvious in the private sector can do a great deal of good, and can even rub off on the industries which are nationalised and nationally controlled? Will he ensure that that fact plays a prominent part in his discussions?
    Mr. Benn: Everybody recognises—I certainly do—that when massive sums of money are required for investment a proper return should be expected from that investment. But I also think that with the uncertainties associated with world energy supplies, notably the sudden quintupling of the price of oil in 1973, to try to build an energy policy on the basis of reproducing in the public sector an imitation of a market economy, as was done before 1973, was a disastrous error, because it omitted wider considerations of the need for long-term planning. If we are to engage in the development of resources, we must also be sure that those resources are utilised. That is why a coal investment programme must be accompanied by a coal-bum programme and why we must relate all these things in a rational way. There are long lead times and great uncertainty. This does not lend itself to the reappearance of Adam Smith as the guider of the nation's energy policy.

    Gas and Electricity Prices
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will issue a general
    18
    direction to the gas and electricity industries not to raise prices by more than 10 per cent. during the remainder of the year.
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will issue a general direction to the gas and electricity industries to freeze their prices for the coming 12 months.
    Mr. Benn: Any proposals for gas and electricity price increases must be within the Price Code, and will be most carefully scrutinised by both the Price Commission and the Government.
    Mr. Gow: Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is the Government's policy that there should be no further subsidies to consumers of gas and electricity?
    Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman knows that we inherited from the previous Government the most chaotic structure and that the fuel industries had been driven into loss by Government policy. The hon. Gentleman also knows what the policy of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as announced in 1974, has been. As a result of the increase in prices—notably in electricity, which has more than doubled in two years—serious hardship has been caused. We are seeking to tackle the problem in as many ways as we can, but the basic economic decision announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in 1974 stands.
    Mr. Cryer: In view of the pressures to relax the Price Code, does not my right hon. Friend believe that it would be a good idea to recommend to the gas and electricity boards that they should freeze their prices for 12 months? Would it not be a good thing if they followed the lead of British Rail? Is it not true that increases in gas and electricity prices particularly affect families on low incomes? Would not a price freeze be greatly welcomed by them?
    Mr. Benn: The problem of rising prices is central to the problems facing the country as a whole. I do not dispute that price freezes all round would be welcomed, but questions about the Price Code would have to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General. We have tried, in so far as it falls within the remit of my Department, which is

    19
    quite narrow in this respect, to examine various aspects, including the suspension of disconnections for old people, the review that my hon. friend the Under-Secretary undertook, and creative participation in discussions on how to deal with the hardship suffered by those who are undoubtedly badly affected by increased prices. As every hon. Member knows, those people include, in particular, the weekly wage earner, who may suddenly be confronted with short-time working and unemployment. The normal electricity bill is of a scale and magnitude that is exceptionally difficult for him to cope with. That is why prepayment meters and the other proposals made by my hon. Friend merit very careful consideration. It is a difficult question. We are not helped by being reminded by Conservative Members of the mess we inherited from them.

    North Sea Oil (Equipment)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has drawn up to achieve the use in the future of a higher proportion of British equipment in North Sea oil exploration and production.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The Government are satisfied with the successful working of the procedure set out in the Memorandum of Understanding and Code of Practice negotiated with the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association last November, which provides for full and fair opportunity to be given to British industry to compete for the supply of goods and services to the United Kingdom offshore market.
    Mr. Dykes: If that means that the Minister believes that the industry is at fault in not being more adventurous and positive in producing equipment, and so on, will he gather together representatives of the industry for a conference before the next round and include this as a theme at the forthcoming National Energy Conference?
    Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman would do us a great favour if he looked at the Brown Book and saw that the offshore industry had responded very well. It is now subscribing about 50 per cent. of the supplies to the North Sea. But I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
    20
    It is right that the Government should be in constant touch with representatives of the industry. We have regular meetings with them and we want to do better.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is not the truth of the matter that in order to succeed the United Kingdom industry must not only supply the North Sea but export to markets as far apart as China and perhaps Brazil, which have similar problems? What have my hon. Friend's officials learnt since he unfortunately had to return urgently from the Houston conference without spending time there about how we should increase exports in this area?
    Dr. Mabon: They have learnt a great deal. We had today the pleasure of receiving the Indian Minister. The Indians made known to us at the offshore exhibition that they are interested in our offshore technology. We have this very day been in discussions with them about the possibility of contracts. We have listed a number of firms in Great Britain which may well serve them well.
    Mr. Viggers: Is not the failure to construct underwater pipe a scandal that should be laid at the door of the nationalised British Steel Corporation? Is not this a market which, even at this late hour, we can break into, perhaps in conjunction with the Norwegians?
    Dr. Mabon: This is a sore point for both Great Britain and the United States. In the Alaskan pipelaying exercise it is not American steel that is being used. We have been very anxious that the common gas collecting system prescribed by the Williams-Merz Report should use British steel. The British Steel Corporation has agreed to look at the exercise and to consider the possible development of its Hartlepool plant to that end.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    UNCTAD IV
    Mr. Molloyasked the Minister for Overseas Development if he will make a statement on the outcome of the UNCTAD Conference as it affects overseas aid.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister for Overseas Development if he will make

    21
    a statement on the outcome of UNCTAD IV so far as it affects the responsibilities of his Department.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Frank Judd): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has already made a statement to the House on the outcome of UNCTAD IV. On debt, within the aid context, we are pledged like other donor countries to respond quickly and constructively to individual requests made to us for help within the relevant consortia and consultative groups. On the other main policy issues concerning aid, the time and detailed discussion needed to reach agreement led the conference to pass on the respective proposals of the developing and developed countries to the next meeting of the UNCTAD Trade and Development Board for discussion in September.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that the statement to which he referred was not exactly rapturously accepted by the House, in so far as some of the trade elements in that statement had Community and common fund features? What are the development implications in policy and practical terms of helping the poorest nations?
    Mr. Judd: Our strategy is now concentrated on aid to the poorest countries and the poorest people within them. It was precisely because of our misgivings about how far a common fund might assist in the transfer of resources to the poorest that we had certain reservations in this respect.
    Mr. Tugendhat: Is the Minister aware that disappointment with the results of the UNCTAD conference are not confined to his side of the House but were strongly voiced from this side as well, and that we expect a debate on the matter at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend dealt with that after his statement last week. Having been present for the last nine days at the conference, I do not share that sense of disappointment. Those who feel that we should have proceeded to the establishment of a common fund should note that, notwithstanding the reservations honestly expressed by the British Government, we have now stated that we shall go into preparatory talks
    22
    with good will, and our ultimate position will be related to what comes out of those talks.
    Mr. Hooley: Does the Minister agree that the question of commodities and the stabilisation of commodity markets is of fundamental importance to the Third World as a whole and to the poorest countries? Will the Government from now on align themselves with the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries rather than trail miserably behind the reactionary attitudes of Western Germany and the United States?
    Mr. Judd: I am sure that my hon. Friend, who has an unrivalled concern for the interests of the Third World, will agree that, above all, we must ensure that the ultimate arrangements reached in stabilising the commodity trade are genuinely in the interests of the poorest countries. Up to now, that has been far from certain. We are determined to make progress in that direction.

    UNCTAD IV

      Crown Agents (Inquiry)
      Mr. Skinnerasked the Minister for Overseas Development whether he will seek to arrange for the Fay Committee, currently inquiring into the Crown Agents, to issue an interim report.
      The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Reg Prentice): No, Sir.
      Mr. Skinner: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent article in The Times suggesting that the report, when it finally emerges, may not be published in full anyway? Will he give a guarantee to the House that no politician whose company has been involved in borrowing from the Crown Agents, or any civil servant who has given wrongful, misleading or insufficient advice to politicians, will be shielded by the report? Will he give a guarantee that unlike the case of the Lonrho Report, this report, which is headed by an ex-Ombudsman, will be published in full?
      Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is becoming a bit of a bore on this subject. Every month he makes indications that suggest that I want to hush up some aspect of this matter. I do not care what kind of insinuations he makes about me, but I believe that it is a misuse of parliamentary privilege to keep making

      23
      insinuations against unnamed Members of Parliament and civil servants, who are in no position to reply to this kind of smear campaign.
      Mr. Dalyell: As one who may not on every occasion share the political opinions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), may I say that there are others besides my hon. Friend who are also concerned about this matter? Therefore, will not the Minister reconsider his answer?
      Mr. Prentice: The whole House is concerned about the matter, and I share that concern. That is why this very high-powered committee under Judge Fay is undertaking a long and painstaking job. The reason why I am not insisting on an interim report—and I do not think that the House should ask for one—is that I believe it is better to wait a little longer to obtain a thorough and detailed report rather than to attempt to rush matters in what, necessarily, is a complex investigation.

      Third World
      Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Minister for Overseas Development whether he will make a statement on his Department's long-term objectives in regard to the needs of the Third World.
      Mr. Prentice: Our long-term aim is to help promote the economic and social development of developing countries, particularly the poorest amongst them, with appropriate measures in the fields of aid, trade, commodities and industrial co-operation.
      My Ministry's principal rôle is the provision of official aid and the Government's objective is to seek to move towards the target of providing 0·7 per cent. of our gross national product in the form of official development assistance. I cannot, however, set a date by which we shall reach the target, since our progress towards it must be determined by the pace of our own economic recovery and by the other calls on our resources. Meanwhile, we shall continue to play our full part in the international aid effort by providing the maximum volume of aid we can reasonably afford with as high a quality as possible.
      Mr. Renton: Does the Minister accept that there is a crying need for more
      24
      inward investment to the Third World but that it is often held back by fears of confiscation and increased tax rates once the investment is made? Is the right hon. Gentleman co-operating with other developed countries to help to create institutions to undertake these investments on a multinational basis?
      Mr. Prentice: I agree that direct private investment has an important rôle to play in development. The conditions under which it operates within individual self-governing countries is a matter for them. The developed countries are in touch with each other about matters of common concern, and we often discuss in OECD and other international gatherings the kind of guidelines and help that we can give to promote private investment, which is complementary to official aid and in no sense a substitute for it.
      Dr. Bray: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Kissinger proposals in this respect are not necessarily the most advantageous to developing countries or to ourselves? Does he agree that this whole area is so complex that it would be a proper subject for parliamentary debate? Will he agree to arrange an early debate on this topic?
      Mr. Prentice: I should welcome debates on these matters as frequently as possible. As for the approach of Dr. Kissinger or anybody else to these matters, I cannot deal with that topic in a supplementary answer, except to repeat that in our official programme we are concerned to help the poorest countries and the poorest groups within them. Private investment tends to go not to those nations but to others further up the economic league table, which is understandable. That is all the more reason why official aid should be concentrated on the poorest groups.
      Sir Bernard Braine: In view of the fact that a good deal of development assistance does not help the poor in the developing countries, may lead to greater disparities of incomes, and in some cases may prop up oppressive and corrupt régimes, and also bearing in mind the advice given by the President of the World Bank and the Government's welcome shift of priorities to rural development, may we have an assurance that the Minister will take a much tougher

      25
      line in terms of the criteria to be applied from now on in meeting requests for overseas aid from developing countries?
      Mr. Prentice: In the criteria we use, we are trying to do more for the poorest countries and for the poorest groups within them. This, in general, means doing more for the rural sector than for the urban sector. As our projects committee studies various schemes, it tends to take a more favourable view of projects within the rural sector and of those which will benefit the poorest groups.
      Mr. Pavitt: In pursuing his long-term objectives, will the Minister in the short-term examine the relationship between his Department and the Department of Trade? In view of the way in which the UNCTAD conference was handled, is it not time that there was a much better relationship and correlation of ideas between my right hon. Friend and those on the other side of the fence?
      Mr. Prentice: I think that the two Departments co-operated well at UNCTAD. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already answered a Question on this matter. The criteria that we have been discussing today were in the minds of the whole delegation, whose representatives at the UNCTAD conference came from several Departments.
      Mr. Forman: Is the Minister aware that Conservative Members favour the speediest possible movement to the Pearson target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product in terms of official aid, and that we would find it easier to argue the case in the country if the Labour Government were more prepared to control their own indebtedness and, indeed, the general public debt in this country?
      Mr. Prentice: I am glad that the hon. Member mentioned support by Conservatives for the target. I am also aware that the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Tugendhat) has just published an official booklet on behalf of the Conservative Party emphasising the need for a higher volume of overseas aid. This matter needs to be pursued on both sides of the House.
      As for the general question of public indebtedness, the Chancellor of the
      26
      Exchequer, and, indeed, all members of the Government, have made clear that we intend to keep strictly to the limits of public expenditure recently announced.

      Mozambique
      Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Minister for Overseas Development if he will itemise in specific terms the methods by which he intends to ensure that none of the £15 million offered in financial assistance to Mozambique is used, either directly or indirectly, to assist terrorists operating against Rhodesia; and what monitoring procedures he has established to check the way in which this money is used.
      Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Minister of Overseas Development when and how the payment of money from British public funds to the Government of Mozambique has been authorised; and whether he will specify the head and sub-head of any Supply Vote which is relevant.
      Mr. Prentice: Our assistance to Mozambique will be in the form of an initial interest-free loan of £5 million which will be included in Supply Estimates for 1976–77, specifically under subhead C1 of the Overseas Aid Vote to which funds will be transferred from subhead E1.
      The aid agreement will provide that British goods and services to be financed from the loan will be mutually determined by the two Governments and procured through the Crown Agents. British officials will be permitted to inspect goods and documents, and the Government of Mozambique will be required to certify the end use of each order before disbursements of aid funds are authorised.
      Mr. Latham: Despite these procedures, is not the truth of the matter that we shall have no effective control at all, because we are dealing with a closed Marxist State whose leaders, until recently, were terrorists?
      Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. I spelt out deliberately in my original answer the procedures that will be used. Officials in the British Embassy will examine the goods on arrival. They will receive certificates as to their use and will be able to obtain such further information as they may reasonably require. I repeat

      27
      that there is no question of any of the goods provided under this agreement being used for military purposes.
      Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United Nations and the Commonwealth Secretariat have requested that aid be given to Mozambique, which is now undertaking United Nations sanctions against the illegal régime in Rhodesia?
      Mr. Prentice: Mozambique is a country which, because of its standard of living, would in any case qualify for development assistance from more prosperous countries. Sanctions are presenting a great additional burden. The Commonwealth and the United Nations have called upon the international community to help Mozambique. Offers of help have already come from the United States, Germany and Sweden, among others. I know that a number of other Governments are actively considering offers of assistance to Mozambique.
      Mr. Bell: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that neither this initial loan nor any subsequent grant will be paid to Mozambique in anticipation of the approval of the House of Commons of the passing of public money from this country to this revolutionary Marxist régime to finance or compensate it for its anti-British activities in Africa?
      Mr. Prentice: The procedures of the House of Commons in relation to these Estimates will be the normal ones. If the hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends really wanted to avoid an escalation of violence and bloodshed in that part of Africa they would do better to support the policy of successive British Governments—Conservative as well as Labour—in applying sanctions. The policies that we have been discussing have been approved by the Commonwealth and the United Nations.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I have received notice of four applications under Standing No. 9. To be fair to the debate on Northern Ireland security, which ends at 7 o'clock, I propose to take the first application now.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE
Mr. Eyre: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the effect of the Government's limitation on local authority expenditure programmes as set out in the speech of the Secretary of State for the Environment yesterday, the effect upon the problems in the immigrant reception areas and the consequent effect upon Government immigration policies".
In addition to a limited number of London boroughs, the main areas of immigrant settlement in this country are in the inner crowded areas of industrial towns and cities in the West and East Midlands, Yorkshire and Lancashire. The Home Secretary's speech of 24th May set out Government policy on immigration and made clear that about 60,000 immigrants will be admitted to Britain during the next 12 months and that about this number of immigrants will be admitted in each of the following two years. It is clear that nearly every one of those immigrants will settle permanently in these already established and crowded immigrant reception areas. In the same speech, the Home Secretary also declared that no more resources would be made available to local authorities bearing these responsibilities.
As one example of the problem of these areas affected by the Government's statement, it should be borne in mind that Birmingham is now receiving more than 1,200 new immigrant schoolchildren every year. This is evidence of only part of the extra immigrant demand upon the resources of the city for education, housing and social services. Good race relations in these immigrant reception areas—
Mr. Faulds: How will you stop it?
Mr. Eyre: —require confidence on the part of all the people living there that decent conditions will be established and maintained. This will need a lot of work and money. [Interruption.] Fears of growing unemployment, especially among the young, must be sensitively taken into account in these industrial areas. Recent

29
events, the Hawley Report and the latest round of Government cuts create an entirely new situation. [Interruption.] Confidence in the future and in the country's ability to succeed in overcoming these problems is being questioned. This is one of the causes of fresh tension. [Interruption.] This—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish that hon. Members would be quiet. I ask the hon. Member to explain his reasons for urgency.
Mr. Eyre: The anxieties I have mentioned are shared by responsible elements in all the families living in these crowded immigrant reception areas. A debate is urgently needed because, following the Secretary of State's speech yesterday, the Government should at once begin a process of urgent consultation with local authorities in the major immigrant reception areas to identify the range of stress in housing, education and basic essential services. The local people in each area, including, of course, all immigrant communities, should be consulted with regard to these problems and the resources required for successfully coping with them.
It is clear that today the Government face a stark choice. They must either properly determine and make available sufficient resources to match the growth in the immigrant reception areas—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not an opportunity for making a speech on the subject. The hon. Gentleman should make out his case for urgency.
Mr. Eyre: Finally, the Government must either provide resources or drastically review their immigration policies.
Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must ask you whether it is not a gross abuse of the procedures of the House to pursue a blinkered, blind prejudice to try to make the racial situation in this country even more difficult than hon. Members like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) have already done.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice that he wished to raise this matter. I shall now give my ruling.
The hon. Member seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the
30
purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The effect of the Government's limitation on local authority expenditure programmes in the immigrant reception areas and the consequent effect upon Government immigration policies."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am instructed to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Member has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

NEWSPAPER (REPORT)
Mr. Thorne: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the matters reported in the Observer yesterday, specifically the speech made by Mr. Kingsley Read, the leader of the National Front, and the growing problem of racialism today."
You will probably be aware, Mr. Speaker, that in the speech of Mr. Kingsley Read, reported in the Observer, he is alleged to have said:
"I have been told that I cannot refer to coloured immigrants so you will forgive me if I refer to niggers, wogs and coons."
He is also said to have referred to the recent murder of an Asian youth as
"One down, one million to go."
Recent events in Blackburn, close to my constituency, involving the flooring of a councillor in a fracas and the National Front demonstrations during last week's visit of an Asian peace emmisary, have created a fear among Asians in my constituency. Only a few days ago the windows at the Gujarat Hindu Centre in Preston were broken. All this points to an attempt on the part of racialist forces to challenge the rule of law.
Prosecution of those who deliberately seek to ferment racial disorder, as in my view do the words of Mr. Kingsley Read,

31
must be undertaken as a matter of urgency. The important question posed by these events is whether we wait until the position so deteriorates in various areas of potential explosion or whether we act now to prevent the explosion.
I do not wish to be alarmist or to exaggerate the situation, but the lessons of the 1930s in Germany should have taught us that we cannot afford merely to hope that the problem will disappear. With the possibility of a worsening unemployment situation and the lowering of living standards, scapegoats will be pursued by organisations such as the National Front. The sooner the Government address themselves to this position, the sooner we shall be able to tackle the problem in Britain. It is on that basis that I seek to move the Adjournment of the House so that the matter may be debated.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"racism and the National Front and the speech of Mr. Kingsley Read".
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Standing Order but to give no reason for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to all the representations that have been made, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

NORTH SEA OIL PRODUCTION PROGRAMME
Mr. Dalyell: I asked you this morning, Mr. Speaker, for permission to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 concerning the situation at Sullom Voe, Shetland, which could jeopardise the whole North Sea programme. As this matter was raised during Question Time today, and as the House will have heard
32
the Minister of State give an answer, I think that further discussion would be an abuse of the time of the House.

SECONDARY EDUCATION (TAMESIDE)
Dr. Boyson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to use Section 68 of the Education Act 1944 in Tameside."
I believe that the issuing of a directive by the Secretary of State for Education and Science directing the Conservative councillors at Tameside, who won the election on a policy, to reverse their policy despite their victory will mean, if the directive is fought in the courts, as is likely, that parents will not know to which schools their children are going, and there will be indecision in all the schools until September. I urge that this urgent and immediate matter should be debated in the House because of the condition of education in Tameside this September.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to use Section 68 of the Education Act 1944 in Tameside".
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Does the hon. Member have the leave of the House?
The pleasure of the House not having been signfied, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the motion to rise in their place and fewer than 40, and not less than 10 Members having accordingly risen, and a Division being claimed—
Question put, That leave be given to move, "That this House do now adjourn":—
The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 166.

Division No. 177.

AYES

3.45 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Howell, David (Guildford)

Neubert, Michael

Aitken, Jonathan

Hunt, John

Newton, Tony

Alison, Michael

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Onslow, Cranley

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Arnold, Tom

Jessel, Toby

Parkinson, Cecil

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Bell, Ronald

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Percival, Ian

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Berry, Hon Anthony

Kitson, Sir Timorthy

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Biffen, John

Knox, David

Raison, Timothy

Biggs-Davison, John

Lane, David

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Lawrence, Ivan

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Buck, Antony

Lawson, Nigel

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Budgen, Nick

Le Marchant, Spencer

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Burden, F. A.

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Corrie, John

Lloyd, Ian

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Costain, A. P.

Macfarlane, Neil

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

MacGregor, John

Silvester, Fred

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Sims, Roger

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Eyre, Reginald

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Speed, Keith

Fell, Anthony

Madel, David

Stainton, Keith

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Stanley, John

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Marten, Neil

Stradling, Thomas J.

Fookes, Miss Janet

Mates, Michael

Tapsell, Peter

Forman, Nigel

Maude, Angus

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Mawby, Ray

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Gardiner, George (Relgate)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Tebbit, Norman

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Goodhart, Philip

Mills, Peter

Townsend, Cyril D.

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Gray, Hamish

Moate, Roger

Viggers, Peter

Griffiths, Eldon

Montgomery, Fergus

Wall, Patrick

Grist, Ian

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Walters, Dennis

Hall, Sir John

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Weatherill, Bernard

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Hannam, John

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Winterton, Nicholas

Higgins, Terence L.

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Holland, Philip

Mudd, David

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hordern, Peter

Neave, Airey

Mr. W. Benyon and

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Nelson, Anthony

Mr. Carol Mather.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Coleman, Donald

Graham, Ted

Allaun, Frank

Concannon, J. D.

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Armstrong, Ernest

Corbett, Robin

Grant, John (Islington C)

Ashley, Jack

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Ashton, Joe

Cronin, John

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Cryer, Bob

Hardy, Peter

Atkinson, Norman

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Harper, Joseph

Bates, Alf

Dalyell, Tam

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Beith, A. J.

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Bidwell, Sydney

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Heffer, Eric S.

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Hooley, Frank

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Doig, Peter

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Dormand, J. D.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Hunter, Adam

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Eadie, Alex

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Edge, Geoff

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Buchan, Norman

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

John, Brynmor

Buchanan, Richard

English, Michael

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Campbell, Ian

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Kaufman, Gerald

Canavan, Dennis

Evans John (Newton)

Kelley, Richard

Carmichael, Neil

Faulds, Andrew

Kerr, Russell

Carter, Ray

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Lamond, James

Cartwright, John

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Clemitson, Ivor

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

George, Bruce

Lipton, Marcus

Cohen, Stanley

Golding, John

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

34

35

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Price, William (Rugby)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Radice, Giles

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Tinn, James

Madden, Max

Richardson, Miss Jo

Tomlinson, John

Mallalleu, J. P. W.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Tomney, Frank

Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Torney, Tom

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Tuck, Raphael

Mendelson, John

Roper, John

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Mikardo, Ian

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Millan, Bruce

Sedgemore, Brian

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Molloy, William

Selby, Harry

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Ward, Michael

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Watkins, David

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Watkinson, John

Newens, Stanley

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

White, James (Pollok)

Oakes, Gordon

Silverman, Julius

Whitehead, Phillip

Ogden, Eric

Skinner, Dennis

Whitlock, William

O'Halloran, Michael

Small, William

Willey. Rt Hon Frederick

Orbach, Maurice

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Snape, Peter

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Palmer, Arthur

Spearing, Nigel

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Park, George

Stallard, A. W.

Woodall, Alec

Parker, John

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Pavitt, Laurie

Stoddart, David

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Strang, Gavin

Mr. Frank R. White and

Pendry, Tom

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Mr. John Ellis.

Penhaligon, David

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Question accordingly negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [24TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.
  Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am aware that you have not been given notice of this, but the circumstances have only just arisen. Would it be in order to have a Standing Order No. 9 debate at this moment on the way in which the Opposition have been misleading the electorate and their own supporters?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is no mean expert on parliamentary affairs, and he knows that the Clerk of the House has read the Orders of the Day.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (SECURITY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]
  3.58 p.m.
  Mr. Airey Neave: This debate arises from the growing anxiety on the Conservative Benches and in other parts of the House about security policy in Northern Ireland. The Government should be under no illusion as to its depth and feeling. Despite the deaths of 1,546 people in the past seven years, no hope is yet offered of any new and decisive measures. Although the number of arrests of terrorists has been increasing, the Government appear to us to be marking time and drifting towards even greater violence if they cannot restore the authority of the law in Northern Ireland. We cannot afford the present world-weary and negative attitude in official circles. New thinking, it seems, is not being encouraged. Its absence is another reason for this debate, as it leads to a sense of despair among the people on the mainland as well.
  That is not to say that the House lacks sympathy for the Secretary of state in his very difficulty task, which it has shown in the past to his predecessors. We on this side of the House agree with him on a great many matters, but an Opposition have a duty to put forward constructive alternatives, and the Government in this
  38
  emergency should give them proper thought and consideration. The Opposition lack the technical information in an emergency such as this to put forward specific plans on security. I think it would be agreed that we ought, as Members of this House, to advance those in outline which we consider to be responsible.
  During the past few months we have increasingly criticised the lack of coordination of the security forces. It seems to us that no one is clearly in charge. The Secretary of State must make it quite clear that he is the civil power in Northern Ireland. The security forces in Northern Ireland are his ultimate responsibility. It would not be fair, when Ministers are questioned in the House about security operations, to say "It is not my problem but that of the Army or the police." The Secretary of State has the ultimate responsibility. He is the civil power.
  The Government's policy towards guerrilla warfare which we face seems to involve a half-hearted containing operation. We think that the Government should go over to the offensive and declare war against terrorism. In the past few months, their comments have shown little sense of urgency. The Government still support the extraordinary fiction of a provisional ceasefire and yet claim that this does not hamper or affect the rôle of the security forces. The two are just not compatible. Everyone knows that the Army regards itself as being on a low profile at present. We feel that the present security position is deteriorating as a result of a lack of firm political leadership. The Army, the UDR and the police, who have borne the burden of the past seven years, deserve no less, and we are not criticising them.
  A week ago, on 7th June, the Secretary of State was directly challenged in this House on the delay in reaching conclusions through the Ministerial Committee on Law and Order which he appointed six months ago in January. He replied that this body was concerned with the long term and that there was no magic solution or panacea. The House knows that already. That answer also gave rise to the present debate. Everyone knows that in the short term, from day to day and from hour to hour, the greatest anxiety of the people of

  39
  Northern Ireland is for life and limb. One person on average is killed every day. One hundred and fifty-five people have been killed this year alone, of whom 31 were members of the security forces.
  The right hon. Gentleman kindly asked political parties, including our own, to contribute our ideas on security to that committee. We have not sent a written memorandum, but we have made a number of suggestions to him over a period of several months and I set out several points in a letter to the Secretary of State dated 21st May. When I met the Secretary of State with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 19th May, I drew attention to the need for greater flexibility in reacting to terrorist raids on the border. I said that an anti-terrorist force—I have since called it a border force—should be formed under the GOC from Regular soldiers integrated with selected men from the UDR and the RUC to provide local information.
  I should like to expand a little on that idea. This would be a highly mobile force, specially trained, because it is necessary for the Army to be more adaptable in its ability to hit back at skilled marksmen. We are dealing, in the border zone especially, with hardened guerrillas, not the wretched hooligans who machinegun people at bus stops, and they will never be beaten unless the specialist nature of the operation is understood fully.
  There would be no purpose in creating such a force unless there was a border zone where all movement was much more strictly controlled. Identity cards and movement passes should be in force in that zone, and a narrow strip on either side of the border should be the subject of joint control by British and Irish security forces, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) has often suggested.
  I know that this is an intricate subject, and the difficulties of doing this jointly are constantly argued. But that is not the way to win a war. Every reasonable plan must be examined carefully. I have informally made known my views in various quarters, because a cross-border security zone offers at least some hope of stopping the influx and exit of gunmen.
  40
  The way of the advocate on these frustrating problems is indeed a stony one. Today's Daily Telegraph agrees that such a plan would be excellent if it could be established. It says:
  "The total defeat of the IRA might well be brought in sight".
  But in the same paragraph it says that the proposal was foredoomed. It says:
  "The data should not be changed".
  The data are changing all the time. This is one of the proposals that should be considered, because close border co-operation is one of the secrets to the solution of this problem.
  None the less, nothing should be done to discourage the Government from setting up an anti-terrorist border force on the Northern Ireland side and entering into further discussions with the Republic. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take some positive action on this. It is high time they did, and not only on the border.
  Months ago many of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) suggested that the contribution of the UDR could be increased by full-time units working closely with the Army. These part-time soldiers risk their lives daily and show great devotion. Could the Secretary of State tell us what he is doing—not in the future, but now—about that proposition? This was put to him last autumn, if not before, and it has been very much in our minds during conversations with him.
  The Secretary of State told us on a number of occasions on his plans for the primacy of the police. No doubt they have received a check from the wanton murders of policemen and women which have shocked the United Kingdom in recent weeks. The terrorists, unfortunately, still possess the operational strength to make many more such attacks if action is not taken. What, therefore, is the right hon. Gentleman doing, not in the long term but now, to see that, now they are in the front line, the police can protect themselves? Recently, we were told by a Minister of State during Questions that they had the arms that they needed if they asked for them. This is not exactly inspiring.

  41
  We hoped, at the suggestion of the Secretary of State, to talk to the Chief Constable about this. We were not suggesting a paramilitary force. We were suggesting that while the violence lasted the RUC should be armed with modern rifles and should receive anti-terrorist training like the Metropolitan Police.
  The RUC has a splendid record which is often mentioned in this House. We hope that leaders of the Catholic community will urge people of their faith to join up and to support the police. As I have said more than once, unofficial action outside the police force would serve only to create further danger and would handicap the security forces in their main anti-terrorist operations.
  All the security forces are in need of stronger legal powers to catch the godfathers of terrorism, some of whom walk about the streets scot-free. When the Government are questioned about this, as they have often been recently, they say that they do not wish to tinker with the criminal law as it applies to the whole United Kingdom. After seven years of destruction and terror, however, the special conditions in Northern Ireland have to be recognised by stiffer penalties for the deliberate organisation of murder.
  As a party, we have proposed a new offence of terrorism, following the Gardiner Report. This would apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) suggested in the debate on 25th March. What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking on this, and when is he taking it?
  There will not be even a temporary peace in Northern Ireland until the Government declare war on these sordid and cowardly murderers. How can they do this while they are conducting clandestine meetings with their leaders? How can they possibly achieve the confidence among the population of Northern Ireland which is urgently required?
  Last Monday, the Secretary of State said in reply to me:
  "I am engaged, quite correctly, in testing the views in the community of Northern Ireland. In the penumbra of Northern Ireland, where large numbers of people are Republicans, it is valuable for me to do so, but I am not in business to negotiate with murderers on either side."—[Official Report, 7th June 1976; Vol. 912, c. 929.]
  42
  We can accept what the right hon. Gentleman said in the last part of that answer, but what exactly is he trying to convey to the House? Will he explain whether the talks have saved innocent lives?
  The men we are discussing treat murder as a way of life. They are not going to give up violence while British officials are prepared to chat to them over drinks. There may be no negotiations, but inevitably there are rumours of a deal. Talking to representatives of the gunmen undermines the position of hon. Members from Northern Ireland in this House and of other elected representatives.
  We are well aware of the pressure put on the right hon. Gentleman to stop these talks by Ministers in Dublin. We believe that such talks create a sense of despair and defeatism. They weaken the authority of the Government and encourage more terrorism. If the right hon. Gentleman continues them, with warnings from all sides, he must bear a terrible responsibility for the future.
  We want clear answers from the Secretary of State to our suggestions this afternoon. Nothing which might help to restore confidence should be lightly dismissed by curt official answers. We agree with many things that the Government do in relation to Northern Ireland, but we must speak our minds and say quite bluntly that in the present security situation nothing which might restore confidence should be passed over. Too much is at stake. By the end of the year there will be more experienced terrorists out of prison and on the streets. We shall watch with some apprehension what the Government decide to do, because if they do not act the Army will have to remain for many more years and there will be no constitutional progress in Northern Ireland.
  4.15 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): What I should like to do this afternoon, in response to this debate, is to share my thinking with the House on the current security situation and what can be done about it. The theme of Government planning is the rule of law. I would like to describe what working towards the rule of law means for the security forces. I should also like to say something about the work of the Ministerial Committee on Law and

  43
  Order, which I have mentioned before to the House, and to talk about co-operation with the Republic.
  I shall be talking about this very shortly when we debate the renewal Order for the emergency provisions. At the same time it is likely that we shall be debating the renewal of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. As this gives me two opportunities to talk about security, I shall be able to concentrate on political matters in the later debate. We must not forget, of course, that the security and political considerations cannot be divorced—their relationship is not as simple as is sometimes thought. It is not my view that those who are involved in violence would stop it if there were a political solution.
  As I explained in the White Paper of July 1974 and again in my letter to the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention of 14th January this year, which was published as a White Paper, our aim is to see a devolved Government in Northern Ireland acceptable to both communities there. As I said in my letter to the chairman in January this year,
  "Experience in recent years has made it plain that no system of government within Northern Ireland will be stable or effective unless both parts of the community acquiesce in that system, and are willing to work to support it."
  It is in these terms that we have to view the security situation.
  There is no doubt that we do not get full support for the security arrangements from a sizeable portion of those who are living in Northern Ireland. This is not something which can be achieved overnight, as we must remember that we are not operating in England, Scotland or Wales, or even in Great Britain as a whole.
  The problem in Ulster is not the classical colonial problem that has faced this country in recent years. The security problem there is both urban and rural. It is a situation in which small groups of criminals wax and wane with the degree of support and assistance they get from the communities from which they come. When a community feels threatened, frightened and at risk, it will succour its violent men, giving them a standing they would not otherwise have. But we cannot ignore all the strength of
  44
  folklore and history combined in Ireland which is ever present and which we on this side of the water find difficult to comprehend.
  What we are dealing with in fact is not a single problem at all but a skein of interconnected problems, compounded out of fear: the basic division of the community, malicious misinterpretation, remembrance of past injustices, intimidation, the criminal legacy of seven years of violence, the poisoning of community relations, vandalism, and the alienation of youth. It is especially the problem of youth and youth involvement which will concern us in Northern Ireland for many years to come.
  Furthermore, we are dealing with a changing situation. The overall pattern has changed. There is less of a planned campaign, less civil rights violence with mass confrontation on the streets. Much of the violence is still orchestrated and directed, but we see more examples of unco-ordinated operations and individual criminal activity. This is something that the security forces have to take into account.
  Some of the violence is the same kind as we have seen for the last seven years—the killing of those who make mixed marriages, the murder of those who live on sectarian interfaces and who are the accessible victims of retaliatory murder, the blowing up of pubs whose customers are usually members of one community or the other and, of course, para-military killing of para-military.
  The House will recall that 1976 began with a wave of sectarian violence in County Armagh. Five Catholics were killed, and this was followed by the murder of 10 industrial workers, taken out of their bus and shot down when returning from work. It was a result of action by the Government and mainly the security forces that the sectarian violence in the area was significantly reduced. But, as hon. Members have rightly emphasised, violence has since continued at a high level in other areas and under other guises.
  The Provisional IRA has engaged in a campaign of cold-blooded murder against members of the security forces, particularly against the RUC and the UDR. So far this year, 15 members of the RUC, five members of the Army and

  45
  seven members of the UDR have been killed. Why is this? They are shooting members of the security forces and particularly policemen because of the growing success of the RUC in securing convictions before the courts. We have also had, in recent months, attacks on members of the Northern Ireland Prison Service.
  One-hundred and twenty-nine civilians have died in terrorist violence this year. This includes not only members of paramilitary organisations but ordinary civilian members of the population. Those who provide the community with essential services, especially those whose work recognises no sectarian boundaries, are among the most frequent targets for cowardly attack. Those who wish to get on with their work in peace or to provide, in the face of mounting economic difficulties, employment to others see their premises bombed or gutted by fire.
  The pattern of retaliatory killings was repeated over the weekend of 5th–6th June when sectarian attacks took place resulting in 11 people being killed and a substantial number injured in a series of shootings and bombings without warning on civilian targets, mainly in Belfast. Intensive activity by the security forces in all affected areas was taken to limit the outbreaks of violence and led to a number of arrests. Without this decisive action, the casualties could have been much higher. It is perhaps no coincidence that last weekend there were more mortar and other attacks on the Army in Belfast, fortunately ineffective.
  Those are the facts of the violence. Now I turn to the response by the security forces. Against this background, I shall give the House the simple facts of the security forces' achievement. The figures would have to be multiplied by 30 to give a comparable figure for this side of the water.
  This year, up to the end of May, 497 people have been charged with serious terrorist-type offences, including 47 for murder, 38 for attempted murder, 142 for firearms offences and 93 for explosives offences. And up to the end of May 402 people were convicted of serious offences, 31 of them for murder. Some 1,300 persons convicted and serving prison sentences in Northern Ireland are serving more than four years; this represents
  46
  two-thirds of the prison population. One hundred and sixty-one persons are serving life sentences. So far this year, 26,265 lb. of explosives has been recovered or neutralised, compared with 22,724 lb. for the whole of 1975.
  This is the nature of the violence in Northern Ireland. It is a variety of types, it has a variety of causes. There is no simple solution to this type of violence. There is no ingenious mechanism or sudden new initiative that will make the problem disappear overnight. If there had been a simple solution, successive Governments and their security advisers would have found it.
  As there is no simple answer, we must be prepared for a long haul. During this period there is one fundamental key to advance, and that is through the rule of law. In the long run, the rule of law means enforcing the recognised law of the land in the recognised courts. To work towards the rule of law is the only way to proceed which offers the prospect of a long-term solution to the security situation.
  We have already taken steps in this direction. No interim custody orders have been made since February 1975. When internment was introduced in 1971, with 1,400 people detained, apparently it was said glibly that it would all be over in three weeks. However, the violence escalated to far greater proportions. That was the effect of a proposal by the Parliament of Northern Ireland which was not within the rule of law as it is understood in these islands. That swift initiative, which made everyone feel so grand, did not succeed. I have found other examples in Northern Ireland where something is done which is pleasing and sounds good in the House of Commons but ignores what Ireland is all about. There is no swift answer or swift initiative.
  I am glad to say that the last detainee was released in December 1975 and that special category status has been abolished for all crimes committed after 1st March 1976. As much as I supported that idea from the Opposition Benches at the time, I now believe that the introduction of special category status to give political status to men and women of this kind was a great mistake.
  I mentioned earlier the myths that lend support to para-military activities in

  47
  Northern Ireland. But all those to whom I speak in the minority community tell me that the biggest step in reducing this support in the past year has been the ending of detention. At the same time, the ending of special category status has been recognised as a significant contribution in restoring the rule of law.
  Let me deal now with the rôle of the Army in the context of the rule of law. The Army is not on a low profile. It is working hard for the greater part of every day, sometimes 18 hours per day per soldier. When there is increasing activity for two or three days, there is often what amounts to over-stretch. The Army is not showing a low profile.
  The Army continues to do a vital job in Ulster under the leadership of the General Officer Commanding Sir David House. It will remain in Northern Ireland as long as it is required. Province-wide, it still has a vital rôle in providing an essential framework of security within which the police can operate, and it must be on hand to cope with situations which are beyond the capacity of the police to control. Its presence is also necessary in those areas where the police cannot operate alone. It is not the case that the police have not operated in these areas only for the past seven years. There are many areas where the police have not operated for the whole of the 50 years of existence of the Province. This is not a new situation. Given the existing level and pattern of violence, the continued presence of Regular forces in substantial numbers in support of the police is clearly essential at the present time and in the foreseeable future in Northern Ireland.
  The Army is at present employed in the Province in the same strength as throughout 1975. It has been alleged both by individuals and in the Press that 1,375 have left the Province this year. That is wrong and is simply not true. There has been no reduction in the number of soldiers in the Province. The Spearhead Reserve, as the House was informed at the time, returned in May to its normal rôle of emergency reserve after four months in Northern Ireland. Soldiers constituting that reserve can be recalled if required. Meanwhile, the level of forces in and around the South Armagh area has remained unchanged from the level of January this year. The SAS
  48
  remains deployed there. A high level of activity will continue to be maintained in all areas where the threat of violence and intimidation is acute.
  This means that the GOC, who is overall Director of Operations, is responsible for the detailed deployment of all his forces, including the UDR, and for the overall co-ordination of security force operations. Of course I have overall responsibility, but this is a point upon which I feel extremely strongly. It is not the job of politicians to interfere in the deployment of forces in the Province. My security advisers have the necessary knowledge for this task and they must be allowed to do what is required.
  There will be normal troop changes as units go to and from the Province as part of the ordinary roulement arrangements. Some people misrepresent these changes. Every time a platoon of soldiers moves from one area to another, or gets on an aeroplane to return to Germany, we hear allegations of "pull-out of troops" or "sinister military moves". This would be laughable anywhere but in Northern Ireland, where the rumours are believed in inverse proportion to their foundation in fact.
  Mr. Neave: Two points arise out of what the Secretary of State has said. First, at what point was the Army's profile raised? Until recently the Army was certainly under the impression that it was on a low profile. Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever else is the position, he is responsible for getting results from the security forces?
  Mr. Rees: I am prepared to accept the responsibility for what happens, whether that is good or bad. I say, however, that the deployment of the soldiers and their use must be a matter for the GOC and his officers. There have been complaints in the past of interference by politicians. They have never arisen from my actions, because I do not approve of that.
  The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) asks about the Army's low profile. Last year there was a ceasefire. I did not describe it as a ceasefire. Those were the words used by the Provisional IRA. The hon. Member will see from the number of people arrested at that time that there was no low profile. However,

  49
  I stopped the twice-weekly search of every house in Derry and in certain other areas, but, if the security forces want to go to a house to question someone because they have evidence or because they are reaching a point of taking a matter to the courts, they do not have to ask my permission. I did not order a low profile.
  Many people in Northern Ireland regard a high profile as putting the Army right round the green areas, going in and "fixing them" and seeing that the whole thing is cleared up by the weekend. The hon. Member for Abingdon does not say that, but that is the sort of action that some people believe will take us back to the times before 1968–69 when there was no violence to speak of. I do not interfere with the profile of the security forces. They respond to the level of violence which obtains in the Province.
  It is sometimes argued that greater effectiveness could be achieved if all the security forces operated under the direct command of a supremo security director. Full co-ordination of operations is, as I have said, already assured by the responsibility of the GOC as Director of Operations. The level of co-operation between the Army and police is of a very high order. The fact is that the rôles of the police and the Army are complementary, but they are different. In my view, that was the mistake which was made in the early days of the campaign. One cannot turn a police force into an army and one cannot turn an army into a police force. Their functions are complementary but they are different.
  When we got towards the end of detention, I began asking myself why the Army was sent there in the first instance. Why did the people think that the Army went there in 1969? It was to separate the communities.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: That is what they thought.
  Mr. Rees: Exactly, The hon. Member for Antrim, South uses a phrase that extends the argument I am putting. That was not the situation two, three or four years later. It is not the situation seven years later. Nobody clearly thought out in the first instance why the Army went there. I believe that an investigation
  50
  could and should take months, because I did not want a quick, simple answer. I wonder who, in 1972, had the nice quick answer of putting men in a barracks and having aircraft engine noise in order to get information from them. I wonder what depth of thought was given to that. I warrant it was a swift thing done overnight to get an initiative, but I believe that initiatives of that kind do not face up to the facts of the problem in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: My right hon. Friend will recollect that when he and I were sitting on this side of the House in 1969 some of us had the gravest doubts, and there was nobody who imagined, that the Army would be there for seven years. Few of us thought that it would be there for more than six months.
  Mr. Rees: Whatever people thought, I say to my hon. Friend that it illustrates why I thought that a long, hard look at this and at the long-term trends of violence was necessary.
  Now I turn to the police and the crucial problem of securing the greater effectiveness of the police in enforcing the law of the land. This is what the rule of law ultimately depends upon. This is the long-term problem that has been the main concern of the ministerial committee that was set up at the beginning of the year. This committee has been working for four to five months. I make no apologies for that. Indeed, the committee would not be much use if it had produced a quick report in a couple of months. Irish history is full of examples of quick responses and superficial proposals that have set off policy in disastrously wrong directions. My ministerial colleagues and I have been determined to avoid this kind of mistake and to take a long, hard look at what is involved in achieving the rule of law in the long term.
  However, the work of the committee and the studies that have been carried out by our advisers have already begun to inform practical thinking and change action on the ground. The Chief Constable of the RUC has already set in hand a significant reorganisation both in RUC headquarters and in the field. The immediate purpose of this reorganisation is to enable all the available

  51
  resources of the force to be focused towards the paramount objective of the detection of criminals, particularly terrorists, and the obtaining of evidence which can be used in the courts to bring those responsible to justice.
  Three aspects of this policy are now being implemented. The first feature of the new organisation is the creation of three regional crime squads which are already being formed. They will be closely co-ordinated with the Army. These regional crime squads are based on relative Great Britain experience. They will use the latest and best-equipped vehicles and communications equipment. They will add technical strength and muscle to the human resources—the men and women—of the RUC. They will cover the whole Province, corresponding to the North, South and Belfast areas, equating broadly with the existing Army brigade organisation.
  Secondly, special emphasis will be laid on units, both centrally at headquarters and in support of each of the three regional crime squads, to collate resources and intelligence to gain convictions. With regard to that second aspect, with my knowledge of the evidence given me when I personally signed away 400 people, I regard that as one of the most important developments that the Chief Constable is taking.
  Thirdly, there is the extension and more purposive use of specialised units dealing with forensic and similar technical work. I recollect, in the course of violence coming from one particular side of the community, that I was informed that a single weapon could shoot 20 people and that forensic evidence is what was required to tease out the sort of information on which a conviction could be founded. Forensic changes and similar technical work is part of this third point that the Chief Constable is doing at this very moment. The reorganisation of policing, led by the Chief Constable, is being vigorously pursued, and its end product will be evidence that can be used in the courts. This means getting information of a high quality that will stand up in court.
  With regard to changes in the law, I wish to make only one observation today. That is, that there is no point in making
  52
  changes in the law unless the police can obtain evidence to substantiate charges under the law. Changes in the law may look good, but if they are unenforceable they are not worth a row of beans. I must make it clear once more that no kind of para-military rôle is envisaged for the police in this reorganisation. There can be no question of putting the clock back. We look to the future.
  In the years following 1969, the RUC received a good deal of criticism. The RUC today is a different force. Approximately two-thirds of its members have joined in the past five years. I want to pay tribute today to the courage and professional competence of the men and women of the RUC. They are not a paramilitary force—they are a civilian police force in the finest tradition. Neither the Police Federation nor any other organisation wants the RUC to become a paramilitary force. I want to make the police more efficient. That means giving them more support on the ground, like the police forces in the rest of the country, particularly the Metropolitan Police. That is the line in which they are moving.
  RUC morale is today, in spite of the risks of the work, as high as it has ever been. The force is increasingly being recognised for what it is and must be—a truly impartial force. Yet we all know that its acceptance is not yet complete. There are areas in Northern Ireland today where a full police service cannot be provided. Nevertheless, it is only by the increasing acceptance and effectiveness of the RUC that the rule of law can become a reality.
  I very much agreed with the right hon. Member for Down. South (Mr. Powell) when he pointed out in this House on 7th June that any action, however well-intentioned and however understandable, by private persons or groups of persons, could contribute nothing to security and could only endanger it. As he said, it is only the security forces of the Crown which in the long run can prove to all concerned that there will be no practical result from vigilante groups or other misplaced private security initiatives.
  I should also like to commend the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who said in a recent radio programme—during last weekend, at the height of those very difficult two days—that the numbers of

  53
  troops were less important than the question of people's attitudes. It is by recognising these true facts of the situation and in supporting the security forces that hope for the future resides. I take this opportunity to pay personal tribute to the contribution made towards achieving these aims by the retiring Chief Constable, Sir Jamie Flanagan. Sir Jamie was justly proud of the progress made by the RUC in recent years. He laid the foundations on which I am confident that his successor, Mr. Newman, will continue to develop the impartial and professional force that the Province already has and deserves to have.
  Mr. Neave: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the RUC—we agree with all he said about its not being a para-military force or acting as soldiers—will he answer my question about giving armed protection to the RUC when it is in the front line?
  Mr. Rees: With regard to arms, the Chief Constable is putting to the Police Authority—the Government supplies the money—the need for better weapons in the border areas and weapons of a different style to facilitate quick removal from a vehicle. These are being provided and we are also considering—again, it is in preparation for ordering— a weapon which can meet conditions in the border area better than the weapons used at present. This is a border situation where I am advised that these are required.
  I have already mentioned the ministerial committee and the way in which its work is already informing action on the ground. The committee has almost completed its work, and I hope to say more about its conclusions shortly in the debate to which I referred earlier. I shall say more about the ministerial committee's conclusions in future. I had in mind at one stage the publication of a White Paper about the committee's work, but I have decided against that since I am anxious not to reveal operational and other details which could be advantageous to those who wish to destroy peace. The more I look at the early reports of the committee, the more it seems to me that there is in them what would be only to the advantage of paramilitary forces and is best not published.
  54
  However, what I can say now is that the committee has been concerned to analyse the nature of the foreseeable threat to law and order, to specify the measures and forces that will be required now, in the medium term and in the long term, in order to deal with the threat and to achieve the rule of law, and to show how successful action will depend upon interdependence and co-operation between the police, the Army and locally recruited forces. The report is long-term.
  What I have said so far about the Army and the police therefore represents the initial stages in the application of the ministerial committee's ideas, which of their nature must be long-term. As far as locally recruited forces are concerned, I can say that we have decided, on the strong advice of my advisers, against the introduction of a Regular battalion of the Ulster Defence Regiment, but certain aspects of that issue are best left to the report of the committee in a few weeks' time.
  The UDR, like the police, is not yet fully accepted everywhere in Northern Ireland. For example, it is not accepted by many people in the Social Democratic and Labour Party. That is a fact of life. It is not what I want it to be, and not necessarily what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West wants it to be, but it is the situation. But I should like to pay tribute to the bravery and self-sacrifice of its members and to make clear that it has a vital and developing rôle now and in the future.
  The UDR will remain a regiment of the British Army. It was set up in 1969 to support the Regular forces in Northern Ireland in protecting the border and the State against armed attack and sabotage, and it plays a valuable part in that latter rôle. It is its continuing rôle. It offers scope for men and women who have a good knowledge of their local areas to make a positive contribution, based on that knowledge, to the achievement of the rule of law. It will continue to provide an essential service to the people of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman used the expression "acceptability" about the RUC and the UDR. Is he saying that the local community is not prepared to accept

  55
  the fact of these two bodies, or that history is against the acceptance of them?
  Mr. Rees: Certainly, the mythology, folklore and sometimes the facts of history are against it. That is a major part of the situation. I am informed by those who are operating in the streets that they are getting far more help from people in the green areas, but we have not yet achieved acceptability in that people will openly come to them in the sense of the term "acceptability".
  The interdependence and co-operation of the security forces on which I have laid stress is the key to the future. It is misleading—I mention this because it would not happen here, but it happens in Northern Ireland—to abstract and misdescribe particular elements of the developing programme, to coin such slogans as "Army withdrawal", "employment of soldiers by police" or "Ulsterisation of security". The value of the Government's approach lies in the combination and interdependence of the various elements of the security forces.
  However, interdependence does not mean integration. It would be wrong—I must keep saying this because the point is not understood in Northern Ireland—to establish the police as a paramilitary force, for the police to conduct military style operations or for the police and the Army to merge in whole or in part.
  I turn now to the proposal which has been made for a joint Regular Army-UDR-RUC force with special training and responsibility for combined anti-terrorist operations in border areas. On the advice of my security advisers, I do not share this view. Full co-operation and coordination of operations is fully assured by the existing arrangements. I under stand that the Government of the Republic have made a response to what the hon. Member for Abingdon has said—I have a copy of it here if he would like to see it—from which it seems that, from what they have heard of the suggestion so far, they do not think much of it either.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: Is it not the case that when my right hon. Friend visited the Republic and had discussions with the Dublin Government
  56
  they fully supported the stand which has been taken by the British Government? Is it not also true that over the past 48 hours the Irish Government have denied the interpretation which has been put on a meeting they had recently with the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), stating that his version was completely in conflict with what he was told by the Irish Government?
  Mr. Rees: I think that that must be a matter for the hon. Member for Abingdon. All I have seen in this respect is a Press report.
  I have spoken so far of the measures we are taking and propose to take in Northern Ireland, but they cannot be viewed in isolation from those of the Government of the Republic of Ireland. We continue to attach the highest importance to achieving active co-operation across the border in a wide variety of security matters with the authorities in the Republic. There has been a steady advance since the discussion I had with Ministers of the Republic at Baldonnel in 1974. I may add that I regard that meeting as one which stimulated a great deal of what has happened since. My latest talks were on 28th and 29th May, when I visited Dublin and reviewed, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice of the Republic, a number of areas in which this co-operation has been developing. Co-operation between the RUC and the Garda is developing steadily.
  This co-operation is important in two ways: first, to ensure that the efforts of our respective security forces complement and reinforce each other, and, secondly, to ensure that incidents involving the legitimate activities of the security forces on either side of the border against terrorism do not cause friction between us. My exchanges with the Ministers in Dublin were, of course, confidential, but I can say that the programme of co-operation covers all the vital practical issues, such as communications, control of explosives, exchange of information and joint planning.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he had any discussions in Dublin about the return of the two prisoners who escaped across the border from the maze Prison? Are they to be returned soon?
  Mr. Rees: I did not get myself involved in any matters which were sub judice under the law in the Republic. We discussed the practical issues which have been ongoing and which go on from day to day between ministerial meetings.
  Mr. John Farr: There is one point about co-operation with the Irish Government that I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. I was in Dublin only yesterday. One of the biggest stumbling blocks to greater co-operation between the British and Irish Governments is the continuance, whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, of talks between his officials and representatives of illegal organisations in the North. They are wholly condemned in the Republic.
  Mr. Rees: I think that we must get this point clear. My officials do not talk with members of illegal organisations in the North. They never have done. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the point at issue. They do not negotiate or talk in the sense of Panmunjom and the rest. They do not take place nearly as often as people tend to believe. [Interruption.] There may be occasions when it may be necessary, and that is the position I take.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is inadvertently leaving the House in some confusion. He said that meetings between his officials and members of illegal organisations did not take place and then that they did not take place nearly as often as some people believed.
  Mr. Rees: I meant the ones which do take place and have taken place with members of organisations which are not illegal, but they have not taken place as often as thought.
  Mr. Powell: The difficulty—it is one which we all share—is that the distinction between legality and illegality which distinguishes the Provisional IRA from the Provisional Sinn Fein is to a large extent unreal. Everyone knows that a communication with the Provisional Sinn Fein is the equivalent of a communication with the Provisional IRA. I agree that legality is a matter of importance in certain contexts, but it is part of the anxiety which is felt that the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand
  58
  the tension that is created by these contacts with the Provisional Sinn Fein.
  Mr. Rees: I think that I do understand. But in terms of Ireland—the point was that there was concern about some talks which may be taking place—these bodies, which I am saying are legal, are legal in the South as well and stand for election. In terms of Ireland as a whole, while I fully accept what was being said about an overlap, there are organisations which are legal. Indeed, on the Protestant side, the UDA is a legal organisation in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. McCusker: It is not right.
  Mr. Rees: It may not be right, but large numbers of politicians in the North associate with it from day to day. At the time of the Ulster workers' strike, they did that whilst still Members of this House. All I am seeking to prove is that the point about legality or otherwise is not as simple as is sometimes understood this side of the water.
  Sir David Renton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is possible for a man to belong both to the Provisional IRA and to Sinn Fein and, in addition, that it is well known that the two bodies have broadly the same objectives and are in communication with each other?
  Mr. Rees: The link between what is called the Irish Republican Army and the political wing, Sinn Fein, must be true. The right hon. and learned Gentleman tells me that it is well known for people to belong to both organisations. If they are in the North and if this is so well known that he can prove it and will let me have the information, I will pass it on to the police, because it is an illegal act for which they can be brought before the courts. It may be thought that it is well known, but it cannot be well known, otherwise the police would have acted. A number of people tell me that certain men are associating with or belong to illegal organisations, but nobody gives me the evidence on which the police can work. I simply tell the House that it may prove to be necessary, whatever happened in the past, and if it is necessary to do that with organisations which are not illegal, it would be my duty to do so.

  59
  Finally, I should like to refer to the arrangements which came into force on 1st June 1976 under the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975 and provide for co-operation between the two Governments to ensure that terrorists cannot escape the consequences of the law by removing themselves into the neighbouring jurisdiction. Terrorists can now be tried in the courts of the one jurisdiction for certain crimes in the other. The RUC, the Garda and the legal authorities concerned are in regular contact to ensure that all the practical arrangements are ready to enable these procedures to work effectively. In all these areas it remains the Government's intention to work for the most effective understanding and practical co-operation between ourselves and the Republic. We share the same aims. If the terrorists were ever to achieve their aims in the North, the outlook for the South would be bleak.
  The achievement of peace in the North through the rule of law will take time. Violence will not disappear overnight. The terrorist faces a bleak future. He cannot win. The Government will never surrender their obligations and responsibilities.
  4.54 p.m.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: The Secretary of State, quite near the beginning of his speech, said something that has often been said from the Dispatch Box, regardless of who happens to be speaking, to the effect that no solution can be lasting and stable in Northern Ireland unless there is agreement. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that that search for wider agreement has often deflected and distracted us from what should be the task of winning the war against the terrorists.
  There are various political reasons for the existence of the United Ulster Unionists as a separate party in Parliament, but there are also reasons that fall within the scope of this debate on Northern Ireland security. Whatever the Government and whatever the personalities, we on the United Ulster Unionist Bench feel that on occasions we have seen and heard it all before. There is no doubt in my mind that this mood—almost of resignation—stems from what is generally known as
  60
  the bipartisan policy. Whatever that may mean in Parliament, if it means anything, it is certainly something that the average citizen in Northern Ireland totally fails to understand.
  In 1968 and 1969 the Labour Government certainly misread the situation. They failed to understand and identify the forces then at work. It is no good saying that the Provisional IRA came into existence at a later stage in reaction to certain other things. Whatever the position may have been at that time, the manipulators who are manipulating the situation to this day were in existence in 1968.
  As a result of the Government's failure to understand, they took the incomprehensible step of breaking up and destroying the internal security forces of Northern Ireland. That was about as sensible as abolishing a fire brigade in the belief that its existence encouraged acts of arson.
  To be fair, the Labour Government did not walk alone. The bipartisan policy ensured that measures, over which they might then have hesitated, were embarked upon with gay abandon. As the Secretary of State remarked, he has wondered since whether the people who took the decisions at that time really understood that they were committing the Army to a task from which it might be difficult, if not impossible, to extricate it.
  I recall that my predecessor, in a speech in this House, asked the question: did Her Majesty's Government at that time understand the task, and how long a task it would be, to which they were committing the Army? We on this Bench derive some satisfaction from the fact that the pendulum has now swung the other way, but this House should never be permitted to forget that the concession in those early years to the No. 1 objective in the little red book of the international terrorist—to destroy the internal security forces of the State—encouraged the terrorists and made the task of the security forces so much more difficult.
  The No. 2 terrorist objective of undermining and destroying the Government was carried out by a different firm of demolition experts—the Conservative Government of 1970/74—for the destruction of Stormont was perhaps the greatest

  61
  triumph that the terrorists could have hoped to achieve.
  When the then Prime Minister was asked what was the object of the exercise, he said "We have done this to end the violence and to bring the two communities together." "End the violence indeed. One might ask how many innocent lives have been sacrificed in that process. It was that act of lunacy which not surprisingly, convinced the IRA that it had been given so much that it would soon be given all.
  Again, I must be fair. My clear impression is that the Labour Opposition would not have engaged in such a foolish act as to destroy the established Parliament in Stormont with no clear idea of what was to be put in its place. The Labour Opposition did not join the few of us—my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was one of the few, other than the Ulster Members—who tramped through the Lobby on various occasions to point out some of the consequences of that act. The blessed bipartisan policy again came to the rescue of the Government of the day.
  At a later stage, as if the lesson had not already been learned, the then Secretary of State met the IRA in face-to-face talks. We made our opposition known at that time, so that at any rate we on this Bench are entitled to tell the present Secretary of State that even the talks that have taken place between his officials and that other nebulous body—the Provisional Sinn Fein, the Provisional IRA or a combination of both—are highly dangerous and should stop. They cannot in any circumstances be justified. We feel—the Secretary of State may agree with us—that whatever limited intelligence advantages may be gained are far outweighed by the enormous political disadvantages.
  Towards the end of that same Parliament both parties connived at the imposition upon Northern Ireland of a form of government that would never have been tolerated in any other part of the Kingdom. The crowning folly was Sunningdale, which the SDLP—represented here by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—was frank enough to admit established the machinery for transferring Northern Ireland to the Irish
  62
  Republic. We were grateful to him and his party for that warning.
  The then Secretary of State, who is not present today, said about the Sunningdale Agreement that if people took the trouble to read it they would not become confused and would not misunderstand it. The people in Northern Ireland can read. It was precisely because they read it that they saw what was involved. They saw what was intended and what was planned to be their fate, for they rejected Sunningdale.
  It is no good saying, as the Secretary of State seemed to imply today, that that was why the people were involved in the Ulster workers' strike. The verdict on Sunningdale was given in February 1974 by the electorate of Northern Ireland. Whatever minor local difficulties the House might have been engaged in about the future of the trade union movement, in Northern Ireland that election was fought on the Sunningdale Agreement. It so happened that 11 out of 12 of those who opposed Sunningdale were returned to the House. The message was clear, the writing was on the wall. Both Front Benches at that time should have recognised the message. They should have acted upon that assessment. Had they done so, the Ulster workers' strike, with all its consequences, would never have taken place.
  Is it any wonder that terrorist morale remained at such a high level for so many years? On the other side of the coin, is it surprising that the Northern Ireland citizen might have come to the point of wondering whether he was on the losing side when he saw his wishes ignored and the objectives of the terrorists granted on so many occasions?
  I am astonished that so many right hon. and hon. Members fail to understand the mood which we on this Bench try to reflect. For example, they cannot understand why we have no vested interest in provoking a General Election in the United Kingdom. One answer to that is that we have had three times as many elections in Northern Ireland as have the electorate in Great Britain. People then ask "What notice have they ever taken of our elections?" When we have been returned to the House and have said what we stood for and described the mandate

  63
  on which we stood in two General Elections, people say that that does not matter. They say "This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom and we do not take any notice of that."
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He is saying that feelings in Northern Ireland are different and that we should take account of those feelings. That is most important. If we had done so we on our side might not have made grave errors over the years, although I am not saying that there are not grave errors on the other side as well. But the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If Parliament votes in a way that is not liked by the members of his party, does that mean that there is loyalty only so long as the rest of the United Kingdom agrees with the view of the small number of Northern Ireland Members?
  Mr. Molyneaux: No. I think that the Secretary of State, with his customary fairness, will admit that I have always upheld the sovereignty of Parliament, even at the time when, unfortunately, successful attempts were made to transfer it to Brussels. I hope that some day we shall get back that element of sovereignty—but I am straying outside the terms of the debate.
  It is not a question of the people of Northern Ireland being fed up with tramping to the polling stations; it is a question of their having expressed their opinion in the clearest possible terms. There was a clear expression of opinion in the border poll, when the vast majority of the people said that they wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom. What did the Government of the day do? They proceeded to have a conference at Sunningdale and said "Yes, we know you want to remain part of the United Kingdom, but we intend to set up this machinery to transfer you out of the United Kingdom."
  Mr. McCusker: Does my hon. Friend remember that when Mr. Cooper was Minister of Community Relations in the power-sharing Executive, in addressing a meeting of SDLP party workers he described the Sunningdale Agreement as a vehicle by which Northern Ireland would be trundled into an all-Ireland Republic?
  Mr. Molyneaux: I am glad to be able to confirm that statement. I hope that it will be noted by those who may be tempted to try such an experiment in future.
  If the Government are determined to demoralise the IRA—and demoralisation is probably the most telling factor—there is no better way than to demonstrate that from this day onward Northern Ireland will be treated in exactly the same way as any other part of the United Kingdom, to which it belongs and to which it will continue to belong.
  Turning to the physical and material conflict, it is undesirable to create new forces or formations. In my experience of war-time service, such activities tend to lead to confusion. There are already four branches of the security forces of the Crown, very well equipped to perform the task of coping with terrorists. In this debate we ought to address our minds to methods of making fuller and more effective use of the existing forces. For a start, we the elected representatives—and in that I include those who are not at present with us today—have a clear duty to encourage recruitment into the existing security forces of the Crown. In fairness, I think most of us have carried out that responsibility and we continue to do so. We want to assure the Secretary of State, in case there is any doubt, that that will be our continuing aim.
  There is, however, another side to the question. The Government also have their responsibility. They must do all they can to remove obstacles placed in the way of suitable persons making themselves available and applying for membership of these forces. It makes no sense to me—it is a position that I cannot defend—to be given firm evidence of a case in which someone who has served with distinction in the Armed Forces of the Crown, who has perhaps lived most of his life abroad and has no connection with political, let alone para-political or para-military forces in Northern Ireland is rejected by the Ulster Defence Regiment or by the RUC Reserve.
  I know that the Secretary of State is determined, and I make this appeal to him. The best service that he can render to assist us in what we are trying

  65
  to do to co-operate with him in increasing the effectiveness of these forces is to ensure that the people in control of the vetting procedures really get down to realities and exercise far more flexibility than they have in the past.
  Her Majesty's Government have already given indications that they are sympathetic to the establishment of full-time formations of the Ulster Defence Regiment. We urge most strongly that they press on with this with all possible speed. On that point, it might not be too much, before the debate ends, to ask whether the Government will be in a position to give us some reassurance about their intentions.
  I have said before—this is no criticism whatsoever of the Army—that it is far more difficult for the Royal Ulster Constabulary—the RUC on the ground or the intelligence section of the RUC—to co-operate with the Army, which is being switched around at four-monthly intervals, than to co-operate with the Ulster Defence Regiment element, which would be in a state of readiness and availability right round the clock seven days a week. It makes sense to aim at this.
  If I were in the position of the Secretary of State, I would not become too depressed by the rumours about the Ulster Defence Regiment not being acceptable in certain areas, presumably on the ground that too many of them happen to be of one religious persuasion. I do not think I need point out to him that in those areas—and they are a very limited number—anyone representing authority would be rejected. If the Mothers Union were equipped with sand bags to extinguish fire bombs they would be rejected, as the Ulster Defence Regiment is being rejected. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not give too much priority to that objection.
  I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army is not present, because I should like to congratulate the Army on the tremendously difficult job that it has been doing. I wish to congratulate it particularly on the success it has had in apprehending terrorists immediately after acts of terrorism. Having progressed so far, I do not think it is too much to project and consider means of preventing these acts—in other
  66
  words, apprehending the terrorists before they can reach their objectives. I concede that this may be a very difficult job, but it comes back again to the question of intelligence. It means that it cannot be solely an Army job. There must be greatly increased intelligence.
  The Secretary of State has already conceded this. There must be greater cooperation between the RUC and the Army. The right hon. Gentleman was quick to pay tribute to the co-operation and collaboration that exist at top level; at least, that was my understanding of what he said. I am not so certain that that co-operation exists at all levels. This is something that could be usefully examined, because it does not really make sense for two arms of Her Majesty's security forces to be acting in one area in complete ignorance of what the other is attempting to do.
  On the point that the Secretary of State made about law enforcement and bringing terrorists before the courts, I agree that there is not much point in the Army or the RUC picking up terrorists and criminals unless they can be convicted. This question comes back largely to intelligence. In this respect we welcome the integrated intelligence centres that have been set up, I understand, on the initiative of the new Chief Constable.
  I began with a quotation from the Secretary of State, and I shall end with a reference to another quotation that he made in this House about 10 days ago. He repeated something that I said in his absence three days before, so I do not think he was paying me the compliment of repeating what I had said. He delivered one simple sentence which, I think, if repeated, would be more effective than all the hot air that is expended by all sorts of commentators who pretend that they know all the answers. He made a simple statement, with, for him, unusual vehemence from the Dispatch Box. He said that we must convince the terrorists that under no circumstances will they be permitted to win.
  This House can do no better service to the people of Northern Ireland and to the people of the United Kingdom, than echo that statement today.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Though Honours is currently a

  67
  touchy subject, I think this is the first time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have been in the Chair since you were awarded the Privy Councillorship. I am sure that I speak for everyone on the Government Benches when I say that we congratulate you.
  Perhaps the low attendance at this debate simply serves once again to reveal the extent to which the House of Commons, if not the Government, has opted out of the problems of Northern Ireland.
  Almost throughout the debate the Government Front Bench, plus the Parliamentary Private Secretaries and the Whips, have outnumbered the Back Benchers by two to one.
  Frankly, I do not wonder at the extent to which many people in Northern Ireland resent what they see as a lack of interest by politicians on this side of the water. Perhaps it is not so much lack of interest as resignation—weary resignation—to which the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) referred just now.
  From 1969 to 1975 I was one who publicly said that I felt there was nothing that the British Army could do in Ireland. I never understood why my right hon. Friend—as hard-working a Minister as one could find—or the right hon Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), ever thought that they could succeed in Ireland where Gladstone, Cromwell and Stratford and, indeed, Edward Plantagenet had failed.
  I never understood why they ever supposed that they could be successful. But now everyone says that to withdraw the Army would cause a blood bath, and one must accept that since so many people say that it is so. Many of us now simply shrug our shoulders and wish our Ministers well.
  I should like to ask several questions. I hope that my first question does not display a lack of taste, but one is often asked what is the total financial cost—the human cost cannot be counted—of the Northern Ireland emergency.
  I ask for the roundest figures available, and I must ask the question because I have been asked it so often myself.
  68
  Secondly, what encouragement, if any are the Government giving to the Dutch and to people such as Edward van Thijn, of the Dutch Socialist Party, who, with a number of other Europeans—not only those in the European Parliament—has tried his best to achieve some kind of dialogue? With their history the Dutch may have some part to play. Although it may seem far fetched, any straw is worth grabbing.
  I must register a most unpopular, possibly ill-informed and perhaps naive opinion about the people who criticise the Secretary of State for allowing his officials to talk to people. As an outsider, I go back to back to the old Churchillian principle that jaw-jaw is better than war-war.
  I have been to Northern Ireland and talked to both sides, although perhaps I have not been there as recently as I should.
  Nevertheless, it seems to some of us that some kind of communication line must be kept open. Whatever one's feelings about talking in that situation, the idea of keeping open a line of communication is, at any rate, worth while, and the Secretary of State should not be vigorously attacked on this count.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South asked whether people realised in 1969. The frank answer is "Yes". Some people did realise in 1969. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will forgive me for referring to our late colleague, Dick Crossman, because he and others, who may have been wrong on other issues, said that more thought should be given before sending troops to Northern Ireland. Sending in an army is one thing, but extricating it is another—one hundred times more difficult.
  Thirdly, if, if, if, there are to be assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff and if, if, if, there are to be the same number of Scottish and Welsh hon. Members, which appears to be the pledge of the Labour Party, how in Heaven's name can we deny the Northern Irish membership, without Stormont, at least 18 to 22 hon. Members? Again, that is a question of politicians thinking things through before they act.
  That is why, in the rest of my contribution, I propose to address myself to the widely reported speech of my right

  69
  hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short)—the former Leader of the House—which he made on 11th June. I have given him notice that I intend to do that, but perhaps my telephone message has not been received and I therefore acquit him of any discourtesy and hope that he will not accuse me of discourtesy.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central said that the rejection of the Devolution Bill by Westminster would re-create the tragic story of the rejection of Home Rule for Ireland in the early years of the century, which led to a separate Irish State. That proposition should not have been formulated in that way.
  It was like holding a pistol at the collective head of the House of Commons and saying "Reject my devolution brainchild and there will be civil strife". That is not the situation as it affects Scotland.
  It will not be an absence of assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff that may cause civil strife. The remarks of my right hon. Friend, which might have been taken out of context, caused widespread resentment in Scotland— a fact that was commented upon at a meeting yesterday afternoon of the West Lothian constituency Labour Party.
  But my right hon. Friend deserves an answer, and it is this: should we not reflect on the close resemblance between the novel proposal in the White Paper and the structure of Stormont? There is an uncanny and spine-chilling resemblance between the two. To what extent did the Stormont system lead to a small, inbred, inward-looking society, which created the conditions for the tragedy that we are discussing today?
  To set up a Stormont in Edinburgh could create conditions for a far less healthy society than we have in Scotland now.
  Mr. Tom Nairn, one of the speakers from the Devolution Unit at the Devolution Conference in Edinburgh, talked in terms of the Edinburgh Assembly's having a single Scottish police force, responsible to the Assembly.
  I want to register that some of us do not want any Scottish police force responsible to any Assembly. In his speech
  70
  my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that rumour was in inverse proportion to fact. That is what can happen in the Press of a small inbred community.
  For all its undoubted faults, shortcomings and exaggerated inefficiencies, Westminster has been a force for tolerance and understanding in what my right hon. Friend calls a system of devolved Government.
  In Scotland we have, no less than in Ireland, our folklore and our history. Do not let any Scot imagine that we do not have our folklore and history. On 26th June there will be a mass rally at Bannockburn—a place with emotive feelings. Therefore, all the malicious misinterpretations to which my right hon. Friend referred could easily be repeated.
  Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central, I conclude that Stormont-like Assemblies in Edinburgh and in Cardiff taking powers from the regions and the local authorities—which are the subject of unprecedented attack—will do little to benefit the people of Scotland and could do them untold harm. If debates of this kind have any purpose, they should serve as the kind of warning that might have been taken years ago in relation to the tragic problems of Northern Ireland.
  5.29 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: Our debates on Northern Ireland are frequently clouded with distorted views of history, but until now I had not heard the Battle of Bannockburn brought into them. However, I can join the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in saying that, unlike the honours in some Honours Lists, your elevation to the Privy Council, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will give great satisfaction in all parts of the House. We were very glad to see it, Sir.
  I can also agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) that we in the House approach debates on security in Northern Ireland with a certain degree of resignation. It is almost seven years since I, with various hon. Members from my party, first went to Belfast and Londonderry and saw British soldiers on the streets in support of the civil power. If we proceed towards victory over terrorism and the restoration of peace at our present pace, it seems all

  71
  too likely that those soldiers will be on the streets in support of the civil power for another seven years.
  The Secretary of State spent some time defending himself against the possible accusation that he was taking too many speedy initiatives. I would not accuse him of ever having taken a too-speedy initiative in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the praise.
  Mr. Goodhart: I do not think that in his remaining time in office the right hon. Gentleman is likely to deserve our condemnation on that score, but there are four areas in which I believe he should take legislative action quickly.
  First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) mentioned, we should have legislation on the offence of terrorism. My hon. Friend and I and the Secretary of State have often agreed that the principal problem in Northern Ireland security is the inability to get at the men who organise violence. It is comparatively easy to pick up the front-line troops. It is not easy to get at the Godfathers. Since the Gardiner Report was published there has been an increasing flow of opinion towards the belief that the offence of terrorism should be put on the statute book. I hope that there can be action soon.
  Secondly, we should have prompt action on the question of proper identification and control of movement. That means identity cards, first in part of Northern Ireland and then in the rest of Northern Ireland and the whole United Kingdom. The Government recognise that there is a problem, but they do not know what to do about it, as anyone who has read the report of the debate on 26th April on the Order affecting movement between Northern Ireland and the rest of Great Britain can see. They are hovering on the brink of introducing a proper system of identification when people move between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland and between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that they will be prepared to take effective action soon.
  Thirdly, there is the question of the control of detonators. When some of us were in Northern Ireland in the second
  72
  week of April, we were told that there had been 4,849 explosions in Northern Ireland since the beginning of the emergency. I suspect that there have now been 5,000, a grisly milestone to pass. Their one common factor is that they have been set off by detonators.
  Some of us are not satisfied that the present laws on the control and registration of detonators are adequate. The former commander of the bomb squad in Northern Ireland, Colonel George Styles, is perhaps the greatest expert on the matter. He is vehement in his belief that we need fresh legislation on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) has introduced a Bill on the subject which, alas, has been blocked by Labour Members. I hope that the Government will take up that legislation or at the very least publicly state their reasons why they are not prepared to act to make the proper identification, control and recording of detonators mandatory.
  Some of us are not satisfied that the technical advice that the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary are receiving on the subject is entirely correct. We should like a full Government statement so that we may see the thinking behind their decision not to implement the measures so sensibly put forward by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Carol Mather: To do the Secretary of State justice, I should say that he has not been part of the operation to block the Bill, but the Home Secretary wrote to me saying that it was not acceptable. However, the security forces in Northern Ireland have been pushing for it or a similar measure for many years. Perhaps the Secretary of State will say—
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Nobody has ever pushed me on this matter in the two and a half years that I have been in Northern Ireland. But I am concerned about detonators, and we are co-operating with the South on the matter. I spend a great day of time looking at it. I am not prepared to stand by and be told that I have resisted pressure from anybody in Northern Ireland on the control of detonators. Indeed, I am informed that it is very well done.
  The other factor is that many of the detonators do not travel through normal

  73
  lines of communication as they do over here. They are home made, and so on. I am happy to look at the matter, but I will not be told that somebody put it to me and I rejected it, because that is not true.
  Mr. Goodhart: I hope that the Secretary of State will consider it as a matter of urgency. Having talked to members of the bomb squad and its most distinguished former member, I can have no doubt about the vehemence of their feeling on the matter.
  There is also the question of compensation for injuries. This is being investigated by a committee that has been sitting for more than 15 months, yet we still find that compensation of £20,000 is awarded to former terrorists—I agree that that is an award that is under appeal and has not yet been paid—while many members of the security forces and their dependents—widows and children—receive substantially less. Surely the problems are not so complicated that we need 15 months to go into the matter. Even if the committee reported now, it would take at least another nine months to get any change in the legislation on to the statute book. Can we sit back without criticising a two-year delay in making a comparatively minor alteration in the law?
  I was sorry to hear the Secretary of State say that he did not intend to publish, in the form of a White Paper, the report, or even part of the report, of the committee that has been carrying out the long-term review of the security situation in Northern Ireland. But such is the state of security in certain sections of the Government in Northern Ireland that we can assume that the contents of this report will no doubt reach the UDA, and perhaps the Provisional Sinn Fein or the Provisional IRA. Perhaps somebody can look to them, or certainly to somebody in Northern Ireland, to make available to Members of this House the contents of that report.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I do not think that this is a matter for amusement. Many people are being killed in Northern Ireland, and we know that material gets out. I shall in future put to the House the general conclusions of the report, but there are large sections involving intelligence and intelligence collection which
  74
  I would be a fool to publish—even if it means that the hon. Gentleman can have a little joke about it.
  Mr. Goodhart: I would not dream of suggesting that the entire contents of the report should be published. Of course, we would not press that suggestion, but I should like to see a general outline of the report published. Indeed, I am delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that there will be publication of a bowdlerised report, which was all we expected anyway.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I shall be giving the House the general contents of the report in the debate to renew various legislative provisions. It will not be in the form of a White Paper. I believe that I have a duty to give the House the general passages, but not the detail of the report.
  Mr. Goodhart: I hope that the Secretary of State will go into some detail and will not confine himself to generalisations. However, clearly that is a matter for discussion later when we see what happens. I hope that even before publication, or before the Secretary of State mentions those matters in a speech to the House, we shall have further news about recruitment of a full-time section of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Many people have pressed for such recruitment for a long time, and it was also mentioned in the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, South. The Ulster Defence Regiment carries out most valuable work, but it is composed largely of part-timers. This means that its work is confined largely to night-time and weekends. Much valuable work at checkpoints could be carried out by full time members of the UDR. I hope that we may be told that a substantial number of such personnel will be recruited to the UDR.
  Finally, I turn to another regiment which has done much good service in Northern Ireland without attracting many headlines. I refer to the Royal Military Police who provide a valuable interface between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the rest of the Army. Many of them spend many years in Northern Ireland. Service in that corps normally involves two years' service in Northern Ireland. I have been concerned about some of the problems in co-operation between the Royal Ulster Constabulary

  75
  and the Royal Military Police. Difficulties arise when the Royal Ulster Constabulary work side by side with the Royal Military Police, whose members are paid at a very much lower rate. That is perhaps unavoidable in the present situation, but I am certainly concerned about the long hours put in by the Royal Military Police at the present time. They serve in Ireland for a period of two years, and the hours imposed upon them must constitute a great strain. We in this House must never take the high morale of our security forces for granted, and we must take care not to impose an unbearable strain on those who bear the task of guarding society.
  5.46 p.m.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: Last week in the House we were treated to a number of helpful and constructive debates on Northern Ireland. One dealt with the subject of industrial relations and the other debate centred on the question of fair employment. In contrast to those helpful debates, today's debate can do nothing for the people of Northern Ireland. Today's debate will heighten the divisions that we all know exist in Northern Ireland, it will be completely unproductive, and it will do nothing to allay fears or de-escalate tension.
  I wonder why the right wing of the Conservative Party sought to bring forward such a debate at the present time. Perhaps it is attempting to ingratiate itself with those hon. Members who represent Northern Irish constituencies. Those on the right wing can be sure that on security questions there will be a unanimity of outlook between Northern Irish Unionists and Right-wing Conservatives.
  In a debate that is supposed to be dealing with the security of Northern Ireland, with its consequences for the United Kingdom as a whole, there is a notable absence of the vast majority of hon. Members in the House. No doubt some Opposition Members are being fitted out with their finery for Ascot week, but we shall see what happens to attendance in the House on other days this week.
  I feared that today's debate would take the form as we have seen it today. In other words, the contributors to the debate so far have spoken as though there
  76
  is only one class of terrorist in Northern Ireland—namely, the Provisional IRA. Nobody so far has referred to any other type of terrorist in Northern Ireland. I believe that it is my duty to make the House and the country aware of the fact that there are other types of terrorists in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Molyneaux: In this House I have repeatedly made my position clear. I have said that the Provisional IRA is the prime cause of violence. We have subsidiary and subordinate forms of violence that will have to be dealt with and rooted out, no matter by what name they are called.
  Mr. Fitt: I am now delighted that I came along to this debate—if only to hear that admission by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). That admission was not made earlier in the debate, and I am glad that it has been made, because people could have been given the wrong impression.
  A number of deaths in Northern Ireland in the past two or three weeks, many of them atrocious murders, have been carried out by Loyalist murder gangs rather than IRA gangs. A Loyalist gang was responsible for machine-gunning the Clorane Bar. Furthermore, there was the attempted murder of a young Italian family at Mountainview Park, allegedly in return for the IRA killing of a Mr. Parsons, in Woodvale. Therefore, when we are talking about terrorists in Northern Ireland, we are talking about all terrorists.
  I have made my position quite clear about the IRA. I believe that every terrorist in Northern Ireland, whatever cause he espouses, should be taken out of Northern Irish society.
  I have noticed recently that the Opposition do not seem to have any policy on Northern Ireland other than to adopt a hawkish attitude. If they were in control there would be blanket searches, the IRA would be chased over the border, and the attempt to find a military solution would be completely divorced from any political developments. Those members of the Opposition at present in the House are not noted for their liberal views. We have only to look at them and at the constituencies they represent to know that if they were in government they would embark on policies that would

  77
  bring about absolute disaster in Northern Ireland.
  If ever I have any doubt about going into the Lobby to vote for the Government—and there have been a few occasions—all I have to do is to look across at the Opposition Front Bench and all my difficulties are resolved. As I told my party yesterday afternoon, the military solution that would be sought in the event of a Tory Government coming into power headed by the present Tory Front Bench would bring us nothing but further disaster and tragedy.
  Hon. Members have spoken of the UDR. It has been said that we should create full-time regiments. I know that Irish Sunday newspapers are not readily available in this part of the United Kingdom. I would, however, advise those who wonder why the UDR has not been openly and fully accepted by the Catholic minority to read yesterday's edition of the Sunday Independent, in which there appears an article written by my colleague in Northern Ireland, John Hume. The facts are there. He lists the names and addresses of members of the UDR—the persons involved—the dates on which they committed offences, the courts before which they were brought, the verdicts of the court, the convictions, and the fact that most of these people—and there is a long list—were found guilty of the most serious firearms offences. Further, my colleague reveals that some are in prison awaiting trial on charges of murder—the murder of Catholics in Northern Ireland.
  That is why the Catholic population cannot find any great enthusiasm for members of the UDR. I have deliberately stated on many occasions, and I do so again today, that, whatever criminal actions may be committed by members of the UDR and however serious the offences may be, there is no justification for attacks by the Provisional IRA on members of the UDR in Northern Ireland. Whatever reservations I have about the UDR, which I express on behalf of the minority population in Northern Ireland, I do not say that attacks by the IRA on the UDR are justified. I advise those who are interested in discovering why there is not total acceptance of the UDR to read the article to which I have referred.
  78
  After I had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, South I was not too sure what this debate was about. The closed circuit television tells us that it is about security in Northern Ireland. I have not heard much about that. We had a little history lesson, starting from 1968–69, Sunningdale, the UWC strike—[interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confined himself to the security aspects of the debate. The hon. Member for Antrim, South went through Sunningdale, the Assembly, the Convention, and completely misrepresented Sunningdale. He said that those who participated in Sunningdale on behalf of the SDLP saw the Sunningdale agreement as the vehicle that would change the constitution of Northern Ireland, lead to the abolition of that State and bring about a Northern Ireland Republic.
  That is completely untrue. That was never the intention of the SDLP participants at Sunningdale. There were so many in-built guarantees in the agreement that it would have been absolutely impossible, because of the veto held by the then Chief Executive, Brian Faulkner, for the agreement to lead to the downfall of the Northern Ireland State. This is not the time or place to go into the reasons for that political development.
  I entered the debate to advise the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) that if he is seeking a military solution to the Northern Ireland conflict, to the total exclusion of any political progress being made, he is taking on an impossible task. There cannot be peace in Northern Ireland in the absence of political development.
  Whatever disagreements I may have had with the hon. Member for Antrim, South, I hope that they will not have any deleterious effect on the talks now taking place between representatives of my party and the party of which he is a member, the official Unionist Party. Both sets of negotiators in Northern Ireland have, rather belatedly, seen the sound common sense brought into Northern Ireland by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig). There is movement on the political front. I hope that hon. Members representing English constituencies will not say or do anything which will hinder the success of those discussions. I hope that the political

  79
  movement which is taking place will be speeded up until eventually political agreement is found. As for the solution now being promulgated by the Tory Front Bench, I advise my right hon. Friend, after his experience in Northern Ireland, totally to reject the military solution now being put forward.
  Mr. Neave: The hon. Gentleman is completely misrepresenting my view in saying that I was seeking a military solution. I said that there could be no constitutional progress until order was restored in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Fitt: This is where the hon. Gentleman and I disagree. I believe that the attempt to eradicate, to defeat, the terrorists, must take place alongside the search for a political solution. One cannot be done without the other. I realise that there may not be 101 per cent. agreement between the Irish Government and this Labour Government on the security question in Northern Ireland. But there is a hell of a lot more agreement with this Government than there would be with the point of view put forward by the Right Wing of the Conservative Party.
  I know that the Irish Government are not very happy about interpretations which have been put on discussions held recently with the hon. Member for Abingdon. I believe that it had to take the unusual course of issuing statements to refute statements which it knew would appear in the Daily Telegraph. There is a bipartisan approach to Northern Ireland in this House. I hope that the hon. Member for Abingdon, or anyone else who thinks like him, will not go to the Irish Government and try to persuade them to make comments against the Labour Government. I believe that some attempt has been made in that direction over the past few days and that the Irish Government have rightly said that they will make their own decisions, without being influenced by hon. Gentlemen.
  Mr. Neave: Before the hon. Gentleman makes any further misrepresentations, I must tell the House that I informed the Secretary of State's private office before I sent information about my views to the Irish Government.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. William Craig: It is also uppermost in my thoughts that the people of Northern Ireland will be saying "What, another security debate?" They will be saying "Let us have less talk and more action." I can understand their feelings. My difficulty is to convince them that action leading to success is being taken. To that extent today's debate is useful and important.
  Unhappily, I see little evidence to enable me to go to the back streets of Belfast to say that the job is being tackled in a wholehearted way. I cannot even go to the people in the back streets to tell them that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) broke new ground today. My constituents would like to hear the hon. Gentleman say "We wholeheartedly back the forces of law and order, warts and all." It is vital that the forces of law and order receive the support of every section of the community. I can understand the difficulties in the hon. Gentleman's way, but that it is a hurdle that has to be jumped. The sooner it is jumped the sooner all can make progress.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that when talking about security it is important to consider the political side of things. The two factors cannot be separated. I was rather glad that the Secretary of State made that point. I look forward to a future date when he will expound more on the political side. I do not agree that we should push ahead seeking only a military solution. As I understand the problem of terrorism, the first thing to do is to apply one's mind to the question how to starve the terrorists' appetite. It is necessary to consider how to deprive them of hope of success. It is not good enough merely to say that they are not going to win. Their appetite must be blunted, they must be robbed of all hope of succeeding. That is where the political aspect of security is vital.
  I have no doubt that if we can achieve some sort of political settlement among the politicians of Ulster we shall have enormously strengthened the hands of the security forces. As we count the horrible toll of dead and mutilated and

  81
  the serious economic cost of the past seven years, each one of us should be resolute in our efforts to find agreement on future forms of government in Northern Ireland. The greatest strength the IRA has at present is the uncertainty about the form of government in Northern Ireland.
  Direct rule, as it is misnamed, is probably not as dangerous today as it would have been regarded some years ago. No longer do the majority look suspiciously at this form of government, suspecting that there is some plot to break the Union and bring about a united Ireland. No longer do they suspect that direct rule will result in unwanted forms of government being pushed upon them. But that is not to say that the form of government that we have today is not in itself very dangerous. I believe it is incapable of bringing peace and stability to Northern Ireland. It is not likely in any way to diminish the conflict that exists in Ulster. At best it can hope only to contain it. That is not good enough when we think of all the people being slaughtered in our streets. We have had seven years of that, yet we can still debate in the Chamber in a manner that indicates that we shall tolerate the thing going on for a couple more years. If that is to be the attitude, we cannot express annoyance and surprise if people in the streets at home decide to take a hand in the game themselves.
  It is our duty to convince the people that we shall tackle the problem and tackle it now. I know it is easy to say that and that we cannot deal with it by producing new gimmicks. I can understand the Secretary of State's saying that there are no quick and easy solutions, but I hope he will understand me when I say that it is not good enough merely to wipe out seven years of terrorism as though it had not happened. The pressure must be stepped up. The primary responsibility is with Ulster politicians to reach a settlement in Ulster, but the right hon. Gentleman has his responsibility.
  Although the Ulster politicians have not yet made progress, I should not like to see the Secretary of State take a posture that suggests "If they cannot agree among themselves, I am washing my hands of the situation". That would be a policy leading to ever-increasing dis-
  82
  aster. Something must be done. If there is not the will in Ulster to reach a political settlement among the present breed of politicians, we must try again. We must also ask the people how they look upon the failure.
  Assuming that we cannot make progress, the security policy has to make the best of a bad decision. It is right and proper that more and more steps should be taken to Ulsterise the security forces to a greater extent. It is a matter for discussion whether that should be done by creating new full-time formations. We want to see a much greater rôle being played by the RUC Reserve and the Ulster Defence Regiment.
  I mention in passing a minor point relating both to the Reserve and the UDR. With the present growing unemployment we find a situation in which men who wish to serve in the Reserve and the UDR are barred from giving such service because if they do they lose their unemployment benefit. Although the numbers may not be great, it is not a good policy to allow that situation to arise. A man who is unhappily unemployed should still be allowed to give his service to the part-time Reserve and the part-time UDR without putting his benefit at risk.
  It is right to talk about the primacy of the police, but we must talk about it in a realistic sense. I find myself increasingly confused by the terminology that is being used. In the Ulster situation, or in any situation in which the police have to cope with terrorism, it is nonsense to say that they are not to be in a position to act on their own to enforce the law against terrorism.
  Any country that has to cope with the problem of terrorism is making a serious mistake if it organises its police on the basis that the army has to be called to the aid of the civil authority. It is not good government to allow a situation to arise in which it is necessary to call the army to the aid of the civil authority to cope with terrorists. That in itself gives an incentive to terrorist organisations to strike and to force the Government into that position. However we structure our police, matters must be organised so that the police can undertake all the necessary actions to combat terrorism.

