Sitting of 16 June 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL
  Lords Amendments agreed to.
  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
  STRATHCLYDE UNIVERSITY AND MACKINTOSH SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    South Africa (Foreign Minister)
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to meet the South African Foreign Minister.
    The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Edward Rowlands): My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Brotherton: When the Foreign Secretary meets the South African Foreign Minister, on behalf of the nation, will he apologise for the gross misreporting in The Guardian last month about the activities of the South African Embassy in this country, culminating in The Guardian and the BBC talking about the activities of the gallant Colonel Cheeseman?
    Mr. Rowlands: We have no responsibility for what the Press prints about any aspects of this problem.
    Mr. Hooley: When the Foreign Secretary meets his opposite number in South Africa, will he explain Her Majesty's Government's total opposition to the Bantustan policy of that country and ask when South Africa intends to give up the illegal occupation of Namibia?
    Mr. Rowlands: We have no plans for such a meeting. Therefore it is surely unproductive to discuss a hypothetical agenda for a hypothetical meeting. Our future policies on the Bantustans and Namibia have already been made clear to the South African Government.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has the Foreign Office yet received the dossier promised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), bearing in mind that weeks ago it was reported on the radio that it would be ready within three days?
    Mr. Rowlands: Yes, we have received information submitted to the Department by my hon. Friend.

    Italy
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit Italy.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I have no plans to do so at present.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that grave security problems may arise in NATO in the event of Communists coming to power in Italy? What contingency plans do we have to cope with such an eventuality?
    Mr. Crosland: I have never thought that there was any advantage to this country, or indeed to anybody, in discussing in advance of the Italian election either what the outcome will be or what we will do on certain hypothetical assumptions. It is right that the Italian people should choose their own Government, and we have no idea what the outcome of the election will be. It seems to be absolutely wrong that we should engage in a public discussion as to what we might do on certain contingency assumptions.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Does my right hon. Friend share the belief that Dr. Kissinger's

    517
    well-known fears on this subject are exaggerated, because when the United States has any military secrets it does not entrust them to NATO? Does he agree that that is the case?
    Mr. Crosland: My own view is that there are many other methods by which secrets emerge to hostile Powers besides the one that we are now considering.
    Mr. Hooson: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the situation in Italy shows that nations should have adequate social reforms, and that if a nation is dominated by one party for too long it leads to this kind of situation? Does he agree that NATO should take greater care to ensure that there is uniform economic development as far as possible within member nations?
    Mr. Crosland: I am in favour of one-party domination, provided that it is allied to social reform.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Luceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Crosland: The situation continues to give cause for grave concern and the prospects for a negotiated settlement without further bloodshed are obviously receding. But I have not given up hope that the European minority will accept the realities of the situation and the need to negotiate in good faith with the African nationalists on the basis outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement of 22nd March. I strongly urge them to do so before it is too late.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the Foreign Secretary endorse what was said by Sir Harry Oppenheimer, who knows a great deal about these matters, to the effect that parliamentary government is better than a majority rule which leads to dictatorship? Will the Government keep this in mind in their efforts to reach a sound constitutional settlement in Rhodesia and in any advice given to Dr. Kissinger or to anybody else who is trying to help.
    Mr. Crosland: The realities of the situation and also the morality of the situation demand that the principle of majority rule should be conceded, and should be conceded quickly. The plain fact is that if it is not conceded the prospect for peace in Southern Africa is desperately bleak.
    Mr. Grocott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent report of the so-called presidential commission on racial discrimination in Rhodesia has come at least 10 years too late and that even if implemented in full it would rightly be regarded by black Rhodesians as simply window dressing, and that the only conceivable solution for that country is the immediate implementation of majority rule?
    Mr. Crosland: I think the report is irrelevant to the present realities of the situation, which are only too horribly clear, and will be clear to the House as a whole. If the principle of majority rule is not conceded, the guerrilla warfare will escalate, the nationalist guerrillas will seek support from outside Africa, and will turn first for that support towards Cuba and the Soviet Union. If that occurs, the United States will intervene on the other side, and the prospects of the most bloody conflagration in Southern Africa will be really desperate.
    Mr. Blaker: Would it not be useful if the Foreign Secretary, or even the Prime Minister, were to seek a meeting with Mr. Vorster, the South African Prime Minister, who will be in Europe next week for a discussion about Rhodesia, bearing in mind that our two countries share a common interest in ensuring that constitutional progress there is made by peaceful means?
    Mr. Crosland: There has been a Question on the Order Paper on that subject already, but perhaps I could tell the hon. Member that I shall be seeing Dr. Kissinger both on Monday, before he meets Mr. Vorster, and on Friday, after he has met Mr. Vorster. Therefore, we shall certainly have a very close and detailed impression of what occurred at that meeting.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: When my right hon. Friend speaks to Dr. Kissinger, will he point out to him that the illegal régime in Rhodesia is being sustained because of the fact that South Africa is trading with

    519
    Rhodesia, and that if tomorrow South Africa stopped trading the illegal régime would collapse?
    Mr. Crosland: I think I should be mainly concerned, at the meeting with Dr. Kissinger, to discover whether there is any shift in the South African position and to try to discover what is now the attitude of the South Africans in this extraordinarily tricky situation.
    Mr. Maudling: The Foreign Secretary very rightly stressed the extreme gravity of the situation, but is he really content, as British Foreign Secretary, to leave any new initiative at the present moment to Dr. Kissinger?
    Mr. Crosland: As I have told the House before, the British Government's stand on the position was outlined to the House by my right hon. Friend, now Prime Minister, on 22nd March, and until the preconditions laid down in my right hon. Friend's statement are met we do not believe that there would be any sense in starting a new programme of negotiation.
    Mr. Luce: Since the growing war of attrition in Rhodesia is fundamentally against the interest of Rhodesians and the West, may I welcome the release of Mr. Garfield Todd and ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has noted that it is reported on British television this week that Mr. Todd has suggested that a peaceful solution in Rhodesia requires the active encouragement of the Western world, led by Britain? How does the Foreign Secretary respond to that?
    Mr. Crosland: Like the hon. Gentleman, I greatly welcome the release of Mr. Garfield Todd. I noted the statement, but nevertheless it remains the conviction of the British Government that, until there is some clear sign of major movement on the part of the white Rhodesian régime, to start a new process or a new programme of negotiation would be a total waste of time.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not a fact that there is no denying that responsibility for the growing conflict in Rhodesia rests entirely with the illegal Smith régime, and that everything possible should be done, including encouraging South Africa not to give military help or
    520
    to trade, if there is to be any move at all towards a peaceful solution?
    Mr. Crosland: I broadly accept that. I think that the primary and essential responsibility for the present situation lies on the white régime in Rhodesia. As I said before, until there is some sign of a major change of policy and direction on the part of that régime, I think that a new round of endless negotiations would be fruitless.
    Mr. Wall: While accepting the principle of majority rule, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he realises that by laying down a timetable of two years he is going exactly the opposite way? Does he not realise that the rapid transfer of power would immediately lead to a civil war between the Mashona and the Matabele?
    Mr. Crosland: The two years refers to two things—first, the acceptance of the principle of majority rule and, second, elections for majority rule to be held within the two-year period.
    The hon. Gentleman, with respect, referred to a total transfer of power. Nobody has suggested that within that two years the whole of the existing administration would be dismantled and replaced by a totally new one. Indeed, it would be the hope certainly of Her Majesty's Government and of the African leaders that as many of the present white Rhodesians as possible would stay behind in order to help the new régime.

    Nuclear Proliferation
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he plans to have in the near future about the prevention of nuclear proliferation with his counterparts in those countries which would be capable of exporting nuclear equipment.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. John Tomlinson): Her Majesty's Government have over the last two years or so pursued an active nuclear non-proliferation policy, part of which relates to the export of nuclear equipment. As my right hon. Friend made clear on 31st March, this involves consultations with other Governments. This policy remains in force and the consultations will continue.
    Mr. Forman: Are the hon. Gentleman and the other members of the Government aware that many of us on all sides of the House have a deep concern about the dangers of nuclear proliferation and would like to see the Government pressing for at least two important objectives—first, a total ban on the export of nuclear reprocessing technology, and, secondly, adequate international storage facilities, under strict control, for spent nuclear fuel?
    Mr. Tomlinson: The concern of the hon. Gentleman is shared, I am sure, by the whole House, including Her Majesty's Government, but at this stage it has been agreed by those participating in the discussions that progress can best be made on all these issues, important as they are, if confidentiality in the discussions is at present maintained.
    Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will the Government take a determined initiative in trying to bring together all the countries that are involved in the sale of arms, both nuclear and conventional, with a view to trying to get a reduction and control of this rapidly growing field of commerce—and a horrific field it is—which is causing so much misery, especially in the Third World countries?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that Her Majesty's Government are playing a full part in all the disarmament negotiations, and we wish to see these negotiations completed on a proper multilateral basis.
    Mr. Moonman: I appreciate my hon. Friend's original statement, but does he not think that it will add to our credibility in any discussions we undertake if we have a more consistent policy ourselves in regard to the import of nuclear reprocessing fuels?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I take note of the question. I do not think there is any conflict in Her Majesty's Government's policy as it stands at present.

    Rhodesia (British Mercenaries)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a further statement on steps being taken to curb the involvement of British mercenaries in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Crosland: For the present, I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State told my hon. Friend on 5th and 17th May.
    Mr. Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the apparent inaction in this area—although there are promises of action—is causing great concern in the House? Will he at least at this stage make quite clear to the House and the country in what sort of offences Britons who take up service with Rhodesian forces could be involved?
    Mr. Crosland: I cannot accept that, unless my hon. Friend is willing to define more closely what he means by "inaction". Perfectly clear sanctions have been laid down concerning Rhodesian recruitment, under the Rhodesia sanctions legislation. There was some discussion in the House last night on whether there was a loophole in this matter. This is under very close study in the Department. But I cannot accept that there is inaction. The Director of Public Prosecutions conducted four successful prosecutions in 1974, for example, against magazines which, possibly through ignorance, carried advertisements encouraging immigration into Rhodesia.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under British law—except in the rather special circumstances laid down in the Foreign Enlistment Act—and under international law, it is not a crime to be a mercenary, as such? At a time when British subjects are on trial for their lives because, in a certain country, it is said to be an offence, would it not be bad for the law in this country to be changed?
    Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman refers to mercenaries in another country. About them, obviously, the less said at this stage the better. I can confirm that although in that case they went out against the strong advice of Her Majesty's Government, as the House knows, under British law it is not a crime to be a mercenary. But there is nothing in British law to stop anyone leaving the country, with or without a passport.
    Mr. Whitehead: In view of the fact that some people who may be recruited for service under the illegal régime in Rhodesia could be sent out

    523
    by the same agencies that sent these unfortunate and misguided men to Angola, ought not my right hon. Friend to say something about the procedures that allow these people to send men out there—a matter that has been raised in their trial?
    Mr. Crosland: I have examined these procedures closely, and there is no doubt that, as the law now stands, nothing incorrect occurred. In other words, they were not allowed out in some fashion suggesting complicity on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Far from that, they went out against the advice of the Government. But nothing incorrect occurred, because, under British law, anyone can leave the country, with or without a passport.
    As for the more general future, I should not like to be drawn into a general definition of what is or what is not a mercenary. It was because of uncertainties in the present law that the Diplock Committee was set up, and I think that it will be sensible for us to await the report of that committee.
    Mr. Maudling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome his firm reassertion of the right of an individual British citizen to leave the country if he so wishes, and that we also welcome his clear distinction between serving as a so-called mercenary or volunteer and committing war crimes in the course of that service?
    Mr. Crosland: Perhaps I might make it clear that there is one exception to the right of anyone to leave the country, with or without a passport, namely, if a person is suspected of having committed criminal offences. In the case that is in the minds of many right hon. and hon. Members, a number of those who wished to leave the country were prevented from doing so by the police because they were wanted for or suspected of criminal offences.
    As for the right hon. Gentleman's second point about the definition, I should prefer not to be drawn into fundamental discussions until we have the report of the Diplock Committee.

    Middle East
    Mr. Waltersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
    524
    Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the Middle East.
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give consideration to taking a new initiative in relation to the Israeli-Arab dispute.
    The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): As I said on 19th May, we hope that negotiations can soon be resumed with the aim of achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. I do not think that this aim would be best served by a new British initiative at this point. We shall, however, continue to watch the situation carefully.
    Mr. Walters: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main lessons to be learned from the tragic and horrid events in the Lebanon is that there will be no settlement but, rather, continuing instability, bloodshed and war until the rights of the Palestinians and the question of Palestinian statehood are resolved? They cannot be resolved without a peace settlement. Do not the Government intend to do something more active to try to break the present deadlock?
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman's question fell into two parts. On the first part, I agree substantially that there needs to be a recognition of the special problems of the Palestinians and an understanding that they must be accommodated within any lasting settlement.
    I cannot share the hon. Gentleman's view with regard to his second point. There is always a tendency in this House to expect Britain to take initiatives when they would not produce solutions but might actually complicate the prospects of success. Certainly the British Government are available to act if that seems right, but to take an ill-considered initiative is not the way in which the British Government should proceed.
    Mr. Moonman: Despite the basis of the previous question, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the issue in the Lebanon is about the rolling forces of the Syrians and that it has less to do with the immediate circumstances associated with the Palestinians? This

    525
    matter must be dealt with, but I think that we are confusing the issue.
    Mr. Hattersley: The situation in the Lebanon has been caused by forces which are far too complex to be described in answer to a supplementary question. They are partly historical and partly geographical, but certainly an element in them is the one referred to in the first supplementary question. Our hope now is that this long unresolved problem, part of which concerns the exploitation of one community by another, can be solved in a way that brings peace to that presently unhappy country and brings the tragedy to a swift end.
    Mr. Aitken: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the current stage of the siege of Beirut indicates that there may soon be immediate problems of starvation and disease in that city? Will he consider, in co-operation with the European Powers, making certain contingency plans for swift relief and humanitarian action to ensure that both British subjects and the Lebanese people have, from the European end, some assistance in the tragedy, which may well become even worse?
    Mr. Hattersley: Many citizens of Beirut are already suffering considerable deprivation, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the situation may well deteriorate. I assure him and the House that Her Majesty's Government are very conscious of this and are prepared to help as best we can if the situation deteriorates substantially.
    Mr. Colin Jackson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Arab nations are deeply disappointed about the supine attitude of the British Foreign Office towards the Middle East crisis? The fact that, apparently, our policy in the past has been step by step behind Dr. Kissinger may now lose its validity completely as Dr. Kissinger may take his final step out of office.
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not think that a policy based on our wish to do what we can as long as that is practical and right is properly to be described as "supine". I reiterate what I said earlier. There is a tendency to believe that any initiative is better than no initiative. I do not share that view.
    Mr. Luce: Since the construction of Jewish settlements in Arab-occupied territory, quite contrary to United Nations resolutions, is likely to provoke even further conflict in the Middle East, and in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly endorsed this view, what is he doing to ensure that the Israeli Government are aware of the views of both the British Government and the European Community?
    Mr. Hattersley: That view is generally shared by our colleagues in the EEC, and we are making it very clear to the Israeli Government. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) enables me to do it at almost every Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Question Time.

  UNCTAD IV
  Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the Secretary General of the Commonwealth concerning the outcome of the UNCTAD Conference in Nairobi.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): None so far, Sir.
  Mr. Spearing: Is not that a disappointing and rather disgraceful answer, in view of the fact that it was through the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting that the original initiative for some movement in this matter came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson)? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Commonwealth group of experts not only endorsed the principle of a common fund but hoped that it would emerge? Is is not time for the group of experts to be reconvened, so that the Commonwealth can make a specific contribution to the forthcoming discussions on the matter?
  Mr. Luard: We recognise that the Commonwealth has had continuing discussions on this question, and we have been in close touch with members of the Commonwealth both at Nairobi and before. The Commonwealth group of experts still exists. Its final report will not be delivered until shortly before the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting next summer, when, of course, we shall consider it.
  Mr. Tugendhat: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when Britain's economic strength is so low, one of our real sources of potential influence is our joint membership of the Community and the Commonwealth, and that that should give this country the ability to play a much more influential and pivotal rôle in discussions of the kind that took place at UNCTAD? The previous Prime Minister used the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference for this purpose. Is it not very disappointing that the Minister cannot provide more positive answers to Questions of this kind?
  Mr. Luard: My answer was positive. I made it clear that we had had continuing discussions with the Commonwealth and also with the EEC on all these questions, including the matters discussed at UNCTAD in Nairobi. What this and the original Question seem to imply is that any right-minded Government should have supported from the beginning the idea of a common fund. There is room for a difference of view on that issue. We have to be concerned not only about our own interests but about those of smaller developing countries which are consumers rather than producers of commodities. It is not clear that such countries would be benefited by a common fund. It is on those grounds that we have taken the attitude that we have.
  Mr. Hooley: Does the Minister not agree that there are two forums—the EEC and the Commonwealth? Unfortunately, the EEC is totally split on this issue, as was shown at Nairobi. There is a very powerful case for trying to establish a Commonwealth policy on the basis of the excellent reports produced by the special committee of experts.
  Mr. Luard: The fact of the matter is that the Commonwealth Governments arc as divided on this matter as is the EEC. Perhaps this division is for even more obvious reasons, because their interests are more clearly divided. We have had continuing discussions in the Commonwealth, including several meetings at Nairobi, to try to patch up these differences. My hon. Friend is right; we should continue these discussions and try to reach some kind of common understanding in the Commonwealth. However, I am sad to say that at the moment there is not too great a hope of that.

  UNCTAD IV

    Helsinki Agreement
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the implementation of the Helsinki Agreement with the Soviet Ambassador.
    Mr. Tomlinson: My right hon. Friend has not yet had an opportunity to discuss this subject with the Soviet Ambassador. It is, however, a topic that he has very much in mind. The Soviet Ambassador is calling on him later this afternoon and their discussion is likely to include CSCE implementation.
    Mr. Sproat: When the Minister's right hon. Friend speaks to the Soviet Ambassador this afternoon will he make it clear that the review conference at Belgrade next year must include not just consideration of proposals for future co-operation but a detailed scrutiny of the way in which the various signatories to the Helsinki Agreement have or have not carried out that agreement? Will he make it clear that Belgrade must not be just a meeting of civil servants but must be conducted at a high political level?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend heard what the hon. Member said. The review conference is more than a year away and it is too early to have any details in terms of our formal negotiating position. The progress achieved by the participating States in the intervening period clearly will be an important factor affecting our thinking.
    Mr. Amery: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread anxiety in a number of countries, caused by the concept attributed to Dr. Kissinger's aide, Mr. Sohnenfeldt, of the organic relation between the countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union? Whether this concept was rightly or wrongly attributed, it has been very widespread. Will the Foreign Secretary make it quite clear that we have no part in any such concept?
    Mr. Tomlinson: It is our understanding that this was totally wrongly attributed.
    Mr. Heffer: At the review conference in Belgrade, is the Minister prepared to enter discussions on freedom of travel

    529
    from Eastern European countries? I have a constituent who wants to marry a Romanian subject. That person wants to come here after the marriage but has been refused permission to leave Romania. This has caused great distress. In view of the fact that the Soviet Union has tremendous influence with the rest of the Communist countries in Eastern Europe, this matter of free travel should be fully explored and brought home to them very clearly.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am sure that the Government share my hon. Friend's concern about freedom of travel. If he will let me have the details of this particular case, we shall look into it.
    Mr. Blaker: In spite of the Helsinki Agreement, the Soviet Union continues to make clear that détente is no bar to their efforts to overthrow the Western way of life, legally or illegally, peacefully or by non-peaceful means. Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the Soviet Ambassador that this is not acceptable?
    Mr. Tomlinson: There would be differences of view about some of the definitions of détente. The Soviet Government have taken steps in a number of fields to apply the principles of the Helsinki Agreement and a note outlining the actions they have taken towards implementation of the Final Act appeared in Hansard on 10th March. There has since been a Soviet notification of a second military manoeuvre. However, we are mistaken if we have expectations of achieving success in every area of the Helsinki Agreement. What we have to do in future talks between the participating countries is to try to consolidate what has been achieved.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the implementation of the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer on this point given by my right hon. Friend on 10th March. We shall not be satisfied until all the points in the Final Act are being met by all signatories. Some progress is being made to adjust existing practices to the provisions of the Final Act. But any proper assessment must wait until the 1977 review meeting.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Minister congratulate the producers of the Granada "World in Action" film which was smuggled out of the Soviet Union and shown on television on Monday night? This film revealed in the clearest terms the callous way in which the Soviet Union is disregarding the Final Act, particularly in relation to its Jewish minority. When the Foreign Secretary sees the Soviet Ambassador this afternoon, will he please convey the anxiety felt on all sides of the House in connection with this ill treatment?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I note what my hon. and learned Friend said in relation to the "World in Action" film. The Final Act of the conference does provide for freer movement of individuals and families for short visits and settlement. I quote from a passage in a speech by the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir Harold Wilson) on 30th July 1975. He said:
    "I hope that what we have each committed ourselves to in Europe can apply to those within our own countries who want to start a new life outside Europe, whether it be in the Middle East or elsewhere."
    Those are sentiments that will be echoed on all sides of this House.
    Sir John Hall: Long before the Helsinki Conference concluded, the Inter-Parliamentary Union held a conference in Helsinki, over which I presided. In less than five days that conference produced an agreement as comprehensive as the latest formal agreement of the Helsinki Conference on European security. In view of that fact, would it not be cheaper and more satisfactory to allow such conferences in future to be conducted by the Inter-Parliamentary Union?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I do not think that comments of such a pessimistic nature as that are necessarily helpful to the Belgrade Review Conference.
    Mr. Whitehead: As the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement has a specific section about newspaper circulation, will the Minister make representations to the Government of Czechoslovakia, who have stopped the circulation and sale in their country of all British newspapers, including the Morning Star?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will write to me about this matter, and I will look at it.
    Mr. Rifkind: Is there any tangible evidence at all that the Soviet Union and its allies have changed their fundamental attitude towards the human rights of a number of their own citizens? Will the Government indicate whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the spirit of the Soviet Union's implementation of the Helsinki Agreement?
    Mr. Tomlinson: As I have already said, a note outlining the actions that the Soviet Union has taken appeared in Hansard on 10th March. Obviously the Government are not going to be satisfied until all aspects of the agreement are fully implemented by the signatories to it.

    Chilean Embassy Staff
    Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many accredited diplomatic staff there are at the Chilean Embassy in London.
    Mr. Rowlands: Thirteen, Sir.
    Mr. Cook: Did my hon. Friend see the statement made by Mr. John Cooper last month in which he said he had been hired for more than two years to collect information about organisations in Britain concerned with human rights in Chile, and to disrupt their activities? Has an inquiry taken place into these allegations? Will my hon. Friend make representations to the Chilean Ambassador, telling him that we will not tolerate this sort of spying on the legitimate activities of British citizens and the political refugees under our protection?
    Mr. Rowlands: I am aware of the anonymous allegations made in a television programme. Such allegations are disquieting, but there is as yet no substantive evidence to back them up.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: As our trade with Chile is so important, does the Minister not agree that it is time we once again had full diplomatic relations and exchange of personnel with Chile, as we have with many other dictatorial régimes of which hon. Members may disapprove?
    Mr. Rowlands: We withdrew our ambassador as a result of a particularly distasteful and unpleasant case that involved the torture and detention of a British citizen for 60 days without charge on any offence. That is a most unsatisfactory and distasteful situation, and we were fully justified in the action that we took.
    Mr. Heffer: Now that the submarines have been completed on the Clyde, are the Government giving any consideration to impounding them and ensuring that they do not go to this despicable Chilean Government?
    Mr. Rowlands: The first of the two submarines has been handed over to the Chilean Government. The second has not yet been, and the matter is under review in the light of payments and other matters.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    Tindemans Report
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the EEC Foreign Ministers for a discussion about those parts of the Tindemans Report relating to foreign policy.
    Mr. Crosland: At the Foreign Affairs Council on 29th and 30th June.
    Mr. Blaker: The Foreign Secretary made it clear that he regarded the concerting of foreign policy as one of the most fruitful lines of development for the Community. That process does not need to wait for joint decisions on the Tindemans Report. Has he had time to give his attention to concerting foreign policy with our partners on matters such as Yugoslavia, Spain and Cyprus, which are so important to the Community?
    Mr. Crosland: I accept what the hon. Member says. At Luxembourg last Saturday, at one of a series of informal meetings of Foreign Ministers, we had a considerable discussion on the objective of concerting foreign policy. Without going into great detail, I can assure the hon. Member that there was a wide measure of agreement. I told our partners very strongly what I feel very strongly—that

    533
    the failure of the EEC to concert a common position on UNCTAD was a major setback for the EEC.
    Sir G. de Freitas: What are the Government doing to prepare for the first six months of next year, when Britain will be in the chair of the European Council and, as a consequence, our diplomats abroad will be called upon to speak collectively for all nine Governments?
    Mr. Crosland: We are doing an enormous amount of preparatory work, both of a physical character, to decide where all the innumerable meetings should be held, and in terms of contingency planning on policy. A large amount of work is going on, not only in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but in other Departments, to prepare for next year.
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures have been decided upon within the Council of Ministers for handling the Tindemans Report.
    Mr. Hattersley: Foreign Ministers agreed in May to devote some time at each of their meetings to consideration of the report, chapter by chapter. They are expected to report back to the European Council at the end of November, though they may make an interim report to the July European Council.
    Mr. Arnold: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny his own belief in the accuracy of Mr. Tindemans' remarks when he said in his report that public opinion wanted to see results but that he doubted whether there was sufficient will in individual Governments to overcome the practical problems towards encouraging wider European co-operation?
    Mr. Hattersley: That is a general and almost philosophical supplementary question, which it is literally impossible to answer. However, I shall try to answer it by saying that I am sure the people of the Community want to see some results from the Community. What they want is not some grand declaration of overall constitutional design but to see the Community making sense for them in terms of living standards, the fight against unemployment, and regional policy. It
    534
    is the attitude of the British Government that the Community should concentrate more and more on that aspect of its work.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is it the policy of the British Government to encourage further European countries, other than Greece, into full membership of the Community? Is it the fact that the United States Government support that policy?
    Mr. Hattersley: I have no idea of the attitude that the United States Government take on these matters, not least because they have nothing to do with the Government of the United States. These are matters for the Community and for the treaty provisions governing new members. I am happy to confirm that the Community looks forward to the application by Greece to join the Community. I think that accession negotiations will soon begin. All applications have to be treated on their merits. Some severe rules govern those who may or may not apply. Application is open only to European democracies, but if other democracies wish to enter the Community we shall look upon their application within the terms of the treaty, which provides that they are entitled to apply for membership.
    Mr. Hurd: In his report Mr. Tindemans laid great stress on the importance of joint foreign policy action by the Community. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider with his colleagues, at the next meeting that he attends, the possibility of an early Community initiative on Cyprus? Would it not be possible to find an experienced European statesman who would go to the various capitals, as the representative of the Community, to bring the principals together over a period of, possibly, six months? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to use the authority of the Community to promote a settlement of this problem before it erupts into a further explosion?
    Mr. Hattersley: The authority of the Community has been used over the past year to persuade the parties to the inter-communal talks to accept the disciplines and the prospects of those talks ending in success with a good deal more realism than in the past. The Community's coordinated efforts will continue to try to get the talks going in a satisfactory way under the chairmanship of Dr. Waldheim.

    535
    I personally doubt whether any other Community initiative would be of value. I believe that the future for Cyprus and the exercise of bringing the country back to something like normal conditions must lie with the inter-communal talks. The Community has co-ordinated its policy to make those talks a success.