  83
  I strongly support the steps being taken to improve the position of the police, but I say to the Secretary of State, with all humility, that he has not moved fast enough. I think he is placing too much emphasis on the difficulties that lie in the way—for example, unacceptability in certain parts of the community is being continually overstated and is becoming a political shuttlecock.
  Having stressed the work of the police, I do not want hon. Members to think that we were not conscious of the valuable work being done by the Army. The Army is doing a first-class job, and it is difficult to suggest how it can be better used, but the underlying strategy must not be based on day-to-day reactions. I am faulting not the Secretary of State but perhaps myself and other politicians who from time to time react to the events of the day. Recently there was an escalation of the situation in South Armagh and there was pressure on the Government and on the security forces to step up the presence there. There has been increased pressure in Belfast. We must not be seen to react to day-to-day pressure. We must base our strategy on properly deploying the security forces to cope with the situation throughout the Province.
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) had a point when he said that the border was a special problem. It is special in that it is a source of supply to the IRA. Anything that can be done more effectively to police the border is to be welcomed. I wish to put on record my appreciation of the policies of the Government of the Irish Republic. They have been good. But that is not to say that further steps cannot be taken.
  I should like more consideration to be given to the idea of a narrow strip of joint patrolling along the border, but before we go that far we must insist on better co-ordination between the forces on both sides of the border. There could be parallel patrolling, which would mean some sort of joint operational control. If such a long land frontier is to be covered, it is necessary to have mutual co-operation in the deployment of forces. I am aware that the Government of the Republic, naturally and properly, are circumscribed, in that they fully accept
  84
  that their army is there only in support of the civil police and must act within that constraint. Therefore, we cannot push them too far on that score.
  I should like to deal briefly with some aspects of the law. Steps to be taken in the new criminal jurisdiction Bills of both countries have been over-estimated. They will not be as valuable as has been represented to the people of both countries. However, I have noticed that in the European Community steps are being taken which seem to bring a new dimension to the law of extradition, and I should like to be assured that the British Government are doing all they can to hasten developments in the European Community, leading to a change in the law of extradition between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.
  As the Secretary of State said, the law is only as good as the capacity to enforce it, but I agree with those Members who have said that the law can be strengthened. I should have liked to have had more time to debate the Gardiner approach to the law on terrorism. It is illegal to belong to certain organisations in Northern Ireland, but there are few convictions on record for that offence. In the Irish Republic there is a long list of people who are in custody because they belong to illegal organisations. It is the nature of the law and the standards of proof which create this disparity.
  I know that the Secretary of State has an aversion to detention, and I can understand his thinking on it, but as the law stands he will not be able to get at the men who are really behind the violence. I urge him to think very seriously about adopting a new approach to the law dealing with the terrorist. I should like him to consider the question of penalties. I know that it is emotive to talk about the death penalty, but the gallant men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary face a long, hot summer. They have paid a heavy price, being the prime target of the IRA. Are not we justified in considering the request from the federation that capital punishment should be introduced for the murder of a member of the security forces in the course of his duties?
  I am sorry that I have not more time to speak. I do not wish to presume on the House. I therefore close by saying that the situation in Northern Ireland is more depressing than most people here

  85
  seem to realise. We have debated it today in a cool, relaxed, conversational tone. However, the tensions and fears in Northern Ireland are increasing daily. I appeal to all Members to seek the way forward, but first to achieve a measure of certainty about our constitutional position, thereby improving the chances of the security forces bringing peace and stability to our beleaguered Province.
  Mr. Speaker: It is not often that I explain the basis on which I call hon. Members to speak, but may I say that I propose to call another Member of the United Ulster Unionist Party, because only one Member of that party has spoken and this is a short debate?
  6.17 p.m.
  Mr. McCusker: The Secretary of State said that this House and the people of Northern Ireland should be prepared for a long haul. Although he and hon. Members may be able to settle themselves to that thinking, it is not likely to be well received in Northern Ireland.
  Coming off a late flight from London on Friday night, I was confronted with a newspaper headline which read:
  "War footing call to the people."
  I paused, thinking that one of my rasher colleagues—some perhaps would say one of my more realistic colleagues—had had a rush of blood to the head, until I looked more closely and found that the Northern Ireland Labour Party had urged that the whole community should go on a war footing to fight terrorism. This call was not the call of those of us who are thought of in more extreme or Right-wing terms.
  It is useful that Members from Northern Ireland, when going home, should see headlines like that, because there is a danger of our becoming complacent through our membership of this House. There is a danger of accepting the violence and of becoming detached from the realities of daily life in Northern Ireland by the artificiality of this place and of becoming increasingly brutalised at weekends by the events in our constituencies until it takes acts of the utmost savagery to make us react. I speak as a Member with a constituency which has had its fair share, if not more than its fair share, of such acts. We are in danger of falling victim to the cancer in our society, which is not the violence but
  86
  the acceptance of the violence, and of believing that a growing tolerance of it is the way forward.
  That is why I welcome the poster campaign being mounted in Northern Ireland this weekend. It poses the question "When will you become a direct rule statistic?" Some may think that that is an underhand way of continuing a political campaign, but the reality is that for six, seven or perhaps a dozen people in Northern Ireland the answer will be very simple in the next week. They will have become a direct rule statistic, even on the basis of the figures given by the Secretary of State, by this time next Wednesday.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: What were the figures before there was direct rule? Although the situation is bad and sad, any idea that there would be peace if direct rule ended would be foolish and tragic.
  Mr. McCusker: The Secretary of State has me wrong. I am not making the point to justify their comment or to sustain what they are saying. I am saying that one needs to be posed the question whether one is likely to live until tomorrow or until next week to be jolted back to reality.
  We were told, though I hasten to add not by the present Secretary of State, that direct rule was a panacea. For that reason, we can cross swords with some right hon. and hon. Members of this House. That is why I welcomed reports of the Wolfe Tone commemoration ceremony in Bodenstown. I reminded the House this time last year of statements made there by spokesmen of the Provisional IRA who were also vice-presidents of Provisional Sinn Fein and their comments about the ceasefire, in the course of which they spoke about the gallant deeds of young IRA men. In their bloody terms, I suppose that they achieved quite a lot.
  This year, we were told by a spokesman who was accompanied by Joe Cahill that they had met and defeated the British forces for the past seven years and would continue to meet and defeat them until the war was won; there would be no stop, and nothing could halt the fighting youth of Ireland. Anything that could have been thrown at the IRA had been thrown at them in the past seven

  87
  years. The IRA had met and defeated everything, whether it was the might of the British Empire or the activities of Free State Quislings.
  If that spokesman had been addressing a group of two or three dozen demented hooligans, I could understand it. But he was addressing a meeting of 6,000 demented people, the majority from Northern Ireland, every one of whom was quite prepared to believe what he said. I welcomed that report, because it brought me face to face with reality.
  I welcomed even more the fact that the principal of a secondary school in Belfast thought it worth his while, even after seven years of becoming used to conditions in Belfast, to telephone me in Westminster this morning to tell me that a bomb had been planted 50 yards from a college where he was overseeing a GCE examination. He thought it worth mentioning, bearing in mind the general educational controversy and debate taking place here, in order to draw attention here to some of the realities which educationists have to face in Northern Ireland. I was encouraged by that man. After seven years, he is not prepared to lie down. He is still prepared to telephone Westminster to complain so that the situation might be brought to the attention of right hon. and hon. Members in this place.
  Before I received that message, I read on the ticker-tape that two bombs had been planted in Belfast. A policeman standing nearby said to me "It would not be the same if it had not been there." Although he was in no way defending the situation, in its own way his remark was a commentary on the attitude of this House, of this country and even of the people of Northern Ireland to what is happening
  What are the Government doing? Over the past couple of months, they have introduced a number of measures which have restricted and angered the community. We have measures to deal with unattended vehicles. We have measures to deal with unlocked and immobilised vehicles. We have measures restricting entry into town centres. We have legislation to control movements at the border, and it is well known that it will never mean anything. But we have had to
  88
  pass the legislation in order to be seen to be doing something. We have restricted and controlled the sale of fertilisers and explosives. We have heard from the Government of their talks with Provisional Sinn Fein. But all that we have done as a result is to anger and to inconvenience the law-abiding community.
  We do nothing really to take up the challenge of the terrorist. Why cannot we take away the forces and the manpower involved in carrying out these measures, which in many ways merely provide the IRA with a challenge to get round them, and use them instead to tackle the problem at source? Why put an iron barrier round a town centre when we should be diverting our attention to capturing the bomb-maker before the bomb is made? If we dismantled many of the structures that we have heaped one on top of another and diverted the resources to a more positive and vigorous campaign, we might get better results.
  Recently we have seen a vigorous recruitment campaign for the security forces being conducted on television and in our newspapers. However, last Saturday morning I was visited by a former member of the Territorial Army. He served for 18 years, for 11 years as a sergeant and for the last five years as a company sergeant-major. He resigned in December. He was pronounced medically fit and given a recommendation from his commanding officer. He applied to join the UDR in January or February, and only last week he received a note saying "We are sorry. You are not acceptable." Presumably he was good enough to defend this country in the face of conflict here or in any other part of the world, but apparently he is not considered good enough to defend his community in Northern Ireland. A case of that kind makes nonsense of the thousands of pounds spent on security. How can we encourage people to join when we all know of cases of that kind?
  A year or two ago, we managed to get a fairly large recruitment into the RUC Reserve. However, recently I received a request to meet a group of them. They came to me as my constituents and told me that between 20 and 30 of them had been sent to a police station in an area where members of the SDLP complained about the lack of security. In that station

  89
  they found neither the equipment nor the resources to do the job. As a result they are thinking of quitting. There seems little point in our taking people in if we are not in a position to use them properly.
  The Northern Ireland Office has at last learned what any intelligent Northern Ireland politician learned seven years ago. It has learned to get into the war of words, which rules that when it is impossible to do anything about the problem in Northern Ireland the best course is to issue a statement and hope that it will convince people that something is being achieved. The Northern Ireland Office avoided this for a number of years, but during the past six months or so there has been a change. If there is an atrocity in my own constituency, before I can make a statement about it I often find that the Northern Ireland Office has issued a statement. The only difference is that I issue a statement because I cannot do anything. I get the impression that the Northern Ireland Office makes a statement because it does not intend to do anything.
  I deliberately relate my next comment to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is to remind him that in the Greater Leeds area there are 1,500,000 people. There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman reminding us that we are discussing Belfast and not Leeds. If there were 100 policemen dead in Leeds, together with 300 soldiers and 800 or 900 innocent civilians, the Englishman would be quick to defend his castle. I am the first to express my gratitude to those members of the security forces who have died. Indeed, many of my own constituents joined the security forces and played their part. My point is that we are confronted with a situation where willing people cannot get into the security forces, where people feel for whatever reason that the security forces are not giving them adequate protection and where they see their neighbours killed, and no one can be blamed for saying that he will take action to defend himself. It is very difficult for me to condemn that kind of attitude, especially amongst my constituents, because I have to try to understand them.
  I support what the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) said about
  90
  capital punishment. However, I would not restrict its application to the killing of policemen or soldiers on duty. Right hon. and hon. Members of this House have to understand that for some people in Northern Ireland it is as easy to kill someone as it is to take a cup of tea in the morning. It is as easy to say to someone "Here is a gun, so take it and kill the first Protestant or Catholic you see" as it is to turn over in bed and pull up the blanket round one's head.
  Life has become cheap. People kill with impunity simply because of a person's religion, believing that somehow it evens the score. I differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in this, I know. But we cannot apply the same criteria when we discuss the death penalty in relation to a situation like that in Northern Ireland as we would all wish to apply in Great Britain. Life is cheap. We have to put a price on it again.
  It is all very well for those who argue against the death penalty to talk about the value and sanctity of human life. For the seven people who will die this week, their lives will not have been worth a snap of the fingers. For those who have already died, their lives were not worth that much.
  To go out and kill someone, whether it be by throwing a bomb in County Armagh and killing Catholics or by standing 10 workmen up against a bus and gunning them down, is as easy to perform in Northern Ireland as any day-to-day activities. I talked to the one survivor of the workmen's massacre—hon. Members would be horrified to hear the details—and the one thing that struck him at the time was the cold-blooded, quiet way in which the orders were given to gun the men down. There was no panic, there were no raised voices. The order to finish them off was given quietly and cold-bloodedly. That survivor is not living in Northern Ireland any longer. He left, hoping to find peace elsewhere, but he will not find any peace of mind anywhere else. Therefore, I think that capital punishment should be given serious consideration in the context of Northern Ireland.
  Special mention has already been made of a full-time UDR, and I shall not dwell any further on that matter.

  91
  Concerning the rank structure for RUC reservists, legislation already exists for such a structure. I hope that the committee will look at a separate rank structure within the Reserve in order to utilise the men in it properly. On equipment for the RUC, one moment we are told that they have adequate equipment and the next moment we are told that they do not. Half the time, I do not know which way to turn. I have continual representations from the police, who complain that they do not have the equipment to do their job. The sooner we clear this up, the better.
  A lot has been said about the introduction of the Special Air Service into South Armagh. I know that its introduction was considered unacceptable by many people for a long time. I do not want to tempt fate, and I do not doubt for a minute that the IRA could be guilty of a terrible atrocity in South Armagh this very night. There is no point in keeping our fingers crossed and closing our eyes to the possibility. But the point is that for five months in South Armagh, since the SAS went in, we have had a degree of civilisation, much more so than we have had there for a long time. There may be an incident tonight or tomorrow that will change the situation immediately, but even this will not change the fact that the introduction of the SAS has made a difference.
  In conclusion I say this to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). Just because one section of the community in Northern Ireland is not prepared to play its part in defending the community, there is no reason why the other part should be stopped from doing so.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The bipartisan approach to the problem of Northern Ireland security rests on the need for national unity in support of the security forces, who are at grips with revolutionary terrorists. Against terrorist of whatever colour, and I say of whatever colour purposely in reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who has repeatedly misrepresented us, there is only one British side to be on.
  The Opposition have backed the Government in measures to restore the
  92
  Queen's peace and the Queen's writ in Northern Ireland. But an Opposition which cease to offer necessary and constructive criticism with the sense of responsibility expected of an alternative government fail in their duty. If an Opposition thus abdicated their (unction, they would be extinct.
  The Opposition, and pre-eminently my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), demanded the closing of the notorious "incident centres" which gave de facto recognition to a one-sided ceasefire which the Government refused to acknowledge de jure. In due time the incident centres passed away.
  Last summer my hon. Friend and I expressed indignation about the state of anarchy in part of Armagh. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), who has spoken with his usual force today, took me around the southern part of his constituency—that territory described by the IRA as "liberated" and by the Secretary of State as "bandit country". Our protests were eventually vindicated by the intervention of the previous Prime Minister, the right hon Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). He described South Armagh not as "bandit country" but as "a special emergency area". That phrase was a rhetorical flourish.
  Psychological and physical results, des pite the misgivings of the hon. Member for Belfast, West, came from the belated introduction of the SAS Regiment. I could put the right hon. Member for Huyton on a little personal honours list for that. However, it remains our duty to expose and oppose the flabby political direction of the best trained and most chivalrous counter-insurgency troops in the world.
  A pamphlet published by the Bow Group, and much admired in the Monday Club and throughout the Conservative and Unionist Party, is entitled "Do You Sincerely Want to Win?" That question has been put today by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), who spoke from ministerial experience on the security problems of Northern Ireland.
  It is disappointing that without any explanation the Secretary of State in his speech rejected the demand of many of us on this side of the House, notably my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham

  93
  (Mr. Goodhart) and Esher (Mr. Mather), for full-time units in the UDR.
  In these troubles I have been privileged to accompany on patrol the County Down, County Fermanagh and County Tyrone battalions of the UDR and I have seen how many of those fine men and women are on patrol or other duties perhaps three times a week after a full day's work. They would have to be superhuman not to feel the strain.
  I hope that the Government will be less negative towards the arguments which some of us advanced during the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill and which were advanced again today by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham for travel documents or other identity papers for residents of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend referred to the Detonators Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher, but the Secretary of State has claimed that he was in no need of being pushed. But the Home Secretary is, and, there is collective Cabinet responsibility for the security of the realm.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has reminded us that Northern Ireland is not a colony but is part of the homeland, yet some lessons can be drawn from the considerable British experience of counter-insurgency overseas. In Cyprus, for example, there were joint operations rooms working to a common plan from a single place. In Ulster there are no joint operations rooms for the Regular Army, the UDR and the RUC.
  It has been said that the military and the police cannot be fully integrated because the RUC has duties other than those of security. But crime and terrorism are evils which nourish each other. The protection racket and the private army are intimately connected. Mafias that manipulate co-operative and other enterprises and get rich quickly and bloodily have their political connections. The endeavours of the CID, the Special Branch, the Fraud Squad, the new regional crime squads, the Royal Military Police, the UDR and Military Intelligence, praised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, all receive information and should be more closely coordinated. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said that it was
  94
  not only the Army's job, and I welcome his support for the line we have taken.
  In Ulster, as in Cyprus, the Army acts in aid of the civil power. In Cyprus the Governor and the Commander-in-Chief combined civil and military functions. In Ulster the GOC is the Director of Military Operations, but not of all security operations. The question in the minds of millions is who is in charge in Ulster. I presume that the answer to that question is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Yet in his relations with the Army command the right hon. Gentleman seems to have reversed the saying that war is too serious a matter to be left to the generals, a saying even truer of guerrilla war than of a war of formation.
  In his dealings with the Chief Constable—and we should wish to join the right hon. Gentleman in wishing Mr. Kenneth Newman all success—he seems to disclaim any intention of intervening. That would be a very proper attitude if Ulster was England and the RUC was the Essex Constabulary. But it is not enough to rely for co-ordination on committees and the undoubted good will and good sense and ability of Commanders. It is for Ministers, and the Secretary of State who is supremely responsible to the Crown and to Parliament, to get a grip on the organisation of security, to knock heads together if necessary, and always to give leadership and inspiration.
  We were again disquieted by the insistence of the Secretary of State on the usefulness of talks between his officials and Provisional Sinn Fein. The Secretary of State
  "cannot pursue a resolute campaign of law and order, if at the same time he is agreeing to a verbal contact with the leaders of the group responsible for the greatest density of law breaking in the North of Ireland."
  Those are not my words but the words of a colleague of the hon. Member for Belfast, West—Mr. Paddy Devlin.
  We on this side deeply deplore the negative response of the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend's idea of a border force and a border zone. We can only regret that the idea has not found favour in the Republic. I think that in time the Secretary of State may come round to our point of view. If he does, it will not be for the first time.

  95
  Others of my hon. Friends have suggested that there should be a two-mile air corrider for surveillance by the aircraft and helicopters of both sovereign Powers, and for aerial hot pursuit.
  We will continue to offer our suggestions as we should. Certainly we must beware of being impatient. Perhaps the Secretary of State thinks that we are being impatient when we assert that the report of the Ministerial Committee on Law and Order should be available shortly. Impatience and a demand for quick solutions show a characteristic weakness in democracies.
  Impatience can only bring comfort to the Provos and the squalid "troops out" movement for which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will not give his support, I am sure, in spite of the views he expressed today and in spite of his reminiscence of the late Dick Crossman, as much a friend of mine, I hope, as of the hon. Member. Dick Crossman was dominated in his appreciation of these matters by his experience of Palestine.
  We must persevere for as long as is necessary. We agree with the Secretary of State that we must be prepared for a long haul. But there is no acceptable level of violence and no acceptable term for its continuance. I therefore conclude with words not wholly dissimilar from the Secretary of State's peroration. There can be no doubt of the outcome once the terrorists are convinced that our rulers possess an unbreakable will to win.
  6.44 p.m.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Perhaps, by leave of the House, I may say a few more words. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said that we must firmly have the will to win. That will is present. It is present among the security forces. Underneath that I come back to my earlier point about the nature of the violence in Northern Ireland and the political background to it. The violence is not just seven years old. I was told in Belfast yesterday by one solid citizen that all this had happened before. He told me that they had it in the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1950s and the 1960s. Obviously, the violence then was not on the scale that it is now. It is sometimes put to me that on those earlier occasions the violence diminished
  96
  and eventually ended. The view which is put to me is that this is what will happen again. It has happened that way in Ireland over the past 200 or 300 years. In the past, however, the violence has subsided only to reappear five, 10 or 15 years later.
  Our job, therefore, is to deal with the security situation but to try to achieve political agreement so that generation after generation in Northern Ireland does not expect and accept violence as part of the story of the Province. I must make one point to the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig). Apparently talks are taking place between the political parties in Northern Ireland, and apparently they are not explanations but negotiations. I believe that it would be a mistake for me even to begin to intervene in those talks. Also, if the belief suddenly bubbled up that there was a political agreement, and if that were to fall flat on its face, we would then be in a worse position than we are now.
  We have to choose the right moment, and that moment will be when those who lead the major parties in Northern Ireland come to the Government and say that they are prepared to work together for the good of Northern Ireland. Once that general statement is fully agreed, all the rest will fall into place. The mechanics of government are not too difficult to find.
  We are in the position referred to by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who dealt with what happened at Sunningdale. The only point I make about Sunningdale is not what could be read into it or what the words said. For Sunningdale to have caught on in Northern Ireland, it had to have the support of the people, not the politicians. There may well have been a time when that could have been achieved. However, whatever the words that we used at Sunningdale, they were not believe by many of the general public in Northern Ireland.
  It would be a mistake for me to intervene in these talks on the basis of what I read in the newspapers or what I hear talked about. We know that the best way forward is to get a form of government in which the communities can work together. I well remember that when I

  97
  first went to Northern Ireland there was a great outbreak of violence in the Belfast area while the Assembly was meeting. That violence was designed to bring the Assembly and the Executive down. It was also designed to test the arrival of the new Secretary of State and the new Government. There were many new factors involved. If I say that on the political side we are ready to help when necessary and that it will be a long haul, that is not to be defeatist. It is rather that to have a sudden initiative or a rush of blood to the head at this moment would, in my view, be a mistake.
  A number of points have been raised in respect of security, and I shall take one—the question of identity cards within Northern Ireland. I make no comment about the wider issue of identity cards here. This question has been examined by security advisers a number of times since I have been dealing with Northern Ireland. If I put it to security advisers, it is not because I believe that they should tell me what to do. However, it would be no good my going in breezily and saying "Let us have identity cards" and then finding that it was not working. There would be an administrative burden in establishing such a system as well as the burden of enforcing it. I am advised that the benefits would not outweigh that.
  Identity cards could be useful if they were accepted by the community. I am advised they would not be accepted by a part of the community, and we might well be in a position—a sort of civil rights situation—where identity cards were burned and people said "We are not going to have identity cards issued by an imperialist Government at Westminster". We would then be in the position where a good idea had fallen flat on its face again. It would also be a very heavy burden on the security forces, and I am advised—I accept it—that the system would cease to have security value.
  The problem in Northern Ireland is not the identification of people. Powers exist to enable the security forces to achieve that. What matters is the problem of producing evidence.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West asked about total costs. I cannot give a total cost because some of the later figures would be estimates. The main element would be the extra cost of keeping the troops in Northern Ireland,
  98
  which from 1969 to 1976 has been £180 million. The cost of compensation for damage to property and injury to persons is about £170 million. There are other governmental costs, which can only be estimated, such as the extra costs falling on the judicial and prison system as we are more and more successful at putting people in prison as opposed to putting them into an open compound, which was the previous system, based on lack of prison accommodation.
  I have to add to that the cost of the 500 additional cell places being made available. Part of that number is now available. More places will have to be made available, and I am already spending money. There is the extra cost to the economy of lost production and investment and loss of jobs and so on. But I think I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West the sort of figures involved.
  The question of detonators was also raised. It is not for me to be involved in the question of detonator control in Great Britain. I am concerned about the question of detonator control in Northern Ireland. Arrangements are rigorously enforced by the police in the explosion and control of detonators. Also, needless to say, any detonators recovered by the security forces are examined carefully to see whether their origin can be determined. The movement of explosive materials in border areas is a subject on which there is close communication and co-operation with the authorities in the South. If the hon. Member for Epping Forest has anything he wishes to put to me about the stricter control of detonators or explosives, I shall examine it willingly. I was firmly under the impression, and I was so advised in Northern Ireland, that the control of movements by the RUC was first-rate.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. Gentleman get in touch with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, because this is a question for the whole of the United Kingdom? If he can use some influence with his right hon. Friend, that would be to the benefit of the whole country.
  Mr. Rees: The problem of movement and control in Great Britain is completely different from that in Northern Ireland. If it needs to be done in a Northern

  99
  Ireland context, that is a matter for me. In the course of my discussions on explosives—and there are many—I have been working on the basis of the advice given to me that the control of explosives and detonators is done extraordinarily well in Northern Ireland. There is, for instance, the control of explosives which have to be used for industrial purposes and so on.
  With regard to the UDR and the question of its not being accepted, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West referred to the article in the Sunday Independent, which I read. The article mentioned the names of people in the various battalions starting way back in 1972 and coming up to 1976. It contained their battalion addresses but not, I am glad to say, their home addresses, what charges they had had, and so on. That is a matter for the Ministry of Defence. Anyone in the UDR who gets involved in this way is quite properly dealt with.
  Another point which was raised was that when people attempt to join the UDR they are told that their services are not required. That job is done by the UDR itself, working under the Ministry of Defence. I play no part in it at all. It is done in the same way as anybody joining the Armed Services is dealt with. It is not a political judgment on my part. In every case the examination of credentials, if that is the right word, is undertaken by the Army itself.
  With regard to Regular members of the UDR, most of whom are ex-Regular soldiers, there is already a large number of these who are known as "consolidated rate" men who are paid by the hour for their work in the UDR. I have been strongly advised by everybody—I have had no disagreement on this—that the Regular battalion aspect of the UDR would be a wrong approach.
  With regard to the question of Regulars within the battalion and the use which could be made of them, when a UDR company or a group of companies moves down to the border on certain days of the week they have to have the regular "con rate" men preparing for the journey and organising it. They perform a most valuable rôle. We are looking at this aspect of it with the Ministry
  100
  of Defence as part of the long-range investigations which are taking place. I have had it put to me in the last week or two that unemployed men are joining the UDR and getting paid for their work in the UDR but are having their unemployment pay or social security docked. The point is put to me that they ought to be able to claim both.
  Mr. McCusker: The problem is that a person who is a part-time member of the UDR is deprived of one or the other. If he is in receipt of unemployment benefit, he cannot be a part-time man.
  Mr. Rees: Of course, in terms of service to the community in Northern Ireland, that is not prevented. All I say to those who have raised this question is that I am constantly faced with the problem of payment to people who do jobs in Great Britain while they are on social security and who, quite properly, lose the money which they get from the State. Legislating to make an exception of the UDR would mean that there were other people in a similar position, and the whole problem would escalate.
  Many other questions were raised such as that of compensation. I wish that it were as simple as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) believes it to be. There was also the question of the law, and we are certainly looking—
  It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be for the general convenience of the House to take the Second Reading formally and to get on with the Instructions.
  Mr. John Cartwright: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that we were to have a brief debate on Second Reading.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cartwright.
  Mr. Cartwright: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I do not see many veterans of previous Greater London Council (Money) Bills here, so I should explain that, due to the complexities of the London Government Act, the capital spending of the Greater London Council has to be regulated by an annual Money Bill which has to cover not only the current financial year but the subsequent six months as well. Therefore, this Bill covers the estimated loan and capital spending of the GLC for the current financial year and the six months ending 30th September 1977 and provision for the Inner London Education Authority.
  When one looks at the Bill, one is struck first by the sheer size of the figures—£510 million for the current financial year alone. That is just about equal to the total capital spending of all other local authorities in the country and about four times as great as that of all the local authorities in Wales. It represents about one-fifth of the capital spending of all local authorities in England. This underlines the impact of the GLC on the local government scene and the comment, which I have heard more than once in my brief membership of this House, that, compared with our Welsh and Scottish colleagues, those of us representing London constituencies have scant opportunity to debate and question Greater London local government issues.
  In the present financial climate, and bearing in mind the present attitude towards local government, hon. Members will be particularly concerned to known what trends in GLC capital spending are revealed by the Bill. The internal capital programmes show an increase compared with 1975–76 of just under £27 million. This is mainly due to the impact of inflation, particularly on materials and on building and construction work. On the other hand, loans by the GLC are planned to fall by £50·5 million compared with last year and, therefore, there is an overall reduction in the current financial year compared with last year of over £23 million. If one takes the whole 18-month period covered by the Bill the reduction is about £53 million, which, I suggest, is a substantial contribution both to the attack on inflation and on to need to hold down public spending.
  102
  If we look at detailed comparisons, we find that reductions are taking place in seven areas of capital expenditure. There are small reductions in the spending on museums, on staff offices—which I am sure will commend itself to hon. Members on both sides—on Thames landing stages and on the grants to London Transport and British Rail. Larger cuts are shown for road schemes—this is Item 5 in Part I of the schedule—which are down by £9 million, due in part to a higher rate of Government grant and in part to a reduction in the roads programme. There is a reduction of £3·5 million due to a lower rate of school building and site acquisition. Planning spending is proposed to go down by £2·5 million, basically due to a slow-down of provisional redevelopment schemes.
  Increases are proposed in three areas. In refuse disposal, the increase is £1·5 million compared with last year. This is basically due to acquisition of a site for the new solid waste transfer station at Hammersmith and associated spending on other transfer stations. Flood prevention shows an increase of £2 million compared with last year, basically due to continuing work on the Thames barrier and associated flood prevention works. Those of us who represent low-lying constituencies near the river will be glad to know that that scheme is continuing.
  The main item of increased spending comes under Item 10, housing. Here we find that the GLC's capital schemes show an increase of almost £39 million. On the other hand housing loans, under Part II of the schedule, show a reduction of £50 million compared with the revised 1975–76 figure, which is after reductions made during the passage of the Money Bill last year. Housing is the largest element in the Bill. As I presume that it will loom fairly large in the debate, it is reasonable to make one or two comments about the GLC's housing policy.
  First, the GLC, like all housing authorities, has to operate now within a nil growth situation inside local government, and the new building programme for 1976–77 therefore remains the same as for 1975–76, at a rate of 5,000 new starts per annum; and improvement and rehabilitation will be continued within the limits of central Government control.
  I recall that in our debate on the Money Bill last year I referred to the emergence

  103
  of the strategic housing plan, something which many of us and the GLC have wanted to see for a very long time. I am glad to be able to report that discussions between the GLC and the London Boroughs Association have proceeded on the basis of the strategic housing plan and on the five main elements within it.
  The first of those elements is that there should be targets for new building, conversions, demolition and rehabilitation. These targets have been agreed between the GLC and the London boroughs. Even more important, it is agreed that the implementation of these targets should be very closely monitored.
  The second clement is that whilst the rôle of the boroughs as the primary housing authorities is recognised, the plan is based on the recognition of the essential nature of the GLC's back-up rôle to ensure new housing schemes throughout the Greater London area.
  The third element in the plan aims at an ambitious co-ordinated allocation system for all local authority housing in the Greater London area, to be followed possibly by the transfer of the GLC's 180,000 houses to the boroughs—something which many of us welcome because we believe housing management to be an essentially local responsibility. The fourth element is that there is to be the largest possible increase in rehabilitation and conversion of unsatisfactory houses and flats.
  The fifth and final main element of the strategic housing plan is the aim to coordinate policies to get the maximum benefit from housing association activity and from municipalisation, because these are seen as the best means of tackling the problems of neglect, overcrowding, harassment and obsolescence in the private rented sector. Discussions are continuing on the basis of the strategic housing plan, and it is hoped that agreement will be reached very soon.
  I relate these aims to the Bill. In the details of the housing policy, site acquisition shows an increase from the 1975–76 revised figure from £14 million to £23 million. This is mainly for continuing acquisition of sites already approved. These sites, together with others already acquired, will provide the bulk of the
  104
  land needed for the current five-year programme up to 1981.
  Secondly, the purchase of existing dwellings shows a reduction from last year's revised figure of £15 million down to £10 million. The actual spending last year was about £11 million, and that produced 1,450 homes. I think we have to recognise that the reduced level of spending on this sector will mean that it will make only a comparatively small contribution to London's overall housing needs in the coming year and that there will be a further deterioration in the condition of property in the private sector and, therefore, in the living conditions of many private sector tenants.
  In the acquisition of dwellings under construction, there is a reduction from £21 million in 1975–76, to £13 million. This programme supplements the number of new lettings available to families in need and makes a substantial contribution to the GLC's programme of providing to retired tenants cottages and homes at the seaside or in country towns. I am advised that the £13 million provided will produce 900 extra homes, mainly outside Greater London.
  Next, the heading for new building, which is the largest element in the increased spending on housing, shows the figure going up in gross terms from £76 million to £120·5 million in this financial year. This is due to increased tender prices of contracts let in 1974 and to the increasing impact on wages and materials prices, but it represents a continuation of the programme of 5,000 housing starts a year.
  On improvements and rehabilitation, the spending is up slightly from £19·5 million last year to £20·5 million this year. It covers improvements to estate dwellings and acquired properties subject to the approval of the Government under Section 105. It also covers spending in general improvement areas and housing action areas. There are also proposals for the general improvement of amenities on certain older GLC estates.
  The estates programme provides for full modernisation of flats and cottages which still do not have separate bathrooms. It also covers the range of improvements on a package basis to 2,250 flats with separate bathrooms but which

  105
  fall below modem standards in other amenities.
  Under Part II—loans—of the schedule the total housing spending is reduced from £125 million to £75 million. Home loans are subject to Government allocation. Last year provision was made for £95 million. As a result of Government cuts, the figure was actually held down at £55 million. Provision is again made at £55 million, although we understand that Government approval will limit advances to £52 million. It is reasonable to point out that this compares with actual spending in 1974–75 of £110 million. That shows how far the GLC's home loans scheme has been curtailed.
  Many of us welcome the somewhat happier situation of the building societies regarding home loans. Nevertheless, we recognise the continuing need for the GLC to assist families for which building societies do not cater because those families do not have an adequate income level or because the properties that they seek to buy do not come up to building society standards.
  Finally, I turn to loans to housing associations. The figure of £20 million advanced in 1975–76 has been retained in this year's provision. In fact, few new schemes will be processed—only those basically already in hand. However, the GLC hopes to make loans available for a limited number of schemes aimed at encouraging co-operative housing ventures. For example, in housing action areas it is hoped to provide loans to private sector tenants seeking to set up their own housing co-operatives. In one or two cases it is hoped to provide new loans for housing co-operative building ventures.
  I hope that those remarks will be of assistance to the House in considering the Bill. I commend it to the House.
  7.14 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) on the way he has introduced the Bill. It is a tradition that Back Benchers introduce Private Bills of this nature.
  I am a little surprised that there is no Minister on the Government Front Bench. Although this is a Private Bill, it involves the expenditure of £268 million
  106
  of public money. The fact that there is no Minister from the Department of the Environment on the Front Bench shows the Government's casual regard towards major blocks of Government expenditure. One of the Whips, who has been trying to get the Minister for the last quarter of an hour, is looking very sheepish about it.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to do my right hon. Friend an injustice. A few moments ago my right hon. Friend told me that he had been working at his departmental desk, that he was going to get a bite of something to eat, and that he would be in the House and proposed to take part in the following debate.
  Mr. Baker: How very touching that the appetites of Ministers should take precedence over their ministerial duties. There are enough Ministers in the Department of the Environment for at least a junior Minister to be here. We are discussing real money—£268 million—and there is no Minister on the Front Bench.
  I want to speak about item 7 of the Schedule. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East rightly spent a good deal of time on housing, but I should like to reiterate what I have said before on many occasions—that the GLC is not an efficient or a particularly effective housing authority. I should like the London boroughs to be made individually responsible for all housing within their areas and for the management of GLC housing estates.
  From my experience of representing two London seats, I know that the GLC estates are not as well managed as are the local borough estates, and that there is a feeling of remoteness. In London we get to know the housing directors of our boroughs and some of their staff when dealing with cases. The GLC's staff always seems that much more distant and remote and, indeed, infinitely slower than the staff of the local boroughs. I believe that the overall housing authority should be removed from the GLC.
  Members may say that that would mean that the poorer boroughs would suffer. I believe that it would be possible,

  107
  through the London Boroughs Association, which is growing in effectiveness, to arrange for the swap of tenants, which is done now, and for the allocation and rehousing of tenants from the deprived inner areas to the outer suburbs.
  I appreciate that much of the debate will be about housing. Therefore, I want to turn to Item 7—the capital expenditure of the Inner London Education Authority. That amounts to £23 million next year. I think that all London Members will appreciate that this is only a small part of the total ILEA expenditure. By far the largest amount—over £400 million£is on revenue account. Therefore, ILEA will be spending £426 million in the course of the year, of which over £23 million is on capital account. Compared with the spend six years ago, it is a staggering increase. In 1970 ILEA's capital expenditure was £16 million, with £95 million on revenue account, making a total of £111 million. Today, six years later, it is £426 million—a massive fourfold increase. I am talking in cash terms, but it is infinitely larger than the fall in the value of money.
  During that time there were 35,000 fewer boys and girls at school in the Inner London Education Authority area, because there has been a rapidly declining school population. In 1970—the year that I quoted—there were 250,000 boys and girls at primary schools and 164,000 at secondary schools. This year the figures are 199,000 at primary schools and 180,000 at secondary schools. There has been a drop of about 10,000 pupils a year in primary schools in the ILEA area. No other education authority can possibly be experiencing that kind of drop in numbers of pupils at school. At secondary school level the drop between now and 1980 will run at about 2,000 pupils a year. Despite that, the ILEA is still spending increasingly large amounts of money each year. As I said, in the six years from 1970 to 1976, there was an increase from £111 million to £426 million and a drop of 35,000 pupils.
  I wrote to Sir Ashley Bramall, the Chairman of ILEA, and asked what the pupil estimates were for the next five years. He told me what they were. I then asked what the expenditure proposals were for the next five years, which I
  108
  think was a reasonable question, and he told me in his letter that it was not possible to forecast ILEA's expenditure over the next five years. I think that he should have a word with the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is asked to do precisely that—to forecast educational expenditure over the next five years—because included in that forecast is ILEA's expenditure.
  All that I can deduce from this is that ILEA is reluctant to specify where it will make substantial expenditure cuts. If the number of primary school pupils is dropping at the rate of 10,000 a year and the number of secondary school pupils is dropping at the rate of 2,000 a year, inevitably there must be substantial expenditure cuts to match the drop. So far, ILEA has not made these expenditure cuts. The increase in capital expenditure in the last six years has been from £16 million to £24 million and in overall expenditure from £111 million to £426 million.
  I am concerned about the whole constitutional position of ILEA. It is a constitutional hybrid. It has all the trappings of local democracy, with elected members, but even hon. Members would be hard put to name more than two members. One might recall the name of the chairman and the leader of the opposition. I and many Londoners have the feeling that ILEA is literally out of democratic control. It is a remarkably remote institution. Once again, the London boroughs would be much better left to run their own education, without ILEA.
  ILEA pops above the horizon only when something has gone dramatically wrong. At 8 o'clock tonight "Panorama" is to be devoted to the William Tyndale affair. Vast sums of money are spent on experiments of that sort, which have more to do with social engineering than with educational improvement.
  My constituency is affected, because part of the capital programme this year is the merger of St. Marylebone Grammar School with a local secondary modern school. That merger has been opposed for over 10 years. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition rejected the scheme in 1972, but it has been resurrected by Sir Ashley Bramall, the Chairman

  109
  of ILEA, who gave it such a high degree of priority that he became chairman of the governors to put paid for good to St. Marylebone Grammar School.
  The proposals have been laid before and approved by the Minister, but the parents have taken the governors to court. They want an injunction delaying the merger, because of certain clauses in the charter, which goes back 200 years. The Government have decided not to go through the courts but to cease to maintain the school. That is a further example of the use by the Government of administrative methods to overthrow entrenched legal rights. The parents clearly would have obtained the injunction, but the Government impatiently said "Enough is enough, we want the end of this school so we shall stop signing the cheques for it." That is a use of administrative methods to achieve political ends—a use that overrides individual personal rights. If anything has characterised the last six months of our political and constitutional history it is the scant regard that the Labour Party has shown for entrenched legal rights.
  I am disinclined to support the provisions contained in the Bill for the expenditure of ILEA. The expenditure of ILEA is literally and physically out of control, as I believe ILEA is out of control. The officials, not the elected members, run ILEA. It is time we made constitutional changes to ensure that ILEA and the education services of London are run in the interests of the people who elect ILEA.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) used some characteristically broad phrases in describing what he believes to be the lack of democracy in the Inner London Education Authority. I remind the House that every member of the Greater London Council is a member of ILEA. In addition, each London borough has one nominated member on that authority. No doubt Paddington also has a member. I cannot, therefore, follow the hon. Gentleman's assertion that there is no democracy in ILEA.
  There is always argument—indeed, there is argument between this place and Whitehall—whether the democratically
  110
  elected representatives are in control. Part of our task is to see that the House is in control. If the hon. Gentleman feels that that is not true of ILEA, he has a vote to enable him to do something about it.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the City of London is hardly a fine example of a bastion of democracy? We know through ILEA who are the GLC members, but who are the members of the Common Council?
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has an important point there. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone might know the answer.
  According to Item 13, capital grants to London Transport Executive and British Railways Board amount to £22 million for the year ending 31st March 1977. I support the Bill, and this payment, but I suggest that the House and the citizens of London might look at the value they will get for this substantial sum of money.
  In 1933 the House passed the London Transport Act. Subsequently the income from all the buses, London Transport railways and the four private main line railway companies was pooled. That meant that fares in the London area were equalised and there was no direct competition for money between the agencies involved. I do not think that this system operates today, but it might have advantages for the travelling public
  The Greater London Council and the Department of the Environment have considered the co-ordination of rail services in London. The Barron Report, which was published some time ago, recommended the setting up of a co-ordinating committee to deal with rail services in London. The committee has not yet been appointed, although the GLC and the Government believe in principle that it should go ahead. I have asked several Questions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have written to him asking why there is a delay, and he has replied courteously. I hope that the Government will shortly appoint the committee so that the £22 million can be spent in the best way and the London travelling public get good value for their money.
  A great deal of the money goes on the replacement of equipment, and I do not want to go into the merits of the

  111
  question whether that money is wisely or unwisely spent. I wish to draw attention to the amount of money involved and the possibilities for dockland. East London is under various pressures, of which the House will be aware. The resuscitation of Dockland depends on its transport links. We have the port, and the river is the first and most important means of transport. We have certain roads, some of which could be improved, and we have railways.
  In my constituency there is an ancient railway, quite well used industrially, which has a passenger service, but the links between that service and London Transport are not good. The Barron Report suggests the building of additional platforms at West Ham to enable passengers to move from the District Line to the North Woolwich/Tottenham Line. That could have been done at the end of the last century. It should have been done after 1947 when both railways became publicly owned, but it has not been done. I have requested the GLC to get it done by Christmas. The people of East London are fed up with hearing about the plans, many of which were abortive, introduced by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment. There is no reason why the construction of a relatively small platform, which need be no longer than the Chamber, and the realignment of a few railway lines, should not be completed soon.
  I support the expenditure of £22 million for next year, and I confidently expect that the GLC, preferably before Christmas, will be able to afford a few pounds for a new railway platform at West Ham. That will be the first visible sign to the people in my constituency and in East London as a whole that the powers that be have a realistic attitude to Dockland redevelopment. This simple interchange, recommended two or three years ago by the Barron Report, would be a sign that those who have the power know what the people want and are willing to make sure that small sums are spent. In this case it would be a small sum compared to £22 million, but for East London it would be a sign of hope.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I do not wish to delay the House for many minutes as I understand that the Front Benches wish to give the Bill a Second Reading and discuss the Instructions.
  This debate gives me an opportunity to raise one matter which I would not normally raise, not being a London Member, but I think I have every right so to do and I wish to follow the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) who spoke of ILEA and item 7 of the schedule. Some of the £23,200,000, I assume, will be allocated to the St. Paul's field site at Hammersmith. If it is not included under that heading, I presume that it is referred to under another heading dealing with housing.
  I believe that this site should not be developed as proposed. It was never intended that it should be so developed when it was under the control of the old LCC. About 4¾ acres were intended for housing and the remaining 10 acres were to be open space. Unfortunately, all this has been overruled, and the local Members of Parliament have not thought fit to support the 11,320 people, many of them well known in all walks of life and all of them respected people, who have signed a petition asking for this development not to take place.
  It is not that they are against improved housing. Of course not. They, like myself, have seen many thousands of houses in the City of London and the boroughs standing empty for up to 10 years. I try to play some part in remedying this situation by being involved in a housing association. The objectors say that this scheme is completely unnecessary and that there is a perfectly adequate alternative site which can be adopted if in fact it is needed at all.
  One wonders about this Bill, in view of the cuts which have already been announced in education and particularly in teacher training. The old LCC, when it bought the 14¾ acres some years ago, decided that 4¾ acres should be allocated for housing and that the remaining 10 acres should be retained as a public open space, but the GLC now plans a large new ILEA building for West London's further education college. I do not know why such action is proceeding when these

  113
  cutbacks are going on. A further 8½acres is to be used for 296 flats. Even Labour-controlled Hammersmith has called this gross over-development, and local councillors have opposed it.
  I ask that this matter be given further consideration when the Bill goes into Committee. Although it would be wrong to put down an Instruction to reduce that amount of money, because it would not have the desired effect, I think this matter ought to be reconsidered by the GLC, by ILEA and by the local Hammersmith Borough Council. I ask hon. Members to consider this in greater detail in Committee.
  This matter comes somewhat ironically when we have this measure before us on the very day after the Secretary of State has thought fit to see Labour councillors at Transport House and tell them how concerned he is about the additional expenditure of local authorities in the London areas in this financial year. Here is an area where a decision could be taken, even at this late hour, to make some savings by the use of alternative sites. The housing is not needed on this site. It is much more important that the public open space remains. Hammersmith is a borough which has a vast need for more open space.
  I know that the Secretary of State has decided not to intervene. I know that the protesters have tried to fight this matter through the courts but, unfortunately, have run out of money, so that they have not been able to pursue it very far. I ask that those hon. Members present will give some consideration to what I have said.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: As the hon. Member for the Fulham constituency in the borough of Hammersmith, I should like to make a few comments on what has just been said.
  The need for housing, and for council housing, which is the only way nowadays by which rented accommodation can be provided at moderate rents, is very serious. The need for the college has been demonstrated on several occasions over a period of years. The plan now put forward is not substantially different from the one which was approved by the GLC when it was under the control of
  114
  a different political party from that which now controls it, and under a Tory Secretary of State.
  Over the years there has been much argument about this matter. At one time, when the borough of Hammersmith for three years had the misfortune to be ruled by a Tory council, the council's idea was that the site should be used for private housing and an hotel. What shocks me is that the people who now claim to be so concerned about the site made no protest at all about that proposal. It is apparently only when it is to be used for housing some of their poorer fellow citizens that we get these petitions and parades. The borough of Hammersmith, as has been pointed out, raised some objection, but that objection was met by the GLC by reducing the density, and the proposal now has the support of the GLC and of the borough of Hammersmith.
  A real injury will be caused to the people in the borough, and particularly those on the housing list desperately waiting for housing, if this plan is interfered with now. It is all very well for people whose own housing situation is well provided for to sign petitions to prevent those who are less fortunate from becoming well housed.
  In a situation like this, those who complain, those who, to put it bluntly, do not want council housing too near where they live, can of course, be identified. One cannot identify the people who will ultimately benefit from the building of this accommodation, but, although they cannot be individually identified, they are none the less real people with real needs. After the long years that we have waited for this project I am glad that the Secretary of State has given his approval, and I trust that this scheme will be carried into operation as soon as possible.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Mr. Speaker has selected the two Instructions which appear on the Order Paper, and it is proposed that they should be debated together. I call the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt).
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. John Hunt: I beg to move
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to reduce the total sum of '£403,715,000' on page 6 (Part I) of the Schedule by:—
  reducing the sums mentioned in Part I of the Schedule as follows:
  Item 10, in column 3, by leaving out '£178,650,000' and inserting '£177,400,000',
  Item 10, in column 4, by leaving out '£89,000,000' and inserting £88,000,000',
  in column 3 (carried forward total on page 5) by leaving out £235,470,000' and inserting £234,220,000'.
  in column 4 (carried forward total on page 5) by leaving out '£117,190,000' and inserting '£116,190,000',
  in column 3 (brought forward total on page 6) by leaving out '£235,470.000' and inserting '£234,220,000',
  in column 4 (brought forward total on page 6) by leaving out '£l17,190,000' and inserting '£116,190,000',
  in column 3 (total on page 6) by leaving out '£268,000,000' and inserting '£266,750,000',
  in column 4 (total on page 6) by leaving out '£135,715,000' and inserting '£134,715,000'.
  I understand that it will be convenient to the House if at the sane time we debate the next motion,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to reduce the total sum of '£96,000,000' mentioned on page 8 (Part III) of the Schedule by £45,000,000 by—
  reducing the sums mentioned in Item 24 of Part III of the Schedule as follows:
  in column 2, by leaving out '£60,000,000' and inserting '£30,000,000',
  in column 3, by leaving out, '£30,000,000' and inserting '£415,000,000'.
  The first Instruction deals with item 10 in Part I of the schedule and refers to the acquisition of property, while the second Instruction, dealing with item 24 of Part III of the schedule, refers to contingencies, where our aim is to reduce the requirement from £60 million to £30 million.
  For the convenience of the House I shall deal with the Instructions in reverse order, as I feel that the Instruction on contingencies may prove to be less contentious than that dealing with municipalisation. Although this is not a matter of party political debate, we believe that provision of £60 million for contingencies or "other purposes", as described in the schedule, is both excessive and unreasonable.
  116
  It is alarming to find that the amount earmarked for contingencies by the GLC has grown over the years from £10 million in 1965–66 to the present high figure of £60 million. Even five years ago the amount stood at only £12 million, and at no time in the past 10 years has the amount actually drawn exceeded £15·6 million. Indeed, in the two years 1971–72 and 1972–73 the amount drawn was less than £1 million. There is still some discussion on the precise figure drawn last year 1975–76, but at the highest estimate it is unlikely to be more than £20 million.
  We are told that a contingency provision of that size is required to provide statutory authority for any unforeseen event, to allow for inflation and to reflect possible changes in Government and GLC policy during the year. I am dubious about those points. Unless one anticipates that the present Government's anti-inflation policy will face total collapse, it is fair to assume that the inflationary pressures facing the economy during the next 12 months will not be significantly greater than in the past 12 months.
  On any changes in Government or GLC policy one must equally assume, particularly in the light of the speech by the Secretary of State for the Environment last night, that any changes in the next 12 months are more likely to take the form of cuts than increases in expenditure. Halving the contingency item along the lines that we propose would act as a salutary financial discipline upon those in charge of GLC policies at a time when it is more important than ever that local government should operate within strict guidelines and strict financial targets.
  We maintain that a contingency item of that size is unnecessary and undesirable and that a reduction to £30 million would not only be more appropriate and realistic but would reflect the needs of the moment to contain and curtail local government spending. In saying that, I hope that I shall carry at least some hon. Members on the Government side with me. I am not as hopeful of carrying them with me in the next part of my speech as I turn to the other Instruction, which deals with housing acquisition or municipalisation.
  In proposing the revised figures and suggesting fairly modest reductions, I stress that we are acting responsibly and realistically. We are informed that of the total amount in item 10—it is a large figure—about £13 million relates to the proposed acquisition of dwellings under construction by private developers. Of that £13 million, about £9 million is already fully committed and a further £2½ million is morally committed by agreement of terms with developers. For that reason, we propose to cut Item 10 by £1,250,000.
  Our basic objection to municipalisation is that it does not add a single new home to London's housing stock. Where the houses acquired by the GLC would otherwise have been sold on the open market, the GLC's intervention sometimes helps to keep house prices artificially high. Where the houses acquired would otherwise be available for letting, the GLC's action further restricts the amount of rented accommodation in the private sector.
  All hon. Members know of countless cases of young people, in particular students, single people and newly marrieds, who can never accumulate sufficient housing points to he housed from a council's waiting lists, although they are in desperate need of accommodation. In the past, the private sector predominantly met the needs of such people. Today, however, largely because of the 1974 Act, that type of accommodation has virtually dried up.
  Mr. William Molloy: The hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) has made an interesting speech, much of which I can agree with so far. But it is a bit thick to say that the reason why local authorities have had to try to provide homes in London and the boroughs is the huge success of private enterprise in supplying them. The contrary is true. The GLC and other local authorities have had to provide as many homes as possible because the private sector has lamentably failed.
  Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) has missed the point. Many categories of people, because of the operation of the points allocation system, will never qualify for a council house. For that reason, they
  118
  can never look, either through ordinary council development or through municipalisation, for rehousing by local councils. Therefore, the private sector has a rôle to play, but that rôle has been undermined by the 1974 Act, which has virtually dried up the supply of accommodation upon which those people previously depended. One has only to look at the advertisement in the London evening newspapers today and compare them with those of four or five years ago to see the extent by which the amount of furnished accommodation available for letting has slumped dramatically since the passing of that Act.
  A survey published in February this year by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors showed that the number of furnished properties available in the inner urban areas and in London in particular 20 per cent. since the introduction of the 1974 Act. That understimates the position in Greater London.
  I beg the Government and the Labour leaders of the GLC to recognise the heartbreak and anguish caused to so many people because of the shrinking market in private rented accommodation. The GLC should hesitate before it accentuates the problems by its policy of municipalisation. It has already acquired more than 6,000 properties at a cost of about £46 million. The majority of those houses were already occupied, so that no contribution has been made to the reduction of housing lists. The time has come to call a halt to the expensive and dubious municipalisation exercise.
  The GLC's excursions into what is euphemistically called social ownership have been none too happy. I give just one example, the Cardigan Estate in Enfield, where in February 1975 132 houses were acquired. Nine months later 20 stood vacant, and many were said to be unsuitable for reletting because of rising damp and defective flooring and roofs—not exactly a triumph for municipalisation or Socialist planning.
  Therefore, we are bound to ask why the GLC is so eager to pursue its municipalisation programme. It already holds land sufficient to build 38,000 dwellings, which, on the basis of the current completion of 5,000 dwellings a year, as we were told on Second Reading, represents enough for at least the next seven years One would expect financial prudence,

  119
  apart from any broader policy considerations, to make the GLC hesitate before going ahead with the acquisition of private developments in preference to development of its own acres which are lying unused.
  In the supplementary statement which we received from the GLC's Solicitor and Parliamentary Officer—and I gladly pay tribute to the helpful notes and information which are sent to us on all these occasions—we were told that the GLC's acquisition programme
  "makes a major contribution to the Council's scheme of providing homes for retired tenants at the seaside or country towns."
  I am sure we all agree that it is sensible for the GLC to enable retired people to move out of London and thus free the council accommodation which they occupy for younger applicants with families. As Conservatives, we welcome and support that policy.
  But the GLC does not stop there. I understand that it is currently committed to spend no less than £97 million on general housing activities outside its own area, mainly in the Home Counties. The young as well as the elderly are being encouraged to move out of central London, thus accelerating the population decline in our inner areas. If only a fraction of the money spent on this out-of-London development had been used to make a start on the redevelopment of Dockland, we should by now be seeing a beginning of the restoration and rejuvenation of those neglected areas of inner London which stand as a decaying monument to the drift, delay and indecision at County Hall on this matter.
  Our debate on the Instructions has been invested with great relevance and topicality by the speech last night of the Secretary of State for the Environment, in which he warned representatives of Labour-controlled local authorities, including the GLC, about their present levels of expenditure and said that overspending could not be tolerated. I understand that Mr. Tony Banks, Chairman of the GLC's General Purposes Committee, and Mr. Richard Balfe, Chairman of its Housing Development Committee, have today both expressed some doubts about whether further cuts can be made. I hope that the Secretary of State will make it clear to them that he means business.
  120
  Our Instructions provide him with a ready-made weapon to do this. They call for a modest but significant reduction in GLC spending.
  In the light of yesterday's ministerial speech, it will be interesting to see whether our Instructions are to be challenged by Labour Members in the Division Lobby. If the Secretary of State meant what he said—and he is an inner London Member—he should be using all his efforts and influence tonight to persuade his colleagues to support our Instruction on municipalisation. If he fails to do that, and if it is opposed, we can only conclude that, like so many speeches from this Government on public expenditure, the Secretary of State's words are all wind and waffle.
  The test will come later tonight. We shall wait and see what happens. In the meantime, I commend the Instructions to the House in the hope that they will receive widespread support.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mrs. Millie Miller: It is easy to see how we could fall into the trap of accepting the Instructions put forward by the Opposition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a serious appeal to local authorities to consider the expenditure in which they are involved, to consider the national needs, and to look ahead to the coming year and make decisions about priorities. In effect, that is what the GLC is doing in advancing its recommendations tonight.
  We on the Labour Benches are naturally very concerned about the situation in inner London. We are very concerned about the housing position for many central London families. It is interesting that in talking about the needs of central London the hon. Member for Ravens-bourne (Mr. Hunt) said that both old and young were being encouraged to leave the centre of London, leaving a vacuum which is not to be filled. Properties now standing empty in their hundreds of thousands are to remain empty, because it seems that there are not enough people in the lower income bracket to purchase them.
  If the housing problem in London could be solved through the vacant houses being purchased by those in housing need, if money were available from the building

  121
  societies for those young families who are anxious, willing and intending to live in central London because of their family, social and work ties, there would be no need for the GLC to make this kind of provision. Instead, we have the picture of not just council-owned but privately-owned properties not in the rented sector standing empty for many years. It is no wonder that eminent housing experts talk about the British housing failure, which is the failure of all sectors to make the right kind of provision to meet housing needs.
  If we look across the spectrum at those young people with families, desperately saving up in the face of rising costs to obtain their deposits and qualify for mortgages, we see that they are unable to enter the housing market. If they were, there would not be hundreds and hundreds of potential owner-occupied properties with "For Sale" notices outside them.
  In the privately-rented sector there are vast estates, some of which have been the subject of property speculators over the years. From time to time those estates have been occupied by furnished tenants, or have been deliberately kept unoccupied in the hope of a private sale. One often sees such properties standing empty. We also have experience of families, elderly people, and transient workers, all in desperate need of housing and with few people—and here I criticise the Government, the local authorities and the private landlords'—taking anything near the action required to cope with the situation.
  The Greater London Council has been making a great effort to take into public ownership privately-rented accommodation and also formerly owner-occupied properties that are standing empty. The tragedy is that the authority has not made satisfactory arrangements for those properties to be reoccupied. Therefore, in the past two years people have taken the law into their own hands and have seized control of many of these properties.
  The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker), in deploying his arguments, had a great deal of reason on his side. Nevertheless, the power rests with the GLC as a strategic housing authority. So long as that is the case, the GLC has not only the power but the duty to
  122
  look after London's strategic housing needs.
  I believe that we shall fail in our duty if we do not insist on the council taking a greater initiative in trying to do something to deal with the scandalous housing position. It will be of no avail if we refuse to proceed with the GLC's request for funds tonight on the pretext that we shall hand the powers to the London boroughs and leave them to deal with the problem. However, in the long term that course may have to be considered.
  Mr. Cartwright: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the long discussions that have taken place between the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association in working out a joint strategic housing plan, as a result of which the GLC will transfer 180,000 houses back to the London boroughs. Is not that the best way to share these problems?
  Mrs. Miller: We are still moving at a snail's pace in these matters—indeed, that was the case that when I left the London Boroughs Association some years ago. Nevertheless, the GLC, because of its strategic powers, must taken on the responsibility for provision in the first instance, and then the London boroughs can begin to take up the slack as a management task. In the meantime, faced as we are with vacant properties in various housing areas, we must apply pressure to make sure that these powers are properly used.
  The problem for those who want to own houses is that building societies are not taking a hand to make sure that people at the lower end of the housing market have the opportunity to become owner-occupiers. Although I admit that there have been some moves on that score, I believe that far too little has been done to date to make such properties the homes they should be for younger families.
  It is all very well to talk about the problems of ILEA and to say that the authority is costing London residents more for a deteriorating service. The fact is that the imbalance of London's population makes it more expensive to cater for everybody because so many families left in central London are in a sense social casualties who are more expensive in terms of care. That argument applies to

  123
  the elderly who are left behind and who make great social service demands, and it also applies to immigrant groups who are newly arrived in this country and who are more costly to maintain in central London.
  All these factors mean that in central London living expenses are far greater than they should be. This creates a total picture in which the GLC, ILEA and all the local authorities in central London are carrying a heavier burden of cost in proportion to the numbers of population. As people look back over the post-war years at the London scene, following reorganisation of London government, they remember the disruption of communities in the London area. Therefore, we must consider not only the question of the profligacy of present local authorities or of the authorities as they existed following the introduction of the Housing Act 1974, which was aimed at preventing evictions of families from furnished properties; we must also consider uprooted communities who have been taken away from their settled jobs and settled ways of life. It would be most unfortunate if the GLC's request in trying to cope with the problems that face the area today were to be rejected by the House. We must not deprive the GLC of the opportunity to do something practical to assist in the present situation.
  There is one other matter that is relevant to the situation in London today. I refer to the subject of rents for council properties and the approach that might be taken following the proposals to review housing finance in the future. In recent weeks there has been much comment about the higher rents proposed for council properties. I should like to take this opportunity to mention a site that has received a great deal of adverse publicity.
  I refer to the Branch Hill Estate in the borough of Camden. That estate has provided a bonanza for the media in seeking to show how local authorities waste public expenditure. As chairman of a committee in the London borough of Camden, I was involved in the acquisition of that site—one of the finest sites in London. The Branch Hill Estate, in Hampstead, consists of 10 acres of land and was purchased in 1965 for a sum of £464,000. For those people who are
  124
  acquainted with land values in the London area, I do not need to say that that was a modest figure indeed. That site was purchased from the family who had resided there for many years. It is a very beautiful estate on the outskirts of Hampstead and is almost a wing of Hampstead Heath. The family had lived in a beautiful house on that site for many years, surrounded by those 10 acres of land.
  The property was purchased with the object of providing an old people's home, a residential school and local authority housing. I well remember one of the local Members, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), who is present tonight—arguing for the purchase of this property so that the people of the densely-packed areas of Kentish Town could be allowed to breathe the clean air of Hampstead and enjoy the amenities of that beautiful area.
  Unfortunately, during the period from 1965 to 1968, while the plans for development were being undertaken, it was discovered that there were many covenants on the use of the land that that these would necessarily delay development. Meantime, the old people's home was provided at a cost of about £35,000. Part of the land was used for the council's nursery. It was decided that there would not need to be a children's home. Eventually, the Conservatives took control of Camden Council. One of their first acts was to try to sell the Branch Hill Estate to private speculators. There was a tremendous campaign in the area to prevent this.
  No suitable purchaser was forthcoming, despite great efforts on the part of the Conservatives. The land stood fallow for another three years, until 1971, when a Labour council was returned. Owing to the problem of the covenants, which had not been resolved by going to the Lands Tribunal in the intervening years, it was not possible to develop more than a small part of the site. At present, a small fraction of the site, about 1·65 acres, is being developed for housing. It is an expensive development. It would be possible to criticise the borough of Camden for the style of housing being developed there, but this is essential until the covenants on the land are cleared.
  I want to draw attention not merely to the historic situation but to what has happened to the cost of the land in the

  125
  meantime. I have already told the House that the land—10·3 acres in all—was purchased in 1965 for £464,000. The cost being charged to the housing account today in respect of the 1·65 acres is £1,025,000. That is an indication of the way to which our housing finance is being handled, so that we are able to get headlines in every newspaper and reports in the media about the profligacy of a council which bought five times as much land for approximately half as much money—and that to include a number of other facilities.
  That position contrasts strangely with another current situation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has been pressed about cut-price housing, namely, the sale of council houses to tenants. He has said that he accepts that the house cost should be reduced by about 17 per cent. as long as it does not go below the historic cost of provision. Perhaps the Under-Secretary, in replying, will be able to reconcile these opposing points of view. If council houses are sold to tenants they may be sold at historic cost. When a council is charging rent to its tenants it has to do so on the basis of current market value. May I know how this equation is worked out? Can we reconsider the justice of the way in which we organise our housing finance?
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) began her speech by saying that she was concerned about the housing shortage. I do not doubt the genuineness of her concern. The problem is that Labour Members will never face up to the long-term policies needed to relieve the housing shortage. Time and again I have heard them—this includes several Labour Members who are present tonight, such as the hon. Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown)—say that nothing must be done to remove any more industry from the London area but, on the contrary, industry must, as far as possible, be retained and even augmented
  The more we do to retain and augment industry, and hence employment in London, the more the area will act as a magnet to those living outside it. It is inevitable, as night follows day, that if
  126
  we promote employment in Greater London we shall never solve the terrible housing shortage from which London has suffered since the Second World War. The former London County Council recognised this and systematically worked to reduce the amount of industry and employment in London, largely with a reduction of the housing shortage in mind. Yet Labour Members now argue against this and advocate policies that will perpetuate the housing shortage.
  I do not doubt the concern of Labour Members on social matters, but they will not face up, logically and honestly, to making a choice between two contrary policies.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that what he is saying is only partially true? In my constituency many artisans have lost their jobs because industry has moved out of the area. We are asking not that people should be brought in but that there should be jobs for those who are there.
  Mr. Jessel: If industry comes into the area, or remains in it, some of the jobs will be offered to people who are living there already, but others will be offered to those who are attracted from outside, who come to London speculatively and take up accommodation in the hope of finding work. It is not possible at the same time to seek to relieve the housing shortage and to encourage industry to remain in London for the sake of employment.
  I support the Instruction. I have no wish to be wholly critical of the GLC. Much of what it has done is useful and valuable. I have especially in mind its work on flood prevention, for which many of my constituents are most grateful—both the local flood prevention works and the Thames Barrier, which is due to be completed in 1979 and which will at long last remove the growing danger to Londoners of flooding, with consequent risk to life because of the increasing likelihood of larger North Sea surges.
  I wish to criticise the GLC on three scores. The first concerns its handling of the traffic problems on the A316, the Great Chertsey Road, following completion of the M3 Motorway into London.

  127
  The GLC has improved three roundabouts along the A316, one at Hospital Bridge Road in my constituency and two at Richmond, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle). However, the GLC has left three other roundabouts unimproved. The result is that there are the most appalling traffic jams. Every day, thousands of my constituents and tens of thousands of other people who live elsewhere are held up for between 20 and 25 minutes by these jams at St. Margaret's roundabout, because the GLC has failed to improve the traffic-carrying capacity of that roundabout to match the newly completed M3 and its own short dual carriageway link from the end of the motorway at Sunbury Cross to the Hope and Anchor roundabout at Hanworth.
  The failure to complete work on these roundabouts, coinciding with completion of the motorway, has resulted in a great deal of traffic spilling over into residential side roads in Whitton and Twickenham. For example, the inadequate capacity of the thresholds of the Whitton Road and London Road roundabouts has resulted in traffic spilling over into Redway Drive, in Whitton, and many other roads in that area. It is appalling that the GLC, by lack of forethought, has not prevented these problems from arising.
  There is inordinate delay in dealing with planning applications and traffic management schemes at County Hall. They never take less than from six to eight months to be considered, and they usually take a year or 15 months. There is a vast bureaucratic machine, which fails to handle these matters with efficiency. The result is that London boroughs and the general public are kept waiting when they put these matters to County Hall.
  In my constituency we have been waiting for three years for traffic lights to be installed at the junction of Hampton Hill High Street and the Uxbridge Road, Hampton Hill. We have been waiting as long for small roadworks costing £40,000 to take place at a dangerous bend on the Uxbridge Road. The GLC seems able to find between £7 million and £10 million for the link between the M3 and the
  128
  A316, yet unable to find £40,000 to iron out a dangerous bend. These small roadworks have been put off year after year, but I hope that the work will commence next year. I hope that it is not to be further delayed because of cuts in public expenditure.
  At the same time, there is thoroughly wasteful expenditure. I have in mind the magistrates' court at Richmond, where some of my constituents are tried for offences that they are alleged to have committed. There may be many people in such a position, but there are nothing like enough to justify the colossal white elephant that was constructed and opened with great ceremony a few months ago by the Lord Chancellor.
  It is unbelievable that the GLC, which is responsible for magistrates' courts and which employs so many skilled architects—indeed, it is famous for its architects' department—should fail to allow for the fact that the new magistrates' court is directly underneath the flight path of the aircraft landing at London Airport. The GLC installed glass roofs without double glazing. It did so in an area in which there are about 600 aircraft movements per day. At times the aircraft noise is so great and so frequent that I am told by justices of the peace, criminals and barristers that the court works at only 50 per cent. efficiency. The building cost more than £1 million. It is a piece of unnecessary and extravagant incompetence. Labour Members need not wonder that I support the Instruction.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I was not quite clear about the point that the hon. Gentleman was making about the magistrates' court. Is he suggesting that the court should be removed, or is he asking for the removal of Heathrow Airport? Which of those things does he think is the fault of the GLC?
  Mr. Jessel: The magistrates' court is the direct responsibility of the GLC. It built the court under the approach route to London Airport, used by the planes that overfly the constituency of the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart). The court was built without adequate soundproofing, at a cost of about £1 million.
  The siting of London Airport at Heathrow was due to the lack of forethought

  129
  of a Labour Government about 25 years ago. In the late 1940s a Labour Government decided to site one of the greatest airports in the world close to the built-up area of London. The alignment of the runways meant that planes had to fly over built-up areas. People have been suffering from that because of the lack of forethought shown in the late 1940s. I should like to see the Maplin scheme reinstated, with all the noisiest planes made to go through Maplin and only the quiet planes permitted to go through Heathrow.
  8.24 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: It will not come as any surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) when I say that I disagree with him about airport policy. It may come as a bit more of a surprise to him and to the hon. Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) when I say that I disagree with my hon. Friend's criticism of those hon. Members' views about jobs in London.
  I take the same view as those two hon. Members. I believe that there is a serious job problem in London. There is the especially serious problem of manufacturing jobs and non-office jobs. The shortage of that sort of employment is causing growing problems and will cause severe problems before many years have elapsed. The situation is especially serious when there are no jobs of the sort that can be done by the non-academic stream of lads leaving school. There should be jobs for those people in London without their having to uproot themselves and move away to Peterborough or Milton Keynes, for example.
  If I were a youngster leaving school in inner London, or in many other parts of London, I should deeply resent the long-standing policy of successive Governments gradually to force manufacturing industry out of London. If London is to remain a great city, and a decent city in which to live, somewhere along the line we must put a stop to the progress to which I have referred. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that I carry with me Labour Members. I know that I do so, because I know that they see the problem as I do.
  130
  As much of what I say will be about housing, I should declare an interest. I am the Assistant Director of Information of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers. Some of what I have to say may not suit its book. Indeed, some of my comments will militate against the short-term interests of some builders. However, because I work for the federation for part of the time I do not have to stick all the time to what is necessarily good for it. My first concern is for my constituents and my second concern is for London. Indeed, London is my particular concern this evening.
  Mr. Ernest G. Perry: Where is your halo, Norman?
  Mr. Tebbit: I had to put it in hock. I am a bit hard up this week.
  I am a fortunate Member of Parliament to represent a constituency such as Chingford. There is little substandard housing in the constituency. Although I shall criticise some aspects of the GLC, the largest GLC estate in my constituency, Friday Hill, is generally a very well-liked area. It is popular with its tenants. There are almost no vandalism problems. The houses are well cared for and the estate is a credit to all those who have anything to do with it. The worst housing problem in my constituency involves a large and more modern estate, built by the borough. However, that has nothing to do with this evening's proceedings.
  It is wrong for Labour Members and for some of my hon. Friends to believe that only municipal ownership can provide the rented accommodation that is needed in our great cities.
  The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) missed the point when she referred to the problems of unsold homes which would-be purchasers could not afford. She made two errors. First, she forgot that the remedy of municipalising such properties keeps the price above what it would otherwise be and therefore pushes the property out of the reach of more people. Possibly that will hurt some developers, who have been happy to get much better prices by selling to local authorities half-completed estates which they could not sell on the open market. We had such an example in my constituency. A developer paid too much for the land, and he built too expensively.

  131
  I should have loved to see him suffer the proper penalty for his misjudgments, but unfortunately the local authority bailed him out; it got him out of trouble, which kept up the price of the houses beyond what it would otherwise have been. This is a marginal but real effect. Therefore, the hon. Lady was slightly wrong in that respect.
  Secondly, the hon. Lady was wrong to assume that those houses had to be bought by the local authority or by the GLC in a municipalisation programme before they could be rented. Sooner or later, we shall be forced once again to concede that there is a case for privately rented housing. If we were to concede that property coming on to the market for the first time—new property, which has never been rented—could be derestricted, it would be of great assistance to builders, who could carry on building through troughs in demand knowing that their houses would not remain empty.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: They will not do it.
  Mr. Tebbit: Of course they will not do it while there is a strong likelihood that, even if they were granted by a Conservative Government the legislation that is needed to promote it, it would be reversed subsequently and they would lose badly.
  If we could get it out of our heads that there must be a polarisation and a total schism between the owner-occupier and the municipal tenant, and could consider the matter more flexibly in terms of different forms of tenure—100 per cent. equity-linked mortgages, and so on—we would do a great deal more to solve London's housing problems than by indulging in almost mindless municipalisation.
  Tenants in London should be able to decide matters much more freely than they do. I am not talking about tenants who can afford expensive places such as Dolphin Square and the Barbican. I live in the Barbican, and many hon. Members live in Dolphin Square. We can make our decisions about how much we want to spend on housing. We can decide whether we want to spend the maximum and buy the maximum, or spend the minimum and buy the minimum. However, most tenants in London, who are
  132
  council tenants, have no choice about what they will buy with their money. The transfer system does not work. Once they are in, they are stuck.
  We know how many people plead with us at our advice bureaux because they cannot get a transfer. They have to account to clerks in offices in great detail about their family problems merely because they want to leave their parents or take a job on the other side of London. The machinery does not work.
  What is more, such tenants cannot say "I am a bit better off. I should like somewhere nicer to live and to spend more of my money on it." If they have accommodation that is costing them more than they want to pay, they have difficulty in moving down market so that they can dispose of more of their income on something else. There is a restriction of choice, because there is no market.
  Hon. Members on the Government Benches may say "You cannot have a market when there is a shortage." But until there is a market, there will be a shortage.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The tenants of the GLC are much more mobile than other residents. Many transfers take place every day. It is easier for people to move from building to building if they are housed by the GLC than it is for them to go through the procedure of selling their houses and buying others.
  Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman must deal with a different GLC from the one with which I deal, or his tenants must get different treatment from the treatment that mine receive. Some of his hon. Friends are nodding in agreement with me. We should try to deal in realities and not in imaginings.
  The famous case of the £90,000 flats in Camden has been played up as being something quite extraordinary. It is quite extraordinary. None the less, it establishes that municipal housing is not cheap housing. It will not be economical housing. The subsidy on those flats will be huge, whoever owns them and whoever lives in them.
  I agree that if we are to keep people in central London doing the more humble and lower-paid jobs that we need done in central London we shall have to subsidise their housing under any form of

  133
  tenure conceivable in a mixed economy. However, I feel that paying that subsidy through the sort of organisations that the GLC is, is the least efficient way that we could devise of doing the job. I am sure that there are much more efficient ways of doing it and that they would be no less humane than the GLC. However hard the GLC tries to be humane, it is just too big.
  A few weeks ago I had a letter from a junior official in the GLC's housing management department which came after some correspondence that I had had, sticking up for what I thought was a reasonable demand by a GLC tenant in my constituency for some work to be done in his house. Eventually, I received a very offhand letter from a junior official who told me that I had my priorities wrong and that the work was at much too low a priority to be carried out for some time. Of course, he put it slightly more gently than that, but not sufficiently so for me. His boss got a sharp letter back from me with the suggestion that he might have taken the trouble to write to a Member of Parliament in the way that Ministers, however busy they are and however much they think Members are mucking them about, still write back polite letters and sign them themselves—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Some Ministers do.
  Mr. Tebbit: Most do, if not all.
  Mr. Lewis: Not the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Tebbit: I am feeling benevolent tonight, so I shall not argue with the hon. Gentleman.
  Interestingly enough, it eventually emerged that at the time the junior official was writing to me saying that my priorities were wrong and that the work was at much too low a priority to be done, it had already been carried out, a few days before. That sort of inefficiency, which grows up in these large, highly bureaucratic organizations—certainly they are not customer-oriented or marketoriented—is a prime cause of the escalation of Government expenditure in recent years.
  We would do well, on those grounds alone, to fire a warning shot across the bows of the GLC about municipalisation
  134
  by clipping its wings to the tune of the couple of million pounds that we are discussing on this Instruction—to remind it to think, to remind it that this House and those hon. Members who represent Londoners will not indefinitely tolerate inefficiency and bureaucracy merely because it exists in the GLC.
  If that was not a good enough reason for doing this, we had an even more pressing reason put to us in the newspapers yesterday. I say that because we were not invited to that less-than-cosy occasion when the Secretary of State saw fit to call together the leaders of Labour authorities to tell them not merely that the party was over but that he would not pick up the tab for any more drinks.
  I think that we would be less than loyal and less than fair to a Secretary of State who is trying as hard as he can to hold back local government expenditure in the general public interest if we did not back this device of my hon. Friends and myself to clip that couple of million pounds off the housing vote, and clip the contingency allowance by half, to remind the GLC of its responsibility towards its citizens and the country at large.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. William Molloy: If the House were to accept the recommendations of the two Instructions we would be placing the GLC in a very difficult situation. I am bound to say, as is always the case with these debates, that I agree with very much of what hon. Gentlemen on the Opposite side have said on certain aspects of GLC administration. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) about the petty officials at all levels, who are getting more and more bumptious and insolent in the manner in which they deal with some of our correspondence. At times it is almost impossible to get any official in the higher or middle ranks in the London boroughs or the GLC, yet it takes only a few minutes to get hold of the Home Secretary or any other Cabinet Minister. This is becoming increasingly irritating, and on these points I can agree with all that has been said.
  However, all these points have not really made a case for supporting these

  135
  Instructions. If there is a demonstration, beyond peradventure, of the real quality of the Conservative case, it has been made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). He scraped the bottom of the barrel by pleading for more justice for the criminal classes in his constituency. He said that they could not hear the charges read against them because of aircraft noise. I know that the hon. Member has waged a strong campaign against aircraft noise, and it seems that he has to involve everybody in that. This is proof that the Opposition case is scraping the barrel. At the same time the hon. Member argued that we could not ask for a reduction in unemployment because that would mean that London would be a magnet again, more people would come here, and then the housing situation would be even more serious than it is now.
  Mr. Jessel: Is the hon. Member aware that my point was that hon. Members will have to choose between the two conflicting desirable ends? Which one does he choose?
  Mr. Molloy: The hon. Member's submission is this: do I want a high degree of unemployment or do I want a high degree of housing problems? This is an absurd situation to put to a Socialist. It is a dilemma for a Tory, but quite absurd for me. As a Socialist I do not want either. I am trying to find ways and means of achieving a situation in which everyone in London has a decent job and a decent home. What is particularly pernicious about that? If the hon. Member argues that at all times there must be a degree of unemployment and homelessness he must then nominate who shall be without a home and who shall be without a job. That is the problem in Twickenham. In my constituency of Ealing, North the answer is simple. No one shall be without a job or without a home, so I do not have the hon. Member's problem.
  It would by myopic to support both Instructions. I am committed to the creation of a Greater London plan. I believe that we could have achieved much more if we had had the old LCC and the destroyed for party political motives by the Conservatives. Those boroughs were 28 metropolitan boroughs which were
  136
  small. I do not think that anyone in Fulham lived more than a twopenny bus ride, as it was then, from the old town hall. Now in the London borough of Ealing the people who live in Northolt have immense problems getting to the town hall, whereas those who live in Southall or Acton do not have such difficulties. When there were three town halls it was much easier for everyone. We can, therefore, blame the remoteness of local government on the Conservatives who tore up the old system.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: My hon. Friend and I gave evidence at a public inquiry in 1962 in Lambeth Town Hall. Does he recall that we made then the very point that he is making now, but that we were overridden by the Conservative Government?
  Mr. Molloy: Not merely was the evidence overridden, but arguments were produced to try to prove how wrong we were. Now, however, every time one of these GLC Bills is introduced the Conservatives put forward the same argument, but for a different reason. It would be only politically honest for the House tonight to pass an emergency motion condemning the Conservatives for their handling of this whole issue because the monster they created still remains.
  The present administrators and the present leadership and, to a degree, the Conservative administration, have done their best to humanise our local government, but they face a tough job. We are concerned not merely with industry having been enticed under both Governments to leave Greater London. It is about time Governments realized—I hope the Labour Government will—that Greater London, though not officially a region, happens to be the home of one-fifth of the population of this country. Unemployment is a serious problem and it is growing. One can suffer anguish, pain and frustration by being a Greater Londoner just as much as one can in Liverpool, South Wales or Scotland. It is about time this was appreciated. I believe that Back Benchers on both sides of the House now realise this more than hon. Members who sit on the Front Benches.
  Mr. John Hunt: I am, as the hon. Gentleman knows, only a temporary

  137
  Front Bencher. Would he join with me in my call for a Minister for London specifically to deal with London's affairs?
  Mr. Molloy: The answer to the last part of the question is "Yes". I certainly agree. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I wish he remained on the Front Bench. I would go further and hope that all successive Conservative Shadow Ministers will always remain on the Opposition Front Bench.
  My submission is a serious one. It is not merely a question of the growth of unemployment in Greater London. It is not only a question of industry moving out of Greater London as it has been encouraged to do under both Governments in a laudable endeavour to try to relieve the high unemployment which existed in the so-called regions. We must ensure that one does not simply transfer the problem and that, by trying to resolve the scourge of unemployment in one area, we simply create it in another. The danger is much more serious in Greater London. We can see what has happened in many of the Inner London boroughs and Outer London boroughs where industry has moved out.
  Of course, one could argue that we should press for their return or the creation of new industries, but how does one do that when we are now seeing the mushrooming of warehouses on the sites where those factories existed? On sites which at one time employed 500 or 600 people, perhaps even 2,000, we are now seeing the construction of warehouses which employ half a dozen clerks and four or five forklift drivers. That is the problem we have to face when trying to resolve the problem of Greater London.
  It has been inferred, and I agree, that this is bound to have an effect on the education of young Londoners. In my own constituency education, under both Tory and Labour local administrations, had, to a degree, been geared to the skilled artisans required for the industries of the London borough of Ealing. Some of them were very skilled, like glassblowers and people working in the glass container industry. Special courses were run for young people about to leave school, but now they have been disbanded. They are no longer required because there are no factories where glass containers are made both for this country
  138
  and for export. This happens all over London.
  Many of us, on both sides of the House, have pleaded with both Administrations to take cognisance of this fact. I think that we should all repeat it till we get an acknowledgment of the situation from the Government. We should not have to wait till we can say "Now you must do something because there is as much unemployment in Greater London as in any other part of Great Britain. That would be an absurd situation.
  Mr. Tebbit: The GLC could help far more in the provision of small, low-cost sites for small firms out of which, one hopes, larger firms will grow in due course. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, as redevelopment goes on on a vast scale across London, it becomes more and more difficult for the small chap to start a small firm?
  Mr. Molloy: I have a great deal of sympathy with that submission. I believe that we should resort to an idea which I put some time ago and have repeated several times. There should be a Greater London plan, involving representatives of the trade unions, the employers, industrialists and the London boroughs, brought together by the GLC.
  I believe that the GLC should take over sites, as the old London County Council used to do. It could arrange them properly, with sensible planning. One has to be careful where one is putting a factory or a warehouse because one must have consideration for people living nearby. That was, indeed, the policy of the LCC, but it seems to have been forgotten. I believe that the GLC could show the Government an example of Greater London planning and achieve the sort of objective that the hon. Member for Chingford and I want in purchasing small or large sites. The ramifications would be enormous. For example, such a scheme would help refurbish artisan training in the schools in London. But I remind the hon. Gentleman that it cannot be done if the House passes this Instruction, because the money will not be there.
  There have throughout history been calls for reductions in public expenditure, but how often have we Known an increase in expenditure as the only way to relieve

  139
  the scourge and misery of unemployment. The only remedy has been to increase rather than to curtail public expenditure. We saw that process succeeding under Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States, and there have been other examples in Europe. The paradox is that if there had not been mass unemployment in Britain before the war many of the schools, town halls and roads which were constructed to help relieve it would not have been built. What would have happened in 1940 if there had been demands for great reductions in public expenditure? Let us all be wary of what we are told by all these brilliant economists who advise us. I am justified in drawing the conclusion that if all the economists in the world were placed end to end they would never reach a conclusion.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Government have made some concession to the pressure which he and I and others have put on them, in that, from 1st May, the IDC figure has been increased from 10,000 to 12,500? That is a major step forward.
  Mr. Molloy: I agree, but my hon. Friend will also acknowledge that it was not offered: we had to fight for it. That is what hurts me. If we had been one of the great regions we would have been summoned to be told of this wonderful new proposal by the Government. We would not have needed to fight for it. We had to fight to get our case heard, and we then gained some of the welcome concessions mentioned by my hon. Friend.
  I cannot agree that public housing is the terribly wicked thing which it is made out to be. I should like to make one point which I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider. What would be the position in Greater London today if all the London boroughs and the GLC had not got involved in building homes for ordinary people? The revolution would have taken place years ago.
  It is amazing that, when we talk of cuts in public expenditure, people both inside and outside this House will submit that we can cut everything except education, housing, defence, new roads and so on. Everybody has a special feeling for some subject—whether it be edu-
  140
  cation or housing—which in no circumstances should be cut.
  We cannot operate like that. It would not make sense. We must have priorities. The provision of housing by local authorities, and particularly by the GLC, is a major feature in bringing about contentment for ordinary people in Greater London. I repeat, what if the London boroughs and the GLC had never built houses? I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite acknowledge that there may be things wrong with the administration of some aspects of GLC housing, but we have never heard an outright condemnation of the principle of public housing. Without public housing the story of Greater London would be very sad, because literally millions of people would not have homes.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: My hon. Friend may recall that public housing came into being only at the turn of the century. George Peabody came from America to build homes for the working class of this country because he was so horrified at the situation under private enterprise. The Suttons, the Guinnesses and the Rowntrees were motivated because Tory Governments of those times refused to accept that there was any necessity to house the people of this country.
  Mr. Molloy: My hon. Friend is saying that the people he mentioned found repugnant the attitude of private opulence and public squalor.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: Absolutely.
  Mr. Molloy: The people mentioned by my hon. Friend wanted to do something about it. We have decided to maintain that principle by trying to eradicate private opulence and public squalor. We have moved a great way towards that aim in the past quarter of a century, but the problem has not yet been resolved.
  With the best will in the world, we cannot leave it to private entrepreneurs to build houses. There are many people in the private sector whose firms and industries build schools, roads and public housing. They are not with the Conservative Party in wanting to reduce public expenditure in those areas. Many well-known firms shudder at the thought of a Tory Government in power. Dramatic cuts in public expenditure on education

  141
  worries those who print books, make pencils and build schools. Other dramatic cuts would cause worry to people who build houses, from the carpenter and bricklayer up to the director.
  The Conservatives must not think that we all believe that the answer to our ills is to stop doing anything in the public sector. We have to maintain the principle of providing homes. We must not think that because the nation is going through a difficult period everything should stop. We have never adopted that attitude.
  One of the most audacious debates in the House of Commons was in 1943 when we discussed what form education should take when the war was over. That debate resulted in the Education Act 1944. Our enemies thought that we were a bunch of lunatics to be discussing education at such a parlous time. Let us say that we shall continue to build homes as best we can, and that we shall continue to maintain a high standard of education.
  If the GLC is faced with more difficulties in the future it will have to have the right to spend more money. I understand the problem which the GLC faces. It has to make precepts on local authorities, and they in turn have to impose a rate burden on the ratepayers. That is the system. I think we all agree that there is an urgent need to do something about the rating system.
  Because times are difficult, we must not abandon the principle of continuing great public works. Despite its many problems, the GLC has done a remarkable job in Greater London.
  Mr. Arnold Shaw: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Government are with the GLC in promoting housing in London and urge the GLC to build houses? A question that has been much in the air lately is local democracy. The Opposition have criticised the Government for attacking local democracy, but does my hon. Friend agree that tonight the Opposition are attacking local democracy by denying the GLC the power to build houses?
  Mr. Molloy: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. Far too often we fall into the trap of criticising the GLC and the London boroughs for the manner in which they operate within
  142
  the terms of reference of an Act of Parliament. That is grossly unfair.
  The GLC has shown courage in continuing to build. The day will come when our economic circumstances improve and the country will be back on its feet. The Government have achieved great success, particularly in industrial relations. We surely have enough confidence in the administration of the GLC to say that we appreciate its difficulties, we acknowledge its money problems and we shall have no part in adding to those difficulties by supporting these Instructions.
  9.9 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: The House is being asked by these Instructions to reduce the provision that the GLC should be able to make to provide for the housing needs of its citizens. The first reason for such a suggestion advanced from the Opposition Front Bench is that housing needs could be met if only private landlords were not interfered with by Rent Restrictions Acts and by making provision for the security of tenants. It is extraordinary how people can go on believing that year after year in face of all the evidence to the contrary.
  The Rent Act 1974 has been blamed. I think there were some Divisions on the amendments to the 1974 Act, but I do not recollect anybody voting against the Second Reading or Third Reading of the Bill. Opposition Members knew, whatever their theories about rents and private enterprise, that in our position it was essential to provide security of tenure.
  We are told that since that Act was passed there have been fewer advertisements of furnished property in the newspapers. What did so many of those advertisements mean? They meant that tenants had been pushed out of their property. The advertisements did not reflect the amount of accommodation. They reflected the frequency with which tenants came in and were bundled out again.
  Before that, the Rent Act 1957 was heralded with the argument "We shall get rid of rent control, and there will be plenty of housing for all." After that had produced the evils of Rachmanism, the Government who introduced it had slowly to retreat. There seems to be a belief in some quarters that somewhere

  143
  or some day there either was or will be a real market in housing, that housing was provided at rents that people could afford and that they had plenty of choice of the kind of house they should have and where they should live. That sort of situation never has existed and there is not the slightest evidence to suggest that it will. The supply of private rented accommodation, as has been pointed out more than once in the House, has steadily declined over the years, whether the trend of legislation has been towards greater or less rent control.
  There is, therefore, no point in suggesting that the GLC does not need these powers and this money because if only all the Rent Restrictions Acts were scrapped the problem would solve itself. That has been tried before and it has failed. It is not only a stupid experiment. It can be a very cruel experiment in view of the effect it has on tenants while the experiment is carried through.
  The second suggestion why we should agree to these Instructions is that even if we have to have houses provided by a public authority it should not be done by the GLC. The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) said that the GLC is too large and remote. But who created this monster? My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) has given the answer. We all know the history of this matter. The old London County Council was an authority of admirable size and it did a very good job for housing. It was destroyed because the Conservative Party was unable to win a majority on it. Now that the Conservatives find it difficult to win a majority on the Greater London Council, they want to destroy that.
  If we could wave a wand and go back to the LCC and the old boroughs, I would rejoice. We all know what a fearful thing any attempt to do that by legislation would be for the officials. We really cannot carve up London government again once every few years to meet the electoral needs of the Tory Party. Therefore we have got to accept the GLC, at any rate for some time.
  Mr. Tebbit: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is being altogether fair. I think he will agree that it is very likely that whichever Government had
  144
  been in power we would have found the impetus towards the GLC overwhelming. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members say "No", but our experience is that it would have been. Our experience is that we ought to reform the GLC at least to make it a strategic planning authority—we need a strategic planning authority—but to get it out of the business of trying to be a council in the conventional sense.
  Mr. Stewart: There is no evidence for supposing that everybody was enamoured of the idea of the GLC. The case was fully argued in the House, and I am certain that if the matter had rested with us we would never have done anything so silly. Clearly, there is an unanswerable case for the existence in London of something larger than the London boroughs. There is a case for the LCC, and there are certain functions that could only be properly performed by an authority larger than the London boroughs.
  The hon. Gentleman made a helpful proposal on how to promote small industrial enterprises in London, but one would need something larger than a borough organisation to do that. The same is true of certain aspects of housing. London is so compact that people frequently want to move from one borough to another. There are also the special problems of a capital. Many students come here from abroad. The country is proud that people come here to study, and in the long run it is of great advantage to have people all over the world who obtained their further education here.
  Several other problems, including housing, require something larger than a borough to solve them. The Opposition suggest that the problem could be solved by agreement between the boroughs through the London Boroughs Association. Having all the boroughs sitting together in conclave trying to sort out the need for transfers and the possibilities of each borough would be more difficult than going to the London authority whether it he the size of the old LCC or the present GLC.
  The issue of the debate revolves round the present housing powers.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: I am in sympathy with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart).

  145
  The London Boroughs Association arranged for a London housing office to enable the 32 boroughs to come together. The problem was that boroughs such as Bromley, among others, remained intransigent about taking their share of the burden. As a result, the GLC cannot build in that area. Bromley is operating on a silly, low-density concept of building. Even the GLC is not big enough to build in the area unless the Government allow it to do so.
  Mr. Stewart: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) did not think I was speaking contemptuously of the London Boroughs Association. It is a valuable organisation, but it is only a conference, not an authority in the full sense of the word. Authority is needed. There is no dodging that.
  It is a fallacy to say that the problem will be solved by allowing private enterprise to charge what rents it likes, and it does not lie in the mouths of those who created the GLC to say that the GLC is not the body to solve the problem.
  I now turn to the problem of population and industry in London. I was among those who urged that action should be taken to ensure that the population of Greater London was reduced and that industry be sent elsewhere—or that the continued multiplication of industry and more commercial jobs should be stopped. I am sure that that was right.
  Before the war, the area which now comprises my constituency had twice as many people living in it as it has now. One wonders how those people managed, but one realises that people's standards were then much lower and that they simply put up with conditions. It was understood that when one got married one must live with one's in-laws, perhaps indefinitely.
  It was essential, if London's housing and traffic problems were to be brought anywhere near to being under control, that the total population of the area should be reduced. If everything had gone smoothly, as it never does in this world, the number of jobs available in London and the population seeking them would have declined evenly over the years. But it would defy the wit of any planner to get that to happen. The
  146
  decline in jobs, particularly industrial jobs, has been running faster than the movement of population, and we have the general difficulty about employment that is affecting the country as a whole.
  The remedy is not to take action to try to sweep more and more people back into London. I should welcome anything, whether on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Chingford or anything else, that would secure more industrial employment in London. However, where are the people doing the less-well-paid jobs to live? The policy of the Conservatives in my constituency is simple. Their attitude is "If we can help it, they will not live round here". That was the object of the agitation over the St. Paul's School site mentioned by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I have written the right hon. Gentleman a note, because I had not intended to raise that matter until a quarter of an hour before the debate started. I apologise to him because I was probably discourteous. It is not just people living in the area who are concerned. About 200 teachers have petitioned the Secretary of State against the ILEA development at Hammersmith. They are not against housing but are against a development they do not believe in.
  Mr. Stewart: I have received numerous petitions, not only from teachers but from other people interested in education of all kinds, including adult and adolescent, who note the need for that college and the desperately inadequate premises in which it is now working.
  But that is by the way. I was emphasising that all too often it is the policy of London Conservatives to try to push people doing the less-well-paid jobs out of what the estate agents will call the nice areas. The only way to prevent that kind of development, with all the social evils that it involves, is for there to be an effective element of public housing in London. That is what we are discussing. That is why the House should resist these Instructions.
  9.23 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: I must first apologise for not having been here at the beginning of the debate. I felt

  147
  it my duty to support an old parliamentary colleague, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), who was being installed in a new position in a scene of brilliant pageantry and national grandeur. I felt that it was a parliamentary gesture to do that. Except for a few peers, I did not see many Labour Members standing shoulder to shoulder with their old leader on this occasion of pomp and ceremony, which perhaps they felt might be embarrassing for them, in view of the egalitarian stand that he has always taken.
  However, occasionally it is appropriate to make a speech untrammelled by having listened to arguments from either Front Bench. It gives a certain freshness, naivety and insouciance to one's remarks, and saves the embarrassment of using an argument of which neither Front Bench has heard.
  Mr. John Hunt: We have so far had arguments from only one Front Bench. We are still awaiting with great anticipation the argument from the other.
  Mr. Page: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) for making the situation clear. Fortunately, I shall be able to place the final straw in the balance, which will persuade the Government spokesman to accept the sensible view that I am sure was put forward by my hon. Friend.
  I wish to put forward four important but not particularly intellectual reasons for supporting the Instruction in respect of Part I of the schedule. First, I oppose the spending of this large sum of money, because surely the under-occupation of much of the GLC-owned municipal housing could be solved immediately by a shuffling round of the occupants. I do not believe enough effort has been made by the GLC to persuade those who occupy three or four bedroom flats to move to smaller accommodation and to allow those who live in overcrowded conditions to move into the larger units.
  Secondly, I believe that the time has come for many of the GLC houses to be sold off. In this way the funds in the GLC exchequer can be increased. It is also a way of giving those who have lived in council accommodation for a
  148
  long time the opportunity to own their own houses and therefore to make this vast new expenditure requirement unnecessary.
  My third reason for opposing the provision in the Bill is that I believe, as do many others, that the building that has been carried out by the GLC, and by its predecessor, the LCC has been on the wrong lines. For the past 25 years I have been a member of the Bethnal Green East London Housing Association. We have insisted on trying to retain single-storey dwelling houses, even though we have modernised and improved them. I do not think that we have pulled down any single-storey dwelling when it has been necessary to build flats, and only in one or two cases have those new units of accommodation been more than two storeys high. I believe that the London tower block has been a social disaster.
  Mrs. Lena Jeger: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that tower blocks have been built in places other than London and that they have not been very acceptable in those other areas, either.
  Mr. Page: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am, however, desperately trying to keep within the rules of order. I do not want to stray and receive a rebuke. The serious thing is that the experts—the architects—have perpetrated these monstrosities all over. Even now, one sees in parts of Hackney some of the old squares that have been partly demolished. This is tragic when one thinks of what lovely homes could have existed there.
  I have received an amazing amount of ecumenical support for what I have said. I wonder whether my last point will be similarly received. The extra money that we are discussing should not be spent on housing until the Government accept the view that for that present, and for the next three to five years, no further immigration for settlement from any source should be allowed. Thus, we would be reducing the demand for homes—and if the demand is reduced the amount of money set out here will not be required. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), now that he has hung his whip in the hall and put on the poacher's uniform again, was very wise, and was speaking for many people all over Lon-London, when he said recently "Enough

  149
  is enough." Let us accept the Instruction and by doing so demonstrate that we believe that enough is enough.
  9.32 p.m.
  Mr. William Shelton: We have had a wide-ranging debate on the two Instructions tabled by my colleagues and I. What a difficulty we London Members find ourselves in when we have to use pretexts such as this to debate our capital city. I hope that the Under-Secretary will convey that remark to his right hon. and hon. Friends. More time for debating the affairs of London would be most acceptable to all those present this evening. There are two Instructions, the second of which has received very short shrift from the House. It was referred to by practically no one. I can only deduce that there is general acceptance for the proposition put forward in it, although I agree that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) said that its acceptance would create a difficult situation.
  We are suggesting in that Instruction that the contingency reserves should be reduced from £600 million to £300 million, for the good reason that never in the past, to the best of my knowledge, has more than £15½ million been spent out of the contingency reserve. We would not have thought that this would create great hardship. The matter was not dwelt on by anyone who spoke, although the Under-Secretary may wish to give us his views upon it.
  Most of the discussion—when it related to the Instructions—dealt with the first Instruction, which concerns municipalisation, which Labour Members know we do not very much like. It was suggested by the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) that we had more or less advocated an end to public housing. We have done no such thing. We are advocating striking a balance. We believe that the GLC has gone much too far in one direction. We believe that the GLC should be a strategic planning authority. That is why I was extremely interested in an interjection by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright). I believe he said that in housing matters the GLC should be strategic and not management. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) and some of
  150
  her hon. Friends nod in agreement. We believe that the original intention that management should be undertaken by the boroughs is devoutly to be wished.
  Mr. Cartwright: I was trying to indicate that the aim of the discussions on the strategic housing plan is that there should be a clear differentiation and a clear understanding between the GLC and the boroughs as to who does what.
  Mr. Shelton: No doubt if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will have a chance to elaborate.
  It is with some surprise that we must question whether it is the intention of the members and officers of the GLC that the council should wither away in housing management terms. That is especially so when I hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) that it has acquired about 6,000 new houses in recent years and is proposing to acquire more should the Money Bill go through unamended.
  The right hon. Member for Fulham spoke of the GLC as a monster. His reason for doing nothing about the monster seemed to be that it was created by Conservatives. It has always seemed to me that one of the least acceptable arguments is to say that something was done by someone else and that therefore one need not do anything about it.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: That is not the reason I gave. I said that we cannot carve up local government authorities every so often because the present set-up does not suit the Conservatives electorally. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say that it is now Conservative policy to rearrange the government of London?
  Mr. Shelton: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it always has been and always will be the policy under local government legislation that the GLC should be a strategic planning authority and not involved in housing management. I think he will agree with that.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: That is hardly an answer to my question.
  Mr. Shelton: I continue to refer to the problem of municipalisation—[Interruption.] Does the Minister wish to intervene?
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): If the hon. Gentleman reads the Act that his predecessors passed, he will find that it suggests no such thing as he has been putting to the House.
  Mr. Shelton: If the Minister is suggesting that the GLC is not a strategic planning authority, perhaps at some other time he will tell us what he believes it to be.
  I continue with the problem of municipalisation relating to the second Instruction. Is the House aware of the level of home ownership in London a couple of years ago? These are the latest figures in my possession. London came ninth in a list of 11 regions. Only 46 per cent. of homes in London were privately owned. The London figure headed only Scotland and the Northern Region. Of the areas surrounding London, there was 61 per cent. home ownership in the South-West and 60 per cent. in the South-East. That gives some force to our disinclination to see increasing municipalisation in the capital. We should very much prefer to see an increase in home ownership.
  I now turn to some of the remarks made by my hon. Friends the Members for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and Ravens-bourne. My hon. Friends discussed the inefficiency and the bureaucracy of the Greater London Council. I have always found its officers courteous and helpful, but it cannot be claimed that it is always an outstandingly good landlord. My hon. Friend the Member for Ravens-bourne mentioned the situation at the Cardigan Estate, Enfield and I refer to the situation at Mulberry Close, Chelsea, SW3, which was acquired by the GLC in 1975. A covenant exists between the landlords, the freeholders and the GLC. Many of those living in Mulberry Close have a leasehold. The covenant entails certain legal obligations, which I am advised the GLC is not proposing to honour, or at least at present is not honouring.
  I understand that the same situation is occurring at the Hereford House Estate, Chelsea. Not long ago the estate was acquired by the GLC. It is difficult to believe that the GLC is ignoring its legal obligations, but such is the information that I have been given.
  152
  The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) spoke of the problem of empty properties. The House must agree with what she said. The right hon. Member for Fulham spoke of homelessness. One of the most bitter sights for the homeless must be empty properties.
  I cannot avoid the thought that the continuing large numbers of empty properties owned by the GLC and by local councils, such as Lambeth, must be due to the inability of the housing officers to cope with those large numbers. I propose to read an excerpt from a letter from the GLC—I shall not say from which officer—in answer to a query that I raised about a GLC property that had been empty for some time. He confirmed that the house had been converted into two flats and was purchased by the GLC in 1975. Various work was carried out and the house had been handed to the GLC for letting late in 1975. He said that in this regard
  "notification that the property was ready for letting went astray…and it was not until the flooding was reported … that we realised that the house had not been let".
  He went on:
  "Perhaps I should conclude by saying that this 'losing' of a property is one of our nightmares and something which we spend a good deal of time over to try and prevent".
  When the GLC discovered that it had the house, it was repaired. In the flood, water had poured into the street and neighbours had said "Who owns this house?" I wonder how many other houses have been "lost" by the GLC. That is a sobering thought, which may explain a few of the empty properties in London.
  Mrs. Millie Miller: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about the lack of local authority care in these matters, but it is more than paralleled in the vast numbers of privately rented properties that stand empty for years, with nobody being aware of the floods going on in them and nobody doing anything about them. What the hon. Gentleman says about the letter from the GLC official is indicative of the nightmarish situation which the officials foresee. They care enough to be concerned that they should not "lose" properties when dealing with such vast numbers.
  Mr. Shelton: The hon. Lady is right. I am not saying that the officers do not

  153
  care; of course they care. It is a nightmarish situation. The hon. Lady is supporting my point. The GLC owns so many properties that the problem has become a nightmare for it. Is it for the House to persuade the GLC to own more properties?
  I wish to say a few words about the cost of municipalisation. Mr. Richard Balfe said, after the famous meeting yesterday, to which the Conservative leaders were not invited—perhaps, unlike their Labour colleagues, they are not overspending—that the GLC was overspending by only 1 one per cent. He went on to mention an over-spending of £15 million.
  The net average GLC rent is £5·50 a week. If this had been tied to the London earnings index since 1973, it would now be £7·30—an increase of 30 per cent., more or less equivalent to a penny rate. If GLC rents had increased according to the earnings index, we could perhaps be charging the ratepayer a penny less. This is a sobering thought if we are proposing to increase rather than reduce its stock of houses. I shall not go into the argument about the comparative prosperity of the GLC tenant and the comparative prosperity of the tenant in privately rented accommodation, but most hon. Members will acknowledge that there is no longer much difference between them. It is not impossible that the family of the private tenant has a smaller income than that of the GLC tenant.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne quoted the remark of Mr. Tony Banks, the Chairman of the GLC General Purposes Committee, that the council had cut its spending to the bone. He went on:
  "We are prepared to look again, but the fact is that we are down to the bone, and when you take away the bone, everything else collapses."
  After this debate, the word "nerve" might be more in keeping when it is suggested that the GLC is down to the bone.
  We have before us two Instructions, the first of which reduces contingency reserves by £30 million—
  Mr. Molloy: There is no support for the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  Mr. Shelton: I was waiting for some argument in rebuttal, but none was forthcoming. The second Instruction is to reduce the estimate permitted for municipalisation. I urge the House to support both Instructions.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cartwright.
  Mr. Cartwright rose—
  Mr. John Hunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not unprecedented, in a debate on a major Bill of this kind, for the Minister to remain silent? Especially in view of the speech yesterday from the Secretary of State, ought not we to have the benefit of a ministerial view about the cutting of public expenditure that these Instructions would implement?
  Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me who seeks to catch my eye.
  9.46 p.m.
  Mr. Cartwright: As the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) said, this debate has gone somewhat wide of the Instructions in some of the issues which have been raised. I make no complaint, because they are genuine London issues which should be debated in this House. However, it was unfortunate that immigration should have been dragged in right at the end of the debate.
  I turn first to the contingency provision. The Instruction was moved very beguilingly by the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr Hunt), although it is a somewhat novel Conservative financial concept not to make sensible provision for the unexpected. It seems to be suggested that this is an unusually large provision for contingencies. However, I notice that the figure proposed in the Bill is the same as that proposed in last year's Bill. It compares with a figure of £52 million in 1974–75. If we go back to much less inflationary days, in 1967–68 it was £22 million. In proportion, £64 million in this Bill is nothing out of the way.
  Mr. John Hunt: Do not the figures which the hon. Gentleman is quoting indicate that the pattern shows that over the years the contingency allocation has been consistently too high? He referred to the year 1974–75, in which £52 million

  155
  was sought whereas only £14·4 million was spent. Taking the record of those years, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this year's request is excessive?
  Mr. Cartwright: The hon. Gentleman interrupted me a little too soon. I was about to underline the reasons given by the GLC for this level of provision. However, before doing that it is reasonable to make a point which has not come out in any reference so far to the contingency provision. It is that it it not the case that, if we vote this sum to the GLC, it can spend it happily at any time. It is subject to Treasury approval. Therefore, there is a very substantial safeguard for that provision.
  Perhaps I might refer to the reasons given by the GLC for requiring a contingency provision at this level. It points out that the figures of expenditure in Part I of the Bill are prepared broadly on November 1975 price levels. It goes on to say that subsequently higher expenditure imposed by inflation could have an impact. Even, for example, when inflation operates at the rate of 7 per cent., the sum needed to cover that inflation would form a very substantial part of the contingency provision.
  Secondly, if there are changes in Government policy to stimulate demand, to get the building industry moving, for example, as the upturn in the economy occurs, the only way in which the GLC can take advantage of that is by drawing on the contingency provision. Thirdly, any stimulation of the house purchase scheme would again have to come from the contingency provision, and I am advised that even a 10 per cent. increase would involve, over a 12-month period, an additional £8 million to be drawn from the contingency sums.
  There is also a technical problem about the possible need to treat the sum of £20 million of revenue expenditure for capital purposes. If that were to occur—there is a real risk of it—and if the Instruction were carried, it would leave the GLC with only £10 million for any other problems which might arise. I do not suggest that it would be quite impossible for the GLC to operate if the Instruction were carried, but the GLC's financial advisers, who are sober people and like all local council treasurers, not
  156
  given to wild exaggeration, take the view that it would be very difficult and that there would be a number of worries involved if the contingency provision were halved as the Instruction suggests.
  On the housing question, the hon. Member for Ravensbourne said that municipalisation itself did not add one new home to the housing stock. If one talks about homes in terms of bricks and mortar, clearly it does not add an additional house or flat. On the other hand, municipalisation enables us and gives us the opportunity to use the existing housing stock to better advantage. All of us have in our constituencies tenants in private rented accommodation who say that their present houses or flats are too big for their needs. However, they point out that, unfortunately, there is no way in which they local authority can house them because they are not in housing need in the accepted sense. There are also many other who are in accommodation which is not suitable, but because they are tenants of private landlords and are not in desperate need there is no way in which the local authority can house the
  Mr. John Page: Over-occupation and under-occupation are considerable problems, and the GLC housing authority is the worst in the world in this respect. Therefore, to give it a greater housing stock would merely be to give it more houses for its housing managers to make a mess of.
  Mr. Cartwright: I was coming to that point later, but as it has been raised now I shall deal with it now. I accept, and all of us on this side accept, that the GLC is not the easiest organisation in the world out of which to extract a transfer. In my view, this is an argument for devolving powers of management to the borough councils rather than the GLC.
  Nevertheless, I do not understand how the ability of tenants to move flexibly and freely from one accommodation to another is improved by maintaining a privately-rented system. Some local authorities, having purchased properties for municipalisation, keep those properties empty for too long. None of us on this side of the House would defend that. Local councils in London understand that problem and are making

  157
  strenuous efforts to ensure that they do not keep property standing empty.
  The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) argued the need for differing forms of ownership. I accept that completely, but I challenge whether differing forms of ownership should include a retreat back to private landlordism. What we want to see is the development of housing co-operatives of all sorts to give tenants a greater stake in their own homes. If we had more experiments in turning over to tenants the responsibility for managing their own properties as housing co-operatives this would give tremendous scope and opportunity for development. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction for what he has done in this respect.
  Mr. Molloy: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although municipal and GLC housing has its faults, some of the housing estates stand where some of the vilest slums in history existed before? Although there is a chance for this sort of co-operative to operate on the new estates, one could hardly expect such a co-operative to have been formed in those former days among slum dwellers to take care of the filth in which they lived.
  Mr. Cartwright: I accept that the problems of urban renewal in many of our cities could not be, and never have been, tackled by private enterprise. The job has always been left to the municipal authorities.
  Nevertheless, many of us are worried about the "them and us" relationship which is developing between some tenants and some housing departments. The cooperative approach is one way of trying to bridge that gap. One aspect singled out for attack by the Conservatives was the acquisition by the GLC of properties
  under construction. The £13 million provided under this heading will enable the council to provide some 900 new homes outside the London area, many of them under the scheme allocating seaside and country homes for elderly tenants. There are 5,000 people on the waiting list for this scheme, and they are occupying family houses which could be put to better use. The scheme therefore offers a substantial gain both in housing and in social terms.
  Some hon. Members have sought to attack what they regard as unlimited GLC spending, but it should be remembered that there are substantial reductions in this Money Bill compared with that of last year. For example, spending on education is down by £3·5 million compared with last year, which hardly bears out the statement by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) that ILEA spending is totally out of control. Spending on roads is down by £9·5 million and on planning schemes it is down by £2·5 million. There are substantial reductions under the various headings for the GLC housing programme. All this underlines the point made by many of my hon. Friends that the GLC is playing its part in holding down local government spending to a reasonable level.
  Perhaps I may recall just one figure which I quoted on Second Reading of a £53 million saving over the 18-month period under this Bill as compared with the 18 months of the previous Money Bill. That is a substantial contribution by the GLC to holding down spending and attacking inflation. For those reasons, I hope that the House will reject both Instructions.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 277.

  Division No 178.]

  AYES

  [9.58 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Biffen, John

  Budgen, Nick

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Alison, Michael

  Body, Richard

  Burden, F. A.

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Arnold, Tom

  Bottomley, Peter

  Carlisle, Mark

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Awdry, Daniel

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Channon, Paul

  Baker, Kenneth

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Churchill, W. S.

  Banks, Robert

  Brittan, Leon

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Beith, A. J.

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Bell, Ronald

  Brotherton, Michael

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Clegg, Walter

  Benyon, W.

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Cockcroft, John

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Buck, Antony

  Cooke. Robert (Bristol W)

  Cope, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Cordle, John H.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jones, Arthur (Deventry)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Corrie, John

  Jopling, Michael

  Raison, Timothy

  Costain, A. P.

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rathbone, Tim

  Crouch, David

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Kitson, Sir Timorthy

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knox, David

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lamont, Norman

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lane, David

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Durant, Tony

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Dykes, Hugh

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Emery, Peter

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Farr, John

  Lloyd, Ian

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Fell, Anthony

  Loveridge, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Luce, Richard

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  MacGregor, John

  Shepherd, Colin

  Forman, Nigel

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Silvester, Fred

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Sims, Roger

  Fox, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Madel, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Freud, Clement

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Fry, Peter

  Marten, Neil

  Speed, Keith

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mates, Michael

  Spence, John

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Mather, Carol

  Sproat, Iain

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Maude, Angus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Stanley, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mawby, Ray

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Gorst, John

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stradling, Thomas J.

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Mills, Peter

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Gray, Hamish

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Moate, Roger

  Tebbit, Norman

  Grist, Ian

  Monro, Hector

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Grylls, Michael

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Hall, Sir John

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morgan, Geraint

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Trotter, Neville

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Hannam, John

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mudd, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Neave, Airey

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Neubert, Michael

  Wakeham, John

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Newton, Tony

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Normanton, Tom

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Hicks, Robert

  Nott, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Walters, Dennis

  Holland, Philip

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hordern, Peter

  Osborn, John

  Wells, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hunt, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Hurd, Douglas

  Penhaligon, David

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Percival, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Michael Shersby and

  James, David

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Sir George Young.

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

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Bean, R. E.

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Allaun, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Buchan, Norman

  Anderson, Donald

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Archer, Peter

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bishop, E. S.

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Ashley, Jack

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Campbell, Ian

  Ashton, Joe

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Canavan, Dennis

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Cant, R. B.

  Atkinson, Norman

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Carter, Ray

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bradley, Tom

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cartwright, John

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Bates, Alf

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  160

  161

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hunter, Adam

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Cohen, Stanley

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Coleman, Donald

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Radice, Giles

  Corbett, Robin

  Janner, Greville

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Cronin, John

  John, Brynmor

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Cryer, Bob

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rooker, J. W.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kerr, Russell

  Roper, John

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lambie, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Deakins, Eric

  Lamborn, Harry

  Sandelson, Neville

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lamond, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Selby, Harry

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Dempsey, James

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Doig, Peter

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lipton, Marcus

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sillars, James

  Dunn, James A.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Silverman, Julius

  Dunnett, Jack

  Luard, Evan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Small, William

  Eadie, Alex

  McCartney, Hugh

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Edge, Geoff

  McElhone, Frank

  Snape, Peter

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Spearing, Nigel

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  English, Michael

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stoddart, David

  Ennals, David

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Strang, Gavin

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Madden, Max

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Magee, Bryan

  Swain, Thomas

  Evans John (Newton)

  Mahon, Simon

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Mallalleu, J. P. W.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Marquand, David

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Tinn, James

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Meacher, Michael

  Tomlinson, John

  Ford, Ben

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Tomney, Frank

  Forrester, John

  Mendelson, John

  Torney, Tom

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Tuck, Raphael

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

  Millan, Bruce

  Urwin, T. W.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Molloy, William

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Moonman, Eric

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Ginsburg, David

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Ward, Michael

  Golding, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Watkins, David

  Gould, Bryan

  Moyle, Roland

  Watkinson, John

  Gourlay, Harry

  Weetch, Ken

  Graham, Ted

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Weitzman, David

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Wellbeloved, James

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Newens, Stanley

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Noble, Mike

  White, James (Pollok)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hardy, Peter

  Ogden, Eric

  Whitlock, William

  Harper, Joseph

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Williams, Sir Thomas

  Hatton, Frank

  Ovenden, John

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Owen, Dr David

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Padley, Walter

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hooley, Frank

  Palmer, Arthur

  Woodall, Alec

  Horam, John

  Park, George

  Woof, Robert

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Parker, John

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Parry, Robert

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Huckfield, Les

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Mrs. Millie Miller and

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Perry, Ernest

  Mr. Arnold Shaw.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Bates.]

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  (By Order)
  As amended, considered.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
    Clause 10

      As TO PROVISION OF CARAVAN SITES
      10.15 p.m.
      Sir George Young: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 10, line 14, leave out
      'and be deemed to have had effect as from 1st April 1974'
      and insert
      'as from 1st April 1979'.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Gentlemen please leave the Chamber quietly. To do so noisily is not fair to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young).
      Sir G. Young: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker.
      The effect of the amendment would be to postpone until 1979 the obligation on London boroughs to provide sites for gipsies. Many of us are surprised to see the clause before us once again. The only change I can detect is that it is now Clause 10 instead of Clause 12, but that is no consolation. During the Second Reading debate the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), said that he found it objectionable that the Department of the Environment had slipped this clause into a Private Bill and that he had little enthusiasm for it.
      During that debate hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed disapproval of Clause 12, as it then was. The hon. Members for Peckham (Mr. Lamborn), Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) and I all condemned Clause 12 as it then was. We received an undertaking from the
      164
      sponsor of the Bill that the matter would be reconsidered in Committee. We are somewhat distressed that, in spite of the reservations expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the clause has returned to us unamended.
      The notes on the Bill, which have been thoughtfully provided by the Greater London Council, state that
      "Many of the powers proposed in the Bill are being sought at the request of the London Boroughs Association and are designed to benefit the ratepayers of London generally."
      Clause 10 certainly does not come under that heading. The London borough of Ealing has made clear that it does not favour Clause 10 because it makes it mandatory on the council to spend a substantial sum of money to provide facilities for gipsies.
      I quote again from the brief in support of the clause:
      "in the 1968 Act, Parliament placed a duty on the Inner London Boroughs to provide gipsy caravan sites and clearly Parliament must have been satisfied that this was an appropriate duty in all the circumstances."
      Since then, the Minister has made clear that he is not satisfied with the working of the 1968 Act. In reply to a Parliamentary Question by the hon. Member for Peckham, he said that he was not satisfied and that he was appointing Mr. John Cripps to review the working of the 1968 Act as far as it related to the obligation to provide gipsy sites. It is totally wrong to prejudge the finding of Mr. John Cripps and in the meantime make it obligatory on London boroughs to provide gipsy sites.
      I quote what the GLC says about the attitude of the London Boroughs Association:
      "the LBA have reaffirmed their unanimous support for the clause as it stands".
      I do not know how the GLC got that impression. I have with me a letter from the Town Clerk of the London borough of Ealing which states:
      "Having consulted the Leader of the Council. I am certain that this council would be unhappy with the imposition of mandatory powers in respect of caravan sites, and feel that the situation would best be met by legislation giving permissive rather than mandatory powers."
      I confirm that that is still the position of the London borough of Ealing. It is most unhappy about the obligation.

      165
      Why should we resist the clause? It is common ground between all of us that there is a crisis in local government spending, and this was reaffirmed yesterday by the Secretary of State. It has been said time and again that local authorities must cut back. If the clause is unamended, however, the London borough of Ealing will have to spend £275,000 on 16 pitches for gipsies and there will be an annual deficit of £34,000, which works out at over £2,000 per pitch. It is absolute madness for the Government to compel London boroughs to make provision on this scale when the London boroughs are having to cut back on other services.
      Time and again the Government have said that we must all make sacrifices. It is only reasonable to expect that the gipsies, like everyone else, should have to make sacrifices. If the Minister would care to come to Ealing and explain to my constituents why the Government are insisting on cut-backs in the provision of telephones for the disabled, in school books and in many other essential services while the Minister is insisting that the London borough of Ealing must spend this amount of money on providing for gipsies, he would get a rough reception from his own supporters as well as from Conservatives. People in London simply cannot accept that the Government have their priorities right if they insist on provision for gipsies while cutting back on services for other residents who have a greater call on their obligations.
      I ask the Government to wait until Mr. John Cripps has reported. In a recent Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), the Minister said that he did not wish to prejudge Mr. Cripps's findings, yet if the London boroughs are obliged by the Bill to go ahead with this provision it will, in effect, be prejudging the situation. The London boroughs, particularly Ealing, Lambeth and some others, are hoping that the Government will have second thoughts before they bulldoze this provision through. I repeat that I find it objectionable that the Government should use a Private Bill to put right national legislation. The former Under-Secretary of State said on Second Reading that he found it regrettable that this had happened. I hope that the Minister will accept the serious reserva-
      166
      tions that many of us have and reconsider the clause.
      Mr. William Shelton: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). The distressing business of gipsy caravan sites has plagued many hon. Members in inner and perhaps outer London as well. I hope that this will be regarded not as a political matter but as one of concern to all London Members.
      We have all received the helpful notes from the GLC. They contain the rather pathetic phrase:
      "This clause has understandably given rise to a certain amount of disquiet."
      Having read that, I read on hopefully to see whether it was proposed to make any alteration to the clause, but it was not. I, too, must express my surprise at that. On Second Reading there was concern generally among hon. Members because it was felt that the Bill was not the proper place for the introduction of such a provision and that the Government should find their own way to solve their own problems and not look to a Private Bill to do so.
      On Second Reading the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) said:
      "The House should have put its own house in order rather than involve the Bill in this way."
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman still feels the same, because I agree with him. The then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment made the excellent remark:
      "With hindsight, I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend said. I do not think that this is the proper way to go about this matter."—[Official Report, 3rd March 1976; Vol. 906, c. 1393, 1399.]
      It was with some relief and satisfaction that we listened to that debate, because we thought that at least there would be some consultations with us before decisions were made. We were told that there would be consultations. I understand that there have been consultations between the Department of the Environment and the London Boroughs Association, but I was not consulted. I shall be interested to hear whether other hon. Members were consulted.
      Despite the assurances that were given on Second Reading, I was not consulted, which predisposes me to the amendment.

      167
      However, my main contention and the main reason why I was among those who tabled the amendment is that the Minister, wittingly or unwittingly, has failed properly to use the powers available to him under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Clause 6(2)(a) of that Act provides that the Minister may give exemption from caravan sites when
      "he is satisfied…that suitable land within the borough is not available".
      Cost must be a criterion of suitability. I defy anyone, especially the Secretary of State, who spoke to his colleagues yesterday, to refute that statement.
      Lambeth has spent £150,000 to provide places for 15 caravans at a cost of £10,000 each. That shows that the land was not suitable. The people of Lambeth are especially bitter about the £150,000 spent and the £20,000 a year in running costs to be taken from rates and taxes to provide caravan sites for people who do not pay rates and who will compete against other people who are pursuing their trades in Lambeth. The caravan site dwellers may pay £2·50 a week in rental towards the £20,000 a year cost of maintaining the site, but I cannot believe that that is a proper way to spend Government money. Meanwhile, Lambeth has pre-empted this debate by moving the gipsies on to the unfinished site which has no water or lavatory facilities.
      We should oppose the Government for two reasons. First, they should do their own job and introduce their own legislation to put right the difficulty that they have encountered. Secondly, it is right and sensible at least to delay the matter until Mr. Cripps has given us his conclusions, which I am told we can expect by August.
      Passing the amendment will give hope to those who have been concerned with what has been going on. When the Government get round to passing legislation, we shall have heard from Mr. Cripps and the situation may have been clarified and made easier.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak at this stage, particularly in view of the two speeches to which we have just listened. I want to
      168
      correct one or two misunderstandings which some hon. Members may have had and which may possibly give them the wrong impression of the situation.
      One fair point was made and I shall repeat it. It was made by my predecessor in this office who said that possibly there was room for criticism for the provision appearing in the Bill. But that does not mean, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said, that the Government are bulldozing the clause through the House. I want to put it on record that the Government have done no such thing. The suggestion was made, and it was taken up with the agreement of the London Boroughs Association and the Greater London Council, that it would be of benefit to Greater London. But there was certainly no question of the Department of the Environment forcing the clause or anything like it upon the London Boroughs Association or the GLC.
      10.30 p.m.
      Mr. George Cunningham: I recognise that there is no question of forcing the GLC to put the clause into its Bill. I understand, however, that there was a request to the GLC from the Department to put it in. Why did not the Government put it in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, where it belongs?
      Mr. Barnett: That Bill was concerned entirely with generalising legislation that had appeared in local Acts made by local authorities. I understand that every provision in that measure is precedented. I shall check on the answer, but probably the provision would not have fallen naturally into that Bill, which was carried through the House with the Opposition's co-operation because it was precedented in local Acts.
      My hon. Friend is correct to suggest that the Department welcomed the fact that the London Boroughs Association and the GLC were glad to see this clause in this Bill. There was every argument for its being there, because it applied totally to the Greater London area. As I understand it, the clause is, in effect, designed to rectify an error which appeared in Schedule 30 to the Local Government Act 1972. When Conservative Members complain about the

      169
      Government's putting right something that the Government got wrong, I reply that it is something that not this Government but the last Government got wrong. Here is yet another anomaly in legislation passed by them. It had to be put right.
      The Government very much welcome the fact that the error is proposed to be corrected in this clause, because the error appears to have the effect of depriving the London borough councils of their powers and duties in relation to caravan sites under Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. I am certain that it was not Parliament's intention to do that.
      Although I want to say something about gipsies, I should make it clear that the clause has little or nothing to do with them. Despite all that was said on Second Reading, in our view the error affects all caravan sites with the exception of gipsy sites, which are provided for in accordance with the duty imposed by the Caravan Sites Act 1968. This duty was specifically reaffirmed in the main body of the 1972 Act. My firm legal advice is that, where a statute imposed a mandatory duty on an authority, the power follows that duty. I know that at least one London borough has had independent legal advice to that effect. In short, it will make no practical difference to the obligation on London boroughs to provide gipsy sites whether Clause 10 is included or omitted.
      Mr. Robert Mellish: Is it a fact that under the Act to which my hon. Friend is now referring—and I take his point—the Minister had the power of exempting a London borough? Is it also a fact that the Minister of the day—I think one of our Ministers—exempted the London borough of Westminster, for reasons I do not understand, but refused to exempt the London borough of Southwark? I believe that that was done under the original Act. If so, why?
      Mr. Barnett: Again, we are going a little wide. My right hon. Friend is correct to say that some London boroughs are exempt—namely, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea. It is also true to say that my right hon. Friend's borough is not exempt.
      Mr. Mellish: Why?
      Mr. Barnett: I cannot answer that question offhand. I am not sure why, and I think that my right hon. Friend will be glad to look into this matter in regard to the London borough of Southwark. There is certainly a case in respect of that borough. Nevertheless, the fact is that in the legislation there was the possibility of exemption.
      A good deal of disquiet has been expressed on the subject of gipsies, and I remind the House that the Cripps Committee is studying this subject in detail. We hope to provide the remedy for which many hon. Members are seeking on the subject of gipsies after that report has been completed. However, I must make it clear that my legal advice is that this clause has no relevance to the question of gipsies.
      Mr. William Shelton: May I refer the Minister to a document issued by the GLC to hon. Members in which the council says:
      "The best view—a view taken by the Department of the Environment's legal advisers—is that the 1972 Act repealing certain provisions has had the completely unintentional effect of depriving London boroughs of their powers under Part I of the 1960 Act."?
      If that is the case, there must be some doubt about the duty of London boroughs to act in providing gipsy camp sites. Will the Minister comment on that statement?
      Mr. Barnett: I was about to come to that point—namely, that Clause 10 will not affect the duty of London boroughs to provide gipsy sites. Without the clause, however, the boroughs are at risk in relation to activities on other caravan sites. That is the situation as we understand it in the Department of the Environment. It is not as the hon. Gentleman has put it.
      Mr. George Cunningham: It is difficult to understand the situation. Right from the beginning, when the GLC was pressing hon. Members about the purposes for which that clause was included, it always spoke in terms of gipsy sites. Presumably the GLC cleared that with somebody, presumably with the Department of the Environment. Are we now to take it that the Department takes a different legal interpretation from that

      171
      which was taken earlier, or that it has always thought on the lines that my hon. Friend is putting forward? If there is a difference, if the Department is right now, it was wrong then; and if it was wrong then, how can we be sure that it is right now?
      Mr. Barnett: The Department of the Environment has always taken the view which I have just expressed. I cannot accept responsibility for any advice which the GLC may have taken in the past. The advice I am giving to the House this evening is the advice which I have just enumerated—namely, that this provision does not cover the gipsy situation because that is covered by a different Act. In view of that situation, the Government would like the House to pass this clause, because it would give an advantage to London and bring it into line with the situation which already exists in other parts of the country.
      Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend the Minister is doing extremely well, and I address these remarks to him in a friendly way. As for inner London, nobody in his right senses would want to put caravans in that area. The only people who might want to put caravans in inner London are gipsies. Therefore, when we are talking about caravans, obviously we are thinking of gipsies. Incidentally, if I had time I would go into the question of whether they are gipsies. However, we are obviously confused about the situation. If we are dealing here with caravans and the use made of them, let us admit that we are thinking of the use made of them by gipsies.
      Mr. Barnett: I said earlier that I have a lot of sympathy with what my right hon. Friend is saying. I do not think he will find the answer to his problem by rejecting the clause. He will find an answer to the problem through administrative action and also as a consequence of the recommendations that will be made to my right hon. Friend by Mr. Cripps when he reports. This clause is primarily concerned with the provision of caravan sites, not in inner London—because I would not have thought that anyone other than probably a gipsy would want to have a caravan in my right hon. Friend's constituency—but in parts of outer London where a person might
      172
      wish to do so. That is why I commend the clause to the House.
      Mr. William Shelton: Before the Minister sits down, may I return to the point he raised earlier? I must ask him to look again at page 7 of the brief provided by the GLC a few days ago—at least, I received my copy only a few days ago. It says:
      "there must…be some doubt about the duty of London boroughs under the 1968 Act to provide gipsy caravan sites".
      This refers, at least in the submission of the GLC, to gipsy caravan sites.
      Mr. Barnett: I can only repeat what I have said, that gipsy caravan sites are provided in accordance with the duties imposed by the Caravan Sites Act 1968. This duty was specifically reaffirmed by the 1972 Act. The duty is imposed by that Act, and the clause with which we are concerned relates to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
      Mr. Nigel Forman: I am grateful for this opportunity to say something in a non-partisan spirit about Amendment No. 1 and Clause 10. I shall not be able to agree entirely with my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and Streatham (Mr. Shelton) but I take the point they make. My constituency is one of those in Greater London which has recently been afflicted with a gipsy problem. It seems that in my part of South London the problem is to some extent a seasonal one, with gipsies descending on the area in greater numbers at about the time of the Derby and the Epsom races.
      This phenomenon is evident this year, with the usual adverse effect on many of my law-abiding, tax- and rate-paying constituents, specifically the residents living in the area of St. Helier Open Space, bounded by Shaftesbury Road, Robertsbridge Road, Middleton Road and Green Wrythe Lane. They have had to put up with an invasion of as many as 40 or 50 gipsy caravans, with all the lorries, cars, electric generators, children and dogs which go with such an invasion. This has caused considerable anger to many of my constituents, who resent being kept awake at night, who are alarmed by the risk to public health and who are affronted by the

      173
      apparent ability of gipsies to go where they like and do as they please without incurring any of the normal obligations which weigh upon the rest of the community.
      Obviously, such people must be moved off open sites and green areas that are intended for adult and child recreation and for the use of bona fide residents. I recognise that it is not enough simply to move gipsies on. There must be a co-ordinated, considered and compassionate response to a problem which affects thousands of people throughout Greater London. The only long-term answer, in my view, is the adequate provision of permanent sites for gipsy caravans. I therefore accept that Clause 10 is a necessary step in that direction, first of all, as the Minister said, to rectify the present unsatisfactory legal position caused by the Local Government Act 1972, and more widely as part of a broader strategy to deal with the gipsy problem.
      I understand that the Cripps Committee, which is looking into the workings of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, is expected to report some time before the autumn. I hope that when its report is available—and assuming that it will contain sensible proposals for the tightening up of the law—the Government will not hesitate to put forward further legislation, if that should be shown to be necessary, to deal with the problem more satisfactorily.
      10.45 p.m.
      No reasonable person should hold anything against gipsies themselves. But I believe, however, that it is intolerable that law-abiding citizens should be prevented from sleeping, should have their children's health and safety put at risk and should have their general peace disturbed by the unwanted presence of gipsy encampments which, it seems, grow up almost overnight in residential areas.
      I cannot support the amendment, which seeks to delay by five years the London boroughs' implementation of Section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
      Mr. Mellish: As I understand it, and as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has argued, we are not talking necessarily about gipsy sites. However, anyone who talks about sites for caravans
      174
      in the Greater London area knows of the sort of person who is called a gipsy.
      I recently visited the office of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government. He received me and my local authority representation in a courteous manner. One of the officials to whom I was introduced was what my right hon. Friend called the Gipsy Officer. I asked him how he defined a gipsy. I was brought up to believe that a gipsy is a man with a bandeau round his head who strums a guitar and sings romantic songs before an open camp fire. The term "gipsy" in that sense is not applicable to what I have been seeing in recent days. Many of the types who understandably have a life of their own are what are called didicoi. They need open space to break up cars. That is part of their livelihood. They seem to pay no rates, although I am sure that they pay taxes. They do not seem to conform in any way.
      The borough of Southwark has more than its share of astonishing people. It has got me for a start. But it has vagrants, meths drinkers and social welfare problems of a sort that are unbelieveable. When we say "Pack it up, we cannot take any more social problems on our back", we are not talking about gipsies singing melodious songs around a camp fire. The term "gipsy" has become intermixed. We have in mind those who live a life which is quite extraordinary. I suppose that they are nomads. They move from site to site.
      My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is an honourable man for whom I have great respect and affection, but I suggest that the word "gipsy" has become intermixed and that we are really looking after what are called nomads. What humbug we talk.
      What are we doing with the nomads or didicoi? 'They go to a site and they are oppressed, shouted at and screamed at. They live in filth for month after month and we move them out. We put them in another site and erect some barricades so that no one will see them. This is the humbug of it all. I am not told that they will stay at the site which I have in mind for a limited time because the area is wanted for something else. They will be moved to another site, and I have a

      175
      shrewd idea that it will be next door to where I am operating a headquarters.
      The people who do the planning operation do not understand the people I represent. I do understand them. Those who do the planning do not live in the area. Oh, no, they have nothing to do with that. They said to me "Look, Mr. Mellish, you have a great deal to say about a lot of things. The Minister decided under the Caravan Sites Act to exempt the boroughs of Westminster and Chelsea. He has the authority and power to excuse the London borough of Southwark." I said "All right. I will go and have the argument." That is how it came about: how to define "gipsy", and why cannot my area, with the heartaches that we have, be exempted?
      We are one of the victims of the Industrial Revolution and all that flows from it. Right across my borough were built the famous railway arches which daily help to transport the thousands of people who run up and down between their place of work and their homes in the southern belt, and good luck to them. But we have to suffer from the noise, the turmoil, the dirt and the arches. As if we have not enough heartaches and problems—
      Mr. Ronald Brown: Perhaps I can help my right hon. Friend, since he is so concerned about moving the didicoi from one site to another and he thinks that he knows where it is. I can tell him where it is. It is in my constituency. They have just arrived, and they have come from the Walworth Road. I take it that my right hon. Friend has done something to get them out of his area and into mine.
      Mr. Mellish: That puts my case perfectly. I am a selfish, self-opinionated local Member of Parliament whose life started and almost ends with my beloved people, and I do not care where these people go as long as they are out of my area. My hon. Friend has them. He can keep them, look after them and care for them. But do not ask the London borough of Southwark to take on more than it can.
      I have the impression that much of this debate is irrelevant—my hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised to hear that much of what goes on in this House is irrelevant—but this is not. As I under-
      176
      stand it, what the GLC is trying to do in this General Powers Bill—and half the time I do not know what it is up to—is to rectify that which was in doubt in order to make certain that that doubt is removed so that the London boroughs collectively will be compelled to do something which they doubted whether they should do, anyway, and which it was doubted whether the Minister could authorise them to do. It is in that context that all this argument arises.
      I end with a plea. I agree that these nomads—I do not use the expression "didicoi"—have a right to live their lives in their own way. But the rest of society is sick of the idea that they will not conform, send their children to normal schools, use normal toilets and live the normal way of life that everyone else does. Therefore, they become a problem. I concede that there should be sites where they might live and have a future which is secure. At the moment, they have no secure future where they are. In this speech, I warn my own local authority that if it pushes them into the area where I think it intends to push them, it had better watch out. I think that it knows that. I am saying that something should be done, and I am taking this opportunity to say a few words about it. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), but if I had my way, they would all be in Ravensbourne.
      Mr. Michael Shersby: The effect of the amendment will be to defer the duty of London boroughs to deal with the problem of gipsies. I want, however, to distinguish between people who are gipsies, didicoi and nomads and those who are caravan dwellers who live in established places of residence on sites provided by local authorities.
      I have a site in my constituency at West Drayton which has been provided at considerable expense by the London borough of Hillingdon for caravan dwellers. The amendment does not affect people of that kind. The people whom we are discussing are those who fester the countryside, breaking up old cars, burning motor tyres and the rest of it. I have these people in my constituency at the moment in the village of Fairfield, and no doubt soon they will make their way towards Shoreditch, Bermondsey or somewhere else in London.

      177
      My purpose in intervening is to make the point that this Bill is not the right place in which to deal with gipsies. I believe that the time has arrived when the Government should deal with the problem by new legislation specifically enabling local authorities, particularly local health authorities, to deal with gipsies and didicoi. It is a persistent problem which every Member of Parliament and every local authority dreads, because no one has sufficient power to deal with it. Therefore, I ask the Minister to take account of the very strong feelings which clearly exist in the House.
      Mr. Ian Mikardo: How does the hon. Member reconcile what he has said with the fact that the London Boroughs Association unanimously supports the clause—and that includes his borough and mine?
      Mr. Shersby: It is not my understanding that the association supports it unanimously. That being the case, what I have said is entirely relevant to the debate. I am asking the Minister to take account of the genuine anxieties around Greater London and the other big cities where this is a big problem and a great irritant to local authorities and other people who try to keep our countryside decent and preserve our environment. For that reason I support the amendment.
      Mr. George Cunningham: I am not clear about the preferred legal view of the consequences of the various provisions. When I looked at the original Clause 12, I took up the matter with the GLC in bilateral correspondence, and the reply I had from the GLC's legal advisers makes clear that their view is founded on what they conceived to be the Department of the Environment's view at the time.
      The 1960 and 1968 Acts were linked to one another, and some of the sentences may be of use to the House. I shall read what the GLC says:
      "The best view (which is the view taken by the Department of the Environment's legal advisers and one with which I agree) is that the provisions of the 1972 Act has unintentionally deprived the London boroughs of their powers under Section 24 of the 1960 Act. Inevitably, if this is so, London boroughs are also relieved of their duty under the 1968 Act to provide gipsy caravan sites, as it is tied to the powers under Section 24 in the 1960 Act. This seems to be the best view of the
      178
      position, yet it is arguable that the London boroughs in fact still have powers and the duty imposed by the 1960 and 1968 Acts. The council was approached last year by the Department of the Environment, who set out the legal position as they saw it, and suggested that it he clarified and rectified in the next General Powers Bill, as there is no imminent Government Bill in which the provision could be suitably included."
      Whatever the unsuitability of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, it is more suitable than this Bill for public legislation and the correction of a mistake, which was a mistake not of the Government but of the House. If that is the situation, the provision of sites for gipsies is at issue—that is the point.
      11.0 p.m.
      Secondly, I should like to take this opportunity of raising with my hon. Friend the Minister the criteria used for not granting exemption. If the London borough of Islington is not entitled on general grounds to exemption from the obligation to supply gipsy sites, I do not know what part of London would be so entitled. We have housing stress greater than almost any other part of the country, with 13,000 families on the waiting list and waiting. To argue that, because a person is accustomed to living in a mobile home, he should have a better chance of acquiring a home in Islington than the 13,000 people on the waiting list is preposterous.
      Islington borough's application for exemption was turned down, however, with this explanation in a letter from the Department of the Environment to the council:
      "As regards your application for exemption, it is noted that there are no gypsies in the Borough. The view of our legal advisers is that, in such a situation, since there is no duty to provide adequate accommodation for gypsies who are not in fact residing in or resorting to the area, there seems little point in granting exemption from an obligation that does not exist."
      The Department then argues that if it tried to grant an exemption it would be necessary to go through the necessary formalities, and, since there is no point in it, why bother?
      How does the Department know that there will be no gipsies resorting to the borough? "Resorting to" the borough presumably means something different from "residing in". That means that if gipsies come to resort to Islington, the

      179
      borough acquires the obligation to find sites. Do the words "resorting to" imply coming intermittently to the borough, or do they mean, as I would have thought, people who had not in the past lived in the area but who start to come there and look for sites for their caravans? I hope that in the appropriate instrument, which is obviously not this one, that point will be cleared up and the Inner London boroughs at least, who by no commonsense criteria can be regarded as suitable places for gipsy sites, will be clearly exempted from this obligation.
      Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My constituency is suffering from its annual invasion of gipsy caravans and my constituents look upon them in much the same way as do the constituents of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). Perhaps this is one of the problems which illustrates that simply passing a law does not mean that we can deal with a fundamental, almost intractable human problem.
      When the House passed the Caravan Sites Act 1968, the theory was that, provided sufficient local authorities could be persuaded to provide sufficient sites, there would in the end be sufficient accommodation for the gipsy population, and it would then be possible to introduce compulsion over their movements outside these sites.
      In practice, however, there have been so many exemptions, no time limit on the duty of local authorities to provide sites and such a bad underestimation of the number of sites needed that even today, after eight years of the operation of the Act, we have come nowhere near to providing adequate permanent sites for the gipsy population. I do not think sites have been provided for more than 20 per cent. of the 1968 figure for that population, and the population has risen since then.
      We must look at the problem again, and I am glad that the Cripps Committee is considering it. We have to approach it from an entirely different point of view in future. Personally, I believe that the only possible solution lies in the registration of every gipsy family, or every gipsy caravan, entitled to a site under the 1968 Act. Once we
      180
      get registration, we shall know the numbers involved. We shall know by the simple matter of arithmetic how many sites each authority which normally expects to be invaded by gipsies has to provide.
      It is impossible for us to go on as we are, imagining that we are solving the problem by passing an Act but in practice suffering all this nuisance. If the provisions of the Bill are intended to restore to local authorities powers which they have lost, and if the intention of the amendment is to deprive them of any power at all to deal with this problem, I believe that the provisions should be supported.
      Mr. William Molloy: I do not think it matters whether we call them "gipsies" or give them any other name. That is not the point. What is really depressing is that it does not matter whether these caravan dwellers are in Ealing, North or Ealing, Acton or Bermondsey or anywhere else. It is not that such people live in caravans. Rather is it their behaviour—that is what frustrates, irritates and annoys.
      Certainly, the London borough of Ealing has leaned over backwards to provide education even to the point of getting teachers to go to the caravans and encourage the children to take an interest in going to school. The borough has also provided water and toilet facilities—the whole lot. It is with great reluctance that I have to say that all this has been in vain.
      What is more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) rightly pointed out, the link between the 1960 Act and the 1968 Act almost comprised a felony. It created an impossible situation for the local authorities. The present legislation makes the situation almost impossible for the police, who have discovered that under the legislation it is almost an impossibility for them to act.
      How absurd can one get? If people drive on to a park or open space in the London borough of Ealing, provided they are not using a caravan the police can shift them, but if they use a caravan, dress in a peculiar way and claim that they are gipsies, they can almost get away with murder. The Department of the

      181
      Environment must have run out of excuses by now. It has made a complete mess of the original legislation. It has not endeavoured to find proper reforming legislation.
      The last thing I want is for my remarks to be regarded as being anti-caravan dwellers or anti-gipsy. But there is a problem, and we have to find the right way of dealing with it. The way the existing legislation has been drafted has made the situation absolutely impossible.
      I am not making a party point, but a reasonably constructed letter was sent by the town clerk or chief executive officer of the London borough of Ealing to the Department of the Environment in 1972 following the passing of the Act, and it took nearly two and a half years before there was a reply. It must have been an extraordinarily difficult situation for those who had to give the answer to the letter.
      By putting this provision in this Bill we have made a mistake. There is a need to look at the initial legislation and for a proper Bill to be introduced into this House in order to clear up this difficult situation once and for all.
      Mr. Ronald Brown: In the course of my remarks on the Second Reading of the Bill I said that I took great exception to the then Clause 12, and I stated my reasons. I said on behalf of the promoters that I was expecting discussions to take place during the Committee stage in order to ascertain the true facts about this clause, since there was little doubt that there was confusion in the Department, in the Greater London Council and in the boroughs.
      I am now informed by the promoters that a meeting was held between the London Boroughs Association and the Department of the Environment consequent on the Second Reading debate at which the London strategic approach to the gipsy problem was debated. The conclusion reached at that meeting was that it was essential to proceed with the clause, which is now Clause 10, so that the unsatisfactory legal position could be rectified.
      The LBA has reaffirmed its unanimous support for the clause and considers that the right way of dealing with the gipsy problem is not by rejecting the clause but
      182
      by way of the enactment of legislation in pursuance of the Cripps Report which is expected in the autumn. We have an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that he will produce an interim report in July to give us some idea of what Cripps is saying. Those are the facts, which I give to the House.
      The LBA can apparently do nothing to remove these itinerants who arrive in the area. I can amplify from my own experience what everybody else has said. No doubt I shall now do as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) proposes to do, and I shall try to push these gipsies into Islington a bit further and get them out of my constituency. It is a silly situation.
      One of the problems is that the Department is dilatory. We are satisfied that, even though the 1968 Act provides for an appeal by the boroughs, we have seen in inner London that that is virtually worthless. Islington and Southwark, and I believe, Lewisham, sought to appeal, but it has been refused. These are all areas of great stress. Yet Westminster and Kensington can apparently get what they want without any problem. The rest of the inner London boroughs have already seen the colour of the Department's money and they do not like the colour of it. It is no good saying "If you have problems, you can appeal to the Executive." We have seen what that is worth. The Department is culpable to the extent that it has shown that there is no purpose in appealing, because the appeal will not be allowed.
      The Department must understand that this burden must not be placed on inner London boroughs. There is no suitable accommodation in the inner London boroughs. I gave my word to the Minister that I would not vote against the clause tonight, but I want him to understand that I do not think the best solution has been found. Many London boroughs have spent vast sums of money on providing caravan sites under the Caravan Sites Act, which has nothing to do with gipsies. Because of their obligations in connection with the maintenance of those sites, I am assured that the London boroughs will have acted ultra vices if the clause is not passed, and they will be faced with a great problem. I am informed by the London

      183
      Boroughs Association that this is an important element. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to oppose the amendment.
      11.15 p.m.
      Sir George Young: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply.
      We have had an interesting debate on the amendment. I must point out to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), who sponsored the Bill originally, that it is hon. Members, not the London Boroughs Association, who represent Londoners. I am not bothered that the LBA wants the clause. I am satisfied, having consulted my constituents, that they do not want it. I know that I speak for them in registering my concern at what the GLC is trying to do in the Bill.
      I am more confused now than I was at the beginning of the debate. There has been some difference of legal opinion between the Department of the Environment's advisers and the GLC's advisers on the current situation. I did not find the Minister's explanation satisfactory. He reminded me of something from "The Mikado" about
      "apologetic statesmen of a compromising kind".
      There he was, a London Member, telling a disbelieving House comprised of other London Members that the clause was in the interests of Londoners. With two exceptions, no one believed him.
      Mr. George Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman recall another quotation from "The Mikado" when someone is drawing attention to a fault in a statute? The Mikado says:
      "That's the slovenly way in which those Acts are always drawn…I'll have it altered next session."
      Sir G. Young: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that we could draw on even more quotations from the Gilbert and Sullivan operas if we wished to amplify the argument.
      Whatever Parliament may have wanted to do in 1968, the situation has changed. The Department has said that the 1968 Act is unsatisfactory and it has instituted a review. To my mind it is wrong, while the review is proceeding, to extend the Act to London. Secondly, there is no
      184
      money. It is wrong to compel the London borough of Ealing to spend £250,000 on provision for gipsies when it is having to cut back on everything else. I urge those who spoke in favour of the amendment to record their support in the Lobby.
      Mr. Guy Barnett: With the permission of the House, I should like to speak briefly again. The House has had an interesting debate on the subject of gipsies. In view of all that has been said, I should make it clear that I cannot answer many of the points that have been made because the Cripps Committee is studying the problem. However, I assure hon. Members who have raised issues concerning their constituencies that these matters will be passed on to Mr. John Cripps and taken into account in the study which he is undertaking.
      I recognise that many hon. Members feel deeply concerned about the issues which have been raised. But when we consider the problems of stress, to which reference has been made, it should be remembered that the GLC area—the London boroughs as a whole—has provided no fewer than 405 sites. I think that the six counties around the GLC area could have made a much greater contribution than they have made. My figures suggest that those six counties, which have a greater area available than the GLC, have provided only 386 sites.
      There is a major problem here. The hon. Member who said that the problems of today are different from those of 1968 was absolutely right. The numbers are greater, and the problems are therefore greater. I want to emphasise what I said earlier. The clause makes no practical difference to the obligation on London boroughs to provide gipsy sites. In that respect, it does not matter whether the clause is included.
      A number of London boroughs are concerned that, because of the small legislative error to which I referred, they might be acting ultra vires in relation to other kinds of caravan sites. That is presumably why the LBA supports the clause. The London boroughs have in mind particularly their functions under the 1960 Act. The distinction is clear between the provision of sites for gipsies under the 1968 Act and the provision of sites for other caravan dwellers under

      185
      the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. I therefore repeat my earlier recommendation that the clause is acceptable.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 269.

      Division No. 179.]

      AYES

      [11.22 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Mudd, David

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Grist, Ian

      Neave, Airey

      Alison, Michael

      Hall, Sir John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Neubert, Michael

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Normanton, Tom

      Awdry, Daniel

      Hannam, John

      Nott, John

      Baker, Kenneth

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Onslow, Cranley

      Bell, Ronald

      Hastings, Stephen

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Benyon, W.

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Heseltine, Michael

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Blaker, Peter

      Hicks, Robert

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Body, Richard

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Percival, Ian

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Holland, Philip

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hurd, Douglas

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Brittan, Leon

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Raison, Timothy

      Brotherton, Michael

      James, David

      Rathbone, Tim

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

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

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Jessel, Toby

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Buck, Antony

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Budgen, Nick

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Jopling, Michael

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Burden, F. A.

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Carlisle, Mark

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Kitson, Sir Timorthy

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Clegg, Walter

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Cockcroft, John

      Knox, David

      Shepherd, Colin

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Lamont, Norman

      Shersby, Michael

      Cope, John

      Lane, David

      Silvester, Fred

      Cordle, John H.

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Sims, Roger

      Cormack, Patrick

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Corrie, John

      Lawson, Nigel

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Costain, A. P.

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Speed, Keith

      Crouch, David

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Spence, John

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Lloyd, Ian

      Sproat, Iain

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Luce, Richard

      Stainton, Keith

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      McCrindle, Robert

      Stanley, John

      Durant, Tony

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Dykes, Hugh

      MacGregor, John

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Stradling, Thomas J.

      Emery, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Eyre, Reginald

      Madel, David

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Marten, Neil

      Tebbit, Norman

      Farr, John

      Mates, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Fell, Anthony

      Mather, Carol

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Trotter, Neville

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Mawby, Ray

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Viggers, Peter

      Fox, Marcus

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Wakeham, John

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Mills, Peter

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Fry, Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Wall, Patrick

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Moate, Roger

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Monro, Hector

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Goodhew, Victor

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Goodlad, Alastair

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Morgan, Geraint

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Sir George Young and

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Mr. William Shelton.

      Gray, Hamish

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Allaun, Frank

      Ashton, Joe

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Anderson, Donald

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Archer, Peter

      Atkinson, Norman

      Bates, Alf

      Bean, R. E.

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Beith, A. J.

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Grocott, Bruce

      Ovenden, John

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Owen, Dr David

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hardy, Peter

      Padley, Walter

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Harper, Joseph

      Palmer, Arthur

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Park, George

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Parry, Robert

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Hatton, Frank

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Bradley, Tom

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Pendry, Tom

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Hooley, Frank

      Penhaligon, David

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Horam, John

      Perry, Ernest

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Buchan, Norman

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Buchanan, Richard

      Huckfield, Les

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Radice, Giles

      Campbell, Ian

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Cant, R. B.

      Hunter, Adam

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Carter, Ray

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Cartwright, John

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Janner, Greville

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rooker, J. W.

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jeger, Mrs. Lena

      Roper, John

      Coleman, Donald

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      John, Brynmor

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Corbett, Robin

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Selby, Harry

      Cronin, John

      Kerr, Russell

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Cryer, Bob

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Lambie, David

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lamborn, Harry

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lamond, James

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Silverman, Julius

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Skinner, Dennis

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Small, William

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Snape, Peter

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Stallard, A. W.

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Loyden, Eddie

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Dempsey, James

      Luard, Evan

      Stoddart, David

      Doig, Peter

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Strang, Gavin

      Dormand, J. D.

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McCartney, Hugh

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McElhone, Frank

      Swain, Thomas

      Dunnett, Jack

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Eadie, Alex

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Edge, Geoff

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      English, Michael

      McNamara, Kevin

      Tierney, Sydney

      Ennals, David

      Madden, Max

      Tinn, James

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Magee, Bryan

      Tomlinson, John

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Mahon, Simon

      Torney, Tom

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Tuck, Raphael

      Evans John (Newton)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Urwin, T. W.