    Foreign Ministers
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when he next expects to meet representatives of the EEC.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Foreign Ministers of the EEC.
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to met his EEC colleagues.
    Mr. Crosland: I met other EEC Foreign Ministers at an informal meeting at Senningen on 12th June. The next Foreign Affairs Council will be on 29th and 30th June, but I expect to meet a number of my colleagues on other occasions before then.
    Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with his EEC colleagues the problem regarding overseas students' fees, bearing in mind that we are virtually the only Common Market country to discriminate against foreign students in this way, and that many of the Common Market countries do not charge tuition fees at all? Will he resist any attempts to increase this discrimination, especially in view of reports of a Cabinet study group proposal for a 400 per cent. further increase in overseas students' fees?
    Mr. Crosland: The last great row in the House about overseas fees was when I was Secretary of State for Education and Science. I do not see why I should take responsibility for a second row. The question of overseas students' fees is under active consideration, but I must insist that it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
    Mr. Marten: Did the Foreign Secretary notice the remarks, last weekend, of Mr. Gaston Thorn, the current President
    536
    of the Council of Ministers, who voiced his alarm at the inability of Community Ministers to reach a consensus on so many things? He added that the Community could not last for long like this. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread feeling that the Community is now beginning to head for disarray? That expression has been used by many eminent pro-Marketeers, and they are deeply anxious about it. Will the right hon. Gentleman welcome, before he takes the chair next year, an inquiry into why things are not working as expected?
    Mr. Crosland: I note the hon. Member's extreme solicitude for the successful working of the Community, and I share it. I should be very happy to hear his views at any time about how we can improve matters. I believe that Mr. Thorn, at the end of a long and exhausting day, was unduly gloomy in what he said. But it is proper to say that as a newcomer to these meetings I am also concerned at the difficulty that the Community finds in reaching decisions, and we have reached the stage when we all ought to think out exactly what our objectives are and exactly what are the objectives of the Community. I hope that there will be a debate on this subject tomorrow, and I hope that in a foreign affairs debate that we shall probably have before the end of July the House will turn its attention to what the future of the Community ought to be.
    Mr. Crawford: Will the Foreign Secretary tell his colleagues in the EEC to do something about the disgraceful discrimination in Europe against Scotch whisky? As a result of that discrimination, sales of whisky in Italy have dropped 36 per cent. over the last year. That is against the letter and spirit of the Treaty of Rome.
    Mr. Crosland: I shall look into this matter. I must confess that whenever I go to the Continent, whatever I am offered in the way of fine wines of splendid vintage, I drink absolutely nothing but Scotch whisky.
    Mr. Noble: When my right hon. Friend next meets representatives of the EEC will he discuss with them the multifibre arrangement and the import-sharing agreement? While these may be an acceptable framework for trade in textiles,

    537
    they place an unfair burden on the British industry, particularly in circumstances in which they share future burdens and not past burdens, and in which there is still a growth of imports when the industry remains in a recession.
    Mr. Crosland: I am pleased to learn from my right hon. Friend that this is one of the subjects that is to be debated tomorrow.

    Harmonisation
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures of harmonisation in the EEC he expects to discuss during 1976.
    Mr. Hattersley: I expect the Council will give further consideration during 1976 to proposals by the Commission within the framework of the General Programme on the Abolition of Technical Barriers to Trade.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the motion of censure yesterday mounted by Euro-fanatics is an indication of the growing unease about the way in which the Community is now operating? Does he accept that the recent directive requiring veterinary inspectors to replace environmental health officers is also an indication of that, and that it is unnecessary and totally unreasonable? Will he assure the House that he will resist measures on harmonisation when our existing standards are reasonable and satisfactory?
    Mr. Hattersley: I accept the implication in the third part of the question, that harmonisation for its own sake—it is currently called gratuitous harmonisation—should be resisted, and the Government will resist it. I cannot share the opinions that my hon. Friend expressed in the rest of his question. Whatever the motion of censure was about yesterday, I do not think it conformed with any principles to which my hon. Friend would subscribe. On the second part of his question, he must put the point specifically to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. On a number of these issues, attempts to improve conditions within the Community are carried out in the name of the Community, whereas before they would have been done on much the same scale on the authority
    538
    of the British Government. The criticism would then have accrued to the British Government, whereas now it accrues to the Community. We have to judge individual propositions on their merits, and that is what we shall continue to do.
    Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British citizens are now the largest group of those who are breaking our animal quarantine regulations? Will he consider inviting our EEC partners to institute, for the animals of British visitors, quarantine regulations similar to those that we impose upon the animals of foreigners coming into this country? That seems to be the only way in which we can prevent our own citizens misbehaving in this way.
    Mr. Hattersley: I should like to give the hon. Gentleman an answer to that question. I should do so if I understood it, and if I thought it relevant to the Question on the Order Paper. If he tables a Question I shall do my best to accommodate him.
    Mr. Jay: Should we not have more harmony in Western Europe if we had less harmonisation?
    Mr. Hattersley: I hope that my right hon. Friend, like me, takes an empiric view of these matters. He will have heard the view that I expressed in answer to an earlier question—namely, that the problems and prospects of harmonization should be examined and considered on their merits. When it seems to the Government that benefit will accrue from harmonisation—the removal of some of the non-tariff barriers to trade would be beneficial to British industry—we shall support it. On the other hand, when it seems unnecessary or gratuitous, we shall oppose it.
    Mr. Jessel: Would it not be better to talk of uniformity rather than of harmonisation? Does the Minister agree that harmonisation has a pleasant musical sound about it, which tends to draw people's thinking away from judging these matters impartially, on their merits?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am sorry to have to enter into a semantic argument with the hon. Gentleman. Surely uniformity is an extreme form of harmonisation. As the Government want to take a moderate

    539
    view of harmonisation, we do not wish to go right to the end of the road, which is the implication of the question.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend accept that at present harmonisation is resulting in an astonishing number of civil servants of all nine member States spending a great deal of time on the most astounding trivia, ranging from the harmonisation of mayonnaise to the standardisation of continental time? It is the time that is being spent on such extraordinary and totally useless measures that is adding to the cost for the taxpayer and bringing the whole Common Market administration into disrepute. Will my right hon. Friend make some effort to ensure that harmonisation is concerned with useful measures and not utterly useless ones?
    Mr. Hattersley: I have already said that I believe that harmonisation should happen only when there is some benefit to accrue. However, I urge my hon. Friend not to think of harmonisation in such a wholly total way—either wholly bad or wholly good. For example, two years ago many of us who now support—myself among them—a regulation to make uniform the fitting of rear-view mirrors on agricultural vehicles thought—myself included—that it was a funny proposition. However, I understand it has made it easier for British tractor manufacturers to sell into the EEC. That sort of harmonisation seems wholly beneficial.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On an important detail, is the Minister aware that there is a certain lack of harmony among British chicken breeders on the New York-dressed poultry issue? Will he bring the House up to date about this matter? Is he seeking to achieve a situation that will enable us to sell New York-dressed poultry within this country, even if in future it is not possible to do so between countries of the EEC?
    Mr. Hattersley: The question of New York-dressed poultry is eminently a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I must not trespass on his preserves.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important item of harmonisation on the EEC agenda
    540
    at the moment is the view of member States on direct elections? Will he deny reports that Britain is one of two Governments holding up an agreement on direct elections? Will he and his right hon. Friends press ahead with harmonisation on this issue as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am not sure whether direct elections legitimately come under the heading of harmonisation. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of Britain holding up agreement against a majority opinion. Britain has been as co-operative as is consistent with preserving the British national interest. As for pressing ahead, we have made our position clear. We did so in the two-day debate in March. When the Select Committee reports, which I hope it soon will, no doubt the House will be able to express its view on the way that we should press on and the terms in which the pressing should continue.

    Iceland (Fisheries Dispute)
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other EEC Ministers about the Icelandic fisheries dispute.
    Mr. Crosland: Throughout the Icelandic fisheries dispute and since its conclusion Her Majesty's Government have kept in very close touch about it with all Community Governments and with the Commission.
    Sir A. Meyer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable sympathy and admiration for the courage and realism that he has used in extricating this country from the untenable position in which it had been placed by the jingoistic bragging of his predecessor? Will he draw the lesson from this incident, and in seeking to define a future fisheries policy pay regard to obtainable objectives and the common interests of our partners?
    Mr. Crosland: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, which I hope will be noted in Humberside. As for the latter part of his remarks, I accept the broad objective, subject to my view that the British national interest in this case is of overriding importance.
    Mr. James Johnson: Without wishing in any manner to have a post mortem on this subject, and bearing in mind that in my right hon. Friend's constituency and in mine many vessels are now being laid up, will he be prepared, in the event of our not getting another agreement on 1st December, to ask the EEC to impose a tariff upon Icelandic exports of fish into the Community?
    Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend is very vocal on these matters but, with respect, he does not always get his facts correct. If he had bothered to read the text of the agreement, which, as a Humberside MP, he should have done, he would have seen that it is made clear that in the view of the British Government Protocol 6 should apply only for the duration of the six months agreement with Iceland, unless and until some further long-term agreement is made. My hon. Friend has made enough criticisms of the agreement, without getting his facts totally and completely wrong.
    Mr. Wall: Has the Minister discussed the extension of fisheries limits to 200 miles, with a 50-mile exclusive economic zone, which has become even more essential in view of the effects of the settlement of the Icelandic dispute?
    Mr. Crosland: At the last Council of Ministers meeting my right hon. Friend the Minister of State described in broad outline the British negotiating position. As far as I am concerned, that is the final position on the exclusive coastal belt. If we achieve our aims in this matter, there is no doubt that in total the catch for British industry should in future be roughly what it has been in the past, although, as the hon. Gentleman will know, there will be an enormous shift in the character of the catch.
    Mr. Watt: Will the Secretary of State reach a speedy decision with his EEC colleagues on who is to patrol the fishing limits round Britain? Will he quickly place orders for the boats and the aircraft that will be required for such purposes?
    Mr. Crosland: That is a pertinent question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has foreseen this situation for some time past and has been placing orders of a character that will meet the hon. Gentleman's demands.
    Mr. Prescott: Does my right hon. Friend accept the view expressed by Commissioner Lardinois yesterday that anything beyond a 12-mile limit is not possible without a change in the Treaty? Does he agree that it means the fishing policy depending upon quotas and national enforcement, which will be disastrous for our fishing industry and reflects a negotiating posture in which we are likely to lose yet again?
    Mr. Crosland: I did not read the remarks made by Commissioner Lardinois yesterday. Therefore, I do not like to give a snap off-the-cuff judgment on them. On what my hon. Friend said, however, they would meet with considerable resistance from the British Government.
    Mr. Brotherton: Despite the Secretary of State's apparent determination not to help Humberside fishermen, will he tell the House that he will do his best to ensure that a 50-mile exclusive economic zone is made available for British fishermen after the Law of the Sea Conference reports?
    Mr. Crosland: The Government have already publicly made known their view on the common fisheries policy. I hope that, for a change, the hon. Gentleman will tell his constituents the truth of the matter.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION
  3.31 p.m.
  Mr. Sedgemore: I should like to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that a remark made by me in the House yesterday was in no sense meant to be a personal reflection on the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). I hope that my remark was not interpreted in that sense. If so, I apologise to the right hon. Lady.

CUMBERNAULD AND KILSYTH DISTRICT COUNCIL (MANUAL WORKERS)
Mr. Canavan: 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 industrial dispute between Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council and certain of its manual workers."

543
I submit that this is an important matter on several grounds. It is important, first, to the workers and their families, many of whom are my constituents, who are being asked by the district council to accept a wage cut of up to £6 per week. Not surprisingly, the workers are resisting this proposal, and the strike is now in its fifth week.
It is important, too, because of the potential health hazard to the whole community due to the accumulation of refuse in the streets and other public places.
I submit that it is also important because of the highly irresponsible and incompetent behaviour of the SNP-controlled council. It is not only failing in its duty to the community, but it is trying to pass the buck to the Government by claiming that the Government have not given it enough money to pay its workers. The provost of the council has repeatedly made false statements and even denied that the district council has received from the Government an increase of over £127,000 in rate support grant for the current financial year compared with last year—
Mr. Speaker: Order. A Standing Order No. 9 application is the opportunity not for a speech on political arguments, but to advance the hon. Gentleman's case.
Mr. Canavan: Paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 9 states:
"In determining whether a matter is proper to be discussed"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not free to call into question the ruling that I have just made—at any rate, not in that fashion.
Mr. Canavan: I am not calling your ruling into question, Mr. Speaker. I am on another point. Paragraph (4) continues:
"Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of Ministers of the Crown or could come within the scope of ministerial action."
I wish to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that the district has already been visited by Government inspectors. Although this is primarily a local authority matter and the local authority must shoulder the blame, there is nevertheless a certain amount of scope for ministerial action.
544
Government health inspectors have already visited the place. After an emergency council meeting the other day, the Secretary of State for Scotland was asked to intervene. There is also the possibility of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service coming in. It comes in in some way under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Employment.
Lastly, this matter requires urgent consideration as the strike is in its fifth week and the situation is deteriorating due to the provocative action of the council, which has recently been trying to break the strike by bringing in scab labour from other places. This has inflamed the situation and made it of urgent proportions.
The health hazard also requires urgent action. The other day a seven-year-old boy was bitten by a rat near one of the emergency rubbish dumps. It is significant, however, that the boy's mother said that the strikers were right to hold out against a reduction in their wages.
It is obvious that the council has lost control of the situation. If the SNP councillors were honourable people, they would resign. They have abandoned their duty to their own workers and to the whole community. The whole situation is typical of the social and industrial anarchy which would be caused by SNP rule in Scotland.
I submit that Parliament should give urgent consideration to this important matter to try to get a just settlement for the benefit of the workers and the whole community.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member 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 industrial dispute between Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council and certain of its manual workers."
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.

545
Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

HOUSE OF LORDS (ABOLITION)
3.37 p.m.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the House of Lords.
There are many reasons—[Interruption.] Not so much applause, or I shall not have enough time. I will attempt to indicate several reasons why I think that it is necessary to bring in this Bill. First, I have been under great pressure from Labour Members of Parliament, most of them on these Benches and a few who are not present today despite the fact that no pairing system is operating. I take the view that many constituency Labour Parties want to know where their Members stand on this matter. One of the main reasons that they have advanced to me in the course of discussions throughout the past few weeks has been that, so far as many of the super-democrats on this side of the House are concerned, the House of Lords—a non-elected, non-democratic body—has no place in modern society.
In fact, considering the proposed devolution, as I see it, there are no proposals for second chambers of non-elected Members in Wales or Scotland or in the Convention in Northern Ireland. I assume that Scottish Nationals, Welsh Nationals and Northern Ireland Members of Parliament will flood into the Lobby behind me to ensure that we get rid of this institution.
I hope that Liberal Members are also here in force. I hope, too, that the contestants for the Liberal leadership will indicate clearly whether they are prepared to get rid of the House of Lords. My guess is that the Young Liberals will be anxious to know whether one or other of the contestants for the party leadership is prepared to back the case which they have advanced over many years.
This, therefore, is a unique opportunity. The Trades Union Congress is meeting at Central Hall. It has said on some occasions, sometimes behind cupped
546
hands and sometimes more openly—it depends on the company it is keeping—that it would like to get rid of the House of Lords. However, one of the contingents, the NUM, passed a resolution in November saying quite clearly that it wanted to see the abolition of the House of Lords. It is true that I was present. I did not vote. Nevertheless the union passed that resolution, notwithstanding the fact that there might be some in the NUM who might like to get to the House of Lords; but that is another argument.
I should like, seriously, to put to hon. Members what the other place does in practice. I have been doing some research this morning. My investigations lead me to one conclusion. It is that when a Tory Government are in office, an elected Government in the House of Commons, the tendency is for the House of Lords then to cross the t's, dot the i's and insert the commas, and nothing more. On some occasions the House of Lords does not even do that.
When the Common Market legislation went through in 1973—one of the biggest issues, if not the biggest, in which we have been involved in the past 25 years—the House of Lords, because it was Tory legislation, did absolutely nothing. It did not even register a single comma, in order that there could not be any further progress on further stages of the Bill.
However, when a Labour Government are in power the situation is very different. I do not want to recall all the instances, although there is the classic example of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, in which we were finally defeated and ultimately had to invoke the Parliament Act, way back in November 1975, when we lost the Bill, or, at least, it was defeated by the Tories, the Liberals and all the other cross-benchy types in the House of Lords, by 186 votes to 86.
The Employment Protection Bill was defeated 11 times. The House of Lords ripped apart the Community Land Bill. It is true that it got some assistance, at the time and afterwards, from some who were deposited on the Treasury Bench, perhaps for the same reasons. Nevertheless, those in the House of Lords were responsible in the main for decimating

547
that very important piece of our manifesto.
Today, all in all, as I see it, the House of Lords is nothing more than a Tory longstop. When the lady in red chiffon has difficulty in stopping legislation in this House, she instructs her "bovver boys" in ermine to put the boot in. In my opinion, that just about sums up the practicalities of what happens in the House of Lords.
What about its composition? I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends have actually stopped to examine that. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House examined it in 1968 and 1969 and came to certain conclusions. I assume that he still holds those same conclusions today and will act upon the proposals I am putting forward. Over 1,100 peers can claim £13·50 a day. It is true that they do not all do so. Some 820 hereditary peers are still closeted in that place, if they deign to attend. There are 272 life peers and 26 bishops. Out of that number, 400 take the Tory Whip—and on some occasions we can manage to muster as many as 130. That is the sum total of those who are prepared to take the Labour Whip. To get them all in the House of Lords at the same time to vote would be a miracle.
Some of my hon. Friends, and probably some Opposition Members too, would argue that there are a number of crossbenchers who take a rather impartial and objective view about any piece of legislation going through Parliament. Based upon my investigations into the way that they have voted on contentious pieces of legislation, nothing is further from the truth. For example, in November 1975 on the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, when 106 peers went through the Lobby to defeat us, 73 cross-benchers went in with the Tories and only 26 went in with Labour. Therefore, let us have no more fancy arguments about having life peers who, coming from the main streams of industry, can vote impartially either for Labour or for the Tories. Nothing is further from the truth.
Where do these people come from, in the main? It is true that a few of them have got to the House of Lords as a result of spending a few years on these Benches. There are a few honourable
548
men among them—very few—and women. Perhaps I could name the mother of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody). She tries her best. She has difficulties because she is surrounded by scores, indeed hundreds, of others who are prepared to vote against her on the occasions when they find it necessary.
The Big Four banks have 21 Lords representing them in the other place. The other banks have 23 more. Insurance companies have another 28. The top 50 private companies have another 25. The Daily Mirror has several. It is no wonder they spend a lot of time assisting the Government in trying to sell their pay policy—although I am told that the fellow who is running the Sun is writing editorials hoping to get a Tory victory, because he has managed to get one as well, under Labour. There are other Press barons, as well—those from The Times and the Daily Telegraph. There is a horde of people who are representative of those in the very highest elite of our society, and very few who come from the stratum of society which, by and large, has to provide the wealth of this country—those 25 million who work by hand and brain.
Some 20 peers alone own 2 million acres of land. That is a lot of land. It is no wonder that they took the action they did on the Community Land Bill.
The same sort of thing applies to education. Out of the 1,100 peers, 432 went to Eton—that surprised me—and another 255 went to other public schools. I suppose that among them there are a few who started their existence, perhaps, not far from where I stand now. It is no wonder that they voted to keep fee-paying grammar schools last November—on the last day of term. They voted 134 to 33. I wonder where the rest were.
With all due deference, I suggest that when the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill gets to the House of Lords, if it manages to get there—if it is pushed there by those on the Government Front Bench here, although I am told that some are wilting on that particular matter—there will be no fancy arguments about ships and rigs and hybrids. They will kill it. They will not need those technical arguments to flatten the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.
The same will apply to pay beds legislation. Do any of my hon. Friends

549
imagine that those who represent the Tory Party, those who represent the elite and the wealthy in our society, will not stop up night after night if necessary to prevent that legislation from making any further progress?
That is roughly the sort of composition of the House of Lords. That is where they came from.
What about attendance? Out of the total, about 25 per cent. manage to turn up for work. One can pick up the House of Lords Hansard for any given Session and find references made to miners and to other industrial workers who have managed to stay at work for 85 per cent. of the time. Some of their Lordships turn up for work, but that does not necessarily mean that they are going to vote. According to research done for me by the Library, although an average of 262 went to work in 1974–75, only an average of about 130 actually stayed to vote. It seems to me, therefore, that they walked through the door, nodded in the right direction, got the £13·50 tax-free attendance fee, went for a drink in the Bar, and went out of the side door.
To those who might argue that there is a need for a second Chamber, I merely say that they may have their arguments about that. Incidentally, although it is not part of my argument today, I would argue that there is no need for a second Chamber. New Zealand and Sweden do not have one. It is almost like saying that a local authority which passes all the necessary rating requirements and all those other important matters needs a chamber of commerce in order to look at what it has been doing. I ask you!
There have been many times when attempts have been made to change this institution. There was the Life Peerages Act of 1958 and the introduction of women in 1963. There have been no hereditary peerages since 1964, and there was an attempt to repeal the House of Lords in 1969. However, it is still very much a reactionary and backward institution. Whenever there has been an opportunity to change this institution in any other form, it has failed. It is all summed up in one sentence. Our ex-Prime Minister made more life peerages than any other Prime Minister in history—close on 200. We still have a job to find 100 who will go through the Lobbies
550
and vote Labour. It is time we got rid of it.
Mr. Speaker: I apologise. I got carried away, and that is why I allowed the hon. Gentleman two minutes over time.
3.52 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose?
Mr. Ridley: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has presented his case with typical moderation. I wonder sometimes why it is that we have bad relations between the other place and the party opposite. I can only tell them that it is reciprocated.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was really being fair. Perhaps it was pique at the recent strengthening of another place by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), who has put some fine entrepreneurs into that place in his latest honours list. The hon. Member for Bolsover should also remember that on that list were many people who have greatly helped the Labour movement. There were the Prime Minister's personal political secretary, his physician, his publisher, his butcher, his baker and his mackintosh-maker. They are all additions which I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome. I also do not think he will be thanked by many ex-Labour politicians who have been put out to grass on £13·50 a day in another place. I think his strictures upon them were very hard. He seemed to feel they have not earned their rest.
I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman's motive was that he disliked the hereditary principle, but then, I remember, he voted for the extension of the hereditary principle to agricultural tenancies. He voted for the Dock Work Regulation Bill, which extends the same sort of regime to the whole of the dock labour force. Indeed, I looked up the hon. Gentleman personally in Who's Who, in which he said that he came from "good working-class mining stock". That is the hereditary principle. That cannot be the objection which has motivated the hon. Gentleman this afternoon. No, it is his light and subtle touch on the question of constitutional

551
reform which moves him—[An HON. MEMBER: "Declare your interest."] I have no interest to declare—[An HON. MEMBER: "Your father has."] My father is dead, Mr. Speaker, and I do not see how I can declare an interest of a dead father.
The constitutional aspect is what motivates the hon. Gentleman because he wishes to curtail the activities of another place in relation to legislation. He started off by talking about amendments, and I would have thought that the whole country would agree that amendments which another place has made to legislation recently have been quite minor in character, with one exception. They have tended to improve the legislation. Only last week they ameliorated the tenancy provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman liked that, but that seemed to me to be a reasonable thing. The exception is the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill. Here the other place voted to try to maintain one of the fundamental human rights—the right to belong, or not to belong, to a trade union. That is in the European Convention or Human Rights. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would concede that the other place is the protector of our constitution and human rights.
It seems extraordinary that we should have a committee of the Labour Party under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection studying how to bring in a Bill to preserve human rights and then popping into the Chamber and voting to take them away in respect of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill. Would it not be better to leave the other place to protect our rights? Of course, the real crunch will come when
the party opposite tries to rig the rules. It tried to do this only a fortnight or so ago. We have seen it unable to accept the verdict and the vote of democracy.
We see that there is another committee of the party opposite—the Home Affairs Committee—studying how to
"take the Queen out of politics"
and how to take away her right to dissolve Parliament if the Government can no longer command a majority. Now we see the hon. Gentleman trying to take away the House of Lords, which is the only protection we have for free elections. If the Labour Party tried to abandon the five-year rule, there is only one safeguard that the people would have. It is not the right hon. Lady's charter of human rights; it is another place, which is the upholder of our constitution.
In due course the hon. Gentleman, whom we all admire so much, will grow more into the way of discretion and less into the way of valour. I cite to him the example of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who last week attended the Trooping the Colour—unheard of and unbelievable. He actually said he saw nothing wrong with it and that he had nothing to quarrel about.
All firebrands smoulder out. The hon. Gentleman would be wise not to divide the House against me on his Bill, because the time will come when he himself will be only too pleased to go along the corridor as Lord Clay Cross and take his £13·50 fee as well.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 168.

Division No. 184.]

AYES

3.59 p.m.

Allaun, Frank

Buchan, Norman

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Ashton, Joe

Buchanan, Richard

Corbett, Robin

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Atkinson, Norman

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Canavan, Dennis

Crawford, Douglas

Bates, Alf

Carmichael, Neil

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Beith, A. J.

Carter, Ray

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Cartwright, John

Deakins, Eric

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Doig, Peter

Bidwell, Sydney

Clemitson, Ivor

Dormand, J. D.

Blenkinsop. Arthur

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Dunn, James A.

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Cohen, Stanley

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Edge, Geoff

Brown. Hugh D. (Provan)

Concannon,J. D.

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

McNamara, Kevin

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Madden, Max

Sandelson, Neville

English, Michael

Magee, Bryan

Sedgemore, Brian

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Marks, Kenneth

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Marquand, David

Silverman, Julius

Evans, John (Newton)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Skinner, Dennis

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Mendelson, John

Small, William

Flannery, Martin

Mikardo, Ian

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Molloy, William

Snape, Peter

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

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Spearing, Nigel

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Moyle, Roland

Stallard, A. W.

George, Bruce

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Graham, Ted

Newens, Stanley

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Noble, Mike

Strang, Gavin

Grant, John (Islington C)

O'Halloran, Michael

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Hatton, Frank

Ovenden, John

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Padley, Walter

Thompson, George

Heffer, Eric S.

Palmer, Arthur

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Henderson, Douglas

Pardoe, John

Tierney, Sydney

Hooley, Frank

Park, George

Tomlinson, John

Hooson, Emlyn

Parry, Robert

Torney, Tom

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Pavitt, Laurie

Urwin, T. W.

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Penhaligon, David

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Prescott, John

Ward, Michael

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Watkins, David

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Price, William (Rugby)

Watkinson, John

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Radice, Giles

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Reid, George

White, James (Pollok)

Kaufman, Gerald

Richardson, Miss Jo

Wigley, Dafydd

Kelley, Richard

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Robinson, Geoffrey

Woodall, Alec

Lambie, David

Roderick, Caerwyn

Young, David (Bolton E)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Rooker, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Litterick, Tom

Roper, John

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Loyden, Eddie

Rose, Paul B.

Mr. Bruce Grocott.

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Farr, John

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Aitken, Jonathan

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lawrence, Ivan

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Forman, Nigel

Lawson, Nigel

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Baker, Kenneth

Fox, Marcus

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Benyon, W.

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Lloyd, Ian

Berry, Hon Anthony

Freud, Clement

Luce, Richard

Biffen, John

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Biggs-Davison, John

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

McCrindle, Robert

Blaker, Peter

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

MacGregor, John

Body, Richard

Goodhart, Philip

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Bottomley, Peter

Goodhew, Victor

Marten, Neil

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Mather, Carol

Braine, Sir Bernard

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Gray, Hamish

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Brotherton, Michael

Grist, Ian

Mayhew, Patrick

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Grylls, Michael

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hall, Sir John

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mills, Peter

Budgen, Nick

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hannam, John

Moate, Roger

Carlisle, Mark

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Molyneaux, James

Churchill, W. S.

Hayhoe, Barney

Montgomery, Fergus

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Higgins, Terence L.

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Holland, Philip

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hordern, Peter

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Cockcroft, John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Cope, John

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Cordle, John H.

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Neave, Airey

Corrie, John

Hurd, Douglas

Nelson, Anthony

Costain, A. P.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Neubert, Michael

Crouch, David

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Newton, Tony

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

James, David

Nott, John

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

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

Onslow, Cranley

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jessel, Toby

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Drayson, Burnaby

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Percival, Ian

Durant, Tony

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Pink, R. Bonnet

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Knight, Mrs Jill

Prior, Rt Hon James

Fairgrieve, Russell

Knox, David

Raison, Timothy

554

555

Rathbone, Tim

Skeet, T. H. H.