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Marquand, David

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Flannery, Martin

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Meacher, Michael

      Ward, Michael

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mendelson, John

      Watkins, David

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mikardo, Ian

      Watkinson, John

      Ford, Ben

      Millan, Bruce

      Weetch, Ken

      Forrester, John

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Weitzman, David

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Moonman, Eric

      Wellbeloved, James

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

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Whitlock, William

      George, Bruce

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Golding, John

      Newens, Stanley

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Gould, Bryan

      Noble, Mike

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Oakes, Gordon

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Graham, Ted

      Ogden, Eric

      Williams, Sir Thomas

      188

      189

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Woof, Robert

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Mrs. Millie Miller and

      Woodall, Alec

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Mr. Arnold Shaw.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 14

      ACQUISITION OF CEMETERY
      Mr. Hugh Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 13, line 4, at end insert:
      '(3) In the event of the Camden Council not exercising its powers as aforesaid, the Greater London Council may exercise such powers from 1st January 1980 and on their so doing their shall be substituted the name of the Greater London Council for that of the Camden Council (wherever this appeals) for the purposes of the operation of this Part of the Act'.
      I emphasise that this amendment and subsequent ones in my name are not put forward in a party political spirit. Nor are they tabled with the intention of delaying the House. If there is an issue, it lies not between the parties but between the London borough of Camden and local residents in the adjoining constituencies, various amenity bodies in the area and organisations concerned with the preservation of Highgate Cemetery as a national monument.
      Clause 14 is an enabling clause which gives Camden power—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. If hon. Members were quieter we might reach a conclusion sooner.
      Mr. Rossi: The clause gives Camden power to enter upon and make use of the cemetery and eventually to purchase it compulsorily. The clause does not impose a duty upon the council to do that. It is permissive and it is a power which lasts only until 31st December 1979. If the power to enter and acquire is not exercised by the local authority within the three-year period stipulated by the Bill, the powers will lapse and no public body will have the power to enter upon the cemetery and look after it.
      The House must consider what that would mean. The cemetery, which was fully described on Second Reading, is regarded by many as an important national monument containing the graves of many renowned people and as a unique example of Victorian funeral architecture.
      190
      The Royal Fine Art Commission considers it to be worthy of preservation and conservation.
      In 1969 the cemetery was bought by the company which now owns it, and since then it has been allowed to fall into dereliction and become overgrown and vandalised. Virtually no security exists. People who have relatives buried there make protests daily and complain about the way in which the cemetery has been allowed to fall into disuse. That is a matter of grief for them. The cemetery is also of interest to the nation as a whole. If Camden decides within the three-year period, not to do anything, that unhappy and unfortunate state of affairs will continue.
      The object of the amendment is to give a long-stop power to the GLC to take over, if Camden decides to do nothing within the three-year period. It does not impose any obligation upon the GLC to do that if it does not so wish, and it does not give the GLC the power to interfere with Camden in any way. The amendment would give rise to this power should Camden decide not to exercise it within the three-year term that the Bill gives it. Therefore, the GLC would have power from 1st January 1980 to enter in and take over the management, maintenance and upkeep of the cemetery in the national interest.
      Camden can have no objection to the amendment, for the reasons I have given, but there is possibly one minor objection. That is, that the GLC is not a cemetery authority. Generally speaking, we have given the powers to look after cemeteries to the London boroughs and not the GLC, but to give the GLC the power in this Bill will not make it into a cemetery authority. Its powers will be limited to this cemetery if Camden does not wish to exercise the powers itself. What the GLC can then do is circumscribed and defined by the Bill.
      I hope that in those circumstances the House will accept the amendment.
      Mr. Ronald Brown: On Second Reading I gave undertakings on behalf of the promoters that they would do their best to meet the objections advanced by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr.

      191
      Rossi). There has been a series of meetings between the hon. Gentleman, Camden Borough Council and the promoters, who have moved a long way to meet the objections that he put forward on behalf of the amenity groups. Hon. Members will see in the statement circulated to them a long list of amendments brought forward by the promoters to meet the hon. Gentleman's requirements.
      I was surprised that this amendment was selected, as it seemed that it would extend the Bill and could, therefore, be construed to be out of order. As it has been selected, however, we must accept that.
      The GLC has made it abundantly clear that it does not wish to be involved in the matter, which was initiated by Camden Borough Council. That council believes that the cemetery should be its responsibility. It has seen the two societies involved—the Highgate Society and the Friends of Highgate Cemetery—and has tried to put forward their view of what can be done to put the cemetery back into good order and use the land surrounding it.
      The promoters have honoured their undertaking to do everything possible to ensure that the safeguards asked for were given, and I therefore hope that the House will reject the amendment.
      Mr. Rossi: With the leave of the House, I should like to say that I accept that the promoters and Camden Borough Council have gone a long way to meet a number of original objections to the Bill. We can deal with these matters on other amendments, because that meeting of objections in no way relates to the amendment, which was not the subject of the earlier discussions to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
      11.45 p.m.
      This is a novel proposal, in case of what may happen because of prevailing economic circumstances, among other reasons. Camden will be under pressure from the Government. It is £1½ million overspent in the current year, and will be asked to cut back on its expenditure. The taking over of this cemetery may involve the council in an initial cost of £350,000 and thereafter continuing expenditure of £50,000. That expenditure
      192
      might be found to be unacceptable to Camden in the next three years. A burden of that nature is not of such great significance to the GLC as it is to a single London borough.
      Although the GLC may not at this point have contemplated taking over this burden, it could well be that in the three-year period in question during which Camden has to make up its mind, if the Bill is amended as we suggest, it will be possible for Camden and the GLC to discuss the matter to see how the cemetery can best be looked after. We hope that the amendment will afford an opportunity for a discussion of that kind to take place.
      Mrs. Millie Miller: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter, particularly as he appears to be representing amenity societies rather than the general population of the borough of Camden or of the whole of London. However, it seems to me to be somewhat incongruous that he should be pressing for this addition to the contingency expenditure of the GLC at a moment when the House has just finished counting the votes in a Division in which the Opposition voted against such a contingency.
      Mr. Rossi: I assure the hon. Lady that the representations I have received come not only from amenity bodies but from ordinary citizens in Camden as well as in my own constituency. I assure the hon. Lady that there are many people in those amenity bodies who are deeply concerned about the future of the cemetery and the graves of their relatives in it.
      In regard to the second part of the hon. Lady's intervention, I accept that any increase in public expenditure by local authorities at this point in time involve great difficulties indeed, but if the amendment were accepted by the House it would not impose on the GLC any financial burden whatever. This is simply an enabling amendment to entitle the GLC to take over the responsibility in four years' time if in the meantime Camden decides not to take it over. It could still happen that neither Camden nor the GLC decides to spend the money. In that case, no public expenditure at all would be involved. If the amendment is accepted, in four years' time the GLC,

      193
      with the greater resources available to it, may find itself in a position to undertake a burden which, in the immediate future, Camden may find itself unable to undertake.
      Frankly, I fail to understand why Labour Members seek to resist the amendment. It can do absolutely no harm to anybody. It is an insurance in the likelihood of certain events happening, and that is all. Surely Labour Members should welcome an opportunity of seeing that the cemetery, which is a national monument, is preserved, if that is at all possible, rather than be allowed to fall into dereliction and be vandalised.
      Mr. Ronald Brown: I cannot understand what the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) is getting at, because that is exactly what Camden Council wants to do but the hon. Gentleman is making it impossible for the council to take that action. He has already been told that if this situation continues Camden Council will withdraw from the whole matter. There is no reason why the people of Hackney should be involved in this awful cemetery because the hon. Gentleman has been playing politics with it.
      Mr. Rossi: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point. How can it inconvenience Camden in the slightest if power is given to another body to take over this responsibility if Camden decides that it does not want to take action? The amendment says that Camden is completely free for three years to decide whether it wants this responsibility. In the Bill as it stands if Camden decides to do nothing, nothing will be done or can be done. With the amendment added, if Camden makes that same decision and does nothing there will be the possibility of someone else doing something—merely a possibility.
      Mr. Phillip Whitehead: May I, as a member of the Friends of Highgate Cemetery Society, say that one of the fears that some of us have about the hon. Gentleman's position is that it looks as though the amendment would be an open invitation to Camden Council, under present or future control, to do nothing, whereas the purpose of an amendment such as this should be to express the concern of Parliament that something should be done?
      Mr. Rossi: It would not be an open invitation to Camden to do anything at all, because there would be no guarantee that ultimately the GLC would do anything. It is merely an enabling provision. I can see that I have not persuaded Labour Members. I believe that they have come here determined not to be persuaded. I have set myself an impossible task. I shall not detain the House further.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 15

      AS TO USE OF CEMETERY
      Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 13, line 30, leave out
      'for the purposes of centres'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take also Amendment No. 4, in line 31, leave out 'social' and insert passive recreational'.
      Mr. Rossi: Clause 15 is one in which Camden Council has already made considerable concessions. They were made as a result of negotiations with the amenity bodies, and as far as they go they have been received gratefully and with appreciation. The original clause, when it came before the House, would have given Camden Council the power to use the cemetery for physical recreation purposes, for athletic clubs and for all kinds of activities unrelated to the use of a cemetery, or to use it as a nature reserve, which is the purpose for which most of the people concerned in the amenity bodies would like to see it used.
      Certain offending words have been removed from the clause, but there still remain words which cause a certain amount of concern. I refer to subsection (2)(a)(iii), which would enable Camden Council to use the cemetery.
      "for the purposes of centres for the use of clubs, societies or organisations having social or educational objects".
      I am advised that the word "centres" would enable the building of totally inappropriate structures within the cemetery. It is the concern of the amenity body to try to preserve the cemetery in very much the way it was conceived, constructed and landscaped. They wish to avoid giving a power which could

      195
      enable ugly obstrusions to be built within the cemetery.
      Mr. Victor Goodhew: Does the clause mean that the local authority could use the cemetery as a permanent centre for pop festivals, for example?
      Mr. Rossi: The words "centers … having social … objects" could well be given that interpretation.
      Mrs. Millie Miller: This is a matter of some importance to the people of Camden, the people of London and those who live around the cemetery, among whom I number myself. It is important that the area should remain the pleasant and quiet spot that it is. I cannot believe that any responsible local authority, be it the present council or any future Camden Council, or the Greater London Council, having decided to embark on the adventure of buying a redundant cemetery at public expense, would turn it into anything resembling a centre for pop festivals. Such a use would be entirely out of keeping with the whole of the district. It is right to say that we are talking about a privileged area. Those who live in the area have considerable areas of open space on which, if they so desired, they could hold pop festivals. There are ample facilities in the area.
      Mr. Rossi: I welcome that assurance from someone who represents Camden. It would be unthinkable if this area were used for a pop festival. Camden would find itself in considerable difficulty were it to be so unwise as to seek to use High-gate Cemetery for that purpose. However, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) was seeking to make the point that the clause confers upon the authority the power to make such use of the cemetery were it so minded.
      Mr. Norman Atkinson: In no circumstances could planning permission be granted for that purpose.
      Mr. Rossi: The planning authority would happen to be the Camden Council. That raises another problem and another difficulty. The authority would be judge and jury in the same matter. Whatever
      196
      may be the present intention of the authority, we are legislating not only for today or next week but for the future. The prevailing circumstances today are not necessarily the prevailing circumstances of the future. The Bill, when passed, would give the authority power to build centres for social or educational purposes. We cannot imagine that the authority would be as extreme as to hold pop festivals, but it could build completely inappropriate centres.
      I understand, for example, that Camden has in mind the use of the cemetery as a centre for elderly people. Perhaps that is not particularly appropriate, but I am assured that that is what it has in mind. That is what I have been told in all seriousness. It also wishes to use the cemetery as a centre for a youth club. If it were used for that purpose—although we have the assurance that this would not happen—it would be possible for totally inappropriate buildings and structures to be erected and for inappropriate activities to take place. The amendments seek to remove that possibility. They would remove the word "centre", so that no structure could be built. Therefore, the simple purpose would be for the use of clubs, societies or organisations.
      I have been asked to remove the word "social" because of the wideness of the word, the many interpretations that can be put upon it and the wide powers that it could confer, and to replace it with the words
      "passive recreation and educational purposes",
      so that the area would be used for strolling—using the area as an open space, as a nature reserve, as a place of beauty.
      That is the intention of those who asked me to put down these amendments on their behalf. Again, I hope that the House will consider these requests from people living in the area who are deeply concerned with the cemetery and treat it with all the seriousness that it deserves.
      12 midnight.
      Mr. Ronald Brown: The promoters of the Bill have met the societies on many occasions and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, they have made a large number of concessions, including the insertion of Clause 16, which impose an obligation in terms of consultation in order to ensure that nothing is done without consulting the appropriate groups within the area.

      197
      The Camden Council feels that it has moved as far as it can possibly go in terms of inserting into the Bill, at the request of those organisations, the safeguards which they require.
      I hope that the House will reject the amendments.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 16

      CONSULTATION
      Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 14, line 10, after '16' insert '(1)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we are to consider the following amendments:
      No. 7, in page 14, line 22, after consult', insert 'and reach agreement'.
      No. 8, in page 14, line 29, at end insert—
      '(2) In the event of agreement not being reached in accordance with the foregoing subsection, then the issues shall be referred to the Secretary of State for determination and his decision shall be final'.
      Mr. Rossi: The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has just referred to Clause 16, which deals with consultation with an advisory body still to be set up. The object of the amendment is to take the matter a little further and to ensure that the Camden Council reaches agreement with the advisory body before any action is taken to change the character of the cemetery and that, in the event of any dispute between the advisory body and the council, the matter can be referred to the Secretary of State to act as arbitrator in the last resort.
      Mr. Ronald Brown: The promoters of the Bill take the view that they have gone as far as it is possible to go. Their view is that these amendments seek to bypass the usual local authority consultation formulae. The local parties are accustomed to exercising consultation functions in many areas. There is no indication that they exercise these functions other than in a bona fide manner. Camden has already inserted Clause 16 as a safeguard in this respect.
      198
      I promised the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that on behalf of the promoters I would put on to the record of the House the undertakings they are prepared to give, in order that everyone might understand the position.
      I put it on record, on behalf of Camden, that

      "(a) It is to agree the formation, the constitution and the functions of, and participate in, the advisory trust;

      (b) It is to treat the advisory trust as an appropriate organisation for the purposes of Clause 16 and to consult it in accordance with the requirements of that clause;

      (c) It is to prepare special management regulations for Highgate Cemetery in place of the council's standard cemeteries regulations;

      (d) So far as the matter is not covered by the consultation obligations imposed by Clause 16, it is to use its best endeavours to relocate within the cemetery any tombstone removed from its present position under Clause 17."

      As I understand it, that is what the amenity group was looking for, and the promoters consider that those undertakings adequately meet the need.
      Mr. Rossi: In view of that undertaking, given as a parliamentary undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 17

      POWERS AS TO TOMBSTONES
      Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 15, line 17, leave out '1946' and insert '1926'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following Amendments:
      No. 10, in page 15, line 22, leave out '1946' and insert '1926'.
      No. 12, in Clause 18, page 17, line 13, leave out '1946'and insert 1926'.
      No. 13, in page 17, line 21, leave out '1946' and insert '1926'.
      No. 14, in Clause 21, page 18, line 43, leave out '1946' and insert '1926'.
      No. 17, in Clause 22, page 21, line 46, leave out '1966' and insert '1946'.
      No. 18, in page 22, line 20, leave out '1966' and insert '1946'.
      Mr. Rossi: This series of amendments is put forward on behalf of relatives of

      199
      those who are buried in the cemetery. Many of the relatives are concerned by the powers which Camden is taking unto itself to close up tombs, remove tombstones and disinter bodies.
      In Clauses 17, 18 and 21 these powers are conferred upon the council. If the interment took place after 1946, the council must take certain steps to notify the relatives of its intentions. It must post a notice on the gates of the cemetery, circularise a notice in the local newspapers and send a notice to the last known address of the relatives. If the interment took place before 1st January 1946, there is no need at all for the local authority to notify the relatives. One could have a situation in which someone whose mother or father who was buried in the cemetery in 1945—which is not so long ago for the human memory—was not notified and found that the tomb had disappeared completely without his knowledge.
      The object of my amendment is to move the time limit back from 1946 to 1926. Of course, the period of time is a matter of judgment. One has to take account of people's feelings. One cannot push the date too far back to make it ridiculous, but I think that 30 years is too short a period for this type of operation.
      Another amendment replaces the year 1966 with the year 1946. This relates to the clause by which people are given the right to reinter their relatives' remains themselves. As the Bill stands, that right exists only where there has been an interment after 1966, which is only 10 years ago. That is too short a period, and the right should be given where interment has taken place since 1946. Again, it is a matter of judgment to get the right year. In these circumstances, I believe that the right of interment should be extended back 30 years rather than left at 10 years.
      Although I have not carried the House with me so far, I hope that on this issue, on which human feelings run very deeply, I shall strike a chord of sympathy.
      Mr. Ronald Brown: I had long discussions this afternoon with the promoters of the Bill on this very human problem. They admitted that 1st January 1946 is a compromise between, on the one hand, an obligation on Camden to
      200
      establish the names and addresses of and serve notices on individual owners of rights of interment and, on the other hand, their being able to establish any active interest in interments after more than 30 years. The 30-year period was accepted by Parliament in almost identical provisions in the 1975 General Powers Act in respect of Nunhead Cemetery. We are therefore dealing with an accepted standard adopted by the House as recently as last year. Thirty years is accepted as a reasonable period by interested Government Departments.
      It should be borne in mind that in all cases there will be newspaper and on-site advertising under Clause 2, Clause 18(2)(a) and Clause 21(2)(a) and (b). Therefore, the obligation to trace owners and relatives in respect of interments since 1926 would seem to be the promoters to be unduly onerous, particularly since the House declared its view as recently as last year.
      Mr. David Crouch: I do not speak as a London Member although I was born in London and was educated very near Highgate. I am worried, however, that Camden does not seem to have any recognition of consecrated ground. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) spoke lightly of the fact that 30 years is long enough to remember someone who has died. This is a matter which should cause us to pause a little and ask how safe are our graveyards and monuments. We are remembering not only famous men but anyone who has died. People may have been famous only in their own families. How, therefore, can Camden so lightly disregard consecrated ground in this manner?
      Mr. Whitehead: I agree with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I speak not as a London Member but as a Camden ratepayer who is connected with the Highgate Cemetery. Many members of my wife's family were buried there a long time ago. Highgate Cemetery, which is a monument to the great Victorian obsession with death, was essentially filled up in the 1920s, and we are talking, therefore, of a comparatively small number of people who are concerned about what might happen to the future of the graves.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown)

      201
      said that the House had declared itself on Nunhead Cemetery last year. That may be so, but it did not declare itself on Highgate Cemetery. There is a comparatively small number of graves kept up by emigrés living in this country who tend them carefully. Many of the graves date back to the 1920s and 1930s. It is not satisfactory for the promoters of the Bill to say that there can be no compromise and that the date 1946 must stand.
      There is a body of opinion in the Highgate area which wants these graves kept and wishes to see proper sanctions retained. By accepting the amendments we would be respecting the views of those people, however small a minority they are, within the general community. Secondly, we would be adding just one other sanction in respect of the disposal of the graves, the remains, the gravestones and so on. It would be harder for the other lurid possibilities which the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) raised earlier to come into effect, because Camden Council would be showing respect to the large number of people who have a direct personal link with the cemetery.
      12.15 a.m.
      Mr. John Loveridge: Even in these times there are married couples who wish to be interred in the same grave. An interval of 30 years is not very long when one thinks that many men nowadays die at very young ages due to heart and other ailments. What is to happen when a widow wants to find her husband's grave and hopes to be interred with him but discovers that the grave his been removed? That seems exceptionally hard, and I hope that the council and the House will think again.
      Mr. Goodhew: It seems to me that there are certain hon. Member in the House this evening who are prepared to be somewhat cavalier about this matter. I do not think it is a matter which the House should let pass lightly.
      I am even more disturbed when I realise that earlier amendments which would give freedom to use parts of consecrated ground in the cemetery for social purposes have been ignored. That is an entirely unattractive approach to the treatment of a cemetery. Although I do not represent a Greater London
      202
      constituency, it seems to me that we are speeding down a rather unattractive road in imagining that we can simply brush aside the feelings of people by deciding that we should like to make a place of this sort into a social centre. In view of the general tenor of the amendments I hope that we might at least have support for this one, which would ensure that we are not so casual and cavalier about the feelings of people who may still be alive today.
      Mr. Rossi: A unanimous view has been expressed about the amendment. I invite the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) to meet me on this. I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division. I have refrained from doing so in respect of other amendments about which I feel equally strongly because I do not want to delay proceedings. However, the hon. Gentleman may wish to meet me on this matter.
      Mr. Ronald Brown: I can only say to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that he is drawing a picture of Highgate Cemetery as if it was somehow a remarkable place and the Camden Council was moving in and dealing with the matter in a bad fashion. The cemetery is in a derelict state primarily from interment of earlier years. It is so bad that the council decided something had to be done in all decency and humanity. To try to portray Camden Council as having misbehaved is appalling.
      The House decided that 30 years was a sufficient time to advertise for any relatives of persons who had been interred. I do not think a case has been made for extending the period an extra 20 years. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that this matter was gone into in great detail. The promoters felt that there was nothing to be gained by the amendment and that it would only make it much more difficult to get on with the task of putting the cemetery into good order.
      I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that the promoters initiated this task. The Friends of Highgate Cemetery expressed the view that the council should do it. The private owners of the cemetery have failed to do it for all these years. I should have thought it

      203
      was important that the House should try not to put any obstacles in the way of Camden Council in doing this work.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the amendment be made. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye". To the contrary, "No". The "Noes" have it.
      Amendment accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 16, line 2, leave out "twenty" and insert "fifty".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
      No. 15, in Clause 21, page 19, line 31, leave out "one hundred and eighty" and insert "three hundred and sixty".
      No. 16, in Clause 22, page 24, line 38, leave out
      'two hundred and twenty five'
      and insert "five hundred".
      Mr. Rossi: These amendments deal—
      Mr. Ronald Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The fact that there is no Division has not been indicated to hon. Members who are outside the Chamber. Is it possible for hon. Members to be told that there is no Division?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Division is off.
      Mr. Rossi: The Bill provides in various circumstances for the payment of sums of money by the Camden Council to the relatives of people whose remains have to be removed from their existing graves and also for the removal of tombstones.
      204
      The amendments seek to increase the upper limits of payment. That does not mean to say that the sums now proposed would be payable. The cost would still have to be proved. These are upper limits.
      The object of increasing the upper limits as contained in the Bill is simply to take care of the inflationary situation because, although the amounts suggested in the amendments are somewhat higher than in the Bill as originally proposed, they still do not allow for the full amount of inflation that would take place.
      Mr. Ronald Brown: I should like to comment that the amounts in virtually identical provisions in the 1975 General Powers Act were, respectively, £120 and £150. Those amounts were accepted by Parliament as realistic. The amounts in Clauses 21(5) and 22(8) have been set at £180 and £225—an increase over last year of 50 per cent. The advice of the Camden Cemeteries Department is that these figures are realistic, and they have been accepted as such by the relevant Government Department. The promoters of the Bill consider that the increases suggested by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) are excessive. The figure of over £300 is extremely high and cannot be justified.
      Amendment negatived.
      Bill to be read the Third time.

  SUPPLY
  Again considered.
  Postponed Proceeding on Question, That this House do now adjourn, resumed.
  It being after Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  FOOD SUBSIDIES
  12.26 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): I beg to move
  That the Food Subsidies (Increase of Financial Limit) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.
  The Order before the House tonight raises no new issue of principle. Therefore, I need not greatly detain the House.
  Section 1(6) of the Prices Act 1974, as amended by Section 1(1) of the Prices Act 1975, limits expenditure on food subsidies paid under the Prices Acts to £1,200 million. However, Section 1(3) of the 1975 Act provides that this ceiling may be raised to a maximum of £1,700 million by an Order made with the approval of a resolution of this House. The situation envisaged by Parliament when the 1975 Act was being considered has come about and it is necessary to bring forward this Order to enable the food subsidies to continue to be paid.
  Up to the end of May expenditure under the Prices Acts amounted to £1,072 million, and I expect that the total will reach the existing ceiling of £1,200 million within the next few weeks. The purpose of the Order, therefore, is to increase the limit to £1,700 million in order to enable the payment of food subsidies to continue for the rest of this financial year and, indeed, into the subsequent financial year.
  I need not hold up the debate which I imagine will follow with a detailed repetition of the reasons which, in the Government's view, justify a food subsidy programme. We have fully debated this issue of principle in the past. I should simply like to recall briefly that at the time when we took office, early in 1974, food prices were rising sharply and there was a widespread fear among many pensioners and others on low incomes, who inevitably spend a substantial proportion of their income on the necessities of life, that their modest standard of living was under threat.
  Unfortunately, selective schemes of social assistance have a poor record of take-up and effective non-selective schemes take time to prepare. We therefore developed the food subsidies pro-
  206
  gramme in order to provide quickly some measure of protection for the poorer members of our community from the worst effects of severe inflation. We developed the programme which had been begun by the Conservative Government by the introduction of substantial subsidies on milk and butter.
  We have always made it clear that subsidies were intended as an interim, but important, measure. I have considerable sympathy with those of my hon. Friends who take the view that these subsidies should be maintained or even increased. Nevertheless the rate of inflation is moderating, and we have in this period made substantial progress in the social field. We can look forward to further advances on both fronts, although we have still a hard haul to bring down the rate of inflation to that of our competitors overseas, and progress in the social field cannot run too far ahead of improvements in the economy generally.
  Food subsidies, therefore, have a substantial part to play in maintaining the standard of living of the less-well-off members of our community—a substantial, albeit a declining, cointribution which will have to continue for some time to come. The Government's plans are set out in the White Paper on public expenditure—
  Mr. Tony Newton: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his analysis of the reasons why the Government cannot make enough social progress, will he tell us what fraction of the money he seeks tonight would have paid for the Child Benefit Scheme and have given far more help to the less-well-off members of the community?
  Mr. Maclennan: My hon. Friend who dealt with the Child Benefit Scheme made plain that it was not public expenditure considerations alone which led to the Government's plans being brought forward. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's comments are not wholly germane.
  In the circumstances I have described, the Government must provide for the continuation of food subsidies, and the passage of the Order tonight is therefore imperative. It is right to take this action now to raise the limit on expenditure to the maximum permitted under existing legislation. I accordingly commend the Order to the House.
  12.32 a.m.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: In opposing the Order, which seeks to make available to the Government a further £500 million to spend on food subsidies—the final £500 million under the Prices Act 1975—we are not being inconsistent with the amendment we moved on 12th March 1975 during the Report stage of the Prices Bill 1975 to peg Government spending on food subsidies at £1,000 million. That would have allowed for £485 million to be spent over three years, or whatever period the Government chose to phase out food subsidies altogether.
  Since rejecting our amendment, the Government have already spent another £550 million in just over one year, according to the figures given by the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State and according to the figures in the Public Expenditure White Paper. It would therefore not be inconsistent if we were to reject the Order and say that no further money should be made available.
  However, we have always accepted—as we did during the debate on the Prices Bill in 1975—that we cannot phase out food subsidies overnight and that they cannot be phased out without considerable expense and some trauma. We warned of that when food subsidies were first announced, and we repeat that warning tonight.
  In moving our amendment last year we proposed a three-year phasing-out period which was approved by the Food and Drink Industries Council. The first year of that phasing-out period has already been completed, albeit totally inadequately. We propose that if the Government produce a new Order—to replace this one—providing for a further £300 million we would not oppose it, because that amount should be sufficient—and considerably more than we proposed in our amendment last year—to complete the phasing-out process over the next two years. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) laughs, but that means a saving of considerably more than the difference between £300 million and £500 million.
  Mr. Mike Thomas (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): I was laughing not at the sums of money but at the way the hon. Lady is managing yet again to look both ways.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: Unfortunately, under the procedures of the House I am forced to face the Labour Party, which is not always a pleasant prospect.
  When account has been taken of the cuts already made in the cheese and butter subsidies and the saving we would be proposing in limiting the remaining subsidy money available to £300 million, the total saving would be about £700 million, which is, by coincidence, not much more than the Bank of England is reputed to have paid out in support of sterling this week alone. If the Government had accepted our amendment in the first place in 1975, less money would have had to be spent and the phasing-out programme could have been completed already. It is the Government who are responsible both for the delay and for the extra expenditure. It would be quite superfluous, as the Under-Secretary said, and particularly at this time of night, to rehearse all over again the arguments we had and the case we proved over and over again against the present Government's programme of food subsidies.
  At the same time it would be wrong not to discuss the effect that our rejection of the Order and the substitution of an Order allowing £300 million expenditure on food subsidies would have on families struggling against the worst inflation we have ever known in this country. So far, food subsidies have saved about 2·5 per cent. on the Retail Price Index since they were first introduced, but they have cost over £1,000 million, and during that period prices have risen by over 50 per cent. So they have hardly made much impression despite that astronomical cost. At the same time as food subsidies have saved 2·5 per cent. on the RPI, the fall in the value of the pound, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own calculations, has added about 7 per cent. to the RPI by the time the fall to date has worked through.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I ask the hon. Lady a serious question? Now that the Opposition have said that it is their policy to try to work with the trade unions, has the hon. Lady or anyone on the Conservative Front Bench discussed this with the trade

  209
  unions to see what their views are before she comes here?
  Mrs. Oppenheim: I do not think we are committed in any way to discuss with the trade unions the way in which we may react to the Government's policies at this moment in time. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] But of course the TUC will be as concerned as every right hon. and hon. Member by the fact that the tall in the value of sterling has put 7 per cent. on the RPI, and the TUC will want to seek, in the way every right hon. Member should want to seek, to strengthen sterling to prevent its erosion and the effect that this has on inflation in this country.
  It follows that any minimal benefit that food subsidies may have had has been more than cancelled out by expenditure on them and by the effect which that has had on confidence in the pound. In other words, if food subsidies were abolished tomorrow, even if that were technically possible, which it is not, that news itself might boost sterling so that the effect on the RPI of that abolition would be totally negatived.
  In case some Labour Members think that I am overstating the importance of the relationship between the value of the pound and current levels of Government spending, and between the public sector borrowing requirement and inflation, I shall reinforce my argument by quoting from a speech I came across the other day. Because I am in a generous mood tonight, and despite the hour, I shall offer a prize to any hon. Member opposite—[Hon Members: "Name it."] Half a pint of cider. I shall offer a prize to any hon. Member who can identify the author of this speech.
  The speaker said:
  "The truth is beginning to emerge about prices … world shortages are one factor in price inflation, but only one. Equally important is the fall … in the value of the pound compared to other currencies. The Government floated the pound, and then did nothing to help it swim. Its policies of borrowing thousands of millions of pounds to finance its expenditure have weakened our vulnerable currency. In short, the Government has financed through inflation, hitting the poor much more than the rich, what it lacked the guts to finance through taxation."
  210
  Who said that? No one has won the prize. The speaker was none other than the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection during the February 1974 election campaign, speaking at Dudley on 14th February. She continued:
  "A third factor in rising prices is the commodity markets. Frightened of inflation, investors put their money into physical assets … raw materials. The speculators buy forward … and in doing so, drive up prices. … It can be controlled, and it should be."
  The right hon. Lady went on to talk about the fourth factor being the fact that the Price Commission's controls were not on cash profit margins. She is not here, and I regret that I have to quote in her absence. She complained about the fact that after four years of Conservative Government the pound had fallen by 20 per cent. In just over two years of Labour Government it has fallen by just over 30 per cent. The right hon. Lady complained of Government borrowing to finance public expenditure. It was then, after four years of Conservative Government, £4,500 million; it is now £14,000 million. The public sector borrowing requirement which she also complained about was £4,500 million; it is now £11,000 million.
  Mr. Maclennan: Is the hon. Lady using the argument that the decline in the value of sterling has had an effect on the Retail Price Index in support of her case for diminishing food subsidies?
  Mrs. Oppenheim: Not at all. I am stating a case for diminishing the Government's public expenditure and their level of borrowing. The Order is about Government expenditure—£500 million.
  The right hon. Lady also spoke of the need for cash profit margins to be controlled under the Price Code, and I have not noticed that she has done anything about that either. That is not to say that I am advocating it. Did she really believe all the things she said on that occasion, or was this just another example of the double standards of this Government? Does she say one thing in Opposition and then renounce it when in Government?
  I quoted from the right hon. Lady's speech not only to reinforce what I was saying about the relationship between the level of Government spending and borrowing, the value of the pound and inflation, but also to illustrate once and

  211
  for all the dishonest duplicity which brought this Government to power in 1974, of which food subsidies were but a small part.
  In that same speech, the right hon. Lady spoke of the "three-bob loaf" and the "near bob egg"—I am not sure why she put it in those terms since we had then had the decimal system for nearly three years. She may find it ironic, however, to reflect that the "three-bob loaf" which she subsidises is now 18p but that the "near bob egg" which she has left to market forces is now 3½p. The whole food subsidy programme was part of that infamous period of connivance and delusion.
  How earnestly we were told that food subsidies were aimed at the poorer families and pensioners and that, although more of the subsidies was going to the better-off, they were paying in taxes to pay for them very much more than they were getting. What has happened? That has proved to be yet another of this Government's cheats, because the value of food subsidies is now worth about 16½p per person per week to the average family while, to pay for them, in direct taxes, which are paid by everyone, have gone up by more than 50p per person per week and for the poor families by about 30p per person per week. That is a great deal more than they are getting from food subsidies—some bargain for poorer families and pensioners. If the Minister questions that figure, I suggest that he refers to the welter of conflicting parliamentary replies from the Treasury which provide the foundation for that calculation.
  If the Government had really wanted to help the poor and the pensioners, as they pretend, they could, for a fraction of the cost of food subsidies, have introduced family allowances for the first child immediately, or, as The Guardian of 4th June said, the 88 million spent last year on subsidies on butter—90 per cent. of which was imported—was seven times as much as spending on FIS. For half of what they propose to spend on food subsidies this year they could raise family allowances by one-third, which would put money into the pockets of the families that need it.
  It is no wonder that the Secretary of State is not here tonight and has sent
  212
  the Under-Secretary sneaking in at 12.45 a.m. to ask for another £500 million for this disreputable, cruel and wildly extravagant piece of political sophistry.
  If the Government want to take the Order away tonight and return with another, giving a final £300 million for subsidies, we would not oppose it. That would mean that in the current year they would have £200 million to spend instead of the £336 million that they propose, and £100 million next year against the £216 million that they are planning to spend.
  The effect of that would be to reduce food subsidies by 7·p per person per week to the average family this year, 4p next year and another 4p the year after. The Secretary of State has already reduced the value of subsidies by 5·p per person per week, so the cuts that we are suggesting would be little more than those she has already made this year, but less next year and the year after, while saving about £700 million on the present programme. There would be no difficulty in substituting another Order, as the Department has already demonstrated. The maximum price Orders have already been altered seven times for butter, seven times for bread, six times for cheese, twice for flour and twice for tea. A total of 24 new Orders have been introduced because of price increases.
  We are not insensitive to the effect of the withdrawal of even such a comparatively small sum of money from poorer families and pensioners, but there is no alternative and the Government are to blame for seeking to destroy and disguise reality.
  We warned that food subsidies would be difficult to phase out. But the effect of the withdrawal of subsidies that we are proposing is as nothing compared with the terrible rate of inflation imposed on people by the Government over the last two years. How can the Government claim to be sensitive about pensioners and the poor when they have decided to do pensioners out of the full increase that they had expected and to cheat on the family benefits scheme?
  The Public Expenditure White Paper shows that the Government are willing to contemplate cut-backs in proposed programmes in forthcoming years in education, social welfare and health, and

  213
  they are likely to be forced to impose greater cuts as soon as our creditors take over, as they surely will. How can the Government hope that the people will accept the need to postpone repairing schools or to defer the building of badly-needed new hospitals and other projects when they subject us to the spectacle of such profligate expenditure as is involved in food subsidies?
  The Prime Minister boasts of achieving a historical consensus. But there can be no popular support for the policy of widespread retrenchment which is now unavoidable unless the Government introduce sensible and just priorities which they have manifestly failed to do. They embarked on this policy when we were not living as wildly beyond our means as we are today. There was little justification for it then on either social or economic grounds, and there can be none today.
  12.50 a.m.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), who has been suddenly converted to all sorts of desirable social objectives, into her jungle of meaningless statistics.
  I welcome the way in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary introduced the Order, particularly his statement that he agreed with many of us that there was a need not only to maintain the level of subsidies but possibly to extend them in certain directions. Our concern is about whether the amount here—I realise that it comes from the 1975 Act —is adequate to maintain the type of subsidies that we should wish. We have already seen this month a fall in the help for the average family with two adults and two children from 70p to 65p a week. Unlike the hon. Lady, I believe that that is a retrograde step, because we should help families in every way possible.
  With the recent butter price increases we have taken £34 million out of the pockets of poor people and stuffed it into the pockets of the richest taxpayers. There are obvious arguments, which are widely accepted on this side of the House, for the maintenance of those subsidies. The first is the nutritional one. There
  214
  is considerable evidence that whenever prices rise there is a tendency among poorer families to move away from nutritional foods.
  Subsidies are aimed particularly at a range of nutritional foods for which there is an inelastic demand. There is an inflationary argument. As was seen at the time of the thresholds, there is no doubt that these subsidies are very effective in cutting down the rate of inflation. No hon. Member could disagree with the need to curb inflation in every way possible. However green the hon. Lady may be, this Government have an excellent record in their progress towards curbing inflation.
  The subsidies have a useful stabilising effect. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food knows full well that, above all, the agricultural community wants stability in the prices of its products. The subsidies have made a contribution in that direction also.
  The main reason, however, why my hon. Friends and I support this form of subsidies is that they have a useful redistributive effect. That is why they are so hated on the Opposition Benches. For the very poor, they provide a benefit of £11 to £13 a year to the individual.
  Where does the money come from? These subsidies have always been part of a package in which the money has been taken out of the pockets of the richer sections of the community. [Interruption.] Why are Conservative Members so much against it if it is not fact? The statistics show that £200 million of the money found to meet these subsidies comes from those earning incomes of over £70 a week. There is no question that the subsidies have a useful redistributive effect. That is why, the Opposition hate them. We can ignore all the Opposition's cant about alternative benefits. These benefits certainly never appear when a Tory Government are in power.
  Our short experience of this subsidy has been—[An HON. MEMBER: "Disgusting."] It may be disgusting from that hon. Gentleman's point of view, but subsidies provide significant help to the poor person. These subsidies are a useful Socialist redistributive tool—a tool that should be sharpened and strengthened.
  12.56 a.m.
  Mr. Michael Neubert: After that interlude of Celtic fervour, let us pause to reflect on the facts and try to keep to the point.
  For some of us who found the statistics of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) amply meaningful, let me remind Labour Members of other statistics. One statistic which they should be asked to bear in mind is that during the short life of this Labour Government inflation has been at a level of 50·9 per cent. The annual rate of inflation rose at its highest peak last August to 26·9 per cent.—an unholy and unheard—of rate of inflation in this country, a rate of inflation worthy of any South American banana republic. That happened under a Labour Government. Even now, the annual rate of inflation is running at 18·9 per cent.
  Hon. Members will notice the recurrence of the 0·9 per cent. figure. That is important because it is estimated that food subsidies have an effect on the Retail Price Index of 0·9 per cent. Last year the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection spoke about cutting the top off the mountain.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is old enough to remember, as I am, the situation in the last war. Did not all political parties insist on having food subsidies in the war because it was thought to be a fairer means of distributing food and of keeping down prices?
  Mr. Neubert: It is perhaps an adequate commentary on the achievements of the present Labour Government that some of their supporters are forced back to quoting the Second World War, involving a period of restraint and all the rest of it.
  It has been said that the money for subsidies comes from wealthy citizens in the United Kingdom. The amount of money dealt with in the Order is £500 million. That amounts to two weeks' borrowing abroad by the present Government. In other words, we are sustaining these subsidies by virtue of borrowings from our friends abroad.
  It is a matter of great concern to those of us who follow these debates to see such hesitation and diffidence in pursuing the Government's programme of phas-
  216
  ing out subsidies. We have had this time and again recently. Just when we saw a glimmer of light, when we thought the Government were about to act in accordance with their undertaking to phase out subsidies, they recoiled from the prospect. Perhaps they were dissuaded from doing so.
  In the Budget of April 1975 it was said that food subsidies would be cut by £150 million and housing subsidies by about half that amount. By July, less than three months later, food subsidies were increased to 70 per cent. and housing subsidies were increased to keep council house rents down. Later last year we had proposals to reduce food subsidies in the shape of school meals. School meal prices were to rise from 15p to 20p. When it is realised that the subsidy on school meals costs the taxpayer £362 million, representing a subsidy of 64 per cent. one would think that the phasing out of the subsidy was long overdue.
  Before anyone rises in indignation from the Labour Benches to tell me of those who cannot afford even the price of school meals and of those for whom a school meal is the only good meal they have each day, let me say that the figure I have given does not take account of free meals supplied to the children who need them. If we take free meals into account, the subsidy rises to 71 per cent. As a result of the further negotiations with the TUC, however, that programme is also to be put into abeyance and school meal charges are not to be increased.
  We were promised by the Secretary of State that these indiscriminate food subsidies—which lavish an 11p per lb. subsidy on butter for business men gorging themselves on business lunches, which undercut the price of cheese and which bring great joy to the cheese producers of the EEC—would give way, if not soon, at least in the fullness of time, to much more discriminating, selective and sophisticated schemes, such as that proposed in the Child Benefit Scheme. All that is now to be abandoned. Why? It is not for reasons of social justice but because it is felt that this would be to transfer money to the mother, to the purse of the person who might provide for these poorest families.
  Instead we have a scheme introduced which, in the opinion of the Child Poverty Action Group, will make many

  217
  of the poorest families worse off, not better off. If aid is to be given, we ask that it be given selectively to the families which need it most. This the Government are failing to do. That is why we oppose food subsidies as an inadequate means of helping those who need help.
  For the Under-Secretary to be sent along here tonight to propose an expenditure of £500 million, a large sum of money, is some indication that the Government are losing their own case. They lack confidence and their lobster quadrille impresses no one. We should be thankful that at least lobster is not yet subsidised. That may come too. If we can at least have an assurance that this will be the last of such Orders at this time of night, or at any other time, we may gain some hope. In the meantime, we would do well to oppose the Order and help the Government to help themselves.
  1.4 a.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: The method put forward by the Government tonight is a method of pricing and social support for which I have argued for a long time, and I welcome the fact that it is being introduced. I was surprised by what the hon. Members for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) and Romford (Mr. Neubert) had to say. They were willing to wound but afraid to strike. The Conservatives have this permanent fear of being exposed as the party of the rich. I sometimes wish that they would face up to it.
  Why have food subsidies? One of the reasons has to do with the abnormally rapid rise in food prices following our entry into the Common Market. Because of the rapid and unwarranted rise after our entry—for which Conservative Members are responsible because they negotiated the initial settlement—it is right for the Government to cushion the effects, particularly as they are felt by the poorer sections in our society. The nonsense that we hear about the need for selective support betrays the social attitude of the Tories. They are hankering after the means-tested society. It is as simple as that.
  The advantage of food subsidies is simple. They are non-discriminatory support. That is why we support them. We hear nonsense from the Tories about
  218
  business men's lunches, but, if business men would pay for their lunches a little more often instead of taking the price of their meals as one of the perks of the businesses for which they work, price increases would not be so great.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: The hon. Gentleman and many of his right hon and hon. Friends talk about the means test, but under this Government everyone who is on supplementary benefit has to undergo the means test.
  Mr. Buchan: Yes, and my right hon. and hon. Friends bitterly regret that pensions are not sufficient to remove the requirement for supplementary benefit. The difference between the two major parties is that the Tories wish to create a supplementary benefit society while we wish to remove the needs for supplementary benefit.
  The truth is that the poor pay more as consumers. They pay more in absolute terms because in general they have to buy in smaller quantities. They often buy on a daily or weekly basis. As Conservative Members should know, that is a much more expensive way of buying. Secondly, it is relatively more costly for the poor because a larger proportion of a poor person's income is spent on food than is spent as a proportion by Tory Members. Both absolutely and relatively, the poor pay more. That is particularly important as regards food, because the easiest thing to cut down on when there is a squeeze is food. People have to keep the house going and a number of other things, but as soon as pressure is brought to bear on a person's income it is food that he or she finds easiest to cut. We should be asking not for the phasing out of food subsidies but for an increasing level of subsidies.
  I turn to the non-discriminatory aspect of subsidies. The subsidy is a method of redistribution that avoids all the obloquy of a selective structure. Let us remember the shame that free dinners bring to families. Let us remember the shame that is felt about receiving supplementary benefit. Every child and every parent who has to go through the selective structure feels an acute sense of shame.
  The redistributive element of the nondiscriminatory subsidy favours the poorer sections of the community. That is

  219
  because a high proportion of their money is spent on food. The subsidy is a useful social weapon that avoids the bad element of selective support. It is especially effective for the poorer sections of society. That is why we should argue for a higher level of food subsidy. That would be of direct support to old people and poorer families, and it would not bring in the means test aspect.
  Subsidies should be supported and increased because they are a useful form of price control and agricultural support. They should be written much more strongly into our social consciousness, but we deal with these matters in a negative way. We have attempted price control, but we should be much more positive towards food subsidies. Let us not forget that in 1945 the aim was to make a free school dinner available for every child. We have nowhere approached that.
  Therefore, we want to expose the hypocrisy of the Opposition and to remind the Government that they have secured a deal with the trade unions in the past. All honour to the trade unions for that. Whether one agrees with the policy is another question, but I sometimes wish that the Opposition would recognise the contribution and the sacrifice made by the trade union movement in dealing with the problem of inflation. I wish that some of the people round the business lunches that we have heard about had made the same contribution as the trade union movement in accepting a pay policy. But one thing is certain. There will be no pay policy if we cut into such matters as food subsidies. If we want the kind of pay policy which will help in the battle against inflation, the right proposal is to achieve a higher level of food subsidies rather than a lower level.
  The trade union movement is not a selfish organisation. It has taken a lead in fighting for increased pensions for old people. It recognises the problems of poor families, quite apart from reflecting its own individual trade union members, and it has been defensive for society over the past few difficult years.
  Therefore, I welcome this increase. I hope that the Government will look again at the level and at the linking, which has been lacking, between this and an
  220
  intelligent food and agricultural policy for our country.
  1.11 a.m.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Renfrew-shire. West (Mr. Buchan) gave the impression that there was a cleavage between the two sides of the House about whether we supported food subsidies. It is clear from the speeches of both Front Bench spokesmen that that is not the issue between the parties officially. The only issue is whether subsidies should be phased out rather more speedily than the Government propose.
  I was disappointed that the Minister did not try to justify the subsidies in food price terms or even in social terms. I hope that before the debate ends he will answer a few questions about how things are going.
  I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) emphasise in a sympathetic manner the way in which rising food prices are causing immense hardship. Having listened to the Minister tonight, I was surprised to re-read an answer I received from him on 27th May. I asked him how much food prices had gone up in the 18 months before the October 1974 General Election and how much they had gone up since. His Answer conflicted with what he said tonight.
  The information which I was given was that seasonal foodstuffs had risen 14 per cent. in price in the 18 months before the election and 81 per cent. since. That is a very dramatic increase. Non-seasonal foods went up by 28 per cent. in price in the 18 months before the election and by 34 per cent. since then. So the Minister was wrong in saying that this Government brought in food subsidies because prices were rising dangerously before the 1974 election. On the basis of his own figures, they has risen a great deal more since then.
  I hope we shall have an indication from the Minister of how he sees food prices going over the next year. All the information that I can gather from those of my farming friends who are still my friends and from other sources is that food prices will rocket over the next year. If we take together the effect of inflation,

  221
  the effect of our transition to the Common Market, which has been a lot more than the famous 1 per cent. about which we used to be told, and the effects of the green pound, there is no doubt that food prices will rise substantially in the next year.
  As the Minister said, and as the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West repeated, poor people will be harmed if we do away with part of the subsidies. But has any attempt been made to discover whether rising food prices have resulted in a change in the diet of the average family? I am not thinking of working-class, middle-class or upper-class families. I am thinking of changes in people's diets. If a survey were carried out, I think we should see that there has been a dramatic change. We see evidence of it in our local shops. Only last week I was at the butcher's when a lady wanted to buy five lamb chops. She was told that they were 74p each. She said she could not afford to buy them, and she bought some wretched cold meat instead.
  I am sure that that is happening throughout the country. People are changing their diets. I hope that the Government will sponsor a survey to find out whether eating habits are being changed. All the stories I have heard indicate that people are cutting down on buying good food and meat, and instead are buying a lot of rubbish, such as pies and cakes. I think it is high time, now that food prices are soaring, for the Government to undertake a survey.
  We have heard from the Opposition Front Bench that we Conservatives would do away with indiscriminate subsidies and give them only to those in need. But we are in danger of creating a real social nightmare. Just as inflation and the Common Market have caused a prices nightmare, if we go ahead with subsidising those most allegedly in need we shall cause a social nightmare. Those who are at the lowest end of the scale are entitled to more and more benefits. More and more people are finding that it is simply not worth while to work because of the massive tax burden and rising fares to work. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but there are many people who, because of controls on wages, rising fares and high taxation, say that it is not worth while working. There is a very real danger that if we keep on putting
  222
  more and more subsidies for a limited group of people who are allegedly specially in need, and if we make this burden payable by those earning wages, we shall create a great nightmare.
  Is it really worth while going ahead with subsidies of limited effect? We have a ludicrous situation in which we are paying so much money into agriculture within the EEC when more and more food is being provided to go towards more mountains at prices which no one can afford. It is monstrous that we should be haggling about 5p a pound on tea or 6p or 7p a pound on butter more food being produced in every country within the EEC, in order to produce more expensive surpluses. We are simply tilting at windmills when we talk about these small subsidies which the Government are going to phase out.
  The problem is that families are finding it more and more difficult to pay the prices they have to pay for decent food. Whether the figure is £300 million or £500 million as in the Order will make very little difference unless we tackle this monstrous situation in which a lot of money goes towards encouraging farmers to produce more and more food which we cannot afford to buy.
  1.19 a.m.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: I congratulate the Government on coming forward to increase the food subsidies because I think that this is essential at present.
  In this country since the end of the war we have pursued a cheap food policy. Tonight we are talking about subsidising the consumer, but for many years we subsidised the farmer without hearing any objections from Opposition Members. We did this in order to obtain food far more cheaply than was possible in other countries. The common agricultural policy has had a disastrous effect upon food prices in this country. If we are to remain in the EEC, we must completely revise that policy. It seeks to harmonise prices in this country with those on the Continent, and continental prices are based on the inefficient farming methods of the rest of the Common Market.
  We on the Labour side have supported policies initiated by Tom Williams

  223
  and carried on by successive Governments under which the farmer was subsidised. The farmer operated an efficient system and the housewife enjoyed the benefits of cheap food. The Government must try to safeguard the housewife now from the high food prices which are inevitable in the EEC.
  The TUC special congress will meet on Wednesday. We hope that it will deliver the goods and carry through the policy of restraint on personal incomes for a further 12 months. One of our major problems is inflation, and pay restraint is a vital element in the fight against it. The Conservatives tried a statutory incomes policy and it failed miserably. That led to the February 1974 General Election. [Interruption.] It is a pity that those who have been speculating over sterling have not shown the same patriotism as that which will be displayed on Wednesday at the TUC.
  Food subsidies are a part of the social contract. If the workers are to be expected to exercise restraint over their pay increases, it is incumbent upon the Government to pursue policies that will restrain price rises. The Opposition can speculate about how many pence per week the subsidies are worth to families. A few pence may not mean much to the Tories, but to the family which must watch every penny the subsidies are an important factor.
  The Government are right to seek to increase the amount in the Order. Food subsidies are part of the wider strategy with which the Government are succeeding. If we can get a change in or abandonment of the CAP and a return to the policy of cheaper food, things will improve. In the meantime, let us support the Government on food subsidies. In that way we can encourage the trade unions to support the lead given by the TUC and back the incomes restraint which will get us out of the inflationary spiral.
  1.25 a.m.
  Mr. Norman Lamont (Kingston-upon-Thames): Inevitably some of the debate has gone over ground that we have covered before on this subject, but it has reinforced our view that food subsidies are of little or no use in the fight against inflation. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) made
  224
  our position quite clear. We think that these food subsidies ought to be phased out more quickly than the Government are intending and more quickly than the Government have announced in their public expenditure plans.
  I was a little puzzled by the attitude of the Under-Secretary of State when he expressed some sympathy with and interest in the idea of extending and prolonging food subsidies when, of course, the Government have made clear in the Public Expenditure White Paper their intention to phase out subsidies. Let us hear nothing from the Under-Secretary about hon. Members on this side of the House trying to face two ways at once, because that is precisely what he is trying to do tonight.
  We believe that a figure of £300 million rather than £500 million would be a realistic figure under the Order. That would halve the rate of subsidy next year.
  The Conservative Opposition have made it clear that there are a number of objections to the principle of food subsidies. The first is the distortion which may be caused by lowering the price of subsidised foods relative to other goods. We have seen the problem of the consumption of margarine relative to the consumption of butter. We have seen the Secretary of State herself admitting the over-consumption of cheese, and she has had to reduce the subsidy by 2p per 1b as from 25th June this year. There is also the possibility that food subsidies may lead to increased imports of some particular foods. That has led to rumours on the Continent of Danish and Dutch farmers erecting statues to the Secretary of State because they see the benefit to them and their exports of food subsidies.
  Our second main objection to food subsidies is a public expenditure one. It is well known that the Conservative Opposition feel that the level of public spending, and the level of borrowing, is too high and that this is putting our economic situation at enormous risk. It is one thing to borrow enormous sums of money for investment; it is quite another thing to borrow enormous sums of money simply to finance consumption. That is what we are doing at the moment, and that is how we are living beyond our means.
  Mr. Michael English: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore object to Barclaycard and Access?
  Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman's interjection about borrowing in the private sector has very little to do with borrowing by the Government and borrowing in the public sector. Indeed, it is the size of the borrowing in the public sector that has put enormous pressure on the private sector and has endangered jobs and the standard of living.
  It is our view that the level of spending ought to be cut, and Labour Members are always asking us what we would cut.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): Can the hon. Gentleman tell me where, in agricultural production, we could cut expenditure?
  Mr. Lamont: As the Minister is well aware, we are talking about food subsidies. Here we are giving a specific example, with specific figures, of where public expenditure would be cut. Hon. Members cannot say, as they do so often, that this would lead to unemployment. Here we have an example of where public expenditure could be cut back quickly without any effect whatsoever on employment.
  Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester has emphasised, if the Government took a firm line on public expenditure it could lead to a strengthening of the pound, and that could dwarf the effect of subsidies on the Retail Price Index. We saw in March that the pound slipped by 5 per cent. in one week That has a larger effect on the RPI than food subsidies have in a whole year. Since the beginning of the year we have seen the pound slip by an amount which over the next 12 months will add about 4 per cent. to the RPI, again dwarfing anything that could happen through subsidies.
  Let hon. Members opposite realise, if they are prepared to face up to the need to cut public expenditure to put our national finances in order and pursue policies that could strengthen the pound, that that will have a much more dramatic effect upon the RPI than any fiddling around with subsidies.
  The third reason why we reject the food subsidies is that they have nothing to do with overcoming the problem of inflation.
  226
  To doctor the Retail Price Index is merely to tinker around with the symptoms. It has nothing to do with the real underlying causes of inflation. All the money poured into food subsidies—£1,000 million—cannot prevent the price of food continuing to rise. The £1,000 million has not prevented all foods going up by 54 per cent. in price since the present Government came to office. The subsidy on milk has not prevented its price going up by over 54 per cent. The subsidy on cheese has not prevented the price going up by 56 per cent. The subsidy has not prevented fresh foods going up in price by 60 per cent. All of this, too, is dwarfed by the fact that since the present Government came to power the Retail Price Index has gone up by over 50 per cent.
  Hon. Members opposite say—and the Under-Secretary said it again tonight—that inflation is now coming down, that we shall be back on course and we shall get down to single figure inflation possibly by the end of the year. If that is the case, it has nothing to do with ¾p per person per week on the tea subsidy. It has nothing to do with ¼p per person per week on the flour subsidy. That is not why inflation is coming down. The reason why inflation is coming down is the depth of the recession and the fear of unemployment.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The whole tenor of the hon. Gentleman's speech during the past five minutes has been against food subsidies. Could he explain—nobody on the Benches opposite has done so yet—why hon. Members opposite are prepared to spend £300 million more on food subsidies and not the £500 million that the Government are proposing? Are they not facing both ways at once?
  Mr. Lamont: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber, but the position has been explained several times. We have always said that subsidies should be phased out rather than cut out immediately. We are against food subsidies in principle, but we recognise that the adjustment has to be made gradually. That seems to me to be an overwhelmingly reasonable and sensible approach to take.
  The fourth and last reason why we are against food subsidies is that they are an extremely inefficient and ineffective way

  227
  of helping the poorer members of the community. They are like buckshot. A lot of it simply misses the target. They are indiscriminate subsidies which go to help tourists visiting the country, businessmen dining, property developers at l'Ecu de France eating imported cheese. It is a totally indiscriminate subsidy.
  I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary would choose to single out a different list of people. He would choose to single out one-parent families, low-paid workers and a whole lot of other similarly selective cases, all of whom are no doubt getting tired of being trotted out for every bogus piece of social justice.
  The fact is that more help should be given to the needy in other ways. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that, although the subsidising of bread could undoubtedly help the millionaires, if any millionaire felt guilty about it he could send a donation. It is not millionaires who should feel guilty about wasting money. It is the Government who have connived at this scandalous misuse of public money.
  We have had the scrapping of the Child Benefit Scheme. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said that by harping on cash benefits and saying that the money could be used in other ways we were favouring a return to the means-test State. But there are many benefits which could be improved with this money and which would not involve a means test. Subsidies are indiscriminate in their help. Something like 52 per cent. of the population gets 50 per cent. of the benefit of food subsidies. In 1975, when food subsidies were costing just over £500 million, we were told by the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection that for less than half that amount—£160 million—one could have given a social security benefit which would have provided the same amount in cash as we have been given much more expensively through food subsidies.
  The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) justified and supported food subsidies on the ground that they were redistributive. I do not know whether he saw the article which appeared in New Society in January 1975 by Mr. Ritson, of Reading University, who argued that a large part of food subsidies
  228
  was going to the middle- and upper middle-income groups. He said that those earning between £41 and £70 a week were receiving about £200 million—
  Mr. Ioan Evans rose—
  Mr. Lamont: — I am answering the hon. Gentleman's point—in subsidies and contributed only £140 million.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: They paid taxes.
  Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman says that they paid taxes. We know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Statement in late 1975 that food subsidies were financed out of indirect taxes. That is not my claim. That was the right hon. Gentleman's claim. He told us that it was necessary to put up indirect taxes to maintain the food subisidies. That is why food subsidies are such a pious fraud. Those who benefit from them are those who have to pay for them. They are financed largely out of levies on cigarettes, beer and tobacco. That is why less than one-quarter of the benefit is going to low-income families.
  We cannot go on with the level of public spending that we have. We cannot go on with the level of borrowing that we have. Unless this House is prepared to face reality, reality will face it soon. It will face it with the growing lack of confidence of our creditors and in our currency. Food subsidies are not an effective way of helping the worse-off. They are not an instrument of social justice. They are not an instrument for defeating inflation. They simply contribute to our overspending and over-borrowing. For that reason they make our economic situation even more dangerous and precarious than it is. I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the Order.
  1.37 a.m.
  Mr. Maclennan: With the leave of the House, I should like to say that this debate has highlighted yet again the Opposition's complete failure to come to terms with the realities of economic inflation. The speech by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) encapsulated the paucity of thinking that the Opposition have demonstrated from the beginning on this matter. It does not matter what policy

  229
  the Government produce—whether it be a tightening of the Price Code or the introduction of the Price Check Scheme—the Opposition oppose it. When we bring forward measures to enable consumers to have better advice about their purchases in the shops so that they know whether they have been getting value for money, the Opposition oppose it.
  The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) refused to go to the opening of the consumer advice centre in Gloucester yesterday. [Interruption.]
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Under-Secretary of State to say that I refused to open a shop in my constituency when it is absolutely untrue?
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Lady has made clear her opposition to consumer advice centres by her refusal to be present at the opening of the centre in Gloucester, which was reported in the Press. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Lady accepted the invitation and then withdrew. It appears that on that matter, as on other matters, she was facing two ways.
  The hon. Member for Gloucester attacked my right hon. Friend for not opening the debate. The hon. Lady has been in the House long enough to know that Orders of this kind are normally introduced by junior Ministers, and it indicates petulance on her part to suggest that there should be a departure from normal procedure.
  The hon. Lady devalues these debates, which are important and raise issues of principle and public expenditure, by slinging around the Chamber accusations of cheating, fraud and dishonesty. It adds nothing to the quality of the debate that the hon. Lady should choose to use this sort of language.
  Mr. English: Does my hon. Friend realise that the whole House is fed up with both side. By a majority of two-thirds the people of the United Kingdom, knowing what they were doing, were prepared to vote, amongst other things, to go into the European Community, knowing that that would increase food prices. Here we are, wasting public expenditure which could be better spent on old-age pensions or other benefits.
  230
  The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont), the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have never mentioned this.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Mr. Maclennan.
  Mr. Maclennan: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's irritation, which is not surprising. Perhaps I can give him a lift home afterwards and have a chat with him about it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) properly identified the issue raised by the debate. He at least was prepared to confront the issues of principle involved in the Government's policy, to support them and to ask whether it was appropriate to run down food subsidies at the rate adumbrated in the White Paper. The case for the rundown of food subsidies to the extent outlined in the White Paper can be made out in terms of the other social benefits that have been introduced and that were not available at the time food subsidies were brought forward, and in terms of the Government's success in moderating the rise in the cost of living.
  Mr. Giles Shaw rose—
  Mr. Maclennan: No, I cannot give way. I have too many points to make.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), in a thoughtful speech, questioned the policy of his Front Bench in promoting the case for selective assistance to the less well off. I was not clear from his speech whether he was advocating no help at all to the needy or was on this occasion backing the Government in continuing the food subsidy programme, which we consider meritorious because it does not lead to the sort of problems he described.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart asked for a progress report on how the country was doing in the battle against inflation. We can take encouragement from the trends now clearly established. We have had eight months of decline in the rate of inflation, month by month. We have seen improvements in the food index which are particularly relevant and encouraging in the context of this debate. The food index in respect of all items, including seasonal foods, has been seriously distorted in the last few months

  231
  by the potato shortage, but even in respect of the food index including seasonal foods there is some encouragement to be taken from the fact that from December the rate has fallen, on a year-on-year basis, from 26 per cent, to 19·9 per cent. in April.
  In respect of the food index—less seasonal foods—the picture is encouraging. It shows a steady decline from the peak month in June, when it stood at 29·1 per cent., to April, where it was as low as 13·8 per cent. This marks genuine progress in the Government's battle against inflation and gives us reason to believe that we are on course towards the target which the Chancellor has set.
  Today, the wholesale price indices have been announced. Here again there are some grounds for encouragement. It is known that the picture on the output side has been encouraging for a number of months. The change in the index for all manufactured products measured over a 12-month period has now fallen for 12 successive months. The figure fell from 15·8 per cent. for April to 14·6 per cent. for May. In respect of the input prices, again we can note a distinctive improvement this month over last—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be of great convenience to the Chamber if urgent private conversations took place in other parts of the building.
  Mr. Maclennan: The provisional input index for this month for materials and fuels purchased by manufacturing industry rose by 2 per cent., which was half the rate of increase of last month, so that the projections—
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim rose—
  Mr. Maclennan: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady. Other Opposition Members made more constructive speeches than that of the hon. Lady, and they deserve an answer. The hon. Lady asked for the facts. These are the facts. The facts are that this Government's policy to beat inflation is working and is being seen to work. If the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames thinks that food subsidies, the Price Check Scheme, the Price Code, the consumer advice centres, and the price comparison schemes conducted by local authorities, have noth-
  232
  ing to do with it, he will convince very few people.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim rose—
  Mr. Maclennan: No. I shall not give way. This country is succeeding and it is succeeding because the people of the country are determined that we shall succeed in beating inflation. This time last year, when the policy of wage restraint was being debated by the trade unions, the scepticism voiced by hon. Members opposite about the success of that policy was tangible. We have heard similar but somewhat less sceptical comments this time. I venture to prophesy—I agree that it is dangerous—that we shall achieve the targets we have set ourselves, and in achieving those targets the policy that we have chosen, of sub. sidising food that constitutes an import. ant part of diet of the less well off, about whom the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames felt is merely appropriate to joke, is important. The hon. Member has belittled, as have other hon. Members opposite, the value of the food subsidies. At present, they are worth 5·4 points on the food index—not a negligible amount. To a typical family of father, mother and two children, they are worth 65p per week—not a negligible amount. They are worth 39p to an old-age pensioner couple—not a negligible amount.
  In bringing forward suggestions as to alternative priorities for further social expenditure, it is a mistake to underrate the value of the role and acceptability of food subsidies.
  1.52 a.m.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I am grateful to have the chance of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that the Minister was unable to give way, for I was awaiting the clarion call of his commitment to the phasing-out of food subsidies on time according to the programme. It has been noticeable in the debate that there is a vast difference of view among hon. Members on the Government Benches on the question whether the policy of discontinuing food subsidies is to be adhered to. Hon. Members below the Gangway who are fundamentally concerned with social engineering—including the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts), with his

  233
  nutritional interest in the tea subsidy—take a different view from that of the Government, and I respect it.
  The Under-Secretary of State failed to demonstrate that the case for continuing subsidies at this level has to be made on exceptional grounds. The hon. Gentleman will surely understand—the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has an interest in means-tested benefits—that the whole country is going through a means-tested benefit in this case.
  Mr. Maclennan rose—
  Mr. Shaw: No.
  Mr. Maclennan rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is well aware that the hon. Member who has the Floor remains in charge.
  Mr. Maclennan rose—
  Mr. Shaw rose—
  Mr. Maclennan rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that it was plain that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) was keeping the Floor.
  Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg your pardon. I do not think it was appreciated that I was trying to make a point of order. It was simply to state that I would have been willing to answer the hon. Gentleman's question if he had had a question to put.
  Mr. Shaw: I am grateful. For the next hour and a half I may sustain the argument, if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so. If he can say that there is to be a discontinuance of food subsidies according to the Government's pro-
  grame, I shall give way to him and resume my remarks when he has answered that question.
  Mr. Maclennan: The Government's plans for future expenditure on food subsidies were set out in the White Paper, from which no departure has been made this evening. No issue of principle has arisen in the debate, nor is one embodied in the Order, that suggests that the programe is in any way altered. It is necessary in order to give effect to the proposals in the White Paper that this Order should be approved. I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that.
  Mr. Shaw: I am grateful for the confirmation that there is to be no attempt by the Government to accept the arguments from their own side that there should be an increase in food subsidies. We obviously agree with that proposition.
  The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West argued about means-tested benefits. The country is experiencing the greatest crisis of all time. When we discuss the expenditure of items such as £500 million on food subsidies the only question that we must ask ourselves is that which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) asked —namely, are we justified in the present state of Government expenditure and borrowing? We have to say that there are no reasons for justifying it. Not one reason has been advanced. We know that a proportion goes to the poor families on low incomes and to pensioners—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of Proceedings on the Motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
  The House divided: Ayes 248. Noes 237.

  Division No 180.]

  AYES

  [1.56 a.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Buchan, Norman

  Anderson, Donald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Buchanan, Richard

  Archer, Peter

  Bishop, E. S.

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Ashton, Joe

  Boardman, H.

  Campbell, Ian

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Canavan, Dennis

  Atkinson, Norman

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Cant, R. B.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Bradley, Tom

  Cartwright, John

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Bates, Alf

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Bean, R. E.

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Coleman, Donald

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Perry, Ernest

  Concannon, J. D.

  Janner, Greville

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Radice, Giles

  Corbett, Robin

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  John, Brynmor

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Cronin, John

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rooker, J. W.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kerr, Russell

  Roper, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Lambie, David

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rowlands, Ted

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lamond, James

  Sandelson, Neville

  Deakins, Eric

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Selby, Harry

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Dempsey, James

  Loyden, Eddie

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Doig, Peter

  Luard, Evan

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Silverman, Julius

  Dunnett, Jack

  McElhone, Frank

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Small, William

  Eadie, Alex

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Edge, Geoff

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Snape, Peter

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Stallard, A. W.

  English, Michael

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Madden, Max

  Strang, Gavin

  Evans John (Newton)

  Magee, Bryan

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Mahon, Simon

  Swain, Thomas

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Mallalleu, J. P. W.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Flannery, Martin

  Marquand, David

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Tierney, Sydney

  Ford, Ben

  Meacher, Michael

  Tinn, James

  Forrester, John

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Tomlinson, John

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Mendelson John

  Tuck, Raphael

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

  Mikardo, Ian

  Urwin, T. W.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Millan, Bruce

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  George, Bruce

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Ginsburg, David

  Molloy, William

  Ward, Michael

  Golding, John

  Moonman, Eric

  Watkins, David

  Gould, Bryan

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Watkinson, John

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  White, James (Pollok)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hardy, Peter

  Newens, Stanley

  Whitlock, William

  Harper, Joseph

  Noble, Mike

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Ogden, Eric

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Hatton, Frank

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Hooley, Frank

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Horam, John

  Ovenden, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Owen, Dr David

  Woof, Robert

  Huckfield, Les

  Padley, Walter

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Park, George

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hunter, Adam

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Mr. Ted Graham and

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. David Stoddart

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Benyon, W.

  Brittan, Leon

  Alison, Michael

  Biffen, John

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Arnold, Tom

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brotherton, Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Blaker, Peter

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Body, Richard

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Baker, Kenneth

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Buck, Antony

  Banks, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter

  Budgen, Nick

  Beith, A. J.

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Bell, Ronald

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Burden, F. A.

  236

  237

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Carlisle, Mark

  James, David

  Penhaligon, David

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

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

  Percival, Ian

  Channon, Paul

  Jessel, Toby

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Jopling, Michael

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Clegg, Walter

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Raison, Timothy

  Cockcroft, John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rathbone, Tim

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cope, John

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Cordle, John H.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Corrie, John

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Costain, A. P.

  Knox, David

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Crouch, David

  Lamont, Norman

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Lane, David

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lawson, Nigel

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Durant, Tony

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lloyd, Ian

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Loveridge, John

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Emery, Peter

  Luce, Richard

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Eyre, Reginald

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shepherd, Colin

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Macfariane, Neil

  Shersby, Michael

  Farr, John

  MacGregor, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Fell, Anthony

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Sims, Roger

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McNair-Wilson P. (New Forest)

  Skeet T. H. H.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Madel, David

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Forman, Nigel

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Speed, Keith

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Marten, Neil

  Spence, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Mates Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Mather, Carol

  Sproat, Iain

  Freud, Clement

  Maude, Angus

  Stainton, Keith

  Fry, Peter

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Mawby, Ray

  Stanley, John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stradling, Thomas J.

  Goodhart Philip

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mills, Peter

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Moate, Roger

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Monro, Hector

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Gray, Hamish

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Trotter, Neville

  Grist, Ian

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Grylls, Michael

  Morgan, Geraint

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hall, Sir John

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wakeham, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hannam, John

  Mudd, David

  Wall, Patrick

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Neave, Airey

  Walters, Dennis

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nelson, Anthony

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Wells, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Newton, Tony

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Normanton, Tom

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nott, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hicks, Robert

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Holland, Philip

  Osborn, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Hunt, John

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Food Subsidies (Increase of Financial Limit) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.

  RASSAU NORTH INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): I call Mr. Jeffrey Thomas—
  Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the motion that you have called we are asked to consider petitions of general objection and the question whether they are to be referred to a Joint Committee. Those petitions are not available. How on earth are we to decide what the documents contain if we are unable to read them?
  The Clerks of the House have done a very fine service, because I understand that they have placed the petitions in the small room behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. However, if all my colleagues were to pour into that room to read those petitions, it would not result in a very good debate. The movers of the motion have not had the courtesy to provide right hon. and hon. Members with copies of the documents that they want us to debate. In those circumstances, are we to proceed with this debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am advised that copies of the document were in the Private Bill Office, had inquiries been made there.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do I take it that this is private business? I would judge from what you say about the petitions being available only in the Private Bill Office that the business we are now to discuss is private business.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In matters of this nature the documents are normally to be found in the Private Bill Office.
  Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is most inconvenient for Members to be able to read the documents only in the Private Bill Office. Normally copies of any documents that we are called upon to debate are placed in the Vote Office and we are able to take them away to study before the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The normal procedure that it adopted in a case such as this has been adopted. The documents have been available and, had precautions been taken by those who wanted to read
  240
  them, they would surely have looked for them in good time, rather than a moment or two before the debate started.
  Mr. John Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you be good enough to advise the House whether this is private business?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no indication that it is private business. This is the procedure that I am advised is always adopted under this Act.
  Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If this is not private business I think we are entitled to ask the Leader of the House to make sure that documents are available, so that the House may carry out its proper procedures.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has a look at the Act that is quoted in the Order? He will find that the procedure set out there has been followed.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), many of my hon. Friends would be grateful if you could tell the House whether this is private or public business. Surely it must be one or the other—unless it is another hybrid piece of business.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is public business, and there is a statute that covers the procedure. That procedure has been followed.
  Mr. Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When public business is presented is it not the practice for the Government to ensure that the documents required are available through the Vote Office?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am dealing with the point raised by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). I shall find the relevant Act in a moment. In the meantime, the hon. Member may make his point of order.
  Mr. Skinner: Is it not a fact that on 13th February 1968 a similar procedure

  241
  to that being adopted tonight was used when the Order under discussion was the Humber Harbour Order? Is it not a fact that a Division took place, in accordance with these procedures, when the vote was 138–28? That was an Order on a different issue, but dealt with under the same procedure.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Acts are the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 and 1965. Hon Members will find that the procedure set out in those Acts has been adopted.
  Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not objecting to the procedure. In fact, the precedent has been mentioned, and I find that I was a Teller on that occasion. I do not object to the procedure, because there is a precedent, but I object to the lack of the documents that we are called upon to debate. The documents are not before us.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If documents were required, hon. Members would normally look for them more than a few minutes before the start of the debate.
  Mr. Jeffrey Thomas rose—
  Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will agree that we are in some difficulty. Whether it is public business or private business, and whether the documents should or should not have been available in the Vote Office or elsewhere—you have been good enough to tell us that they are now placed in a small room somewhere behind your chair—I think that anyone taking an interest in this matter will understand that a number of petitions are involved. Anyone who has been in this place for more than five minutes will know that a petition is a long and complicated legal document. I am sure that you would, agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that whatever sort of debate we are to have, and whatever the result is to be, it must be without more confusion than is necessary. There are four or five petitions and one of them is in Welsh—that of Mr. Ednyfed Austyn Prys—which may involve us in some translation. I hope that that will not delay us unduly. Surely the best
  242
  way out of the undoubted difficulty in which we find ourselves is to adjourn the House so that those of us who are becoming increasingly suspicious about the matter have the chance to study the documents in question before we proceed any further.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that before the hon. Gentleman came to the debate it would have been a good thing for him to study the Act under which the procedure is adopted. I refer him in particular to Section 4.
  Mr. Jeffrey Thomas rose—
  Mr. Peter Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A map is referred to in the Order, a copy of which is apparently deposited in Cardiff and in the offices of the Blaenau-Gwent council. However, I find that no copy of the map has been deposited in this place. We wish to give proper and full consideration to the matters referred to in the Order, and one of the matters to be considered will be the precise areas geographically to be acquired for industrial development. I respectfully suggest that it will be quite impossible for the House to give proper consideration to the matter unless we have a chance to view the map. I ask for your advice and direction on this matter.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: All the requirements of the Act have been met and there is no further help that I can give the House. I call Mr. Jeffrey Thomas.
  1.19 a.m.
  Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: I beg to move,
  That the Petitions of General Objection of Mr. William John Williams, Mr. W. G. Rowland and others, Mr. H. Bennett and others, Mr. Ednyfed Austyn Prys and others, and Mr. E. J. Thomas and others, against the Blaenau-Gwent District (Rassau North Industrial Estate) Compulsory Purchase Order 1974 be not referred to a Joint Committee.
  I trust that the sort of behaviour that we have seen from the Opposition is not indicative of the way in which they will listen to what I have to say, which involves serious matters affecting large numbers of people in the county of Gwent.
  The first point that I make is that this is a power that this House seldom exercises but that it is proper to do so where

  243
  the petitions raise important questions of principle and Government policy.
  Since there seems to be some misunderstanding on the part of the Opposition, I shall spell it out. I move this motion on the authority of Section 1(4) of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1965, which reads:
  "A petition of general objection shall under Section 4(2) of the Act stand referred to a joint committee of both Houses unless either House of Parliament has…resolved that it be not so resolved."
  The short history of this matter is set out in the first paragraph of the first petitioner's petition, which was deposited in the Private Bill Office on 4th May 1976. It reads:
  "An order entitled the Blaenau-Gwent District (Rassau North Industrial Estate) Compulsory Purchase Order 1974 was confirmed by the Secretary of State for Wales on the second day of March 1976 under Section 112 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 following a public local inquiry held in the Civic Centre, Ebbw Vale, from 29th July to 5th August 1975. On the same date the Secretary of State for Wales gave consent under Section 22 of the Commons Act 1899 to the grant of enclosure of 234 acres of land at Rassau Common for the purposes of its development as an industrial estate."
  That Order was laid before this House on 14th April 1975 by the Secretary of State pursuant to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Acts 1945 and 1965. The effect of the Order is to authorise the Blaenau-Gwent Borough Council to purchase compulsorily about 356 acres of land for the purpose of developing it for industrial purposes as an estate to be known as the Rassau North Industrial Estate.
  I hope that Opposition Members are now fully seized of the facts of this motion.
  It has to be said—and I say it with some measure of regret—that the inspector's findings were, to say the least, capricious and eccentric, and that the conclusions to which he came ran counter to the evidence adduced before him and, indeed, almost all the views that have ever been expressed on the questions of priorities, industrially and otherwise, for North Gwent. It was quite plain to anyone who read those findings in his report —and Opposition Members can still have their opportunity if they so wish—
  Mr. Hastings: Where?
  Mr. Thomas: It was quite plain that the inspector misdirected himself and that, in due time, the Secretary of State remedied the matter. But it cannot be denied—
  Mr. Hastings: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to help the House. He has made it quite clear that he thinks that we should have an opportunity to consult the documents from which he is quoting so liberally. We are back where we started. If we are to reply to what he is saying and to deploy a case of any merit, we need time. He says that we can still consult these documents, but what can be the good of doing that if the House has already voted to disallow these unfortunate people to put their case? Surely this is the time to give us an interval in which we can study this matter before we proceed any further.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that had the preparation for his speech started slightly earlier, these difficulties could have been resolved.
  Mr. Robert Mellish: Hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench had the documents the hon. Member is complaining about. If they had done their job properly they would have had them photostated and given them to that lot.
  Mr. Michael Latham: Under Section 3 of Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 there is a period of 21 days in which the House has to receive a report from the Chairman. In view of the point of order about the time for the document, when does the 21-day period expire?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to look at Section 4?
  Mr. Latham: Indeed—I have read Section 4 which deals with the period of 21 days which the House has in which to take action. When does that period expire? If the House were to take the whole 21-day period before taking any action under the section, it might meet the point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The procedure has, as I understand it, been carried out, and everything is in order.
  Mr. Thomas: I want to get away from these bogus points of order and get on with the debate. There is a very important matter of principle involved here, and I hope that Opposition Members will be able to contain themselves for a little longer.
  It is important to spell out one or two matters. There can be no doubt whatever that important matters of principle and Government policy are involved here. Government policy is affected of course in the matters pursued by the council to meet unemployment in Wales in general and in Blaenau-Gwent district in particular.
  We have set up a Welsh Development Agency, a Manpower Services Commission, a Training Services Agency, and an Employment Services Agency, and we have passed the Employment Protection Act. Also, £12·6 million was given by the Government to the borough council at the time of the Beswick announcement.
  The Secretary of State has made it plain that, and I quote:
  "The special arrangements made for Ebbw Vale, both financial and administrative, are a prime example of how the Government has taken the lead in the industrial sphere. Ebbw Vale is my greatest problem."
  [Interruption.] If Opposition Members were among the 2,000 men unemployed in Ebbw Vale they would not find the matter so amusing. In view of the growing unemployment situation in North Gwent it is our view that it is grossly irresponsible for the petitioners to seek to pursue the matter further. They have certainly cast their net wide in seeking signatories for their petition, because some of the signatories come not from Ebbw Vale or Blaenau-Gwent but from places like Wakefield and Wembley.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Does the hon. Member, in all honesty, not agree that the great majority of signatories came from the immediate locality? What great principle of Government policy is being infringed by allowing the petitioners about six weeks to present their case before the House rises for the Summer Recess? How does that interfere with Government policy?
  Mr. Thomas: If the petitioners get their way—and I want Opposition Members to realise exactly the effects of what
  246
  they will do by supporting the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Edwards)—they will put in jeopardy the future of 5,000 jobs because the Joint Committee could, in spite of the merits of the case, come to a different conclusion from that of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Michael Latham rose—
  Mr. Thomas: I shall not give way. It is absolutely crucial for the future of North Gwent that the local authority should develop the site at the first possible opportunity.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Thomas: I shall not give way. I have given way enough.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has made his position clear. Hon. Members must not persist.
  Hon. Members: Give way!
  Mr. Thomas: No. The position is clear. The site must be developed at the first possible opportunity, because the matter has been protracted since before 1974. The original compulsory purchase order was made in 1964 and the development can afford to wait no longer. The size of the site and the facilities of the ground combine to give it qualities possessed by no other site in the area.
  In a letter to the town clerk of Blaenau-Gwent my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that considerations affecting the economic factors were of overriding significance in this case. Land for industrial development was needed at once, and in view of the imminence of the remaining stages of the Ebbw Vale closures he was of the opinion that the provision of additional land and its development was of such urgency that consideration of the feasibility of developing alternative sites, with the long delay that that would entail, would not be justified.
  Let me spell out the exact position in North Gwent. Seventy-four per cent. of those employed in the Ebbw Vale exchange area are employed in the steel industry. Ninety per cent. of those live in the Blaenau-Gwent district. Between 1951 and 1974 the population of Ebbw Vale itself fell by over 5,500. Against this background the loss of 4,500 jobs in the British Steel Corporation between

  247
  1975 and 1978 assumes even graver importance and significance. In March this year the number of persons unemployed in the county was 12,400—an increase of 80 per cent over the year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] Hon. Members say "Disgraceful", but it is a fact that these proposals were initiated by the last Tory Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Your Government."] In fact we undertook to investigate them and review them. As a result we had the Beswick Report. Hon. Gentlemen should not simply call out "Your Government"; it was their Government who initiated these proposals-
  An increase of 80 per cent. in unemployment in Ebbw Vale over the last 12 months means that the unemployment rates are well above the national average. It is increasing more rapidly in Gwent than in Wales or Great Britain as a whole. In Ebbw Vale the labour force has already fallen by some 2,300 since October 1973. A further 2,000 may go by March 1978. On the basis of the comparison between the number of vacancies and the number of persons unemployed the ratio of vacancies to unemployed increased from 1 to 8 in March 1975 to 1 to 25 in March 1976.
  Finally, may I ask the Opposition whether they are really prepared to put in jeopardy the prospect of 5,000 jobs? That is the reality of what we are debating in this motion. If they vote against the motion the people of North Gwent certainly will never forgive them, because the Conservative Opposition will be seen as the party which pays lip service to the doctrine of employment but which, when confronted with the opportunity of a cheap procedural victory, places in peril the future of whole communities in Gwent. I ask the House to approve the motion.
  2.39 a.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: What could have been a reasonable and informative debate has put us in an impossible position by our not having the documents that we are debating. The hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) has based his case on petitions that we have not got before us and quotations from the report of the inspector who held the public inquiry, which report we also have not got before
  248
  us. It puts the House in an almost impossible position to debate this Order properly. Indeed, we do not even know the area covered by the Order.
  Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) took time to look in "Erskine May" he would discover, as he ought to know from his vast experience of this House, that this House is, in fact, not able to go into the details of what the inspector said or did, because it is a departmental matter.
  Mr. Page: It is very strange that the hon. and learned Gentleman now tells us that we are not allowed to go into the details, when he was quoting from the petition and from the report of the inspector. The purpose of the special procedure under which this Order is made is to provide a simpler form of local legislation for matters that would normally have to be dealt with by a Private Bill, and also to expedite by secondary legislation the application locally of principles that have already been laid down in primary legislation.
  In the case of this Order, therefore, there has, as the House now knows, been a local public inquiry. That local public inquiry has resulted in a report, which I wish all of us could have read. That report recommended that the compulsory purchase order should not be confirmed. The hon. and learned Gentleman has taken upon himself to say that that report was capricious—and I thought he said it in a rather pompous manner. It was the report of an inspector who had heard the facts of the case, had come to his conclusions, and had made his report and his recommendations to the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State has made this Order against those recommendations.
  Under the procedure there follows a 21-day period in which petitions can be put before this House. When those petitions are presented, the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of Committees of another place are charged with the duty of deciding whether those petitions are petitions for amendment or petitions of general objection. In this case the Chairmen, in their wisdom, have decided that these petitions are petitions of general objection.