Townsend, Cyril D.

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Speed, Keith

Wakeham, John

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Spence, John

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Wall, Patrick

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Sproat, Iain

Walters, Dennis

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Weatherill, Bernard

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Stanley, John

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Stokes, John

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Younger, Hon George

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Shersby, Michael

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Silvester, Fred

Tebbit, Norman

Mr. Nicholas Ridley and

Sims, Roger

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Mr. Ian Gow.

Sinclair, Sir George

Question accordingly negatived.

NEW TOWNS (AMENDMENT) [MONEY] (No. 2)
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the transfer to district councils of dwellings and associated property of new town corporations, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of grants made by the Secretary of State to district councils for the purpose of relieving any financial burden imposed on them by schemes providing for such transfer.—[Mr. John Silkin.]
4.12 p.m.
Mr. Timothy Raison: I celebrate that notable victory for the constitution by asking the Minister to say a word or two about the Money Resolution. It appears to relate only to Clause 9 of the Bill, which is concerned with grants to district councils. It does not, apparently, relate to clause 8, the other financial clause, which has to do with the transfer of debt and subsidies from the corporations to the local authorities. Nor, apparently, does it refer to Clause 12, which relates to compensation for people who lose their jobs as a result of the transfer. Nor, apparently, does it relate either to Clause 13 or Clause 14, the first of which deals with the staff of the New Towns Staff Commission and the second of which increases the maximum number of members of development corporations, who will, I understand, receive a fee for their work.
Why does the Money Resolution relate only to Clause 9? If I remember rightly, the comparable resolution before the Committee stage went wider. Much more important, we are entitled to ask how much money is envisaged under the Money Resolution. The background to politics today is inevitably the size of public expenditure. I know that we cannot pin down the Minister to completely accurate figures, because that is impossible, but we are entitled to ask him to give us a notion of how much money we are talking about.
There is also the important question of how long the expenditure will continue. We sought to limit the period under which grants under Clause 9 can be paid because we were not keen on the notion of a blank cheque in perpetuity.
558
There is another oddity on which I should like some explanation. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum which accompanied the Bill when it received a Second Reading states in paragraph 18:
"The provision in Clause 9 for transitional grant will be offset by reductions in the amount payable to development corporations by way of grant under section 42(2) of the New Towns Act 1965."
It appears to say that money that is paid in the form of grants to local authorities when they take over housing schemes will be matched by a reduction in the grant from the central Government to the development corporations.
On the face of it, there seems to be no need to increase the amount of money made available. We are talking merely about transferring money from one programme to another. It may be that, under the principles of Government or Treasury regulations, that is not good enough and there has to be a separate authorisation, although there is an offsetting saving. Will the Minister say whether there will be a net increase in public expenditure as a result of Clause 9, or whether the money will simply go to local authorities instead of to the new town development corporations? It would be helpful to the House if the right hon. Gentleman would answer these significant points.
4.16 p.m.
The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): I remind the House that a Money Resolution was introduced before the Second Reading of the Bill which went far wider than Clause 9 although it included Clause 9. The Money Resolution that we are considering today does not totally take the place of the Money Resolution which was passed before Second Reading. It merely supplements it in one respect only, and that is Clause 9.
The reason is fairly simple. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) will recall that he moved an amendment to Clause 9, which was partly probing and partly more serious, on the subject of financing the transfer as between development corporations and district councils. He will also recall that my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman)

559
took his point and questioned the wording then in the Bill. The questioning crystallised around the phrase "undue burden".
I think, Mr. Speaker, that with your usual tolerance you might perhaps rule me slightly in order if I refer to Clause 9.
Mr. Speaker: I should not have noticed had the Minister not drawn my attention to it.
Mr. Silkin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To deal with Clause 9 and the Government amendment to Clause 9, it was necessary to widen the Money Resolution. In Committee, the Opposition moved an amendment and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow wished to move an amendment, which the Chairman ruled out of order because the Money Resolution was too tight. We have introduced a supplemental Money Resolution so that we may discuss the question of the financial burden that will arise under Clause 9. And in due course we shall consider the Government amendment and also Amendment No. 19 to be moved by the hon. Member for Aylesbury.
Mr. Leo Abse: There are considerable misgivings in Cwmbran New Town and in the Torfaen District Council, in which Cwmbran is situated, as to whether the funds are adequate to meet the cost of the transfer. Is the Minister making it unequivocally clear that sufficient funds from the State will be available to ensure that no undue burden passes to the Torfaen District Council on the transfer of housing from Cwmbran New Town?
Mr. Silkin: The difficulty is that the issues are fundamental to the two amendments of which I have spoken. The purpose of the Money Resolution is merely to allow us to discuss those amendments and, hopefully, to decide upon them. If as a result we were to say that the Money Resolution should not be passed, we would not be in a position to discuss the important matters raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury and which are probably out of order here but would be in order on the amendments which we shall discuss later.
Mr. Raison: I am not sure whether this discussion is out of order or in order. The Minister seems more inclined than Mr. Speaker to dispose our rules of order.
I shall be grateful if the Minister will refer to the two specific points I have raised. We are entitled to ask what sum of money is at stake. That is the point of a Money Resolution. I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on the Financial Memorandum on the original Bill, because it seemed to imply that there was no additional public spending but merely a transfer of spending from the new towns to the local authorities.
Mr. Speaker: Before the Minister replies, may I say that I understand that this discussion would be better and more in order if it were pursued when we come to Amendments Nos. 14 and 19. If the Money Resolution does not go through, we shall not be able to deal with those amendments. To that extent, this is also a paving Money Resolution.
Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove and Redditch): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to consider that the original Money Resolution extended further than Clause 9? My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) was asking questions relating to other clauses.
Mr. Speaker: That part is clear. The House has approved the original Money Resolution, and we are now discussing the one that is before us.
Mr. Raison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Amendment No. 19 reads:
"leave out 'determined by him with the consent of the Treasury' and insert 'of seven years'."
It deals with the period of time during which grants can be paid. Would we risk being out of order if we widened the debate to discuss the topics I have raised?
Mr. Speaker: I do not want the debate to be widened now. I was suggesting that the hon. Gentleman will be able to pursue his arguments when we conic to Amendment No. 19. That is my suggestion, which I think is based on good advice.
Mr. Ian Cow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case

561
that the Money Resolution is fully debatable by the House and that the order of business is that before we can come to the consideration of the Bill we should consider the Money Resolution, upon which there can be a Division if the House so wishes? Will you confirm that it is in order to debate the resolution? The matter is important, and I understand that you are not seeking to restrict debate.
Mr. Speaker: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is correct. It is a debatable motion. The House has to make up its mind upon it.
Mr. Silkin: As I was saying about four points of order ago, this is really the opening of the sort of discussion which hon. Members want to hold and it is right that they should do so. I am sorry the hon. Member for Aylesbury seems to think that I am dictating the rules of order.
Years ago, when I was Deputy-Leader of the House, it was a common rule of order that when a Money Resolution had been passed by the House a supplementary resolution was introduced to allow an amendment to be discussed fully. That procedure enables the Bill to be changed.
It is extraordinary that hon. Members should wish to debate the matter that will give them that freedom. If they do not want that freedom and do not want to discuss it or to change the Bill, all I can say is that all those hours that we spent in Committee were in vain. The issue is better discussed on the amendments. It is not relevant to the supplementary Money Resolution, which enables us to discuss those amendments.
4.26 p.m.
Mr. Ian Gow: I find myself in respectful disagreement with the Minister when he implies that it would be better not to have a debate on the resolution at this stage.
Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) misinterprets me. If hon. Members want a debate, by all means let us have it, but at least let it be on the right point. The point of the resolution is to allow debates on Amendments Nos. 14 and 19. That is all.
Mr. Gow: With respect to the Minister, may I say that the resolution authorises
562
the expenditure of sums of money which are not quantified? Does the right hon. Gentleman dissent from that proposition?
Mr. John Silkin: The resolution only authorises that if the House decides to approve either the amendment standing in my name or that in the name of the hon. Member for Aylesbury. Until we have examined those matters, we shall not know.
Mr. Gow: The Minister is prejudging the issue, because at this stage the only issue before the House is the Money Resolution. I support the pertinent observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). Without an assurance from the Minister about the sums of money that are involved, it is not right for the House to agree to the resolution.
It has been confirmed by Mr. Speaker that the resolution is debatable, and I have some questions for the Minister to which we should have answers before we discuss the Bill. Why is no financial limit mentioned in the resolution? Frequently, when we are debating a Money Resolution a limit is imposed. It is clear from the wording of Clause 9 that if the House agrees to the resolution we will hand over to the discretion of the Minister the payment of public money and the House will once again do something which it should be reluctant to do. If we agree to the resolution without any limit, we shall be surrendering to the Executive the control over public expenditure which should be exercised zealously by the House. I find it unconvincing that the Minister is not able to give an estimate of the payment which is envisaged under Clause 9.
Was the sum of money which is envisaged by the Minister under Clause 9 taken into account when the Budget estimates were presented to the House on 6th April and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the public sector borrowing requirement? It is not good enough for the Minister to say that this is not a matter which is of legitimate concern to the House. It should be of the greatest concern when the House is investing power to spend unlimited amounts of money without the Minister coming back for our approval.
I hope that before we agree or divide on the resolution the Minister will say

563
how much is involved and whether provision for this unspecified sum was taken into account by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget.
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Leo Abse: I pressed my right hon. Friend so that I might obtain clarification, but his reply tended to obfuscate the issue rather than make the position clearer. That was no doubt due to my obtuseness and not to any lack of clarity on his part.
We should know a little more about the amount involved. I represent a constituency with a small local authority, Torfaen, and a large new town, Cwmbran, which is likely to expand considerably. There is a possibility that the housing assets of that substantial new town can be transferred to the local authority. It is, naturally, a matter of deep concern to all my constituents that my right hon. Friend should ensure that the sum he receives is large enough to avoid any burden falling upon the ratepayers when they assimilate the housing assets of the new town.
The relevance of that to the debate is that there is the possibility that the Minister will have discretion as to whether he gives monetary relief to the local authority when it takes over the assets. The Bill makes it clear not only that he may ensure that sufficient funds are distributed but that he may do it wholly or in part. If that is so, we are discussing the very substance of the matter when we talk about how much money he will have.
What hope have my constituents that their anxieties will be relieved when we take over the formidable task of administering this vast amount of housing? I express my unease on their behalf and hope that we may have some assurance that the funds being asked for will be adequate to enable my right hon. Friend not to feel that he is boxed in at any time in assisting the Torfaen District Council to take over the assets. The council very much desires to exercise democratic control. My constituents have been urging over many years, through me, that the new town should come under the control not of a development corporation but of a duly-elected local authority which would be able to
564
administer the housing within its own area.
Does the resolution enable my right hon. Friend to be satisfied that he will not feel inhibited? If he is inhibited, I can well understand that my local authority, like many other local authorities, would draw back from taking over the housing.
The importance of making certain that sufficient funds are being voted is reinforced by the fact that there are within the Bill residual powers for the Minister to dragoon local authorities into taking over housing assets which could be a heavy financial responsibility. When ratepayers in all areas are sensitive to increases in expenditure, it is important that we should take no action which could add to the burdens of the ratepayers, anxious as they may be to assume their democratic responsibilities of administering the houses in the area.
Therefore, I trust that my right hon. Friend, who will know the anxieties that there can be in a South Wales valley over such issues, will give us an indication that he is satisfied that he will not be inhibited by a shortage of funds from ensuring that a transfer of housing assets will not mean new and heavy burdens for the ratepayers and their elected representatives who will be receiving those assets.
4.35 p.m.
Mr. Hal Miller: It might be for the convenience of the House if the Minister assisted us once more by explaining that this Money Resolution is supplementary to that which was passed earlier.
Mr. John Silkin: That is exactly what I said 20 minutes ago.
Mr. Miller: I was trying to have it confirmed, because it seemed to me that some hon. Members had not appreciated that the resolution is to enable us later to discuss Amendments Nos. 14 and 19 but that the sums involved have already been passed on a Money Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman might explain exactly what those sums were. We have had no figures mentioned, nor has the right hon. Gentleman answered the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) about the extra costs for the New Towns Staff

565
Commission and the other matters mentioned in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. That would help many hon. Members to realise exactly what is involved.
4.37 p.m.
Mr. John Cope: It might help some hon. Members, but not me, because the point I wish to raise is directly related to the Money Resolution and I think that it would be out of order to raise it on Amendment No. 14 or Amendment No. 19.
I should like first to take up the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) when he said that the House would have no further opportunity to approve or otherwise any sums which might be paid out under the Money Resolution. I understand that that is not strictly so. As the years go by, the House will have the opportunity year by year to approve the Estimates in which the sums involved in the clauses in question and permitted by the Money Resolution will appear.
It is true that the House has got into the habit of not looking very closely at most of the Estimates. It is an exaggeration to say that the Estimates procedure has fallen into disuse, but it is no longer a very severe brake on the spending of the Administration, either in total or a small figure such as this. Nevertheless, further opportunities of returning to this point will offer themselves over the years.
Mr. Gow: It is clear from Clause 9 that
"the Secretary of State … may … make grants to the council"—
the council concerned—
"of amounts and for a period determined by him with the consent of the Treasury".
Therefore, all that has to happen if we pass the resolution is for the Secretary of State to agree with the Treasury and, lo and behold, the House is presented with a fait accompli, subject only, as my hon. Friend points out, to an annual debate on the totality of Government spending which has become so massive that we need to be very jealous of our duty to the people to be zealous about scrutinising the right hon. Gentleman's expenditure.
Mr. Cope: My hon. Friend is quite right de facto, but I think that I am correct de jure. Since he is a lawyer and I am not, that gives me a little pleasure.
The point I wish to make concerns the difference between the wording of the Money Resolution and the wording of Amendment No. 14. The Bill originally said that the Government would pay by grant for "an undue financial burden". The amendment suggests that the Government will meet by grant "a financial burden", omitting the word "undue". But the Money Resolution proposes to relieve "any financial burden". Therefore, there is a difference not only between the amendment and the Bill as it stands but also between the amendment and the Money Resolution.
Let us in this context take the analogy of a horse. An undue burden placed on a horse is such a burden as will cause the horse to collapse immediately or very shortly after the burden is imposed or as will wear out the horse. A burden placed on a horse is a normal burden which it is able to carry for a good time, such as a man or equipment. But "any burden" placed on a horse implies almost anything from a piece of straw upwards.
Therefore, if the amendment is carried and the Bill goes through as amended, the Secretary of State will be able to relieve any burden imposed on a local authority, such as that represented by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), if the burden is difficult for the local authority to bear. On the other hand, if the wording in the Money Resolution is followed, any costs of any kind will be covered if they are incurred as a result of the transfer between the new town and the local authority.
It seems to me that there are a number of areas of cost to be considered. There is the area of highest cost as represented by the Money Resolution, for which we have had no figure or even what the Americans call a "ball park" figure. We have not even had from the Government a wild guess at the kind of figure with which we are dealing in the Money Resolution, nor, so far as I am aware, have we had any estimate of what the amendment might cost. When at a later stage we discuss the relevant amendment, no doubt, it will be in order for the Minister to give us that information. It

567
might not be in order for him to give the first figure, but so far as I know we have had no estimate of the cost of the Bill as it stands. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider these matters before we pass the resolution.
4.43 p.m.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: Since we are having a wider-than-normal debate on the Money Resolution, I should like to ask the Minister a question which in normal circumstances I would ask him when we dealt with the amendments.
As I understand the situation, the purpose of the Money Resolution is to remove the word "undue" from the provision related to the relief of financial burden in respect of district councils. I was not a member of the Committee, but I am delighted that the Money Resolution has been amended in that way. I hope it means that the Department has been good enough to consider the short speech which I made on Second Reading, when I mentioned the second-generation towns and the effect of the provisions on constituencies such as mine.
In that debate I mentioned the increased burden for the ratepayers in regard to the transfer of assets relating to Runcorn New Town. That transfer would have involved an increase of 9p on the rates. Will the Minister confirm whether the amended money resolution will enable the Government to look in the widest possible terms at the financial burden on local authorities which take over second-generation new towns where houses have recently been built at high interest rates and where they are taking over liabilities rather than taking over, as it were, a large amount of rating income, as happens in some of the older generation of new towns?
4.45 p.m.
Mr. John Silkin: It is always the penalty in this House, when one is generous to an Opposition and says "We shall take into account what you have said and try to meet you", that sooner or later they will come along in another form and use their best endeavours to prevent altruistic and generous ministerial suggestions being put into effect.
This is the situation that arose following Committee stage. The hon. and
568
learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) made an effective speech on Second Reading and voiced the fears of which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) might have been aware had he been present for that debate. Indeed, the point was underlined by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The matter was also raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris).
The difficulty that faced us was that the House had already passed a Money Resolution and indeed it appears that Opposition Members are now threatening to take advantage of my altruistic motives. If they want to go into the Division Lobby against their own Front Bench, no doubt they will do so. I must tell them, however, that I regarded this as a fair point which I thought should be examined and remedied.
It was impossible in the circumstances in Committee to introduce an amendment to exclude the word "undue", and I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn and my hon. and unlearned Friend the Member for Pontypool will understand the point. [Interruption.] Yes, my hon. and "unlearned" Friend, who will know that I am unlearned, too. I thought that it was difficult to allay legitimate fears on both sides of the House without altering the Money Resolution. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) got the point 20 minutes after I had made it. We are saying that we cannot discuss this matter unless we have a slightly different Money Resolution that will enable us to deal with amendments Nos. 14 and 19.
There are some points which I can perhaps dispose of at this point in the proceedings. I do so on the strict understanding that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) will not raise them again unless he is dissatisfied with my answer. The hon. Member asked about the number of staff required. How can I say how much compensation will be paid to staff? That is the reason for having a staff commission—namely, so that it may ascertain those matters.
I was also asked how much money was to be paid to the staff commission in terms of fees. My reply is that we do not

569
know on how many occasions it will meet. The members of the commission are paid a daily rate. Brilliant though my powers of prophecy may be, they are not as brilliant as that. Therefore, I cannot predict on how many occasions the commission will meet.
I was also asked what would be the relevant financial arrangements between the development corporation and the district council at the moment of transfer, looking at the situation today. Of course, we cannot give that information.
I have done my best to meet those hon. Members who do not like the word "undue". Indeed, I explained on another occasion to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) that I could not understand what a "due burden" was. I said that it was one of the things we would be looking at. In order to do that, we need a supplementary Money Resolution. That is all there is to it.
If the House wished to divide and the Opposition were to win the Division, the only effect would be that the amendments—which, after due consideration, we have introduced in order to be of assistance—would be out of order.
Mr. Raison: Will the Minister answer a point which I put to him twice, which seems to me to be entirely relevant to the Money Resolution and not particularly relevant, in a sense, to the amendments? In the Financial Memorandum on the Bill as it was at Second Reading, it was stated that:
"The provision in Clause 9 for transitional grant will be offset by reductions in the amount payable to development corporations by way of grant under Section 42(2) of the New Towns Act 1965".
In other words, it appeared to say that there would not be a need for any extra public money. Can we have confirmation whether this is so? If it is so, can we be told why we need a Money Resolution? This is entirely germane to this debate.
Mr. Silkin: It is also germane, when one thinks of it, to the original Money Resolution, on which it was not raised. Of course, when transfer takes place the grant will go down to the development corporation because the houses will be transferred. There may be cases where, those houses having been transferred to the district council—it will not happen in every case—the district council might be put to financial hardship. That is what all the debates in Committee were about.
I dare not risk being ruled out of order by talking at this stage about the excellent Amendment No. 14 in my name, but if that excellent amendment were to be passed—or even were it not to be passed—the Secretary of State could, with the consent of the Treasury, say that such and such a district council would suffer from financial hardship as a result of a transfer. It might or might not happen, but if it did he could say "Let us have a look at it and see whether we can do something to help".
The hon. Member for Aylesbury has a somewhat rigid mind on these things and may be able to think of some rigid wording. If he can think of some rigid wording to meet that case in the 29 or so new towns which have been created over a period of perhaps 50 years, he has mistaken his vocation and should be a parliamentary draftsman.
Mr. Gow: Is the Minister really telling the House that neither he nor his Department can make any estimate at all of the amount of money which will be required under this transfer, either during this financial year or next? Is he asking for a blank cheque?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the transfer to district councils of dwellings and associated property of new town corporations, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of grants made by the Secretary of State to district councils for the purpose of relieving any financial burden imposed on them by schemes providing for such transfer.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  NEW TOWNS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  New Clause 1

    COUNTY COUNCILS TO BE INFORMED OF PROPOSED TRANSFER SCHEMES
    'A new town corporation and any district council to whom directions have been given under section 3 above to make a transfer scheme shall, before submitting it to the Secretary of State under section 4 below,—

    (a) inform the council of each county in which there is any land proposed to be transferred by, or to be the subject of management arrangements included in, the scheme, or there is any part of the area of the new town, what that land is, and

    (b) give each such county council a reasonable opportunity of commenting on the proposed scheme.'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.55 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) will recall that during our Committee discussions he asked us to consider amending the Bill to ensure that county councils' views are sought during the preparation of transfer schemes. I think he accepted that the amendment that he put down in Committee, with the objective of doing this, gave greater power to the county councils than was justified. At any rate, he withdrew his amendment on my assurance that we would consider whether we could write into the Bill a guarantee of consultation for the county councils.
    The proposed new clause does this. I think that all hon. Members who served on the Committee will agree that at that time we had a very useful discussion on the involvement of the county councils. They are not directly involved in the transfer of housing, but could have an interest in some of the housing-related assets—for example, local meeting halls, which may be the subject of joint use
    572
    schemes to which a county council has contributed financially, or open spaces in which the new town corporation may have accorded the county council, as local education authority, user rights for schools. We therefore think it right to provide for the parties to the scheme to consult the county councils and give them an opportunity to comment on it.
    I hope that the House will welcome the new clause, and I commend it to the House.
    Mr. Michael Morris: We must heartily welcome the clause. It is, very much as the Under-Secretary has said, a direct response to an Opposition initiative and fulfils an undertaking that the Under-Secretary gave to the Committee.
    As the Under-Secretary said, there are two aspects involved. First, I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber believe that the counties had a right to be consulted. Secondly, we felt at the time that we should air the thought that counties should have the right to initiate a scheme. After listening to the Government in debate, we withdrew the suggestion about giving a right to initiate a discussion. It is a marginal decision, but on balance we accept it.
    I should like to make one or two observations on the clause and ask the Minister one or two short questions of a specific nature. I am sure it is right, from the counties' point of view, to give them the status of a new clause. They are a major tier of local government and deserve quite specifically to be given individual consideration.
    Politicians from both sides of the House and, indeed, from all over the country, have for some years paid lip-service to consultation. In some places it works extremely well, but there are areas of local government in which it does not work; in fact, it would be putting none too fine a point on it to say that it is still disastrous. I believe it is correct that we in the House should spell out in no uncertain terms that there is a statutory right of consultation. I hope that this precedent will be followed in any future Bills dealing with this sort of area.
    The importance of consultation is such that it is not just a matter of saying that

    573
    it should happen and that people should be "in the know". It is imperative, because of the implications to the counties. The Minister has just mentioned the implications in regard to shared meeting halls, and the like. There are, however, a number of quasi-housing functions in which the counties are involved, and therefore it is directly relevant.
    First, in this connection, there is the existing confused situation concerning the homeless. In the counties there is considerable overlap and variation between the social services departments and the district housing authorities. In some cases the counties are almost 100 per cent. responsible. In certain other areas the districts are now 100 per cent. responsible.
    We have all seen the unhappy circumstances of the case that was highlighted in Sussex. This suggests that there is still considerable room for county council involvement in the problem of homeless families.
    Then there is the question of the handicapped. Mr. Deputy Speaker has rightly chosen not to debate new Clause 4, as it falls outside the province of the Bill, but the handicapped are involved in the housing aspect.
    Next, there is the need for the counties to provide a safeguard, or, as it were, a watchdog for industry in relation to key workers. There is the question of closely watching the future nomination rights. This is dealt with in the Bill. In regard to the process of the structure plan and its relationship with the economic planning councils, we are very much concerned with the interests of industry, and it is right that they should be involved.
    Then there is the point that the Minister has made several times in this Chamber about the role of the new towns in taking on their responsibilities for the socially disadvantaged and the old. I have made it clear that I have had problems about his request for them to take over the socially disadvantaged, because, on the whole, the facilities in new towns are not as good as those in the inner urban areas and, therefore, the services given are not up to standard.
    574
    5.0 p.m.
    In the case of the old, there is a specific housing rôle. It is the situation, thankfully, that some older people are now moving out. It is also the situation that, on a transfer, a county may have inadequate resources for housing the old and that if a transfer scheme is being made, representations may be made to the development corporation to build in some extra provision for old people prior to transfer or immediately afterwards. This is a growing problem, which will have to be looked at carefully.
    Also on the quasi-housing function, there is the problem of different housing policies between different district councils, and their harmonisation. It is far better that the Minister should know that there is harmony at local level before he has to decide.
    The counties are not strictly excluded from the housing function. As the Minister said in Committee, however, they are involved with roads, the provision of education and infrastructure, and I cannot let this opportunity go without making my perennial plea to the Minister that the rate support grant should anticipate population increases to help in education.
    I want briefly to touch on two other aspects. The first is the planning process. At the moment, we have a mixed planning process, in the sense that the county is responsible for the strategic structure plan, which is fundamental to the development of the county and, therefore, has a real rôle in this area. I think that, over a period, we shall see the economic planning councils becoming much more involved in their relationship with the counties and then through to the districts. The point at which their activities begin to impinge fundamentally is in the new towns, because that is where new industry is coming in and where the planning councils' views have to be built in in relation to transfer schemes.
    Then there are the financial implications. We spent a little time on them just now, but we shall have to look at them in greater detail when we reach Clause 9. That will be the appropriate time for that. They suggest that the counties, because of the heavy financial burden, should have a say.

    575
    I have spent a little time welcoming the clause and re-emphasising the reasons why we think that the counties should be involved. I am conscious that, in Committee, a number of Government supporters had reservations. One of them has a long history of valuable service to local government, and he probably reflects part of the historical antipathy between county and town. I think that we all hope that that antipathy is disappearing and that the two can work together in harmony.
    I should like to ask the Minister one or two specific questions by way of clarification. In the clause, we see the word "land". I should like to know the significance of that word. Is it thought that "land" covers all housing plus the under-developed land associated with a transfer of housing? I raise this because, in my experience, there are situations in the inner urban areas where housing is provided on top of commercial or industrial premises—more often, commercial premises—which in the case of a new town would continue to be held by the new towns commission. I do not know of specific examples in the new towns, and certainly there are none in Northampton, but in theory there could be a situation in which housing was transferred but the freehold of the land or the ownership of the land remained with the new towns commission, simply because the basic ground-level facility was a commercial one.
    Will the hon. Gentleman say a word about how he sees the procedures of consultation working? It seems to me that there are two ways of going about it. First, presumably the Minister will send out his directions, the transfer scheme will be produced, it will go to the county in a final form, the county will be asked to make its comments, and the whole lot will come to the Minister in that form. The second possibility is that there will be a joint working party or possibly a draft report prepared by the relevant district and new town corporation, they will meet the county or counties concerned, and a composite report will be sent to the Minister for him to view. It will help to have some idea how he sees this working in practice.
    Let me say once again how much we welcome the Government's response to
    576
    this initiative. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the two basic questions that I have put to In any event, we believe that the clause is a significance addition to the Bill.
    Mr. W. Benyon: I did not have the advantage of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, but I extend a warm welcome to this clause. I know that it will be welcomed by the Association of County Councils, not least by my own county council in Buckinghamshire.
    I have the advantage of sharing with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) the same county council, and we both know the very close association that has grown up in planning matters, in this case, during the course of the construction of the new city. It would be tactless of me to mention the precedent of the land acquisition and management schemes existing in another piece of legislation recently passed through this House, but it illustrates the great difficulty that arises when there is the potential of dual responsibility. The fact that at least the relevant county council will be consulted when a transfer takes place, so that it may comment on the planning aspects, will be extremely beneficial.
    For that reason, I welcome the clause and congratulate the Government on introducing it.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I am glad that the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) is pleased with the clause. In his welcome he spoke of the feeling that he had that we ought to have statutory consultation wherever we thought there was a case for it. I emphasise that, since it was because we saw ways in which county councils would be actively concerned in transfers and, therefore, would have interests which needed to be discussed that we decided to accept the arguments advanced in Committee and to introduce the clause.
    However, when I hear the hon. Member for Northampton, South and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) urging the need for consultation, I am conscious that it is rather like teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, because one of the important contributions made by my right hon. and hon. Friends has

    577
    been the increase that they have brought about in the amount of consultation between my Department and local authorities and between the two tiers of local authorities. I am sure that we all agree with this. That is why we are so concerned to see the clause added to the Bill.
    I am afraid that I cannot give the assurance that in every piece of future legislation that we bring forward consultation will be a feature, which seems to be rather what the Opposition want, I think that we would want, without giving any assurance at all, to see consultation take place where it was clearly likely that the interests of the other parties would be involved. I was glad that the hon. Member for Northampton, South raised the question of key workers and the relationship between that issue and the needs of industry in the drawing up of the structure plan.
    He asked me whether the word "land" in the new clause included housing. The answer is "Yes". He also asked how I saw it happening. I honestly do not know, but I hope that, now that this is a statutory requirement, whatever happens, any sensibly drawn-up transfer scheme will involve consultation all the way along with the county council to keep it informed of the way in which things are developing. Once a draft scheme has been drawn up between the new town corporation and the local authority I hope that it will be submitted to the county council for it to make any observations, and that the scheme can be altered or adapted in any way thought necessary to accommodate any points that the council might raise. Now that a statutory requirement is being proposed as part of the Bill, and is welcomed by the Opposition, I am sure that the requirement will be fulfilled in a number of ways.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 3

    SALE OF NEW TOWN HOUSES
    "(1) A scheme shall include the statutory right for a tenant of the Commission for the new towns and development corporations to
    578
    purchase the dwelling providing he has been resident in a new town dwelling for at least three years.
    (2) The sale of new town houses shall be at 20 per cent. below the current market value with vacant possession, provided that this would not be below cost; and a further 1 per cent. beyond the three years shall be allowed for each year of tenancy in the new town up to a maximum of 30 years".—[Mr. Raison.]
    Brought up, and read the First Time.
    Mr. Timothy Raison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    I make no apology for returning to the subject of the sale of new town houses in this new clause. We tabled an amendment on the Second Reading of the Bill designed to promote the sale of new town houses, and we also put forward an amendment to Clause 3 in Committee, and we had a Supply Day debate on this subject recently. We believe it is part of a policy proposal of fundamental importance to establish the right for council house tenants and new town house tenants to buy the houses if they are sitting tenants. This new clause, which is designed to that end, has to be related to the Bill and to come within the scope of the Long Title of the Bill, and the way we thought most appropriate of putting it forward was to see it as part of the scheme for transfer.
    In Committee we took another course of action on this proposal. The way we envisaged it then was criticised by the Minister because it was technically imperfect, although I suspect he found it unacceptable in other ways as well. Now we believe that the right way to do it is to include it as part of a scheme under which a transfer takes place. Therefore, we have not felt it necessary to spell out all the details embodied in this process.
    I had thought that we might do it first of all in Regulations, but there is no need for separate Regulations, because the procedure of a scheme, which is the heart and essence of the Bill, enables the Minister to set out the process by which the sale of new town houses would take place. This means that we have not filled in all the details of our approach, but I shall explain the kind of conditions that I think it likely that the Minister would include in a scheme to enable the sale to take place.

    579
    5.15 p.m.
    I think it is very likely that a scheme would include the right of the local authority, as it will become after the scheme is implemented, to pre-empt these houses. If a person who has bought his house decides within five years that he wishes to sell it rather than remain in it, the local authority should have the right of pre-emption, which is a familiar part of the present system for selling new town and council houses.
    A scheme would probably impose conditions that would provide that the sale should not take place at a price below the orginal cost of the house. That, also, is familiar in the present system.
    It is also desirable that a scheme should set out the actual procedure by which an applicant would state his intention to buy, and confirm that intention. When we are talking about a transfer scheme of this kind, we have not got an unlimited period of time. With council housing one can establish a right to buy, and that right can be exercised at any subsequent time, but in the circumstances in which the duration of a scheme is laid down a would-be purchaser has a certain period in which to state his intention and some limits to the time in which that intention can actually be fulfilled.
    I would hope that a scheme would set out helpful details about the process of conveyancing. One of the things that need to be encouraged and introduced is a much easier conveyancing system for those people who wish to buy their houses. Some kind of standard form should be implemented as part of national policy. We could make a start here.
    Mr. Stanley Newens: I am most interested in this point. Is the hon. Member saying that he would support the idea that we put forward, of local authorities being able to give this service to people? Is he sympathetic to the ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch)?
    Mr. Raison: No, I cannot be totally sympathetic to the ideas of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch). I dare not give too much offence to the solicitor's profession, as I have so many distinguished solicitors sitting opposite me, but I believe that we should think about these
    580
    details, and ways of making the job easier. I have no desire to do solicitors out of work, but I think we could find a scheme to simplify the process.
    We should also consider the period in which the purchaser has to buy the house, because we have to remain within the terms of the Bill. It may well be that a scheme says something about the conditions governing the supply of mortgage money for the would-be purchaser. It should be made clear that although the tenant should have a right to buy, it does not follow that the mortgage money must be made available to him, if he has not the financial standing to justify his receiving a mortgage. No one could argue that the local authority should be put in a position where it had to provide a mortgage for someone who would not be able to sustain the payments resulting from it.
    We would also expect a scheme of this kind to state the sort of exemptions that would apply. It is not part of our case to say that every conceivable kind of new town or council house should be sold. It might well be sensible to exempt from the right to buy, those houses which are specially built for the disabled, the old, and other similar categories. By and large, it would be less likely that the tenants of that sort of housing would want to buy. The older tenants would probably be unable to undertake the purchase. We would accept as a legitimate matter for discussion and decision exactly what categories might be excluded from this general right, which we are so keen to establish. All these details are of great importance, and I hope that the general debate about the sale of public housing can move on increasingly to these specific details, since I believe that the general principle is becoming more and more widely accepted. The clause seeks to establish this principle.
    We pressed this general policy hard on Second Reading, in the local elections on 28th April, in Committee on the Bill, and again in the House on 18th May. On that last occasion the Minister gave some ground. The debate followed a certain amount of discussion in the Press on whether the Prime Minister had intervened in the general question. The Daily Express suggested that he had taken

    581
    a very strong line and had told Ministers to get on with the job of selling council houses. I think that there was a good deal in what the Daily Express said—
    Mr. Robin Corbett: There is an unreliable source.
    Mr. Raison: The hon. Member speaks for the NUJ, but he is showing unbrotherly love towards the Daily Express.
    Perhaps I may read a short extract from the Minister's speech. He said, in talking about the sale of new town houses
    "I shall discuss with the New Town chairmen the arrangements for looking at the situation in each New Town individually. If in any New Town the average waiting period for those eligible for a New Town rented house is less than three months if the development corporation wished, we could, subject to proper consultations, start resuming sales. We would, of course, need to establish what conditions might be applied to such sales. For example, there might be a case for limiting them to tenants who had lived in a corporation dwelling for not less than, say, five years or some such period, and I shall be interested to learn the views of the New Town chairmen.
    It will also be important to monitor the sales policy regularly so that we do not find ourselves again in the situation which I inherited from the Conservatives, with swollen waiting lists and lengthening waiting periods. Every quarter, therefore, we would look at each town individually to see whether, in the light of any changes in the average waiting period, sales ought to be slowed down for the time being—or resumed—or whether we should continue as before."—[Official Report, 18th May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 1246.]
    We welcome that small amount of movement by the Minister. It is a change, after the obduracy of the last two years. No doubt he took some notice of the results of the district elections in the new town areas. In that speech the Minister repeated a fallacy that we have heard before and which it is important to nail. It is that the sale of new town houses has had a significant effect on the length of waiting lists. The Government claim that our policy of sale over the period when we were in office caused longer waiting lists, and that their ban on sales has caused a shortening of waiting lists. But how could sales have affected more than a very small number? How many of the houses sold over the three years would have been relet other than to the existing owners if the houses had not been sold? The Minister must answer that point.
    582
    What are the facts? They are hard to come by, but I understand that the Department of the Environment says that there were 4·4 per cent. of relets in new towns in 1975–76. That is the scale of reletting that takes place. In 1972, 15,603 new town houses were sold, and 4·4 per cent of that figure is 686. In 1973, 7,254 houses were sold, and 4·4 per cent. of that is 319. It is clear that a drop of this size in the number of relets would not dramatically affect waiting lists in the manner that the Minister suggested. In any case, relets are provided from people who have just died, and, generally, elderly people will not buy their own homes. They are also provided from people who are moving, and that category, too, will also generally not buy. Thus the figures considerably overstate the impact of relets on sales. Those who buy and subsequently sell might well not have moved if they had not had a capital asset to realise.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear to us that he is saying that he believes in the right to purchase, irrespective of the length of the waiting list in the new town or the district council area? Es he saying that these other factors should be disregarded?
    Mr. Raison: I am saying that I believe the waiting list argument to be fallacious, and the reasons I have put forward demonstrate that to be so. We have said repeatedly that we are talking about selling to sitting tenants, and, by and large those tenants will remain in their houses whether they buy them or continue to rent them. Therefore, no more than a very small percentage of the houses can be "lost" to other would-be tenants.
    The Government argue that their policy has lowered waiting lists in the new towns. Of course, that is not true and the Government know it perfectly well. What has affected waiting lists has been the naturally continuing amount of building that has gone on. But the real reason why waiting lists have fallen in so many of the new towns has been the collapse of the economy under the Labour Government. The fact is that there are not the jobs available in the new towns. People are not moving to them, because they cannot find work when they get

    583
    there. That shows the fallacy of the Government's argument. I hope that today the Minister will take time to come clean and tell the truth about this.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us more about one or two of the other things that he said on 18th May. Perhaps he will explain when the process will start again. He said that it was under review, but when does he actually expect the sale of new town houses to be resumed? Will he give us the terms upon which new town house sales will be based? Will they continue under the Regulations that we provided while we were in power, or does he intend to change them? Will he say something about how he sees the financing of new town sales taking place? Obviously they will require mortgages. Will the money come from the public sector, or is the right hon. Gentleman looking to the building societies to provide it? Or will it be a mixture of both? The building societies, through their association, have declared themselves to be generally in favour of the sale of public housing. We welcome that, and I have no doubt that the societies will play their part in making sales possible. Equally, however, it would no doubt be easier to push ahead with this programme if there were some possibility of public mortgage money coming in.
    I was interested to read, in the Minister's speech on 18th May, the statement that sales would provide capital receipts for the development corporations. Those, in turn, will help to finance further investment for the needs of the disadvantaged from the inner cities.
    5.30 p.m.
    That makes the point that, as I understand it, there is a real public expenditure gain from the sale of new town houses. There has been some argument about the extent of the gain, but the Minister has quite clearly put it on record that there is a public expenditure gain from the public sale of such houses. I do not think that he can contradict that that is what he was saying, but no doubt he will deal with the point.
    The size of the public expenditure gain will vary, depending on whether public money is used to finance the mortgages. That is a matter of common sense. If
    584
    the funds to buy are provided by the building societies, there is clearly a substantial public expenditure gain. If they come out of loans from Government funds the gain will be less, although I believe it will still be real.
    The important point that the Minister made, with which I sympathise, is the notion that the additional money should be used to go to the help of those from the inner cities. One of the criticisms that we make about the present system of running the finances of new towns is that it does not maximise the returns. We tabled an amendment—I am not surprised that it has not been selected, as perhaps it was seeking to stretch the Long Title a little too much—which put forward the view that it should be possible to sell the freeholds of commercial and industrial sites. We were not trying to suggest that they should always be sold—merely that those who run the new towns should be in a position to make a judgment as to the most prudent way of using the vast resources that are locked up in the new towns with a view to trying to help the public expenditure situation.
    I should be happy to think that one of the ways in which the new towns could make a positive contribution to those in the inner cities would be by releasing more resources—in other words, putting it crudely, making more money—and directing them, for example, to help with the vast problems of Dockland and inner Liverpool.
    Perhaps the Minister will tell us how he sees the additional help for the inner cities coming into being. Is it that the sale of houses will provide money that will be used for that purpose? Is it that the money that is raised will somehow be transferred into the inner cities? Will the money that is raised and which will go to the development corporations be used to build new houses within the corporations, which will be made available for those in the inner cities? Perhaps the Minister will tell us a little more about what he meant by his remarks in column 1246 of the Official Report.
    The objectives of the new clause are fairly clear. First, we believe that it is socially and economically desirable to do all that we can to encourage the possibility of home ownership for the less

    585
    prosperous members of society. This is a very good way of doing it. Secondly, we see great merit in the possibility of allowing people to move into home ownership without even having to move. Surely that is one of the strongest advantages to be found in the sale of both council housing and new town housing. Thirdly—this is a particularly important point, on which my hon. Friends who represent new towns may care to comment—we need to get away from the excessively monolithic pattern of public ownership that exists in the new towns and achieve a more varied form of tenure.
    The pattern in the older new towns is especially unbalanced. I understand that in Harlow about 20 of every 100 new town houses are in owner-occupation, the rest being rented. I believe that there is a similar imbalance at Hemel Hempstead. The figures for Hemel Hempstead indicate that only one of every six new town houses is owner-occupied. If we move to the north of England, to Peterlee, there are 908 owner-occupied new town houses as against 6,500 rented houses. That must represent a very unsatisfactory form of community.
    As we recalled in Committee, it was the objective of the late Richard Crossman to achieve a 50–50 balance between owner-occupation and rental in the new towns. I believe that the pattern in Milton Keynes is about 25–75 between owner-occupied and publicly owned houses. Labour Members, who, by and large, are owner-occupiers, must recognise that the existing pattern cannot be right and that it is perverse not to do all that we can to make use of the mechanism of selling new town houses to bring about a changed relationship.
    As my right hon. and hon. Friends have always argued, owner-occupation gives people a stake in the community and a feeling of independence. It encourages them to devote their own resources and energy to improving and maintaining their houses. That must be all to the good. In short, it adds to the general sum of human happiness. We have campaigned on those lines, and there is no doubt about the response to our campaign. As I believe many Socialists now recognise with a feeling of unease, it has produced an enormous demand for the right to buy the house that one occupies as a tenant. We believe strongly
    586
    in this policy. We believe that we should move towards a positive right to buy. Indeed, that is a right that the new clause embodies.
    That does not mean that all the housing in the new towns, or anything like it, will be sold, any more than all the council housing, or anything like it, will be sold. We still need a public stock of council and new town housing. I do not dispute that need. However, we want to take this opportunity to allow people the chance of owner-occupation. It seems that that is a concept that all the arguments support. We want to move away from the situation that now applies in the new towns—namely, that an individual's chance to buy his house is ultimately dependent on the whims of Ministers.
    I take this opportunity to dispose of one other argument. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) asked why there should be a discount price as against the market price in the sale of new town housing, and presumably council housing. The hon. Gentleman raised that matter in Committee and my hon. Friends and I tried to answer it. We said that it is generally the case that if a sitting tenant has the opportunity to buy he expects a discount.
    I derive encouragement from the fact that the Under-Secretary of State who deals with housing reiterated that approach in a recent Adjournment debate. The Secretary of State appeared to reiterate it in an answer that he gave at Question Time when environment Questions were last taken. It seems that it is a sound and sensible principle that if one sells to a sitting tenant there should be a discount or a reduction in the market price. Quite apart from that, and as I have said repeatedly, we believe this to be a socially desirable policy and that we should make it easier to bring it about.
    The scheme that the Minister has to endorse when the transfer of housing assets takes place will set out the full details. Essentially, because of the terms of the Bill that relates to sale during the actual process of transfer. In other words, we are talking about a sale that will take place with the development corporation or the commission as the vendor, the local authorities not coming into the matter. We are not trying—merely

    587
    because we think it would be out of order—to bind local authorities after the stage when transfer has taken place, although that is something we should like to see.
    We have set out the conditions that we think important—for example, that a person must have occupied a new town dwelling for three years. We provide for a 20 per cent. discount, and we have introduced the notion that for each year beyond the three years there should be an additional 1 per cent. discount. That seems to be wholly advantageous. It would recoup the tenant for the long period of paying in that he will have experienced.
    The new clause recognises that this is a real chance to push forward the whole notion of home ownership. Our package is fair and moderate. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept it.
    Mr. Newens: I wish to speak against the new clause. It is preposterous that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) should suggest that new towns such as Harlow are unsatisfactory communities because of the present balance between owner-occupiers and tenants. Harlow, far from being an unsatisfactory community, in many respects gives much greater satisfaction to the people living there than do communities where the balance is different.
    One factor that has contributed to that situation in Harlow is that young people have not had to wait inordinately lengthy periods to be allocated houses. The rejection of the new clause would in this respect add to the sum total of human happiness in communities such as Harlow, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    New towns were built primarily to provide homes for those in need—people in old-established towns who could not be provided for within the confines of those towns. The London satellite towns, of which Harlow is one, were built to provide for the population of London.
    The new towns were not intended to provide opportunities for people to become owner-occupiers. Therefore, the question whether houses are rented or purchased must be secondary to the fulfilment of the housing need. I hope that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition
    588
    Benches will be prepared to comment on that matter at some stage. Do they regard the fulfilment of the housing need as secondary or primary in this respect?
    For some years many people in need of housing have been unable to buy houses because they have been unable to raise the necessary deposit or their income levels have been inadequate to meet the mortgage repayment requirements of building societies or local authorities. For such people the only hope of a home depends upon the offer of a tenancy, normally by a local authority, but, for those eligible to go to new towns, by a new town corporation or the commission.
    The sale of corporation or council houses to sitting tenants must diminish the offers of tenancies that can be made to people in need. After all, a local authority or new town corporation can provide tenancies only from the building of new houses and houses that become available for reletting. Therefore the selling of houses that form part of the pool of rented housing stock must reduce the total number of houses that become available for reletting and the number of tenancies that can be offered.
    5.45 p.m.
    The sale of houses must inevitably lengthen waiting lists for second generation applicants, essential workers coming into new towns, and other applicants for houses in new towns. The hon. Member for Aylesbury quoted the figure of 4·4 per cent. I suggest that in principle he has conceded the point that to some extent the sales of council houses have affected waiting lists. I accept that to some extent the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the drop in the demand for houses in new towns has been affected by the present economic climate. But when the economic climate picks up again and more jobs are available in new towns, inevitably applications for housing will increase. If the houses have been sold, the waiting lists will be lengthened accordingly.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: On the assumption that the economy will improve and that industry will get going rather more than it is now, and that that will attract more people into new towns, as there will be highly paid jobs of about

    589
    £100 or more a week available, is it not possible that people will wish to purchase their own homes? Therefore, should not houses be made available for purchase in the new towns?
    Mr. Newens: Surely the suggestion by the hon. Member for Aylesbury is not that houses should be made available for purchase by people coming to new towns, but that they should be made available for purchase to sitting tenants. People, however high their wages when they come to a new town, will have to wait much longer for a tenancy if that policy is followed, whether or not they buy houses ultimately, because there will be fewer relets available. That must follow as night follows day.
    Mr. Raison Mr. Raison inicated dissent.
    Mr. Newens: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but his figures commit him to that principle, although he said that the extent to which sales affected available tenancies was not great. If the hon. Gentleman concedes the principle, as I believe he does, the waiting lists will inevitably lengthen as a result of the sales of houses that have taken place.
    Furthermore, eligibility to go on the waiting list can be restricted in other ways. Some time ago Harlow was forced to close the list for old people who were eligible for rehousing because their sons and daughters had gone there. We are hoping to reopen that list. It is possible to limit the numbers who are eligible to be housed in a new town without regard to waiting lists elsewhere.
    It is important to consider the general position of housing need. Many people living in the exporting areas—the old towns—are ineligible for the allocation of a houses in a new town because they have been unable to obtain jobs there under the industrial selection scheme. Unskilled, handicapped and older people have found it difficult to obtain jobs in new towns. As it is essential for people to obtain jobs in new towns before they can be allocated houses, they frequently have to put up with the most dreadful conditions in old towns. It is unreasonable to allow new town corporations to sell their houses when people from exporting areas are unable to obtain tenancies.
    Furthermore, in surrounding areas the situation is frequently very much worse,
    590
    even for people in equivalent circumstances. A couple of weeks ago I wrote to one of Harlow's neighbouring authorities—Epping Forest District Council—about a tenancy application that had been made by somebody living in that area, three miles outside Harlow New Town. I received a reply that stated that the applicant came into the area only in 1967, and that he therefore did not go on to the waiting list until 1972 and could not possibly expect to be allocated a house without further years of waiting. In other words, somebody who came into my area nine years ago is still not eligible to be allocated a house. Opposition Members know that that prevails in areas with which they are concerned—in some case to a greater extent.
    In these circumstances, to suggest selling off houses that are part of the existing rented housing stock means perpetrating and perpetuating unhappiness for those people who have to wait an inordinate length of time, such as nine years, to be allocated a house. In my view, difficulty over housing is one of the major social problems that produce, in part, the breakup of marriages, delinquency and all sorts of other problems. It is something to which we must pay very careful attention.
    The hon. Member for Aylesbury referred to the point that I made in Committee, about selling houses at 20 per cent. below current market value. That, in effect, means an additional subsidy to owner-occupiers as against tenants. This shows that opposition Members are very free when it comes to the question of disposing of public funds, in a way that is not reflected in certain other declarations that they make from time to time.
    If houses are sold out of the rented housing pool, they have to be replaced at current building cost. That means that a house that is sold off realises much less, particularly after the 20 per cent. has been deducted, than it would cost the authority to replace it. This means, therefore, that the burden of the interest charges and the capital repayments on the new replacement house must be met from the revenue raised from the rents of tenants as a whole, which must be increased. In other words, by giving the subsidy to the sitting owner-occupier, an additional burden is placed upon tenants, which, if the sort of policies that have

    591
    been advocated in the past by the Conservatives through housing revenue legislation were put into effect, would be very considerable indeed.
    Mr. Raison: I should like to point out that although the hon. Gentleman attacks the Opposition for allowing 20 per cent. discounts, the 20 per cent. discount on the sale of public housing generally is also present Labour Government policy. They have allowed and endorsed this for a number of years.
    Mr. Newens: Yes, but the difference is that my right hon. and hon. Friends are not proposing to sell off houses in the same way or on anything like the same scale that Opposition Members are proposing. I still argue that the points that I made have to be considered by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am sure of one thing: hon. Gentlemen will not accuse me of not speaking out when I disagree with my own Front Bench on any issue. In these circumstances, I still maintain that the logic of what I said applies here, except that what the Government are suggesting is very different from the scale of the sales that Opposition Members are talking about.
    Mr. George Rodgers: There is a point that rather intrigues me. I see that a line or two down the amendment it is suggested that there should be a further 1 per cent. reduction beyond three years, and that this should be allowed for each year of the tenancy up to a maximum of 30 years. That is an astonishing proposition. It would bring down the cost of a house enormously. I wonder why Opposition Members never consider that such a concession should be made available to tenants of private landlords. Why is such a suggestion not made in that direction by Opposition Members?
    Mr. Newens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall come to that matter shortly.
    It seems to me that the sitting tenant who buys and subsequently sells, even if he sells after a five-year limitation, or whatever the limitation may be, makes a substantial capital gain. That is very good luck for him. However, the cost has to be met by the general burden on tenants of the town, who must meet the
    592
    additional cost of replacing those houses from their total rent revenue.
    As I understand it, the basic objective of the Opposition is not to provide more fully for housing needs but to provide for the expansion of owner-occupation. I believe that that is what the hon. Member for Aylesbury said in Committee, and I believe he said something like it today. Like the vast majority of my hon. Friends, if not all of them, I am certainly not opposed to owner-occupation, as such. I repeat what I said in Committee. I am an owner-occupier in Harlow. I bought my house from the development corporation. However, I did not buy it as a sitting tenant. The corporation, as part of its policy, built certain houses for sale, and certain houses that came into its domain through the acquisition of land within the designated area were sold. I am certainly not opposed to houses being sold in such circumstances.
    In the past, the Labour Party has been particularly concerned to provide help for owner-occupiers. I believe that I am correct in saying that on the issue of 100 per cent. mortgages we were certainly first in the field. We have been concerned generally about mortgage rates and assisting owner-occupiers. Labour Members believe very strongly that such people ought to be assisted to the full.
    I now turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers). If the Opposition believe so strongly in owner-occupation as a principle, why do they not put forward a Bill that would give private tenants the right to buy their houses at a 20 per cent. discount? I repeat the point, and I hope that Opposition Members will reply to it. Why will they not introduce a Bill that would provide a right for private tenants to buy the houses in which they live at 20 per cent. discount, if this principle is so important? We know why they will not bring forward such a Bill. I think they should make the distinction clear, for this is a tremendously important principle, and it would allow people to see where the Opposition stand.
    When corporation houses are sold, families frequently have very serious difficulties in meeting mortgage repayments. I have had a continual stream of people who have begun buying corporation houses or council houses and have