  249
  As I said before, I have no complaint about the procedure. The procedure is that this House can say that these petitions of general objection shall not go to a Joint Committee and nothing more shall be done about them. It is not merely a matter of saying "They shall not go to a Joint Committee. We shall consider them in the House." The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that we cannot go into the details of those petitions here and now. We can never go into the details of those petitions if this motion is passed tognight. Those petitions are thrown into the dustbin.
  These petitions are from hundreds of people whose lands are affected. Although the Chairman quite correctly decided that they were petitions of general objection, because they contained material that went to the root of the Order, they also contain material that amounted to a plea by individuals that their land was being taken unnecessarily.
  It is true that the procedure allows the House to prevent those petitions going to a Joint Committee, but the House ought to be very careful in denying to individuals a right that was given them by statute to bring this kind of petition to the House. This seems to me to be a very simple point. Are we going to deprive those people of the right to put their case to a Joint Committee merely because, in their petitions, they have also said that the whole of the Order is unnecessary and ought not to be made?
  If the motion is defeated, it means a delay of no more than six to eight weeks. There is no need for any further delay than that. The Order was made in 1974 Are we to deprive many individuals of their right to put their cases about their land being taken away from them, because it will take another six weeks? This matter has already taken two years.
  This matter ought never to have been brought before the House in this manner. The hon. and learned Member for Abertillery let the cat out of the bag, in effect, by saying that he was frightened that the Joint Committee might return to what the inspector recommended to the Secretary of State.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against this motion, which defeats the right of individuals to
  250
  protect themselves by petition before this House.
  2.46 a.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): I presume to speak on this matter because, having had some responsibility for planning at the Department of the Environment, it has fallen to me from time to time to consider the reports of inspectors following public local inquiries. I understand that in this case the inspector had before him numerous witnesses and a large amount of documentary material. The inspector, having considered the matter in detail, arrived at a particular conclusion—that the compulsory purchase order should not be made.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) suggested, it is frequently the case that a Minister will, on advice, disagree with the findings of his inspector. No doubt in this instance the Secretary of State had his reasons for arriving at that decision. But the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) gave no indication whatsoever of the reasons that may have led the Secretary of State to overrule his inspector in this matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman simply clouded the issue.
  There were three very unusual features in the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. I hope that I shall have the attention of the Secretary of State when I put them to him. First, it seems extraordinary that in this matter, which concerns land—
  Mr. Jeffrey Thomas rose—
  Mr. Griffiths: I shall complete this point and then give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I understand that almost all this land lies within the constituency of Lord President of the Council, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot). In short, he ought to have accepted the responsibility for explaining to this House what is happening in the area that he represents. Instead, he has hidden behind the inadequate shadow of the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery.
  The first question to which the House is entitled to an answer is: why did the right hon. Gentleman not deal with this matter in his own constituency and come clean with the House about what is going

  251
  on there? I now give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr, Jeffrey Thomas: Talking of shadows, the Shadow Cabinet like shadows come and like shadows depart.
  I should like to answer the hon. Gentleman's last point first. My constituency is within the Blaenau-Gwent borough boundary. I was born in part of that district which is actually called Bleunau-Gwent, and was brought up in that constituency. What is more, I worked in Ebbw Vale for long periods. Therefore, I feel quite adequate to deal with questions relating to the Blaenau-Gwent district.
  In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I referred to what the Secretary of State said in answer to the inspector's report. I quoted from a letter—the hon. Gentleman would have heard of it if he had been listening instead of making a noise—which my right hon. and learned Friend wrote to the town clerk of Blaenau-Gwent, dated 3rd March 1976.
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. and learned Gentleman has merely succeeded in clouding the issue still further. I return to the question that I put. Nearly all the land in question is within the constituency of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. He owes it to the House to explain why he is overrulling his inspector's decision and proposing that a Joint Committee of Parliament should have no opportunity to consider the matter. In short, the Lord President is saying that he shall be judge and jury and decide that the House, shall have no opportunity to consider the matter.
  The hon. and learned Member for Abertillery described the judgment of the inspector as being capricious and eccentric, and said that the inspector misdirected himself. These are grave charges to be made against a public servant who has no opportunity to defend himself either in the House or in any other place. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that if he had used those words outside the House he could easily have found himself the object of a suit for damages. If he uses those words in the House he owes it to the House to give the evidence upon which he bases those serious comments, but he has not done that. He is traducing the inspector, on whom the
  252
  Secretary of State from time to time must reply, but he has not given the House the evidence on which he bases those accusations.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman used extraordinary language to justify his case. He said that the Joint Committee might come to a different conclusion from that of the Secretary of State. When there was objection from the Opposition Benches, he went on to say that he was not saying that this would necessarily be the case, but was just telling the House what would happen. Out of his own mouth he confirmed the impression that the Opposition had formed, that if the Joint Committee, objectively weighing the evidence, had been able to study the matter in detail it might have come to the same conclusion as that of the inspector. That is the heart of the problem.
  Mr. Jeffrey Thomas rose—
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am under the impression that it is after 10 o'clock, and I am wondering how it is that without the 10 o'clock rule having been suspended in respect of this business—which is neither an affirmative nor a negative resolution procedure, and is public business—we are occupying ourselves in this way at five minutes to 3 o'clock in the morning.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Standing Order 3(1)(b) "Proceedings in pursuance of any Act of Parliament"—
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is not pursuant to any Act of Parliament. What the hon. and, one must gather, learned Gentleman has put to us is that the proceedings pursuant to an Act of Parliament should not take place, not that they should take place.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Chair many proceed a little further and read from the Standing Order:
  "proceedings in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, save in so far as Standing Order No. 4 (Statutory instruments, &c. (procedure)), otherwise provides, and proceedings on Commission documents, but Mr. Speaker shall put any questions necessary to dispose of such proceedings not later than half-past Eleven o'clock or one and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings, whichever is the later."
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That confirms me in

  253
  the view that what we are engaged on at the moment does not fall into any of those categories. It is not, in fact, a procedure pursuant to any Act of Parliament, nor is it an affirmation of a Statutory Instrument, nor is it a Prayer to annul a Statutory Instrument. It is none of these things. Would it not be better, therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to go to bed?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The whole point of the hon. Gentleman's motion is that he does not want to comply with the Act. Therefore, it does not fall within the Standing Order that you have quoted to exempt it from Standing Order No. 1. That being the case, our proceedings at this moment are ultra vires. Surely we can occupy ourselves better than by indulging in ultra vires proceedings.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is all within the Act and that it is in order.
  Mr. Griffiths: I apologise for intervening in the observations of the "Official Solicitor" to the official Opposition in these matters. I want briefly to make three more points. Many other of my hon. Friends wish to speak.
  The hon. Gentleman alleged that if the House did not accept this Order, 5,000 jobs would be put at risk. He has no basis in fact for saying that. All that is 'at issue tonight is whether or not is Joint Committee should consider the proposal. The hon. Gentleman must be implying that if a Joint Committee, objectively considering the matter, were to come to a different conclusion from that of the Secretary of State, that of itself would mean the loss of 5,000 jobs. Is that not a most extraordinary charge? Is it really suggested by the hon. Gentleman that this House has so little concern for the employment of his or the Lord President of the Council's constituents that it would lightly put that at risk? Surely the whole point about a Joint Committee is that it is perfectly capable of weighing all the evidence, taking account of planning and environmental considerations, of questions of equity and justice in respect of taking peoples land away from them compulsorily, of the national interest, and
  254
  of the Government's policy. These are matters that a Joint Committee is preeminently suited to consider.
  The hon. Gentleman has no right and no basis in fact for suggesting that a Joint Committee of this House would be incapable of weighing those matters and arriving at a balanced conclusion. Therefore, I believe that the hon. Gentleman's blackmailing suggestion, that if this House does not agree with the way the Secretary of State wants it that would put 5,000 jobs at risk, is not the language of Parliament. It is the language of the Reichstag. The hon. Gentleman has no right to level that kind of accusation against a Joint Committee that is perfectly capable of arriving at a sound conclusion.
  The basic objection that I have to the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech and the support that he appears to get from the Government arises wholly from the suggestion that it is inadmissible to put this matter to a Joint Committee, because it might arrive at a different conclusion from that of the Leader of the House. On many occasions in the past the House has arrived at different conclusions from those of the right hon. Gentleman, and there will be many future occasions—and he knows it. Nothing should go out from this House to suggest that where the House disagrees with the right hon. Gentleman it is the House that is wrong and he who is right. That is an inadmissible proposition to put before Parliament.
  Whether or not the examiners, in considering these petitions, have come to the conclusion that they should be regarded not as petitions for amendment but as petition of general recovery, I take it that they are seeking to give other than general objections that may be levelled on policy grounds—those objections that might arise, for example, from local authorities or statutory bodies—and are incorporating within those objections a number of private objections.
  What is being done, therefore—I hesitate to use the word, but the very term "general objection" implies it means a certain hybridity, in that there are private as well as public objections to be considered. What the House is in practice doing, if this proposition is accepted, is saying that, because Government policy

  255
  deems otherwise, the private rights incorporated within a general objection shall have no effect and shall not even be considered. That is inequitable, unjust, and something that I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman has commended to us.
  I put three questions to the right hon. Gentleman—I was about to say not to the monkey but to the organ grinder. First, in respect of this land, what is it that is going on in Ebbw Vale that he is trying to hide? He should tell the House. Secondly, why is he frightened of putting the matter to a Joint Committee? Has he no confidence in such a Committee, on which, I suppose, the Government would have a majority?
  Finally, why has the right hon. Gentleman lent his name to abusing the House, as the hon. and learned Gentleman did, in suggesting that the House would have so little care for the people of this area as cavalierly to say that there shall be no jobs, no further employment, when he knows that the House and a Joint Committee are perfectly capable of considering these matters and arriving at a better conclusion than that of the Secretary of State himself?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have now had an opportunity of studying Standing Order No. 3(1)(b), and I find that it is quite clear that we are not engaged in a matter pursuant to the Act that you mentioned. Pursuant to the Act, these petitions would go to a Select Committee. What we are doing, if anything at all—which I beg leave to doubt—is endeavouring to evade the Act. That cannot be described as a proceeding pursuant to the Act. By no stretch of the imagination can a motion to evade the Act be constructed as a proceeding pursuant to the Act.
  What the hon Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas)—who is believed to be learned, although I have not checked that fact—is endeavouring to do is to go outside the provisions of the Act. It was open to the Government to put down a suspension motion, with due notice, on the Order Paper, so that the House could proceed with business that falls outside Standing Order No. 3 after 10 o'clock. They simply did not do so.
  256
  The Secretary of State was, perhaps, hoping that the Lord President would move it, the Lord President was, perhaps hoping that the Prime Minister would move it and the Prime Minister was hoping that the Whip on duty would move it. That did not happen. We are engaged in ultra vires action, and it is an unprofitable way of spending the time of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for his point of order, and perhaps I can assist him. The proceedings fall within the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 and the motion is authorised under Section 4 of that Act as amended by the Act of 1965.
  3.5 a.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Perhaps the House will allow me to say what I have to say. Hon. Members will recognise the importance of the matter for my constituency and neighbouring constituencies, whatever are the rights and wrongs of the issue. I have no right to question the manner in which hon. Members have raised the matter in the House.
  I hope that the House will listen to what I have to say for a few minutes because the issue involves serious human problems. I have nothing to hide, and I hope that I can explain why the motion appears today and why it was moved.
  The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) referred to the occasion in 1968 when there was a similar debate. He voted with the minority on that occasion and he then put a case similar to that which he presented to the House tonight. I respect his view on that aspect of the matter. Of course, it is serious when the rights of petitioners are overborne in any way. That is a serious proposition and it is right that the House should carefully consider it.
  As the right hon. Member for Crosby indicated, there are occasions when, according to the arrangements of the House as accepted in the past, it is believed right and advisable that the House should resort to this method of dealing with the problem. That does not in any sense mean that we are ignoring or

  257
  deriding the rights of petitioners. I therefore accept what the hon. Member for Crosby said on that aspect, although I do not agree with his conclusion, as hon. Members did not agree with his conclusion in 1968.
  I shall now refer to the document and the events in Ebbw Vale and surrounding areas which gave rise to tonight's occasion. First, there is the question of the date of the Order—1974. The matter goes back further than that, to the decision by the previous Government when the British Steel Corporation drew up its plan for the strategy of the whole British steel industry. Included in that plan was a proposal for closing the heavy end of the steelworks at Ebbw Vale involving the running down of between 4,000 and 5,000 jobs. About 10,000 were employed at that time. It was proposed to cut by half over a period of year the total employed there.
  That proposal was recommended to the House by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) on behalf of the then Conservative Government sometime in 1973. He then came to Ebbw Vale and stated the Government's case for their acceptance of the corporation's strategy, which involved a transformation in the employment situation at Ebbw Vale on a scale proposed for no other section of the steel industry.
  We were to be the first on the list to which the changed system of producing steel was to be applied. As the Government then acknowledged, and as we acknowledged, those proposals involved serious economic and social changes for the whole area. We modified that plan under the BSC's proposals. We promised that we should have a fresh investigation into the plan. but in the main we accepted the corporation's proposals, which had been approved by the previous Government, as they applied to Ebbw Vale, although we knew that they involved extremely serious unemployment problems, or at any rate changes in the employment provisions that had to be made in Ebbw Vale.
  In order to provide the alternative employment, which was the policy of both the previous Government and this Government, we had to have surveys of
  258
  the whole area to see where we should be able to build new factories to provide for the 5,000 people who would lose their jobs in a small community over the period between 1975 and 1980. Those surveys started in 1973, when they were initiated by the corporation in concert with the local authorities and the previous Government. Discussions took place, and the first examinations occurred.
  Right from those early times there were two main sites which were possible for the provision of factories, one of which is known as Tafanarbach which is already being developed. Five or six new factories are being built there which will provide work for getting on for 1,000 people when they are fully occupied. But it was already seen in 1973 that if there was to be a proper change over in the steel industry—and the test of the whole strategy for a change in the steel industry was whether one could carry out the change in a peaceful, successful, intelligent and humane manner—we had also to discover other areas in which we could provide for factories to be built.
  One of those areas was the Rassau site, which features in the Order. In 1974 the local authority went ahead with the backing of everybody in the community, as we thought—certainly the whole of the council, the British Steel Corporation and the Government. We went ahead to try to see how we could provide the new factories to give the jobs to the people who would be thrown out of the heavy end of the steelworks. We had hoped—certainly everybody working to try to ensure that we could carry out these changes in a civilised way hoped—that we should be able to start doing the work on the Rassau site, the drainage and the rest, way back in 1974.
  But objections were made, as they were entitled to be made, by people living in the area—commoners and others. There was argument in the community about the matter. Overwhelmingly the community accepted the fact that we must have the jobs, otherwise Ebbw Vale would not survive at all. The view of the elected representatives was that we should have Rassau as an essential site if we were to be able to provide employment for our people on a proper scale.
  All through 1974 we hoped that we would be able to do so. In 1975 we

  259
  eventually established a public inquiry according to the provisions of the Act. We were impatient because people were already beginning to lose jobs at Ebbw Vale. We had not the assurance of alternative employment on anything like the scale required in the years ahead. In 1975, however, the inquiry took place and it went into these matters in great detail. All the representations were made at that inquiry.
  I do not comment about the inspector, but many of us in Ebbw Vale were astounded at the outcome of the inspector's report. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am merely stating the facts of the matter. However, there is a provision in the legislation under which these matters can go to the Secretary of State for Wales and in other cases, no doubt, to the Secretary of State for Scotland or other Secretaries of State, whereby they are able to form their own judgment and make their own decision. They act in a quasi-judicial capacity. That was what happened here.
  The Secretary of State for Wales examined the matter, and he took six months to do so. He undertook that task with great care and sympathy. What happened was that after six months from the end of July until before December—the period may have been five rather than six months—the Secretary of State eventually made his decision, in which he said that the compulsory purchase order should go ahead.
  We in Ebbw Vale who were responsible for trying to provide alternative employment thought that there would be no further obstacle. But in 1975 and at the beginning of 1976 we were still unable to proceed with the work.
  Mr. Graham Page: What puzzles me is this. If the Government require this matter to be voted on tonight to avoid further delay, why was there delay between August 1975 when the public inquiry finished to the time in March 1976 when the Order was confirmed? If they had meant to counter the delay, it could have been done within that period of six months.
  Mr. Foot: During the bulk of that period the most detailed consideration was given to the representations by my
  260
  right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. He also gave detailed consideration to all the representations made by the petitioners and others, and obviously all matters were taken into account when he came to his decision. He came to a conclusion according to the provisions of the Act. The Act says that the Secretary of State can make such decisions, and that was what has happened in this case. The reason, no doubt, why the Secretary of State reached that decision lies in the overriding importance of trying to ensure that we provide employment for the people there as an alternative to the steelworks that are being run down.
  It was on that basis that we proceeded. Now we come to the proposition that the matter should be held up again. One reason why I believe that the House is right, in the interests of the employment of the people of Ebbw Vale, to accept this motion is that after this period we have the right to say that there should be no more delay. Every month's delay, certainly every few months' delay, will make it all the more difficult to get the factories—to get the work done on the drainage and sewerage, for example, and to get all the preparations carried out for putting the site in working order. What is of paramount importance for us in Ebbw Vale is that the Rassau site should be in operation if we are to be able to provide for our people.
  It is also a possibility, and I face it—I do not cast any reflection upon what a Joint Committee of Parliament might say—that this House will decide that it has the right to make a decision too. That was what happened in 1968. This House can say "We believe that this is a matter of such supreme importance that we can make a decision." That is what we are saying to the House today, and that is the conclusion that the Secretary of State for Wales reached after long consideration.
  I hope very much that the House will think carefully before accepting the advice of those who would try to reject the motion. The House would do itself great injury if it were to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] People look to this House—
  Mr. Robert Adley: Cheating again.
  Mr. Foot: —for assistance in guaranteeing their jobs. If the House of Commons turns its back on such people, it will do grave injury to its reputation, certainly in Wales and many other places where people are concerned about how we are to provide employment.
  Mr. Peter Rees: Will not the right hon. Gentleman admit that a great number of the objectors are his own constituents?
  Mr. Foot: Some of the objectors are my constituents. That is true. Those constituents have had a full opportunity of putting their case at the inquiry—
  Mr. David Crouch: And they won.
  Mr. Foot: —and if those constituents of mine were to carry through this petition to success they would condemn hundreds of thousands of my constituents to unemployment. That is the fact of the matter. Moreover, they would make quite certain that there would not be any possibility of carrying out any great changes in the steel industry. If it is not possible to carry out those changes successfully in Ebbw Vale—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What about liberty?
  Mr. Foot: Yes, I believe that we are protecting the liberty of the overwhelming majority of workers—
  Mr. Peter Rees: Protect our liberties.
  Mr. Foot: I am protecting the employment of the vast majority of my constituents. I know that most Opposition Members are shouting their heads off. I do not accuse all of them of engaging in that behaviour, but they do not give a fig for the people of Ebbw Vale. All they want is a cheap procedural victory, a victory to be won at the expense—
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to say that my hon. Friends do not care about the people of Ebbw Vale? We are concerned about the freedom of the British people.
  Mr. Foot: I am sure that, whatever else that was, it was not a point of order.
  262
  Before the House decides to reject the Order, I trust that it will think carefully about the whole of the background and consider all the consequences. If the Opposition are not interested in the people of Ebbw Vale, they might at least be interested in what is to happen to the steel industry, which is of paramount importance for us all. If there is to be a successful steel industry, there have to be great changes in it. Those changes will be carried through successfully only if we are able to provide alternative employment in other new industries when there is a rundown in a part of the steel industry. If we are to have new industries, we must have places where we can build them. We in Ebbw Vale have been fighting for three years to try to get places to build the factories, and we are being told that the opportunity is to be denied to us. If the House of Commons denies us the means to live, it will be a bad day for the House.
  3.28 a.m.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: I had no intention of speaking in the debate until I listened to the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) and the Leader of the House. I am totally appalled by the arguments they have advanced. As I understand it, they say that there is a need for industrial development—that is accepted. They say that people have individual private lives, and that is accepted.
  There is a system called a means of inquiry. Under that procedure there is an inquiry, and the inspector finds in favour of the individual and the rights of the individual as against public demand for development. The Secretary of State, as he is entitled to do, but presumably having considered those rights, decides to overrule the inspector. That happens, but the system allows for objectors to take their case to a Joint Committee of the House.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman—I ask him to think about this in his capacity as a lawyer—has the effrontery to argue before the House that the justification of doing away with that process is that the objectors' case is such that they might win before the impartial Joint Committee. That, with respect, was what he said. It is not a delay of six weeks or eight weeks that concerns the hon. and learned Gentleman; it is the fear that

  263
  the Joint Committee, an independent body, might come down on the same side as the independent inspector against the view of the Secretary of State. I must say that that is a principle which I find abhorrent.
  From time to time I battle with the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery in the courts. I ask him to tell the House what is the difference between that which he is arguing and saying to a man who has been convicted by a court of a criminal offence and who has, under the authority of the law, a right of appeal "You shall not be allowed that right of appeal because you might win." I ask the House to consider the principle in that proposal.
  3.30 a.m.
  Mr. John Peyton: I begin by saying that I endorse every word just uttered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle).
  The Leader of the House started his speech quietly. However, towards the close of his remarks he was forced to reveal the poverty of his case by relying on the allegation that no one on these Opposition Benches cared for those who lived in Ebbw Vale or for the British steel industry. That was very poor.
  There is no need for me to go into the facts at any length. They are well enough known. An inspector's report has been rejected by the Secretary of State, who had six months in which to do it, and now Parliament is to be denied six or eight weeks in which to consider the very real points of view of the petitioners.
  We were told by the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) that the inspector seemed to be "capricious and eccentric". I do not think I have ever heard an inspector described in those words before, especially in the presence of a Minister who did not see fit to qualify that view. Nor have we been told whether the inspector whose findings were so loosely dismissed as "capricious and eccentric" is still employed on such duties. It would be interesting now to hear from the Secretary of State for Wales whether that inspector is still being employed in those duties.
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I have no reason to
  264
  doubt—[Interruption.] I ask the House to listen. The right hon. Gentleman asked a question and I am entitled to reply to it. I have no doubt that he is still on the panel of inspectors of the Department of the Environment and carrying out such duties to this day.
  Mr. Peyton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has done his best with that question. He has acknowledged clearly that there is no official complaint against the inspector. In other words, the remark which was so central to the case made by the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery was wholly bogus and unfounded.
  The hon. and learned Member went on to say that the reason for the motion was that Government policy was being frustrated. If that is so, I wonder why we did not have a Minister moving the motion from the start instead of its being put on the Order Paper under the disguise of the name of the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery, who, putting it very politely, did not make a very good job of moving it.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman then said that it was grossly irresponsible of the petitioners to pursue their rights. That is a remark which should be enshrined in one of the nastier pages of the parliamentary record. I do not recall ever having heard anyone say in this House that it was grossly irresponsible for anyone to pursue the rights which the law has conferred upon him—although I fear that this sort of thing is becoming more commonplace in our experience this summer. The hon. and learned Member went on to say that a Joint Committee could come to a different conclusion from that of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: So much is being made of this false point. It is completely false. It was not precisely what I said and it was taken out of context. The point I was making was, why should the people of North Gwent be put in further jeopardy because of the pursuance of these objectives?
  Mr. Peyton: I wrote the words down as the hon. and learned Member said them, and I shall be very interested to compare them in due course with those in the Official Report. The words I

  265
  wrote down were "A Joint Committee could come to a different conclusion from the Secretary of State".
  We on this side of the House do not share that total confidence in the judgment of Ministers when they are sitting in their own cause. I am bound to say that this case causes us considerable anxiety. We are told that the matter cannot wait. The inspector's report, in paragraph 114, gives a finding of fact that other sites are at present available. They have not been developed and are not being developed. The Leader of the House shakes his head. If this is really untrue, it would appear again that the inspector's findings of fact, and not simply opinions, are being challenged by Ministers. I do not believe that that is the case. At least, the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be pressing his disagreement.
  Mr. Foot: It is contested not merely by me but by the Blaenau-Gwent council, the British Steel Corporation and everyone who knows anything about it.
  Mr. Peyton: There are other sites immediately available, according to paragraph 114 of the inspector's report, but they are not being developed.
  We are also told that 5,000 jobs are in jeopardy and that we on this side of the House would prefer to see those jobs in peril in order to enjoy a cheap procedural victory. But we have had not a shred of evidence to suggest that 5,000 jobs are in jeopardy, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled in a flood of oratory to overlook the facts and overlook his duty to produce to Parliament some evidence upon which we may make a decision. I endorse what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths).
  My right hon. Friend was sharply told that he could not go into details. That
  seemed a very strange piece of advice to the House of Commons. I do not need to prolong my remarks. The Leader of the House referred to the extremely serious human problems in the steel industry today, but he did not give one shred of evidence as to the urgency of the matter or why the tackling of these problems would be in any way breached by allowing Parliament itself the opportunity to give the petitioners their full rights. We have simply not been told why the matter is urgent. We have merely had the reiteration of Ministers' views that it is, and that is inadequate.
  We did not hear from the Leader of the House whether he endorsed the view of the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery that a Joint Committee was an unreliable way of dealing with these things.
  Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: I did not say that.
  Mr. Peyton: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that a Joint Committee might come to a conclusion different from that of the Secretary of State. That means that he could not rely upon the Committee to reach the conclusion that he and the Secretary of State wanted it to arrive at.
  The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt either with the availability of other sites and Parliament is, therefore, wholly unable to judge this issue. I am sure that the House would wish to come to a decision on this matter, and I am sure that it will do so with what I am about to say in mind. Even in this day and age the rights of individuals are not lightly to be overridden, and certainly not merely for the purpose of vindicating the judgment of a Minister who helped himself to six months but will not give Parliament six weeks.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 127.

  Division No. 181.]

  AYES

  3.44 a.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Bates, Alf

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Anderson, Donald

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Archer, Peter

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Buchan, Norman

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bishop, E. S,

  Buchanan, Richard

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Butler. Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bradley, Tom

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Campbell, Ian

  Barnett. Guy (Greenwich)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Cant, R. B.

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Huckfield, Les

  Radice, Giles

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Coleman, Donald

  Hunter, Adam

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Janner, Greville

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  John, Brynmor

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Selby, Harry

  Cronin, John

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Cryer, Bob

  Kerr, Russell

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Loyden, Eddie

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

  Silverman, Julius

  Deakins, Eric

  McCartney, Hugh

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  McElhone, Frank

  Small, William

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Snape, Peter

  Doig, Peter

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dormand, J. D.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stallard, A. W.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stoddart, David

  Dunnett, Jack

  Madden, Max

  Strang, Gavin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Magee, Bryan

  Swain, Thomas

  Eadie, Alex

  Mahon, Simon

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Edge, Geoff

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  English, Michael

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Tinn, James

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Meacher, Michael

  Tomlinson, John

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Tuck, Raphael

  Ewing Harry (Stirling)

  Mendelson, John

  Urwin, T. W.

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Millan, Bruce

  Watkins, David

  Flannery, Martin

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Watkinson, John

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Molloy, William

  Wellbeloved, James

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  White, James (Pollok)

  Forrester, John

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Whitlock, William

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Newens, Stanley

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

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

  Noble, Mike

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Oakes, Gordon

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  George, Bruce

  Ogden, Eric

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Golding, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Woodall, Alec

  Graham, Ted

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Woof, Robert

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Owen, Dr David

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Grocott, Bruce

  Palmer, Arthur

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Park, George

  Hardy, Peter

  Pavitt, Laurie

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Harper, Joseph

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick and

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. Terry Walker.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Cordle, John H.

  Grist, Ian

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Corrie, John

  Hall, Sir John

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Crouch, David

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Banks, Robert

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Beith, A. J.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hannam, John

  Benyon, W.

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Hastings, Stephen

  Biffen, John

  Durant, Tony

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Blaker, Peter

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Body, Richard

  Emery, Peter

  Hunt, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  James, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Farr, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Brotherton, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Fox, Marcus

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Buck, Antony

  Freud, Clement

  Jopling, Michael

  Budgen, Nick

  Fry, Peter

  Kimball, Marcus

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Churchill, W. S.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lamont, Norman

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Clegg, Walter

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Cope, John

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  268

  269

  Loveridge, John

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Stradling Thomas, J

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Tapsell, Peter

  Marten, Neil

  Penhaligon, David

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mather, Carol

  Percival, Ian

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Maude, Angus

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Trotter, Neville

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Viggers, Peter

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Wall, Patrick

  Moate, Roger

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Monro, Hector

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Wells, John

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Morgan, Geraint

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Shepherd, Colin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Neave, Airey

  Shersby, Michael

  Mr. Michael Roberts and

  Newton, Tony

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Mr. Fred Silvester.

  Normanton, Tom

  Stainton, Keith

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Petitions of General Objection of Mr. William John Williams, Mr. W. G. Rowland and others, Mr. H. Bennett and others, Mr. Ednyfed Austyn Prys and others, and Mr. E. J. Thomas and others, against the Blaenau-Gwent District (Rassau North Industrial Estate) Compulsory Purchase Order 1974 be not referred to a Joint Committee.

  NORTH SEA OIL (SECURITY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]
  3.53 a.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: Oil production in the North Sea now spreads over 50,000 square miles. There are 22 platforms in position and a further 27 under production, and 25 oil rigs. To this must be added the numerous gas production platforms, together with associated offshore and onshore equipment and installations. Not only this, but of course production is expanding in the North Sea and elsewhere, and we shall soon have to consider protection in the Irish Sea, the Celtic Sea and the South-West Approaches.
  We were told optimistically last week, as was reported in the Press, that in the 1980s Britain's oil revenues in one year will repay the whole of the vast sums of money which the Government have already borrowed. I hope this proves true, as there will clearly be a change of Government in the near future, and if it were not for this the future Conservative Administration would have great difficulty in rescuing this debt-ridden country. Be that as it may, we can all agree that in the next decade North Sea oil and gas will be vital to Britain in a world where
  270
  violence is on the upsurge. The question, therefore, is: how is this oil to be defended?
  I suggest that we should take three different threats. I take them in the reverse order of probability: first, defence in war; secondly, defence in time of tension or limited war; and, thirdly, defence against guerrilla activities.
  First, in time of war, it has already been agreed that NATO will take over responsibility for the whole area. The planning and responsibility would presumably fall within the area of CINCLANT, who wears both a NATO and a Royal Naval hat. Therefore, communications, command, control and the necessary on-call forces will be available and the problem will be wholly military.
  I turn, therefore, to the time of tension or limited war. It seems to me almost inevitable that any period of serious tension or limited war would involve NATO. Therefore, the defence arrangements required would be such as to serve as a prelude to war. The most difficult period appears to be the change-over from a peace situation, in which other countries may or may not be involved, to war-time defence operations by NATO. The main requirements would therefore seem to be a good crisis management and much the same command and control arrangements and communications as in time of peace.
  I will therefore concentrate most of my remarks on the third alternative—the peace-time protection of the oil and gas fields against threats from guerrilla organisations. These threats could include sabotage by employees or infiltrators; the seizure of a rig or platform by a terrorist organisation, by sea or by air, designed to put pressure on the Government, to exercise blackmail, or to achieve the

  271
  maximum publicity for the particular cause which those people represent; and, finally, underwater attack on the legs of the platforms or rigs by frogman or midget submarine.
  Any such attack, as has been pointed out by Mr. Roy Corlett in that excellent magazine Defence, can be most cost-effective. These attacks are comparatively easy and could be very effective.
  I will give two examples which were given by Mr. Corlett in his article. He claims that the false telephone call which suggested that there was a charge on a rig on 25th May last year probably cost the country £250,000. He goes on to say that if two large charges or mines with delayed action or radio-activated fuses, which could cost about £5,000, were dropped near a platform, the cost of the disruption caused could amount to £500,000 a day. One can see from that the kind of threat which can be posed by a small operation.
  Mr. Corlett also points out that there are on average 50 Soviet intelligence-gathering trawlers operating round our coasts and that any one of these could lay a mine without the slightest risk of being caught in the act. He ends by quoting the editors of Jane's Weapon Systems:
  In Britain, in so far as is possible to discern a consistent theme in the defence politics of recent years, it would seem to amount to a determination to be taken by surprise whatever happens".
  I would only remark that perhaps the cod war is a case in point.
  As regards Government plans, at a Government conference held in Whitehall about two years ago the peace-time defence of the oil rigs was said to be the responsibility of the Chief Constable of Aberdeen. How he was to exercise that responsibility was far from clear. Presumably the Home Office is the Department mainly involved, though clearly a number of other Departments have responsibilities. Collectively, they are called "the civil power", which can request the assistance of the defence services if the situation appears to be getting out of hand.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Mallalieu), in the Navy Estimates debate, spoke of his dissatisfaction with the organisation of the defence of
  272
  the oil fields, and raised certain questions which have not been answered. There is in my mind a general confusion as to ministerial responsibility, and that is one of the main issues I wish to put to the Minister.
  In the event of an incident on a rig, who is responsible for taking action at each stage? Is it, on the rig, the oil company or the police? Which Minister is responsible at this stage? There must be one Minister in overall charge. Who is he? Who then decides to call in the Armed Forces?
  Once the Armed Forces have been called in, which Minister is responsible? Is it the same Minister or the Secretary of State for Defence? Once the Armed Forces are given the task, the command and control structure becomes clearer. I understand that Flag Officer Scotland and Northern Ireland at Rosyth takes responsibility from his integrated headquarters. Does the headquarters have a police liaison officer attached to it? What forces does it have under immediate command, as rapid reaction to the seizure of a rig is essential? Presumably, these forces at the moment include HMS "Jura" and HMS "Reward", certain Royal Marine Commandos and helicopters?
  I understand that the four vessels of the "Kingfisher" class are designed for fishery protection, and that the five vessels of the "Island" class will be used for oil rig protection. These latter vessels have a speed of 16 knots, which is suitable only for the "police on the beat", but I understand that they are to be fitted with helicopter pads. Will the Minister please confirm that? The Expenditure Committee has already expressed doubt about the value of these vessels.
  It seems to me that it would have been much better had the Government purchased—perhaps they will consider this—some of our distant-water trawlers, which are fine modern vessels, made redundant by the Government's recent capitulation to Iceland. These vessels are strong, they are designed for operation in Arctic waters and could be fitted with helicopter pads. They could be used for fishery and oil rig protection while the Government concentrated on building vessels which would be required for fast reaction forces, such as the 24-knot Mexican "Azteca" class, or their faster

  273
  follow-up vessels, which I referred to in the Navy Estimates debate. They would allow immediate reaction on the part of Royal Marine Commandos or whatever forces are called in. There is also the possibility of the use of the new type of hyrofoil now being developed for use in rough waters. If an oil rig is captured, the chances are that helicopters will not be able to land and fast vessels will be essential for quick reaction.
  Reconnaissance will be of great importance as the oil areas extend to other seas, particularly when our fishery limits are extended to 200 miles, as I hope they will be next year. Nimrods and Vulcans will, I hope, be available in sufficient numbers, but it is no good our having this information and intelligence unless we are able to react to it.
  I come now to the oil companies. There is the question of the security of the rigs and platforms. This is, presumably, the responsibility of the companies. What are they doing? To put it another way, what are the Government encouraging them to do? The Government now have a very large stake in the oil companies and therefore they have the power.
  The owner's responsibility should include the screening of personnel, restriction and protection of entry points. protection devices such as internal television, security guards, communications to the security forces, control of supply ships, floodlights, radar/sonar, nets, barbed wire, acoustic equipment and other devices.
  I do not believe that nearly enough is being done in this field. The Government must take responsibility for insisting on the maximum protection being provided for each rig or platform. After all, the oil companies could be held up for several millions of pounds in blackmail or ransom. They should, therefore, spend some of their own money on their own protection. The same applies to shore installations, but that is a different problem which I shall not develop now.
  My last point concerns international co-operation. Clearly, the best and most cost-effective form of protection can be obtained by international co-operation between the nations involved in North Sea oil and gas—Norway being the country most concerned, but also con-
  274
  cerned are Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Germany and France. All are members of NATO, and there are, therefore, great advantages in co-operationg in peace-time protection through NATO in terms of crisis management, communications, joint operations, exercises and so on. I appreciate that some countries, such as Denmark and France, are not keen on this peace-time co-operation for political reasons. But at least we could start with close co-operation with Norway on joint patrols and exercises, and other countries could join in later.
  It would be expensive to create a new system of communications in a time of tension or change-over to a war situation. It would be far easier if the maximum use were made of the existing system in peace time.
  I sum up by asking the Minister five questions. Have the Government put any responsibility on the oil companies to install protective devices on their platforms and rigs? If not, why not? Second, by 1977 there will be a requirement for joint oil rig and fisheries protection, air-sea rescue and pollution control. Have we the necessary ships and aircraft for these tasks? Third, will the Government consider the provision of fast ships for quick reactions forces? If not, why not? Fourth, there have been three meetings of North Sea countries to consider peace-time co-operation, the last on 2nd June, 1976. What progress has been made and what systems of co-operation are envisaged? Finally, what is the sequence of responsibility for dealing with an escalating incident by the civil administration and then by the Services? Above all, which Ministers are directly responsible?
  Clearly, the details of our defence preparations should remain secret but I believe that there is some public disquiet. That is why I tried to sum up with these questions. If the Minister cannot answer them all tonight I hope he will write to me. I believe that they should be cleared up and that they can be cleared up.
  4.0 a.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes but I wish to widen the debate slightly and take up something which was touched

  275
  upon by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). He mentioned those vital two words "cod war". Both he and I feel somewhat unhappy about the events which led to its conclusion. Not only will our offshore gas and oil installations need to be safeguarded but so also will the whole of the North Sea fisheries. We shall be faced with immensely increased fisheries jurisdiction.
  There is no doubt that, following the new limits which are bound to come after the Law of the Sea Conference—whether it be 200 miles, 50 miles or a wavy line about our shores—many more vessels will be needed and there will be a much heavier load for the all-weather patrols beyond this narrow sense relating the oil and gas installations which we have been talking about. Magnificent work was done by the Royal Navy during the cod war but there is no doubt that frigates are not the best vessels in very bad weather. We saw that in the Icelandic dispute.
  I want to say as a Humberside MP that Hull fishing trawlers are operating in the filthiest conditions, sometimes force 6, 7 or 8 gales. They have specially shaped hulls. They sit on the water like ducks and are much more stable than possibly some naval vessels in bad weather. Many vessels laid up in the Humber at this moment could perhaps—and I say no more than that—be utilized in the larger naval protection squadron or fleet that will be needed so badly in the years to come. I believe that the Select Committee on Defence suggested this not many months ago. It specifically advised this might be looked at. I hope my hon. Friend can say something about that.
  Secondly, the NATO forces are basically there to function in war time. They are defence forces for Western Europe against some unspecified opponent, possibly in Eastern longtitudes. But what about peace time? NATO is a military alliance which is much wider than the EEC. Indeed, it goes as far as Turkey. To many people, including myself, the North Sea is looked upon as a Community fish pond.
  In my view, NATO Powers must co-operate in future much more fully in protecting their interests in the North Sea than they are doing through the com-
  276
  mon fisheries policy, the common agricultural policy and so on. But if our hearts and minds, not only tonight but constantly, are governed by logic, why not an international force for the North Sea joined together for peace-time purposes?
  I understand that there was a meeting in Oslo not long ago on the initiative of the Dutch Minister of Defence. Can my hon. Friend say something about that, and whether it is possible in peace time to have more co-operation in the North Sea than we have now? We shall need it, particularly for fisheries duties. If we were ever to exhaust the supplies of fish in the North Sea, Heaven help us.
  4.12 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): It is just over a year since the House devoted time specifically to the subject of protecting North Sea oil. No doubt the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and other hon. Members recall the previous debate, and no doubt also, like me, they have cast an eye over the Official Report for 23rd May last year.
  In reading my predecessor's remarks, I was struck by the fact that not so very long ago he began by observing that, while the security of the North Sea oil and gas installations attracted a good deal of attention, it also unfortunately gave rise to a good deal of misunderstanding. I am pleased to note from tonight's debate that those areas of misunderstanding are beginning to diminish, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Haltemprice on the efforts he has made, both as the general rapporteur of the Military Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly and in the House, to throw light on the subject.
  I read with great interest the extracts from his status report to the Military Committee last year, which were published in a recent volume of the journal NATO's Fifteen Nations, and I have listened with admiration to his speech tonight, as I did in the Navy debate. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me this first opportunity to describe the matter as I see it, and, in doing so, I hope to cast a little more light on the areas of uncertainty which remain.

  277
  First, let me briefly sketch in the background. When the Labour Government entered office in 1974, we were immediately concerned to safeguard the country's maritime interests, and it rapidly became clear that the offshore oil and gas reserves, and, indeed, the increased fisheries jurisdiction which was in prospect in the slightly longer term, were of prime and growing importance to the country's economy.
  We saw an extension of the Armed Services' traditional peace-time roles in support of the civil authorities as the best way of meeting the requirement to safeguard these interests, but whereas in the past the Armed Services had been asked to carry out such tasks using only those ships and equipment provided for their primary job of countering external aggression, we decided that additional resources were required for these new and expanding offshore tasks.
  In parentheses, I should stress that, though they are additional, they are, of course, at the same time an integral part of the whole Services inventory.
  We put HM Ships "Jura" and "Reward" to sea in 1975 to patrol the offshore installations, and we also routed other ships and RAF aircraft through the areas. Then, on the basis of a carefully thought-out concept of operations, we ordered five new "Island" class ships, provided for four surveillance aircraft to be allocated, and earmarked a force including Royal Marines, ordnance disposal teams and the required helicopter lift for quick reaction.
  Hon. Members therefore preach to the converted when they underline the importance of the offshore tasks. But I should like to devote a little more time to explaining more fully the concept of operations, since it seems to me that it is misunderstanding of this which prompts suggestions, such as some made by hon. Members tonight, that a different type of ship is required. Firstly, as I know the hon. Member for Haltemprice will be the first to agree, any sensible military strategy is based on the threat which is to be countered. It is not easy to talk about a terrorist threat in public, but I can assure the House that it is kept very much under review. In many ways the threat of accidental
  278
  damage is more serious in the North Sea.
  Secondly, the protector has to show the will to protect his assets. Thirdly, he has to dispose his resources to best advantage.
  Our examination of these factors led to our adopting a concept of deterrent sea and air patrols backed by reaction forces. For the deterrent patrol in the Northern Sea areas around the United Kingdom—and that, as I well remember, can be the most hostile of sea areas—we need to deploy ships and aircraft which are available in all weathers. That is why we have based our deterrent patrols on long-range surveillance aircraft and ships with good sea-keeping qualities which can stay on patrol for extended periods in all weathers. The kind of ship I have described could well be a frigate, since frigates possess admirable sea-keeping and endurance qualities, but I am sure I need not tell the hon. Gentleman that they are very sophisticated and expensive machines for routine patrol work. Therefore, after a thorough search of the market we chose the "Island" class, which, as I said in the recent Navy debate, we believe to be the most suitable and cost-effective ships for the patrolling task involved.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: Has the Minister considered the possibility of building less-sophisticated frigates, costing about £20 million rather than the present £40 million, which would be capable of being fitted with more sophisticated equipment later?
  Mr. Duffy: I am glad to take note of that point and perhaps the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) will permit me to look into it. I shall be in touch with him.
  We have a contingency plan and we exercise regularly. No plans based on deterrence can be seen positively to be successful in the short term, but we have had certain indications of our success. "Jura" and "Reward" have, for instance, been on hand when incidents have occurred on several occasions during the past year. We are learning from our exercises, and we have said that we shall review the arrangements if, in the light of experience, that appears to be desirable.

  279
  Having said that, I must make absolutely clear my view that light displacement fast patrol craft—like the Azteca class—are not suitable for all-weather patrol in the Northern Sea areas in winter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Royal Navy knows something about patrol craft. We know that crew effectiveness declines markedly after a day or two in heavy seas in a fast patrol craft, and the ship has quickly to run for cover. The fisherman, however, in a different shaped hull, goes on fishing in up to force 6 wind conditions and would not ordinarily think about sheltering in less than a force 8. We decided to take a lesson from him, and so the "Island" class design is based on a trawler hull. It will stay at sea long after a patrol craft would have been forced to retire.
  Rapid, accurate and wide-ranging situation reports are provided by the Nimrod aircraft, which can sweep the areas at speed, providing valuable information. When trouble brews the warning may come from these patrols, from the vessels, the installations themselves or from other sources. The Maritime Headquarters at Pitreavie—and I cannot stress this too much—can then call upon frigates, Sea King helicopters, the Royal Marines and explosive ordnance disposal teams, as required.
  I should like here to underline the role of the Maritime Headquarters at Pitreavie. Those who advocate the creation of a separate command overlook the fact that in Pitreavie the Flag Officer Scotland and Northern Ireland and his RAF counterpart operate ships and aircraft over the relevant areas as part of their routine defence task. It therefore makes absolute sense to operate the offshore resources from the same joint headquarters, which already has close contact with the coastguard, the police, the oil companies and the other authorities involved. Centralisation beyond this would probably be superfluous.
  Now I should like to turn to the question of international co-operation. As the hon. Member for Haltemprice himself pointed out in the recent Navy debate and tonight, in a period of tension or war the oil and gas installations in the NATO area would be defended against attack like any other part of that
  280
  area. Britain joins fully in the formulation of NATO plans to this end.
  Now, turning away from the war situation, I should like to take up the question of peace-time international cooperation. It has been suggested that peace-time as well as war-time countermeasures should fall under the NATO umbrella, and, though the arguments in favour of that are, in practical terms attractive, we must be realistic and ask how far the argument really can be taken and to what extent every subject of mutual interest to Europeans or to nations bordering the North Sea should be the concern of NATO. NATO, after all, is regarded by a large proportion of the world as a military alliance. I am very much aware that, as a study of the treaty will show, it is much more than that in our eyes, but we must face the facts.
  It is sometimes difficult to do business—and I say this with the very greatest respect to the hon. Member for Haltemprice, who I know contributes enormously to the essential well-being of the Alliance—in any forum which is seen to be a military one. The Government, therefore, following the initiative taken by Mr. Vredeling, the Dutch Minister of Defence, announced their intention to pursue their aims of peace-time co-operation in the protection of North Sea oil and gas installations in the forum of an ad hoc non-military grouping named the Regional Conference. The other members of the conference are, as the House is probably aware, Holland, Norway, France, Denmark, Belgium and West Germany, and three full meetings have been held so far—in the Hague, in London and, most recently, in Oslo last month. We are satisfied that this provides the most promising way ahead. We accept absolutely that co-operation and co-ordination by the countries bordering the North Sea in solving the problems which occur in this area are essential—
  Mr. Wall: Will the Minister say something about communications?
  Mr. Duffy: If time permits. If not, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
  The Secretary of State for Energy is responsible for the safety of oil rigs. The

  281
  Home Secretary is responsible for antiterrorist measures. The Secretary of State for Defence can render assistance as required. The Lord Privy Seal is responsible for the co-ordination of all these maritime matters, and procedures have been worked out.
  The oil companies and the Government are in constant touch in considering the physical protection required on the oil rigs in the North Sea. The oil companies are fully aware that they are primarily responsible for the protection of the rigs, and they are given every encouragement to take the necessary protective measures.
  I come to the point about how far trawlers can be taken up from the industry. As the Government made clear in their observations on the Second Report of the Expenditure Committee, we tried
  282
  without success to acquire a suitable vessel at a reasonable cost in 1974, when we considered how the interim task of patrolling offshore oil and gas installations could be carried out. In the event, the more satisfactory, rapid and cost-effective solution was to deploy H.M. Ships "Jura" and "Reward". We now have five new ships in build. To take a number of other trawlers, almost inevitably all of different design, out of retirement would not in the short term, we think, prove cost-effective. We are still considering—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-three minutes past Four o'clock a.m.

  GOVERNMENT POLICY (CONSULTATION)
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (CONSULTATION)
  HONOURS LIST
  HONOURS LIST
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS)
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (LATE NIGHT TRANSPORT)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (LATE NIGHT TRANSPORT)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DEBATES (17th JUNE)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DEBATES (17th JUNE)
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER (MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS)
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER (MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS)
ENERGY
  Conservation
  Conservation
  Domestic Heating (Elderly Persons)
  Domestic Heating (Elderly Persons)
  Celtic Sea Oil
  Celtic Sea Oil
  Coal Stocks
  Coal Stocks
  Electricity and Gas Tariffs (Select Committee's Report)
  Electricity and Gas Tariffs (Select Committee's Report)
  Pneumoconiosis Benefit Scheme
  Pneumoconiosis Benefit Scheme
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Fossil Fuels
  Fossil Fuels
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  India (Farakka Barrage Scheme)
  India (Farakka Barrage Scheme)
  Caribbean Development Bank
  Caribbean Development Bank
  Gas (Prices)
  Gas (Prices)
  United Nations Relief and Works Agency
  United Nations Relief and Works Agency
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  LAW OFFICERS' DEPARTMENT (CARS)
  LAW OFFICERS' DEPARTMENT (CARS)
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Printing
  Government Printing
  Diplomatic Service
  Diplomatic Service
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
ENVIRONMENT
  Galvanising Plants
  Galvanising Plants
  Fleetbank House
  Fleetbank House
  Rents
  Rents
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  London Rent Assessment Panel
  London Rent Assessment Panel
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Government Cars
  Government Cars
  Rhine Navigation Commission
  Rhine Navigation Commission
  Maplin Development Authority
  Maplin Development Authority
  Harbours
  Harbours
  M1 (Planning Inquiry)
  M1 (Planning Inquiry)
  A646 (Halifax-Todmorden)
  A646 (Halifax-Todmorden)
  Roads (Traffic Counts)
  Roads (Traffic Counts)
  Chester (Telephone Exchange)
  Chester (Telephone Exchange)
INDUSTRY
  Pipelines
  Pipelines
  Manufacturing Industry (Production)
  Manufacturing Industry (Production)
  Tinplate
  Tinplate
  Concorde
  Concorde
TRADE
  Tourism (North-West Region)
  Tourism (North-West Region)
  Iran
  Iran
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  Footwear
  Footwear
  European Patent Office
  European Patent Office
  Motor Vehicles (Light Bulbs)
  Motor Vehicles (Light Bulbs)
  Company Accounts
  Company Accounts
  Aircraft
  Aircraft
NATIONAL FINANCE
  North Sea Oil (Revenue)
  North Sea Oil (Revenue)
  Tax Credits
  Tax Credits
  Tax Credits
  Tax Credits
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  £Sterling
  £Sterling
  Taxation (Higher Rates)
  Taxation (Higher Rates)
  Foreign Currency Purchase (OECD Countries)
  Foreign Currency Purchase (OECD Countries)
  Stamp Duty (House Sales)
  Stamp Duty (House Sales)
  Taxation (Northern Ireland)
  Taxation (Northern Ireland)
  Development Land Tax Bill
  Development Land Tax Bill
DEFENCE
  Recruitment (Scotland)
  Recruitment (Scotland)
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
  Special Daily Rate (Northern Ireland Personnel)
  Special Daily Rate (Northern Ireland Personnel)
  Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust
  Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Leicester Schools (ParliamentaryArt)
  Leicester Schools (ParliamentaryArt)
  School Meals (Holiday Periods)
  School Meals (Holiday Periods)
  Cancer (Research)
  Cancer (Research)
  Teacher Training (Kingston upon Hull)
  Teacher Training (Kingston upon Hull)
  Research Councils (Trade Union Participation)
  Research Councils (Trade Union Participation)
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Secondary Schools (Redbridge)
  Secondary Schools (Redbridge)
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  Pensioners and School Leavers
  Pensioners and School Leavers
  Strikes
  Strikes
  Industrial Disputes (Lost Days)
  Industrial Disputes (Lost Days)
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Departmental Agencies
  Departmental Agencies
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Local Government Boundaries (Kent)
  Local Government Boundaries (Kent)
  Police (Tape Recordings)
  Police (Tape Recordings)
  Borstals, Detention and Attendance Centres
  Borstals, Detention and Attendance Centres
  Mr. Robert Relf
  Mr. Robert Relf
SCOTLAND
  Truancy and Indiscipline (Pack Report)
  Truancy and Indiscipline (Pack Report)
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Veterinary Surgeons
  Veterinary Surgeons
  Education (Law Enforcement)
  Education (Law Enforcement)
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  Scottish Assembly
  Scottish Assembly
  St. Andrew's House
  St. Andrew's House
  Consulates (Protection)
  Consulates (Protection)
  EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT 1883
  EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT 1883
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Smoking (Hunter Committee)
  Smoking (Hunter Committee)
  Drug Addiction (Deaths)
  Drug Addiction (Deaths)
  Drug Manufacturing (Trade Journals)
  Drug Manufacturing (Trade Journals)
  Gingivitis (Chlorhexidine Gel)
  Gingivitis (Chlorhexidine Gel)
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Hospital Patients
  Hospital Patients
  Hospital Meals (Costs)
  Hospital Meals (Costs)
  Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Abuses (Checks)
  Abuses (Checks)
  European Community (Harmonisation)
  European Community (Harmonisation)
  Unification Church (Literature Sales)
  Unification Church (Literature Sales)
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  Invalidity Pension
  Invalidity Pension
  District Health Boundaries (London)
  District Health Boundaries (London)
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Area Health Authorities
  Area Health Authorities
  Emigrants
  Emigrants
  Community and Children's Homes
  Community and Children's Homes
  Retinitis Pigmentosa
  Retinitis Pigmentosa
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Hospitals (Casualty Departments)
  Hospitals (Casualty Departments)
  Albert Infirmary, Winsford
  Albert Infirmary, Winsford
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Food Poisoning
  Food Poisoning
WALES
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Blaenau-Gwent (Job Creation)
  Blaenau-Gwent (Job Creation)
  Language Teaching
  Language Teaching
  Posters
  Posters
  District Councils (Housing Finance)
  District Councils (Housing Finance)
  Unfit Houses
  Unfit Houses
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Geriatricians
  Geriatricians
  Abermule Bypass
  Abermule Bypass
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Dogs
  Dogs
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  "Alice in Labelland"
  "Alice in Labelland"
  Rabbits
  Rabbits
  Veterinary Surgeons
  Veterinary Surgeons
  Dogs (Channel Islands)
  Dogs (Channel Islands)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Gas and Electricity Industries
  Gas and Electricity Industries
  Building Land
  Building Land
  Taxis (Belfast)
  Taxis (Belfast)
  Community Patients (Special Care Service)
  Community Patients (Special Care Service)
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Rents and Rates (Social Security Benefits)
  Rents and Rates (Social Security Benefits)
  Gas Prices
  Gas Prices
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Consumer Shops
  Consumer Shops
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Spectacles and Contact Lenses
  Spectacles and Contact Lenses
  Petrol Retailing
  Petrol Retailing
  Credit Transactions
  Credit Transactions
  Exports and Investment
  Exports and Investment
  Investment and Profits
  Investment and Profits
  Food Subsidies
  Food Subsidies
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Mr. Richard Brand
  Mr. Richard Brand
  Teachers (Embassy Schools)
  Teachers (Embassy Schools)
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Immigration
  Immigration

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.
The Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CHILD PROTECTION REGISTERS
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give a list of local authorities to whom a circular was sent in April 1974 in regard to the keeping of a register of non-accidental injuries to children; and whether they will now state how many registers are in fact being kept and how many cases have been registered by each authority.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, copies of the memorandum on non-accidental injury to children issued in April 1974 were sent to all local and health authorities in England. This circular recommended the establishment of area review committees, and invited them to consider setting up central records of cases of children in their area who had been injured or were at risk of injury by their parents. As I said in my reply to the noble Baroness on the 30th March, only a few of the 100 area review committees have not set up central records. The total number of cases registered is not recorded centrally.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply —and I hope he will ensure that those who have not registered already will register in future—perhaps I may ask him to tell me one or two facts. Are the doctors using the register? So often parents take their child to one hospital after the first battering and to another hospital after the next, and there is
914
therefore no knowledge of the case between the various hospitals. Could the noble Lord also say whether he thinks it might be advisable to ask the parents whether they would like the child either to be fostered for a period of time or, perhaps, even adopted in view of the small number of children now available for adoption?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I may take those questions in reverse order, with regard to the last one the answer is, " Yes ", because this becomes part of the social work process. When a child is at risk or has in fact suffered non-accidental injury, some consideration has to be given to the child's future, so this becomes part of the social work process. With regard to doctors, the answer is that they are using the register very well: and even though a child may go from one place to another, this is reported back to the central register, so in point of fact one knows what is happening, The noble Baroness asked whether I could give her some facts. In answer to a circular issued in 1974 for information, local authorities notified the numbers of cases registered. These answers showed that in 97 English authorities—and the noble Baroness will recall that there are 100 of them—which account for 90 per cent. of the child population, 5,700 cases, I regret to say 40 of them fatal, of known or suspected non-accidental injury were recorded as coming to their notice in the last nine months of 1974.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, when the noble Lord said that children at risk who have moved have their movements referred to the central register, I take it he was referring to the central register of the area concerned. As there is a large number of areas, is there also a method of keeping track of children at risk who move from one area to another?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. This is what I meant—movement within a particular area. There is no central register, as I said, so far as the whole country is concerned. The reason why that is not encouraged is that if a child moves from one area to another area and has suffered from non-accidental injury or is at risk, or is considered to be suspect,

915
he onus is on the person or persons in one area to notify those in the other area. If we had a central register recording information from all the 100 areas it would mean notifying the central body and the central body then having to notify the new area. We feel, rightly or wrongly, that it is probably quicker for one area to notify another.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, are these arrangements for England and Wales only, or do they apply equally to other parts of the United Kingdom'?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. My information is that what is operating in England also operates in Scotland and Wales, and I understand that in point of fact the same conditions apply there.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: And in Northern Ireland?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not know, my Lords.

NEW COMMONWEALTH STUDENTS
2.40 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many students from the new Commonwealth have been admitted in each of the last 10 years and what percentage of these in each year have returned to help their countries of birth; and whether the Government are satisfied that as in other Western countries they have an adequate organisation to monitor this matter.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, with the leave of the House I will circulate in the Official Report a table showing the numbers of citizens of new Commonwealth countries admitted to the United Kingdom as students in each of the years 1966 to 1975. Information is
916
not available about the eventual destinations or intentions of students from overseas who leave the United Kingdom after their period of study. Each individual case is checked to ensure that departure has taken place when required. I am satisfied that this is necessary and sufficient for the purpose of immigration control. It would be unneessary, even if it were feasible, to attempt to ascertain to which countries overseas students embarking from the United Kingdom eventually go.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that information, may I ask him whether he could give us a broad indication that a large percentage of these students, on completion of their course, do go out of this country again, albeit sometimes not to the country from which they came'? That, I think, is a matter which is causing some anxiety in this country. Further, is there any truth in the suggestion, or would the noble Lord be able to deny, that there is a measure of illegal immigration in this area? Because, if that was so, it would be disastrous to the general philosophy of helping students from these countries, and, again after we have helped educate the students here, trying to help the countries from which they come.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the immigration rules require that any would-he student from the Commonwealth has to produce evidence of acceptance for a course of study at a bona fide educational institution before he is allowed to enter the country, so I think that to some extent that is a guarantee. So far as the second aspect of the question is concerned, there is obviously always a risk of overstaying: hut, when overstaying is discovered and a person declines to leave, there is a deportation procedure. and this is used.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords. when the noble Lord circulates the figures, could he also give a fair estimate of the number of Commonwealth students currently studying in this country?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I will gladly do so on a subsequent occasion; but I am not sure that I can obtain this information in the time scale necessary for its inclusion in today's

917
Hansard. Certainly, I will try to make some estimate of that sort and if a Question can be put down I will ensure that it will be answered.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, am I to understand from the noble Lord's original reply that when students have come here and have served their training period, there is a check on them to see whether they have returned or left the country?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, there is a check every 12 months so far as any student in this country is concerned. Anyone who qualifies to enter as a student is admitted with a time limit of only 12 months. That is renewed on the assumption that there is evidence that they have been continuing their course of study.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will the figures that the noble Lord is going to circulate distinguish between postgraduates and students following graduate courses or courses of technology?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am afraid that that would require a separate Question.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord say in how many countries in the new Commonwealth Government students are tied, as in Malaysia, for five years to work for the Government after their studies in this country?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with respect, that raises a different matter. If a Question is put down I will ensure that it will be answered.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords. would my noble friend agree that the majority of students from the new Commonwealth come here as postgraduate students and, furthermore, that when they have qualified in this country and have received excellent (I hope) training, they often find it difficult to obtain suitable employment in their own countries?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Sometimes, my Lords, regrettably, that may be true.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would
918
the noble Lord not agree that no system is perfect? Could he give the House some indication of how many students are " lost " during the process between when they arrive, here and when they go out of the country?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this raises a slightly different area of questioning. I shall certainly try to find out what is the answer. I am not quite sure that I will he able to give any precise figures: nevertheless, I will do my best.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, do I take it, arising from the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that what he is seeking to get to know is whether there is an embargo on overseas students coming into this country, receiving the benefit of the type of education meted out to them, who do not in the first place make their return visit back to their own land, the land from which they originated before coming here? If such is not the case, what power have we, as a Government who are able to give them this formal classification in regard to that of studentship along with our students in this country, to force them to do so?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords. I am afraid that on this occasion, I part company with my noble friend. I do not think it is at all appropriate for this country to direct labour to another specific country. That is not the purpose of immigration control.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is taking the question wrongly. He had better examine what I had to say in Hansard. It was not my purpose or object in seeking to do what he has already referred to in what I really did say.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I will gladly look at Hansard. It appeared to me that my noble friend was suggesting that a person should be required to go to a specific country after he has completed a course at a British university. I am saying that that is not appropriate.
Lord HARVEY of PRESTBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord state, in the information he is giving in Hansard

919
tomorrow, those sponsored by Commonwealth countries for the armed forces as students or cadets or whatever?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I will see what can be done; but in the limited amount of time it may require a separate Question.

Following is the table referred to:

CITIZENS OF NEW COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES ADMITTED TO THE UNITED KINGDOM AS STUDENTS

Year

Number of Students

1966*

…

…

…

…

12,407

1967*

…

…

…

…

9,545

1968*

…

…

…

…

11,559

1969*

…

…

…

…

12,879

1970*

…

…

…

…

14,928

1971*

…

…

…

…

16,237

1972*

…

…

…

…

17,540

1973*

…

…

…

…

22,727*

1974

…

…

…

…

26,611

1975**

…

…

…

…

28,920**

* Pakistan included up to 31.8.73.

**Provisional figure.

RESALE PRICES BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to resale price maintenance. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave he given to the Lord Lloyd of Hampstead to advance his Unstarred Question on legal aid and legal services from Wednesday next to tomorrow.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, because the House is expected to sit late this evening, dinners
920
will be available. With the leave of the House may I take the opportunity of making some domestic announcements about arrangements in the Refreshment Department for the rest of the Session. Beginning on Tuesday of next week, dinners will be available every Tuesday when the House is sitting for Peers and their guests; and dinners will, of course, also be available on other days when it is necessary.
Secondly, beginning on Monday of next week, I am sure the House will be delighted to know that teas will be available on the Terrace each week from 4 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. until the Summer Recess.

SUFFOLK COASTAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Committee on Unopposed Bills.

DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL WALES BILL [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: 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 Development of Rural Wales Bill, has consented to place Her Royal Prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1 [Establishment and general function of Development Board for Rural Wales]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) Before making an order under subsection (2) or (3) above, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) in the case of a proposal to make an order under subsection (2), the council of each

921
county and of each district any part of whose area is or, if the order is made, will he included in the area for which the Board is responsible;

(b)in the case of a proposal to make an order under subsection (3), the council of each county and of each district any part of whose area is included in the area for which the Board is responsible;

(c)such organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to be representative of local authorities in Wales; and

(d)such other persons as appear to him to have an interest in the proposed change in the area for which the Board is responsible."

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is by way of response to representations that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and others during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. Its effect is to require the Secretary of State before designating an additional area to be part of the Board's area, or before designating an area which is to cease to be part of the Board's area, to consult each county and district council any part of whose area is either already in the Board's area or, in the case of a proposal to extend the area, will be included in such area, and further to require him before designating under either subsection to consult organisations appearing to him to be representative of Welsh local authorities and such other bodies or persons as appear to him to be interested in the proposed change in the Board's area. I gave undertakings at the Report stage of the Bill to introduce this statutory requirement for consultation which the Secretary of State will now have to carry out, and I move accordingly that this Amendment be agreed to.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that this is an Amendment which was asked for in substance at Second Reading, was asked for again in Committee and promised at Report stage. It is welcomed at Third Reading by your Lordships, probably on all sides of the House. I should like to acknowledge the support and help that we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Champion, in pursuing this issue.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Duties of the Board.]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 31, at end insert (" in the proposals.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment which clarifies Clause 2(6)(b) to the effect that the Board shall before it prepares or submits proposals to the Secretary of State consult such other local authorities under the provisions of subsection (1)(b) and other bodies as appear to the Board to have an interest " in the proposals ". There is no change of substance. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [General Powers of the Board.]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 22, after (" powers ") insert (" to acquire or manage ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that, in the discussion on the Amendment which we carried on a Division at the Report stage, it was clearly our intention to control the power of the Secretary of State to acquire or manage agricultural land. It has since been drawn to our attention that the effect of the Amendment as it stands would go further than this intention by preventing not only the acquisition and management of land for which it was not intended to change the use but also the disposal thereof. Your Lordships may wonder how the Board may come to have agricultural land in its possession in order to dispose of it in view of the Bill as now drafted. The answer is that a large block of land in excess of the Board's requirements might be bought for the mutual convenience of the Board and the vendor, but only a proportion of it would be required for a changed use. The Board would then require. in order not to have to manage something it had no power to manage, to sell it back to the agricultural market but would he precluded from doing so by the fact that the Bill as it stands does not allow it to dispose of agricultural land unless it intends to change its use. We have therefore tabled an Amendment which restricts this limitation to the acquisition and management of land. The Board may not acquire or manage land unless it is its intention to change its use. It may dispose of land if it is not the intention to change its

923
use from agricultural land or forestry. As that was clearly the intention of those who spoke and voted on the Amendment at the Report stage, I hope that your Lordships will see fit to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Government accept that this Amendment to some extent improves Clause (3)(2) which was inserted in the Bill after a Division and against the opposition of the Government. However, while this Amendment removes one objection to subsection 3(2), as it now stands, there are still other serious objections to it. It will remain defective inasmuch as it is incompatible with the severance provisions of Clause 8(2) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 which provides some protection to landowners particularly owners of agricultural land with whom the noble Lord was rightly principally, concerned. Those provisions are applied to the Board by Clause 5(4) of the Bill. They give a vendor the right to require an acquiring authority in certain circumstances to purchase more land than it requires, if the part left to the vendor is of no further use to him. Under these provisions, the Board could be required to acquire a small parcel of agricultural land which it does not wish to develop, or indeed may not be allowed to develop if it happens to be outside the designated area of a new town.
Furthermore, the provision will impede effective new town development by preventing the Board from acquiring land, either compulsorily or by agreement, until its development proposals have been approved or at least formulated in detail. This is contrary to the established practice whereby new town corporations acquire land in advance of the submission of detailed development proposals. Because of the time taken in the process of land acquisition, new town corporations are encouraged to plan a steady programme of acquisitions geared to their general programme of development, so that they may be sure of obtaining possession of land ahead of their need for that land. Clause 3(2) prevents the Board from following this practice, if I interpret its meaning correctly, although I agree that the phraseology, " proposes to change the
924
use of land " is vague and lacking in precision. But I think it would have the effect of hampering new town development.
Another objection to Clause 3(2) is that it could prevent an acquisition by agreement in a case where a vendor was prepared to sell all of a parcel of land but not just the part that the Board wished to develop. Cases of that kind do occur when an acquiring authority requires the greater part, but not all, of a piece of land. It is the normal practice in cases of that kind for acquiring authorities to agree to buy all the land and the Government believe this is a good practice which it is wrong to prejudice. But subsection (2) will prevent the Board from buying by agreement such land, if it is agricultural or forestry land, unless it changes the use of the whole piece of land, which it may not wish or may not be empowered to do.
There are other objections to the subsection but enough has been said to make it clear why it is not acceptable to the Government. I am not proposing to invite my noble friends to divide on this Amendment, as it at least makes the unacceptable a little more palatable or a little less unacceptable. I think it right to make it clear that it is the Government's intention in another place to seek, as we say, to remedy the matter.
I doubt whether it is necessary for me to repeat again that it is not intended that the Board should engage in farming or horticultural activities other than those which are incidental to its functions of new town development and light industrial development, but perhaps it is right to reiterate that assurance once again.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I think perhaps it might not be proper for me to reply at length to the noble and learned Lord, since the arguments will have to be deployed again in another place, as he has said. in fact, I would be prepared to question the nobleand learned Lord's interpretation, but I welcome his acceptance of this, even though he intends it to be only a temporary acceptance.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.1 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert—
(" or,
(c) to carry on any undertaking or business,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be to require the Board to secure the consent of the Secretary of State before carrying on any undertaking or business. It was an Amendment which was suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, at Report stage. The basis of it was the suggestion that the exercise by the Board of the power to undertake a business should be subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. The requirement for the Board to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before exercising its power to undertake a business would also include the requirement to obtain consent to undertake agricultural or farming businesses. So this Amendment enables the Secretary of State to enforce the assurances I have already given that it is not intended that the Board should undertake farming activities, except as a temporary measure and incidental to its main development functions. The Amendment will strengthen the power of the Secretary of State to control the Board's activities in a particularly sensitive area. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, again, I am glad to welcome on behalf of my noble friends the concession made by Her Majesty's Government in t his direction.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 37, after (" finance " insert (" under subsection (1)(d) above ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment inserted to clarify that the approval of the Treasury is specifically required for the provision of finance under subsection (1) (d) of the Bill. There is no change of substance. I beg to move.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Amendment (privilege) made.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to thank not only my noble friend Lord Lyell, who has worked hard and at short notice on the Bill, but also the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, together with his retinue of assistants, for having conducted our business on this Bill in a most helpful manner. I am sure the Bill has improved since it came to your Lordships' Chamber, and possibly in that respect it is even better than the noble and learned Lord would agree. I am grateful to all those who have taken part in our deliberations on this Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: For my part, I am most grateful for those kindly words and for the noble Lords who have speeded the process of the Bill and have, with one exception, to my mind improved it. I include the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, together with my noble friend Lord Champion, who " championed"—if that is a permissible word to use in the circumstances: no doubt it has been used a thousand times—the county councils. I am most grateful.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3.6 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee On this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Application of following sections.of Part II]:
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 21, line 6, after second (" the ") insert (' sole (or sole surviving) ").
The noble Lord said: This is my first contribution to the Committee stage of this Bill and I should like to make a few introductory remarks before starting on the basis of the Amendment itself. Your Lordships will be aware that Part II of this Bill constitutes the principle and, so far as this side of the Committee is concerned, the most controversial part of the Bill. It deals with the provision for succession on the death of a tenant. It is, of course, an Amendment to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948. In that Act a very definite attempt was made to strike a balance between landlord and tenant. We believe that the draftsmen and Parliament as a whole achieved a very satisfactory balance at that time, which the Government in our view are attempting to upset with a series of Amendments which follow Clause 17, et cetera.
Referring heck to the 1948 Act, your Lordships will he aware that the all-important Sections 23 to 33 are concerned with t he provision of notices to quit and have served the industry and the country for no less than 28 years, and there is a considerable weight of case law which is attributable to these sections. However, it is noteworthy that on Second Reading no specific cases were cited, and in order to illustrate the need for changes in the law which are now contemplated by the Government our attention wits drawn to a single television programme. It' the Government wish to draw our attention to specific cases we should indeed be happy to listen to them, but in total what the Government aim to do is to alter the law so far as Section 24(2)(g) is concerned. This section is especially important and sensitive because the whole of it is to be redrafted by means of alterations made in the Bill, and the Amendment is a suggestion made from this side of the Chamber for the improvement of that section. We could, indeed, have put down a wrecking Amendment, but we have not chosen to do so in this case. The basis of this Amendment is to propose that the continuity of drafting between Clause 16 and Clause 17 is maintained by inserting the words " sole (or surviving) ". This will add a benefit to Section 24(2)(g) and, we believe, will improve the clause in the following manner.
We believe, first, that it is a necessary
928
Amendment in view of the change in Clause 16, because under Section 24(2)(g) as at present worded an incontestable notice to quit may be served by a landlord within three months of the date of death of a tenant. This is to be changed by Clause 16 to read " sole (or sole surviving) tenant ", and it excludes the list of persons in Clause 16(1)(b). I think it would be beneficial here to turn to the 1948 Act, and to see what " tenant means in that Act. For the purpose of the Record, I propose to read it out and it is as follows:
" tenant ' means the holder of land under a contract of tenancy, and includes the executors, administrators, assigns, committee of the estate, or trustee in bankruptcy of a tenant, or other person deriving title from a tenant ".
We believe that this Amendment will be beneficial, because we consider that if those words are left out the position will be unsatisfactory. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said and I do not think there is anything between us here, but I am advised that the Amendment is not necessary. As the noble Lord said, the position of joint tenants is dealt with in paragraph (a) of subsection (5). As the noble Lord also said, the succession provisions do not apply if the deceased is survived by a joint tenant with him to the holding. In such a case, the interest of the deceased vests in the surviving joint tenant and it will be the latter's close relative who will be able to apply for the tenancy when he dies. Subsection (5)(a) adequately covers the situation and therefore, as I said, I am advised that the Amendment to subsection (1) is not necessary.
Lord SANDYS: I am perfectly prepared to accept what the noble Lord has said in this regard, having consulted his draftsmen. Nevertheless, I should like to leave the situation with the right to return to it, if need be, on Report after further consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.13 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW The Earl of ONSLOW moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 21, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Earl said: With your Lordships' permission, I will speak to this Amendment and Amendment No. 6A which hangs on it. This Part of the Bill has been presented as being vitally needed to prevent hardship and to bring the law of England on the succession of tenancies into line with Scotland. I am, of course, referring not to the general landlord/ tenant system, but to the law as altered piecemeal by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. In that, the only two classes of persons allowed to inherit tenancies as of right are children and spouses. What is the difference between Scots siblings and their English or Welsh counterparts—or does it mean that at a later date the 1968 Act will have to be amended? It cannot be right to tinker about like this with the system of land tenure. By all means, let us have a thorough-going review of the whole system, bring it up to date and offer a choice of tenancies, of lettings and so on, and consequently modernise it to the benefit of both the tenant and the landlord. If those two people benefit then British agriculture will benefit, and if British agriculture benefits then, consequently, the housewife will benefit because, after all, the whole point of agriculture is to produce food for people to eat at the cheapest possible price.
One further point arises out of this subsection. If there are large numbers of sisters and brothers, and possibly children and a widow, together with the Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all of subsection (1) (d), how will this Tribunal sort out the confusing claims? History, from Esau and Jacob onwards, and probably before that, shows the bitterness that arises in families over inheritance rights. Surely we should keep the number of people entitled to this new privilege to a minimum, not from any sense of meanness but for the sake of orderliness in agriculture which, in turn, as I have already said, will benefit the housewife. I beg to move.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: I, too, find anxiety as to the wisdom of these provisions. In industry one of the things which has caused our efficiency to deteriorate has, in a measure, been the family business where management is peremptory. One has found so many businesses in which the sequence is that the first generation makes the business, the
930
second generation carries it on and the third generation destroys it. It seems to me somewhat unwise suddenly to introduce this system of hereditary management into agriculture at this stage.
I have a neighbour which is one of the large landlords in the country at the moment—King's College. I know that it has a firm rule that it will never allow a son to succeed in a tenancy. What it says —and I do not say that I agree with this rule; I suppose that I ought to declare an interest in that I, too, am a landlord—is that if you are going to develop farms and make them progressive you need a genuine change of management at least once in a generation. The son who stays on with his father may be plus for conformity but is probably minus for enterprise. You are not likely at that point to get a progressive change in the farm management, and this is even more unlikely if the son is put under capital pressure to provide for death duties.
Certainly this large, humane and sensible landlord, a university college, takes the view that it is entirely wrong. I would not go as far as that, but I would certainly say from my own experience that it is quite often wrong. In these purely hypothetical cases, one may have a landlord who is providing for his son or his family. At a certain point, a farm may be conveyed to a son after consultation with the tenant, and the son may be in the Army or something like that; will come out and go to Cirencester to study in order to take up the farm that is his. If that arrangement is suddenly upset it is a little unreasonable. In a way, it is also very hard on the tenant because he is put in a very unhappy position. In my experience, farmers are exceptionally honourable people. In circumstances of that kind, they would feel that if they tried to upset an arrangement to which they were a party they were doing something which they found dishonourable. At the same time, they would have the awkward feeling that if they did not try to do so, they would not be serving their families.
I believe that on the whole it is undesirable to put people in that kind of dilemma. Again, speaking purely hypothetically, sometimes a landlord may have allowed a tenant to continue to a very considerable age because he is satisfied

931
with the farm worker or farm manager who does the tenant's job and it has been understood by him—and probably he has continued in his job and not looked elsewhere because the landlord is interested in his land—that that would be the succession. It may be that there is a son who has played a minor part in the farm, but not much more, because nobody else would conceivably employ him, and again it is a little hard if that kind of arrangement is upset.
There are various provisions in the Bill. There is the provision as between husband and wife, that the wife should have the succession to the management of the farm. Almost certainly that puts an end to progress so far as that farm is concerned, because a wife who takes over in the kind of circumstance in which she succeeds her husband simply means that the old system will be carried on. I just do not think that this is at all good for agriculture.
If I may turn to a slightly wider question than this, " landlordism has played a very important role in British agriculture. When Britain led the Industrial Revolution the landlord had a very real function. It was the day of the big estate. There was probably a group of 10, 20 or maybe 30 farms. There was the home farm which carried on the experimentation. It tried the new crops for the estate. It was the stud farm for the estate. That was where the hulls and the stallions were kept. The home farm was the wood yard for the estate. There you had your carpenters and your hedgers. Also it was the building yard for the estate. There you had your estate bricklayers and builders. This was the most efficient form of agriculture that I think the world has ever seen.
There was the landlord's agent. the bailiff. He was the efficiency man. Then there was the landlord himself who was the human link. He was interested not only in agriculture but in the shooting. the fishing and. maybe, the hunting over that land. He wanted to have a human relationship with his tenants. He had been brought up in it. He had visited their farms as a boy. He saw to it that the bailiff did not break that human relationship and a very happy balance was created. The squeeze has excluded
932
landlords from ever being able to do their job and on those grounds I have always been a land nationaliser.
I should like to see—and for 30 years I have been advocating and writing articles with regard to this—the State buying large blocks of farms, putting in a manager of the home farm and putting in also a management board consisting of local people. including people from the National Farmers' Union and prominent men of the county whom everybody knows, to act as the kind of cushion which the landlord always was between the too-efficient bailiff and the way of life of the countryside. I believe that that is a manageable basis. but if the State is not going to take the responsibility it seems to me to he very ill-judged to go further and make it impossible for the existing landlord to do his job.
If the Bill goes on to the Statute Book in these terms, no farms will ever be let again. There will he the kind of situation which exists in Ireland. In Ireland, the rights of the landlord have been eliminated. Irish farming is astonishingly worse than British farming. When you have been motoring in Ireland and come back to this country. the contrast between the standard of farming you see in this country and over there is enormous. This is because the landlord has been totally eliminated from the Irish tenant farm. All his authority has gone. As we probably know—
Lord CARRINGTON: I wonder whether the noble Lord w ill forgive me. I enjoyed greatly the first half of his speech, although I do not so much like the second half. However, with great respect to the noble Lord, what he is saying does not seem to have much to do with the Amendment. If we are to get through a very long Committee stage, I think that your Lordships should stick to the Rules of the House and speak to the Amendments which are being discussed.
Lord PAGFT of NORTHAMPTON: I agree entirely with the noble Lord, but I feel that during Committee stages, of which I have had far more experience in another place than here, there is generally an initial Amendment upon which one goes rather wide and discusses the general issues. On this initial occasion I have

933
sought to go a little wide and indicate something of what I feel, from my experience, of the function and nature of " landlordism " which at this point we are seeking to eliminate.
I am saying that if we do not carry this Amendment but introduce into farm management the rigid hereditary system, there will never again be another farm to let. It may he that your landlord is an Arab sheikh, or a college, or an absentee landlord who is quite unconnected with the land. None the less, his function will be performed by a land agent who is very well connected with and used to the land and whose living depends to a great extent upon his capacity to get on with the farming community. That is how absentee estates in this country are managed and it works very well, but on these terms no land agent can ever again conscientiously advise his principal to enter into a tenancy agreement. It means he is throwing away at least a third of the capital value which is then available; and he is throwing it away permanently, not merely postponing it. This just does not seem to me to be a sensible thing for a Government to do.
Lord MELCHETT: If I may intervene briefly. I do not intend to make my main speech now but I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said. It may be it is general in another place to have a wide-ranging debate at the start of the afternoon but I would point out that we have two major new clauses suggested under Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 which will inevitably necessitate a wide-ranging debate over the relationship between landlord and tenant and the type of tenancies we want to see, and with great respect I would suggest that if we need to have a wide-ranging debate those are possibly the Amendments on which we should have it.
Lord LLOYD: If I may be as brief as the last noble Lord was lengthy, although being a landlord myself, I agree with much of what he said about landlord and tenant. In my opinion the most important thing he said was, " If this is passed there will never be another farm to let ". That is true.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: If I may be permitted to make a general, but relevant,
934
comment, I regret that I was unable to be here for the first day of the Committee stage on this Bill, but I read with delight the preamble of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Agriculture is one industry where personal relationships count a great deal and those of us in the business know only too well how valuable these relationships are. It is imperative therefore that as little disturbance as possible is caused to the everyday arrangements, 99 per cent. of which at the moment are normally settled easily, fairly and sensibly between the parties thereto. My remarks are therefore put forward in the same spirit as those of the noble Earl, and from a professional viewpoint, giving due regard to the interests of both the tenant and the landlord and the interests of the agricultural industry.
I stated during the Second Reading debate that I felt the net for potential eligible successors was too wide and I therefore support this Amendment on the following grounds. The very extended list of relations that have the right to claim inheritance of the tenancy is in my view not in the interests of agriculture and I doubt very much whether it is in the interests of the existing tenants and their immediate family. The proposals at the moment would seem to go beyond the original intention of preventing hardship to tenants, to a point where the extensive list is almost certain to lead to family disputes with embarrassing and costly appearances before the Land Tribunal. A simple case in point is where a holding is farmed by brothers but the tenancy is in the name of only one of them as it was considered at the time that he was the more capable and the more responsible and therefore the one who should have the tenancy. He dies and leaves a son who has equal rights to the vacant tenancy as his uncle. The result is probably not a situation that would maintain or encourage family unity.
We must not take the precedent of Scottish family inheritance too strictly for, as your Lordships will know, the law systems and practices are different in that country, especially when it comes to the law of inheritance. This clause must be looked at on its own merits, and from my own experience it is my considered opinion that the interests of agriculture would best be served by adopt-

935
ing the new limitations proposed by this Amendment. There is a further Amendment, No. 15, which relates to landlords and their close relatives. If we reduce this clause it will affect them as well and I feel it is only right that it should apply to both parties.
Lord FORBES: think it would help to speed up proceedings if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would state exactly what the Government are trying to achieve by Clause 17. I have a good idea what they are aiming at. I believe what they want to do is to split up agricultural holdings and the reason for that is quite apparent. We now have penal taxation, and with Clause 17 we are going to have tenancy of agricultural land at a very much lower value than existed before. This will mean that landlords will have to sell more land. How does this tie up with the fact that the Government are using taxpayers' money to give grants for farm amalgamations, trying to increase holdings? It really is a question of the Government's not knowing what one hand is doing and what the other is doing: the two are opposing each other. We really must sort this out. I wonder whether the noble Lord can say what the Government are trying to achieve by Clause 17.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I should like to declare an interest as a landowner, but I disagree with the noble Lord opposite who criticised the handing on of farms to sons. In my case, I can say that every single son who has asked for a tenancy on my farms has been given the farm, with the exception of one who was obviously incapable of running it properly. As has been said already, if these farms are let now they will be let for generations.
One matter which has not been raised is the question of improvements. In the future, whereas, as all other landlords have done, I have tried to make every improvement, think I shall be very circumspect about putting capital into farms which f know will then be lost for probably a hundred years. I shall be much more keen not to put capital into them. Perhaps this will be a way of encouraging the tenants to give up their tenancies. But what a rank bad way it is of running land, and how totally untypical of everything that good landlords are doing at the moment.
936
We then come to the question of who is going to select the tenant. The son or the brother, or whoever it may be, will go to the Tribunal to ask whether he may have his tenancy made up in his name. What reason is there to suppose that a civil servant—and let us face it, we have all been on Committees—
Lord MELCHETT: If the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, I think I should correct that point immediately. As I understand it, the Agricultural Land Tribunal does not have any civil servants; it has an independent qualified legal chairman, a representative of the landlords' interests and a representative of the NFU farming interests.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I thank the noble Lord for that correction. If it is then totally without any permanent staff it is an unusual type of Committee, and one such as I have not come across before. I think the noble Lord said there would be a legal chairman—a lawyer. What reason is there to suppose that a lawyer, 30 or 40 miles away in the nearest town centre where this hearing will take place. knows more about the character of the son, the land, and so on, than the landlord who knows all the people and the land and everything intimately? I believe there would be at least a clerk who would be advising the Tribunal. So there would be some form of permanent staff. What reason is there to suppose that they know more about it than the landlord?
It has been mentioned already—and this must be stressed—that there will be no further farms to let, which will be very discouraging to people who now perhaps have smallholdings and would like to have farms. We must remember that the object of smallholdings is that somebody may learn to farm so as then to move up to be a tenant of a bigger farm. They will have to stay on their smallholdings because they will never get into a tenanted farm. I wish to support the Amendment.
The Earl of ONSLOW: With the greatest respect to the noble Lords who have spoken, we are speaking now about brothers and sisters, and not sons. The whole point of the Bill, which we indicated on Second Reading we did not like, was to accept sons and children. We are not challenging that because that is the will

937
of the elected House: what we are now asking for in this Amendment is for brothers and sisters.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: I did not intend to intervene on this Amendment, but before the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and his colleagues proceed with this clause, I wonder whether they would take some consultation, for example with the National Farmers' Union in Scotland and other agricultural bodies there. I am certain that I am right in saying that our experience of our present practice in Scotland is leading to second thoughts. Even now, as a result of our practice, very able young farmers are being squeezed out and cannot become tenants of farms. This will make things infinitely worse as the noble Lord. Lord Paget of Northampton, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, haw said. It will make it more difficult for young farmers to get into the tenancy of good farms. I hope the noble Lord will look at the Scottish experience before finalising matters.
Lord MELCHETT: I am in a difficulty in responding to that request, and also to the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes. I do not want to get into trouble with either the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, or the noble Earl who moved the Amendment. Both made the point that this Amendment is concerned with the categories of close relatives entitled to apply for the tenancy under the Bill—to reduce the eligible categories by omitting brothers and sisters. I indicated that we are inevitably going to have a general debate on later Amendments, and I will reserve my general remarks and, in particular, my remarks about Scotland which I intend to make. I have indeed carried out the investigations that the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, suggested it would be wise to carry out, and if I may I will leave them until we reach Amendment No. 28 when the general point comes up.
As I said, with this Amendment the noble Earl would amend the categories of close relatives to exclude a brother or sister. The noble Earl has explained why he thinks this Amendment is desirable. I accept that some people feel that the position of the brother or sister is more open to argument than that of the widow.
938
widower or child who are, of course, the immediate close family of the tenant. As the noble Earl said, and as was said also by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on Second Reading, to that extent, the extent to which the scheme entitles the succession by the son or some other close relative. noble Lords opposite were not intending to challenge the scheme, but seeking to limit it and, as they thought, to improve it.
But it is the case that many farms are run by two brothers or by a brother and a sister, especially when they are unmarried. I do not believe we can really say that, for example, even though a farm may have been built up by the toil and sweat of two brothers, the surviving brother should not have any right at all under the family succession scheme to apply for the vacant tenancy. The National Farmers' Union recognise the hardship which could arise in this situation, and support the inclusion of a brother or sister in the designated categories. The point has been made to me that it might be difficult, if the eligible categories are I drawn widely, to decide between the competing claims. I accept that in some cases, the Agricultural Land Tribunal will have a difficult decision to make, but I remind your Lordships that the close relatives have to go through several tests before they ever come before the Agricultural Land Tribunal. In particular, they will have had to work on the farm for some years. I should have thought that if several members of the family were all working on the farm and therefore all would satisfy that test, it was likely that they all got on quite well together and in all probabliity one rather than the rest would be put forward as being the most desirable successor. If that were not the case, then there would not have been a happy relationship up to then, and it might well be that the landlord would have a good case for repossession when the decision came to be made by the Agricultural Land Tribunal.
Lord HENLEY: Is it not a fact that the landlord cannot question the eligibility: he can only draw attention to the suitability as to character and so on? He cannot challenge the eligibility. Might there not be difficulties here?
Lord MELCHETT: No, I do not think so. I have already said that when it

939
came to the decision by the Agricultural Land Tribunal; I was trying to make it clear that this was at the second stage, where the competing claims of the landlord and the eligible tenant are looked at by the Tribunal. At that stage, if the farm had been badly run by the family in the past, and the eligible tenant, who was indeed eligible, had been involved in the had running, I am saying that in all likelihood the landlord would have a good case for repossession, after eligibility had been decided and at the second stage of the proceedings.
I will not follow up what was said by my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton, if he will forgive me, for the reasons I have given in the general points. However, I would say to him that I find a little confusing the distinction between the hereditary element in management as between the tenant and the landowner of a farm. I always looked on the landowner as the manager of land in many respects and I fail to see the distinction between the hereditary element at one level and at another. As has been made clear already, the Bill will not he introducing the hereditary element into tenancies in this country in the sense that that already happens. As I understand it, most good landlords are perfectly willing, in most circumstances, to see the son or the close relatives of the tenant succeed to the tenancy where that person will make a good job of farming the land. From all sides we have laid considerable stress on the importance of some continuity in the involvement of those running the farm and managing the land.
I agree that the scheme should not be drawn too widely, but it is important not to draw it so tightly as to he unjust. In the circumstances I have described—of the two brothers running the farm and the surviving brother, if the Amendment were passed, not having any rights under the scheme—there could be real hardship: and it is just this sort of hardship that the scheme is designed to avoid. I regret to say it is for those reasons that I am unable to accept the Amendment.
Lord FORBES: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, dealt adequately with the hardship situation. Will he please give some indication of what Clause 17 is going to do to improve food production?
Lord MELCHETT: I dealt with that in at least half of my speech on Second Reading. I think it may be tedious if I repeated all of it now.
Lord BURTON: I have two questions for the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. He said that he consulted the National Fanners' Union, presumably meaning the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales. Has he had consultations with the National Farmers' IJ Mon of Scotland, where somewhat similar legislation has already been passed'? If so, can he say what has been the result, because, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, they are having second thoughts. Is the Agricultural Land Tribunal a privileged body?—because one of the complications in Scotland is you cannot object to a proposed son coming in because you may be liable to libel. If you say that he is idle, a drunk, or is unsatisfactory. you Would be in difficulty in proving this, and might well he into other troubles.
Lord MELCHETT: I can assume that that intervention was phrased in the form, " Before the noble Lord sits down " and deal with the two points now. On the latter point, my understanding is that the landlord would he able to object in front of the Tribunal in the normal way, and that he would be protected, as he would he in a court of law. But if that is not correct, I will let the noble Lord, Lord Burton, know before the end of the Committee stage. I do not think it is particularly relevant to this Amendment. It is a general point. As to the position in Scotland, I have looked into the situation there, since the law was changed, and I have some figures. As I said to the noble Lord earlier, I should like to deal with that on Amendment No. 28.
Earl FERRERS: One can understand the hardship given to the brother of a tenant who has died, to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. referred. I would not wish to discuss here whether this is worthy of recognition or not, but certainly there is hardship. Can the noble Lord tell me, if these words " brother and sister of the deceased " are included, whether the case would operate in the case of a farmer/tenant who was a bachelor or widower, and was looked after by his sister as a housekeeper. When he died, provided she had derived most of her livelihood from

941
the farm for five years, and provided she had had the appropriate qualifications, would she not therefore be entitled also to inherit the tenancy—which may not be, as one so often thinks, a small 30-acre farm; it may be a 500-acre or 600-acre farm? That sister would be entitled to claim the tenancy even though she in fact merely had derived her livelihood from it by looking after her brother.
Lord MELCHETT: It may well be she would be eligible, in the circumstances described by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, but one would need to know more detail about the precise nature of the work she was doing. However, I think it would be generally accepted that a husband and wife, living together on many farms, particularly where they were the only people working on the farm, or possibly had very few others working on the farm, would both be carrying a full share of the burdens involved in running that size of holding. But that is not the end of the matter, as the noble Earl knows. The Agricultural Land Tribunal, having been satisfied that the sister was an eligible close relative, then has to decide that in all the circumstances the sister is going to run the farm properly. At that stage, the landlord would be perfectly free to come along to the Agricultural Land Tribunal to point out that the sister had in fact been doing work which did not involve her in the running of the holding to any great extent, that she had no experience in running the farm, or in managing the people involved, and it was at that stage that this sort of decision would be made. I think, with respect, that the Agricultural Land Tribunals are on the whole experienced enough and sensible enough to make these decisions wisely.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for trying to answer the many questions put to him. In my mind there are two doubts which remain. Has not the noble Lord read Cold Comfort Farm, in which they all squabble like mad? I think this bland assumption that all the brothers and sisters, and the wife, and all the cousins, and God knows who else!, are all going to agree that this is the one who has the right to the tenancy is taking a view of human nature which I certainly would not take. Before I withdraw the
942
Amendment, I would hope that the noble Lord might comment a little more on Lord Gisborough's points on farm improvements, and the difficulty, in the event of the Cold Comfort Farm situation arising, of how the tenants are to be selected. After that I will be very happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: I think I have said as much as I can on the Amendment. I have pointed out that the hoops that the eligible applicants have to go through, first eligibility and then suitability, are very considerable, and that an impartial body, with representatives of the National Farmers' Union on the farm side and from the CLA on the land-owning side, with an independent and experienced and qualified lawyer sitting in between the two, will decide on the suitability of the applicant. I think there is little more I can say, unless the noble Earl wishes to direct a particular question to me.
As to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, if I may say so with great respect they more appropriately arise when we are discussing the concept of a fixed term tenancy, which, as I understand it, will be designed particularly to get round the sort of problem which the noble Lord foresees. I regret to be saying the same thing again and again, but it would be more appropriate to discuss that on Amendment No. 28 or Amendment No. 30.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call Amendment No. 6, I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 6A.
3.54 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW The Earl of ONSLOW moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 21, line 12, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, and perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 8, which goes with it. All the arguments which have been deployed on the previous Amendment, about the extent of the

943
number of people who should be entitled to hereditary tenancies, apply to this Amendment. The possibilities of confusion are further enhanced when this subsection is taken together with Clause 20. As your Lordship will know, Clause 20 says that certain people who are not eligible can be treated as eligible; that is shorthand for it; we will come to discuss that clause later and I do not want to get sidetracked into that discussion now, although it is relevant to what I am now saying. It is within the bounds of possibility that an orphan child of a second cousin who has come down at holiday time to help with haymaking or harvest will have the right to apply for a statutory tenancy. Her Majesty's Government, in all their wisdom, cannot possibly have meant this sort of situation to arise. In the inheritance legislation—and by the inheritance legislation I mean the ordinary goods and chattels inheritance legislation —there is now provision to stop a man leaving all his money to a cats' home or to his mistress and leaving his dependants destitute. What other, if any, precedent for the deemed children exists? How is someone " treated " " as a child of the family in relation to that marriage "? Does that mean adopted children? Because, if its does, adopted children are covered by Clause 17(1)(c). Does it mean stepchildren? Then would it not he better to say so?
This subsection does seem to me very ill-defined, it seems open to abuse, and, above all, it seems open to the possibilities of litigation of the Tichborne claimant complexity. It was said on the previous Amendment that everything will go perfectly easily and there will not be litigation. I am not convinced of this. Who is to pay the cost of all the possible litigation that could arise out of this? Is the landlord, or the tenant, or the unsuccessful applicant, or will the legal aid system be introduced? How long is it likely to take with all these people—three months, three years?—and, if' so, is the land to be unused during these prolonged arguments? It is for these reasons, the reasons advanced on the previous Amendment, only much more strongly so, that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will see fit either to agree to our Amendment or to redraft it and tighten it up, so as to say exactly who it means and not leave it floating about in mid-air. I beg to move.
Earl FERRERS: I said at Second Reading that we, of course, do not like many provisions of this particular Bill, because they are highly controversial; we do take a different view from the noble Lord's view, and I should like to think that these are not personal views but because we believe that the effect of this Bill on agriculture will be a bad one. 1 also told him that the Amendments which we would put down would be constructive; that we do not seek' to alter the principle of the Bill. I do hope that the noble Lord will realise that these are constructive Amendments and will address himself to this thought when he comes to answer this Amendment.
I can well understand the argument that a son who worked on a farm and loses his farm when the father dies suffers hardship, and I can understand those who say that that hardship ought to he met. But, of course, this 'particular clause goes infinitely further than that. The Scottish law says widows and sons and daughters of the deceased and adopted sons and daughters. Under subsection (1)(b) we have now got brothers and sisters of the deceased. This paragraph (d) puts in:
"…any person…who, in the case of any marriage to which the deceased was at any time a party, was treated by the deceased as a child of the family…".
In other words, incorporated into this collection of people who may apply for the tenancy are people who are no blood relative at all. I find this an extraordinary widening of the provisions, and I really wonder whether it can be justified. I think that the courts would have considerable difficulty in defining what is " treated … as a child ". Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would have a go at that. And, indeed, why the words " in relation to that marriage " are inserted, because somebody who is a child in relation to a marriage must surely be a blood child. Yet, as I understand it, this subsection would allow people other than blood children to claim the tenancy.
Indeed, what determines the criteria by which parents treat their child? Parents treat their children in very odd ways. Some treat them by not talking to them for twenty years; some treat them even by cutting them out of their will. How are you going to depict what treated as a child of the marriage can be? It surely can only be that the person who has worked on a farm may be a nephew of the tenant,

945
or she may have been a Land Army girl during the war, or he or she may be the son or daughter of a friend of the tenant who has worked with the tenant for some years. I find it very hard to believe that that person should also have a right to claim the tenancy.
This is a severe widening of the provisos, and I would hope that the noble Lord will be able to recognise this and, if so, try to find some way of curtailing it. It may be that what the noble Lord is trying to suggest is that it should be a stepchild (because I understand that adopted children are already covered); but if it is just stepchildren he is trying to cover I suggest that this clause ought to be drawn tighter.
Lord HENLEY: Would the noble Lord in reply say something about the possibility of abuse here? I said at Second Reading that I thought there was a loophole here for, perhaps, the sale by premium of the position to be a " treated child ". I do not know how the noble Lord sees a possible way of preventing such an abuse.
The Duke of ATHOLL: I too would like most strongly to support this Amendment. Already in Scotland it has become the practice not to let farms to bright and up-and-coming young farmers because they can always marry and have children, but rather to let them to what I might describe as barren 55-year-olds. It now seems to me that under this Bill we are going to have to let them not only to barren 55-year-olds but also to those who were only children, who have never had any marriage of any sort and never shown any interest in anyone less than 20 years younger than they are. It seems to me that this subsection goes much too far, and if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, feels that he cannot accept this Amendment I very much hope that it is pressed to a Division.
Lord MELCHETT: Before the noble Duke sits down, I wonder whether I could ask him, as I am constantly pressed from the other side of the Committee to provide figures, whether he could provide me with any figures to support the assertion that new tenancies are being let only to barren 55-year-olds?
The Duke of ATHOLL: Since 1968, when these provisions became operative,
946
there have been, comparatively speaking, very few new tenancies contracted into. This is one of the problems; the figures are over such a small sample it is hardly worth while producing them. I know that the noble Lord will produce them, to show that in fact the acreage that has been let has not gone down; but what people are doing is either taking the land in hand themselves, which of course reduces the acreage, or else they are amalgamating it with other tenants, which I think we are all agreed is highly desirable because it makes their holdings bigger and more viable. I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House thinks this is a good idea. This Government have encouraged it, and the previous Government encouraged it. Therefore the figures are not very reliable.
I believe that the number of farms of more than 250 acres which have been let since 1968 shows a very small reduction on the number let in the equivalent period before 1968. However, this of course is not a very reliable figure because we are now encouraged to amalgamate the farms, and therefore there are more farms creeping up to the over 250 acreage bracket; and you cannot say from this that landlords in Scotland are still letting farms to the best available tenants. I am convinced from my personal experience that one is far more interested not in the farming ability of the tenant but whether one is likely ever to be able to get the farm back into one's hands again in the future if one should so want it.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I too should like to support this Amendment. I think that, on the whole, the object of legislation should be simple, straightforward, easily understood, and easily executed. This piece of legislation seems to me to be infinitely complicated. It seems to have been drawn up by people who are quite unaware of what happens in ordinary life. It is completely and absolutely the most complicated thing in the world. Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, you can put in here. Quite honestly, if one is interested both in farming and in who shall continue farming one's land, or whatever it may be, you want the best person you can get. You are going to be absolutely tied by every sort of complication here. I honestly think you are doing a great deal of harm to the agricul-

947
tural industry, as such, and also to good tenants and young people whom you would like to help. You are making the situation infinitely complicated. This is quite inexplicable. I am completely opposed to this clause, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to explain what it all means, because it is impossible to understand for any ordinary person.
4.6 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: I certainly will do my best to explain why the term " treated child ", which the Amendment would delete, appears in the clause. This particular category of designated close relative follows a similar provision in the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. A " treated child " can include a stepchild, a foster child, or a child taken in without formal adoption provided that the child was treated by the deceased for any length of time as a child of the family in relation to any marriage of the deceased. I hope that that explains at least why the phrase appears in the Bill. The child may well have been treated by the tenant as his own child in these circumstances, and I do not believe it would be right to exclude such children from eligibility, especially as, as I have said, their position is now recognised by the families inheritance Act which came into effect last year.
As I understand it, noble Lords opposite are fearful that the provision for such persons in the scheme would be open to abuse. This was the point made particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The scheme contains adequate safeguards against such possibilities and against the sort of possibility the noble Lord, Lord Henley, described. The applicant must prove to the satisfaction of the Agricultural Land Tribunal that he or she is an eligible person, and his or her eligibility will be open to challenge by the landlord at the hearing of the application. If I may apologise to noble Lords in speaking to the previous Amendment 1 might have got it slightly wrong when I said that the landlord would be able to challenge the tenant's suitability at the second stage. I should also have made clear that the landlord will be in a position to challenge the tenant's eligibility when the Agricultural Land Tribunal is deciding that,
948
as it were, in the preliminary stage of the proceedings.
Lord HENLEY: It is not at all clear from the Bill that that is so, and I am very glad that the noble Lord has said so in terms.
Lord MELCHETT: I checked up on it as well before I said so, and I am quite clear that that is correct. I apologise if I misled the Committee when speaking to the previous Amendment. I am confident that, given these safeguards, the Tribunal can be relied upon to recognise the imposter and that he, or she, will fail at the first hurdle at the decision on eligibility, before the Tribunal, with the landlord's evidence and presence there, goes on to consider the suitability of the applicant.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: I wonder whether the noble Lord could assist me in this: supposing a farmer has a housekeeper and a child is brought into the family and treated as though he were a son, does his eligibility under this Bill depend on whether or not the housekeeper has marriage lines? Otherwise, what marriage is there for him to be in relation to? The relationship to a marriage seems to me to be a little irrelevent in this kind of relationship.
Lord MELCHETT: As I understand it—and I confess that I am not entirely clear on the point about which the noble Lord asked me—the child would have to be treated as a child by the tenant when the tenant was actually married. In other words, the tenant, when married, treated the child, from wherever the child originated (if I may put it that inelegantly) as a child of that marriage. In those circumstances, the child would be " a treated child " as defined in the inheritance provisions of the Act of last year, and at that stage the child would be eligible to go towards the first step at the Agricultural Land Tribunal.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: I was making a point about a tenant who was not married. Quite often very respectable tenants have a housekeeper: it is a perfectly respectable relationship. It may be that a child, possibly of the housekeeper or a relation, or perhaps no relation, is brought up, starts to work on

949
the farm and acts on the farm. It seems rather ludicrous that that child should be excluded because he had been playing a part in the farm run by a farmer who had a housekeeper rather than one which was run by a farmer who had a wife. The whole thing seems to be irrational.
Lord MELCHETT: I am sorry if I did not maze myself clear. I am quite certain that the tenant would have to he married and treat the child as a child of that marriage before the child would be eligible.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: With great respect to my noble friend, that demonstrates that this is a very bad clause.
Lord MELCHETT: It demonstrates, as I said, that the clause follows the previous enactment passed last year by, among others, your Lordships' House.
The Duke of ATHOLL: Could the noble Lord say how that phrase in that Act is working out in practice; has there been any experience of it?
Lord MELCHETT: I am afraid that I could not provide that information without notice.
Earl FERRERS: The noble Lord has explained the categories of people to whom this could refer and it seems that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, is very real. If in fact there is a strict category of people to whom this Bill should refer, then those people should be in the Bill. Anybody who is going to look at this w ill be a land agent or a tenant. Flow will he be able to look up the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 which deals with roles? I hope that the noble Lord will undertake to form a closer definition before the next stage of the Bill or that my noble friend will press the Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: I would be happy to consider the point that the noble Earl has made. It seems valid, and I am all for making Acts of Parliament more easily understood. If it is felt, after I have taken advice on this subject, that it would be helpful to have a definition of the phrase " a treated child in the Bill rather than for people having to refer to the previous
950
Act, then I would be happy to move an Amendment to that effect, but, of course, I would have to take legal advice on the matter first.
Earl FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for agreeing to that course because this is an important point. We will see what he comes up with on Report and in the meantime we reserve our position.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has shown his customary wisdom in listening to the advice that has, I hope, been constructively presented, but there remain certain points that I do not think he has answered. First, can he give some idea of how the costs of this operation will be met? Second, I asked in my opening remarks if there were any precedents other than the family inheritance Act, about which I knew. Third, although the noble Lord laid great stress on the eligibility provisions, he made no comment on how, if the Land Tribunal is to be able to say that, even though a man is not strictly legally eligible, he is eligible, that will not take away much of the force of the noble Lord's argument that the Tribunal will strictly enforce the eligibility clause.
Lord MELCHETT: I apologise to the noble Earl for not dealing with the question of costs which, as he said, he raised earlier. I understand that the costs of a hearing before the Agricultural Land Tribunal are normally paid by the Minister with the parties to the hearing paying their own expenses. In other words, the administrative costs of setting up the hearing would be paid by the Ministry of Agriculture and the parties would bear their own costs. The Tribunal can however order costs to be paid, whether as a lump sum or taxed, by any person whom they consider has acted vexatiously, friviously or oppressively in applying for or in connection with an application or reference to the Tribunal. In other words, the position is much the same as before a court, except of course that legal aid is not currently available before a Tribunal of this sort.
I regret to have to tell the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that having had a chance to look at the inheritance provision in the

951
1975 Act and especially at Section 1(1)(d), I see that we have in fact used exactly the same words in the Bill as appear in that Act, so I do not think there would he any scope, as I suggested earlier, for omitting the need for people to refer back to that Act because it appears that we have already used exactly the same words in the Bill as are used in the Act. I regret, therefore, having been given time by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to look at the matter, that I find that there is no scope for increasing the words used in the Bill.
Earl FERRERS: With great respect to the noble Lord. I expected that he would give more than two minutes' consideration to the:words used in the Bill, because what he has said does not meet the point at all. He has said that because this is in the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act, everybody else, all land agents and all tenants trying to find out what their rights are, and all solicitors, will know that they must look up that Act. That is not adequate.
Lord MELCHETT: I did not say that, with respect. I said when speaking earlier that if we had used a phrase in the Bill which was explained in greater detail in the family inheritance provisions Act, then I would be happy to consider whether we could put the expanded definition into the Bill. I now find that the expanded definition in the Family Inheritance Provisions Act also appears in the Bill itself. I understand therefore that there is no need to refer to the Act.
Earl FERRERS: It appears in this Bill?
Lord MELCHETT: Yes.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Is the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, now saying that he is not, between now and the next stage, going to see whether the definition needs tightening up to refer to stepchildren, adopted children or foster children, in respect of all of whom, even though we disagree with the principle of the Bill, we would accept—at any rate, speaking for myself, I would accept—that it was not totally unreasonable? If, on the other hand, the noble Lord is saying that he is not going to do that, then I think that we should feel inclined to press the
952
Amendment. The noble Lord has still not said whether there is any precedent other than the family inheritance provisions Act. When I moved the Amendment I referred to that Act. We knew about that. We now want to know what other precedents, if any, there are and the noble Lord has not answered that question.
Lord MELCHETT: Once again I apologise for omitting to answer the noble Earl. The answer is, as I think he knows, that there are no other precedents. The Act was passed last year and it is the most up-to-date expression of Parliament's will on the way in which these sort of children should be treated. What I said to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was that if a phrase was used in the Bill which necessitated anybody—the noble Earl gave the example of land agents and so on—having to go to the 1975 Act, that was a nonsense and I would see what I could do about it. But that is not the position. We have already forestalled that. In other words, we have already thought of the suggestion because the words in the 1975 Act and in the Bill are identical.
Earl FERRERS: May I ask the noble Lord to say where the definition appears in this Bill?
Lord MELCHETT: It appears on page 21 in Clause 17(1)(d) which uses, with the exception of the words " not within (b) or (c) above exactly the same words as may be found in Section 1(1)(d) of the 1975 Act.
Lord CARRINGTON: Perhaps the noble Lord can help me. My difficulty, and I am sure it is my fault, is that I do not really know what subsection (1)(d) means. I know that I should and probably the noble Lord will tell me that if I had followed the debates on the 1975 Act I would know exactly what it means, but I do not know from anything that the noble Lord has said or from anything that my noble friends have said exactly who is eligible under these words to apply for the tenancy. Can the noble Lord satisfy us about the narrowness of the category of those who are entitled to apply? In other words, what exactly do these words mean?
Lord MELCHETT: If the noble Lord would like me to, I am happy to repeat

953
myself. A " treated " child can include a step-child, a foster child or a child taken in without formal adoption, provided that the child was treated by the deceased tenant for any length of time as a child of the family in relation to any marriage of the deceased. In other words, when the tenant was married, he treated the person as a child.
Lord CARRINGTON: But what does it mean?
Lord GISBOROUGH: Would " treating somebody as a child " include the case of somebody who was simply living with a family?
Lord MELCHETT: I am not a parent and I find myself in some difficulty compared with the experience and wisdom of many parents on the benches opposite. However, I should have thought that a parent would know when he had a child and when he had not.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: Will the Minister reconsider this with regard to the qualification of marriage? It seems to me quite outrageous that, for instance, in a case where there is a tenant who is living with his mother or his sister, or indeed his deceased wife's sister, and there is a child who is brought up in that farming family and works on the farm, running it with the father, one should say, " Oh no, he doesn't count because there isn't a marriage to relate him to. " Why the hell should there be a marriage to relate to? Why on earth should this clause not read:
" … any person who was treated by the deceased as a child of the family "?
Why not cut out all the others? I cannot see the point of the relationship to some marriage lines which, in the case of a farmer who was living with his mother or his sister, would not apply. Why on earth should this provision disinherit the chap who has worked on the farm and been brought up on it, working as a member of the family?
Lord MELCHETT: I am delighted to be attacked in an opposite sense from that in which I have been attacked all the way through this stage of the I am always ready to consider widening the scope of eligibility at present laid down in the Bill and I shall certainly take up the point raised by my noble friend. If he would be prepared to move an Amendment at a later stage and if he can get the support of the Committee, I shall be happy to support his suggestion.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: That is one of the reasons why we are putting the other side of the case. I do not want to see the child of the housekeeper of the noble Lord, Lord Paget, added. There are far too many people already included under sub-paragraph (d). The result of including all these persons will be to clutter up intolerably the waiting list of good young farmers who are waiting to take over farms. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will divide on this, because I do not believe that by adding a new definition we shall make matters any better at all—indeed, they will probably be worse.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I wish the noble Lord would seriously think again and say that the clause will be limited to stepchildren, adopted children and foster children. Why is it that the landlord has to make up for the failures of the tenant to carry out adoption or fostering? With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, this really seems slightly dotty. If the noble Lord will not give us that undertaking, which I have a terrible suspicion he will not—and 1 see that he is shaking his head —I very much regret that I shall have to press the Amendment and ask the Committee for its opinion.
4.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 109: Not-Contents 56.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Aldenham, L.

Forbes, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Amherst, E.

Gisborough, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Goschen, V.

Porritt, L.

Amulree, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Atholl, D,

Gridley, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Balerno, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Redesdale, L.

Banks, L.

Halsbury, E.

Romney, E.

Belstead, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ruthen of Freeland, Ly.

Berkeley, B.

Harvington, L.

Sackville, L.

Bourne, L.

Hatherton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hawke, L.

Salisbury, M.

Burton, L.

Henley, L.

Sandys, L.

Byers, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Savile, L.

Cathness, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Selkirk, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hylton, L.

Sharples, B.

Carrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Somers, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Iddesleigh, F.

Spens, L.

Clwyd, L.

Jessel, L.

Stamp, L.

Coleraine, L.

Killearn, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kimberley, E.

Strathclyde, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

de Freyne, L.

Lloyd, L.

Sudeley, L.

De La Warr, E.

Long, V.

Swinton, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Templemore, L.

Derwent, L.

Luke, L.

Tenby, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

Dundee, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Thomas, L.

Dundonald, E.

Margadale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vickers, B.

Effingham, E,

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Elles, B.

Middleton, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monck, V.

Westbury, L.

Elton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Munster, E.

Young, B.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Phillips, B.

Aylestone, L.

Hale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Birk, B.

Hanworth, V.

Platt, L.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell. L.

Bradwell, L.

Hoy, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L.

Samuel, V.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Burntwood, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stow Hill, L.

Crook, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Maybray-King, L.

White, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.(L. Chancellor.)

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Northfield, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Pannell, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.35 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW moved Amendment No. 6B:
Page 21, line 20, at end insert—
" For the purposes of this Part of this Act
956
a tenant who surrenders his tenancy at or after the age of sixty-five years shall be deemed to have died on the date of the surrender."
The noble Earl said: It may be tactless to declare a retirement to be deemed death, but I believe this to be the tidiest wording for what I wish to do. As I have previously said in the Committee

957
stage of the Bill, we do not like the principle, but once the principle is there it ought to he done as tidily as possible. We see little merit in the inheritance clauses. As was said on Second Reading there is not a little irony in the fact of the believers of no privilege and no inheritance creating privileges and a right, albeit limited, to certain people to inherit not their own property but someone else's. That right is now being created and the object of this Amendment is to try to prevent the following situation. A tenant at, say, 65 or 70 wishes to retire and his son, who fulfils all the criteria of eligibility and suitability, wants to continue to farm, and will be able to pass all the stringent tests which the noble Lord assured us of on consideration of previous Amendments, and will be able to be given a tenancy by the Tribunal. I raised this matter during Second Reading and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that the retirement provisions already existed. But with the greatest respect to him they exist only with the consent of the landlord.
I concede that the landlord is probably being unintelligent if he does not allow retirement at 65 or 70 to be deemed as death. But being a cynic, I am also sure that unintelligence is no rare thing in this world. The tenant, under the circumstances of the landlord not wanting to consent to the son's continuation of the farm tenancy, will now he forced, if he wants his son to inherit, and if the son inherits, to go, on farming until the day he drops down dead. This cannot be a good thing. If he does this, it is to the detriment of all concerned. It means that there will he an old and tired man continuing to farm and the young man, who probably has son-le ideas —and I am, admittedly, doing what I accused the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, of on a previous Amendment: that is, painting the most satisfactory picture—will not be able to farm, nor be able to put his new ideas, new capital and new learning to the benefit of what we all want; namely, to keep farming at its most efficient.
If the answer is that we cannot do this because the man will have to go through the stringent tests, in the event of the tenant retiring, then it must be remembered that he has to go through these stringent tests on the tenant's death. All I am saying is that voluntary retirement at
958
over 65 should be classed exactly the same as death. I beg to move.
Lord LEATHER LAND: I do not want to go into what we might call the technical ethics of this proposal, but I do want to complain about the cruel and brutal phraseology that the noble Earl has employed. Here am aged 78—
The Earl of ONSLOW: I can assure the noble Lord that he certainly does not look over 65. I should be very happy, if the Government see fit to accept the principle behind this Amendment, to let the Government draft it in a way which takes more account of old-age pensioners' susceptibilities. As I think I said in my opening remarks, I realised that this was a cruel way to phrase it, but f certainly did not intend to be rude or unkind in any way, or to get anybody cross. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, looks as young or as old as I am.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for having given me 13 years of life by his gracious permission, but, nevertheless, we all know that when draftsmen sit down to draw up the phraseology of measures they sometimes take a paragraph from a previous measure and say, " A precedent has been established for the use of this phraseology and so we will incorporate it in a new Bill ". IT we go on like this we will have this phrase incorporated in an Old Age Pensions Bill; namely, that at the age of 65 people shall be assumed to be dead. I think the noble Earl should have more regard for the sentiments of people, and should have been able to devise a different form of words for this clause. It is very brutal indeed. It says:
" For the purposes of this Part of this Act a tenant who surrenders his tenancy at or after the age of sixty-five years shall be deemed to have died on the date of the surrender ";
that is to say, he shall be deemed to have died on his 65th birthday. This is all rubbish. It is rot. ft is not the way to devise legislation. Surely another form of words could have been devised so as to say that on his 65th birthday he should cease to enjoy the privileges or the benefits of the Act, or something of that kind.
That is all I want to say, except that I find it very strange indeed that it should be left to us on this side of the Committee to uphold and defend the hereditary

959
principle, where we say that the son of a father who has farmed a farm for 50 years and who put his heart and soul into that farm should have the right to continue to farm it. I am surprised that noble Lords opposite have cast aside the sanctity of the hereditary principle in this respect. Nevertheless, my main objection here is to the form of words, and I will let my noble friend on the Front Bench argue about the merits or the demerits—the demerits particularly —of this proposal.
Lord BURTON: While I fully appreciate the noble Lord's objection to the wording of the Amendment, I support my noble friend in the principle. A well-known landowner who managed his land very well once said to me, " A change in land managership every 20 years has a great deal to commend it This, I have noticed, is the case time and time again. I am afraid this legislation encourages the land manager, in this particular case the tenant, to carry on until he dies, thus failing to permit new blood to come in to renovate the management. I feel it is very important that new ideas are instituted as frequently as possible, and that old men who are stuck in their ways should not be allowed to continue farming for ever and a day.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I would rise to support this Amendment. I work for a firm, and I shall be retired at 65. I think that farmers ought to retire at 65 by compulsion. They can still advise their sons, who have taken on the tenancy, and they can still be of great use: but I feel that a change of blood at that time would be beneficial to the farming industry. One has seen on numerous occasions the situation of a tenant who has got stuck in his ways slightly, farming the farm by using a system which is not adapted to present-day circumstances. Surely it would be better for the son to take on and bring in new ideas, bring in some more capital and bring in bigger machinery so as to give the holding the boost that it needs and improve British agriculture.
Lord MELCHETT: Perhaps I could first of all say to my noble friend Lord Leatherland that I do not think he should be surprised to find noble Lords on this side of the Committee sticking up for
960
the rights of the near relatives of tenants. I think that we on this side of the Committee feel that we are always sticking up for what is right and just, as we are in this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for moving this Amendment. It introduces what I think noble Lords would agree is a very interesting concept. As I understand it, without going into the elegance or otherwise of the wording which the noble Earl has chosen to use in this Amendment, this new provision would provide, in effect, for a retirement at the age of 65 to count for the purposes of the scheme. As the noble Earl may know, a new clause providing retirement by the age of 65 was in fact considered in another place. One effect of that Amendment—that is, the Amendment discussed in another place—would have been that, if the landlord and the tenant's successor were agreed, the successor could apply to the Agricultural Land Tribunal to take over the tenancy even though the tenant himself might not wish to give up the tenancy. This element of compulsory eviction of the sitting tenant was not acceptable to the Government. and the Amendment was defeated. If I may say so, the noble Earl's Amendment has wisely avoided any compulsory eviction of the tenant, and in that respect is obviously an improvement over the Amendment discussed in another place.
As I understand it. the noble Earl's proposition in practical terms is that if a tenant gives notice to his landlord of his intention to quit the holding when he has reached the age at which he is entitled to the old-age pension. he shall be deemed to be dead, and the provisions of Part II of the Bill shall then apply. A tenant who is a woman presumably has to go five years beyond her official retiring age before she is eligible to give notice. I confess that when the noble Earl first told me about this Amendment and his feelings about it, I felt there was much to commend it. It seemed to me a simple and logical extension of what is already in the Bill, and it would deal with the problem of an aged tenant of which the noble Earl has spoken. Unfortunately, several strong objections to the proposal emerged upon a closer examination. We have already discussed the Amendment with the NFU and the CLA, and the views of both the NFU and the CLA

961
coincide with those of my own advisers, so if 1 may say so there is a fairly united opposition within the agricultural industry to the noble Earl's proposition.
The first objection is a technical one. We are extremely doubtful whether this proposition can be implemented by a simple Amendment such as the one on the Marshalled List, reworded or not. On the contrary, I am advised that there are a number of changes which would have to he made to the Bill, which would have the effect of lengthening and complicating it still further. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, in view of her remarks on an earlier Amendment, would agree with me that that is something which, if possible, should be avoided at all costs. Indeed, noble Lords may agree that what is really quite a simple concept has already taken approximately 13 pages of legislation in an Act, and we should try, if possible, at this late stage of the passage of the Bill, to avoid lengthening it a great deal more. However, I do not place too much weight on that objection to the noble Earl's Amendment, which is, after all, only a technical one.
The second objection is a practical one. We very much doubt whether the new provisions would ever be used. There are two essential elements, as I understand it, which must be satisfied if the noble Earl's proposal is to operate. The first is that the tenant should be prepared to surrender his tenancy whether or not his close relative succeeds, because once the notice to quit is served by the tenant on the landlord it cannot be withdrawn without the landlord's consent. The second is that the landlord is not prepared to accept the tenant's close relative as the new tenant. If the landlord were agreeable, the retirement provisions which were recently inserted in this clause as subsection (6) would of course apply in any event, and the transfer could be arranged by agreement quite simply.
So the tenant has to serve notice on the landlord that the tenant intends to quit knowing that the landlord is not prepared to see his close relative succeed willingly, voluntarily. If a tenant farmer knew that the landlord was opposed to his close relative, say a son or a daughter, taking over the tenancy, and knew that the landlord would object to the Tribunal under the provisions of Clause 21, I would
962
suggest that it is not very likely that the tenant would be prepared to make his own tenancy in effect a hostage to fortune, because this is what he would he doing. He would have to serve a notice to quit on his landlord. I also very much doubt that tenants will take that sort of risk and the NFU and the CLA, as I understand it, share those doubts. If the landlord refuses to accept the son or daughter, the tenant is almost certain to decide to stay on the farm and allow the normal provisions of the family succession scheme to apply. In the meantime—and this seems to be another objection in practice to the noble Earl's suggestion—the tenant would presumably (and I want to look on the bright side, as would the noble Earl and noble Lords on all sides) in most circumstances hand over the running of the holding to the close relative, as normally happens today, when the tenant becomes too old to farm the land. The close relative, by running the farm until the tenant's death, would, incidentally, he strengthening his claim to succeed the tenancy because of the eligibility and suitability tests that the successor will have to go through in front of the Agricultural Land Tribunal.
My second objection could be met by providing that if the close relative was unsuccessful the tenant should continue on the holding until he died and then the landlord will get it hack. This has been considered, as have a number of other variations on the same theme; but they are all more complicated than the proposition put forward by the noble Earl in his Amendment and they would entail further complicated Amendments to the Bill.
My advice to the Committee is therefore this. Our existing scheme provides for transfers at death and transfers on retirement when the tenant, close relative and landlord are all agreed that the close relative should succeed. I would suggest that we get this scheme on the Statute Book; see how it works and then consider it in the light of experience. We should know then whether anything needs to be changed to make the scheme more workable and whether the scheme is as fairly balanced between the landlord and tenant as the Government believe it is. We should know whether it needs to be extended in the way the noble Earl has proposed in this Amendment. But our first priority is to try the basic scheme and then to consider more sophisticated extensions in the light of that experience.
The Duke of ATHOLL: I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and I agree entirely with what he said. It seems to me that there is one further disadvantage with this particular suggestion: and that is there could be cases where the tenant would like to retire and the landlord agrees he should but both the tenant and the landlord agree that the nearest close relative is not suitable for any number of reasons—he may be a little simple or something—but in any case he is not suitable to inherit the tenancy. In this case, although both tenant and the landlord agree about this, the close relative would still be able to claim the tenancy. Admittedly, the Land Tribunal probably will not give it to him: hut a great deal of time and money would be wasted in settling this point. I hope, therefore, that nothing on these particular lines will be pursued, for there would be a difficulty.
The Earl of ONSLOW: As I hope I said in moving this Amendment, I would not dream of asking your Lordships to divide on it for I am certain I should not get more than three people, at most, into the Lobby. It was just a discussion point. I think that the noble Duke had a valid point and I think that some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, were valid. I should like to say possibly that, if it was amended in this way, it would make more certain that Clause 17(6) would be used. The only thing that I am afraid of—and as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said—is this farming gerontocracy. Again, before I withdraw the Amendment I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, for offending his susceptibilities. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 21, line 21, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to speak to Amendment No. 19 when moving Amendment No. 7. These are purely drafting Amendments. Subsection (2) of Clause 17 is removed from its present position by Amendment No. 7. It is placed without alteration in Clause 19 by Amendment No. 19 where it will become subsection (14) of that clause. It was evident in dis-
964
cussion in another place that, because it was in the wrong place, subsection (2) tended to confuse people. With hindsight we recognised that as a procedural matter it was more appropriate to Clause 19 which is the main procedural clause for the scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Amendment No. 7A. The Earl of Onslow.
Lord LEATHERLAND: He must have reached his 65th birthday.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Amendment No. 7A is not moved.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 8.
Page 21, line 41, leave out (" (d).) and insert (" (c) ").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 6 which has just been agreed to. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 22, line 28, after (" course ") insert (" in agriculture or any other subject Which would improve his qualification for farming.").
The noble Earl said: In discerning who should be eligible to claim a tenancy, one of the provisos is that in the seven years prior to the death of the tenant, five must be spent on the farm and that this would have been his principal source of income. But of these five years, three can be counted as such even if the prospective tenant was not on the farm but was doing a course in a university or college or other establishment of further education; so that in fact he only needs to spend two years actually on the farm.
I understand the object of this clause. Clearly. if the young man (if it is a young man) after having done two years work on the farm decides to go to a university or college to take a course in agriculture or something like that, it would improve his knowledge and should not debar him from claiming the tenancy on the death of his father. But I venture to suggest that this clause. as at present in the Bill, is too

965
widely drawn; because if the boy were to leave and to have done a three-year course in Chinese at a university that would still enable him to be eligible. If a daughter had done two years on the farm and had gone off and done a domestic economy course and then spent the remaining two years cooking directors' lunches in London that would still qualify her for a claim to a tenancy. If a young man had got fed up with farming and decided to go and do a course on interior decoration and then had gone around London doing up people's flats he would still he eligible for claiming a tenancy. Even if the gentleman concerned had done a course in law or criminology, that period of time would still count as being eligible for a tenancy.
I believe this is an absurdity. I understand the Government's point because there was a little consideration of this in the other place. If one put in the words " a degree in agriculture " this might be too restrictive. The young man might have taken a degree in genetics or biology, all of which would have been useful in his farming operations. What I have tried to suggest in this Amendment is that the degree which he takes, which is going to count as part of his 5-year period, should be such as will qualify him the better to farm. It is a reasonable Amendment and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I support this Amendment very strongly indeed, partly because of the excellence of the courses which can be taken in both agricultural colleges and technical colleges of agriculture, which are such that they would be an enormous advantage to any young man or young woman who was going into farming. Also they are very accessible, and easy to get to. They are scattered all over the country. We have some excellent ones in Scotland and England. It would be a great pity not to utilise one of the real advances of learning the modern technology of agriculture. One has known farmers who never had the opportunity of going to any college of any kind, and how much they regret that fact in the modern world where there is so much technology connected with farming! It is not the only thing by any manner of means but it is very useful to have some technical knowledge. It
966
is an enormous advantage to our people to train for agricultural qualifications.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that it really is silly to think that someone who has a degree in a totally different subject would then be qualified. I have known people who have obtained degrees in one subject and then taken another degree in another subject or a two-year course. There is no reason why they should not do that. That there should be no mention in the Bill of the courses being allied to farming and agriculture is a great mistake. I hope very much that the Government will accept this Amendment.
Lord COLLISON: My Lords, there is another side to this coin. If this Amendment were agreed to, as I understand it, the young man would be prohibited from reading any other subject except agriculture. Surely, that is completely unfair and illiberal. It seems to me, in addition to what I have just said—which I think is a very strong point—that if he were to read history or literature, or what-you-will, Chinese maybe, to broaden his mind, to give him a greater understanding of life, thought and logic, it makes him a better farmer. A man who is a good farmer could be good at any other trade because the attributes required are very similar. You need a good mind, thought, application and ability. The other side of this particular coin is so obvious that to say to a young person, " You cannot develop your mind, you cannot read something of interest to you; apart from the professional interest you are restricted - is entirely wrong.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Collison, to think that I meant that they should not have another degree. Somebody can take a degree in history, but when he goes to farm he should have had some technical education in agriculture as a qualification for taking on a farm. There is no reason why he should not do both.
Lord COLLISON: An owner-occupier could go to university or technical college, or what-you-will, and read and take degrees or diplomas in whatever he likes. There is a distinction being made there between the two: the tenant farmer and the owner-occupier farmer.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: Surely it is a different distinction. He could go to university and read Chinese or any other subject. The question is whether reading Chinese should count as farming. I should have thought it should.
Lord BALERNO: It is important to support this Amendment. As I read it it would allow the young man to study economics, and politics. It is classed wide enough for that. I would object to somebody succeeding to a tenancy who at university had only read Sanskrit.
The Earl of ONSLOW: We do not appoint nuclear physicians who only have a degree in Latin.
Lord LEATHERLAND: There is so much common sense in the arguments from the other side, that a degree in agriculture should permit a man to take on a farm, whereas a degree in some other subject should not. But is that the whole of the question? The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, rather ridiculed the idea of a man going to university and reading Chinese. If he were to do that, he would probably come back and introduce into this country the vast industry of growing soya beans which would solve half our dietary difficulties at one stroke.
Earl FERRERS: What makes the noble Lord think that if you read Chinese you read anything about soya beans?
Lord LEATHERLAND: Because in his Chinese reading he would have, as part of his textbooks, books on the history of China, a book on the Marxist Revolution in China and another book on the agriculture of China. He would pounce on page 49 immediately, " The growing of soya beans ". He would read that and become enthusiastic about that. He would come back and plant the whole of East Anglia with soya beans and everybody would be happy ever after.
There are other subjects besides the theoretical ones of history which have been mentioned. There are university courses in business management and economics. Surely an improving knowledge of business methods is going to make farming far more efficient in this country than it is today. I happen to know a Lloyd's underwriter: he has never
968
studied farming. He was educated at Eton and Oxford and has travelled throughout the Continent—the usual type of education with which some noble Lords opposite may be acquainted. He is the best farmer I have ever met; he lives within 10 miles of me. We ought to take a broad, liberal view here. If a man has studied for three or four years and therefore made himself a better man, a man more capable of thinking than he was before he embarked upon those studies, then he is not to be despised if he wants to take up farming.
Lord SLATER: It is said that experience is the greatest teacher. I know of a case in my own area where an owner-occupier sent his son to the agricultural college in Durham in order eventually to take over the responsibility of running the farm, which would automatically have fallen to the inheritance of this young man if he had been prepared to get down to his studies and take a proper interest in that form of agriculture. He completed his term at the college and came through with good results. Since then he has been in five or six different forms of occupation. He went straight to the farm from the college and worked at bailing and everything else concerned with the farm.
The father used to take the son as a young boy everywhere to instill in him the desire to take over the responsibility of the farm when the time came and ensure that he would be able to do so. But at this time the young man is a manager selling motor-cars on Teesside. His father is still working the farm as the owner-occupier. The farm has always been in the family and he wanted it to pass to his son. It is no use our thinking for one moment that by sending someone to an agricultural college to take a degree, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Collison, that individual is going to finish up eventually with one desire in life, which is to take control and live through a long period of experience of being attached to the agricultural industry, which is not an easy form of occupation. It is the same as mining or the sailors who sail on the high seas, who are battling with Mother Nature. This also applies to agriculture.
What would happen—I put this question direct to noble Lords on the other side—

969
if every decision regarding the tenancy of these particular farms once they become vacant was left to the estate agent rather than to the landlord himself? I know that in my own county and in places not far away, it is not the agricultural worker who has had the opportunity of buying a farm which has become vacant but the solicitors who have been able to buy the farm rather than the agricultural worker who has spent his time on the land from being a boy and whose right it should have been to take over the farm that was becoming vacant. But no, he was defeated. He could have got the money from the bank, but he was outwitted and outbid in taking over the tenancy, and although he had the experience, it was a solicitor's son who got the farm. He had to put in a manager to run the farm while the agricultural worker continued to work on the same farm.
Lord FORBES: The argument is really going rather wide at the moment. The Amendment states quite clearly:
" in agriculture or any other subject which would improve his qualification for farming."
Let us stick to what the Amendment states.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I realise that the Agricultural Tribunals might have difficulty in determining other subjects, but I should certainly think that business management and economic courses would come within that sphere and be beneficial to the potential tenant. But if potential applicants are to have had the benefit of further education taken into consideration in assessing their eligibility for inheritance: it must be logical and entirely correct that the training should be directly associated with practical farming. It would be ludicrous, for example, if a student studying music were to be considered on equal terms with one who had spent three years at an agricultural college. It is for that reason that I support the Amendment.
Lord HENLEY: There is, it seems to me, an anomaly in both the Bill and the Amendment because a young man who has spent three years out of the seven not at a university but learning agriculture on a neighbouring farm would not be eligible for consideration.
Lord HAWKE: There is, I think, another anomaly in the original Bill. We have been arguing about this on the assumption that the man is a stock or arable farmer. But suppose he is a
970
horticulturalist. Surely two or three years spent in Covent Garden, or wherever the main market is now, as a seller of horticultural crops would be a very fine qualification for a future horticultural farming career. But apparently he would be earning money while he was doing that and so would not be eligible under this clause.
Another point is that one of the most important jobs on an agricultural holding nowadays is that of being able to mend the machinery. Supposing a young man has studied engineering: presumably he will have been earning money and therefore again will be excluded for that reason.
Lord MELCHETT: I will begin by saying that I very much agreed with the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Leatherland and Lord Collison about the difficulties to which this Amendment might give rise, except that I do not know that I relish the idea suggested by my noble friend Lord Leatherland that the whole of East Anglia should be covered with soya beans. I am not sure that would do much for the soil structure or for the ecological diversity of East Anglia, which some of us value very much.
When the family succession scheme was first published, the application in subsection (4) related only to courses in agriculture at a university, college or similar establishment. Our first thoughts were to follow precedent, which in this case was to be found in the Smallholdings (Selection of Tenants) Regulations, paragraph 3(1) which states that:
" Provided that any period during which a person was attending a full-time course in agriculture at a university, college or other establishment of further education shall, up to a maximum of three years, be deemed to be a period during which he was occupied in full-time practical farm work."
Those regulations were passed through Parliament in July 1970. On reflection, it seemed to the Government that this requirement was unnecessarily restrictive in an area where tightly drawn conditions were not necessary. Perhaps I might reiterate to your Lordships that before he or she can hope to obtain a direction from the Agricultural Land Tribunal, an applicant has to pass through two selection processes. The first is mainly factual. Its purpose is to check the credentials of an applicant and to satisfy the Agricultural Land Tribunal that an

971
applicant is indeed a close relative as defined in the Bill and that he or she has established a close link with the holding and does not occupy a commercial farm elsewhere. Unless the landlord wishes to challenge any of the credentials of an applicant, this first selection process will be simple, straightforward and quick.
The applicant will then move on to the much more rigorous process where the Tribunal will have to satisfy themselves that he or she is in all respects suitable to become a tenant of the holding. This, of course, is an extremely important matter not only for the applicant but for the landlord; and the Tribunal will be expected to carry out their duty with great attention and care. I am sure the Land Tribunals will do that. This duty may well entail a final selection process as well; namely, choosing between more than one suitable applicant. So if the main selection process is carried out with attention and care, I see no harm in practical terms in relaxing the educational requirement away from our original and tightly-drawn requirement. I do not want to get into a detailed argument as to the merits or demerits of the various degree courses, and particularly in regard to the merits or demerits of courses in law and criminology. But as the noble Lord has referred to my academic qualifications, I must say that as I am also a farmer I have strong views on this matter.
Lord HENLEY: But the noble Lord is not a whole-time farmer.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Lord is quite right. I accept that from the practical point of view a course in agriculture will obviously fit the potential successor for a farming career. On the other hand, I should have expected everyone to accept that higher education in any subject is likely to change people's minds in a way that should enable them to apply themselves better to the generality of problems, including those that tenant farmers have to face.
I should like to correct something that the noble Earl said. I think he suggested that somebody who has spent one year in college, two years cooking lunches and two years on the farm would be eligible as a suitable applicant for the tenancy. It would have to be one year in college, then
972
it could well be two years cooking lunches and then four years on the farm. There would have to be a total of five years altogether, taking the time spent in full-time education with the time spent on the holding. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, I think, that although the Tribunal would have quite a difficult job if this Amendment were passed, they would be quite capable of carrying it out. I am not sure I agree with that. All along in debates on this Bill I have said that the Agricultural Land Tribunal is a sensible and well-qualified body to give opinions on farming matters. But if the noble Earl's Amendment were passed, the Agricultural Land Tribunal would have to decide whether one course or another at a university or a technical college would improve an individual's ability to farm. To my mind, this is an extremely difficult and philosophical question.
There is a point of view, which I must say I wholeheartedly share, that any course of full-time university education is likely to make the person who undergoes that course better at whatever job or career he subsequently follows in later life; and my understanding is that that view is shared by most. if not all. Vice-Chancellors and other people at universities. Indeed, my understanding is that that is what a university education is all about. I do not see, as some of my noble friends have said, that we should make a distinction between farming as a career, tenant farming or owner-occupier farming, and other careers in, for example. business. Businesses are often very keen to get applicants for posts who have undertaken university courses which may have nothing to do with the process in which they are involved. University graduates are in demand by businesses of that kind. because people feel that a university degree will better equip them for whatever task they have to undertake in later life.
If the Tribunal were to take that view. as I believe they should. then, of course. the Amendment would have no effect. What is much more likely is that we should be placing on the Agricultural Land Tribunal an impossible task in trying to decide between the view that any full-time course at a university suits people better for whatever job they do in later life, and the very narrow view that only something in agriculture or directly related to agriculture, such as genetics,

973
would improve somebody's ability to farm. It is my view, primarily on those grounds, that the noble Earl's Amendment would be better not made to the Bill.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I clarify my point I said that it would be difficult for the Agricultural Land Tribunal, but I did not at any time state that they would be incapable of making the decision.
Lord MELCHETT: No, but I did. I said that the Agricultural Land Tribunal are an excellent body to give an opinion on questions which relate to farming. They are, after all, concerned with law and are comprised of a lawyer, a land owner and a farmer. But I am not sure that they are the right body to make what is largely a philosophical judgment on the relative merits of different courses of higher education. That is my objection to the Amendment.
The Earl of ONSLOW: First, could it not be true that the Agricultural Land Tribunal would build up, through the process of case law, for want of a better term, a general guideline as to what would be a suitable course? Several have been mentioned by noble Lords on both sides which would obviously be suitable and, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, these Land Tribunals are made up of intelligent and good public servants. Secondly, the noble Lord has not answered the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Hawke, both of which struck me as being very relevant to this issue.
Lord MELCHETT: I apologise for not answering those points, which I think related to the potential applicant getting experience of farming off the farm, but not in a full-time educational course. Once again, I am happy to consider broadening this scheme to take in a wider selection of applicants, although I confess I am surprised to find these suggestions coming from noble Lords opposite. The point of having the eligibility tests drawn up as they are is to ensure that the applicant has a close relationship with the holding in question, and that is why it is necessary for the applicant to have worked on the holding itself for a period of time.
974
There are, of course, circumstances—and we will discuss these on a later clause—in which the Tribunal need not follow the strict letter of the rules so far as the applicant's eligibility is concerned, if they think it wise not to do so, and it may be that the kind of instances which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and others have put to me would be covered by those. But if the noble Lord would care to put down an Amendment at the next stage, suggesting that experience of agriculture off a holding should also qualify, 1 should be happy to consider extending the scheme in that way, having taken due advice on the matter.
Lord HENLEY: Far be it from me to want to widen what is already too wide. I was merely drawing the attention of the noble Lord to an anomaly. I do not think anybody here would deny that a university education fits one for a very wide variety of other businesses. But when a man has a university education and goes into business, law, medicine or anything else like that, after having read something different, he still has to learn his job and here we get a state of affairs which seems to me ridiculous. Leaving out the four years on a farm, which I agree is a must, you then have the three years which can either be taken in a university or a college of further education reading anything you like, which scores you eligibility, or you can learn farming with a neighbour for those three years which does not score you eligibility. It is all patently absurd.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: It seems to me that there is some confusion of mind here as to qualification and suitability. A man may be a very suitable person, who has the best training but has never seen a farm before. Suitability is one matter, but this Bill provides that there shall be not only suitability but qualification. Under this Bill, qualification consists of two things: first, relationship to the late tenant; and, secondly, relationship to the farm which is so many years' experience on the farm, as to which limited period may be substituted a course at a university. I should have thought, when you were at the qualification stage, that what counted most was a course in agriculture, not in Chinese. As my noble friend pointed out, a course in Chinese, in business management, in engineering or

975
in all kinds of things might make someone most suitable. But does it make him qualified under this Bill when one is insisting on a connection with the family and with the farm? I cannot see how studying Chinese at a university connects one with a farm.
Earl FERRERS: This discussion shows the kind of muddle that one gets into when trying to alter Acts of Parliament in a very small degree, such as this Bill does. I do not think there is anything particularly partisan about this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, quite rightly, that when it was first introduced the words were too tightly drawn. I accept that, and that is a matter of opinion, but I respectfully suggest that they are now too loosely drawn. The noble Lord, Lord Collison, said that this is not fair, because a man is being forced to read agriculture. With respect, he is not being forced to read agriculture at all. All that is being said is: if a person has been disconnected with a farm for a number of years, have those years been sufficiently well used to qualify him not to farm but to stake a claim to a statutory right to use something that is not his? Of course, if someone has a degree in Chinese, in Sanskrit, or in engineering he may be a greatly improved person and more qualified to be a farmer, but does that really give him a right to claim a certain place, over and above the other laws which cover the subject? I do not think it does.
I referred to the person who did a course of domestic economy and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that it is a one-year course. In fact, it can be three years. One can take a degree in hotel catering. The kind of person I am considering is not a small farmer. One can have a tenant farmer on 500 acres. He may have a daughter who says, " I think I want to go and help my father on the farm and milk the cows. " After two years she gets fed up and goes to take a degree in hotel catering or domestic economy. Then she goes off to London and, as an example, cooks directors' lunches. Father then dies and she comes back to claim the right not just to the farm but to this very valuable thing, the tenancy.
Lord MELCHETT: I apologise to the
976
noble Earl for interrupting and I am grateful to him for giving way. Is the noble Earl seriously suggesting to your Lordships' Committee that the Agricultural Land Tribunal, which admittedly may have found that this tenant's daughter has passed the eligibility test, will then find her a suitable person in all the circumstances to farm the holding?
Earl FERRERS: No; I am suggesting that the Agricultural Land Tribunal should not be given the option to consider it because she should not be eligible in the first place. I do not think it is right to put undue emphasis on the Agricultural Land Tribunal because they will have enough problems to cope with to discover whether or not in the end that person is suitable. This is a point which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will look at again. This Amendment is not a way of disqualifying people but it would be a way of disqualifying those who should have disqualified themselves because they have gone away from the farm. They need to have worked only for two years on the farm. I do not believe that is sufficient justification then to be allowed to come back to claim that one has a statutory right to take on something from which one has almost cut oneself off.
Lord COLLISON: I am sure the noble Earl will not mind my correcting him but, for the sake of the record, I did not say that it would be forcing a man to take a course in agriculture. He does not have to do so, anyway, to qualify for possession. I said that it is prohibiting him from taking any other subject, and that is what is wrong about it. It is a restriction of his liberty.
Lord MELCHETT: I agree with the noble Earl that this is not a partisan point. The difference between us is not one of politics. I hope it is a philosophical difference as to the importance we attach to a university degree. Certainly there is nothing partisan about it. Secondly, I hope that there is not a difference in our view of the practicalities of the situation, were this Amendment to be passed. First, I should like to make a general point in response to something which was said by my noble friend, Lord Paget. We are getting into a muddle between eligibility and suitability, but with great

977
respect to my noble friend the situation was not helped by his using words in the opposite context to which they are actually used in the process that the tenant successor will go through, as decided in the Bill.
As I pointed out, first of all the Agricultural Land Tribunal will decide upon eligibility. It is at that stage that the question arises as to whether they have been doing one course or another for three years. The Agricultural Land Tribunal, having decided upon eligibility, then goes on to consider the suitability of the applicant, with the benefit of the landlord's views at the Agricultural Land Tribunal hearing. So the degree, whether it is in agriculture or some other subject, has no bearing on suitability—or at least it need not. If the Agricultural Land Tribunal do not wish to consider what course was taken they need not do so. They look at the person as a potential tenant farmer and decide whether or not he is suitable to farm the holding. The educational course comes in at an earlier stage when one is considering the mechanics of the scheme: whether or not this person is eligible.
Why bother to have an educational let-out for three years? It seems to me that my noble friend Lord Collison has hit the nail right on the head. He is saying that if the Amendment were passed there would be a clear discrimination between the son of a tenant farmer and the son of an owner occupier. In these circumstances, let us say that in both cases the farmer currently farming the land is about 50 years old and that his sons at the age of 22 or 23, having worked on the farm for, let us say, two or three years, both decide that they would like to take a full-time course at a university. Both qualify and are able to go to university and both decide initially to read agriculture. When they go to university they discover, as many students do, that agriculture does not suit them or that they wish to read something else—sociology, social science, or any subject you like. The son of the owner occupier will be free to change courses without any fear as to whether or not he will be able to go back to his farming career, as he has always planned. However, the son of the tenant farmer will have to bear this in mind. If his father dies while he is at university or just after he leaves
978
university, having done three years there and two years on the farm, he will not be an eligible successor to the tenancy because of the type of course he has done at university. It seems to me that that problem is an overwhelming one which should be considered before any changes are made to the Bill, as the noble Earl has suggested.
The second point I should like to make on the Amendment—and it is one which no one has remotely satisfactorily answered—is how the Agricultural Land Tribunal are to make this choice, because there are people who firmly believe, as I confess I do myself, that any degree taken at a university fits the person who takes it for whatever he happens to do in his future life. If the Agricultural Land Tribunals take that view, the Amendment will not need to be passed because it will have no effect and I have had nothing said to me this evening which convinces me that an Agricultural Land Tribunal would not necessarily take that view, shared, as I believe it is, by everybody who is involved in university education.
Earl FERRERS: The whole nub of the noble Lord's argument was that if this Amendment were to go forward the tenant's son would be at a disadvantage compared with the landlord's son because he would not be able to claim the tenancy, and that therefore this was inequitable. However, if this does not happen, the landlord's son is in any event at a disadvantage because he has no right to the tenancy. It is the tenant who can claim the statutory right. I do not believe that the noble Lord can use the argument of equity between the tenant's and the landlord's son.
Lord MELCHETT: The owner occupier's son.
Earl FERRERS: Well, the owner occupier's son. I think that the noble Lord is very persuasive but I think he is wrong and that this clause, as it is drafted, will unnecessarily widen the scope and put a great deal of unnecessary strains upon the Agricultural Land Tribunal. If we are to legislate in this complicated and narrow field, I think that it ought to be legislated for properly. I am not going to press this Amendment this evening but I hope that the noble Lord will think

979
about it between now and Report stage. I will also think about what he has said, and perhaps we can come back with a similar, or even possibly the same, Amendment. However, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give some consideration to the Amendment because I do not think that at the moment the position is just. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 23, line 36, after (" if ") insert (" either (a)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, with the Committee's permission I shall speak also to Amendment No. 11. The object of these Amendments is to limit successions under this part of the Bill to one generation only. By Clause 17(5)(f) the successions are limited to two successions. These Amendments would amend Clause 17(5)(f) so that the successions remain limited to two except where on the last occasion a child—or, if we are going to have one, a treated child of the deceased tenant—obtained the holding.
It is accepted that the original object of Part II was to prevent hardship on the death of a tenant to a son or close relative who had worked on the holding. The question of how many successions there should be was debated at length in another place where opinions ranged from those who advocated succession in perpetuity to those who thought that one succession was enough. The compromise we reached was Clause 17(5)(f). It was claimed by the Minister himself who spoke in the Standing Committee that this would follow the precedent of two successions provided for by the Rent Acts. So far as the Rent Acts are concerned, I believe it is true to say that the two successions provided for therein often do not extend beyond one generation, the reason being that the first successor has by the Rent Act 1968 to be a surviving widow, if there is one. The next successor under the Rent Acts would usually be the only one from the next generation to that of the deceased. If, on the first occasion, a son succeeded then his widow would succeed him. In other words, under the Rent
980
Acts the succession to a statutory tenancy of a house must go sideways before it goes downwards; and if it goes downwards the first time then it still has to go sideways.
With regard to farms, the first successor who will be deemed to be most suitable for a farm is far more likely to be the son, as the Minister agreed in another place when he said,
"… the normal run of family successions is father, son, grandson, and transfer from father to brother and sister must be in a minority of cases ".
So instead of sideways and possibly downwards and then sideways, it is downwards and downwards. To allow the son to pass on the farm in his turn to a grandson of the deceased can extend the tenancy over three generations. This could cover a period of at least 75 and and possibly 100 years.
In company with other noble Lords who spoke on Second Reading of the Bill, I referred to the danger that landlords would be unwilling to grant tenancies in future if through legislation the balance was weighted too heavily in favour of the tenant. I do not propose in Committee to repeat the economic arguments against a collapse of the landlord/tenant system following the drying up of new tenancies, but it could hardly be better put than it was by the document which the National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs recently produced, called A Farming Future for Young Farmers. Referring to tenancies, the Young Farmers said:
" Legislation is currently before Parliament which would remove from the landowner the definite right to terminate the tenancy on the death of the tenant. The possibility that a Land Tribunal would give right of a new tenancy to a family member would, we believe, effectively dry up the vast majority of new tenancies. We feel that were we in the position of a landowner we would not be prepared to take the risk of not being able to repossess our property."
They go on to say:
" We think that the result of legal intervention will be no farms for anyone."
I take it from that extract that the young farmers do not want Part II of the Bill at all. All this Amendment does is to recognise possible hardship to a son or near relative but, by limiting the succession to within the span of one generation, it seems to give some encouragement to landlords to continue to let their farms. I beg to move.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I should like to support this Amendment because in fact the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has repeated substantially what I said on Second Reading. It is surely quite long enough to have one generation after the present tenant has died, because without a doubt the capital for improvements will dry up. No landlord is going to pour capital into the land if he knows that his land is going to be tied up for perhaps as long as 100 years.
We have had experience of this in Scotland since 1968, as we have heard from the noble Duke, the Duke of Athol!, and it has not been entirely satisfactory in many cases. In my opinion there is no doubt that the chief reason why the Government want to make it three generations is that they want to confiscate all tenanted land without any compensation. That is what the Government are really after. If you lose your land for nearly 100 years, it will probably drop in value by about two-thirds. With the present taxation and if one has to find a lot of capital transfer tax or some wealth tax or whatever tax is introduced in the future, it will destroy all land owning, certainly as regards tenanted land. Once the Government have done this it will be an absolute tragedy for tenant farmers.
Lord MELCHETT: Is it the noble Viscount's view that all the land in Scotland has already been confiscated without compensation, because of course a scheme such as this already applies in Scotland?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: The scheme in Scotland started in 1968, but we had similar legislation for a period some years ago, which was not satisfactory. Of course to all intents and purposes one can call it confiscation in favour of the tenant because the landlord has no power over his land. You can go to the Rent Tribunal every five years in Scotland, although they do not call it a rent tribunal. You really have no power at all over your land, although you are expected to put capital into it. The whole thing is so grossly unfair that I would use the word " monstrous ". There would be something to be said for it if in the end it was going to help tenants, but I do not think it will. It will dry up the money for tenants, as we said on Second Reading; it will make
982
farming a closed shop and a young man coming out of agricultural college will not get a farm.
I warmly support this Amendment because I think one generation is enough after the existing tenant has died.
Lord MELCHETT: This Amendment introduces the concept of a maximum of two successions where the first succession has been to someone of the same generation as the deceased and only one succession where the succession has been to a younger generation. The intention behind the Amendment is presumably to reduce the time-span which the scheme covers. The two succession concept has aroused considerable controversy. There are those who feel strongly that there should be no limit to the number of times a tenancy can pass to an eligible and suitable close relative, that in effect the scheme should be in perpetuity as is the case in Scotland, that the hardship will be just as keen whatever the cut-off point. It has been running successfully in Scotland without any noticeable drying-up of fresh lettings, the argument runs, so why should it not run successfully here? The argument at the other extreme is that if the landlord is to have any chance at all of regaining possession of his land within his own lifetime the scheme should apply for one succession only, otherwise the hardship to the landlord and his family will far outweigh the hardship to the tenant and his family.
I accept that there is considerable weight in both the arguments I have put. But my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture felt that to go from no inheritance scheme at all to inheritance in perpetuity would be too extreme a course and would be likely to cause serious damage to the landlord-tenant system and do considerable harm to the farming industry. On the other hand, he felt also that to limit the scheme to one single occasion would be an unnecessary restriction and would deprive it of much of its effectiveness. Moreover, in the worst case the scheme's effect could be measured in terms of months, and not years.
An up-to-date precedent was to be found in the Rent Acts. These allow a tenancy to pass twice—to widow and son or to son and grandson. My right honourable friend considered that there was

983
sufficient similarity between the hardships covered by the two schemes to justify adopting a similar course. He therefore decided that the scheme should extend for a maximum of two successions to an existing letting. We have subsequently resisted attempts by my honourable friends in another place to increase the number of successions, or to have a minimum period of years. We also resisted the attempts of' colleagues of noble Lords opposite in another place to reduce the number of successions to one only. As I understand it, an Amendment exactly similar to this was discussed, but not passed, in another place.
This Amendment would allow two successions in one set of circumstances, from tenant to widow followed by son, and only one succession in the other set of circumstances, that is, from tenant to son only. But the time span achieved in practice would be the same in either case, so the tenancy would be handed down through only one generation, whereas the Government's scheme based on the normal run of family succession is intended to hand down the tenancy through two generations, that is, from the death of the father to the death of the grandchild.
I accept that if you are going to limit a scheme like this from not being in perpetuity, it is very difficult, even given precedents in Rent Acts, or whatever, to find a logical cut-off point. I would say that however drastic a change, probably the only logical change is to go to a scheme which runs in perpetuity. In the Government's view, that was not a practical step to take at the moment, however logical it may appear in principle. That is why we have limited the scheme to two generations. I am not claiming that there is any magic behind the choice of that figure as opposed to any other, but I would say to noble Lords opposite that should they feel that the scheme should be limited more than it is now, there are a great many who feel. with, I suggest, logic on their side, that it should be extended to further generations than it is at the moment. It seems to me we have struck a reasonable balance which, after all, is what the legislative programme of this Government is all about. I would hope that we can leave the Bill as it is.
Lord BURTON: Unfortunately, I was
984
unable to attend the Second Reading debate, but I was disappointed to note that my noble friends Lady Elliot of Harwood and Lord Balerno gave an impression that the succession proposals had worked well in Scotland. No doubt these proposals have worked satisfactorily so far in their areas, but the results of hereditary succession take many years to show, and in other parts of Scotland have already proved unsatisfactory. Two of my tenants are particular examples of how unsatisfactory these have become. I mentioned them on Part I; one tenant was an alcoholic and one had a stroke, and both are hanging on to permit successors, so their tenancies pass to their heirs. The idea of succession of tenancy to at least the son originally arose in my NFU area where there was friction between a certain landlord and a certain tenant, and the son was not allowed to succeed. This very same branch of the NFU realises the pendulum has swung too far; and as I mentioned on Part I, the farming community now realises that few farms are becoming available to let and farmers are hanging on to their tenancies far too long.
Lord MONK BRETTON: I should like to make a comment about this. The Bill was ostensibly to prevent hardship to the sons of tenants. I think the reason why this hardship arose was because back in 1948 it was decided to introduce whole life tenancy instead of working life tenancy. If we had introduced working-life tenancy at that time everybody would have known where they were; the tenant would have retired at the age of 65, and a new letting would have taken place. We made that error, and I think now our difficulty is that we are going to compound that error in getting ourselves into this great difficulty of trying to produce a new type of hereditary system for tenancies.
As the Bill stands at the moment, these tenancies having continued again, are we not going to get in any case apart from a few families dying out, very nearly the same number of cases of hardship right at the end? I should have thought myself that one generation of extension was enough, and that the satisfactory way out of the hardship was to couple that with the stipulation that that extension of one generation should end at the end

985
of the working life of the tenant who had received the extension. I think, then, the hardship problem would in fact have been answered.
Earl FERRERS: I think there is a real problem here because the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that there is no particular logic in the figure of, I think it was three successions and two generations, but on the whole it was a balance between, on the one hand, no succession and, on the other hand, total succession. I accept there are many people who feel there ought to be a move towards total succession. I do not accept that if you do not have total succession therefore this is necessarily the right balance. I think that there are two different arguments here. One is the argument of the requirements of the tenant and the rights of the tenant versus the rights or the requirements of the landlord. The other argument, which I think is what worries most people on this side of the Committee, is that this provision will actually dry up the supply of tenancies.
One could argue for a long while as to who has the better claim to a piece of land, a landlord or a tenant. The Government have taken the view that sons, or children, or spouses, should have a degree of security of tenure. If you assume a tenancy to last for 30 years, under the process at the moment there could be three generations of tenancies, which means land could go for 90 years. Clearly the result of this is going to be that landlords are not going to let farms. Whether this is right or fair or just, or wicked, is a matter of opinion, but it will be fact because people will not do it.
I should have thought that if the Amendment of my noble friend were accepted at least you would have the right of two successions, but it would only move for one generation. That would at least give the person directly affected by the passing of the original tenant the right of succession, and that is the person who is going to be most grievously affected. It is the son or daughter, or spouse, or the other claimants of the original tenant. That is the person most affected. I suggest that if the Amendment of my noble friend were accepted you would meet that point of fairness, justice and rectitude, and you would give some slight encouragement for farms to con-
986
tinue to be let. As my noble friend, Lord Middleton, said, young farmers have come out strictly in a way of great agitation about this because they can see no chance, if the Bill goes through as it is, of their ever being able to rent a farm. For this reason, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will accept the Amendment of my noble friend.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I wonder whether we are doing such a service to the tenant farmer. Perhaps the noble Lord could put me right on one factor, because the Government may not thank the law for this. When the farmer dies, with two successions in front of him, would it not be a fact that the Inland Revenue would say that there is a right there which is of very considerable value, almost as good as freehold, for 90 years—certainly a long lease? Would there not be a very substantial capital transfer for handing that right over to his family?
Lord MELCHETT: If I may take that point on its own first, the tenant does not hand anything on to his family. The Agricultural Land Tribunal decide whether a near relative who applies for the tenancy is eligible, and having decided that, they then decide on the competing claims, for example, of the landlord's son and the tenant's son, or whichever near relative it is. There is no question of the tenant handing something on a plate to somebody. I think all the uncertainties, and the very careful sifting the Agricultural Land Tribunal will have to do before giving the tenancy to the successor, would mean that there was no certainty whatsoever that someone was going to inherit the tenancy. This seems to me to be one of the arguments that counters the view that this is going to alter dramatically the present system of landlord-tenant relationship.
Various people said on Second Reading that, of course, now any good landlord who knows what he is doing will let the tenant's son or a near relative, if going to farm the land well, take over the tenancy. I must say that since I have been involved in taking this Bill through your Lordships' House several landowners have made that point to me. In my view, all that the provisions in the Bill will do is to ensure that landlords who do not take that enlightened and

987
farsighted view of their responsibilities will have to go to the Tribunal and show some good reason why a suitable and eligible applicant should not take on the tenancy.
I know that several people have made the point that tenancies are going to dry up and the Young Farmers' Clubs are against this. Of course, in making that point noble Lords do not also mention in the same sentence that the National Farmers' Union, with a slightly more substantial membership than the Young Farmers' Clubs, take the opposite view. It may be said by noble Lords opposite—though I must say it would surprise me if anyone did say it—that the National Farmers Union do not have the longterm interests of agriculture, including young farmers and new farmers, in mind when they support the provisions of the Bill. I believe that they do, and I believe that they share the Government's view that the provisions of the Bill will be in the long-term interests of farming.
Lord BURTON: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, my noble friend said that the tenancies would dry up, but I would emphasise that tenants are remaining far too long in their farms in the hope of handing it on to their successors. As I have aleady pointed out, an alcoholic and a man who has had a stroke are both trying to continue farming; this is not good farming, and it is bad for the land.
Lord MELCHETT: There are two answers to that. First of all, if the noble Lord feels that whoever will be the eligible applicants for the two tenancies mentioned are suitable to farm the land, he should enable them to take on the tenancies straight away. If not, it seems to me a very good argument for getting these provisions on the Statute Book as soon as possible, and I hope the noble Lord will support me in that aim.
Lord BURTON: If I may intervene again, I am afraid that boys of 12 years of age are not eligible.
Lord MELCHETT: Then we are left with getting the Bill on to the Statute Book as quickly as we can, and the noble Lord and I will together work with that end in mind.
988
I said I would refer to the position in Scotland, and as this has been raised on this Amendment it might be a convenient moment to mention it. According to figures prepared by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, the proportion of full-time farms let to tenants stood at 46 per cent. in 1967, 44 per cent. in 1971, 43.5 per cent. in 1973 and 43.6 per cent. in 1974 and 1975. The very marginal decline shown by these figures would not appear to be more than a continuation of a long-established trend, and the rate of decline in the proportion of let farms between 1971 and 1975 is in fact lower than in the preceding period. I do not claim a great deal for these figures; they are, of course, not based on a very large sample and they are taken over a not very large number of years. But the trend has been quite consistent for a very long time and it does not appear to have been altered in any way by the passing of the legislation in Scotland in 1968.
If I may make one other point on the passing of tenanted farms to new tenants, I do not myself believe—and, as I said, I think this is the good landlord's practice at the moment—that if a farm passes from a tenant to the tenant's relative, particularly the son, that in any way involves the drying up of new tenancies. That is standard practice of good landlords at the moment where the tenant's relative is suitable to farm the land, and if that continues to happen under the Bill I think there is a lot to commend it.
Lord BURTON: The noble Lord referred to tenancies not drying up in Scotland. Is it not the case according to his figures, that where a son succeeds his father there is a new tenancy, but in fact this is rather a bogus figure. The landlord has no option but to relet to the heir, but this does not mean that a new tenancy has become available to the community at large.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: I would make the point that I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is in a great difficulty here, because we are really arguing about a matter of opinion, as to whether the changes he proposes to make will have the effect in the long-term of drying up farm tenancies. Of course, the major weakness of this Bill is that there was no attempt at an objective assessment

989
of the position and this particular proposition before the Bill was introduced. It is normal practice in this country when we arc going to make a major change—and this is what this Bill would make—that an expert committee is set up to examine the matter, to take evidence from all concerned, and to try to reach a balanced point of view as to what would be the effect of legislation of this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is in a great difficulty here because he does not know, and nobody behind him knows, what the effect of this will be. It is not going to help him all that much to claim that he is supported by the National Farmers' Union and therefore he is right, when all of us know that many tenant farmers, members of the National Farmers' Union, do not agree with the view expressed by the National Farmers' Union. On the other hand, we have got the Young Farmers' Federation against. Again it is a matter of opinion by these outside bodies.
Here on this side of the Committee the noble Lord has a large number of noble Lords who are themselves landlords and therefore have some idea of how this would affect their mentality. The point that he cannot deny is that it is bound to have an effect on the individual landowner in restraining him from investing capital in his farms, as a start, and, almost certainly, whenever he gets the chance to take a farm back in hand, to do so. These are such strong probabilities that the noble Lord is really up against it in trying to establish a case that this is not going to have the effect that he is being told it will have. His argument that he is striking a fair balance between unlimited succession and no succession at all is a completely theoretical argument; it just does not have any conviction at all. Whereas this Amendment which is being put to him, which does at least make some sort of compromise—and he is being advised by men of great experience of letting farms—will probably have the effect of causing landlords to see some prospect of getting their farms back some time, if they want to; and, of course, he is right in saying that usually they will let again to the son of the farmer. If they know they can get it back after one generation, there is a fair prospect that they will say, " Well, it is not too long to wait, even if it is 50 years altogether ".
990
This is the very long-term business of land owning, especially with farms, and this is not unreasonable.
I should have thought the noble Lord would have been very well advised to accept this Amendment, as being a sensible compromise, which evidently has the support of the CLA, which is a very important body in this matter, and might have some prospect of avoiding the damage this Bill would do.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. It is a matter of opinion. The opinion of my noble friends and I—and this is where we differ with noble Lords opposite —is that if by legislation you introduce the possibility that an owner is going to be separated from his land for up to 100 years, that possibility must discourage lettings. I should have thought that was perfectly obvious. Of course, it is difficult to say how long successions should last, what span successions should last for. That is the difficulty that the Government have got themselves into by introducing this Bill now, without, as my noble friend said, proper consultation and preparation. Of course, it is a difficult matter, a matter of balance and of opinion, We think, on the matter of balance, that if you are going to introduce the possibility of the system collapsing because of the drying up of the supply of tenancies, then you are going to endanger agricultural production. It can be done from the most well-intentioned motives to try and relieve hardship. It will do great harm and it will be greatly to our detriment in competing in Europe, and the reason will be that the economic advantages of the system, of which we have all spoken about at great length, will be lost. If the supply of farms to rent dries up, then no young farmer will ever be able to get his feet on to the farming ladder.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, raised the point about what the National Farmers' Union think of this. It is true to say that the National Farmers' Union are broadly in agreement with the inheritance provisions. I think they are mistaken. I think that they take the short-term view. However, I also think (and I have good reason. for saying this) that the NFU agree that it may be desirable to provide that succession should not extend over more than one generation. Indeed, in view of their

991
stated opinion that a tied cottage should not be given more than one successor on the death of an occupying farm worker, it would hardly he consistent if they felt otherwise. This Amendment would restore some balance. It might conceivably encourage some lettings in the future, and if it does that it can only be for the good of
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
agriculture. I must press this Amendment and ask the Committee to decide.
6.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105: Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dundonald, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Amherst, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Monson, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Elibank, L.