    593
    subsequently come to my advice bureau or written to me because they have been unable to meet their mortgage repayments, due to economic difficulties. In those circumstances, when the building society or whoever has advanced the loan, forecloses, what happens to the family? What can they do?
    6.0 p.m.
    One cannot expect, having bought the house, that the corporation or the local council should immediately rehouse them. Sometimes, unfortunately, families have broken up. In those circumstances, the wife argues that as her husband was the owner of the house the corporation should offer her another one, but is it fair that the corporation, having provided one house, should provide another?
    There are many problems of this sort. Another one is the problem of maintenance and administration. Frequently, where there is an estate in which peppercorn sales have been made, the cost of maintenance and administration per house has risen.
    I am unhappy about the new clause. I hope that it will be strongly resisted, because I do not believe that it is in the interests of the people in the new towns, whether they are owner-occupiers or tenants. If any person in a new town wishes to become an owner-occupier, as far as I am aware, there has been no difficulty in that person becoming one, because houses are normally available for sale—but not at a 20 per cent. discount. If we resist the new clause we shall be acting much more in the interests of a happy and contented community than if we allow large numbers of houses to be sold off in the way proposed.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Generally speaking I welcome the new clause, although I am not so sure about subsection (2). However, I welcome subsection (1) and I think that it is a new clause which ought to be supported. I also welcome the Minister's most recent statement. I think he has just about got the case right.
    I wish we could get away from the perennial argument which we have in the House in respect of the arbitrary sale of council houses. It surely must depend upon the situation pertaining in the areas in which the houses are
    594
    situated. I accept that Harlow is probably an exception, but, on the whole, new town waiting lists are short. I have quoted figures in previous debates. Milton Keynes is one example, Northampton another and Peterlee one more.
    Harlow has a 52-week waiting list, and there is probably a case for saying that in respect of Harlow it would be better to wait a little longer to see whether the list shortens before one permits sales. However, in other areas I think they should be permitted. I would also argue that there should be a discount. It was the practice previously to have a 20 per cent. discount. Everyone knows that in property transactions sitting tenants look for a discount, and one wants to encourage them to buy. All of us, even the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), wish to encourage owner-occupation, and people who have been in a house for three years or more expect to get a discount.
    I do not think many people would take up the proposition if a Bill was brought in stating that people in private tenancies should be permitted to buy at 20 per cent. discount. They would want a far bigger discount than that. When I was in business, many of my clients asked me if I could possibly sell their property. On the open market it was probably worth about £10,000 or £12,000, but if it was let they would have been lucky to get about £2,000 from the tenant. Even when I advised tenants to buy the property because it was a bargain, they said "No".
    There are also a lot of elderly people who have had a house left to them and who would like to get a little money out of it before they die. Yet when we encourage people to buy at a bargain price they expect a far bigger discount than 20 per cent. Therefore, what the hon. Member for Harlow says is a misconception.
    I think the Minister knows that the chief executives in the new towns want to go back to a selling policy. In my own part of the world, in the Isle of Wight, we do not have any new towns, but I happen to know that a Conservative chairman of one housing committee is completely opposed to the sale of council houses. It is not necessarily a party argument.
    The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question which is important as regards the way he might vote in a Division? The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) discounts altogether any possibility that the sale of houses affects the waiting list. I agree with so much of what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) was saying that I thought I was making the speech myself. The hon. Member said that in certain areas waiting lists were zero and that in those cases no harm was done. But he then quoted Harlow New Town, where the waiting list is 52 weeks. In saying that, does he not accept that the sale of houses affects the waiting list?
    Mr. Ross: Yes. I think that waiting lists are of great importance, and they certainly affect this matter. I do not accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). One must take that into account. If the Minister, in his reply, were to say that he intended to permit sales in new towns at 20 per cent. discount where there was a waiting list of nine weeks or less, that would be a great step forward and I would support him.
    The hon. Member for Harlow is living in dreamland, because unless we start selling these properties or changing the way in which we finance house-building we shall not get the houses built anyway because the rent coming in from them does not make it a practical proposition. The Minister will know what the Treasury is saying. We shall have to adopt a different attitude. There are many people living in council houses who jolly well ought to be buying in the private sector, and I am greatly in favour of encouraging them to do so.
    Another way around this problem is to give a grant to people living in rented accommodation in the new towns. We could give them up to £200 to encourage them to purchase in the private sector. Surely that makes sense. This would be another move to make our housing policy more flexible. We cannot simply sit still and say that we will build more houses to let, since it costs housing authorities far more to build those houses because of loan and mortgage interest, repayments and so on. That does not make sense. Anyone who has experience
    596
    knows that one has to be flexible and that there has to be finance from other areas and not only from the State.
    Mr. Newens: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if a local authority or a new town disposes of the stock of houses that were built some time ago, it will cost a great deal more money to replace those houses, particularly taking into account the 20 per cent. discount? The financial burden on the housing revenue account will be increased considerably. In that case, surely it is the hon. Member and not me who is living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
    Mr. Ross: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. We do not want to get into an argument, but I consider that the housing revenue account would be in much better trim if a substantial proportion of the housing stock were sold, because fewer houses would have to be built as replacements. When they were built, there would not be an economic rent for them anyway. The calculations show that this is correct. More councils should be encouraged to build for sale, and people moving into the areas should be encouraged to buy, not to rent.
    The situation today is far better than it was two or three years ago. Industrial wages in my constituency have almost doubled. Two years ago, when this Government came to power, they were right to stop some of the council house sales because there were people earning less than £30 a week who had no hope of buying. Now, they are earning between £55 and £60 and are within shooting distance of purchasing. People who want council houses come to see me on Saturday mornings. When I find that they often earn substantial sums, I ask why they do not buy. There are decent properties in inner urban areas in my constituency for £6,000 to £7,000. Some of these people are thinking about this matter again. People earning £100 a week could probably buy a house in Harlow.
    I am glad that the hon. Member for Aylesbury is becoming more radical about conveyancing. All my relations are lawyers, but I believe that it is time that the Law Society put its house in order. This would greatly cheapen and

    597
    simplify the buying and selling of houses. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
    Dr. Colin Phipps: I must apologise to the two Front Bench speakers for not having heard the start of this debate, but I was at another meeting.
    Essentially, both sides are putting different interpretations on much the same thing. The important factor is the increase in the housing stock. If by selling local authority houses we can increase the stock, that must improve the housing of our population. I appreciate that for various reasons the Conservative Party believes that owner-occupation is important. I know that there are reasons which lead Frank Field, of the Child Poverty Action Group, to believe that the sale of council houses improves the distribution of wealth. From a Socialist point of view, that is also an important argument.
    Probably 50 per cent. of the problems raised in our surgeries are housing problems. The selling of council houses may lead to an increase in the council housing stock, while in other cases it may diminish it. Speaking from a completely non-doctrinaire viewpoint, I believe that actions which increase the stock must be good while actions which might not allow the building of additional houses are bad.
    The important factor is the type of house which is being sold. I have found among local authorities the peculiar attitude that older houses built before the war for £300 or £400 are still worth that amount instead of the more likely figure of £6,000 or £7,000. They are, in effect, paying 13 per cent. on £7,000, because that is the money they could obtain for each house on the open market. If one adds maintenance costs, which are obviously higher for older houses, one is paying interest on perhaps £11,000 or £12,000 for each house, which is sufficient to build another house and thereby increase the stock. This may not be true of more recent houses, so it is the type of house which is important.
    6.15 p.m.
    The Bill makes no distinction between different types of house. The Government should tell the new town corporations to examine their housing stock and realise
    598
    what costs each house represents and that a house built in, say, 1936 costs in real terms much more than one built in 1974. When the replacement money received including the saving on maintenance costs, is grossed up at 13 per cent. interest, the capital amount involved each year is considerable. If one is paying £130 a year in maintenance, that represents a capital cost of £1,000 if one is paying interest at 13 per cent. That money could be used to build new houses.
    This is a totally non-doctrinaire view, which should not be taken as favouring owner-occupation or the greater distribution of wealth. I am merely considering bluntly the question of how we can increase the housing stock.
    Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. What sort of house does he think it would not be worth selling? He is arguing a good case for selling older houses, but it is equally a case for selling new houses.
    Dr. Phipps: The problem with selling new houses essentially comes down to the question of whether they are built for sale or for rent. There is a definite need for houses to rent. When we sell a council house, we should be looking to replace it with a house for rent. This is essential in view of the many people on waiting lists who cannot afford to buy their own homes.
    We should increase the houses for rent by the required number by selling houses which, when sold, will enable us to build the same number of new houses for rent, thus killing two birds with one stone. It does not make sense to build purely for sale when there is such a demand for houses to rent.
    I believe that the new clause should provide for the Government to direct local authorities to review their housing situation along the lines I have suggested, thus helping to increase the total number of houses. In that way we are bound eventually to solve the housing problem.
    Mr. Peter Hordern: I am glad to have the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who so cogently moved the new clause. I am also happy to follow the speech made by the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps). He referred to his speech as

    599
    being non-controversial, and I shall do my best to follow the lines of his argument and in the same spirit.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury suggested that the clause would be popular in new towns. I agree. The local election results in Crawley New Town demonstrated this by resulting in more Conservative than Labour votes on a very high turn-out.
    Pursuing my non-controversial theme and returning to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Dudley, West about the desirability of selling the old stock of housing and retaining the new stock, I remember the hon. Member saying that that would be killing two birds with one stone. I suggest that it is better to kill three birds with one stone. Indeed, that is what the Government are groping for. The Government admit the principle that in certain circumstances the sale of new town houses is correct. They admit this for the best of all possible reasons—because it is financially better. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why it is better to offer tenants of new town and council houses the opportunity to buy their homes.
    In Crawley New Towns, more than half the rent received for a new council house is spent on administration and repairs. The net receipts of the council from this source are very small. On average, in my constituency it costs £25 a week to run a council house, whereas the rent received is £6. On average, in the GLC area the cost of administration and repairs exceeds the rent. It would be cheaper for the GLC to give houses to tenants than to sell them. I hope that the hon. Member for Dudley, West will pursue the logic of his thoughtful argument and join us in the Division Lobby.
    Dr. Phipps: I am trying to establish that there is not much logic in a local authority building a new house and selling it essentially at a discount. In that way local authorities would rapidly approach bankruptcy. With houses which still have a book value of £20 or more written down within the local authority's balance sheet, there is logic in finding out whether their current value, grossed up at the current interest rate, plus the grossed-up value of maintenance is sufficient to provide an alternative house. It is difficult
    600
    to suggest to a local authority that it should build a house for £10,000 and sell it for £8,000.
    Mr. Hordern: The hon. Gentleman must pursue the logic of his argument to its conclusion. Hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it is right to build council houses for rent and that we urgently need to increase the supply of housing stock. It would be inconceivable not to encourage maximum building for rent. That objective can best be achieved by offering tenants the opportunity to buy their homes, for the simple reason that that is the best way of improving the housing revenue account.
    I suggest to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) that, if we go on as we are with rents as they are and as they are prescribed in the Public Expenditure White Paper, either the building programme will grind to a halt or the Government will have drastically to increase council house rents. The figures in the Public Expenditure White Paper show that to be so.
    What is the reason for the extraordinary increase in the cost of public sector housing in the last four years if it is not the fact that council rents have been kept so low? Speaking in terms of 1975 prices, the increase in public expenditure has been from £2·5 billion in 1972–73 to £4·4 billion in 1974–75. We are led to believe that in 1979–80, at 1975 prices, public expenditure on housing will be £4·09 billion, which is a reduction on the 1974–75 figure.
    Public sector rent increases have been kept at 60p a dwelling for 1976–77, but the average level of rent compared with expenditure over the country as a whole is 43 per cent., and the Government's objective is to increase that proportion to 50 per cent. by 1978–79. It is inconceivable that that can happen without a substantial increase in rents. Either we must disbelieve the Public Expenditure White Paper, as I am inclined to do on other grounds, or council tenants face an undreamt-of increase in rent if the housing programme is to continue at the same rate.
    If the hon. Member for Harlow wishes to see an increase in housing in his constituency, as I do in mine, the only way to achieve the objective that we both

    601
    desire is to ensure that tenants are given the opportunity to buy their own homes. Otherwise there will be disaster, either a slow-down in the housing programme or greatly increased rents. There can be no other alternative.
    Mr. Keith Stainton: Is there not a third possibility—a reduction in the monstrous administration and maintenance charges?
    Mr. Hordern: I entirely accept that. That is the point I made earlier when I said that the cost of administration and repairs in my costituency amounted to half the rents received and in the GLC area exceeded the rent received.
    The hon. Member for Harlow and I represent new towns, and we arc both anxious to secure the expansion of housing programmes. I do not see the logic of the distinction which the Government draw between offering houses for sale in new towns where there is no waiting list and offering houses for sale in new towns where there is a waiting list.
    The length of the waiting list is determined by the cheapness of the rent compared with the price of housing in the private sector. The Crawley council's waiting list grew by 10 per cent. last year and the waiting time is three years. On those grounds, I doubt whether the Government would encourage Crawley council to offer houses for sale to sitting tenants. On all counts, and for financial reasons particularly, it is better to allow the sale of council houses to enable the council housing revenue account to be in a better position.
    I do not know what is the position in Harlow, but in my constituency the council has a substantial building programme during the next few years of 2,300 houses, and it is building at the rate of 500 houses a year. This is a particularly difficult problem for all new towns because they have a large stock of comparatively new houses and a small stock of old houses. The extent to which they depend on housing subsidies is greater than that of average towns throughout the country as a whole. I do not see how the objective of providing more housing can be attained unless tenants are given the opportunity to buy their own homes at a discount.
    602
    6.30 p.m.
    For all those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury will press the new clause to a Division. I shall be interested to know what are the Minister's arguments. He has put his own case, with which the hon. Member for Harlow disagreed. His case was that on principle there should be no right for a Government agency to offer tenants their houses for sale. The Minister thinks that some people should have the right. If that principle is acceded to, bearing in mind the financial considerations it is plainly better to offer that opportunity and that that principle should apply to all and not only to some. For those reasons I am happy to support my hon. Friend.
    Mr. John Silkin: We have cantered round this particular course on a number of occasions recently, but the horse that is being cantered today seems to be of a different colour. I congratulate the Opposition on their ingenuity in framing the new clause, but I am not sure that I shall get the applause that I received a moment ago when I explain why.
    The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that he was introducing the new clause in the words and form in which it appears because he had had second thoughts about his amendment in Committee and he was taking the Long Title and other matters into consideration. He fairly said that the fact that the new clause asks for the scheme to include certain rights does not mean that there should not be other rights when one deals with the disposal of new town houses.
    Let us examine the new clause and let us see the mounting enthusiasm with which my "pair", the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) decides to move towards the Division Lobby.
    Mr. Hordern: Ex-pair.
    Mr. Silkhi: Private enterprise pair.
    The first subsection of the new clause reads as follows:
    "A scheme shall include the statutory right for a tenant of the Commission for the new towns and development corporations".
    One should note that no development corporations are actually specified, but the gentleman in question who is to have a

    603
    statutory right must be a tenant of both the Commission for the New Towns and a number of unspecified development corporations. The word "tenant" does not refer here only to a tenant of a house, because the gentleman in question could be a tenant of a factory or warehouse. A person who is a tenant of a factory in Hemel Hempstead, Milton Keynes and Harlow is the person who may, under the clause, be allowed to purchase a dwelling provided that he has been resident in a new town dwelling for at least three years. The new town need not have been a new town when he was a resident. He must at least have been a tenant of a factory and resident in a dwelling in a new town area for a period of three years.
    Clause 16 explains what a dwelling is. It says:
    "'dwelling' means any building or part of a building occupied, or erected or adapted for occupation, as a dwelling or as a hostel (including any land belonging thereto or usually enjoyed therewith);"
    Our tenant of a factory in Hemel Hempstead, Milton Keynes and Harlow has also to have been in a hostel for three years, irrespective of whether the new town was in existence or even thought of, in order to qualify. I wondered why my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) spoke of housing in 1936. He was right, because the gentleman in question could have been in a hostel for three years in 1936, now being a tenant of a factory in Hemel Hempstead, Milton Keynes and Harlow. That would qualify him.
    I must warn my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, and I may have to warn the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), of the terrible consequences involved because of the provisions of New Clause 3(2). Part of what has been suggested is coming true. It was suggested that the logic of that subsection was that it should extend to private housing as well as to development corporation houses. It does. The subsection states:
    "The sale of new town houses shall be at 20 per cent. below the current market value with vacant possession, provided that this would not be below cost; and a further 1 per cent. beyond the three years shall be allowed for each year of tenancy in the new town up to a maximum of 30 years."
    Provided that our gentleman has been living in a hostel for three years at any
    604
    time and has been a tenant of a factory in Hemel Hempstead, Milton Keynes and Harlow, he can go to my hon. Friend's house and purchase it at 20 per cent. off and get another 1 per cent. off for every year after that. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet had also better watch out.
    I make that rather facetious point not because I do not realise that there can be defects in new clauses. Of course I realise that. I am saying that this is a defect the like of which none of us could possibly vote for. It is an incredible defect. Rules for a scheme of the sort suggested by the hon. Member for Aylesbury for the purchase of houses from a local authority cannot be put in a Bill in such a rigid and doctrinaire fashion. One can do it by circular or regulation, although those would have to be altered from time to time. The matter cannot be dealt with in the way which has been suggested in the way I have described it.
    There are other points of substance. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) made the distinction that all reasonable people, including those in new towns, would make—that there is a difference between one new town and another. There may be a great deal of difference between waiting lists in one new town and another. The hon. Member for Aylesbury must accept that, just as my hon. future and past pair has to accept it, because that is part of the case. A large waiting list would not be affected if one were to sell any of the houses to tenants. But we all know that it is affected. It is one of those hunch things that one knows perfectly well. It is not the only factor, but the very 4·4 per cent. relets that the hon. Member for Aylesbury accepts mean that there is a turn-round. I do not know whether the figures quoted are correct, but they seem rather horrific.
    When we talk about new town housing we are talking about a very special form of housing. We are talking about people who went there originally because they were qualified to do a job—skilled workers. I think that I have the general sympathy of the House on the consultation document. I have heard kind noises from the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), who knows his new towns because he is a Member for one. He said that I was

    605
    right in saying that my priorities should include the handicapped, single-parent families, the old and second-generation families.
    Are all those people capable of buying their own house? Have they the money to do it? Of course not. Where are they to obtain the money? Therefore, there must always be an element of renting, however much one wants to weight matters in favour of owner-occupation. I should love everybody to be an owner-occupier, but it will not be possible. Therefore, our basis must be that of need.
    We must accept that there is a difference between one new town and another. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight is right to draw distinctions between them. He gave the case to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) with the 52-week waiting list.
    I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West said. But there is an absolutely fundamental point on which Conservative Members do not argee with him, and their purrs of approval as he spoke seemed to glide past that point, which concerned the use of the money to increase the public housing stock. I said that where housing was sold I wanted the money to be used to help meet the need—to help the disabled, the second-generation families and the elderly. That is what my hon. Friend wants. The hon. Member for Aylesbury asks me many questions and I try to answer them. I have three times asked him whether he would use the money from the sale of new town houses or local authority houses to increase the public housing stock. Each time he has failed to answer. He knows that that is not his intention. That is where he differs from my hon. Friend.
    We believe that there is a difference in need between new towns. Here I must again refer to the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley. He says that I accept the case because of the financial benefit, by which he means the public expenditure benefit. I accept that it is socially right that new towns should mirror the old towns, but if I am to accept that it is socially right that we should have more owner-occupation in new towns I also accept that it is socially right that we should provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Hordern: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman believes that it is socially right that there should be a proper balance between the private and the public sector in new towns. But does he agree that it is to the financial advantage of the new towns that they should offer their tenants the opportunity to buy their houses?
    Mr. Silkin: It depends. If one accepts my view that we may want to increase the housing stock where necessary and provide houses to rent, we may not see those houses let at the sort of rents the hon. Gentleman would regard as economic, because we may be dealing with the disadvantaged. That is what I want to do, and I believe it to be socially right.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is it not the case that Government intervention in housing policy has never been financial? That has been accepted by both parties since the First World War. The aim is to meet a social need in order to improve dire social circumstances resulting from inadequate houses and the fact that so many people cannot provide proper houses for themselves.
    Mr. Silkin: That it should be so, I absolutely agree. I do not want to reopen old wounds, but I remember an occasion about four years ago when I would have said that that was not necessarily the basis of what was going on in housing policy.
    I have been asked what I shall say to the chairmen of the new towns. We must accept that the hon. Member for Aylesbury is an Opposition Front Bench spokesman and, therefore, must be able to claim some victories, even when he has been pushing at an open door. He says that I gave ground in my speech on 18th May this year. At Question Time after Question Time I have always taken the same point of view as I did then. What I said on 18th May is what I have said before and since. The timing has not altered by one second as a result of anything the hon. Gentleman said.
    My meeting with the new town chairman is on 12th July, a few weeks later than I had originally intended, but certain difficulties have kept me in the House when I might have been able to do some other work. The meeting will be purely

    607
    on the basis I expressed on 18th May, that certain new towns will now be able to sell their houses, in accordance with the social conditions that I have outlined, and others will not. It is up to them to tell me, and for me therefore to consult them and everybody concerned, what the basis should be.
    It is not for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to tell me, even if this were not the nonsensical clause that it is and even if the hon. Gentleman were really concerned about people who live in the new town houses and not people who live in hostels and own factories, or are tenants of factories. Even if the hon. Gentleman had got it right, even if he had been competent in it, it would still not be for him to start dictating the terms to the new town chairmen.
    It is for us to discuss the matter and work it out. It is on that basis, and that basis alone, that the programme will be carried out. It will not be done because the hon. Gentleman thinks it looks good on the Notice Paper.
    Mr. Michael Morris: The right hon. Gentleman played a lot with the technicalities of the clause. I have never yet known one lawyer agree with another on interpretation. Experienced as the right hon. Gentleman is, I suggest that in time his view will probably be proved incorrect. Even if the right hon. Gentleman were correct, if he had said that he accepted the spirit of the clause my hon. Friend and I would have sought leave to withdraw it, and would have looked forward to seeing a new clause introduced in another place. But the right hon. Gentleman has come down firmly against it, and therefore we shall press very hard.
    I should like to comment briefly on the contribution made by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), who is not now present. The primary rôle of housing in the new towns is to meet need, but there is no role for a Government who take the view that the Government must for ever hold on to that housing. It is the rôle of the Government to provide for all people to have a home and then, at some point of time, to envisage that that accommodation can be re-used to further the public good.
    Secondly, we appreciate that the re-letting figure of 4·4 per cent. could have
    608
    had some effect in regard to waiting lists. However, the numbers involved are minuscule. In the new town in my area 160 homes have been sold, and of that proportion only a tiny percentage have been re-let. Therefore, the net loss has been insignificant. We must not restrict people's potential.
    Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Gentleman well knows that, as I am sure is common ground between us, the waiting list in Northampton is not very long. Would it not be fairer if he were to give figures of other waiting lists—for example—that in the Harlow area?
    Mr. Morris: I was referring to a point of time at which the Northampton waiting list was running at a figure of 48 weeks. It was then that the Minister came down with a chopper on the situation.
    The distressing feature of the speech made by the hon. Member for Harlow was that, once again, it demonstrated the politics of envy. The idea was that the people who cannot buy a house at this time should for ever be precluded from so doing. Surely it is not wrong for a person who has made a new home in an area then to want to buy his own home.
    Mention has been made of mortgage defaulters and of the annual reports issued by Crawley, Hemel Hempstead, Hatfield and Welwyn. The fact is that 23 homes out of a total figure of 5,470 homes were repossessed because of mortgage difficulties. It is a sad problem, but it is not a problem that negates the whole policy of sale. It has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) that the housing revenue account will benefit substantially from sales.
    The new clause is the Conservative commitment to home ownership. The Government must know that 80 per cent. of people want to own their own homes. This is no laughing matter, although I see that the Minister finds it amusing. I repeat the people want to own their own homes. We also accept that 15 per cent. of people want to rent accommodation in the public sector. Furthermore, we accept that there are people who are put at a disadvantage because they have to rent accommodation. It is the role of the State to provide sources for them. However, this does not mean that we should

    609
    deny people the opportunity to buy their own homes. The clause will give those people the opportunity to purchase their own homes at the point of transfer.
    The Minister persists in using as an axis of his policy the fact that waiting lists become a little less tenable when they are examined. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) asked for information about waiting lists at the end of March. I asked an identical question in regard to the situation up to the middle of May, some six weeks later. It is interesting to note how waiting lists fluctuate in a period of six weeks. For example, the waiting list in Corby for the period to the end of March involved a figure of 40 weeks, but six weeks later that figure had come down to 14 weeks. That is some indication of how unreliable are waiting lists when considering the question of need. If the Minister examines the situation of waiting lists, he will see that there arc violent fluctuations.
    Mr. John Silkin: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of my conditions was that we should have a more effective monitoring system?
    Mr. Morris: Is the Minister suggesting that, because the waiting lists fluctuate, he will need to have an army of people to keep a close monitoring of the situation, or would it not be better to adopt a broad-brush approach and embrace a swings-and-roundabouts situation and allow matters to settle down? The people who buy are the people who will stay, and in no way will that accommodation be re-let. The Minister should go along to see some of the new town tenants. He will soon appreciate that people who buy will not be those who have to be regarded as potential re-lets.
    Two months have now elapsed since the Minister's statement. There has been much disappointment that the Minister in that statement did not say when he would give permission to allow sales to begin. It would very much assist hon. Members if they could be given a date. If the Minister wishes to give us that information, I shall willingly give way to him.
    Mr. John Silkin: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants an opportunity to have a short rest while he is waiting for the events that will take place at
    610
    7 o'clock, and I also know that he is anxious to have an answer to his question. He will be interested to know that, curiously enough, the basis of the consultation with the chairmen of the new towns has the aim of consulting those chairmen—in other words, I want to hear what they have to say. Provided we meet the conditions laid down on 18th May—and there is no reason why that should not be the case—there is no reason why the sale process should not begin straight away. However, it must contain those conditions and must be subject to what the new town chairmen have to say.
    Mr. Morris: I am grateful that the Minister says that sales can begin straight away. He knows that the new town chairmen have written to him expressing forceful views to the effect that they wish to begin sales. We are grateful to the Minister, since it is now on the record that they can begin that process straight away.
    Mr. John Silkin: The hon. Gentleman clearly did not hear what I said, which seems to have been rather endemic on the Opposition Front Bench today because I appear to have to repeat almost everything I say. I shall be meeting the new town chairmen. The purpose of that meeting is that I should consult them as to the conditions we need. Obviously, there will have to be proper consultations with each individual town. There is no question of a cut-and-dried answer being given in this House until we have carried out those consultations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me later to repeat all this.
    Mr. Morris: No, I do not expect it. It seems to vary a little each time the right hon. Gentleman speaks. I was listening to him extremely carefully. I was referring to his receiving a communication from the chairmen of the new towns, which I think was on 26th February. The views of the chairmen of the new towns have not changed since then, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well. He is playing for time. He is very good at this, and we acknowledge it.
    The case we put forward in the clause is based on the fact that the Conservative Party—I think the right hon. Gentleman

    611
    accepts this—has paid tribute to the concept of the new towns and to the practical experience on the ground, but we say that the right hon. Gentleman, by putting down the chopper two years ago, has lost two years' benefit to the people who live in the new towns. We say that the time has come for him to stop treating them as a special case and denying them the opportunity to buy when people in local council areas can buy.
    The Bill provides a golden opportunity, where a transfer is made, to give people
    the right to have an option to buy. It does no more and no less. I believe that we in this House should, just for once, respond to the wishes of the people. People want to own their own homes, and the clause gives them an opportunity to do so. I urge my hon. Friends and other Opposition Members to support the clause.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 288.

    Division No. 185]

    AYES

    [7 01 p m.

    Adley, Robert

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Knox, David

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Lamont, Norman

    Alison, Michael

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lane, David

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Forman, Nigel

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Arnold, Tom

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Fox, Marcus

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Awdry, Daniel

    Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

    Lawson, Nigel

    Baker, Kenneth

    Fry, Peter

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Banks, Robert

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Lloyd, Ian

    Bell, Ronald

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Loveridge, John

    Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

    Luce, Richard

    Benyon, W.

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    McCrindle, Robert

    Biffen, John

    Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Goodhart, Philip

    MacGregor, John

    Blaker, Peter

    Goodhew, Victor

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

    Body, Richard

    Goodlad, Alastair

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Gorst, John

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Madel, David

    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Marten, Neil

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Gray, Hamish

    Mates, Michael

    Brittan, Leon

    Griffiths, Eldon

    Mather, Carol

    Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

    Grist, Ian

    Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

    Brotherton, Michael

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Grylls, Michael

    Mawby, Ray

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Hall, Sir John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Budgen, Nick

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Burden, F. A.

    Hannam, John

    Mills, Peter

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hastings, Stephen

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Havers, Sir Michael

    Moate, Roger

    Channon, Paul

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Monro, Hector

    Churchill, W. S.

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Heseltine, Michael

    Moore, John (Croydon C)

    Clark, William (Croydon S)

    Hicks, Robert

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

    Clegg, Walter

    Holland, Philip

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Cockcroft, John

    Hordern, Peter

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

    Cope, John

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Mudd, David

    Corrie, John

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Neave, Airey

    Costain, A. P.

    Hunt, John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Crouch, David

    Hurd, Douglas

    Neubert, Michael

    Crowder, F. P.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Newton, Tony

    Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Nott, John

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    James, David

    Onslow, Cranley

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

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

    Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jessel, Toby

    Page, John (Harrow West)

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Durant, Tony

    Jopling, Michael

    Percival, Ian

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Emery, Peter

    Kimball, Marcus

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Eyre, Reginald

    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Farr, John

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Raison, Timothy

    Fell, Anthony

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Rathbone, Tim

    Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Trotter, Neville

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

    Speed, Keith

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

    Spence, John

    Viggers, Peter

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

    Wakeham, John

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Sproat, Iain

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Stainton, Keith

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wall, Patrick

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

    Stanley, John

    Walters, Dennis

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Wells, John

    Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

    Stokes, John

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Storehouse, Rt Hon John

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Winterton, Nicholas

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Tapsell, Peter

    Wood, Rt Hon Richard

    Scott, Nicholas

    Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

    Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Tebbit, Norman

    Younger, Hon George

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Shepherd, Colin

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Shersby, Michael

    Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

    Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

    Silvester, Fred

    Townsend, Cyril D.