Morris, L.

Ampthill, L.

Elles, B.

Munster, E.

Arran, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Newall, L.

Atholl, D.

Elton, L.

Northchurch, B.

Auckland, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Avebury, L.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Balerno, L.

Forbes, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pender, L.

Banks, L.

Gainford, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Barnby, L.

Gisborough, L.

Redesdale, L.

Belstead, L.

Grenfell, L.

Renwick, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Harcourt, V.

Salisbury, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.}

Burton, L.

Hatherton, L.

Savile, L.

Caithness, E.

Hawke, L.

Selkirk, E.

Carrington, L.

Henley, L.

Sharpies, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sherfield, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Somers, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton, L.

Spens, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stamp, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ingleby, V.

Sudeley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Killearn, L.

Swinton, E.

Craigton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tenby, V,

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Daventry, V.

Long, V.

Thurlow, L.

De Clifford, L.

Loudoun, C.

Tweedsmuir, L.

De Freyne, L,

Lyell, L.

Verulam, E.

De La Warr, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vickers, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Derwent, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Middleton, L.

Westbury, L.

Dundee, E.

Monck, V.

Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Hale, L.

Oran, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hall, V.

Pannell, L.

Blyton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Platt, L.

Bradwell, L.

Henderson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brimelow, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brown, L.

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Caradon, L.

Leatherland, L.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Longford, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Mais, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Maybray-King, L.

Wilson of High Wray, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Melchett, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Northfield, L.

6.20 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 24, line 5, at end insert—
(" or,
(b) on the last occasion when there died a sole (or sole surviving) tenant (within the meaning of subsection (I) above) of the holding or of such an agricultural holding as is described above a direction as mentioned in (i) above or a grant as mentioned in (ii) above was made in favour of any person mentioned in paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection (i) above.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential, and I move it formally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 11A:
Page 24, line 6, leave out paragraph (g).
The noble Earl said: I have tabled this Amendment to find out why the Government have introduced a Bill permitting hereditary tenancies to be claimed on all farms but have specifically excluded smallholdings run by the Ministry of Agriculture and county councils. It seems to me that if we are to have the principle that hereditary tenancies should be claimed by people who are related to deceased tenants, the same principle should apply whether the land belonged to a private landlord or to the Minister, but for the Minister specifically to exclude himself seems extraordinary and I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would explain the purpose of this exclusion.
Lord MELCHETT: All statutory smallholdings are in public ownership. Just over 10,000 are held by county councils in England and Wales and my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has about 760 on the Farm Settlement and Land Settlement Association estates. They are administered under Part III of the Agriculture Act 1970 and the selection of tenants for them is governed by the Smallholdings (Selection of Tenants) Regulations 1970. The purpose of statutory smallholdings is to afford opportunities for people with experience in agriculture to be tenant farmers on their own account and the regulations specify the minimum requirements as to agricultural experience to be fulfilled by persons who may be selected as tenants.
There are two reasons why statutory smallholdings have been left out of
994
Part II of the Bill. First, the intention under the 1970 Act was that they should be a gateway into farming, for example for the able and experienced young man who wished to enter on a farming career. The number of statutory smallholdings is decreasing as local authorities get on with the implementation of their Ministerially approved plans for the reorganisation of their estates: nevertheless, they still provide a gateway which would otherwise be closed and, moreover, existing tenants are often able to progress within the estates from smaller to larger holdings. The second reason why we believe it would be inappropriate to include them in the legislation for family succession is that, unlike private landlords, smallholdings authorities are democratically elected bodies and their proceedings and decisions are open to public scrutiny.
As I said when the Bill was given its Second Reading in your Lordships' House, this matter was debated at length in another place. Honourable Members there acknowledged that it would be appropriate to amend the Selection of Tenants Regulations to provide for family succession and the Department is 'in touch with the Association of County Councils about this. I am delighted to say that the Association have been most co-operative and it now only remains to agree with them the precise wording of a suitable Amendment. The regulations are followed by my right honourable friend and any Amendment will apply with equal force to the statutory smallholdings which he holds. I hope that that explains both why these smallholdings were left out of the Bill and makes it clear that the provisions will be followed in regard to the smallholdings as well, and that the noble Earl will withdraw the Amendment.
The Earl of ONSLOW: If the regulations are to apply to statutory smallholdings and are going to be made to apply to people on them, why not say so in the Bill? My second point is a comment on our times. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that local authorities were democratically controlled. May I draw his attention, if he has not noticed it already, to the fact that there is a democratically controlled authority not far from Manchester which has been elected on one platform and the Government have told it to do something else?

995
This is not necessarily a complete parallel, but it slightly undermines the faith in democracy which the noble Lord holds vis-à-vis local government.
Earl FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for explaining this provision. He will forgive me if I say that I have never heard a less convincing argument than that which he portrayed. He said that these smallholdings were a gateway into farming and that if we were to close it we should have no more young farmers. That was precisely the argument we were using about the last Amendment, which the noble Lord rejected. Then he said that these people were democratically elected, as if that means that they will function any better or more suitably than a normal landlord. The fact of the matter is that the Government have produced a Bill providing hereditary tenancies for all classes of landlord except those which the Minister and local authorities control. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say that this is rather like the practice of the medieval Church, when they taxed everyone bar themselves. It is a thoroughly bad precedent.
I could not help but be somewhat amused when I read the Hansard of the Second Reading debate. Lord Melchett said that the fair and reasonable landlord had nothing to fear from the Bill. Why, if the Minister is fair and reasonable or if the county councils are fair and reasonable or if the Land Settlements Association is fair and reasonable, should they have anything to fear from the Bill if they, too, were incorporated in its provisions? One reason why they have not been incorporated was given by the noble Lord, Lord Collison, who said he was completely satisfied that the LSA had always behaved in accordance with the principles that had been outlined, and he added that he had never known them to behave harshly to a tenant's family when the head of that family died. I cannot see any reason for excluding them because of that from measures which the Government have put across all hereditary tenancies.
Lord MELCHETT: Perhaps I did not make it clear that the Association of
996
County Councils and the Department of Agriculture are in close touch over this. The noble Earl asks why they are not put in the Bill. I do not know whether he has been in touch with the Association of County Councils about his Amendment. I should be interested to hear whether they agree with its inclusion, because he and I both believe that we should take considerable care to consult people affected by a Bill before the legislation is passed. I agree that they may not always like the legislation after those consultations, but at least we take care to hold such consultations and, for our part, we are in touch with the Association of County Councils. They have been very co-operative with us and have accepted the view expressed in another place, a view which both noble Earls opposite have expressed this afternoon and, as I said, all that remains is to agree the precise wording that will he put into the regulations so that the import of the scheme will apply equally to them and to my right honourable friend as it will to other landlords. So I do not think that there is anything between us,. We want to proceed, as always, if possible by agreement.
Earl FERRERS: I think that there is a great deal between us because, if the noble Lord has been to the Association of County Councils to ask them for a form of words that we can all agree, why has he not put it in the Bill? The fact is that that is where it ought to be but he has not done it because, as he rightly says, if he does, it will close the gateway to new tenancies. I do not propose to press the Amendment, but I believe that the reason is a thoroughly bad one.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I do not know whether this is the right moment to ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, but there has been considerable misunderstanding over this exclusion of smallholdings, particularly in The Times the other day. Does this exclusion include land other than statutory smallholdings let by the Ministry of Agriculture and, indeed, other Ministries? I was under the impression that ordinary land let by the Ministry of Agriculture was included in the scheme. If the noble Lord cannot give me an answer now, perhaps he would let me have the answer at a later stage of the Committee's proceedings.
Lord MELCHETT: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for suggesting that I might look into the matter and write to him. I shall be happy to do so.
Earl FERRERS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.32 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 24, line 15, at end insert—
(" (1) if the holding is incapable, when farmed under reasonably skilled management, of providing full-time employment for at least one man.")
The noble Earl said: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that he liked to go ahead by agreement. I am so glad to hear that. I hope that we shall have a little help from him because at the moment we seem to be having a rather uphill struggle. The Amendment seeks to prevent the hereditary tenancy provisions from operating. Before I go any further, I should like to remind the noble Lord that this is a helpful Amendment, so I hope that he will be able to give it consideration.
There are cases when a unit is so small that it cannot provide full-time employment for at least one man—that is, the Amendment refers to the smallest and least viable units. This point was raised in another place and the Minister of State said that he would consider it. Then, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, earlier on, he decided about a minute later that he would not consider it. I hope that the noble Lord will consider it. Over the years, a great effort has been made to get the structure of farms right. They have grown bigger and bigger. One of the reasons why this was done was that the Government have helped the restructuring by giving what might be described as " golden bowlers to encourage farmers to retire from unviable units.
The Government have a scheme called the Grants to Outgoers Scheme. This enables grants to be paid in order for units to be amalgamated. This is all to the good and it has enabled units to become bigger. The grants are given for " uncommercial units ". The word " uncommercial " is used rather than
998
" unviable ". An uncommercial unit is one which, by definition, requires 100 to 600 man days per year. A 600 man day unit could provide work for two people, but that is regarded as uncommercial. My Amendment would refer only to those holdings which were so small they could not provide full-time employment, not for two but just for one person. If a holding is that small, that uncommercial and that unviable, I suggest to the noble Lord that it is absurd to allow the tenant's son, daughter, brother and sister, all to make a claim that they should be allowed, on the death of the tenant, to succeed to this unviable, uncommercial, uneconomic unit. I beg to move.
The Duke of ATHOLL: I believe that there is something like this in the Scottish provisions in the 1968 Act. However, the real reason I am speaking is that normally when these very small units are amalgamated—and I believe that the noble Earl's Amendment might have been better if it had mentioned that they should be amalgamated with a neighbouring unit—nearly always the family living in the house on these very small units can continue to stay there because the neighbouring unit will not want to take on an extra man in order to farm the very small unit. That is the point of the amalgamation scheme. In passing, I should like to say that the amalgamation scheme has, on the whole, worked extremely well and has enabled quite a lot of rationalisation of small farms to take place. I should have thought that the Amendment was not quite right as it stands but that the principle was well worth considering.
Lord HENLEY: Would it not be true to say that in any case there is no eligibility, for no close relation of the tenant could have been deriving any livelihood from the farm if it employs fewer than one full-time worker?
Lord MELCHETT: I apologise to the noble Lord. I was receiving a piece of information and I did not catch the last part of what he said.
Lord HENLEY: My point is that, if the holding is as small as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, indicates, there can be no person eligible to claim the tenancy on the death of the tenant because he could not have been deriving his livelihood from the holding.
Lord MELCHETT: I do not believe that the noble Lord is right and I shall try to explain why. I do not believe that it would be right to exclude part-time holdings from this scheme. There are about 28,500 holdings, wholly or partly rented holdings, in England and about 6,500 in Wales which would immediately be excluded if the Amendment were accepted—in other words, we are talking about a very large number of holdings. There are many full-time units which are of mixed tenure or which are rented from more than one landlord and which would also be affected, because each rented part on its own would have to meet the criterion. That answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
It would be quite possible for someone to be eligible because he derived his income from a large collection of parcels of land rented from different landlords; each one on its own might not reach the criteria which the noble Earl has suggested should be put into the Bill, but collectively they would do so and would enable the tenant's successor to succeed. As I understand it, the Amendment would make that impossible.
Even on a small farm the tenant's family—very often his son—may be closely involved in working the holding and may be hopeful of succeeding to the tenancy eventually. There will be hardship when the tenant dies, just as there would be on a larger farm. I agree that ideally really small farms should be amalgamated with other land to form a larger unit. There is no difference between us on that point. The landlord can apply for consent for the notice to quit on that ground under the existing law. However, amalgamation is not always possible; the landlord may have no other land with which to amalgamate the holding. Inevitably, therefore, many of these farms will remain as separate units and I believe that it is only fair that the family succession scheme should apply to them as well.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I have two questions for the noble Lord: first, has the noble Lord any idea of the average size of these holdings? Secondly, some figures have recently been brought to my notice—and I am open to correction on the exact numbers—suggesting that the number of cattle in the average dairy unit in this country has risen, because of the amalga-
1000
mation schemes and various other factors, from 32 to 60 or 65. This is something which we must do to keep in advance of Europe and to keep our agricultural production as efficient as it is. This contrasts with the average size of Italian dairy units —and admittedly, I am taking the immediate opposite as an example—of between five and seven cows. What is the average size of these units, how will this affect dairying and what sort of general farming are they actually doing?
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, one question following from that of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I believe that the ALT will probably rule against the applicant taking the holding in most cases. If so, surely it is unfair to build up false hopes in a tenant. Therefore, I feel that the Amendment should be looked at very carefully and accepted.
Lord MELCHETT: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell me on what grounds he feels that the ALT will normally rule against the applicant in this type of situation?
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I believe that it will find that the holding is totally uneconomic and should in most cases be amalgamated, and that it will therefore probably rule against. Then the tenant will have been led up the garden path from an early age. That is what worries me. I feel that it would be better for him to be told that he will not get the tenancy.
Lord MELCHETT: I think that I dealt with that point in my earlier remarks, when I said that the landlord could already go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal and ask for the holding to be amalgamated with other land. That is already the position and that is what will happen. The noble Lord will agree with me that there may well be cases where this simply is not possible for a number of reasons. I mentioned the case where the landlord may simply not have any other land with which to amalgamate the holding. I do not think that the noble Lord has taken the point, nor has the noble Earl, so far as I was aware, that there may be a tenant with several small parcels of land which form a perfectly viable unit and this Amendment would

1001
have the practical effect of breaking up that viable unit because each individual landlord would be able to get that small parcel of land back from the tenant.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked me about the size of the holdings. I mentioned that there were 28,500 in England and 6,500 in Wales. I do not know the answer in the precise terms of the questions he asked in relation to the average size, but the figures I gave apply to holdings below 270 standard man days. I am well aware of the statistics, although I do not have the precise figures in front of me, and the difference between the average size of a dairy herd in this country and some other countries in Europe. As I said in my previous remarks, there is nothing between us on that point. We are all agreed that where amalgamations are possible, and may be economic in the agricultural sense, they should be allowed to go ahead and the existing law provides for that.
Lord CARRINGTON: All of us who are interested in farming know that there are a large number of holdings in this country which are uneconomic and ought to be amalgamated, and that has been the purpose of successive Governments. There fore there is nothing between the two Parties on the question of amalgamation. Nevertheless, it is true as the noble Lord opposite says, that the Amendment as drafted would apply to certain farms which it would be impossible to amalgamate, and I accept that. However, would the noble Lord be prepared to accept the Amendment if at a later stage it read:
" if the holding is incapable, when farmed under reasonably skilled management, of providing full-time employment for at least one man, and it is the intention to amalgamate it."
Lord MELCHETT: I do not see at first blush what that would achieve, and the noble Lord will appreciate that I should want to think about it if such an Amendment were tabled. But, as I say, the existing law and the Agricultural Land Tribunal at the moment are able to consider the landlord's application for repossession when the notice to quit has been given on the grounds that the landlord wishes to amalgamate the holding with another on economic and farming grounds. So I am not sure what the noble Lord thinks such a change would actually achieve—
Lord CARRINGTON: Those of us on this side of the Committee who, in rather an old-fashioned way, believe that ownership enables one to have some rights think that the boot ought to be on the other foot. At any rate it would be shown that the landlord intended to amalgamate the holding, and meant to do so and consequently was acting in the best interests of agriculture. Therefore the tenant should not have an hereditary right to continue farming an uneconomical holding.
Lord MELCHETT: It is not a question of anybody booting anybody anywhere. As I say, the existing law allows a landlord to take the initiative, give a notice to quit, and to say that he wants to get the tenant out on the grounds that the holding should be amalgamated.
The Duke of ATHOLL: If the noble Lord will look at the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 I am fairly sure that he will find that there are clauses which apply to Scotland.
Lord MELCHETT: I am glad that the noble Duke reminded me of that question I which I omitted to answer. My understanding is that there is not a similar exclusion in the Scottish provisions.
Lord MONK BRETTON: Does the noble Lord agree, in relation to these small farms or smallholdings, that although the degree of hardship is probably not very great for these tenants if they give up, or have to give up—but there is hardship—it will be decided by the Agricultural Land Tribunal on the basis of greater hardship? I should have thought that the Agricultural Land Tribunal would very often have to allow this situation to continue on the score of greater hardship and that we would get bogged down with this situation. This question should be looked at more fully than it probably has been in this short time. This is probably one of the difficulties of this being a miscellaneous provisions Bill and the matter not perhaps being studied as far as it should be. I should have thought that there was a great danger of greater hardship bogging down this issue.
Earl FERRERS: I found the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, slightly extraordinary when he said that the

1003
landlord has a right because he can give the tenant the notice to quit and then he can take the matter to an Agricultural Land Tribunal. But that is not the best way to encourage landlord-tenant relationships. if in fact he can take a tenant to an ALT, with a notice to quit, is it really desirable to put upon the tenant, first, the right to claim the tenancy, only to find that he has to go to an Agricultural Land Tribunal? 1 should have thought that it was not desirable. I take the point that there may be various smallholdings which are impossible to amalgamate. If one accepts the philosophy of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, it might be reasonable for the son of the person in question to accept the tenancy. Perhaps the noble Lord can think about this matter before the next stage of the Bill, and if an Amendment were put in to allow the hereditary tenancy not to be permitted if, as my noble friend Lord Carrington said, the land was to be used for amalgamation, I should have thought that that would possibly meet the doubt which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has.
I did not quite understand the noble Lord's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when he said that if the holding was so small as to he uneconomical for one person, how could the son possibly have derived the bulk of his livelihood from it.
Lord MELCHETT: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for giving way because it enables me to expound on my explanation. I was suggesting that the person might be farming a series of- say. three or four—small parcels of land, each of which on its own would be uneconomic in the terms of the Amendment of the noble Earl or possibly in terms of any other criteria, but farmed together they form a viable unit, although each parcel would belong to a different landlord. As I understand it, and according to my advice, each would be able to claim his own piece back under the Amendment of the noble Earl.
Earl FERRERS: I am still not absolutely clear about this because under the Bill as it is, the person involved has to derive the principal source of his livelihood through a continuous period of not less than five years,
" on an agricultural unit of which the holding forms part;".
1004
In other words, an agricultural unit can be a number of smaller units. But under paragraph (c)he can be disqualified because this paragraph says that he cannot be eligible if
" he is not the occupier of a commercial unit of agricultural land within the meaning of Part II …".
To take the example of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, let us suppose that the man we are considering is farming five small units. The noble Lord says that together these five small units will afford a commercial unit. One small unit then comes up. It could be argued that if the man continued to farm the other four units that would be a commercial unit and would debar him under paragraph (c).
Lord MELCHETT: I suppose that is just possible, but it might be a good argument that where the Agricultural Land Tribunal, under Clause 20, could look at all the circumstances of the case and take matters into account, it would decide that the person should still be an eligible applicant. That is one of the arguments for having some discretion allowed to the ALT under that clause which we shall debate later. I suggest that the noble Earl has slightly misrepresented the example I gave. I was trying to say that the five units altogether were a viable unit. I was not suggesting that four of them would be viable. I was saying that only when they are all taken together would they be viable. I accept that there is a problem in the example the noble Earl has given. If Clause 20 does not cover this point perhaps the noble Earl will consider putting down an Amendment to extend the scheme yet again.
Earl FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord: clearly there is a grey area here and I should like to consider what should be done before the Report stage. It seems to me wrong on principle to permit an hereditary tenancy to continue on a unit that fundamentally is unviable, when at the same time the Government have provided grants to encourage people to join unviable and uncommercial units together. However, I will not press the Amendment but will consider the position before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Before the noble Earl withdraws his Amendment.

1005
may I ask one question of the noble Lord. Lord Melchett? I should think L have probably got it muddled, but am I to understand that the son of a tenant of a smallholding can go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal to get a statutory tenancy from him against the wishes of the landlord, and that the landlord can then go to the same Agricultural Land Tribunal and give him notice to quit on the grounds of amalgamation? Because if that is the case—and I. am quite prepared to admit that I have not understood it—then that is an even bigger muddle than some of the other things we have been talking about.
Lord MELCHETT: I am not quite sure whether 1 am in order as the noble Earl has in fact withdrawn his Amendment, but the answer to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is, I think, that at the first stage the noble Earl mentioned, when the tenant went to the ALT to invoke the succession of tenancies provisions under the Bill, the landlord, of course, has under the provisions of the Bill two opportunities to object. First, he can object to the eligibility of the tenant, and then at the next stage to the suitability. On the second stage he would be able to advance the claims currently allowed to a landlord to enforce a notice to quit, and the grounds of good estate management would be that he wanted to amalgamate the holdings. So it would be under the provisions of the Bill that the arguments about amalgamation would be heard, and there would not, as I understand it, be a need for a second reference to the ALT at all.
The Duke of ATHOLL: May I save the noble Lord time by saying that I have been able to check on the Scottish Act? The provisions for amalgamating small farms so that there is no succession appear in Section 18(2)(b), which is on page 807 of Volume I of the 1968 Statutes at Large.
Earl FERRERS: As I have evidently only partially withdrawn my Amendment, perhaps I could pull it a little further and withdraw it altogether.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.53 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 12A:
Page 24, line 15, at end insert—
"(j) if the landlord does not intend to let the holding on the termination of the tenancy of the deceased and so notifies the Tribunal within the relevant period."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 12A, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 13A, 14A and 14B. I argued on Second Reading that if there were cases of hardship on the death of a tenant then, in order to alleviate hardship, and where possible to maintain the independence of our farming families, legislation might be desirable to provide for succession by a son, but I felt that the legislation should apply only where the landlord intended to relet anyway. To force a landlord to relet, even thought he might wish to take a farm in hand for any number of reasons, would endanger the system and would, in the long run, cause greater hardship to farmers and bad food production.
These Amendments are designed to ensure that the family inheritance provisions apply only where the landlord lets the land again on the death of a tenant. It is only fair that where the landlord is not reletting the land he should be allowed to retain the freedom to do what he wishes to do with it, on the principle enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that where there is ownership presumably, even now, some kind of rights should go with it. The Amendments would exclude the inheritance provisions where the landlord notifies the Tribunal that he does not intend to relet the holding, and where this is done the Clause 18 Amendments allow the notice to quit under Section 24(2)(g) of the 1948 Act on the death of a tenant to take effect. To ensure that the landlord keeps to his notified intention, the last Amendment imposes a penalty if the land is let within three years. The penalty is the same as that provided in Section 29 of the 1948 Act—an amount not exceeding two years' rental holding at the rate at which the rent was payable immediately before the termination of the tenancy. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: With the leave of your Lordships. may I be slightly out of

1007
order for a moment and respond to the noble Duke's remark about the legislation in Scotland? He is, of course, quite right, and I inadvertently ran together two things in saying that Scottish legislation did not apply. What I should have said, of course, is that part-time holdings are not excluded from the Scottish legislation; but, as the noble Duke quite rightly pointed out, amalgamation of part-time holdings is permitted. I apologise to your Lordships for getting it wrong on the previous occasion.
The Duke of ATHOLL: I should like to thank the noble Lord very much.
Lord MELCHETT: On that friendly basis, perhaps I can proceed to deal with the Amendment, which I am afraid to say would completely undermine the family succession scheme in the Bill. It would leave the decision whether or not to relet his farm or take it in hand entirely to the landlord, and bring the Agricultural Land Tribunal into the picture only for the selection of a new tenant when the landlord does decide to relet. In other words, there would be no change in the present situation as regards whether or not a holding is to be relet, but whereas at the present time the landlord has to select his own new tenant if it is to be relet, in future the Tribunal would do it for him—presumably on an agency basis.
The Government have decided, and another place has already agreed, that an eligible close relative can apply for the vacant tenancy and that the Tribunal will decide, first, whether he or she is suitable to be a tenant of the holding, and, then, whether or not to issue a direction to that effect. It is at that stage that the landlord can put forward his or her case for taking the land in hand, and it will be for the Tribunal to make the decision. If they should decide to make a direction, Clause 22(1) will make it clear that the tenancy so granted will be deemed to be granted by the landlord, whether or not a willing party. I hope that with that further explanation of the scheme and the fact that it would, in my view, completely undermine the scheme as provided in the Bill—and, indeed, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said on several occasions, that is not the intention of the Amendments moved by noble Lords opposite—that
1008
the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, will see fit to withdraw this Amendment.
Lord GISBOROUGH: Of course, this is one of the most important suggestions and would, to my mind, make the whole Bill largely acceptable. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has in the past said that good landlords are already letting to sons, and have been doing it for many generations, probably, and that this Bill does no more than maintain the status quo with regard to what the good landlord has done in the past. If he wishes to carry that further, he must accept the status quo in cases where the landlord has been able to take land in hand himself where necessary. It is a fact that there are cases—and I myself happen to be one of those cases—where, in the past, many landlords, instead of taking land in hand, have let it because they felt that the tenant would farm for perhaps 30 years, or whatever, by which time one son would likely be of the sort of age when he might want the tenancy himself, and that would roughly marry up in ages. Those landlords who have taken in hand all the land that came in hand over the last twenty-five years have enormously benefited over those landlords who have been, one could say, more generous to their tenants and who are now going to have to suffer for it. They are going to have to suffer for not having taken the land in hand, and they will never now be able to provide a farm for their sons.
It is a matter of interest also that if in fact they sell their tenanted land to buy a farm for their sons, for every 100 acres they sell, after paying capital gain on the increased value since 1965 and after paying the extra cost of buying a vacant farm as against selling a tenanted farm, they will be able to buy only 66 acres for their sons. So, as it is at the moment, it is extremely unfair on the landlord. I think this important suggestion would be absolutely right, and 1 think it should be pressed.
Lord MIDDLETON: I quite accept that this Amendment, if it were carried, would completely wreck the family succession scheme in the Bill. For that reason, bearing in mind what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said at the very beginning of the Second Reading debate

1009
and on the first day of the Committee stage, I think it should not be pressed. On the other hand, this is a perfectly valid point, and it is a point that should have been discussed with the various interests had there been proper consultation before these measures were put into this Bill at a very late stage in another place. Had there been adequate consultation this kind of point would have been considered. There was none. As a result, we have this hurried and piecemeal piece of legislation which is giving rise to a great deal of doubt and uncertainty. I think it is a very great pity that it was put in at this stage. It should have been done after proper consultation with this kind of point having been considered.
Earl FERRERS: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I think he is right in not pressing the Amendment because (as he said) we said that we would try not to wreck this Bill but to put constructive Amendments. I had hoped we would get a constructive attitude from the Government, but we seem to he coming up against a stone wall. I hope the noble Lord within the ambits of his brief, or even by extending them a little, realise that some Amendments are put down to make the thing workable and I think that he might go some way towards accepting some of them. if my noble friend is prepared to withdraw this Amendment, I will agree with him.
Lord MIDDLETON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.1 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 24, line 35, leave out from first (" Act ") to first (" a ") in line 36.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 13 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. Amendment 13 is consequential upon Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. We are now dealing again with the question of the amalgamation of farm holdings, a matter to which, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers has said, successive Governments have attached considerable importance. Grants, as he said, and financial help have been given to encourage the creation of more productive farm units by this means. The
1010
opportunity to do this usually occurs at the end of a tenancy when, as the law now is, the landlord will merely not re-let and the farm will be amalgamated with another holding. Alternatively, he may, but seldom does, give notice to a tenant to quit—and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred to this. He may give notice to a tenant to quit and this may be upheld by the tribunal on the ground that amalgamation of that holding is desirable in the interests of good estate management.
Under the Bill, there may be an eligible successor to that farm; so that Clause 21 provides that the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 shall be amended so that a new paragraph (f) is inserted in Section 25 of the 1948 Act. This would provide that a Tribunal would give consent for a contestable notice to quit by the landlord to he effective where the land does not amount to a commercial unit and the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy for the purpose of the lands being amalgamated with other land to form such a commerical unit. It is not very easy to interpret that, but I understand that, in effect, this means the joining together of two unviable holdings. This is far too restrictive and might seriously prejudice progress towards better farm structure. It is often desirable to join an unviable holding with a viable one and it might be desirable, on economic grounds, to amalgamate two holdings even though each is a commercial unit within the meaning of Part II of the 1967 Agricultural Act.
What these Amendments do is to restore the position where, as now, the question of notice for the purpose of amalgamation is covered by Section 25(1)(b) of the 1948 Act as amended by the 1958 Act that the carrying out thereof: i.e. the purpose for which the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy is desirable in the interests of sound management of the estate of which the land to which the notice relates forms part or which that land constitutes. It is true that the new paragraph (f) starts with the words:
"without prejudice to paragraph (b)".
The danger is that the new paragraph (f) will confuse what is at present clear. It would not be in the interests of food production if Tribunals are to be led to think that this new subsection which deals

1011
with the amalgamation of non-commercial units is to provide for the only kind of amalgamation that they can permit. beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, thinks that I have been behaving like a brick wall. I am always ready to discard any briefing that I may have had before coming here and to listen to the arguments. I have done my best to do that; but where Amendments have been pressed to a Division and have already been considered in another place, it is asking a little much to expect me to change my mind about them. However, as if by magic after the intervention of the noble Earl, I am glad to start off by saying I should be happy to accept this Amendment and the two consequential Amendments, Nos. 22 and 23. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is not in the Chamber to see noble Lords opposite putting forward Amendments which would leave these particular grounds for amalgamating holdings under existing legislation as they are. It seems to me to be a firm demonstration that noble Lords opposite are happy with the existing provisions that allow amalgamations and do not want them changed in the way that the provisions in this Bill which this Amendment would delete were proposing.
It might be helpful to say a word or two about the wording in the Bill before supporting Lord Middleton's Amendment. The purpose of subsection (3) was intended by the Government to provide a balancing provision for the landlord, by enabling him to put forward a specific proposal to the Agricultural Land Tribunal that because the holding is below commercial size, the landlord intends to amalgamate it with other land within two years of the end of the deceased's tenancy to form a commercial holding. We thought that this would be a more positive and powerful ground than the one in current use; I refer, of course, to Section 25(1)(b) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 under which, as I have pointed out, a landlord can serve a notice to quit in the interests of sound estate management, one purpose of which would be the reorganisation of the holdings.
1012
I understand that after careful consideration the landlord's representatives believed that the purpose of this provision is likely to be misunderstood, as Lord Middleton said, and could prove counterproductive as a result. I understand that their initial welcome for the provision has now become opposition to it. My advisers have discussed the matter in considerable details with the landlord's representatives, principally the CLA1 do not know whether the Young Farmers' Clubs are involved in this—and their view is now that the provision should be removed from the Bill. I do not wholly accept the CLA arguments but I agree that if there is a possibility of confusion arising as to the purpose of paragraph (f) then the paragraph could have the opposite effect from that intended; in which case it is best removed. I am happy to support Lord Middleton's Amendment.
Earl FERRERS: I am happy to think that the honeyed words I used made the noble Lord change his tactics. I appreciate it and I shall not weary him by saying the same things as before. Perhaps if he will be kind enough to assume them to have been said, he will be equally agreeable over the next Amendment.
Lord MIDDLETON: I do not think even Lord Melchett's stamina is being sapped. This is a sign that he is really being reasonable about this, and I am grateful to him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Restriction on operation of notice to quit given by reason of death of tenant.]:
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 25, line 16, at end insert—
(" or,
(c) it is determined by the Tribunal that no hardship sufficient to justify the making of a direction under section 19(5) or (6) of this Act would be suffered by any applicant determined by the Tribunal to be a suitable person to become the tenant of the holding if the notice to quit were to have effect.")
The noble Lord said: In rising to move this Amendment. I should like to speak at

1013
the same time to Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 so that we have three even-numbered Amendments together. I hope that I shall not he striking a churlish note if I say that Clause 18 does not meet with our approval at all. The clause relates to the restriction on the operation of notices to quit given by reason of the death of the tenant. One of the first comments I would make regarding Clause 18 is the use of the double negative. I refer here to the views of Sir Ernest Gowers on the subject in his eminently readable work, Plain Words. If the Government were to refer to that hook they may perhaps take a leaf out of it and consider briefly whether it might not be possible for them in this and other Bills to refrain from using the double negative, since it creates a grey area, a haze and a doubt in the mind of the layman, and, indeed, on occasions the lawyer, when interpreting the meaning thereof.
Having referred to the double negative, 1 should like to come to the substance of the Amendment and the meaning of the clause as such. Your Lordships will be aware that I am no lawyer, and very often it is the layman's role in your Lordships' House to elucidate certain matters which, perhaps due to obscurity in legal terminology, often have to be laid bare in a way that lawyers may not always appreciate or think is suitably professional. Nevertheless, if your Lordships will accept a layman's interpretation of Clause 18, it would read as follows. These are my words:
" A notice to quit shall not have effect unless

(a) no application is made;

(b) the situation consists of several applications for the holding:

(i) but none of the applicants is a suitable person;

(ii) the Tribunal consent to the landlord's notice to quit ".

This is quite frankly difficult of interpretation. The use of terminology here is very difficult to recognise. There is a real drafting difficulty in this case, and I seek the Government's assistance in this regard.
On the Amendment, I would refer to what my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford said earlier regarding matters of opinion. Here we are dealing with a very important matter, that of hardship and/or greater hardship. It is here that there is a very large grey area with which a Land Tribunal will have to concern themselves. It is a question of whether in their opinion the greater hardship is to be
1014
encountered by the landlord in a particular set of circumstances, or the tenant or prospective tenant. It is noteworthy that in the Bill there is no definition of hardship. There are very few points at which the Bill touches upon hardship since it is not a requirement in this particular clause to investigate that point. So we have to return to the key Act. I refer of course to the 1948 Act, where hardship enters the scene, in Section 25(1)(c) and (d). Here we see the situation very carefully drafted. I quote from Section 25 (1)(c):
" … that greater hardship would he caused by the Minister's withholding than by his granting consent to the operation of the notice; or "—
Then in paragraph (d) below:
" where the tenancy was created before the said … day … and the same person … that greater hardship would he caused by the Minister's withholding than by his granting his consent to the operation of the notice; "
Two parallel situations with one variant.
In our view it would be much better if the Amendment, as drafted, were added to Clause 18 since we believe that the only reason ever given for this family inheritance legislation is that it is required to deal with cases of genuine hardship. Yet, as I have referred, the Tribunal is not required by the Bill to be satisfied on this particular score. If I may say so, once again we feel that this is an error. By Clause 19 subsections (5) and (6), once the Tribunal has determined that an applicant is eligible and suitable, they must make a direction in his favour unless the Tribunal, in its discretion, decides that consent should be given to the operation of the landlord's notice to quit upon his proving one of the grounds in Section 25 of the 1948 Act. It should be noted that the Tribunal, under Section 25 may, in its discretion, withhold the notice to quit even if the landlord proves one of the statutory grounds. We dealt in Clause 17 with the hardship occasioned to relatives.
The Tribunal's job under this legislation should not be to seek a suitable person to form the holding but to investigate whether there is a case of real hardship on the part of an eligible and suitable applicant. This Amendment would provide that the notice to quit served on the death of the tenant would take effect where the Tribunal decides that no sufficient hardship was suffered by any applicant to justify a direction in his or her favour. It may be

1015
argued that the landlord will bring hardship into issue by pleading greater hardship as a ground under Section 25 to which I have already referred. This may be so, but it misses the point for two reasons. First, the Tribunal may decide that neither the landlord nor the applicant has proved hardship. In such a case the applicant should not be given the holding. He may, for example, have sold the farm he occupied, in which case there will be no justification for the Tribunal handing him the holding on a plate, however suitable he was to farm it. Secondly, under Section 25 the Tribunal in its discretion may withhold consent to the notice to quit even if the landlord proves greater hardship. Hence the complexities of introducing Clause 18 into the legislation as it stands. I think your Lordships will agree it is labyrinthine. I hope the Government's draftsmen will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the Amendment which we propose is helpful. I beg to move.
7.18 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, spoke to Amendment Nos. 16 and 18 with Amendment No. 14. I hope he will understand if I address my remarks also to Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 which seem to me to cover exactly the same point. I must confess that I was expecting him to move those Amendments also as there does not seem to be any distinction. No doubt he will enlighten me if there is when we come to them.
We have given very careful thought to the question of whether a hardship test should be written into the legislation, because we accept entirely that in the operation of the scheme there must be social justice not only for the close relatives when a tenant dies but also for the landlord and his close relatives. We have consulted the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers' Union about this. The CLA believe that it is essential to have a hardship or greater hardship provision in the legislation. The NFU, however, do not support the CLA in this and they share the Government's view that such provision is unnecessary because a hardship test is already implicit in the family succession scheme.
1016
When a tenant farmer dies, the potential elements of hardship are encompassed in the eligibility conditions of Clause 17. The applicant for the tenancy must be a near relative of the deceased tenant and must have been involved in the working of the holding; he or she must not be the occupier of a commercial holding, except in circumstances which give no security of tenure. In other words, he or she will have a strong prima facie claim to succeed to the tenancy. These factors in themselves imply there will be some hardship if the applicant is not allowed to do so. A greater hardship test is already operated by the Agricultural Land Tribunal at the present time. It is currently set out in Section 25(1)(d) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948 and is made applicable to the succession proceedings under Clause 21. I think the noble Lord quoted something from the right part of the right Act but which was unamended as regards this section; whereas I understand that Section 25(1)(d) of the Act was amended by the 1958 Act. Although 1 do not have both amended and unamended versions in front of me, I understand that the main change was that " hardship " is now only mentioned in Section 25(1)(d); so there has been some change in the position as outlined by the noble Lord.
The provisions of this section mean that after an applicant has satisfied the Tribunal as to his or her eligibility and suitability to farm the holding, his or her succession is still liable to challenge when the landlord seeks consent to the operation of the notice to quit. This is when the landlord has the opportunity to raise the point that greater hardship would be caused by the Tribunal's withholding than by giving consent. The hardship is not confined to hardship directly to the landlord himself. It can be of any nature, for example, to his son or to any near relative who may have hoped to take over the holding. The regulations will provide that the landlord's son be allowed to appear before the Tribunal—and when I say " son " it includes other near relatives—and the Tribunal will weigh the merits of his claim against those of a suitable applicant who has been adjudged to he the potential tenant. Another example would concern the case of the landlord whose financial position was unfavourable as compared with that

1017
of the prospective tenant. Here, too, the Landlord could raise the question of greater hardship. I hope I have explained to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, why, although I have sympathy with the intention behind the Amendment and, indeed, in principle, I do not think there is a great deal between us, I do not believe the Amendment to be necessary.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I should very much like to think that the views of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on life were true throughout the country: but I fear that in this rough and tough world things are not as easy as that There is no doubt that a vacant tenancy is of value to a potential applicant, and we all know cases where there have been family disputes and arguments lasting many years following the death of a relative where a will is in dispute, and where greed and human nature take over. How much more worse the position would be when a tenancy is at stake. I do not believe there is going to be good family unity among tenants. I fear there will be a lot of strife and bitterness where, for example, a tenancy of 600 acres is at stake. One has to deal with this every day and, as I said earlier, it is personal relationships that count. Here we have the instance of a tenancy, and when one goes before the Agricultural Land Tribunal, one will, if one is acting on behalf of the landlord, be trying to show the tenant in the worst possible light. This cannot augur well for good relationships between the two if, in their wisdom, the Agricultural Land Tribunal see fit to grant the tenancy. It would make the Tribunal's job considerably easier and it would make relationships between the landlord and the tenant considerably easier and more flexible if this Amendment were approved. I would, therefore, support it. It seems to me that the cornerstone of this legislation is the avoidance of hardship to tenants and I should like also to think that this would be in the best long-term interests of agriculture. It must, therefore, be right that a potential applicant should have to prove to the satisfaction of the Agricultural Land Tribunal that hardship would occur if the tenancy is not passed on to the applicant. The principle of hardship, as we have already heard, is accepted in the 1948 Act so far as applica-
1018
tions for possession and the enforcement of a notice to quit by the landlord are concerned. It is, therefore, equitable that both landlords and tenants should be treated on parallel terms. Indeed, if it was to be a prerequisite that in order to become an eligible applicant one had to prove hardship then, as I say, it would make the Agricultural Land Tribunal's job much easier and would improve relationships, already under stress, between the landlord and the potential tenant. 1, therefore, support the Amendments that have been referred to, Nos. 14, 16 and 18.
Lord SAN DYS: In speaking once again to Amendments Nos. 14, 16 and 18, first, I should inform the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that I shall not be moving Amendments Nos. 15 and 17, which are excluded by these three Amendments. Having listened to the noble Lord's reply, and recollecting what he said on Second Reading at column 17 on 24th May, I feel there may be grounds here for reconsideration. If I may remind the noble Lord of what he said in that column in respect of a holding being available to the landlord's son on equal terms with the tenant, I will quote his words:
" We propose to make it clear that any claim by the landlord's son to the vacant holding as part of the landlord's notice to quit is to he given an equally fair hearing."
That gave us grounds for feeling that perhaps there was some opportunity for moving these Amendments and I was glad to listen to the noble Lord's reply. Coupled with what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has said in reminding us of his professional view in this regard, I believe it might be in the interests or further discussion if I were to withdraw Amendment No. 14 at this point.
Lord MELCHETT: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, perhaps I might echo a chord in what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, have said, by repeating something which I think my honourable friend, the Minister, said in another place. As I have already said, I do not think there is anything between us in principle here. Certainly, if the noble Lord would consider this and get the agreement of the CLA and the NFU to an Amendment, when he comes back on Report I am sure the

1019
Government would consider it very carefully. But I would emphasise that our aim here, as the noble Earl has said, and which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is to proceed by getting agreement and establishing good relationships. I would stress the importance I would attach to having the agreement of the CLA and the NFU jointly to some proposed Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: I cannot precommit myself to that in reserving my position on this Amendment, but we shall bear in mind what the noble Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 14.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Application for tenancy of the holding]:
7.30 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 27, line 9, at end insert—
" (14) Provision shall he made by order under section 73(3) of the Agriculture Act 1947 (procedure of Agricultural Land Tribunals) for requiring any person making an application to such a tribunal under this or the following section to give notice of the application to the landlord of the agricultural holding to which the application relates and to take such steps as the order may require for bringing the application to the notice of other persons interested in the outcome of the application."
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 19, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I should like to ask one question of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. When both the landlord and the tenant go before the Agricultural Land Tribunal, can they cross-examine each other on eligibility and suitability? In particular, can they employ counsel to cross-examine each other?
Lord MELCHETT: The answer to both of the questions of the noble Lord,
1020
Lord Stanley, is certainly, Yes. They will be able to employ counsel if they so wish. and if the noble Lord will refer to Hansard he will see that I responded earlier to a question about costs. But they would be able to employ counsel if they wished and either party would be open to cross-examination, which is normal in proceedings before a tribunal of this kind.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Application by not filly eligible person to he treated as eligible]:
7.31 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 27, line 18, leave out (" some ") and insert (" a major ").
The noble Earl said: We now come to Clause 20, which was added at the Report stage in another place. Clause 17(3) states quite clearly who is eligible to claim a tenancy, and Clause 20 then makes eligible those which Clause 17(3) describes as not being eligible. In this respect. we are getting miles away from the original intention of the Bill, which was to prevent hardship to close relatives or tenants who had worked for years on a farm and then faced loss of livelihood when the tenant died.
One of the criteria for ascertaining whether someone is eligible is in Paragraph (b) of Clause 17(3), which states that for at least five out of seven years before a tenant's death a holding should have been the only or principal source of livelihood of the applicant. I am bound to say that I question what " livelihood " means, but I assume that the effect of that provision is, first, that the applicant must have worked and lived on that farm. But perhaps it does not mean that he must have lived on that farm. Perhaps it means that he must have lived away from the farm but worked on it, and, consequently, that his only or principal source of income came from the farm.
But Clause 20 waters this down and says that if a person has not satisfied those criteria, he is still eligible if he satisfies some of them. What is " some "? If a person has been on a farm for not five years but three years he will have satisfied the criteria to some extent, as will a person who has been on a farm

1021
for two years or one year. It is the same with one's livelihood. Presumably, if 80 per cent. of one's income comes from a farm, one will have satisfied the criteria to some extent. If one has received only £100 from a farm, one will still have satisfied the criteria to some extent. I do not believe that that is what the Government want, nor do I believe it is what the Bill should state. and this simple Amendment tries to make the position a little easier to understand.
What I have suggested here is that instead of the word " some " we insert the words " a major ", so that a person would have to satisfy the criteria to a major extent. It may be asked: what does " major " mean? Presumably, " major " means more than minor so it must mean more than 50 per cent. I assume that the Government are trying to cover people who have done only four and a half years. If this Amendment were accepted. the scope of the Bill would be infinitely wider than the Government originally intended, but it would make the position clear. Even if it were accepted. a person who had done only two and a half years on a farm could still claim to be an applicant, and under Clause 20 the Agricultural Land Tribunal would be bound to say, " Yes. this man has done his time." I do not know how applicants who had gone off to do a course at a university would fit in. If they have to do only five years out of seven and they do two and a half years at a university, are they still eligible? This is a very great deal wider than the Government intended, and this Amendment would make the Bill a little tighter. I beg to move.
Lord MIDDLETON: With his great charm and courtesy, my noble friend Lord Ferrers has been very kind to this clause. I think it is a terrible clause. It is an Agricultural Land Tribunal's nightmare. It is clearly laid down in Clause 17(3)(b) who they can and cannot accept as eligible. The period for which they must have worked on the farm, and the question of their livelihood, are also very clearly set out in that paragraph, and, presumably, the Tribunal would not have great difficulty in determining whether or not somebody was eligible. Then they have to turn to Clause 20(1)(b) and determine whether the condition, which was perfectly
1022
clear beforehand, is not fully satisfied but satisfied to some extent. How are they to determine that question, and what do the words " to some extent " mean? Then they have to look at Clause 20(4). I shall not read it out, but if any noble Lords here can understand what it means I shall be very grateful to hear. I shall also be extremely glad if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will tell me what it means, because I have been reading it for the last fortnight and it seems to me to be complete gobbledegook.
Then the Agricultural Land Tribunal are faced with subsection (6) which states:
"… cases where the condition mentioned in subsection (1)(b) "—
which one would have thought was fairly clear—
"… might be less than fully satisfied include cases W here the survivor's agricultural work on the holding fell short of providing him with his principal source of livelihood because the holding was too small."
As several noble Lords have said, this legislation is all about hardship. but if the principal source of livelihood was not forthcoming because the livelihood was too small, what hardship was there? As my noble friend Lord Ferrers has said, this clause was put in at a very late stage. This is legislation by dithering.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I believe that this clause could be classed as the " How long is a piece of string?" clause, in that it is the word " some " to which we on this side take objection, as has very clearly been said by both the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. This reminds me of the death duty legislation, and we go back to the days of the five-year gift rule—is it possible for the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to pay attention?—when, if you were given a sum of money by your father, your grandfather or your great aunt, they had to live for five years and it was rightly deemed grossly unfair if they dropped down dead on the 364th day of the fourth year. Consequently, there was a scale introduced into the Finance Acts which clarified the position and, I believe, satisfied most people.
But this has gone much too far and the clause must be tightened up. Otherwise, if a sister has gone to pick apples on her brother's tenanted farm in Kent during her summer holidays, and has spent three

1023
years on a cookery course, has done a fortnight's apple picking and has been paid 7s. 6d., or some similar sum for it, then " some " in Clause 20 applies. I fully realise that that is reductio ad absurdum, but it does not necessarily mean that if, sometimes, things are unclearly enacted the law may have to take cognisance of the reductio ad absurdum argument and give effect to the provisions. I beg the Government, please, to think again and to try to make it slightly more logical and not require the Agricultural Land Tribunal to ask: " How long is a piece of string?
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to support this Amendment. When I first read the Bill I noted the words describing the clause:
"Application by not fully eligible person to he treated as eligible".
They seem to me to be a contradiction in terms. How can you legislate for that? It is absolutely impossible. If this clause is passed, I cannot imagine anything more difficult for a member of a Tribunal than trying to be fair and to administer Clause 20 of this Bill which is headed with these totally idiotic words. Furthermore, when it uses very indefinite words like " some—and there are others in the clause—one is putting a perfectly impossible task before the Tribunal. If it is worth anything, legislation must be simple, clear and state what it means. If you do not fulfil the requirements which that legislation describes, you are not then able to reap the benefits of that legislation. That is simple. To frame the clause like this means that you are imposing upon the Tribunal an impossible burden. Let us suppose that a Tribunal is adjudicating in a dispute or quarrel between people who believe that they are entitled to inherit a certain property or tenancy. There will be many legal battles because there will be disputes regarding whether or not the interpretation of these vague phrases is correct. Also, a great deal of legal trouble will arise from this Bill. I beg the noble Lord to take back this clause and say to his advisers, " Put this in simple language that we can understand and let us have something which is capable of being adjudicated upon ". This is not capable of being adjudicated upon.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: Through the courtesy of the Lord Chan-
1024
cellor's Office, recently I have been reappointed to the Agricultural Land Tribunal in my part of the country. So far as this Bill is concerned, all I would say is that it encourages one to send in one's resignation. So far as this clause is concerned, may I implore the noble Lord to accept this Amendment in order to make our job a little easier.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I was sorry to hear those words from the noble Lord. I hope that we do not receive any resignations from Agricultural Land Tribunals. The job is complicated enough without people wanting to hand in their resignations. I have already stated my views on eligible applicants. Therefore, I shall simply add my support for this Amendment, which w ill limit the scope that little bit which will he necessary. In most instances the matter of selection of the tenant has already been taken out of the hands of those who know best the holding—that is, the landlord or his agent—and put into the hands of an Agricultural Land Tribunal. This clause complicates their work to an unwarranted degree. As it stands, the clause is not, in my opinion, beneficial for the future of the agricultural industry.
Lord MELCHETT: First, the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, asked me for an explanation of subsection (4) of Clause 20. I shall try to give him one, although I do not promise that the explanation is any simpler than the subsection itself. However, after I have read it out he may care to study my reply in Hansard and come back to me if he is no clearer about it.
This subsection ensures that a person who is the subject of a determination under subsection (3) is not to be treated as having satisfied the principal source of livelihood test to a greater extent than is in fact the case. For example, it will prevent an applicant who has worked on the holding for only two years out of the last seven from claiming that because of a determination by the Tribunal, given under subsection (3), he is to be regarded as having worked there for at least five years. I do not know whether I have the noble Lord with me up to this point.
Lord MIDDLETON: You have not got me!
Lord MELCHETT: I stand to be corrected if I elaborate on the explanation. It seems to me that what we are getting at is that if the Tribunal use their discretion under Clause 20 to say that notwithstanding the fact that somebody has worked on the holding for only two out of the five years instead of for five years, he will he considered eligible. The Tribunal use their discretion to make that person eligible, hut that does not mean that the person has worked there for five years rather than for two. In other words, the fact that the Tribunal have used their discretion to make them eligible does not re-write history and mean that they have done something which they have not. I see that the noble Earl is very kindly nodding to me, which is giving me a great deal of encouragement!
Earl FERRERS: The noble Lord does much better when he leaves behind his brief. We can understand him then.
Lord MELCHETT: I am not so sure that I am getting it right, though. However, having got that far, the relevance of this clause is to an application for suitability under Clause 19(8). In other words, it will be a great advantage to somebody to say, " Although in truth I have worked on the land only for two years out of five, the Tribunal have said that I am eligible. Therefore it must be seen as though I have worked on the land for five years. Therefore, I am suitable under Clause 19(8), or more suitable than I would otherwise be if you looked at the practicalities rather than at what the Tribunal had found ". As I say, I leave the noble Lord to think about it, and if the explanation is still not clear no doubt he will come hack to me upon it.
Turning to Amendment No. 20 itself, during the detailed consideration of Clause 17 in another place two particular criticisms were directed against subsection (3)(b) of the clause. These were that because of its inflexibility, the succession provisions would not apply where holdings were too small to provide the principal livelihood for two people or where the son had been unable fully to meet the five year qualifying period at the time of the tenant's death. Strong pleas were made that these two requirements should be relaxed. Clause 20 was therefore introduced into the scheme to provide a certain measure of discretion in the pro-
1026
ceedings of the Agricultural Land Tribunal I when considering the eligibility of an applicant.
The remit given to the Agricultural Land Tribunal by Clause 20 is this. A person who applies to them for a determination under this clause that he or she is to be treated as an eligible person must, first, satisfy them that he or she passes two of the eligibility tests; these are that the person concerned is a close relative of the deceased, as defined in Clause 17(1), and that he or she is not already the occupier of a commercial farm, whether as a tenant or as an owner occupier. The third test of eligibility, on the other hand— the principal livelihood test which still establishes the essential link with the holding—while still being satisfied has only to be satisfied to some extent. It is left to the good sense of the Tribunal what that means. In other words, the relaxations in Clause 20 do not apply to two out of three of the eligibility tests—the close relative test and the other test—but they do apply to whether the person has satisfied the principal source of' livelihood test.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, as a member of an ALT has asked what on earth the Agricultural Land Tribunal is going to make of this: what does " to some extent " mean? For example, it means that to be an eligible person, an applicant, instead of having worked full time on the holding for five years out of the last seven, can have worked either, first, full-time for less than five years; or, secondly, part-time for the full five years; or, thirdly, part-time for less than five years. There are three possible derogations, as it were, from the full eligibility test.
I suggest that if an applicant meets either of the first two of these categories; that is, full-time for less than five years, or part-time for the full five years, it could be an unreasonable act for the tribunal not to make a determination in the applicant's favour. In other words, if he missed the five-year period by a short time or possibly if the applicant had been working part-time for five years on the holding, hut only working part-time. I have in mind as an example a small farm where there is not enough income to support two people fully but the son of the tenant does a great deal of work in

1027
the evenings and at weekends—quite possibly more work than some full-time agricultural workers. I think on both sides of the House we accept that there are tenant farmers and their families who in these circumstances will put an enormous amount of work into the holding and it is for the sort of discretion needed to cover those cases that the clause is intended.
I wish to make one other point to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. I have some experience in another capacity of having to administer the 1972 Industry Act, in which some very strict delineations were drawn up as to who should he eligible for grant and who should not be, and it seems to me that a very strict line can give rise to just as many problems for everyone concerned as something which gives a little more flexibility for the good sense of those concerned in adjudicating on these matters to have a little play. A strict limit, particularly where, as in the case of the Industry Act public money is concerned, or in this case a tenancy, can give rise to a far greater sense of grievance and injustice, and I should have said a far greater sense of frustration and injustice on the part of all the people, both those in the ALT and others who have to administer the Act (when it becomes an Act) than can the existence of some flexibility, because while it may place a greater burden in one sense, I would suggest that it removes a considerable burden from those administering these provisions.
I have dealt with two of the possible derogations, as it were, from this eligibility test—the full-time for less than five years, the part-time for the full five years, and, I said, there was a third possibility: namely, the part-time for less than five years—that is the two together. In those circumstances, I must agree that a case made under that category is weaker and in many instances may not justify the making of a determination. Therefore the question to be answered is whether the clause as now drafted makes this distinction clear, and 1 have to agree that it does not. Admittedly, the Tribunal will make a determination only if they consider that it will be fair and reasonable to allow the applicant to apply under Clause 19 for a direction entitling
1028
him or her to the tenancy, but I suspect that they will find the phrase " to some extent " too imprecise, as noble Lords opposite have suggested, and may not fully understand the intention behind it. I believe that the substitution of the words, " a major extent ", for, " to some extent ", as proposed by this Amendment would still not meet the case because, if I may say so, I think it also suffers from a certain lack of precision.
Given the arguments which I have outlined and which I think everyone will agree are fairly complicated and will require further study, I should like to suggest to noble Lords opposite that we take this away and think about it again. I, in particular, would like to have the opportunity to consult with the NFU and the CLA about this. The aim seems to me to he not so much to tighten up the requirement as to give the Tribunal a much clearer indication of how far the requirement for full-time work on the holding can be relaxed, and it is with that aim in mind that I should like to give this some further consideration before the next stage of the Bill.
Earl FERRERS: The noble Lord has come about one inch down the road. I congratulate him on that. I think I understood him to say that the only thing he would really consider was the part-time person on a part-time holding.
Lord MELCHETT: If I may correct the noble Earl, I was looking at the case of somebody who has worked part-time for less than the full five years. That was the situation.
Earl FERRERS: Somebody who has worked part-time for less than the full five years—that is the point which is giving the noble Lord concern and which he is prepared to look at. and I am delighted that he will look at it. But I am bound to say that his exposition of the whole of the answer to the Amendment only led one to realise what an absurd clause it is. He said that he could not accept " major " because it is imprecise. It is not imprecise: " Major " must mean more than 50 per cent., and if you put in " five years " why do you say that it is two and a half? If you mean two and a half, then put in two and a half. But if you are going to say, " Oh, we will have five years, but we will say that as long as that is satisfied to

1029
some extent "— well, it can he six months. It does not matter whether it is a part-time holding or a full-time holding or whether he has done five years, or what.
Lord MELCHETT: May I ask the noble Earl a question? If he is saying that " major " means more than 50 per cent., why not put in " more than 50 per cent"?
Earl FERRERS: Because I thought " major " was rather simpler. If the noble Lord would like to have the words " more than 50 per cent.", I should be delighted to put it in, or perhaps he would like to put it in at the next stage. We shall come to another Amendment later which I had hoped might possibly have gone together with this one. It is quite fatuous to produce legislation which says quite clearly that if you fulfil this, that and the other criterion, you are eligible, and then to put in another clause which says, " If you do not fulfil those criteria and are therefore ineligible, nevertheless you shall be eligible ".
When the thing is so wide as it is drafted at the moment, just to satisfy it " to some extent " really makes the interpretation of the intention of the Government completely impossible. The noble Lord has often said that it is up to the Agricultural Land Tribunal to produce considerations whether it shall be granted to a tenant or not. How are they supposed to understand subsection (4)? My noble friend Lord Middleton could not understand it. We began to understand it a little with the benefit of the noble Lord's brief, but the Agricultural Land Tribunal will not have that brief. They will have to try to interpret what is in this Act and I venture to suggest that Clause 20 is very badly drafted. I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot accept this Amendment but I will not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.59 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 27, line 32, at end insert—
" Provided that the Tribunal shall not determine that a person is to be treated as an eligible person if that person in the seven years referred to in subsection (1) above, had been engaged in agricultural work on the holding for less than five years, and for the purposes of this proviso
1030
any period spent by that person attending such a course as is mentioned in section 17(4) of this Act shall be. treated as time engaged in agricultural work on the holding, but not more than three years in all shall be so treated."
The noble Earl said: I do not suppose there is much point in moving this Amendment because it is more restrictive than Amendment No. 20. I was hoping the noble Lord would say that he would accept Amendment No. 20 which would mean that the person would have to satisfy the requirements to a major extent. In other words, they would have to have more than 50 per cent. of their livelihood derived from the farm; but that Amendment 21 would say that even so an applicant could be considered only if the qualification of having been on the farm for five years should stand. Quite clearly, as the noble Lord has not accepted the first Amendment, which would have allowed him to have to be on the farm for only two and a half years, he will not accept this Amendment which requires him to be on the farm for five years. Nevertheless, I will move the Amendment just to hear what the noble Lord has to say. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Earl is quite right in saying that I am not disposed to accept the Amendment. Indeed, it is not surprising given what I hoped was a particularly constructive attitude to Amendment No. 20 which he has just withdrawn. We shall look at this again. I accept that it is wrong to have in the clause wording which is so inprecise in its effect that the Agricultural Land Tribunal will be placed in an impossible position in trying to interpret it. But I also said—and the noble Earl did not deal with this point—and it is particularly relevant to Amendment No. 21 which would place everyone in this position—that the line that would be drawn would be so rigid that it would lead to cases which are obviously not fair; that is, the kind of case where someone has been there for four years, 364 days and 23 hours, or what-have-you. It is rigidity of that kind which this clause is designed to remove; not precisely that rigidity, or the noble Earl will say to me, " Why don't you put something in, saying 364 days? ". It is to give the Agricultural Land Tribunal a reasonable amount of discretion to look at matters

1031
on their merits rather than having to apply a rigid distinction between who is to be eligible and who is not, on this one criterion out of the three grounds for eligibility. This should be in the forefront of our minds in discussing this clause.
This is not the only ground for eligibility. There are others, as I mentioned, where this does not apply; that is, where someone is either a brother or is not a brother. Although I know noble Lords would not particularly agree with me because of an earlier Amendment. I would maintain that someone is still a treated child or not a treated child, to take possibly the most extreme example. That remains the case. It is only on the principal source of livelihood test, the third limb of eligibility, that this clause has an impact. It is on that one bit of the limbs of eligibility, in order to give the Agricultural Land Tribunal a reasonable amount of discretion, that I said we would be happy to look at the previous Amendment to see whether, with some consultation with the NFU and CLA, we might come to some agreed wording for the clause.
Lord HENLEY: 1 hope the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will not forget that the NFU have already agreed to Amendment No. 21.
The Earl of ONSLOW: What I understand the noble Lord is doing is to say that the lady who has done her cooking course and has come to pick apples for one year has now to pick apples for five years, and then she becomes eligible. That is the first point. I may be tempted to think that the noble Lord might be tempted to move a new clause at Report stage, saying that even though the tenant is not a brother, the Agricultural Land Tribunal may think he is a brother because that is the same sort of clause as Clause 20. The noble Lord said when he was speaking to the last Amendment that there would be a remit on how the Agricultural Land Tribunal would work and think along these lines. Why cannot this be put into law? Why has he not commented on the precedents of the death duty legislation which had distinct variations descending in a curve? Admittedly, perhaps it went in steps rather than in a
1032
curve, but that would have presented a precedent for the noble Lord to look at and think of.
Lord MELCHETT: I am not quite clear how it is possible to inherit part of a tenancy.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I am trying to make myself clear and obviously have not done so. I see the point of what the Government are trying to do. They are saying, " Four years, 364 days, you do not get it: four years 365 days, you get it." I think there is some force in their argument. There are the precedents of the death duty legislation which went like this: until one of the Finance Acts, if you died after 4 years, 364 days, you paid the full " whack "; if you died after 4 years 365 days—in other words, 5 years—you did not pay any at all. There were the precedents. The Finance Act was cut back and subsequently amended, so there was a descending scale of death duties. Presumably there could be a descending or ascending scale of eligibility. I am trying to make myself clear, and I think I am in a bigger muddle than I was on Clause 4.
Lord BURTON: Am I right in thinking it is the intention of the Government that the Agricultural Land Tribunal will have discretion to relax Clause 17 over borderline cases?
Lord MELCHETT: With regard to the principal source of livelihood test contained in the clause, yes.
Lord BURTON: Could it not therefore he inserted in such simple language, or something similar?
Lord MELCHETT: All of us, particularly Government Ministers dealing with Amendments on Bills, wish that Parliamentary counsel could put things in simple language. Governments of all Parties have found that this is not always possible.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: Would wording such as this suffice? The Agricultural Land Tribunal shall still have authority to grant a continuation of the tenancy if it finds that while the seven years has not been precisely complied with, the departure was trivial and unimportant.

1033
If the noble Lord is simply thinking of cases of 364 days instead of 364;', days, that would cover it.
Earl FERRERS: I think that would have been covered if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, had accepted my Amendment, hut he turned it down. I wonder whether the noble Lord would answer this question, which he did not answer before. If you have had to be on the farm for five years under Clause 17(3) in order to be able to claim the tenancy, under Clause 20 you only have to do part of that time. So, in fact, you have to do only two years of your time on the farm to qualify under Clause 20. Supposing during that two years you have been at university, but you are still eligible for the tenancy. In other words, you can be eligible for the tenancy, having been at university and never having been on the farm. Is that not right?
Lord MELCHETT: I should like to think about that, if I may, in the process of looking at the problems which I have acknowledged exist in the current wording of the clause. Whatever Clause 20 would actually empower the Agricultural Land Tribunal to do, it is quite clear that the provisions of the family succession scheme are designed to ensure that someone who has a close relationship with the holding itself is eligible to succeed. That is one of the reasons for Lord Henley's case of someone who has worked off the holding but has agricultural experience that does not count towards making them eligible; although I would think that under Clause 20, they would be able to meet the fears of the noble Lord. Lord Henley, in that direction. I should like to think about the point of the noble Lord in relation to a general view, which I have said we would like, of the precise wording as it applies to the eligibility test.
Earl FERRERS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
8.8 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: This clause is frankly an amazing clause in so far as, as we have just been discussing. it completely waters down the whole of the provisions which
1034
have been applied in Clause 17(3). The noble Lord said in relation to the last two Amendments that he would like to consider something. I am not absolutely clear what he is going to consider, because I thought he said he was going to consider my first Amendment No. 20 but, only in so far as it affected part-time holdings where people had worked for only part of the 5 years, which is a rather slender reconsideration. I did not understand him to say that he was going to reconsider the whole of Amendment No. 21 because, had he reconsidered that, it would go considerably further than Amendment No. 20. I understand what the noble Lord had in mind when he said that it is a pity to have things written into the Bill that are so rigid because then nobody can apply any discretion. But wherever you draw a line, someone will fall on the wrong side of it. If a person has done 4 years, 364 days—it is bad luck if he has not done 5 years—and if you want to get that person, then the answer should be that you ought to put in four years. If you mean that the person's principal or sole livelihood should be from that farm, you should say so. But then to go on and alter it and say, " We do not mean that at all, we mean something entirely different ", is, quite frankly, very bad legislation. I accept that Clause 20 has been put in because the right honourable gentleman was subjected to some pretty strong pressures; I understand that. But our job, surely, must be to make legislation understandable and reasonable and fair. I do not believe it makes it fair to say, " These are the criteria, one, two, three, but if you are ineligible for those do not worry, because we will make you eligible. " Nobody knows where he is. I do feel very strongly that this is a badly drafted clause. I would ask the noble Lord whether he is prepared to take the whole clause back and look at it and make sense with it, because if he does not do that, as it stands in the Bill at the moment it goes far wider than just allowing the person who has only done four years and 360 days on the farm: it is infinitely greater than that, and it really is far too wide.
Lord MELCHETT: I do not accept for a moment that the clause completely alters the eligibility tests provided under Clause 17. As I said several times on the previous two Amendments, there are three eligibility tests which the applicant

1035
for the tenancy has to pass, and we are here only dealing with the decision about eligibility before we come on to the decision as to suitability. So we are looking at the first stage in the process before the Agricultural Land Tribunal and of that first stage we are looking at one of three tests of eligibility. The candidates have to satisfy the ALT that they are a near relative as defined in the Bill and satisfy them that they are not already the occupier of a commercial farm. We then get to the third test which is the one which is giving us the trouble. I would urge on the noble Earl to get this into perspective.
Earl FERRERS: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I have got it absolutely, wholly and entirely into perspective, because I never referred to anything else other than the eligibility under that one subsection.
Lord MELCHETT: I am not saying the noble Earl has got it wrong. What I am saying is that by using the phrase, " completely altering the purpose of the Bill ", or some such phrase, he is suggesting that this is a dramatic change in the whole family succession scheme. I simply do not accept that. It is a loosening of one of the three eligibility tests which an applicant has to satisfy before being considered by the Tribunal as to whether or not he would make a suitable farmer of the holding, bearing in mind the relative cases of the landlord's relatives and the applicant and so on. That is the point I am trying to make first of all. I think there is agreement on all sides of the House also—and I am afraid this might be lost sight of—that it would be unfair to have a cut-off point on something as important as this, where there is not, with great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the possibility of having some sort of sliding scale. Somebody is either eligible to be considered as a tenant or not. You cannot have somebody being half a tenant or a quarter of a tenant, getting half the holding or a quarter of it, depending on how many days he happens to have missed by. That part of the process has to be all or nothing: they are eligible or they are not.
You then go on to decide whether they are suitable or not. No one has suggested
1036
that if they are not suitable but jolly nearly are we ought to give them some sort of compensation. I think we must accept that when we get to that stage we are dealing with an all-or-nothing case. All we are saying is that if, as one of the three eligibility tests, someone has to satisfy the Tribunal that he has derived his principal source of livelihood from the holding, that should not be interpreted so strictly as to be demonstrably unfair to the applicant. I gave the example of somebody who may have worked part time on the holding for five years, whereas most of his income came from some other job, but in fact because the holding did not produce much income and because there was a great deal of work needed to be done he might have worked more hours on the holding than at the full-time job earning the bulk of his income. f was thinking of somebody working every evening and weekend on the holding. Nobody has suggested that that is not possible, and that it would be just for that person to be denied the right to succeed. It is that case, as well as the four years and so many days case, that Clause 20 is also designed to meet.
I would stress that I think there is an extremely good, fair and reasonable case for giving the Agricultural Land Tribunal some discretion in interpretation of this one out of the three eligibility tests. Having agreed with that, f also agree with the noble Earl that the wording to which his Amendment No. 20 drew attention may not be very satisfactory, and I would certainly like to have a further look at it with the interested parties, the NFU and the CLA. But, of course, it will not be possible to have consultations on this if the clause is deleted from the Bill. So I would hope very strongly that the noble Earl will not delete what I think is an extremely valuable, useful and sensible clause which will lead to a greater sense of justice to all those who have to work out the scheme and suffer the consequences of the judgments made under it. If the clause stays in the Bill we can have a further look at the precise point the noble Earl's Amendment No. 20 struck on.
Earl FERRERS: I want to be as helpful as possible. If the noble Lord says he wants to have a look at it, then, of course, one listens very carefully, but I want to

1037
know what he is going to look at. If he is going to say, " I will look at the whole of Clause 20 so that we can try and make provision for the person who only does four years and 350 days, so that he will not be disqualified ", that is one thing. But if he is going to say, " We have got to accept the fact that we must have in the Bill something which wholly widens the thing right up and down, so that a person of 21- years' standing can be considered eligible ", I think I would wish to delete the clause. What I am anxious to know is whether this is a genuine offer to reconsider the whole of Clause 20; then I would be prepared not to press the Amendment which is down in my name. But if it is only going to be a question of seeing how we can alter it a little for the person who had been working on a part-time holding for five years, or something like that, this would be totally inadequate.
Lord MELCHETT: I am frankly staggered by what the noble Earl says. I have made a genuine offer on an Amendment which he moved, in the spirit of his introductory remarks at Second Reading and on the Committee stage, that there was a genuine desire to improve the Bill where it was clearly at fault. I have acknowledged the clear fault to which his Amendment No. 20 drew attention and have undertaken, after consultation with the relevant authorities outside, to look at an improvement to the clause. The noble Earl is now saying, " Unless you get rid of the whole clause I will not allow you to do that ". That seems to me to be flying in the face of everything he has said on all the Amendments he has moved today. I would urge him to give me an opportunity of looking at the genuine difficulty to which he has drawn our attention, with people outside who have taken a close interest in these provisions, and not delete the clause.
Earl FERRERS: The noble Lord need not get quite so waxy. I did not actually say that unless he was prepared to remove the whole clause I would move to have it deleted. I wanted to know whether he would be prepared to reconsider the whole clause and not just that one Amendment. As I have tried to explain, in my judgment this clause as it stands completely alters the whole of that one of the three
1038
eligibility standards. If he is prepared to reconsider the whole of Clause 20, then, of course, I will not press this. I hope that he will be able to do so, because if it is a question of where you should draw the line, whether it is five years of 41, that can be done by amending Clause 17. I do hope the noble Lord will be able to reconsider the whole of Clause 20, and I will willingly not press this.
Lord MELCHETT: I think I should make it clear—which I did, and I have in front of me the words which I used when discussing Amendment No. 20— exactly what I was going to take away and consider. I went into considerable detail and took a great deal of the Committee's time in trying to get this clear. It seemed to me that there was one limb of this which could give rise to considerable difficulty, and clearly was going far further than we had intended in Clause 20. That was where somebody had worked part-time—not on a part-time holding, as the noble Earl has said more than once—for less than the full five years; in other words, not only have they not worked the right amount of time but they have not been working full-time either. When those two things came together Clause 20, as it is now drafted, would still give the Agricultural Land Tribunal discretion to make that sort of person an eligible candidate for the tenancy, and that is the only aspect of Clause 20 which I am saying that I would take away and look at in consultation. It is an important aspect, and I made it quite clear all along that that was all I was going to look at.
Lord HENLEY: I should like to support the noble Earl here. I think that the clause goes a great deal further than the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is aware. It leaves a whole area open to abuse as to how much time has been worked on a holding, and nothing to do with whether it is a part-time holding or a full holding. In all those kinds of area, as I say, it is open to abuse. If we were to delete this clause on a vote now, it would not preclude the noble Lord from discussing it with the CLA or the NFU, or anyone else, in order to put it back again in some different form, so I do not think that he need worry about that. But I think that the noble Lord is looking too narrowly at one aspect of the difficulties of this clause and not at the difficulties that the whole clause raises.
Earl FERRERS: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has now made crystal clear that the one thing he is going to look at is the issue raised on one part of Amendment No. 20, and he is not therefore prepared to look at the point that the clause, as it stands, will alter the fact that the person has to serve a five-year period, and alters it to such an extent that even if he only serves a four, three, two, or one-year period Clause 20 will make him

CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Henderson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Birk, B.

Hoy, L.

Popplewell, L.

Blyton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Brockway, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Brown, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Caradon, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Northfield, L.

White, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Phillips,-B.

Winterbottom, L,

NOT-CONTENTS

Atholl, D.

de Clifford, L.

Morris, L.

Balerno, L.

De La Warr, E.

Newall, L.

Banks, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Northchurch, B.

Belstead, L.

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Elles, B.

Onslow, E.

Bethell, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Bourne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Redesdale, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Gisborough, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bradford, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Salisbury, M.

Bradwell, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sandys, L.

Burton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Savile, L.

Caithness, E.

Henley, L.

Seear, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Clinton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Coleraine, L.

Long, V.

Swinton, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lyell, L.

Tenby, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Middleton, L.