    Mr. Cecil Parkinson

    Sims, Roger

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Huckfield, Les

    Allaun, Frank

    Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

    Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

    Anderson, Donald

    Dempsey, James

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Archer, Peter

    Doig, Peter

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Dormand, J. D.

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Ashley, Jack

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Dunn, James A.

    Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Dunnett, Jack

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Janner, Greville

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

    Eadie, Alex

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Bates, Alf

    Edge, Geoff

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Bean, R. E.

    Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Beith, A. J.

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    John, Brynmor

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Boardman, H.

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Ewing Harry (Stirling)

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Faulds, Andrew

    Kelley, Richard

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Kerr, Russell

    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Bradley, Tom

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

    Lambie, David

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Flannery, Martin

    Lamborn, Harry

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)

    Lamond, James

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

    Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Buchan, Norman

    Ford, Ben

    Lever, Rt Hon Harold

    Buchanan, Richard

    Forrester, John

    Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

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

    Lipton, Marcus

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Freeson, Reginald

    Litterick, Tom

    Campbell, Ian

    Freud, Clement

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Canavan, Dennis

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Carmichael, Neil

    George, Bruce

    Luard, Evan

    Carter, Ray

    Golding, John

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Cartwright, John

    Gould, Bryan

    Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Gourlay, Harry

    McCartney, Hugh

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    McElhone, Frank

    Cohen, Stanley

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Coleman, Donald

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

    Grocott, Bruce

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Concannon, J. D.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Hardy, Peter

    Maclennan, Robert

    Corbett, Robin

    Harper, Joseph

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Madden, Max

    Cronin, John

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Magee, Bryan

    Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

    Hatton, Frank

    Mahon, Simon

    Cryer, Bob

    Hayman, Mrs Helena

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Marks, Kenneth

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Marquand, David

    Davidson, Arthur

    Hooley, Frank

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Horam, John

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Howell, Rt Hon Denis

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Deakins, Eric

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Meacher, Michael

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Mendelson, John

    614

    615

    Mikardo, Ian

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Tinn, James

    Millan, Bruce

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Tomlinson, John

    Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Tomney, Frank

    Molloy, William

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    Torney, Tom

    Moonman, Eric

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Tuck, Raphael

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Roper, John

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Moyle, Roland

    Rose, Paul B.

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

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Newens, Stanley

    Rowlands, Ted

    Ward, Michael

    Noble, Mike

    Sandelson, Neville

    Watkins, David

    Oakes, Gordon

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Watkinson, John

    Ogden, Eric

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

    Weetch, Ken

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

    Weitzman, David

    Orbach, Maurice

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Wellbeloved, James

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Ovenden, John

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    White, James (Pollok)

    Owen, Dr David

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Padley, Walter

    Silverman, Julius

    Whitlock, William

    Palmer, Arthur

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Pardoe, John

    Small, William

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Park, George

    Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

    Parker, John

    Snape, Peter

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Parry, Robert

    Spearing, Nigel

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Stallard, A. W.

    Williams. Sir Thomas

    Peart, Rt Hon Fred

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

    Pendry, Tom

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Penhaligon, David

    Stoddart, David

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Perry, Ernest

    Strang, Gavin

    Woodall, Alec

    Phipps, Dr Colin

    Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.

    Woof, Robert

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Prescott, John

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Radice, Giles

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Mr. Ted Graham and

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Tierney, Sydney

    Mr. Thomas Cox

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Question accordingly negatived.

  Clause 2

    CONSULTATIONS WITH A VIEW TO TRANSFER SCHEMES
    Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 6, leave out from 'him' to end of line 7 and insert:
    ', with each other and with the council of any other district within which any part of the area of the new town or any dwellings of the new town or any associated property is or are situated, with a view to a transfer scheme being made in respect of the new town by the new town corporation and the council to whom the directions are given.'
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this amendment we may take Government Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
    Mr. Silkin: The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) will recall that in Committee he asked about the effect that a transfer scheme might have on an adjoining district that might be affected by the scheme and that I promised to consider whether we could include in the Bill a provision to implement
    616
    the purpose of his amendment but which at the same time avoided giving the adjoining district a power of veto. In Committee, I gave a clear indication of the difficulties that might arise.
    I considered ways in which we could meet the hon. Gentleman on this matter without frustrating the object of the Bill and preventing the implementation of the principle of good estate management to which the parties and the Secretary of State are required to have regard by Clause 3(2).
    There seem to be three different sorts of minor district council that we are discussing. The first is the council within whose area there are situated dwellings of a new town or other land that might be included in the transfer of properties or in the management arrangements under the scheme. I am thinking of a place like Crawley, where the bulk of the dwellings are within the area of the Crawley District Council, with a few in Horsham and a few in Mid-Sussex.
    The second is the council of a district within whose area part of a new town is situated but which is not to be a party to the transfer scheme. At the time of the consultations this district may or may

    617
    not contain dwellings or land likely to be included in the transfer scheme. A good example of this is Redditch. I am fortunate to have on the Opposition Front Bench the hon. Member who represents that town. In Redditch we have a case in which the adjoining district council area of Stratford-on-Avon has a small area of land within the designated area of the new town, and that is land which might or might not provide new town dwellings in the future.
    The third case is that of the Central Lancashire New Town, where there is a plurality of district councils—three in fact—where adjoining councils have land in the designated area.
    These are three areas that I had to consider very carefully. I had to consider the distinction I was going to make between the three cases. The hon. Member for Northampton, South, for a change, made a strong case on this, and I am giving him his way on all three occasions. These amendments make this good.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Suffice to say that the right hon. Gentleman has responded to minority interests, and the minority is extremely grateful. This means that the Bill has been improved. We are most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I also welcome Amendment No. 6 because it helps second and third generation towns.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 18, leave out:
    'it appears to the Secretary of State'
    and insert:
    'the Secretary of State has, after consulting the new town corporation for the town concerned, formed the opinion'.
    This amendment concerns the third of the three circumstances specified in Clause 2(2) in which the Secretary of State is enabled to issue directions to new town corporations and district councils to enter into consultations with a view to making a transfer scheme. As hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall, Clause 2(2)(c) is designed to cover exceptional cases of transfer earlier than 15 years after the first designation of the town.
    618
    During the Committee the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) moved an amendment to make Clause 2(2)(c) dependent on the agreed view of the Secretary of State and the new town corporation that the development of the new town had been substantially completed or that the carrying out of a transfer scheme would not be detrimental to the laying out or completion of the town. However, when my hon. Friend explained that this would effectively have given the new town corporation a veto over whether consultations might take place at all, the hon. Member withdrew his amendment.
    Nevertheless, we have given some further thought to the process by which the Secretary of State would formulate a view as to whether the development of a new town had been substantially completed, or whether the carrying out of a transfer scheme would be detrimental to the laying out or completion of the development of the town.
    There is little doubt that the Secretary of State would, in practice, wish to consult the new town corporation in order to assist him in coming to a view on these matters, although this does not mean, of course, that his view will necessarily coincide with the corporation's and be accepted absolutely. Nevertheless we think it is desirable that there should be some indication in the statute that this procedure will be carried out. The present amendment accordingly incorporates a provision for the Secretary of State to consult the relevant new town corporation before coming to any conclusion on whether one of the two conditions set out in Clause 2(2)(c) is fulfilled, and whether, accordingly, it is appropriate to issue directions under subsection (1) of the clause for the corporation and district council to enter into consultation on the making of a transfer scheme. I hope that the House will welcome this small but useful amplification of the terms of Clause 2(2)(c).
    Mr. Michael Morris: I welcome the amendment. I think there is actually more substance to it than the Under-Secretary suggests. The evidence is becoming increasingly strong that in new towns younger than 15 years there may be a number of instances where for one reason or another it has not been provided that a transfer should take place.

    619
    Therefore, while there is always the necessity of an exception, it will not be an exceptional exception. That is rare. There is an increased desire on the part of district councils and, indeed, of development corporations themselves, particularly where development is split into a number of phases which might be quite separate, to undertake a transfer before the 15-year date. Therefore, this amendment will facilitate that situation.
    Added to that, it is more realistic to say what would have happened in any case. We should put in legal terms what we think should happen in actual fact, rather than leave it vague. Therefore, I welcome the amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 6, in page 3, line 28, leave out from 'other' to end of line 33 and insert:
    'and the Secretary of State to enter into consultations with a view to a transfer scheme being made in respect of the new town by the corporation and the council; and the corporation and the council and the Secretary of State shall enter into such consultations with each other and with the council of any other district within which any part of the area of the new town or any dwellings of the new town or any associated property is or are situated.'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

  Clause 3

    PREPARATION AND CONTENTS OF TRANSFER SCHEMES
    Amendment made: No. 7, in page 3, line 34, leave out from 'consultations' to 'to' in line 37 and insert:
    'under section 2 above with respect to a new town it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient for the new town corporation and a district council to whom directions have been given or by or to whom a request has been made under that section'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

  Clause 3

    PREPARATION AND CONTENTS OF TRANSFER SCHEMES
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 2, leave out 'possible' and insert 'reasonably practicable'.
    I shall explain the reasons for this amendment. A working party comprising
    620
    officials of the Department, local authority associations, and new town corporations has been examining in detail the contents of subsection (6) with a view to producing a model transfer scheme. We would hope to commend this model to new town corporations and district councils, together with other detailed administrative guidance, once the Bill receives Royal Assent.
    The present requirement to indicate on, or by reference to, a map, all rights
    "in, under or over land which it is possible to indicate"
    could impose an unreasonable administrative and cartographic burden on the parties to a transfer scheme. This could unnecessarily complicate the transfer process. The amendment is designed to make the situation more flexible.
    I remind the House that another part of the clause makes it absolutely clear that a transfer scheme will include a clear description of the assets to be transferred, so that they can be readily identified. What we are doing in this amendment is making it possible to exclude matters that would otherwise make the situation virtually incomprehensible.
    Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove and Redditch): In contrast to the previous amendment, this one actually represents a further retreat from the original position of having a rather more specific map. Under the amendment we are replacing the word "possible" with "as far as is reasonably practicable". I take it from the Under-Secretary's remarks that he would be kind enough to confirm that the dwellings will be shown quite clearly on the map, so that people may have an immediate visual appreciation of whether or not they are involved. I hope that the map will show open spaces, established units, and other points that we discussed at length in Committee. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the map will show what it can show reasonably and that this will not just be an excuse for not having a map at all.
    Individual owners must be able to identify the extent to which their properties are affected, whereas we would not expect the map to show such rights and obligations as second mortgages or ground rents owing on the owner-occupied houses. I take it, however, that the map will be as comprehensive as practicable, and that the amendment will not

    621
    be used as an excuse for not having a map.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I can give the hon. Member an absolute assurance that all such assets as he has described would be shown on the map, because it would be reasonably practicable to do so. Only certain rights that would complicate the map and make it more difficult to understand would be affected.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 5

    EFFECT OF TRANSFER SCHEMES
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 8, line 18, after 'obligation,', insert 'then—
    (a)'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 11.
    Mr. Barnett: These amendments deal with the situation which arises where a development corporation whose houses and other land are the subject of a management scheme has reserved to itself under Clause 5(7)(c) certain powers in respect of the property and the district council has entered into a transaction with a third party outside its management powers. At present, Clause 5(8) provides that the new town corporation is bound by the transaction as though it had been entered into by the council as its agent. These amendments provide that the corporation shall be entitled to be indemnified by the district council in respect of any loss incurred by reason of the corporations's being so bound by a transaction entered into by the district council outside its powers.
    We have been considering further the effect of Clause 5(8), which provides that where a new town corporation's property is managed by a district council under management arrangements in a transfer scheme and a person enters into a transaction with the district council relating to a power, right, liability or obligation reserved to the new town corporation under Clause 5(7)(c), if that person believes with reasonable cause that the district council has such a power or right the council shall be taken to have entered
    622
    into the transaction as the corporation's agent. The effect of this provision is that a third party who does not know about the reservation will not suffer any detrimental effect from the unlawful action by the council: the contract will have effect as though it had been entered into by the council acting as agents, and the corporation will be bound by it. Accordingly, any innocent third party will be looked after if a district council should inadvertently exceed its management powers.
    However, it has been represented to us by the new towns that it is only right that there should be some kind of statutory protection for the corporations also in these circumstances. This is a reasonable point, and these amendments accordingly provide that a corporation shall be entitled to be indemnified by the district council in respect of any loss incurred by reason of the corporation's being bound by a transaction entered into by the district council outside its powers.
    Mr. Michael Morris: I listened carefully to what the Minister said. This is a technical amendment which seems to be primarily concerned with safeguarding the position of third parties and the resultant safeguarding also of the development corporations over actions of district councils. Insofar as that is the position, clearly the change is to be welcomed because safeguards are needed. Will a district auditor be involved in a situation where the provisions would have to be invoked, because it appears that that could happen in respect of actions of a district council? I raise that matter for the record now rather than in the hope of getting an immediate answer from the Minister. Perhaps he will clarify the rôle of the district auditor by writing to me afterwards. Presumably the auditor would be involved at some stage.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: It is difficult to describe the situation in which the clause would have to be invoked, but I think that it would soon become clear to a new town corporation it such a situation arose. So often in these circumstances one is legislating for some future eventuality that it may he difficult to describe precisely. I shall be glad to write to the hon. Member on the point that he has raised and give him any information I can.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 11, in page 8, line 20, after "agent" insert
    "; and
    (b) the corporation shall be entitled to be indemnified by the council for any loss suffered by the corporation as a result of their being taken, by virtue of paragraph (a) above, to be a principal in respect of any transaction".—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

  Clause 7

    DECISION NOT TO REQUIRE TRANSFER SCHEME
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 9, line 34, leave out "and" and insert "or".
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 13.
    Mr. Barnett: These are drafting amendments designed to remove any doubt as to whether there might be an inconsistency between Clause 7(c) and Clause 2(3). Under Clause 2(3), the new town corporation or a district council whose area includes any part of the designated area may initiate consultations where the area of the new town was first designated more than 15 years ago but the Secretary of State has not issued directions under Clause 2(1). The intention of Clause 7(c) is that where the Secretary of State decides, after consultations have been held under Clause 2, not to require a transfer scheme to be prepared, either party should be able to initiate consultations, in the same way as under Clause 2(3) after three years have elapsed from that decision. As drafted Clause 7(c) refers to
    "the corporation and the council of any district"
    having the right to request renewed consultations about the possibility of transfer This could be thought to be open to the interpretation that the corporation and district council can only make such a request jointly. This amendment makes it clear that the right is exactly the same as in Clause 2(3).
    Mr. Michael Morris: We very much welcome the separation. There was an element of confusion and it is correct that it should be crystal clear that either party can make the request. To that
    624
    extent we very much welcome the clarification.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 13, in page 9, line 37 leave out 'requests' and insert 'a request'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

  Clause 9

    GRANTS TO DISTRICT COUNCILS
    Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 11, line 16, leave out 'an undue' and insert 'a'.
    Hon. Members who served on Standing Committee H will remember the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), or in which he played a considerable part, and in which my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) also played a prominent part. As I have said, two amendments to Clause 9 were unfortunately declared out of order because the Money Resolution was too narrow.
    It was the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) that triggered off my rethinking of the situation. She argued that if the Secretary of State were to have the possibility of intervening when an undue financial burden was placed upon the district council by virtue of a transfer of housing and housing related assets, she would like to know what a due burden was.
    I found that question a little difficult to answer. I have spent some time considering the possibilities. A number of alternatives were suggested. I thought that the hon. Member for Aylesbury developed cold feet towards the end about the possible repercussions of his own amendment. I must admit that I felt a little that way myself. There were all sorts of difficulties. The insertion of the words "increased burden" would have produced many difficulties. In the end it seemed that the best way, bearing in mind the unanswerable question of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield, was to introduce an amendment to remove the word "undue", and to say that the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, should intervene where there was a financial burden

    625
    which in his opinion warranted his intervention.
    I hope that hon. Members will welcome the deletion of a word that was, to say the least, causing some anxiety. However, I know that they will want me to say a good deal more about the circumstances in which the Secretary of State is likely to use his discretion to pay grants under the clause.
    At the time of transfer the housing account will be in balance. The existing rent income, plus subsidies, plus any grant being paid under Section 42 of the New Towns Act 1965, will cover the costs of loan charges, management and maintenance. Subsidies will remain constant under the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975, and the payment in respect of loan charges will also remain constant. That leaves income from rents and expenditure on management and maintenance, all of which will, in the natural course of events, change over the years following transfer, and the grant formerly payable to the development corporation under Section 42 will cease, as I told the hon. Member for Aylesbury, when the property becomes the responsibility of the district council.
    I think it is only right to emphasise our intention that the Exchequer assistance in lieu of Section 42 grant that we are proposing in the clause will have the purpose of helping the council in circumstances where it could otherwise keep the account balanced only by excessive increases in rents or rates. If it appears that the council could keep the account balanced without any rate fund contribution, provided it followed reasonable policies in regard to rents, management and maintenance, there will be no necessity for a Government grant. The Government surely cannot protect the ratepayers against the consequences of the council's deciding, for example, on increases in management and maintenance expenditure without a review of rents, so depriving itself of the chance of deriving any additional income from that source. It must be for the council itself to decide how it wishes to finance additional expenditure on housing, and contributions.
    We must not lose sight of the fact—I regard this as a very important plus
    626
    from the point of view of the district council—that the merging of the two housing stocks may enable the council to reduce its rate fund contribution. This would happen if reasonable rent policies adopted by the council provided an income more than sufficient to cover the increased management and maintenance expenditure on the transferred stock and to replace the amount at present received by corporations by way of Section 42 grant. The surplus so created would go towards reducing the deficit on the council's existing stock. This is the familiar phenomenon of older housing built at lower costs yielding a surplus to cross-subsidise the new housing. Where a district council's own housing is newer than the housing stock being transferred to it, there will be opportunities for cross-subsidisation of this nature, and this must work to the benefit of the ratepayers in the district.
    In considering the phasing out of the transitional grant it will be right to look at the housing revenue accounts of the new town and the receiving district at the time of transfer, and to base the arrangements on the figures then available. But we do not expect the four commission towns to receive any Section 42 grant in this financial year except, of course, in respect of rebates.
    7.45 p.m.
    Decisions made by the local authority about rents, maintenance and management will be the important factor in the state of the housing revenue account of the combined stock. Looking further ahead, changes in the subsidy régime, following the housing finance review, may well be of far greater significance. The decision for the local authority is whether it wants to manage the whole public sector housing rented sector in its area on the same terms as local housing authorities are similarly managing their housing stock.
    Generally speaking, housing is a service which, with the exception of inner London, has required very little rate fund support over the years. It has generally been the case that the combination of reasonable rents and Exchequer subsidies has met all the costs. Thus, thus whether it wishes to make rate fund

    627
    it is most unlikely that any new town local authority to which a transfer is envisaged over the next few years will find itself forced by circumstances to make an increased rate fund contribution, except for that required towards rent rebates.
    It is worth recognising that the acquisition by local authorities of good postwar housing on outstanding loan debt terms compares favourably with alternatives open to other local authorities. I made this point strongly in Committee and I think it is worth making again. For the four commission towns, annual loan charges, net of subsidy, averaged last year about £110 per dwelling. For Stevenage and Harlow the figure was about £160 per dwelling. But loan charges, net of subsidy, on new council dwellings, which are costing about £11,000 each, on average, amount to about £400 per dwelling. The comparable figure for authorities such as the London boroughs acquiring tenanted property from private landlords is about £300 per year, and that includes the cost of initial repairs and improvements.
    Another comparison is with potential sale values. If sold to sitting tenants with a 20 per cent. discount—a figure that we have heard so much about today—the houses would fetch, on average, about £7,000 each, which is equivalent to about £650 per year when interest and subsidy are recalculated. I mention that to demonstrate that the transfer terms for the first generation new towns enable the local authorities to increase their housing stock at capital costs of from one-third to one-half of the true capital cost. It is with that in mind that I ask the House to approach the argument in favour of some transitional financial support by the taxpayer at large for the inhabitants of local authorities to whom new town housing is being transferred.
    Mr. Michael Morris: This is probably one of the most important amendments to the Bill. I think that the experience of the majority of new towns in their relationships with county councils is that the agreement that there should not be an undue burden is not a happy one in the sense that there have been extensive wranglings with the Treasury as to exactly what the burden is and how much of it is undue and how much
    628
    of it is due. How much a county can get out of the Treasury to meet the added burden that it faces has become almost an annual auction. Therefore, to that extent I welcome the removal of the word "undue" and the fact that it is no longer qualified.
    We accept that the four commission towns will gain financially on the transfer. The problem comes with the newer new towns at the time when transfer is made. That is why the amendment is important. I suggest that the figure will not be £11,000 or £12,000. I checked the figures with Northampton this afternoon, and the current cost is about £15,000. I accept that the average is about £11,000 or £12,000, but there are examples in my area where the discounted sale price is about £8,000 on older property. That suggests that there would be a burden. Therefore, it is important that that situation should be covered.
    A further point is that, because we shall be getting younger people in new towns, they of necessity will cost society more in terms of all the necessary provisions for young families. That will cause a burden partly on the district and partly on the county. It is important that that burden be covered.
    There is a further element which the amendment will help. It is the practice of development corporations to include in their provisions, for which they get a grant from the Government, probably more facilities than are common in many district councils. Some district councils have been extremely frugal and over time have been extremely careful about the facilities that they have provided. They have been assisted by the fact that, as they are older communities. charities and other bodies have often been able to make provision for a number of quasi-social needs. We accept that when a new town is created that historic infrastructure is not provided by the charities or, indeed, by the private sector and that, therefore, the public sector must provide it. If the grant is strictly adhered to, some of the provisions will become a bit suspect. It would probably be clearer if they were covered by a separate grant payment rather than left in the clouded area of whether they come under the subsidies or not.
    We welcome the amendment. It represents progress towards the view that we,

    629
    supported by at least three of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, put forward. We shall be coming to another amendment which in some ways is associated with this one. Therefore, I shall reserve judgement on it until we come to it.
    Mr. Newens: I welcome the amendment. My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) referred to the debate in Committee on this matter. I think that hon. Members on both sides expressed their concern about the possibility of a local authority becoming responsible for heavy increases in costs arising from the transferred properties. I feared that danger and was one of those to whom the hon. Gentleman referred who expressed that view in Committee. If transfer results in heavy increased costs falling upon new towns, many new town residents will feel that they have been made the victims of a scheme that was presented to them as being to their advantage.
    Many people in new towns have the same attitude towards the Government as one of Homer's characters had towards the Greeks—"Beware of the Greeks when they come bearing gifts." Some new town residents feel that they should beware of any Government who hand over new town assets to them. I am sure that that suspicion is totally unjustified as long as my right hon. Friend is the Minister. However, the amendment, if carried, will help to set their fears at rest.
    I do not conceal the fact that I should have preferred the word "increased" to be included. Nevertheless, I am prepared to settle for "undue". I still consider that the clause leaves more discretion in the hands of the Minister than I should wish. However, I believe that the amendment goes a considerable way towards what many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel ought to be done. Accordingly, I thank my right hon. Friend for introducing this change which will be in the interests of new town residents as a whole.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Michael Morris: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 11, line 19, leave out
    'determined by him with the consent of the Treasury'
    and insert 'of seven years'.
    This amendment, which follows on from the earlier amendment, is concerned with removing the discretion of the Secretary of State and the Treasury, in connivance, to restrict the period over which they will give this grant to meet the new burden.
    The important element is that a district council must of necessity plan ahead. The majority of councils are encouraged by the Department of the Environment to plan ahead for five years. They arc getting increasingly better at financial planning. We shall see what happens as a result of the Secretary of State's exhortations to the local councils. However, with the setting up of the consultative committee, we all hope that they will be brought back to their budgets.
    If we ask local authorities to plan their expenditure and forecasts better and to stick to those forecasts, we owe it to those authorities which take on the financial burden of new towns to indicate for how long they are likely to get a grant. If not, and if the figures are substantial—they may be very substantial in some cases—it will cause chaos to their financial planning. In any event, if the grant is removed, even with 12 month's notice—there is no guarantee that would happen—the burden will then fall on either council rents or the ratepayers. In either case it would be unfair.
    The right hon. Gentleman may ask why we have settled on seven years rather than any other period. There is no scientific basis for the seven years. As the majority of district councils are working on a five-year forecast, seven years seemed a satisfactory basis on which to conclude it without it becoming an unending drain on the Treasury's resources.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who has been fairly generous on other amendments, will welcome this amendment in the spirit in which it has been moved.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. John Silkin: I am relieved by the hon. Gentleman's speech in one respect, at any rate—his explanation of the period of seven years. I was rather worried about that. I then remembered that seven years had a kind of mystical or religious significance—well before the Bible, of course. There were seven lean years and seven fat years. They had Labour Governments even in those days. There was Leah. It was Rachel who was promised to Jacob, but he had to wait seven years, and then he found that after that time he was foisted off with Leah. That was the Tory régime. We are now told that it was a mystical figure, and I am delighted to hear it.
    I deal with the minor technical point first. I shall not make a technical point, but I want to ask the hon. Gentleman what he really meant, because it makes rather more sense if what I am about to propose is what he meant. The effect of what he says is that the Secretary of State makes up his mind whether to give a grant—I note the interest of Basildon, Hemel Hempstead, Harlow and other places—to the district councils for a period of seven years. The Secretary of State makes his mind up flat, and says "The righteous shall receive a seven-year grant and the others shall receive nothing at all." If that is what is intended, even the spirit, in any sense whatever, would be totally rejected by the local authorities, and by me and everyone else I know, because it would be too much of a responsibility even for a Secretary of State.
    I assume that what the hon. Gentleman means is "up to a maximum of seven years." If that is so, as a basis that is much more sensible.
    I seemed to get the impression from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), when we were talking about the Money Resolution, that he was trying to get a slight paring down on what he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State might be up to between them. It is not a minimum period; it is a maximum.
    Mr. Raison: I should have thought that the words of our amendment, which would read, roughly, "may make grants for a period of seven years", implied quite clearly that the seven years was a
    632
    maximum, and that it did not have to be seven years but might be up to seven.
    Mr. Silkin: I was not making a point; I merely wanted to be absolutely clear. That is what I thought the Opposition meant. It would be easy to redraft the amendment, which gives the Secretary of State the one power, to say "Yes, you can have a grant for seven years, or not all." However, we are debating the substance and not the drafting. I wanted to make certain that that was so.
    What this comes to is that the Opposition say "Forget the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury. You, Secretary of State, have to make up your mind whether you give a grant to a district council. You can do it for only up to seven years. You must not do it beyond that. You make up your own mind without the Treasury coming into it."
    In Committee I was asked for how long I thought one would need to give such a grant. My reply was that I thought that it would be between one and five years. However, I am not infallible, curious as that may seem, and it may be that I am wrong. That was why I wanted an indeterminate figure. However, I think that in giving the period of one to five years I was showing where I thought the probability, on the best advice I could get, might be.
    Would it really be fair if the period in Redditch, say, were eight years, to limit the Secretary of State to seven years? For the want of one year, would the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) really penalise the ratepayers of Redditch? I do not believe that he would do so. If I were still in my present position and if he were still the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch, would he not be coming to me at Question Time and saying "Why do you not alter the law? Redditch is suffering."
    Mr. Hal Miller: If the transfer is not to take place until about 15 years after original designation, does not the Minister consider that the transfer should not be effected until the town has reached a reasonable maturity, so that it would be possible after a further period to get rid of special factors that previously operated to make the grant necessary?
    Mr. Silkin: It may be so in the case of Redditch. I mentioned Redditch merely because it was a handy illustration, as I was looking at the hon. Gentleman. However, it may not necessarily be a second-generation town about which we are talking; it might be a third-generation town. There may be other new towns. The question depends on whether they have newer housing. That is not so in every case. There may be other cases. There are some new towns that might very well finish in less than the 15-year period. I do not particularly want to mention names at present, but there are some that might very well do it, either because their housing has gone ahead at such a speed that they have achieved a target ahead of when they might have done that, or because the town is not intended to be very large. There are these factors.
    Opposition Members are not, therefore, being altogether realistic when they try to bind the Government to this biblical period of seven years because they want a particular set period. It is much better looked at pragmatically and empirically and treated on that level.
    I come now to the most extraordinary suggestion that the Opposition have made during these debates. There have been some rather curious suggestions, as we know from the previous Division. What I find odd is that the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), both by the amendment and by his speech, was saying that he was trusting me and my successors, of either party, to go right ahead and made up our own minds, without the consent of the Treasury. For a party that is forever telling us that we are supposed to cut public expenditure, that seems a rather curiously open-ended commitment. Any spending Minister is delighted if he can have as much as he likes to spend, because he has his policies and he wants them inaugurated. If he can get as much as he wants, that is marvellous. If one offers spending Ministers open cheques, one finds that they are all human and that there is so much that they want to do. However, life is not like that. Much as one would like the opportunity to go ahead without the Treasury's consent, or without even consulting the Treasury—that requirement is removed by the amendment—that is not realistic.
    634
    If the amendment were to become part of the Bill and if I or my successors, in any transfer of housing assets, were to say "Splendid. I shall give X New Town District Council the grant for seven years, and I have not bothered to say a word to the Chancellor of the Exchequer because I do not have to", the first persons to attack me and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be Opposition Members. I would not blame them.
    We must be realistic. Whoever may be involved, the matter will be handled competently and on the basis of a reasonable look at the situation and at what are reasonable rents and reasonable charges. No one will go mad on this matter, because, frankly, the money is badly needed. All that we want to do is to provide a safety net for those authorities that otherwise might find the burden too much for them, having behaved properly in every possible way. If we are to do that, however, I beg hon. Members not to put the shutter down on the time question. We simply do not know. Hon. Members really must not be so rigid or doctrinaire about this matter. For Heaven's sake, let us be realistic about it. We should have to consult the Treasury and we should have to have the Treasury's consent.
    Mr. Michael Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has answered the amendment. It is right to place on the record the danger which all of us who represent new towns see because society has asked the old towns to take on the burden of new towns. We should not forget that, when a new town is attached to an old one, one is asking the original society to undertake an enormous transformation and upheaval. That is asking a lot. There might be a particular crisis at a point of time and it is all too easy for a Treasury Minister to make a broad cut and chop off the grant there and then. As a result, those societies which have undertaken this burden are left high and dry.
    In as far as the Government will make a grant, of course we understand that in the end the Treasury has a say. It is fair to say that it is within a fairly large budget, and if the grants were held it is perfectly possible for cutbacks to be made in other areas. We are dealing with only 29, and at one point in time

    635
    all 29 are unlikely to be on the go. The figures involved are unlikely to be that substantial.
    There may be occasions when we might not wish to lock in a new town completely, and, in the final analysis, the Treasury must have the ultimate regard to that. I think it was right for us to put down this amendment in order to get on the record firmly and clearly that where a transfer takes place and there is a burden, only in the final resort should that grant be removed by the Treasury. I hope, as a result of the discussions we have had, that a Chancellor of the Exchequer will think warily before removing that grant and, indeed, that a Secretary of State will fight extremely hard to ensure that those grants are not removed because of the financial crisis.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 10

    INFORMATION FOR OCCUPIERS ABOUT PROPOSED OF FINAL SCHEMES, ETC
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 11, line 35, at end insert—
    '(3) As soon as practicable after a transfer scheme is approved or made by the Secretary of State any district council to whom an interest in land is transferred by the scheme or by whom any land is to be managed in pursuance of management arrangements included in the scheme shall publish in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area of the new town a notice which—

    (a) states that the scheme has been approved or made and the date on which it was approved or made, and

    (b) specifies at least one place in that area where a document describing the scheme's provisions and identifying the property affected by the scheme or arrangements can be inspected.'