Vickers, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monson, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Clause 20 disagreed to accordingly.
8.31 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: As we have made some progress this afternoon and as a large number of noble Lords are waiting to speak on the Unstarred Question which is to follow, this might be a convenient moment to resume the House. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.
eligible. If the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is not prepared to look at that. then I would ask the Committee to join me in trying to eliminate Clause 20.
8.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30: Non-Contents, 57.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES ACT 1963
8.32 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (Variation of Fees) Order 1976 (1976 S.I. No. 593) be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that I have to intrude on today's Business at rather short notice. I have to do so because this is the last day for praying against this Order. 1 could have included Orders Nos. 592, 623 and 616, but I have

1041
confined it to Statutory Instrument No. 593, as the principle on which I wish to argue is identical under all the orders.
I shall not be asking your Lordships to veto the terms of these orders, although there is some background to the way in which those terms were arrived at, a background which disturbs me and causes me to take this action tonight. I comment on them now with a view to trying to ensure that a more satisfactory procedure is adopted in future and with a view to speeding up a balancing factor, out of fairness to the promoters, a balancing factor which I believe is already in the mind of the Government, and I ask for that factor not to be unduly delayed in being brought into action. To be absolutely on the safe side, I should perhaps declare a marginal interest in that I am a director of a company which may have an interest in this field, although I am not sure. My purpose in undertaking this task on this occasion is purely a Parliamentary one; it is not the terms of the Order but the way in which the terms have been arrived at which has brought me to my feet on this last day.
I would remind your Lordships that when the Gaming Act 1968 came into force the position, so far as bingo is concerned, was, first, that promoters had to pay a fee to the Government to obtain a licence and, secondly, they were restricted by' Statutory Instrument as to what they could charge, and indeed under the order it was laid down that the entrance fee to the building and the cost of participation should not be more than 50p per head to the promoters to cover their expenses and give them their profits. That was the position in 1968 and last year, after lengthy consultations, the Government increased their licensing fee by 50 per cent. and at the same time allowed the maximum costs to be paid by clients to the promoters also to be increased by 50 per cent. That proper procedure, where alterations were made after detailed consultation, was accepted as being the basis for any future alterations, and there is no doubt that it was the fair way of doing it. It took into account the considered views of all sides and it maintained a spirit of co-operation, which is as valuable as it is desirable, between the promoters, represented by the British Bingo Association, and the Gaming Board. At that point it was a very good
1042
procedure because everybody was happy and it arrived at what all sides considered to be a fair decision under all the circumstances.
Bearing that in mind, in April of this year there was a tacit understanding between the promoters and the Gaming Board that any increase in the Government's licensing fee would come after consultation and, at the same time, that any increase in the cost of the Government licence would be taken into account together with other operating costs for the possible increase in what the promoters could charge their clients: again, moving together. Unfortunately—this is the reason for my raising the matter tonight--this orderly way of facing up to the consequences of inflation was thrown overboard by the Secretary of State. Without consultation, he arbitrarily increased the licensing fee by another 33⅓ per cent.—only 12 months after the 50 per cent. increase—but on this occasion he did it not after having consultations and, by doing it without consultation, he prevented the promoters from establishing their claim that they should be able to increase their participation charge to their clients.
This arbitrary decision by the Secretary of State was, I have every reason to believe. in no way initiated by the Gaming Board. Indeed, the Gaming Board has made it clear by letter that the Secretary of State based his decision on the normal overall report that the Board sends to the Minister and certainly not after a specific investigation as to the need for this one-sided decision. I attach supreme importance to the Government keeping to understood arrangements. If suddenly, by arbitrary Ministerial action, one ends a spirit of agreed co-operation between a Government agency, like the Gaming Board. and private enterprise licence-holders,. nothing but harm can follow. I believe that it is bad and dangerous for the Government to make decisions outside an agreed procedure as it is generally understood.
All that I wish to say now is that having been able to point out how this happened on this occasion—and I have intimated to the noble Lord who will reply the main reason why I am doing this tonight—I should like an undertaking that it will not be repeated and that

1043
consultations to rectify the balance as it previously existed, to allow promoters a fair increase, will be speeded up and acted upon. I have seen letters which indicate that this is the sort of thing the Government have in mind in any case, but it has been suggested that it might be 1977 or 1978 before this balancing factor is brought into being. For the good of maintaining proper relations between the Government agency, the Gaming Board, and the promoters, I hope that the Minister will he able to give me the undertaking I seek, which is that in future consultations will always precede decisions and that, in order to balance this quirk—this move away from what I consider to be the correct procedures—steps will he taken to rectify the position at the earliest possible moment. It is with that in mind that I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (Variation of Fees) Order 1976 (1976 S.I. No. 593) be annulled.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
8.39 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am glad of this opportnuity to explain the Order which the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is seeking to annul, I am bound to say that when the noble Lord uses terms like " arbitrary action ", I take the view that he rather overstates his case, as I shall seek to demonstrate. The Order we are debating tonight increases from £2 to £2.50 the fee for a permit for amusements with prizes. What we are talking about here is chiefly prize bingo. This fee has always been the same as the fee for a permit for amusements with prizes by means of gamine machines which was increased by the Gaming Act (Variation of Fees) Order 1976, Statutory Instrument No. 592. Therefore I shall, as the noble Lord has, direct my explanation to both of these Orders.
It was the intention that the full cost of administering the gaming controls introduced by the Gaming Act 1968 should he borne by the gaming interests concerned and not become a charge on the taxpayer. In accordance with this principle, my
1044
right honourable friend the Home Secretary made regulations which increased, with effect from 1st May 1975, various fees payable under the relevant legislation. At the same time, increases were authorised in charges payable by the public and the prizes awarded in various forms of gaming. These changes in fees, charges and prizes, which were, as the noble Lord rightly said, of the order of 50 per cent., were the first changes of such a nature since the Gaming Act 1968 came into force. They took account of the increase in the costs of administering the controls which had taken place between that time and December 1973.
The recent increases in fees which were authorised by the two Statutory Instruments No. 592 and No. 593 were necessitated by further increases in the cost of operating the system of gaming controls which have occurred since December 1973. Inevitably salaries are a major item in these costs. I am sure that it is right that the cost of the gaming controls should not become a charge on the general body of taxpayers. In April of this year, the Gaming Board was authorised by the Home Secretary to consult gaming trade associations on the increases in charges and prizes which might be made at the same time as the next increase in fees. I understand that the trade associations have made representations to the Gaming Board that increases in charges and prizes should not be held back until May 1977 but should be authorised as soon as possible. But I am afraid that, if it is being suggested—as I think the noble Lord has this evening directly suggested—that every increase in gaming fees must be accompanied by simultaneous and proportionate increases in charges and prizes, I cannot accept that argument. The noble Lord has referred to there being some form of understanding that licence fees and charges should be increased together. I am not aware that any undertaking to this effect has ever been given. As I shall explain in a moment, I do not think that any such automatic linkage is justified as a matter of policy, but, if the noble Lord has any particular evidence about this, I shall certainly be ready to look at it, as, I am sure, will my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
The factors which govern changes in fees are not identical with those influencing the proper levels of charges and prizes. It is because the Government recognise the

1045
need for further adjustments in these various levels that discussions with the trade associations have been authorised, and we will certainly bear in mind, when we receive whatever recommendations the Gaming Board may make about the future level of charges, the argument that any increases in charges should apply before May 1977. But the immediate issue is that of increases in gaming fees to help meet the cost of administering the gaming controls, and 1 would suggest to your Lordships that the increases in gaming fees made by these two Orders are amply justified.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord accepts the main purpose of what 1 had to say. I have never suggested that there had been a written understanding to continue the procedures I have described. I used the words " tacit understanding " to make it quite clear that it was a sensible arrangement which seemed to work and which should continue to work. It was certainly not a written understanding. Nor did I for a moment suggest that, just because the licensing fee had been increased, the promotor's charges should automatically increase. I chose my words very carefully. The noble Lord may remember that I said that what I objected to was not having consultations before increasing the fees. My words were:
" In order to give the promoters a chance of seeing if that increase justified their having the extra payment."
All I would say to the noble Lord is that the considerations which caused the increase in the fee—increase in salaries and in administrative costs—apply also to the promoters. If it is necessary for the Government, in order to be fair to themselves, to increase the fee, the least they can do is to have consultations to see whether the other side in the partnership has not on the same grounds a reason for the same sort of consideration in order to remain in business.
I believe that the point is made. I feel that the noble Lord has taken my point and I hope that the general basis of what I have tried to say will be taken into account by those who will operate the arrangement in the future. The scheme which has operated until now has been a good one. The understanding between the two sides has been very friendly and it would be a pity to injure it. I hope that the message
1046
which I have tried to give on those lines will be taken into account and acted upon. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CYPRUS
8.45 p.m.
Lord CARADON Lord CARADON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of their obligations under the Cyprus Treaty, they will take action in the United Nations with a view to ending the present deadlock and contributing to a just solution to the Cyprus problem. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe it may be that, even at this comparatively late hour, the few of us who are anxious to speak this evening may be able to make some constructive contribution. I hope that it may be so for, in another place —the Security Council of the United Nations—a debate goes forward today on the question which we are considering. I trust that it will lead to the reappointment of the United Nations force which, over a period of years, has performed a valuable service under very great difficulties. I believe that we are perhaps entitled to make a self-denying ordinance in our short debate this evening. I hope we shall not give ourselves to recrimination and to the repetition of actions with which we are very familiar. I believe that all of us who have followed what has taken place in Cyprus over the past ID to 20 years are only too well aware of the errors, cruel mistakes, suffering and misfortune which have come to that beautiful island. No good will be done, it seems to me, if we endeavour to go back over those terrible events.
Surely, our whole determination should be directed to endeavouring to suggest a way of giving some help towards a break away from the present disastrous deadlock. I hope that we can concentrate our main attention on that purpose. At the same time I would say that I hope there will be no complacency. What has happened in the last two years since the mad coup which took place almost exactly two years ago? Has there been in the discussions any marked advance, any great success, any indication that we can look to the discussions to bring us 'to a successful conclusion? No. Indeed, almost every

1047
session that has taken place between the representatives of the communities has looked more hopeless. We now reach a situation when even on humanitarian subjects—and they are important enough —no progress appears to be possible.
Therefore, recognising that communal discussions must be a part of the final settlement, must we not look for some way in which we can escape from the impasse and suggest, indeed initiate, new proposals which may enable us to go forward to a more helpful future? At the same time, if we are not to be complacent, we should certainly not despair. The dangers are increasing. The dangers of the discussions grinding to a bloody halt are obvious enough. The dangers are not only for the island but for the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean, and indeed for the relationships between the major Powers of the world. Perhaps there is still time to step in before we find that all efforts so far attempted come to a halt. Therefore, our discussion this evening, with a number of Members of this noble House who have a special knowledge of this subject, may, I believe, be helpful.
I shall look for a few minutes at the principles which we should bear in mind and then at the procedures, because this is one of the situations in which in the end the procedures may make just as important a contribution to the conclusion as a recognition of the principles themselves. What are the principles? In my Question I refer to the obligation on Her Majesty's Government. I recognise that I am not speaking here in legal terms. Perhaps there is no legal obligation for our Government to intervene in any way. But if, When with the authority of my Government I signed the Treaty of Guarantee, I had been told that the events—of which we now know—would take place without our Government intervening to take effective action to prevent the disasters which have befallen the island, I would not have believed it possible. I should have thought that it was inconceivable. I go hack to the first occasion when the coup took place and when, it seems to me, there was an absolute demand, a necessity, for our Government—being a signatory of the Treaty of Guarantee, which meant to some of us what it said—to act. That was when we failed to act and when we deliberately decided to take no action in
1048
the United Nations at that time. That was the original fault from which all other disasters flowed.
What are the principles? What was the principle accepted in 1960? Basically it was not only a matter of constitutional arrangement: it was an agreement made by the Greek and Turkish Governments, confirmed in full by the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots. With what purpose? To ensure that there would never be Enosis—that is union with Greece—nor Taksim: division of the island. That was the basis. We all agreed with it. It was agreed by both communities in the island. There were provisions in the Constitution which led to difficulties, disputes and indeed conflicts. But the basic conception that the island should be united and independent, free from the two threats which had bedevilled its existence previously, was well accepted by everyone concerned, including our Government and including both sides of the House of Commons.
That, therefore, is the basic principle. If we are to get an agitation for Enosis, then we are to get an agitation for Taksim, and the other way round. So the basis which was agreed with Greek and Turkish initiative, and fully accepted, as I can give witness, is still the basis on which a peaceful Cyprus can emerge. It follows from that that if there is not to be union with Greece, and if there is not to be partition of the island, then the island should be united and independent, as has been constantly reaffirmed by overwhelming votes in the United Nations. It also follows from that, particularly bearing in mind the circumstances of the past year or two, and indeed of the last decade, that if we are to have a united and independent island we must also be able to give the Turkish community in Cyprus security—certainty of security, absolute security. That is the problem we have to consider. How it is possible that we can, by taking a new initiative at this time, work towards an arrangement whereby we eliminate as it was eliminated by the Greeks and Turks themselves, both Enosis and Taksim and at the same time ensure that the Turkish community in the island is given full security? That is the problem.
So I turn from the question of principles to the question of procedures. So often

1049
when one faces a two year old deadlock, which becomes more dead as time goes on, it is a matter of seeking a way out, an escape, a key to peace. I think that there are all kinds of ways in which international action can be taken to give stimulus to the communal talks. I do not wish to advocate one particular method rather than another, but let me put suggestions as to what might be considered.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations is chairman of the communal talks. He has no power in himself, as we all know. He has only the power given to him by the Security Council in such matters. How would it be if we called on the Secretary-General, through the Security Council, to take a new initiative as chairman of the communal talks? How would it be if, for instance, we asked him through the Security Council—through perhaps a unanimous vote of the Security Council—to proceed with the discussions with the representatives of the two communities and to seek, for example, consideration of a federal system? That is point No. 1. Point No. 2 is to seek for positive advance in negotiation on territory.
The third point perhaps might be to consider, with the representatives of the two communities, how there could be established a constitutional commission. I remember in 1959, following the Zurich agreements, that there met in Nicosia at that time representatives of the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots with expert and leading representatives from Athens and Ankara who worked together —and successfully worked together—to work out the details of constitution. I well remember those who came from Athens and Ankara, for both of whom I had very great respect. Would it not be best to work out a new federal constitution by such a means? Would it not be best for the Secretary-General to be given the authority, the mandate, on those three issues to press forward in the discussion? Would that perhaps break the present deadlock in which no progress is being made whatsoever? Maybe.
But there are all kinds of methods to he used when once it is decided that the international community shall act. Another might he that two or three nations, impartial nations, be associated with the Secretary-General in his task. This is something which has been endeavoured in the past and it can be extremely useful to give to the Secretary-
1050
General people—experienced diplomats—who can work with him, so that he is not left alone but has others to whom he can turn for advice and guidance as he proceeds.
There is yet another proposal. I put it forward publicly some months ago and I know that it has been considered in a number of quarters. I went to the Ambassadors of Greece and Turkey in London; I put it to both of them and, of course, I put it to the British Government. It was the proposal that there should be a conciliation mission from the United Nations. When an impasse, a deadlock, is reached, so often it is desirable to send people to talk to those on the spot who are concerned. I would recommend that the conciliation mission should go to Athens, to Ankara and, of course, to Cyprus, to talk with all concerned, and should then come back with practical proposals for the Security Council, in order to make progress; not to work against the communal discussions, but to give them encouragement. It should consult with them to see where the difficulties lie and to see whether they can, in consultation with all, come back with something which will enable the whole movement to go forward instead of being bogged down as it is now and as it has been increasingly over the past two years.
There are all sorts of ways in which the procedures can be pursued. What are the essentials? The essentials, believe, are that there should be an international initiative to break the deadlock; an international initiative to come from a British lead. We have an obligation more than any other country, other than Greece and Turkey. It is for us, surely, not to sit back and refuse to participate. I have spoken of the original failure—the American failure and our failure—to act when that bloody attack took place on the presidential palace. Now we have the chance—we still have the chance—of a British initiative being taken on an impartial basis in order to come up with something to save the island from disaster.
I turn to a general point. There is in these days, particularly, I think, in the United States, a great deal of criticism of the United Nations. I am always annoyed when I read of criticisms of the United Nations. I never fail to say that there is nothing wrong with the United Nations except its members. It is the failure to act. So often have we seen a

1051
resolution passed—yes, soundly based and widely supported. In this case we have unanimous resolutions of the General Assembly—almost unheard of. Then everybody turns to something else, and nothing more is done. Is that the fault of the United Nations? No, it is the fault of the members. It is the follow-up that matters; it is the pursuit of the purposes agreed. That is what is lacking; and that my Government should not, for two years, have been prepared to take a lead in searching for the advance that we all need is a matter which we pray, we hope, may soon be ended. The opportunity is there: let it not be thrown away again.
I would say, finally, that I have had the very good fortune to serve twice in Cyprus, once in the days of the last war. The world was at war, but the communities in Cyprus were at peace. It was a great encouragement to me later, when I went back to-the island when it was in a state of ferment and, indeed of rebellion, to remember the days when the people of Cyprus lived in happiness, understanding and mutual respect. Strangely enough, I believe that, with all that has happened, there may now be a greater readiness by Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots to work together than ever before, because they see the disasters that have come from the dreadful errors that have been made on both sides. I believe there is now a wish to come together. What they wait for is some lead. Where should it come from? I think it should come from us. Some of us who have served in Cyprus or who have had responsibilities in regard to Cyprus are not to be excused if, when we sail away, we forget about our commitments and our obligations. Having served twice in Cyprus I myself feel a sense of obligation to the people of Cyprus. It is not for me to go away and turn to other matters.
We have a commitment, with all the kindness and all the constructive endeavour that we found in the people of Cyprus, of both communities. Those of us who had any association with the island cannot turn away. It is essential that we should continue to endeavour to discharge the commitment which we have arising from our association. I therefore hope that following our discussion this evening our country will feel the obligation—not the legal obligation, you may
1052
say, but the obligation of commitment— and will now make a new endeavour to ensure that the opportunity which still exists should not be thrown away.
9.5 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, with all his experience and knowledge of Cyprus, has done your Lordships' House a very great service in bringing before your Lordships this very important Question relating to the role of the British Government as a contributor to the search for and achievement -of a peaceful settlement for the people of Cyprus. Though I know the noble Lord will understand if I do not follow him on every point. he has already made some very valuable suggestions towards reaching this goal, which we all share; and I am certain that my noble friends, and certainly I myself, endorse his wish that it should be a British initiative which should lead to this end. However, in the framing of his Question the noble Lord shows a certain degree of what might he called optimism which, regrettably, imagine, is not shared by all noble Lords: first, that Her Majesty's Government still consider they have legal obligations under the Cyprus Treaty: and, secondly, that if Britain were to take action in the United Nations, such action would necessarily contribute to a just solution of the Cyprus problem. Regrettably, not everyone in your Lordships' House shares with the noble Lord his deep faith and conviction in the possibilities of the United Nations. I think all of us who have had the opportunity to serve in that body will know of its immense potential but also of the regrettable distance between the potential and the reality.
However, I should first like briefly to examine the assumptions which are contained in the Question within certain narrow limits. I certainly share with the noble Lord the desire not to raise any historical background. It would serve no useful purpose to look back into the history of the island, or to attempt to evaluate the periods of violence and bitterness between its people and those who have been involved in its affairs. All Governments concerned have made mistakes, individuals have erred in their judgments and decisions and consequently there is a multiple responsibility which must be shared for the present tragic and unjust situation in which the people of Cyprus find themselves today. In fairness

1053
I think it should be added that, although it may be clear in retrospect when an erroneous decision is made, the successful solution or solutions are not always so apparent.
I will turn now to the widely publicised Report of the Select Committee on Cyprus of 1975–76. The many comments made on its findings require some explanation from Her Majesty's Government, not because of why we did not intervene or for various other matters brought up, but for one particular reason: that I think we need some assurance as to the course of future action Her Majesty's Government intend to take and what our existing obligations really are. The replies given to the Select Committee by Mr. Callaghan and in particular those relating to the validity of the Treaty of Guarantee and to our legal duties and rights under the Treaty are far from clear. I should like briefly to draw your Lordships' attention to page VIII, paragraph 13, where it states:
" The Foreign Secretary appeared very uncertain about Britain's right to intervene. When pressed on whether she had a right under the Treaty of Guarantee, he replied ' I daresay legally we had '."
This was in answer to Question No. 138.
Further on, on the following page in paragraph 21:
" The Foreign Secretary suggested that it was politically inexpedient to seek to uphold the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee because this was in practice a dead letter."
Or take his apparent misunderstanding of the role and essential objectives of the UN Peace-keeping Force. These were raised in Questions 179 and 188 referring to the role of the United Nations force:
"… I myself would have been willing to have resisted but I think there was a feeling that the United Nations force should not stand in the way."
And the apparent contradiction which appears in the answer to Question 188:
" I did not expect the Turks to advance, but if they were there and crossing a line that would have been agreed, I would have expected them to resist."
Or his misunderstanding of the status of the self-declared Turkish-Cypriot Federated State in answer to Question No. 210 referring to the Turkish-occupied area of Northern Cyprus:
" Sovereign countries are very funny animals."
The Foreign Secretary did not seem to appear to know that the Turkish-Cypriot Federated State was not a sovereign State.
All these references, small though they may be, do give serious grounds for apprehension as to the basis on which Her
1054
Majesty's Government's decisions were made in July 1974 and, more relevant, as to the view that the Government now take as to the kind of role they should be playing as a guarantor of the territorial integrity and sovereign independence of Cyprus.
The noble Lord touched on the tragic sufferings of the people of Cyprus and we on this side of the House share his deep concern in a humanitarian solution to very serious humanitarian problems, and only mention in passing the question of the missing persons and the families suffering in Cyprus to know what is happening to them, the refusal to honour the Vienna Agreements after the third round of the talks with regard to the services to be provided for the Greeks still remaining in the occupied zone. Indeed I would also refer, because I do not want to appear unbalanced for this is not the purpose of the debate, to those Turkish Cypriots who were removed from the South part of the island unbelievably, apparently unanimously agreeing to leave their permanent homes and be removed to another part of the island, which is just as though 12,000 people were uprooted and upsticked from Sussex and dumped in the Northern part of England.
Must all of these people become unidentified cyphers to be used as a bundle in a package deal? The Turkish Cypriots indeed now have the opportunity to show their good faith in a desire for settlement if they were to recognise their humanitarian and legal obligations by satisfying the demands and fulfilling their undertakings in relation to the two matters that I have referred to and in particular the question of the missing persons and the provision of services to the Greeks in the North. This would, I believe, be a statesmanlike act which would be recognised as such and given due credit in the comity of nations.
There still remain many other issues which, of their nature, require urgent settlement or the tide of events will once more change the basis on which a peaceful settlement can be obtained. I name briefly five elements. The 180,000 displaced persons in the South, some of whom are still under tents. Are these to be left until there is a political solution or will the Government press for observance of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3395 (XXX) paragraph 4 that they should be allowed to return to their homes? When is the deadline to be given, or is there a deadline to he given, beyond which they cannot or will not return? Or are they to be

1055
encouraged to cut their losses, to receive some reconstruction aid and be given an opportunity to earn their living and so accept the status quo? What is the view of the Government on this matter? There is the presence in the North of occupying forces. over 40.000 at the time of the Turkish invasion, now numerically uncertain but estimated, I understand, at about 30,000 minimum. And again it must he asked: is pressure to be brought that observance of the demand for the withdrawal of these troops should be again pressed for and that they be returned to their homeland in conformity with paragraph 3 of the same resolution to which have referred?
There is the continued immigration of so-called seasonal workers, with no evidence, of which I am aware, that they are returning to Turkey now estimated at from between 20,000 and 40.000. Both these last elements make a total of at least 50.000 to 60,000 people making a serious readjustment to the proportional balance between the ethnic groups, which were roughly 82 per cent. Greek Cypriots, and something varying between 15 per cent. to 18 per cent. Turkish Cypriots. It is hard to believe that this added incursion of unskilled and untrained people into an area where there is already unemployment can be welcomed by Turkish Cypriots as a whole. I do not believe that this is so. This is a matter imposed from ouside.
There is the removal North of the Turkish and expulsion to the South of Greek Cypriots, a systematic alteration in the distribution of ethnic groups originally scattered throughout the island which was one of the ways by which partition was unlikely to occur. Will the British Foreign Secretary be able to say, as was said regarding Article IV,
" Legally, I suppose we had an obligation, hut in political practical terms, we had none "?
Here, of course, I refer to Part 2 of Article II of the Treaty of Guarantee:
" Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom likewise undertake to prohibit, so far as concerns them, any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, either union of Cyprus with any other state or partition of the island."
The invasion and penetration of Turkish troops over about 40 per cent. of the island, a part of the island that represents about 60 per cent. of the economically productive areas, in comparison with the remaining 60 per cent. of the island which is at present available to by far the greater
1056
proportion of the population, can surely not be the basis of a settlement. If it were, it could not endure and would merely provide the fuel for future strife. I have outlined these elements, not in a spirit of saying that I prefer or have feelings of sympathy for one side or the other in this question. But these are facts which are happening on the island, which are changing the situation from day to day and will make it ever more difficult to come to a solution if Britain and other Powers do not unite to find a solution which will help the Cypriot people.
It is for Britain to take every possible measure to ensure that we do not once again fail in our moral and legal commitment to a nation which is part of the British Commonwealth, with whom Britain, as a member of the European Economic Community has a commercial agreement, with whom we sit in the Council of Europe, side by side, believing in the upholding of the European Convention on Human Rights. I therefore put it to the Government to state what obligations they consider they have under the Treaty of Guarantee and, if they believe they have obligations, what measures do they propose to adopt? What proposals are they willing to make, or what measures would they support in the United Nations Security Council to assist the Secretary General? Here, I absolutely concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, said in the speeding up of a resumption of the inter-communal talks. Surely most of us in this House believe that this is the only way in which to achieve a satisfactory solution for the people of Cyprus.
What diplomatic efforts are the Government making, or intending to make, bilaterally with the other guarantor Powers and with the Government of Cyprus? Has any consideration been given to action through the European Community? Here I believe that there is a great possibility through finding sonic senior statesman who would act in a neutral way to ensure co-operation between the two parts of the island in a more enclosed enclave than a very wide international sphere. I believe that here is a possibility which the Government might consider. We, on this side of your Lordships' House, would welcome a positive assurance from the Government that they will take note of what has been said, particularly in the observations on demographic and humanitarian issues and that these are taken into account in any settlement in which the

1057
British Government are involved. Following on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, will the Government consider issuing new instructions to the permanent representative at the United Nations in the light of our discussions which are being made this evening?
So, my Lords, we want an assurance that Her Majesty's Government recognise clearly their moral obligations, if not any more their legal obligations as guarantors of the territorial integrity of the island, at least as a member of the Security Council under Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations and under the authority given to the Security Council by Article 39. We ask the Government that they will do all in their power to honour those obligations, be they by Treaty, be they under the Charter or as a country which has had nearly 100 years of the closest connection with the island of Cyprus. We ask that they contribute to the maximum of their ability to the attainment of a lasting and permanent settlement, above all for the people of Cyprus.
9.20 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, the whole House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, for raising this important and difficult subject in such a constructive way this evening. We recognise his great first-hand knowledge of Cyprus and its problems, and we recognise his deep concern about those problems. I should like to support his plea for a British initiative in the United Nations to bring nearer the just solution of the Cyprus problem, and I shall listen with great interest to the reply which is to be given by the Minister.
As in so many similar situations in other parts of the world, nobody, no community or nation which has been invoked in this long, sad history can escape some of the blame for this situation, and certainly all sides have strongly blamed the others. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, that it is no use this evening raking over the past: there is nothing to be gained by that. But the situation in Cyprus remains explosive. There is a theory that the Turks may want to retain a permanent partition of the island and there is a fear of a further Turkish advance. Therefore, the need for an initiative is urgent.
The Question speaks of our obligation under the Treaty. Having read the evidence given to the Select Committee in another place by the Minister of State and the present Prime Minister when he was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,. I
1058
am still confused as to the exact nature of our obligations under the Treaty, particularly at the present time, and if the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, could throw some further light on that it would be very welcome.
The communal talks do not seem to achieve any progress towards a solution, and the agreement on procedure which was reached a few weeks ago has not been followed by any agreement on a settlement, or any part of a settlement. I agree that no solution can be imposed on the communities in Cyprus but I believe that the key lies to a large extent in Greek/Turkish relations and the relations between Greece and Turkey. If these are bad, no settlement will last: if these are good, a reasonable settlement would have a chance. So, in my view, an overall- Greek/Turkish accord must be sought at the present time as an essential background to the Cyprus situation, although such an accord would be welcome for other reasons, of course, and not least for the sake of NATO's Southern flank.
The United Nations resolutions speak of the withdrawal of all foreign armed forces from Cyprus, and I would heartily endorse that. They also speak of the desire of refugees to return to their homes. The difficulty here is that the Turks seem to want two entirely homogeneous areas with the minority populations exchanged and turned out into other areas. The Turkish Government, in their Memorandum which they sent to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and which was presented to the Select Committee, said that experience had taught that the communities in Cyprus could not live together if they were intermingled. I hope that humane considerations will prevent their seeking a rigid application of that principle, on which agreement is most unlikely, but I think there is fairly general agreement that the most likely solution is a bi-zonal federation—a federation of two communal zones. This seems to be accepted now by the Greek Cypriots, though they would have preferred a multi-regional federation, and I believe they are right to accept that. But the question immediately arises as to how distinct the two zones should be. I mentioned this matter a minute or two ago, and I repeat that I hope the principle that they should be entirely distinct will not be pressed too far.
The next question is: what should the boundaries be? I think it is clear that the Turks have to give a great deal of territory

1059
which they now hold. The Greek Cypriots have suggested that they should give half of the territory which they hold. But however much it should be, it must be a fair amount of what they hold at the present time. The Turks argue that what they are left with must be economically viable. This, again, raises the question of how economically separate the zones should be; how much each should, in fact, be a separate economic State.
This leads me on to the question of the powers which the central Government should have. The Turks want it to be very loose, and to have very limited powers. But, again, I think there must be some give and take here and we must, in the end, have a rather more central power than the Turks at present seem to want if Cyprus is to remain, as I think we here this evening believe it should remain, a united independent nation. The Turks want parity in all the institutions of the new Constitution—a little difficult to concede when they are only 18 per cent. of the population. But one realises that account must somehow be taken in the Constitution of the grievances which they believe they have suffered over the past years. A great deal will clearly depend on the statesmanship of the Turkish Government and the advice which they give to Mr. Denktash. They are, after all, in the strongest position.
We are told in the evidence which was given by the Government to the Select Committee, that they could not have resisted the Turkish invasion of Cyprus even if they had wanted to do so, and we have seen that the American embargo on arms to Turkey has repercussions in the NATO Alliance. What we have to do, it seems to me, is to persuade the Turkish Government that their interests lie in NATO: that their interests therefore lie in accord with Greece and in a peaceful settlement of the Cyprus question. In attempting to get this, I hope that the British Government will work closely with the other members of the European Economic Community and will be able to express their support for any action which it takes. We ought not to neglect, either, the significance of the Commonwealth in this connection. Archbishop Makarios is much regarded by non-aligned countries and, at the same time, there is a strong Moslem influence within the Commonwealth as well.
So I hope that at the United Nations, supported by the other members of the European Economic Community and by
1060
the Commonwealth, the British Government will seek to secure that the United Nations should call a conference of the guarantor Powers and of representatives of the communities, in order to seek a solution to this problem. No doubt some discussions would take place purely between the two communities, which would report back to the wider conference. Possibly. the alternative idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, of some form of conciliation commission which would go around the various partners in the conference beforehand to seek some basis of agreement, some basis for discussion upon which we could start to seek agreement, might well be the way to approach it. But I am quite sure that a great deal of patient negotiation is necessary. I am sure also that the task is formidable, but it is a task which must be attempted.
9.30 p.m.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, friends of Cyprus are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, for raising this matter tonight, and especially for the wealth of experience and wisdom with which he opened the debate. I am also happy that I am to he followed by an old Parliamentary colleague: a former Cabinet Minister, the Viscount Boyd of Merton. I am looking forward to hearing his significant contribution to our debate.
Those of us who know Cyprus intimately know how grievously many Cypriots are suffering. They have been driven from their homes, most of them having lost literally everything. I think of Greek villages that I know Very Well in the part that was Greek-Cypriot and is now occupied by the Turks. The few Greek Cypriots who live in those villages now are a conquered people. Their property has been seized not by Turkish Cypriots but by immigrants who have been brought in from Turkey. Most of them fled from their homes after the Turks had deliberately expelled the doctors, the teachers and the potential leaders of the Greek Cypriot communities.
It is fair to say that the immediate cause of the Turkish military occupation of part of Cyprus was due to Greeks. However, it was not due to the Greek people. but to the Greek dictatorship. It was the Greek colonels who, in a last desperate throw. trained and encouraged fanatics like Sampson and staged, under his mad leadership, an attempted coup—the assassination of Makarios because they regarded Makarios as a moderate—and the

1061
seizure of Cyprus by the Greek Cypriots. The Turks could never have allowed that. I spent a great deal of my time in Cyprus saying this again and again, year after year, to the fanatics who talked about Enosis. But the Turks used their righteous anxiety as an excuse to invade the island, not only to protect Turkish Cypriots but to seize and plunder industries, businesses and homes, including the homes of British residents in Cyprus. I still think that at the first critical moment, Britain—one of the three co-guarantors of the independence and integrity of Cyprus, the other two being Greece and Turkey—could have intervened more firmly. We had a legal and moral right to do so. As it is, what was begun as a protective gesture by the Turks is now a permanent occupation by conquerors of part of Cyprus.
I believe that any negotiation between Clerides and Denktash—two very fine men, one from each side—might well have succeeded if there had been a more concrete expression of the will and purpose of the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council to support the resolutions which those bodies had carried. I believe that we would have had a solution earlier if the Greek and Turkish Cypriots had been left to themselves and if the Turks had realised that this must eventually lead to a political solution: that a military solution is no solution that can last.
All along it has seemed that America, and perhaps ourselves, have been unwilling to criticise Turkey for fear that we might weaken NATO if Turkey left NATO. But the events of the last two years have effectively driven Greece out of NATO. We need both Turkey and Greece in the defensive alliances of the West and I was very pleased to note that at the weekend the Greek Prime Minister warned his fellow citizens of the danger of Communism in Greece and of the drift Eastward, telling the Greek people that the future of Greece lies with the West. For either Greece or Turkey to go it alone is madness. It is had for NATO, it is bad for the country which goes it alone, and I think the wise men of Greece and of Turkey must realise that.
The United Nations must act, and the first call must be for the evacuation from Cyprus of the 40,000 Turkish troops to which the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred just now. If that evacuation were carried out in a phased way, it ought to be possible to hammer out a compromise which will give both Turkish
1062
Cypriots and Greek Cypriots what they need most—security of life, limb and property. Greece and Turkey are neighbours. Each has much to gain from mutual recognition and understanding. Each has much to lose if there is a steady erosion of good will and a continued growth of ill feeling based on the obviously unjust happenings at present in Cyprus.
Noble Lords will know that Cyprus is a beautiful island. For centuries, Turks and Greeks lived in peace and understanding. Even in this century Turkish villagers went to Greek weddings, and funerals and Greek villagers went to Turkish funerals and weddings. They intermingled and those on both sides who would polarise the good people of Cyprus —the Turks and the Greeks in Cyprus—have much to answer for. I believe it is for Greece and Turkey to provide statesmen who will get together and bind up the wounds that war has inflicted on an island most of whose inhabitants want. as we all want, just to live at peace, and it is for Britain and the United Nations and the European Economic Community and NATO to create conditions which will get these two nations together and make Cyprus once more an island, not of two hostile peoples, but of different peoples, but inside an independent and sovereign Cyprus.
I regret very much the decision of Greece to come away from NATO. I hope—and indeed I feel sure— that if the Cyprus problem were solved, we should find Greece once more inside NATO. A Select Committee of the House of Commons has criticised the Government for their handling of the Cyprus situation though I must point out that one of the Committees' most distinguished members, Sir George Sinclair, defended the Government and sought to put in a paragraph to minimise the criticism of Her Majesty's Government's behaviour over the Cyprus question.
But even that critical report rightly pays tribute to the humanitarian work of Her Majesty's Government in Cyprus: some £800,000 towards the United Nations Refugees Fund, another £800,000 spent by the Ministry of Overseas Development in purely humanitarian help to the refugees of Cyprus, and I think this House would add its own tribute to the Red Cross for all that it has done in bringing comfort to separated families, to lost families, seeking out and getting human beings together again.
But the report indicates that the position

1063
in Cyprus is getting worse, not better. At present, 180,000 Greek Cypriots are uprooted. A solution is urgently needed, and in the words of the report at paragraph 28, which I quote:
" Any solution reached must contain guarantees for the human rights of every individual on the island whatever his ethnic origins, particularly the right to return to his own house and property, and it must guarantee the future integrity of Cyprus as a sovereign state and independent member of the Commonwealth."
My Lords, I hope that the report of the House of Commons Committee and this debate will spur on the Government in their efforts to bring peace to Cyprus.
9.40 p.m.
Viscount BOY D of MERTON: The noble Lord, Lord Caradon, in his moving and uncontroversial speech, referred to the obligations on Her Majesty's Government arising out of what he calls the Cyprus Treaty. As he knows well, the first of the undertakings was signed in London in February 1959, to be followed the next year by what we all hoped was the final settlement. Attached to the first lot of documents were a number of other provisions, including the declaration on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom, signed by the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, as Foreign Secretary and by myself as Colonial Secretary, so your Lordships will understand my continuing interest in Cyprus. Like the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, having sailed away from executive responsibilities, one does not forget one's obligations.
My Lords, it also fell to me to recommend the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, to Her Majesty as Governor of Cyprus, a decision which I have never regretted. The noble Lord also knows well that this did not mean, and does not mean, that I. agree with everything he says. I take some comfort, however, from the words he wrote of me in his book, A Start in Freedom. I hope it is not immodest of me to quote them. He says:
" His good nature and his good humour and his generous fairness repeatedly rescue him from the consequences of his reactionary policies."
I hope that if another edition is contemplated, he will not want, because of anything I say tonight, to alter that phrase. But I am bound to say that I cannot impose on myself the same self-denying ordnance altogether, or a refusal to look back which I agree characterised his speech.
1064
My Lords, like him, I, too, am much more concerned about the future of Cyprus than about the past. In the intense distrust and bitterness today, it will not help us to arrive at a wise decision for the future if we form or maintain a distorted picture of the past. The documents signed in London in February 1959 included a memorandum sent by the Prime Ministers of Great Britain, Greece and Turkey, the Declaration of the three Governments to which I have referred, the Basic Structure of the Republic document, and the Treaties of Guarantee and of Alliance. As the noble Lord will remember, there was also a declaration made by Archbishop Makarios and Dr. Kutchuk representing the two communities declaring that they accepted the documents as the agreed foundation of the final settlement of the problems of Cyprus. These agreements were founded on mutual trust, and neither the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, nor I will ever forget the extent of' it or its warmth and sincerity at that time. I must confess that in my first enthusiasm I envisaged other States where a comparable solution to ethnic and other problems might evolve.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked what was the Treaty of Guarantee, or something to that effect, and where were our obligations? The House will remember that in the Treaty of Guarantee, the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey agreed that in the event of any breach of the provisions of the Treaty, they undertook to consult together with a view to making representations or taking the necessary steps to ensure observance of these provisions. They added:
" And in so far as common or concerted action may prove impossible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs established by the present Treaty."
Noble Lords will also remember that in the Basic Structure of the Republic it was agreed by all—and I am bound to mention this because it was often forgotten, and there is scarcely any reference to it in the Press—that the Turkish Ministers would play an effective role, that 30 per cent, of the civil service would be Turkish, that in the armed forces, the gendarmerie and police, one of the three heads should be a Turk, and in each case the deputy should be either Turkish or Greek Cypriot, of another race than the head man. It was also agreed that 40 per cent. of the army and 30 per cent. of the gendarmerie and police should be Turkish Cypriots, and

1065
that separate municipalities should be created in the five largest towns by the Turkish inhabitants. These were the terms which we all signed and to which the Greeks and the Turkish Cypriots agreed, the terms on which the three major Governments, the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey agreed.
Unhappily, and this cannot he denied, those rights were soon and steadily eroded. It was claimed by Archbishop Makarios and others that the constitution to which they had solemnly agreed, and as a result of which the settlement was made, would not work and demands were made to amend the constitution in such a way that the Turkish Cypriots, instead of enjoying the promised communal and partnership status, would be left with nothing but minority rights. This could not in the circumstances of Cyprus give to the Turkish community that security that the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, so rightly spoke about. Then came the tragic events leading to a large number of Turkish Cypriots being uprooted from their homes, as the noble Lord, Lord MaybrayKing, has said, and becoming refugees, followed by the coup d'etat of July 1964 and the two Turkish invasions, and here again the noble Lord had a wise thing to say about the Sampson coup.
There has been much discussion in recent weeks on our failure to intervene in 1974, but some of us may feel that the time to have fulfilled our duty under the Treaty was in 1964, when the constitution solemnly agreed on was repudiated. Had that then happened, there would have been, I believe, no likelihood of the Turkish invasion and subsequent events, and had there been any such likelihood, we would have been absolutely right to have come in and stopped it.
The noble Lord, Lord Caradon, argues in a very persuasive way that we should now pass the responsibility, or a share of it, to the United Nations, and that thereby the present deadlock might end and a just solution might emerge. I am afraid I am convinced that this is not the w. ay to proceed, that a successful attempt to involve all the United Nations States would greatly complicate and aggravate the situation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, last week in this House, that the best course is intercommunal talks under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and that the attempt to impose a solution by the United Nations itself might well be
1066
disastrous. But I do agree with my noble friend Lady Elles that there is now an obligation and an opportunity for the Turkish leaders and Cypriots to respond to the humanitarian appeal that she and others have made, concerning in particular the tragic plight and the anxieties arising out of the fact of the many missing people. I hope that the noble Lord who will answer this Question will be able to give us some reassuring news about the resumption of inter-communal talks.
9.48 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, it is like old times for the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, and myself to he speaking in sequence. The only difference is that in another place it was generally I who was making the criticism and the noble Viscount was replying. He will be a little surprised as I continue to speak to find me endorsing many of the remarks which he has made. I want to acknowledge that I have been more unhappy about British policy in relation to Cyprus than anything in foreign affairs since British support of America in Vietnam. Nevertheless, tonight I do not want to go over that ground. I want to speak, if I can, in the spirit of Lord Caradon, who opened this debate, and I hope to be constructive. My references to the past will be brief and will certainly not be recriminatory.
My Lords, I do not know how long ago it was since I first went to Cyprus, but what impressed me more than anything else were the reports from the villages about the amicable relations between the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots. In the heat of the day there were Turkish Cypriot families and Greek Cypriot families together in the shade of the trees, and their children playing together. One of the tragedies of Cyprus is that that co-operation between the two communities was destroyed by external events.
The second remark I want to make about the past is this: I think, in looking at the present situation, we must appreciate that if there have been faults they have been faults on the sides of both communities. In 1960 there were the agreements at Zurich and at London. The London Agreement, accepted by the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots, as the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, has said, insisted principally upon two things; that is, that the Greek Cypriots should give up the idea of Enosis (unity with Greece) and that there should not be

1067
partition of the island. But in addition to those two principles a constitution was established, and I want to express my agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, that the Turkish Cypriots had the right to criticise the manner in which that constitution was carried out. It was conducted by Archbishop Makarios and his associates in a way which was not true either to the letter or the spirit of the original decision. In that sense the Turkish Cypriots had a justifiable right of complaint. I think they also had a right of complaint, despite the agreement ruling out Enosis and unity with Greece, with the campaign which was still carried on for that purpose in Greek Cypriot ranks. At that moment I went with the Labour deputation, with two other Members of another place, both to Cyprus and to Athens, and we then had assurances from Archbishop Makarios and the Foreign Secretary of the Greek Government that they accepted the independence of Cyprus. Those are the only references I shall make to the past situation.
I want to turn to the present. There were great hopes when the communal discussions began under the chairmanship of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Those talks came very near to agreement in 1973, but I think we now have to recognise that they have broken down, and because there has been that deadlock in those communal talks, international action is now necessary.
I do not think that any of us can believe that the present situation in Cyprus can he accepted permanently. Before the Turkish invasion the population of Cyprus consisted of 18 per cent. Turkish Cypriots and 80 per cent. Greek Cypriots, but today that small minority of Turks occupy 40 per cent. of the territory of Cyprus and, indeed, the richest land responsible for 70 per cent. of the total productivity of the island. There have been appalling disturbances and atrocities to families on both sides; they are now refugees turned from their homes. In the case of the Turkish Cypriot refugees, British action led to the return of many of them, first to Turkey and then back to Cyprus, and the Greek Cypriots have since allowed the remaining Turkish refugees to return. The situation is different for the Greek Cypriots, evicted from their homes, in displaced persons' camps and elsewhere, and the
1068
terrible problem of the evicted Greek Cypriots remains. None of them has been allowed to return home and, whatever view we may take of the conflict in Cyprus, none of us can be satisfied that that situation shall continue.
The United Nations has twice in the Security Council discussed this situation. The United Nations on each occasion has asked, first, for the withdrawal of all foreign troops; secondly, for the return of the refugees to their homes; and, thirdly, for respect for the independent sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-allignment of Cyprus. On the first occasion the Turkish Government actually voted in favour of that resolution. on the second occasion against. The tragedy is, as the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, said, that the United Nations reaches these decisions but fails to take the necessary action to carry them out. There has been some suspicion that on the part of the West there has been some reluctance to act in this matter because of their military confrontation with the East and the importance of Turkey, Greece and Cyprus in these respects. I plead with Her Majesty's Government not to allow any other considerations to dominate the necessity of dealing with the tragedy of Cyprus on its own merits.
What can be done? The Greek Cypriots have proposed a federal solution with autonomy for both communities and have proposed that 20 per cent. of the land of Cyprus should he placed under Turkish administration. Archbishop Makarios has offered to resign his position as President if this would lead to a solution of the problem. Surely this is a basis upon which negotiations can take place and agreement be found. I want wholeheartedly to endorse the constructive proposals which my noble friend Lord Caradon has made, and perhaps to supplement them slightly. First, I wish to agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in his suggestion that the Commonwealth and the EEC should take some initiative in this matter. Cyprus is a member of the Commonwealth and Cyprus also has an associated agreement with the EEC. In those circumstances, it is very desirable indeed that both the Commonwealth and the EEC should take some initiative to bring about international action for a solution to the problem of Cyprus.
I want to go further than that. I want to lay the greatest stress upon the proposal

1069
which the noble Lord, Lord Caradon made, that the Security Council of the United Nations should appoint a Mediation Commission, and that that Commission should go to Cyprus and meet the representatives of both communities, should go to Athens and should go to Ankara. It might perhaps eventually meet representatives from all these places together. It should exert the whole authority of the world to bring a solution to this problem. I feel that it would probably be most effective if the Commission were composed of a representative of the West, a representative of the East and a representative of the unaligned countries. If one had a mediating Commission of that charater, I do not believe that its recommendations
1070
could be rejected either by the two communities in Cyprus or by Turkey or Greece.
I began with a reference to the time when there was accord and amity between the two communities in Cyprus. I believe that that can be restored. I believe that the opportunities are there to establish a federal administration with local autonomy for the Greek community and local autonomy for the Turkish community, but with a central administration expressing their common interest. If we can move towards that solution, I. believe that the time will return when the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities may again live in concord and amity.

CYPRUS
10.4 p.m.
Lord BETHELL: My Lords, we must all be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, with his unrivalled knowledge of Cyprus and its problems, for having tabled this Unstarred Question this evening. It is only tragic that it has been necessary for him to do so yet again and that it is yet again necessary for us to discuss this intractable situation and to address ourselves to it. We are all familiar with the tragic background of the situation which exists today—a situation which goes back more than a hundred years, a situation of rivalry and hatred between two nations, which still seems to exist in some measure even in 1976.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, pointed out, after 1960 there was a situation in which the Turks could be forgiven for feeling that they were underdogs, and many of them have explained to us in the past two years, when they have been under criticism by some of us, how the Turks of Cyprus felt to be second-class citizens for more than a decade after the Treaty of Guarantee and Independence was given to Cyprus. It is a harvest: of this feeling of inferiority, to some extent, which the Greek Cypriots, which Greece and which the whole world is reaping today—a harvest of neglect by Greek Cypriots and a neglect by many other nations throughout the world, a belief that the problem would remain dormant, that it would go away if we did nothing and ignored it. Now we are all paying the penalty. As the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, pointed out, the situation has not improved in the past two years since the war in 1974; if anything it is getting worse. Two years ago the fighting took place in the wake of the Sampson coup, and there was looting, raping, killing and destruction. Although it was a terrible catastrophe for that island, as well as a ghastly loss of human life, it was somehow hopeful in that out of the
1072
killing and slaughter some solution would be found, because very often in the wake of such a cataclysm solutions are found. It can be a purge to an intractable problem.
But this has not happened. In recent months the situation has seemed to be deteriorating. There are still expulsions of Greek Cypriots to the south, and intimidation of Greek Cypriots, with officials, army officers, forcing them to apply for emigration to the South, thus having to leave the homes where they and their families have spent their lives. There is still the destruction of churches and the desecration of graves and of the remnants of Greek culture in the North of the island, as documented by a recent ITV programme and by an article in the Guardian by Mr. John Fielding, the evidence of which I believe it is impossible to doubt, horrible though the evidence is. There is the evidence of the changing democratic situation on the island. There is the fact that the 120,000-130,000 Turkish Cypriots are now being reinforced not only by the 40,000 Turkish soldiers, who are thought to be necessary to guard and protect the 120,000 Turkish Cypriots, but by the tens of thousands of Turkish immigrants from the mainland.
There must now be 200,000 Turks on Cyprus, and as the Turkish population increases, I am afraid that the Greek Cypriot population is decreasing, as people find that in the South of the island they are unable to make a living, that they have lost their property and their means of livelihood. There are not the jobs that there used to he, there is not the economic potential, so much of it being in the hands of the occupying Power, and so many of the people are leaving. The oft-quoted figures of 18 per cent. against 80 per cent. now no longer apply, and while it may be right for us to base our judgment of the relevant rights of the majority and the minority on this original figure, we have to recognise the fact that it is changing month by month and that it may happen in the next few years that the majority could become the minority, and vice versa.
My Lords, there is only one point where I would disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and where I think,

1073
or hope, that there could be a chink of light coming through this cloud that hangs over the island and over the whole of Europe, and indeed over the world. This is that it seems that some sort of democratic action is still possible on Cyprus. I do not know why it is, but the recent local elections in Cyprus, in the North. have not received very much publicity in the Western Press, but they are extremely interesting because they seem to indicate, my Lords, that support for Mr. Rauf Denktash is very low. I have read that in local elections on the 23rd May—only a few days ago—in Kyrenia, Mr. Denktash's Party, the Party of National Unity, received only 13.1 per cent. of the votes; that in Lefka his Party received only 5 per cent. of the votes; and that in Nicosia his Party received only 33.4 per cent. of the votes.
I do not know the reasons for this lack of popularity by Mr. Rauf Dcnktash and his Party, and I cannot interpret it with any exactness; nor would I wish to interfere with the internal affairs of that electorate. But I think it is a factor we must now take into account, that the Turkish Cypriots in the North, the voters, seem to be turning quite seriously against their acknowledged leader and, by implication, against the occupying army; because the Turkish Press is full of reports of slogans on walls, of little demonstrations and of public proclamations of hostility by the Turkish Cypriot population against the Turkish occupying army. This is something which could well have some political significance in the near future, particularly on the 20th June, when there will be Parliamentary and Presidential elections in the North of Cyprus—and I must say that the results of those I await with the keenest interest.
Now I am not optimistic about this particularly because I want to drive a wedge between the Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish Army. This would be impertinent; but it is, I think, of the greatest interest, and leaves cause for optimism, that it seems that the Turkish Cypriots are able to express their opinions and that there is political activity in spite of the presence of this enormous military force in the North—one which amounts to overkill. I cannot for the life of me think why 40,000 well-armed soldiers are necessary to protect a small area and a
1074
population of only about three or four times the number of the soldiers, leaving one soldier for every three or four of the population. Nevertheless, it seems interesting that political activity can take place and that the Turkish Government, who of course control the Turkish Army, would be in a position, did they wish to do so, to stamp out political activity. Good heavens!, it happens in enough countries of the world as it is. Until recently it was the case in Greece.
But the Turkish Government seem able to allow political activity to take place. It must surely follow that if opposition to the present policies of the so-called autonomous State persist, and if it becomes clear that the Turkish Cypriots as a whole disapprove of what is happening at the moment, then, assuming that the Turkish Government permit free elections to happen, which we hope and expect that they will because up to now they have permitted such elections, they will have to act in a situation where perhaps the present leaders of the North of Cyprus may not be in office, and where they may have a different set of policies and a different set of Turkish Cypriot leaders to deal with. I hope that this does not sound too optimistic. It is, t think, only a chink of light; but it leaves me with a little ray of hope which may, I trust, help to mitigate the gloom of this situation. If we share this hope, if we share this belief that there is a chance that the Turkish people will become visible, will become a force, will return to their own identity, will demand their own identity, will demand a federal solution which will be acceptable to their Greek Cypriot countrymen, then we, the British, must think how we can best help such a desirable state of affairs. I appreciate the Government's dilemma in such a matter; because it is very dangerous and wrong to interfere in the political processes of Turkey or the Turkish Cypriots. The key to this whole problem is often thought to be the internal domestic situation in Turkey. It is impossible for the British Government to interfere between Mr. Demirel's Party and Mr. Ecevit's Party. How can we influence, bring pressure or help a development towards a solution?
There may be a few answers which we could contemplate. These are the relations that exist in numerous bodies between ourselves and Turkey, a country with which we have for decades been on friendly

1075
relations, on relations of allies, a country with whose soldiers our soldiers fought in Korea, a country which has contributed immensely to NATO and to the defence of Western Europe. The importance of NATO in this, I think, is very great and I hope that the Government will emphasise it and will use the NATO platform to talk to our Turkish allies and to the Greeks, who still attend some meetings, I believe. This is one platform where we can perhaps get people together and move towards some sort of understanding. The Council of Europe is attended by Greece and Turkey and I have been present at Strasbourg at meetings where Greeks and Turks have talked amiably about the problem of Cyprus. I believe that this also is a platform where we can help.
As to the United Nations, I think the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, with his great experience, has explained that better than I can. Clearly this is an area where great things can be attempted. The EEC—and I know a little more about this—is another area. I should like to ask the Minister whether when he replies he can tell us what initiatives Britain has taken within the context of the EEC on the Cyprus issue and, in particular, what action the Government have taken within the political co-ordination machinery of the Nine. Is this discussed regularly and is it planned at the next meeting to raise the question of Cyprus within the political machinery of the Nine and in particular with the Government of West Germany which, because of its large population of Turkish immigrants, is in a uniquely influential position vis-à-vis the Turkish Government? I very much hope that at the next opportunity the British Representative will take the chance of discussing this problem with his German colleague
The other point which I hope the Minister will be able to clear up at the end of this debate is something to which not much reference has been made so far. This is the question of British property in the North. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give us, in a few words, the situation about the compensation which has been requested from the Turkish Government for the large amount of British property which was damaged and looted during the fighting of 1974. The last I heard about it—admittedly about a year ago—was that the victims of this armed action were being advised by the
1076
Foreign Office to sue in the Turkish courts. I wonder whether this is still the policy, to advise those who had suffered to take this rather unrealistic step in the context of a person of modest means who had lost everything and who did not know the Turkish language.
The situation in Cyprus, my Lords, is something which we have discussed five or six times over the past two years. The more often we discuss it, the more terrible it seems to be. I simply wish to end my speech by saying that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, was wrong when he said that he thought things were getting worse. I am not convinced he was wrong. I hope he was wrong and I hope that this time next year we shall not have to discuss Cyprus.
10.22 p.m.
Lord BRADWELL: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Brockway, I first went to Cyprus and loved it in what one may call the old days—in my case the 1930s—when one could observe Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, as he said, living and working together side by side quite amicably. This may yet again be possible, though so much has happened since, so many bad things have happened more recently, that it is going to be pretty difficult to restore that ideal situation. If I may speak personally for a moment, 1 have been more profoundly interested in Cyprus since 28th July 1954 when there was a debate in another place, which I think the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, may well remember and which really started all the modern difficulties about Cyprus.
However, tonight I must also declare an interest in the technical sense of the term, because only a few weeks ago I accepted a directorship in a company based in Cyprus. One of the reasons I did so was the sense I had, during a recent visit, of the extraordinary recuperative powers of the Greek people of Cyprus. They seemed to have a new, revived sense of purpose—pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, as one says, out of the slough of despond in which they had been. It was a totally different atmosphere from the atmosphere of a year ago. Early last year I was also in Cyprus. The people seemed stunned by the magnitude of the disaster which had

1077
overtaken them, with the coup, the attempt on the Archbishop's life, and, above all, the Turkish invasion. Now they have somehow pulled themselves together. Houses and factories are being built, and they are getting on with the business of living—which is at any rate something —while the negotiators continue with their terribly slow progress in trying to come to some settlement.
We have heard a certain amount during this debate about the statistics of the so-called " refugees ", who are more correctly described as displaced persons; but these statistics cannot give any vivid realisation of the terrible hardships that have been endured by the large number of Greek Cypriots who are homeless and jobless and have been turned out of their area and made to go into the South. The simplest way of describing the size of this Cyprus problem is to compare it with the position in the United Kingdom if one were to take the same proportion of people suddenly made homeless and jobless. In the United Kingdom the proportion would represent 22 million people; so one can see that it is a vast problem in a small island republic like Cyprus.
I was very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Files, mentioned one point which is of great concern to the Government of Cyprus and to many families; that is the 2,000 or so missing Greek Cypriots who have simply vanished. One fears for their lives. They may still be alive —who can tell?—but at any rate they are listed as missing, and whatever practical steps can be taken, with the co-operation of the Turkish authorities, to find them would be a great benefit to humanity.
It is perhaps not realised that there are as many as 7,000 Greeks still living in the North-Eastern corner of the Northern territory, which is usually called " the panhandle ". They are being harassed and forcibly expelled, family by family and person by person—and about 80 of them a week are being sent to the South. They are being harassed in a way familiar in many dictatorships—the knock on the door at midnight, the strange interrogation and then the warning, " Unless you get out pretty soon …" This is one aspect of the tragic situation.
It has also been said quite truly by several speakers tonight that the situation
1078
is almost as unhappy for the Turkish Cypriots as for the Greek Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriots living in the North are extremely uncomfortable, to put it mildly, with the sudden influx of many thousands, not only of Turkish soldiers but of Turkish civilians from Anatolia in the mainland, who have been sent to Cyprus. One gathers that if there are jobs going in the North they go to the Turks from the mainland rather than to Turkish Cypriots already resident there. That is one aspect of the whole complex problem.
Also, I must mention in passing one aspect that has been touched on, which is quantitively much less than the problem of the Greek Cypriot refugees but which none the less should be of concern to Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who preceded me, also mentioned this: it is the problem of the British refugees. They are very few in number but they are people whose future it seems impossible to imagine. They are quite often elderly, retired Britons who had decided to go and live in a warm climate and spent their savings in buying a small house there, or something like that—not necessarily just tax-dodgers either, but perfectly ordinary British people. There are still a few in Anzio camp, and they should never be forgotten by Her Majesty's Government.
I wrote to my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts about this matter a week or two ago, and he was kind enough to send me a long letter describing the situation and what is being done for these unfortunate Britons who are entitled in every way to the protection of Her Majesty's Government. Some of them may have Greek names, because they are English women married to Cypriots. I asked about the rations and things of that kind. They receive the ration which is distributed to all refugees, who have no other means of support, by the Republic of Cyprus.
If I may quote one sentence from my noble friend's letter, which is itself a quotation from a letter sent by the British High Commissioner in Cyprus to a Cypriot inquirer, it states:
" It is intended to provide a basic level of subsistence and can be supplemented according to individual choice with the cash allowance amounting to £12 per family of four per month."

1079
I do not think that that is tremendously lavish charity, with all respect to the Government of Cyprus or Her Majesty's Government, or whoever the £12 comes from. I think a little more could perhaps be done to give practical help to these people, whether, as the noble Lord suggested, helping them with their claim for compensation or in some more immediate way. They really are at the end of the road, towards the end of their lives, and they are being very actively helped and backed up by Mr. Bradfield, chairman of the United Kingdom Citizens' Association; hut, of course, everything depends upon the action of Her Majesty's Government.
But we must keep in our minds the principal problem of Cyprus, which is naturally the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot problem. Here I may say that the Turkish Government and the Turkish so-called Administration in the Northern part of Cyprus are very much to blame in certain respects. The Foreign Office sometimes seems to take the view that one must never say a rude word to a Turk or to the Turkish Government, because it will be counter-productive. That is reminiscent of the kind of attitude they took before the Second World War, when we were told: " Don't be rude to Hitler. It will only make him worse ". It is the attitude of appeasement, and I do not think we should apply it to the Turkish Government if they are behaving badly.
Certainly, the looting and vandalism in the North of Cyprus is unspeakably appalling, especially the vandalism of all the Christian orthodox churches and, most particularly, of the graveyards attached to those churches. Some of your Lordships may have seen a very good article about this in the Guardian a week or two ago by Mr. John Fielding, who was a member of a television team which recently went to Cyprus. He took the opportunity of going, more or less as a tourist, to the Northern territory where he took hundreds of photographs, many of which I have seen, of the vandalised graveyards. He could not, of course, visit every one of the many hundreds of villages in the North. He was in only one small area.
He visited, I think, 31 villages and not one of the churches or graveyards in those 31 villages was intact. In every one there had been vandalism. Icons had
1080
been chucked on dung-heaps or in the mud—unless, of course, they were old and valuable, in which case they were looted and eventually found their way to some saleroom in England or America. There was terrible devastation, particularly of the graveyards, and this was not the kind of vandalism which would have been done casually by soldiers getting drunk on a night out. It was quite calculated vandalism. Solid marble or granite tombstones were cut into small pieces, obviously with very powerful instruments. It was a quite calculated policy, and the Turkish authorities ought to put a stop to it, if they have not tried to do so already. Perhaps they have. I hope so. This is one of the most upsetting features of that situation. Then there is the looting and vandalism of houses in Famagusta, in Kyrenia and all over the place.
The Select Committee Report has been very much attacked in the newspapers—briefed by the Foreign Office, of course, very promptly on its appearance and by Mr. Hattersley in another place. It is said that the report is one-sided, biased and so on. Well, I think that the Select Committee consisted largely—perhaps entirely—of people who knew something about Cyprus. It is not a bad idea to appoint people who already know something about a territory if one is going to examine that territory and prepare a report upon it, because, naturally, the Select Committee does not have a great deal of time to spend upon a particular object. So I reject these accusations.
I notice, incidentally, that some colleagues in another place, in attacking the Select Committee, referred to some of its members as " notorious philhellenes ". I had never thought that to a British audience the word " philhellene " could be a term of abuse—least of all, perhaps, in your Lordships' House where I suppose the greatest philhellene of all once took part in your discussions, if he had time to spare from his fighting for Greece, his poetry and his lovemaking. I cannot see that " philhellene " is a term of abuse, nor do I see that it means that because one loves the Greeks one must hate the Turks. On the contrary. Of course one should not hate the Turks, even if one has a bone to pick with them at the present time because of the conduct of their troops in Cyprus.

1081
It occurs to me that some of your Lordships may feel, although they do not say so, that recourse to the United Nations is, somehow, rather futile. I have heard people say this in Cyprus. Some of the people on the Right politically in Cyprus say that it is quite useless to go to the United Nations again. Another friend in Cyprus, who probably knows more than any other Cypriot about the workings of the United Nations, said, " Not at all. It helps to keep the issue alive internationally, and recourse to the United Nations is the only weapon that small nations have ". So I hope very much that the proposals of my noble friend Lord Caradon, who made that admirable opening speech, will be taken account of by Her Majesty's Government.
It may also be that there could be a change in Western attitudes to Cyprus after the American presidential election. That would not be impossible. I see today that the front runner for the Democratic nomination has said that if he becomes President he will sack Dr. Kissinger. Nothing could be more welcome in Cyprus—because of course the main fault of Her Majesty's Government is that they trailed along feebly in the wake of Dr. Kissinger, who cares nothing about Cyprus. When the Cyprus situation arose critically two years ago Dr. Kissinger did not suddenly fly there. He usually flies all over the place, as we know, but he merely telephoned and obviously had no interest at all in the problems of Cyprus or the Cypriots themselves. He was very much interested in Turkey, for the simple reason that America, and I suppose NATO, need the powerful scantling equipment established in Turkey, by means of which they spy on the Soviet Union. That is what Dr. Kissinger cares about. However, ruthless as he is, I hope he will not be with us for very much longer; at least I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not merely do as Dr. Kissinger says.
I must end by saying that de facto partition, which is pretty well what we have got now in Cyprus, although we do not acquiesce in it and the Greek Cypriots do not acquiesce in it, is a shameful retreat from what was always understood in 1960 and afterwards, that neither partition nor Enosis was acceptable. They were things which balanced each other: the Turks
1082
might want partition, some of the Greeks might want Enosis. Both were ruled out under the new constitution, and despite what is said about the cruelty of some of the Greek Cypriots and some of the Turkish Cypriots in the past, I believe that Archbishop Makarios, for the first few years after 1960, tried genuinely to create a new pan-Cypriot citizenship. He wanted the Greek Cypriots to think of themselves primarily as Cypriots, not as Greeks, and the same with the Turkish Cypriots. It did not work, unfortunately, partly I suppose because the percentages quoted by the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd, simply were not practicable in a population which was only 18 per cent. of the total population. There were not enough Turkish Cypriots competent and willing to undertake the kind of service required of them. So that proved impracticable.
However, we look forward. We cannot be entirely pessimistic, although it is pretty difficult not to be, but we look forward to a time when there is no de facto or de jure partition; when all the people of Cyprus enjoy their human rights; and when Her Majesty's Government remember the pledges undertaken in the past.
10.44 p.m.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, I think we ought to thank the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, very much for his timely Question. I had the honour of serving under him for a short time when he was Governor, and the things he did were absolutely marvellous. But he aimed at abolishing both partition and Enosis from the 1960 Constitution, and had a lot to do with the Treaty of Guarantee. All these things are greatly to his credit, but unfortunately they did not work. As we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, who was his Minister, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, these things simply did not work. But there we are. Now we have a very difficult situation. I was very pleased to hear the description by the noble Lord, Lord Bradwell, of the terrible refugee problem, and the desecration of churches, and so on. I think this is absolutely terrible.
I would remind your Lordships of three realities which to my mind govern the whole situation. They are these. We as

1083
members of NATO will never accept that occupation of Cyprus will go to a Power outside NATO. Although it has very poor harbours, the island has two very fine airfields. That is the first reality. The second is that Turkey will not accept that the Government or people of Cyprus will work secretly or otherwise for Enosis. So far as I know, the Greek Cypriots have done this during the whole of the British occupation, which has been going on for nearly 80 years.
The third reality is that Turkey is 40 miles from Cyprus—I have seen it from the " panhandle "—whereas Greece is 400 miles away, so Turkey can invade any time she likes, whenever it suits her. None of us can turn out 30,000 or 40,000 troops, with their 50 tanks, and start afresh; we cannot wipe the slate clean. In these three realities we must take account of working towards the lasting solution for which we all pray. Noble Lords should remember that the last attempt lasted for only four years. It has been proved that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots cannot live mixed up together. I realise that a few educated families can in fact do so, but the bulk of them cannot. Fighting or threats of violence have broken out about four times since 1960. The noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, said that the time for British intervention as a guarantor Power was 1964, not 1974.
My Lords, it remains to be seen, therefore, whether they can live alongside each other. I am sufficiently optimistic to believe they can. In other words, of the two extremes, Enosis and partition, we are forced now by the Turkish occupation to accept partition. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, in effect say that—at least, I hope I am right in that.
Lord CARADON: My Lords, I have never said anything of the kind. I have spoken of the desirability of a federal constitution, but ever since I was associated with this problem I have been wholly opposed to the partition of the island, and remain with that view.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, it remains an open question whether the Greeks will accept it or not. Incidentally, Great Britain has not got a very good record as a guaranteeing Power. The Select Committee of the other place practically
1084
said so. Therefore, I think that we ought to go by the facts.
With regard to method, according to the memorandum by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office giving the views of the Turkish Government, page 75, the Turkish Government firmly believe that inter-communal talks offer the best hope for reaching a solution. I should like to add to that—and this is a question for the Government in replying—that they are given a time limit. It works wonders. The Jeep was invented on a time limit, and the Jeep was a great success. I am not saying that they should rush home from Vienna to Cyprus but it can be done, to my mind, in three or four months; either they reach agreement or they do not.
The noble Lord, Lord Caradon, said that the Secretary-General was in effect the chairman of the inter-communal talks, and the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, said that they were under his supervision; I think that was the word he used. I think that the inter-communal talks should go ahead if possible. It may be wise and indeed necessary to use the United Nations machinery, though I am doubtful if a succession of resolutions are effective. There have been since July 1974 nine Security Council resolutions and one resolution of the Assembly, and the Turks have not taken the slightest notice. The UN record, therefore, is not very good on this subject. It would be better, in my opinion, to use the good offices of NATO or the EEC. If this procedure is adopted there will be a danger that the Soviet operates its veto in the Security Council. That has to be taken account of. It might be better to do it through the EEC. The UN peace-keeping force could not stop the Turkish Army. It was probably not intended to; but it did not, that is the fact.
If the inter-communal leaders do not reach agreement, then my second question to the Government is this. Could an independent arbitrator be appointed from the EEC or NATO to supervise their talks and reach a temporary solution. He would he appointed, I imagine, by the guaranteeing parties. Much would depend on the tasks set for the intercommunal leaders. Lord Caradon suggested they are the following three:

1085
First, to adopt an independent federated State, and therefore a central Government in charge of foreign affairs, economics, et cetera. Secondly, the frontier—the Turks are 20 per cent. of the population and therefore entitled to 20 per cent. of the land, in my opinion. They have over 40 per cent. at the moment. I will come to the reasons why the Turks should be amenable on this subject. Thirdly, the new constitution. I think that the new constitution is too big a thing for the inter-communal talks. I should personally prefer to see it as a task for the new central Government. The Turks ought to take part because they want a settlement just as much as Greece.
The NATO situation is very questionable; the strategic situation in the Eastern Mediterranean is not at all good; the Middle East is utter confusion, and the economics are pretty bad. The last point however may be very strong: in spite of. the terrible refugee position so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Bradwell, the fact remains that Cyprus still has a skilled labour force, and even the tourist trade will pick up quickly if. politics will settle down. So there is from the Turkish point of view quite an attraction for a quick end to the intercommunal talks. One thing is clear, Makarios, as President, has failed entirely. He failed to stop the fighting from 1964 onwards; he failed to stop this Turkish invasion; and he failed to stop the Sampson coup. Therefore, I think he ought to go. In fact, I think it might be better if the Security Council appointed a neutral President for the first five years. That is my last question to the Government, and I should like to finish now.
10.57 p.m.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I should like to join in the thanks that have been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, for raising this very important Question. He is uniquely qualified to do so. The only pity' is that we discuss this matter in what can only be called a rather thin House. However, the number of speakers and the quality of the debate have borne ample witness to our deep concern and sympathy with the sufferings of the island and our real sense of urgency.
I should like to start from the Report of the Select Committee on Cyprus in
1086
another place, and look first of all at the implications for British domestic policy of the events of 1974. I should like to draw particular attention to the evidence submitted by the Camden Committee for Community Relations, from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, and from the London Borough of Haringey. In passing, I should like to pay the greatest possible tribute to the Borough of Haringey for the marvellous way in which it reacted to the sudden influx of refugees from Cyprus in 1974. I am aware that these questions are outside the normal Departmental brief of the noble Lord the Minister. However, I have given him notice and I hope that he will be able to reply.
I support most strongly Recommendations 11, 12, and 13 of the Select Committee. The most important one of these was that a permanent unit should be established to direct the British Government and British local government action in relation to refugees and displaced persons arriving in this country. Those of your Lordships who have had experience of the Uganda Asian influx will realise that not only is it necessary to have a body to cope with the immediate reception on the day of arrival but it is also necessary to have an ongoing body that can take care of the much more long-term questions of resettlement. We had a demand for such a permanent unit very recently when we were threatened with a renewed influx from Malawi and there may be many countries in the world from which we can expect sudden and unexpected arrivals in future. I believe that a study of what has been done in Western Germany would be extremely worth while in this connection. Western Germany has over the years received a large number of its citizens who have been expelled from countries further to the East and has developed a very comprehensive and effective system of dealing with this.
I come to the humanitarian issues in Cyprus, and I confess to having been pestering Ministers and others about them ever since the first cease-fire in 1974. These questions are urgent because neglect of them breeds hatred, fear and mistrust. They are particularly important issues in Cyprus, which is a country of great humanity, of wonderful hospitality and where there exist the strongest ties of family kinship.

1087
In my view, these humanitarian issues should have priority over the political and general questions and it may be necessary to take the humanitarian issues out of the inter-communal talks. But whether they are in or out, it is clear that Her Majesty's Government have a considerable responsibility for these issues in their role as a guarantor.
The first and perhaps most pressing of the humanitarian issues, one which has already been mentioned tonight, is that of missing persons. These number some 2,000 and include 152 women. Many, alas!, may be dead but there is evidence that some at least were alive and well in the hands of the Turks after the end of the fighting. The International Committee of the Red Cross, as the appropriate body, has tried to investigate this situation, but it has stated that its officers were deprived of full facilities for investigation both in North Cyprus and in Turkey. I hope very strongly that Her Majesty's Government will bring all possible pressure to bear to enable the Red Cross to do the job for which it exists, and I hope that all other countries which take part in the International Red Cross will join in that pressure.
The second highly important humanitarian issue is that of freedom of movement within the Island of Cyprus. This, it might be said, covers a multitude of sins. It is, I believe, the key to implementing the numerous resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly on the subject of refugees, a matter which has been raised tonight. Freedom of movement affects the International Committee of the Red Cross, it affects the United Nations forces in Cyprus, it affects British residents in Cyprus and it affects the Maronite community and very much the enclaved Greek Cypriots in the North and North-East parts of the island. These Greek Cypriots urgently need free movement to enable priests, doctors and teachers to reach them. Uppermost, probably, in Greek Cypriot minds at the present time is the question of access to Varosha, which is the Greek Cypriot quarter of the town of Famagusta and of the nearby potato and carrot growing villages. Freedom of movement depends to a very large extent on freedom from fear, the fear of what may happen to one if one attempts to travel from one part of the
1088
island to another. Much of this could perhaps be removed if all the military and police forces in the island were under clear instructions to facilitate access instead of preventing it, as has sometimes happened.
Lastly, I come to the political and international aspects of the question. I should like to look at them primarily from the point of view of the responsibilities of the British Government and, if I may, I shall go back as far as 1963, when there was a constitutional breakdown followed by fighting and some 80 or more Turkish Cypriot villages came to be abandoned. Turkish Cypriots were left in physical control of only 2 per cent. of the island. They suffered a severe economic blockade and that affected them very severely, because unlike the majority community, they had neither a sufficient market for their goods nor sufficient employment within their own community and were in practice cut off from trading with the majority community and the outside world. I think it important to remember those facts when, as now, the Turks are accused of having seized an unjustly large proportion of the island.
In 1963–1964, Her Majesty's Government intervened militarily and took steps to bring about the establishment in the island of the United Nations force. However, the constitutional issues were left to inter-communal talks without any time limit being set on them. That may have seemed a reasonable approach, but 1974–10 years later—showed that it had been an unfortunate one when unconstitutional regimes were in power both in Athens and, rather briefly, in Nicosia. I suggest that Britain failed to do enough as a guarantor Power between 1963 and 1974.
To turn to the events of 1974, I believe few would disagree with the proposition that Turkey acted in the first place in July entirely correctly as a guarantor. Britain should have joined with Turkey at that time. If, with the force we then had in Cyprus, we had protected the Turkish Cypriot communities in the South of the island, many subsequent evils would have been prevented. This was the argument put forward by Brigadier Harbottle, the former Chief of Staff of the United Nations force, in a letter to The Times on 25th May this year.
Having thus failed to act in July, Her Majesty's Government failed again in

1089
August when Turkey broke the cease-fire. After that weakness, the Government made a unilateral concession on the movement of Turkish Cypriots from the Sovereign Base Area to the North in January 1975. It is not surprising that our seriousness of purpose has been called in question and that the interests of British subjects in Cyprus go by default. I agree with the Select Committee in the other place in its Recommendations Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6. I also agree that conciliation has proved a failure so far. I suggest that either we should abandon our position under the Treaty or, if we stand by our obligations, we should take up and act upon our responsibilities as a guarantor. In no circumstances should we hide behind the United Nations, the Commonwealth or the EEC, though that is not to say that all three of those bodies may not have important parts to play in the present situation.
My Lords, could we not act on two levels simultaneously—on the level of the inter-communal talks and on the level of the three guarantor Powers? Could we not ensure that the inter-communal talks are given an agenda and a timetable, and that, if necessary, the participants in the talks arc locked in, rather like a jury, until such time as they reach agreement? Furthermore, could we not call together all three guarantor Powers to act jointly in preparation for, and in the later implementation of, a long-term solution, such as we all so much desire?
11.11 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Caradon has once more voiced the continued concern of all of us about the tragedy which has befallen the beautiful island which he knows so well and which he has served with such distinction. He has done so without recrimination about the past and in an effort to contribute to a possible solution for this intractable problem—the problem of Cyprus, where many people are suffering hardship and misery as a result of the forcible division of their country. It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the inter-communal talks, under the auspices of Dr. Waldheim, as set up by the Security Council through its Resolution
1090
No. 367 of March 1975, and accepted by all concerned, provide the best forum for the peaceful solution of this tragic problem. It is important to remember that this key resolution was adopted only after weeks of negotiation and discussion, and disappointing as the results are so far, we should not set aside lightly, nor endanger, a basic consensus attained so painfully, so slowly, in the United Nations.
Her Majesty's Government have therefore consistently and actively supported the Secretary-General's efforts. His agreed mandate is to conduct a personal mission of good offices to ensure that the communities in Cyprus, whose future they alone can, and should, decide, should engage in direct negotiation. Five rounds of intercommunal talks have taken place under the auspices of Dr. Waldheim, and while no one can claim that there has been much progress as a result so far, neither can it easily be claimed that any other negotiating device or formula would be more successful. At least this device has the unanimous support of the United Nations, and to disturb it would present us all with the task of reassembling hopefully, but not inevitably, a new consensus of approach to this problem. Indeed, there might well be a danger that any other method would distract the parties—those directly concerned—from direct negotiation, and would in a way internationalise this problem away from Cyprus, and from the people directly concerned and with the greatest responsibility, so that it becomes another international problem divorced from the people themselves.
The best way to achieve a settlement and to implement the United Nations resolutions is for the two Cypriot communities to resume direct substantive discussions. Of course, the political will to negotiate must be there, and no amount of eloquent idealism about what should be done can break down the basic fact that here we are facing so far implacable nationalistic animosities. It is not the lack of will in Britain or the lack of will in the United Nations, or in many other countries of the world, that is standing in the way of a solution to this problem. It is the fact of built-in animosities, which somehow must he resolved.
Now a number of noble Lords have asked: What, then, is the initiative, the policy, of the British Government?

1091
Before I come to the question of guarantees, I want to deal with the question of what we have been doing and what we propose to go on persistently doing. A number of noble Lords suggested, in particular, that we should be making use of the Community, joining with our partners in the EEC in order to try to break this deadlock. This is exactly what we have been doing for months; and never in my experience of some ten or twelve years has the Foreign Office seen so much assiduous devoted diplomacy as that directed to somehow breaking this deadlock and reaching out for every possible organisation internationally, including the EEC, in order to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethall, in particular, asked me whether we were using the political co-ordinating machinery of the EEC. The answer is: Yes; we have been doing it for a long time, and we shall continue to do it. At a time when the United Kingdom is being blamed for everything, apparently, that has happened in Cyprus and for everything that is not happening to help Cyprus, it is time we realised, over the years, from the time when the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd, and my noble friend Lord Caradon were so directly engaged with the island, how much the United Kingdom, under successive Governments, have tried to do to make sure that Cyprus emerged in Europe, in the world, as a sovereign independent State; and I suspect that when others have forgotten Cyprus this country will continue to do everything it can to help it and its people. We and our Allies have made an incessant series of representations in Ankara, in Athens, in Nicosia and at the UN with the aim of persuading those concerned to face up to their responsibilities and to create the right atmosphere for the Secretary-General's efforts to bear fruit. We do not believe that a change in his mandate —which, I repeat, was agreed only after prolonged and difficult negotiation—is either necessary or, indeed, practical.
I come now to specific points raised by a number of noble Lords and the noble Baroness during the debate—a debate, by the way, which will certainly bear re-reading and study; a debate of the highest standard. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and others referred to the subject of the
1092
guarantee. Before we begin to denigrate this country about this as well as everything else, let us refer to Article 4 of the Treaty of Guarantee. The noble Baroness quoted Article 2. The noble Viscount, who has a very good memory stretching over 17 years, because he wrote this as well as signing it, quoted it correctly. It is not very long but it is very precise:
"In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions."
It goes on:
"In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty."
First of all, " reserves the right " to do so. This is not a legal obligation, it is a legal right, if you care to exercise it, in the circumstances and according to the best judgment that you come to. Nothing could be clearer. I hope that there will be not too much accusation of breach of faith by the United Kingdom that it did not rush in in 1974, any more than in 1963, under another Government, to fumble at a guarantee, to misinterpret a guarantee which is very precise and couched in absolutely the right terms in relation to the situation.
The noble Baroness also raised a number of points relating to the situation in Cyprus itself today. I will refer to those as I come to the specific points made by other speakers. Before doing so, may I pay my need of tribute to the noble Viscount for what I regarded as a superb speech in which he placed this matter in historical perspective. It is absolutely true that he and my noble friend, and indeed the British Government of the day, did their utmost in circumstances of the greatest difficulty. It requires a little effort to recall what was happening and had been happening in Cyprus during those dreadful years. Terrible things have been happening in the last two years. Terrible things happened in those years also. Our own soldiers were in the thick of it.
At that time a genuine attempt was made to usher the new State, as a Member of the Commonwealth, into the international family. The noble Viscount, I

1093
thought, put the matter in proper historical perspective. What happened to the Agreement? It became unworkable. I join my noble friend in not ascribing blame, or rather I join my noble friend Lord Maybray-King in saying that some blame attached to everybody in Cyprus. This Agreement became unworkable, and by 1963 there was serious fighting in the island. It is as a result of that that the British took the initiative not to apply this guarantee—they had every right not to apply it—but to move for the setting up in March 1964 of the United Nations force in Cyprus. That is the genesis of UNFICYP—March 1964. What came out of that very serious crisis in 1963 was not an invasion by Britain of the island of Cyprus to repeat the situation out of which we had so painfully climbed, hut the creation of a peace-making force in the island. This is the perspective of statesmanship. I am deeply grateful to the noble Viscount for leading the House to a proper appraisal of these facts.
My noble friend Lord Caradon made three important points. They are for serious consideration. He suggests, for instance, that there should he real consideration of a federal system. There is a substantial consensus for that now—and I am trying not to put this too high—on both sides. Indeed, there is a consensus generally that the future for Cyprus, as a single sovereign State unpartitioned, must nevertheless include some system of devolution—if I may mention such a word today—some arrangement quasi-federal or actually federal within that united system. I believe this is fairly generally accepted; it was not so only a short time ago.
He also mentioned that there should be some initiative so that there should be talk about zoning, about territorial arrangements. I think I quote him correctly. In fact Dr. Waldheim rescued the fifth round of the inter-communal talks precisely by raising this matter. He produced a map. He did not get very far; it was not Dr. Waldheim's fault. That did not prove that conciliation had broken down. It was not the Secretary-General's attempt which had broken down, but the reception to it. When he produced a map for discussion it was found impossible for the time being to get down to substantial talk about territorial
1094
arrangements. On that second point, too, I think there has emerged a general readiness to discuss a bi-zonal arrangement. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, I believe, used " multi-regional " in the sense of cantonal devolution. He did not rule out the possibility, if it were acceptable, of a hi-zonal arrangement.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, what I said was that the bi-zonal solution was the one that was most likely, but that the Greek Cypriots would have preferred a multi-regional one, but that they were prepared to accept a bi-zonal one.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I regret that I misheard him; he has put it absolutely right. It does seem—and I address myself particularly to the noble Lord on this point—that a bi-zonal arrangement on the basis of a central Government asserting the single sovereignty of the island, is emerging as an acceptable system, though I do not want to put it too high. Whenever one thinks one is on the verge of an agreement as between the Communities on a political or any other matter, one speedily finds that there are all sorts of qualifications and reservations to hand to prevent further progress. But that does not mean that we should not persist and press on, because this is the only solution that will stick, one which is engendered organically by the will of the Communities themselves. Nothing imposed on them by any agency from outside will stay, will prove durable. What will prove durable will be the equity of which they themselves are the authors, and that is why this technique, coming from the United Nations itself, fathered and led by the chief executive of the United Nations, must be the right approach to this very difficult problem.
It is not my wish unduly to delay your Lordships at this hour. There are a number of practical points which I appreciate should be answered: freedom of movement within the island; the plight of the refugees; missing persons and, indeed, our own fellow British nationals in the island. I think a better opportunity will be provided for dealing with these matters, and the kind of points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, when the Select Committee Report is made available to us together with the Government's

1095
considered observations on the Report, and there will be a Government paper in due course and in appropriate form, which will be presented to both Houses and which will enable either or both Houses to debate it.
I am responding to the appeal of the noble Baroness that I should take very careful note of everything that has been said in this excellent debate. Had it not been held, it would have had to be arranged. I welcome it. It will be followed by other debates based on other documents, as I have suggested, and in the meantime I wholeheartedly give the noble Baroness and the whole House my undertaking to present to Her Majesty's Government, with the Official Record, the feeling as well as the opinions of the House on this poignant matter.

  Mr. A. BACHU
  Mr. A. BACHU