    The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) will recall that in Committee he moved an amendment which would provide for advertisements to appear in newspapers where transfer schemes were being undertaken. Hon. Members on the Committee, and I hope the House, will also be aware that in the Bill itself there is a provision for individual notices to be given to occupiers of
    636
    any property affected by a transfer scheme as to the manner in which they are to be affected. I agree that there should be some public notification of a transfer scheme, and it is in response to the hon. Gentleman's amendment that we are now bringing forward this amendment to the Bill.
    The hon. Member's own amendment had certain drafting difficulties which, I think, we have avoided in this one. As I indicated in Committee, there are precedents in other legislation for advertisements in local newspapers where action by a corporation or authority affects the ownership or the use of land. We agree that this is a valuable way of bringing a transfer scheme to the attention of people living in a new town. The amendment is straightforward and self-explanatory, and I commend it to the House.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Hal Miller: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for having taken this matter away from the Committee and coming before the House with this amendment. It goes a long way to meeting the point which we made in Committee.
    The only point I would wish to make is that we still have not succeeded in getting consultation for the residents of new towns who are affected. We do not have any means of searching out their views. My own new town has developed a residents' association of quite considerable extent, and it was hoping that there would have been means for consulting it about these proposals, but nothing is laid down in the procedure.
    I do not wish to carp at the manner in which the Under-Secretary of State met his undertaking. We are most grateful to him and we are happy to accept the amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 12

    PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES
    Mr. Raison: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 13, line 18, at end insert:
    '(8) Local authorities in making appointments arising from a transfer scheme shall have regard to the need for equal consideration to be given to new towns and local authority staff'.

    637
    This amendment asks that the staff of the new town development corporations who might be transferred with the housing assets themselves should have equal consideration when the question arises of who is to manage those assets. We are asking that they should get equal treatment with the local authority staff. The amendment raises an important point, which we talked about in Committee. The fact is that the development corporation staff will be moving over to new employers. They are the local authorities and, naturally, they will have the interest of their own staff at heart. In almost all cases their own staff will be, in a sense, in situ. They will be holding points already. It is possible that when decisions are made about staffing and about the management of the houses that have been transferred, the staff who work for the development corporation will be at a serious disadvantage.
    The one thing that we do not want to do is to have any kind of duplication of staff or a proliferation of over-staffing. I do not want to suggest that new town staff should necessarily expect to receive jobs when the transfer takes place. As I said in Committee, I believe that many of the people who work for the new towns are not the sort of people who are looking for security of tenure. They want to do a job and, when it is finished, they are quite prepared to move on and do another job. Another point made in Committee, which I would repeat, is that I hope that the special skills that many of them have will be able to be used in completely different fields. It is possible that they will move on to help solve the problems of the inner cities, or perhaps work in an overseas country.
    I believe that the Department of the Environment has set up an organisation called BUDSU, which is a sensible way of cashing in on the staff's expertise in town development and enabling them to be employed in other countries. I am not trying to suggest that all the development corporation staff should be engaged automatically. Nevertheless, I think the House will agree that they should get fair treatment.
    When I raised this point in Committee, I said:
    "It would be wrong if it became the normal practice for the local authority officer to get the job."
    638
    I asked the Government to consider the matter. The Minister said:
    "I recognise the importance of that matter, but I am not at the moment in a position to deal with it. This is a new point to me, although I recognise its force. I suggest that we should consider it between now and Report."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 18th May 1976; c. 251.]
    This amendment gives the House and the Government a chance to consider the point that there should be a formal statutory safeguard entitling development corporation staff to equal consideration when housing assets are transferred. I hope that the Minister will feel that we have made a reasonable case. I look forward to his reply with interest.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) has told us that we had a considerable debate on this matter in Committee. I recognise today with some amusement that what he sought in Committee was a fair crack of the whip—a phrase which has particular significance at the moment—for the staff of new town corporations.
    I think that we all share the objectives which the hon. Member outlined. Obviously, one wants to ensure that people who have given service to new towns, many of them with special skills relevant to the new town in which they have served, should have a fair crack of the whip. Nevertheless, I was interested in what he said about the fact that a high proportion of those who worked for the corporations do not see themselves in precisely the same light as local government servants.
    I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned BUDSU. Even though I, too, cannot remember what those initials stand for, I know that it is a very good thing. This country has built up an enormous amount of expertise and knowledge, and many who have worked for the corporations will naturally want to exploit those talents and make them available to other countries which can benefit from them.
    However, as we have already explained, the Staff Advisory Committee is giving priority to the question of ring fences in recruitment; it is consulting various interested parties urgently in an effort to find a fair and generally acceptable arrangement. There is little doubt that

    639
    the principle of the amendment is close to the thinking of everyone on this subject and that the Staff Advisory Committee sees it as one of the principles guiding its work in recruitment policies and procedures. I have no doubt that this principle will be reflected in the detailed arrangements to be published in regulations and in any guidance issued.
    Our objective must be to restrict redundancies in development corporations to the minimum. Local government generally has a part to play in this, in addition to the more detailed provisions which will operate between parties to a transfer scheme.
    The trouble with the amendment, as so often with an attempt to legislate in this way, is that it has certain consequences of which the hon. Member should be aware. In the first place, the amendment is so vague as to open the way to considerable argument about exactly what "equal consideration" is. Of course we accept the need to see that there is reasonably equal consideration between those who work for a local authority and those who work for a new town corporation, but once one starts legislating one gets into trouble.
    The proposition that this should be made mandatory suggests that in the last resort an individual or a group could seek recourse to the courts for an injunction. Any such action might jeopardise the proper exercise of the functions of the district council and could lead to even greater uncertainty, not only for the staff already in post or expecting to take up appointments but also for the tenants of the houses to be transferred.
    There are other good reasons for rejecting the amendment. For instance, for the reasons that I have given, among others, the amendment could actually be to the detriment of the staff of new town corporations. In asking the House to reject the amendment we do so because we believe that in practice that would be to the advantage of these staff who rely on the regulations which will be made and on the ring fence procedures which we expect the Staff Advisory Committee to propose after full consultation with the interested parties.
    I will, of course, draw the attention of the advisory committee to what the hon.
    640
    Member has said, but it would not be sensible or satisfactory to solve a real problem—one which we accept—by this kind of amendment. It would be better to rely on the work of the advisory committee and on the good sense of both parties to see that the best use is made of the expertise at present shown by the staff of the corporations.
    Mr. Raison: May I press the Minister a little further? I accept that this may be a faulty amendment in certain respects. I am even prepared to accept that we occasionally produce faulty amendments. But the essence of what the Minister said does not seem justified.
    First, if we can put something into regulations, we should be able to put it into statute if we really want to. I do see how one can draft a regulation which is somehow subtler than, or different from, a statute. Secondly, when the Minister queries the possibility of the notion behind "equal consideration", he completely overlooks the fact that there is nowadays a good deal of legislation providing that those of different colours and of different sexes should be treated equally when applying for jobs. So even if these are not the best words for expressing it, the notion of equal consideration is well and truly enshrined on our statute book.
    Even if he thinks that the amendment is defective, would not the Minister be prepared once more, perhaps before the Bill goes to the other place, to consider the possibility that what we are after might be perfectly well expressed in statutory form?
    Mr. Guy Barnett: If I may speak again with the permission of the House, the hon. Member is right to pursue these points, but there are two answers to them. First, I believe it to be right for the House to wait for the kind of recommendations which come from the Staff Advisory Committee. It may make recommendations to my right hon. Friend of which some could be incorporated in regulations. So we do not feel that this is the right moment, even if we thought it desirable, to include in the Bill a provision to give some kind of firm regulation of this kind.
    Secondly, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the advantage of regulations

    641
    over incorporating a provision in the body of the statute. Regulations are changeable, therefore, as situations change, so regulations can be altered. We should be making a permanent provision in an Act which would cover the position for some time and could become out-dated. That provision would be difficult to amend, whereas regulations are much more easily amendable.
    Mr. Raison: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I am sceptical about what the Minister said. I accept that regulations are more easily changed over the passage of time, but these are not recurring circumstances. We are talking about a point in time when responsibility for housing moves from the development corporation to the local authority. I cannot envisage changes which may be required to alter the principle which we are trying to establish. I hope the Minister will have another look at this.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 14

    INCREASE IN MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Hal Miller: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 14, line 5, leave out 'eleven' and insert 'nine'.
    The horse has been over this course before—I do not know whether it is a Trojan horse. We are concerned about the number of development boards and the quality of representation on them. In the Chilean navy, as the size of the fleet decreased the number of admirals increased. Here, we are transferring the assets of development corporations to local authorities and at the same time providing for an increase in the number of members on the boards of corporations.
    In Committee the Minister said that it would be helpful to associate local councils affected by the proposals more closely with the work of the boards, and that an increase in the number of members on the board was a suitable means of ensuring co-operation. In making that suggestion he was running counter to the
    642
    recommendations of the chairmen of the new town corporations, who discussed this matter, among others, in the report that they submitted to the Minister on the consultation document of February 1975. They said that co-operation would not necessarily be improved, let alone assured, by the appointment to the boards of local authority representatives. They insisted that what was necessary was breadth of experience.
    Representations have been made to hon. Members who represent new towns about the need for industrial interests to be represented on the boards. I have written to the Minister suggesting that appointments from both sides of industry might be made to the boards, and I hope that he will consider that suggestion.
    We have heard no convincing reason why it is thought necessary to increase the number of board members. What will be the function of the development corporations once the housing assets have been transferred? The corporations expect to have a strictly limited life. I hope that the increase in the number of board members is not designed merely to give the corporations a temporary reassurance that their life will be prolonged. Will the Minister tell us what he considers the life expectancy of the new towns to be after this major surgery, and why increased membership is necessary for the reduced function of the board?
    Mr. Eric Moonman: The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) is that we are trying to get an adequate balance on the boards of new towns. There is no conflict here. To say that there should be a breadth of experience on the board of a new town corporation is not incompatible with a good representation from local authorities. I am not surprised that the chairmen of the new town corporations are happy with the present position. We are trying to get a balance. New towns are still a substantial business. I do not believe that a small board is necessarily adequate to deal with the wide range of problems that may arise and the consultations that may be necessary.
    My own new town of Basildon, at 31st March 1975, had a net capital advance of over £100 million. I could give similar examples from other new

    643
    towns which confirm the enormous financial burden under which they operate. If the Minister feels that it is appropriate to have that increase in the composition of the board his case is made out, because of the scale of the new towns and the enormous operation and development that they are expected to perform. If the Opposition are determined to have industrial representation as well as the co-operation of local authorities, the number cannot be less than that which the Minister suggests.
    The issue is not about the precise number. I would have thought that the Opposition would learn not to base their case on figures. The figure of 11 gives us the opportunity to include all the interests on the board. I cannot understand the difficulty, because we are surely hoping to have the balance that we all want.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: We have moved a little way since the Committee, because at that time an amendment was moved by an Opposition hon. Member to delete the whole of the clause. The Opposition simply want to reduce the number from 11 to 9. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) used a curious argument about the Chilean navy and how the number of admirals increased as the navy decreased. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) said, new towns are big business and there is an argument in some cases for having larger new town corporations. The limit of seven ordinary members was set by the 1946 New Towns Act. At that time Aycliffe, which was designated in 1947, had an original target of 15,000 population, Bracknell of 25,000, Corby of 40,000, and Stevenage of 60,000. Today Aycliffe has a target population of 45,000, Bracknell of 60,000, Corby of 80,000 and Stevenage of over 100,000. The analogy of the Chilean navy will not hold water, any more, probably, than the Chilean navy does.
    The provision is permissive and it is not intended suddenly to increase the size of the corporations to 11 in every case. One argument which weighed with us in considering the size of the board was that advanced for the situation which exists in, for example, the Central Lancashire New Town, which involves three district councils and the Lancashire County Council.
    644
    To achieve a realistic representation of people from district councils one must raise the permissive limit. In view of the transfer, this is an appropriate moment to introduce that provision. Whatever the Opposition say, there is an argument for having representatives of district councils to facilitate the transfer.
    Mr. Raison: I appreciate the need to allow local authorities to be represented. The Minister has quoted the case of the Central Lancashire New Town. It is reasonable to argue that there should be two extra places, which is what our amendment seeks to achieve, but there is no need for four. Normally one can have county and district representation within the existing size of membership. To accommodate all three districts, only two extra places are needed. In what situation will there be a need for four extra places?
    Mr. Barnett: I am glad to have an explanation for the number the Opposition chose. The answer in the case the hon. Gentleman mentioned is that we would want in that situation to achieve a party balance in the representation, and the hon. Gentleman would probably agree. It might not be possible to do that except by increasing the size. It is also suggested that it might be useful to have representatives from industry, the trade unions or a number of other spheres which might be useful to a new town corporation.
    All that we are asking for is a certain degree of flexibility. The clause does not propose a massive increase in the size of every corporation, but simply gives the Secretary of State a flexibility that he has not had.
    Mr. Hal Miller: The Minister tempts me when he talks of realistic representation. The position of my own development corporation board is far from realistic, as a result of the flush of political appointments which the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend hastened to make on assuming office. But I was not trying to add unnecessarily to the extent of those patronage appointments.
    The Minister tempted me a great deal further when he spoke of the need to bring relevant experience on to the boards. Some of the appointees we have seen have zero idea of how to deal with

    645
    the big business commitments to which the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) referred.
    Mr. John Silkin: The Opposition did it, too.
    Mr. Miller: We can swop punches if the right hon. Gentleman wants to. I have been in correspondence with him on the subject of my hoard. I am not necessarily saying that local councillors should be appointed. Their appointment does not necessarily add to the strength which is needed to deal with the large sums involved.
    The point I was making was that the assets were being reduced by the transfer of the housing assets. I had hoped that the Minister would deal with my specific point about how long it was envisaged the corporation would last after the transfer of those assets. But perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not in a position to say, and I do not wish to detain the House.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    8.42 p.m.
    Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    There are some Bills which are inevitably, whether one likes it or not, milestones in social and legislative history. This Bill, which I am delighted to say has not taken very long in legislative time to reach its Third Reading, is one of those milestones.
    The Bill fulfils a promise made in the Second Reading debate on the original Bill, in 1946, when the future of new towns was suggested at a time when very few people thought they had a future. To talk then of a time when they would have large populations and be district councils of today's size and power seemed visionary. But to say that the time would come when their assets would go from development corporations to those local authorities was more than visionary; it was regarded as mildly insane. But it was right.
    What we are celebrating today is the growing up not only of the new town movement but of the new towns themselves—the adulthood of most of the first-
    646
    generation new towns and the promise that the rather tough, strong teenagers of the second and third generation will in turn reach their maturity.
    What lies behind this process is the faith of us all in local democratic control. It has its ups and downs, but it is still the oldest democratic institution in our country—older even than the Palace of Westminster.
    One of the more striking factors about the way in which this Bill has proceeded has been the amount of constructive criticism that has been advanced. Of course we have had our party banter, but constructive criticism has been a great feature of our discussions. I accept that the Bill is in better shape than when it began its Second Reading only a few weeks ago. That it has been improved and made a better Bill is very much due to the strong part played in our proceedings by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members. It has been a Bill in which the Government have not had to tell their own supporters to be quiet; on the contrary, everybody concerned has been constructive, and it has been a useful and interesting process.
    In sending the Bill to another place, we can look forward to some newer refinements which perhaps we, in our wisdom, may have omitted to take into account. We have also the slightly frightening knowledge that some new town chairmen are members of another place and may have strong views about what is to happen.
    I particularly have in mind the provisions relating to staff where it is possible that the advice that is emerging from the Staff Advisory Committee might suggest that amendments could usefully be considered in another place.
    In the light of views expressed by members of a small group of officials from local authorities, new towns, and my Department, who have been examining methods of determining the payments calling to be made under Clause 8(2), we are examining the drafting of the clause. The Government recognise that the Bill has led to many questions relating to the future of new towns. I intend to stimulate debate on the scope for the use of a new town type of machinery for securing development objectives where this would

    647
    not be inconsistent with the powers and responsibilities of local authorities.
    I notice that in this respect the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) is not very far away from my own views on this matter. There is also a need to decide on the long-term arrangements for the management of the industrial and commercial assets that have been created, and are being created by the new town development corporations.
    I wish to emphasise that we see a significant rôle for the Commission for the New Towns in the management of those assets, although the commission will not, perhaps, be exactly the same as that which existed in the past. It will not have a housing function in future except in the exercise of tenancy nomination rights for a limited period of time. But as further development corporations are wound up, we envisage that the assets will be managed in the national interest by the commission. It will indeed be a new-style commission.
    Although most of the first-generation towns were in the South-East, others have been established in the West Midlands, the North-West and the North-East. Therefore, we must look at the organisation of the overall task and at the constitution of the commission, bearing in mind the regional location of the assets that it will manage. Associated with this will be an examination of that management rôle, perhaps in the context of the gradual transfer of the freehold reversionary interest in new town assets, to the local authority in which those assets are situated.
    The House will recall that I mentioned this on Second Reading and drew attention to the possibilities put forward in the consultation document, "New Towns in England and Wales", which we published at the end of 1974. In that document we discussed the principle of the sharing of the benefits of public investment in the new town programme. The basic philosophy that we set out then remains the same today—that these benefits should be shared between the local community, the public in general, through the Exchequer, and the ongoing new town programme as a whole.
    At the same time, we must recognise that there will have to be a programme of winding-up of development corpora
    648
    tions once their housing has been transferred and any residual house building programme by the corporations comes to an end. But we are talking of 29 towns over a period of many years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be sitting in the position he now occupies, as a good, healthy 150-year-old, when the programme comes to an end.
    Properly integrated policies, designed to maximise the benefits from public investment in our new towns, to secure an orderly transition from a new town to a normal town, and to ensure that the problems that will arise for those employed in new towns are handled sensibly and sensitively, will take time to develop and establish. I look forward to further legislation in due course, for there is still a great deal to be done.
    As I said on Second Reading, the present Bill represents a return to one of the great principles of the 1946 Act. It was always intended that the houses provided by development corporations should be transferred to local authorities in the areas in which the houses were. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.
    8.52 p.m.
    Mr. Raison: I first thank the Minister for his kind words. I think it is true to say that the Committee was a constructive one, and I am delighted to know that the Minister feels that we have between us managed to improve the Bill.
    I have always made it clear that we accept the principle of the Bill. We do so because, like the Minister, we believe in local democracy. Indeed, it is a rather nice thought when we know that he is talking not about handing over houses from new town development corporations to post-1974 district councils but about handing them over to the Witenagemot, to judge by what he said when he talked of the inequity of local government in this country. At least local authorities did not increase their numbers in the way in which the Minister proposes to increase the number of corporations.
    We have argued about the sale of houses in new towns. As it is the convention—sometimes honoured as much in the breach as in the observance—that one does not talk of sins of omission but only of sins of commission, I will not re-open that particular controversy at this stage.

    649
    I hope that the transfer will go ahead as planned, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that it represents an important step in the light of the new town movement.
    I believe that the main problems will probably prove to be financial. We have had quite a bit of discussion about these at odd moments, even on the Money Resolution this afternoon. We have to make sure that both parties get a fair deal out of this.
    The stress has naturally been on getting a fair deal for the district councils which will inherit these houses. I say this because, quite properly, the local authorities concerned have been fairly strongly represented in the Committee. But we also have to get a fair deal for the taxpayer. Public money from the Exchequer has financed the new towns, and, therefore, it is right to say quite firmly that they, too, have an interest. We as taxpayers also have an interest, and it is the duty of the Secretary of State under the Bill to uphold it.
    We have, as the Minister implied, to watch the Bill fairly carefully after it has become an Act, because the passage of it will not necessarily be easy in all respects. We shall certainly keep a beady eye on it, though not an obstructive eye.
    The Minister was right to say that the progress of the new towns is developing, that things are changing and that we are in a different situation. At the moment, we are coming to the end of the period when we thought in terms of launching new towns. I have the feeling that the Minister may not live to see Silkingrad built, much as he might like to. The change in the demographic projections plus the belief that resources should now be directed to other hard-pressed areas lead people to argue that further new towns are not to be contemplated for some time to come. These are important considerations which we have to bear in mind, and there is a developing argument.
    But we accept the principle of the Bill, though we have argued about specific points and there was one matter on which the two sides of the House had a sharp divergence of opinion. But I hope that the Bill achieves its objectives.
    I conclude my remarks by thanking my hon. Friends who have been so helpful
    650
    to me and who made such an important contribution to our proceedings in Committee, and I reiterate the essential point in the Minister's Third Reading speech.
    8.56 p.m.
    Mr. Newens: I express the sense of satisfaction which many of the people with whom I have had the privilege to work, especially in the Labour movement, will feel at the completion of this Bill's passage through the House. It is a measure which gives legislative form to a number of objectives which such people have had in view ever since new towns were conceived; namely, the democratic control of housing and associated assets. I can remember attending many meetings and being involved in many campaigns and in the preparation of many documents dealing with these matters.
    The establishment of the New Towns Commission and the purpose marked out for it by the Conservative Government of the late 1950s represented a departure from the original objectives, and this Bill restores the position envisaged by my right hon. Friend's father when he introduced the New Towns Bill in 1946.
    The transfer of new town housing assets to local authorities represents a very considerable challenge to those authorities, but I have faith that, by and large, they will rise to it. I believe that it is right that housing assets should be democratically controlled. But the fact that the Bill has now completed its passage through this House and, we hope, will eventually go on the statute book will not relieve many of us of the necessity to press very hard for local authorities to carry out what we believe to be the real purpose behind this measure.
    As my right hon. Friend said, the people concerned with the new towns movement have also been concerned with the problem of industrial and commercial assets. I happen to believe that these, too, should be democratically controlled. I hope to see a Bill on this matter in due course, and my right hon. Friend will be aware of the strength of conviction on this matter which exists in the quarters to which I have referred. We hope that in due course he will turn his mind to seeing how, in the form which he now envisages, he can provide

    651
    for the democratic control of those assets as well as the housing assets.
    That is for the future, however. The Bill will be regarded as an important measure. Most certainly it will be by my constituents in Harlow and by people in other new towns. It provides the basis for a smooth and sensible transfer of the assets with which we have been concerned and from which considerable advantages will flow.
    I think that in future a great many people will recognise the tremendous achievement of the development corporations and the new town staffs, and it would be quite wrong if I failed to take advantage of this opportunity to place on the record my own appreciation, and that of many people of all political parties, of the tremendous dedication these people have shown.
    We have now arrived at the stage where we must move on to a different state of affairs, and the Bill provides for that. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his drive in getting this measure brought forward. I take great pleasure in welcoming the Bill.
    9.2 p.m.
    Mr. Moonman: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) in welcoming the Third Reading. In a sense it has required a considerable amount of patience from many of us in the Labour movement. We have heard much about this Bill's pedigree, but it has travelled a long road and there have been considerable disappointments over the course of Labour Party conferences and special delegatory meetings. To that extent some of us feel that this is not merely a Third Reading, but almost a domestic affair. In saying that, I do not mean to be critical of the Opposition, but I think it is domestic because of the way in which new towns were enshrined in our thinking and strategy of extending and refurbishing the old communities of this country, while cultivating new areas at the same time.
    This has been a considerable development, but if it were only that it would be a pity. I am proud of the fact that the Labour party pioneered new towns, but on the Sub-Committee of the Select
    652
    Committee on Expenditure there was no disagreement between hon. Members on both sides on the question of new towns. This is not only a reflection of the good sense of both sides; it shows, perhaps, that the new towns have come of age. We shall reach a point at which we shall stop talking about new towns.
    The other thing that I would suggest is perhaps a matter of graduation. We have talked about the importance of development corporation boards on more than one occasion. I support the idea of increasing the size of development corporation boards, not because I want to create a bulkier structure, which would cost more money, but because one of the most unfortunate problems of the past few years is that there has been no clarity of communication between the policy makers of the development corporations and the community. I am not sure that by increasing the size of the board we shall improve communication immediately, but I have faith that those who serve on the board, if they are truly representative of the various sides of industry and of political parties, will be able to improve communication. I believe that that will happen because of the penetration of those people who will report back.
    It is not enough to have an agency doing an important job in the development of new towns. We have to recognise the terriffic communication that emerges in an area in which there is suddenly not a local authority or a local councillor with whom one can deal and ask for advice and instruction—in which decisions are being made, instead, by an agency. This is a very difficult concept. I hope that throughout the continuing existence of new towns we shall see an improvement of communication.
    It has been said on more than one occasion that it is not only big business that is involved in new towns, but large numbers of people. We are talking about nearly 2·5 million people. The fact that the House is not completely full tonight is no reflection on new towns, or any indication of a lack of interest in them; it is simply a result of the extraordinary things that we do through the course of the night.
    The new towns will have to be taken much more seriously by the two major

    653
    parties, if only for the reason that they are about an integrated housing, transport and employment policy, and that is sufficient reason for no longer treating them as cranks or something of a hybrid nature, to be left only to Members of Parliament with new town constituencies. We must ensure that the Government are aware that this issue crosses party lines and involves integrated policy making.
    Critical problems will still remain in spite of the Bill. They will require close care and attention. New towns, more than any other form of development, are involved in keeping pace, for example, with the social services. A population moves into a new town and perhaps finds jobs there, but it is the gaps that exist in the social services, because of the enormous numbers of people involved, that create the problem. These people suddenly move from a city with formal traditional social services into a new environment. The same is true of education and cultural activities.
    I have said enough to indicate the sort of problems encountered in the new towns—problems that are basically about keeping pace with the people. Because we do not keep pace we have problems, alarms and anxieties, and that is one of the things that we must continue to look at, whatever we do and whatever the Act of Parliament. We must watch closely the way in which job opportunities are provided. It would be distressing to many of us who care so much about the new towns if they became merely commuting areas sending workers back into the city centres.
    The figures that I have seen suggest that the numbers of people in the inner ring of London new towns who return to London to work is far too high. That means that somehow, at some point, we have failed. That is not what new towns are about. There will always be a number of people from new towns who commute to the city centres, but I am
    654
    talking about the situation in which far too high a proportion of people who live in new towns do not work there. There are distressing signs that the numbers of people who commute back into the cities are building up.
    Mr. Hal Miller: In my new town there is cross-commuting, and that is the pattern that we expect to develop. We do not want a new town to be a goldfish bowl that is entirely self-contained. Surely new towns must be linked with the rest of society?
    Mr. Moonman: This is basically a question of balance. It is serious if 55 per cent. of the people in the inner ring of new towns are getting their jobs outside those towns. Of course, these people must not live in a goldfish bowl. Naturally, the second generation will get secretarial jobs in London because young girls want better opportunities and the so-called excitement of getting away from the new towns. But there has to be a balance.
    In talking about new towns we have a terrific responsibility. The Bill is an important step. I must say that many of my hon. Friends and I respect enormously the work that has been done by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government. This is not an instance of a Minister getting through a Bill because it happens to be related to something that the party may or may not have promised, or something that may or may not have appeared in a Labour Party statement. My right hon. Friend has a personal interest, and he has shown a real determination to ensure that we achieved the balanced community for which many of us have fought. This is a remarkable occasion, and one worthy of the Labour movement.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ARMED FORCES (recommitted) BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

ARMED FORCES (recommitted) BILL
  Clause 1

    DURATION OF SERVICES ACTS
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    9.12 p.m.
    Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I draw your attention to the fact that a number of my hon. Friends and myself submitted amendments to the Bill. Even at this late stage we ask you to reconsider the possibility of those amendments being called. They concern the right of members of the Armed Forces to join a trade union and the setting up of effective collective bargaining machinery. We feel strongly about the amendments and we should very much appreciate it if you would reconsider the possibility of them being called.
    The Deputy Chairman: I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on this occasion. As the Committee will notice, the selection of amendments stands in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is the Chairman who has made the selection. The Bill was printed before Whitsun, over a month ago. I see no reason for matters being left to such a late stage that we dealt only with starred amendments.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 5

    INCREASED POWERS OF SUMMARY PUNISHMENT
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Ron Thomas: The clause concerns the summary punishment of both soldiers and airmen by their commanding
    656
    officers. Therefore, it is concerned with discipline. The discipline that is applied to members of the Armed Forces, just as to those outside, is as much concerned with morale as with having adequate opportunity to deal with the many grievances that in industry we should describe as the disputes that arise.
    As an ex-member of the Royal Navy, an ex-able seaman—[Interruption.] Hello, sailor! I was an able seaman, lower deck, in the Royal Navy. I soon realised that there were no recognised forms of procedure, no representational systems via trade union, and no sense of consultation between what we used to describe as the pigs who ate in the wardrooms and those who did all the work and prepared their meals. There was no sort of communication. It was for that reason that my hon. Friends and I—many more of my hon. Friends would have supported the amendments had I had time to collect their names—decided to make a simple request regarding discipline as it applies to this clause or any other clauses.
    9.15 p.m.
    We are dealing here with summary punishment and discipline. We suggest that if there were the right, as is laid down in the Employment Protection Act, for members of the Armed Forces to join a trade union, if there were the setting up of collective bargaining machinery, as there is throughout the bulk of British industry—I think that the Government are to be congratulated on that—and appeals machinery and procedures for avoiding disputes—all that goes with trade union recognition—the exercise of discipline under this and other clauses would be carried out in a totally different fashion from what is suggested in this legislation.
    In my judgment, to deny members of the Armed Forces the right that most workers in British industry have is to treat them as second-class citizens.
    Many members of the Armed Forces are highly skilled technicians. In many REME establishments they work side by side with civilians who are members of well-organised trade unions. Members of the Armed Forces can therefore see the difference between the summary discipline that appears in this clause and other clauses and the rights of their fellow workers in organised trade unions to have issues dealt with through proper negotiating machinery.
    The Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to intervene, but the clause makes no reference to trade unions. I have looked through the Bill very carefully, and I find that there is nothing in it that relates to trade unions. Therefore, I regret that I have to rule the hon. Gentleman out of order regarding any references to trade unions. If he can show me a reference to trade unions, I shall be prepared to entertain his argument.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Sir Myer. We are debating Clause 5, which deals with summary punishment.
    The Deputy Chairman: That is correct.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I submit that it is in order for an hon. Member to give reasons why he cannot support the inclusion of Clause 5 as it stands and to allude to the fact that if certain things were happening he might be prepared to support it.
    The Deputy Chairman: The point is that the hon. Member appeared to be going on to deal with amendments that have not been selected.
    Mr. Thomas rose—
    The Deputy Chairman: Order. I must be allowed to put my point of view. I shall allow hon. Members to raise points of order if they wish.
    Mr. Thomas rose—
    The Deputy Chairman: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat while I rule on the point of order that has been raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I make it clear at the outset that I shall not allow a general debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because there is no reference in the Bill to trade unions. We must consider what is in the Bill. I shall allow a passing reference to trade unions, but not a detailed debate on trade union membership inside the Armed Forces.
    Mr. Stan Thorne: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. You will recall that Clause 5 refers to a period of detention. It seems to me that that is the punishment to
    658
    which we are addressing ourselves when we allude to the way in which a member of the Armed Forces may seek to exercise certain rights. If a worker in the industrial sector is wrongfully dismissed, he can make representations under the Employment Protection Act through his trade union. I think that is relevant. I submit that there should be some way in which a member of the Armed Forces can appeal against detention and bring in his trade union representative to resubmit his case.
    The Deputy Chairman: We are dealing with the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Does the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) wish to continue, or has he finished?
    Mr. Thomas: The clause gives a commanding officer the right to punish a soldier or an airman by putting him in detention for up to 60 days under a procedure in which the airman or soldier has no involvement in any sense, whereas in British industry, as has been said, any form of disciplinary procedure would be worked out between the trade union and the employer concerned. There would he procedures to deal with grievances and disputes.
    However, as a former ordinary seaman in the Royal Navy, I know that we have a situation in which there are no such procedures whatsoever, and no one to whom one can look when one is having to put up with quite intolerable conditions. There is no shop steward to represent a person and no trade union to back him up in any way.
    In that kind of situation we are being asked to support an amendment that suggests that a commanding officer should have the right unilaterally to put someone in detention for up to 60 days under a procedure in which that person has not been involved to any extent, and in which there is no appeal. Neither are soldiers represented in any way. If practically any worker in British industry finds himself in difficulty, he can call upon his shop steward, often his full-time union officer, and then the whole legal department of his union, to represent him.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was surprised to learn that my hon. Friend had been a seaman. May I take it that if the clause were amended

    659
    by the Government on the lines that he has suggested, which the Government could do at a later stage, such a case as that of the naval officer who was accused of having a homosexual relationship—a case that went to the courts and cost hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer's money—might not take place? I am assuming that such a naval officer could have taken the matter to his trade union, which would no doubt have been called the Naval Officers' Trade Union, which could have discussed the matter then and resolved it, and saved the tax-papers a lot of money. Is my hon. Friend out to save the taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Had the authorities in this place selected the other amendments that we have tabled, it would have become apparent that we were asking that the Government cease treating soldiers and airmen as second-rate citizens by giving them those rights set out in the Employment Protection Act, and that the trade unions, such as mine, ASTMS, and the Transport and General Workers' Union, should be able to sit down with those concerned and work out procedures for avoiding disputes, appeals procedures, and so on. In respect of this Clause, we offered an amendment. It is on the Notice Paper, but unfortunately it is starred. In my ignorance, I thought that if there was a star against it, it was bound to be called. Indeed, all we ask for, in terms of the new clause, is that an individual who has to go before his commanding officer—who may be able to incarcerate him for up to 60 days—should have the right of representation and the right to appeal against the decision of that commanding officer.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am surprised. I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's point. As I understand it, what he is asking for is that British soldiers, airmen and seamen should have the same privileges as the Germans. Is he suggesting that British Service men should be treated as well as the Germans are treated?
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Before my hon. Friend replies to that question, I want to ask him a similar question. I am genuinely asking for information—
    The Deputy Chairman: Order. It would be only fair to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), who is addressing the House on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, and giving reasons why he does not think it ought to be supported, not to confuse him. I presume that he knows that he has the right to vote against the motion, That the clause stand part of the Bill. However, he is not a juggler, and if three or four hon. Members start to throw questions and interventions at him he will lose sight of the naval officer and his homosexual act.
    Mr. Allaun rose—
    Mr. Thomas rose—
    The Deputy Chairman: Order. I think we ought to allow the hon. Gentleman to deal with one intervention at a time.
    Mr. Thomas: I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) was not trying to make a pro-Market point, because I know what his position is on the Market. My understanding is that the armed forces of six of the member countries of NATO have some form of trade union organisation and a further two provide for representative machinery. The countries are Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, West Germany, Norway and Denmark. Sweden, which is outside NATO, allows trade union organisation and the kind of representative machinery that we are seeking in terms of this clause.
    The clause gives commanding officers a considerable increase in power. My own trade union submitted a document to the Committee—
    Mr. Thorne: I wonder whether my hon. Friend can tell me the reasons behind the Government's thinking for increasing these detention provisions from 28 days to 60 days?
    The Deputy Chairman: Order. I think that we will allow the Minister to tell us himself.
    Mr. Thomas: A brief provided by my own trade union—ASTMS—mentioned a reply given in the Official Report on 10th December, which suggests that the provision will allow the number of courts-martial to be reduced. If that is the

    661
    case it really is something that I and many of my hon. Friends just cannot support. To say to commanding officers "We shall increase your powers simply to cut down the number of courts-martial" is quite outrageous.
    We have to bear in mind that, as far as the commanding officer is concerned, there is no representation and no right of appeal, whereas under a court-martial there is. I should make it quite clear that many of us on the Government side of the House can see no justification for giving a commanding officer these increased powers in a situation in which sailors, airmen and soldiers are being punished as part of a procedure over which they have no control. They are not represented in any way, and there is no right of appeal.
    The document prepared by my trade union summed it up in a couple of sentences when it stated:
    "It is current good practice in labour relations elsewhere for trade unions to be involved in the drawing up of disciplinary and appeals procedures, and this practice could profitably be extended to the armed forces. A mutually agreed disciplinary procedure would safeguard service persons against possible unfair and arbtirary decisions of commanding officers and would at the same time protect the officers themselves in the exercise of their powers."
    Unless the Government can give me some convincing reason why they feel it is necessary to give commanding officers these increased powers, I for one will attempt to divide the House and vote against the clause.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I support the opposition to the clause expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas). I hope that the Minister will give a detailed explanation of the baffling decision to increase from 28 days to 60 days the punishment which can be awarded by the commanding officer. I cannot believe that the reason was the one which he quoted in Hansard. Of course we are all in favour of reducing the number of courts-martial, but to do so by giving greater arbitrary power to one god-like person is a departure from every principle of British justice. I am sure that in the Armed Forces, as in Civvy Street, the need is to keep the prison population
    662
    to the minimum. This sort of decision can only make that more difficult.
    Many of those who are punished feel that those who impose justice are out of touch with them. This applies to judges and barristers. But that breach is nowhere as great as the breach in the Army between the officer class and the rank and file. Discrimination is at its highest there. One of the greatest barriers to productivity and harmony in industry is discrimination. This is accentuated in the Forces. Too many members of the officer class still come from a public school background. They live in different messes and different conditions. Everything is done to separate them from the rank and file.
    It is, therefore, inevitable that the ordinary Service man believes that these people are not aware of his problems. They cannot understand the situation in a barrack room because they do not live there. Ordinary Service men must feel that those who live in officers' quarters, often with servants, live in another world. Even hon. Members probably cannot appreciate the class-ridden structure to which officers belong. The clause should not increase the powers of those people over ordinary mortals like ourselves.
    The individual commanding officer may try to impose justice as he sees it, but there is often an educational gap as well. The private feels that he has no one to defend him. I will not follow the trade union argument of my hon. Friend, but if he were represented by a trade union official as happens at industrial tribunals, he would feel that he has some expert assistance. However good the individual officer may be in spite of his class background, he cannot apply justice in this sort of area.
    However fallible it is, at least at a court-martial a record is kept and appeal can be made to higher authority. The clause deals with a closed procedure in which justice is dispensed arbitrarily by a god-like figure.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether in West Germany, where a trade union for Service men exists, such a punishment of 60 days can be inflicted without the Service man being represented?
    Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is right. We do not all advocate the procedures of

    663
    NATO on every occasion, but in at least six NATO countries a Service man can have that form of representation.
    The main criterion of British justice is that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. With this closed relationship between the commanding officer and the rank-and-file Service man on trial, the concept of British justice being seen to be done is not fulfilled. I oppose the clause.
    Mr. Joseph Ashton: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol. North-West (Mr. Thomas), I declare an interest as being formerly No. 2738994 LAC Ashton of the RAF. I am sure that we shall have a sympathetic hearing from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, who in 1971 put up a spirited, vigorous and determined fight to prevent the rum ration being taken away from the Navy.
    The advertisements shown on television which put forward the idea that the Army is a professional job give rise to concern about discipline in the Armed Forces. The old days of short back and sides, shiny boots, painting the coal black and the stones white are gone. There is a recent report in the Daily Telegraph—the newspaper with a large circulation among members of the Armed Forces, particularly the officer class—with the headline:
    "Lieutenant treated me like a slave, says ship's steward".
    The report goes on to say:
    "A 30-year old Royal Navy steward told a court martial … that he was the bloody slave of Lieutenant William Henke. He said he was called out late at night to make salads and cook steaks for the Leiutenant's girl friend. 'He told me I was his personal steward on call for all his little whims and what not'"—
    whatever they may be.
    The steward said:
    "I pleaded not guilty in order to expose Lieutenant Henke for what he is."
    Had this clause been in operation, the steward would have been dealt with without the benefit of the presence of the Press.
    On this ship several stewards had asked for transfers. The steward had been called on to clean the officers' toilet three or four times a day. The steward alleged
    664
    that the officer urinated on a seat and he was made to clear up. That was at a late night party at which the lieutenant was entertaining girl friends. This case had to be brought before a court-martial to get publicity. Had the clause become the law of the land the case would not have seen the light of day.
    We see advertisements in the newspapers about the kind of life which young men can expect to lead in the Forces. The picture that is painted is totally different from the life that conscripts of 20 years ago could expect. The rank and file have a strong desire to have the right to be represented by trade union officials at disciplinary hearings.
    During the Labour Party conference soldiers in civilian dress surreptitiously push things into our hands. If they do that outside the Winter Gardens they are taking a great chance. They often make allegations, tell us what is happening, and ask us to take a matter up and protest because they feel themselves to be victims.
    A rank-and-file soldier who feels that he has not had a fair trial at a disciplinary hearing can appeal and have what is called a redress of grievance. In the past anyone who was put in jankers first went before the beak and got 14 days or reported to the guard room four times a day. One could appeal, but what was the use of that because one had already done 14 days? If one was wrongly convicted one could not get the 14 days back and there was no form of compensation, although there might be an apology.
    Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is my hon. Friend aware that many members of the Armed Forces are also our constituents who in many cases are advised not to approach their Member of Parliament. Sometimes action is taken to prohibit them from making approaches to us on the problems they face in the Armed Forces. I have had a recent experience of a member of the Armed Forces who wrote to me asking me to drop his case because of the possible repercussions.
    Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend is correct. It is quite common to find that subtle pressures are put on soldiers, sailors or airmen who report things to newspapers. They often find that their chances of promotion are blocked.

    665
    There is a need to look at discipline, and that will not come from the Colonel Blimps of this world. It must come from the House. The heads of the Armed Forces must realise that things have changed. The security guard at Vauxhall who manhandled workers in excess of his duties has been moved to another job because people were not prepared to work with him. A fire brigade chief had to be moved to another department because he insisted on treating his men like a sergeant-major. Things are changing. We no longer live in the days of Earl Haig when his officers could impose No. 1 punishment and tie men to the wheels of a gun. There are many tales of what happens in detention centres and the glasshouse. There is certainly a need for an inquiry into disciplinary procedures and a need for members of the Armed Forces to have proper redress for their grievances.
    Complaints against the police are now to be looked at in a different way. If it is good enough for the police, surely it is good enough for the Armed Forces. They should have a right to appeal to an outside body and to an independent judge and jury. They should have someone to assist them. They should not have to go before their superiors, where the chances of appealing are almost nonexistent. I hope that the Minister will propose something different.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: It is a matter of personal regret that I lack the distinguished Army service experienced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who made a compelling case for introducing independent trade union representation for members of the Services.
    I was struck that the rear-admiral was the lowest rank serving on the Review Body responsible for assessing increases in Service pay. It was not surprising that that body recommended the highest increases for officers and the lowest increases for the ranks. An independent element should be introduced into both discipline and pay.
    I read the report of the Select Committee on the Bill. That was a foolish activity, because it disturbed my peace of mind and affected the tranquillity with which I intended to go into the Lobby with the Government. I was surprised and
    666
    distressed to discover from the Select Committee that when a man is detained he loses his pay for the number of days he serves detention. A witness said that men preferred to be detained than fined because when detained they still had their comforts whereas when fined they had to go about normal life with no money. When a Service man is detained and loses his pay, what provision is made for his family? [HON. MEMBERS: "Look at the evidence."] I have looked through the evidence for the past hour, and I did not find the answer.
    9.45 p.m.
    Quite a number of questions were put to witnesses asking what would happen to a person's family when he was fined. It was suggested that the fine would be moderated up to three-fifths of the pay and that in other cases there might be social security payments, but that would not apply where the Service man was abroad.
    When we face such a clause, which will double the amount of detention that can be imposed by commanding officers, it is right that the House should ask to be assured that suitable provision is made for the family. My hon. Friend the Minister may reply that, as a number of witnesses said, the commanding officer knows the circumstances of each case, and would probably not detain a man when that would cause hardship. I am doubtful about the wisdom of commanding officers having to know the domestic circumstances of the men under them. In any case, it is not enough for us to rely on that. The Bill applies to all men under the commanding officers' command, and not simply to single men.
    I hope that the Minister will give me some reassurance on the matter. If he cannot, it will be with great difficulty that I contemplate doubling the sentence not simply on the Service man but on his wife and children.
    Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) said that there were six armies in NATO which had some degree of trade union representation, a point also made by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts). The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) is an expert on the activities of the armed forces of the Societ Union. I

    667
    wonder whether he or any other hon. Member can tell us about trade union activities in the Soviet armed forces.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I gave my ruling. I shall not allow a general discussion on trade unionism in the Armed Forces.
    Mr. Goodhart: The point has been raised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you allowed it to pass, that six armies in NATO had some trade union representation. There is no trade union representation in the Warsaw Pact armed forces.
    Mr. Ian Mikardo: As the hon. Gentleman does not approve of what goes on in the army of the Soviet Union, as many others do not, why does he seek to have us copy the same practice?
    Mr. Goodhart: I merely wondered whether there was such a practice in the Soviet Union and whether anyone there had protested against, for example, the harsh conditions in the Soviet navy that led to a mutiny on a frigate.
    Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman is an expert on referendums, and has written a book on them. Would he advocate a referendum in the Armed Forces on this matter?
    Mr. Goodhart: I think that I should be prepared to see that. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) referred to conditions in the German army. The army in NATO with the greatest experience of this question is Holland's, which has had associations going back for about 90 years. One trade union there, which is Left Wing, is in conflict with the Minister of Defence, a man so Left Wing that he could not hope to be a member of a Labour Government in this country. He would certainly be sitting below the Gangway if he were a Member of this House. He is in direct conflict with that association, and is trying to get it suppressed. There are 10 other associations in the Dutch armed forces that have a form of trade union—
    The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not paying attention to the ruling I gave. I said that I
    668
    would allow only fleeting reference to this matter. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to extend his argument.
    Mr. Goodhart: I was just about to complete my remarks, Sir Myer. Labour Members must bear in mind that 10 associations in Holland protested at the defence cuts which the Dutch Government were trying to impose.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): It is right that in debating Service discipline the House should turn its attention to the many points that have been raised, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas). I, too, have had the pleasure of serving in the Royal Navy and I know from first-hand experience the problems that confront Service men.
    Everybody will acknowledge that Service men today have certain rights and privileges that are not enjoyed by the private sector of British industry or by the nationalised industries and their employees. Any Service man who feels aggrieved about any matter affecting his Service life is at liberty to write to his Member of Parliament—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends may laugh, but they have not had the benefit of even the brief experience that I have now enjoyed as one of the defence ministerial team. In those few weeks I have received letters from Service men; indeed, I had similar letters before I became a Minister. No Service man is debarred from writing to his Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend said that members of the Armed Forces have rights that are not available to workers in the private or public sectors—namely, that they are able to write to their Member of Parliament. Why is it that workers in the public and private sector are not allowed to get in touch with their parliamentary representatives?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: The impatience of many of my hon. Friends is leading them to intervene before I have had a chance to conclude my argument on a particular point. I was about to say that Service men had the right to communicate with their Members of Parliament so that their parliamentary representative can demand,

    669
    by Parliamentary Question or in the form of a debate, that the Minister concerned should account to Parliament for complaints made. That is not open to workers employed in the private sector, nor is it open to those who are employed in the nationalised industries.
    Mr. Frank Allaun rose—
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, but I hope that I shall be allowed to develop one argument at a time. That is a right possessed by Service men, and it gives them an advantage over employees in industry.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: It is true, as the Minister says, that a Service man can approach his Member of Parliament, but does my hon. Friend not admit that the Service man is at a tremendous disadvantage compared with workers in industry, in that if a worker is unjustly treated he or she can leave the job, whereas a Service man or woman cannot?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: That is not absolutely correct, because Service men can buy themselves out. I shall not go into that argument now. The other advantage possessed by Service men and not by industrial workers is that they have a right to appeal to the Defence Council, which is the supreme body in the Armed Forces. That is available to Service men if they go through the procedures.
    Many of my hon. Friends obviously have strong reservations about the general thrust of the proposals to increase the powers of summary punishment by commanding officers. Their views deserve to be treated with respect and seriousness, and I shall try to deal with them.
    I first reassure the House that both the Ministry of Defence and the Select Committee which has considered the Bill have taken very great care indeed to try to protect the position of Service men The extension of the powers now proposed should produce a quicker, less cumbersome and less expensive form of trial for disciplinary offences.
    If those who doubt that view were to avail themselves of the many opportunities which arise for hon. Members to take part in parliamentary visits to the Armed Forces, they too would be reassured. They would be able to discuss
    670
    with Service men in the messes their attitudes towards summary powers.
    I ought to be careful, because I was about to say I was only once nearly subject to a court-martial, but let me say that whenever I was up before the commanding officer for any minor indiscretion I was asked "Do you wish to take my award, my punishment?" Every commanding officer is obliged to say that. Those who realise the higher penalties which can be imposed by a court-martial usually reply "Yes, I accept your judgment". From the Service man's point of view it is invariably a judgment which is based on a much more intimate knowledge of him, and is invariably a punishment carried out within his present environment.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I repeat my invitation to my hon. Friends who have doubts about this matter to take advantage of the many opportunities available to them for visits to the Armed Forces.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my hon. Friend explain to me the significance of 28 days in relation to summary procedures before the commanding officer or a court-martial? If it is the case that an offence which would warrant over 28 days is serious enough to go to court-martial, why should a serious offence now be laid with the commanding officer?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: This is a very serious point and I shall deal with it specifically in a few moments, if my hon. Friend will wait.
    Mr. Norman Buchan: My hon. Friend said that in the past the procedure has been useful in cutting down the number of courts-martial, in that a smaller sentence was awarded by the commanding officer. My hon. Friend is now proposing to increase the number of days. Therefore, surely Service men will automatically refuse the commanding officer's punishment.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: That is very similar to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I shall deal with both points when I come to the appropriate part of

    671
    my speech, to the convenience of everybody.
    Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the opportunities to visit defence establishments. Does he remember that when we were together on a visit to Cyprus in 1971 we found that there was great discontent because the other peace-keeping forces from different NATO countries had very different methods of discipline from ours?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I remember that visit very clearly, but my recollection is not entirely consistent with that of my hon. Friend.
    If I may press on, it is my contention to the House that the proposals are in line with the tendency in civil courts for cases to be taken, in the interests of speed—
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's Sitting, the Armed Forces Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Snape.]
    Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I hope that the motion that the House has just passed will not encourage too many of my hon. Friends to intervene in the remaining hour or two of my remarks.
    My hon. Friends, being concerned, as they are, that these new proposals should not result in any injustice to Service men, will be relieved to know that I share their concern, as do my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. One fact needs to be borne in mind, namely, that a good 90 per cent. of those accused at courts-martial in fact already plead guilty, and at least that proportion will be reflected in the cases that can now fall to be dealt with by commanding officers.
    We believe that there will be real advantages from the point of view of the accused Service man himself, and the Select Committee that considered these proposals most carefully was also persuaded that there was a real preference in the Services—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends may laugh. Before they take that attitude, they should try to acquaint themselves more thoroughly with the views of men who serve.
    672
    I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), who takes a genuine interest in defence affairs, to avail himself of the next opportunity on the All-Party Whip announcing a visit to an Armed Forces establishment, to take it up, to meet the men and to talk to them informally in their messes. He will find that he has no cause to laugh when I make the claim that the majority of the men in the Armed Forces will welcome these proposals which provide that, for swifter justice, summary procedures are to be used in a number of cases where courts-martial are now the rule and where this relatively slower and more cumbersome procedure is seen to be unnecessarily heavy-handed and unnecessarily long-drawn out from the point of view of the Service men. The Government would not have put forward these proposals for increased powers to be given to commanding officers if they had not been satisfied about the protection that will be given to the accused Service man.
    I come now to a point that may have escaped the notice of many of my hon. Friends, which is the basic right of an accused Service man coming before his commanding officer subject to these new powers. He still has the right to opt for a court-martial. The soldier, airman or naval rating need not accept his commanding officer's exercise of these new summary powers if he believes that the old system, with the more limited powers, is better. The accused Service man can still avail himself of the old system and exercise his right to opt for a court-martial.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Under the old system, if the maximum punishment was 28 days, the feeling of the accused man was that if he took a court-martial he would be entering the 28 days-plus league as a possible punishment. Now, if he takes a court-martial, he will believe that he is entering the 60 days-plus league.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: That does not necessarily follow, because there are other safeguards that I now wish to put to my hon. Friends, which have been considered by both the Department and the Select Committee.
    Legal advice on the case also can be obtained by the commanding officer through the exercise of these powers. This

    673
    is not necessarily required at the moment. Higher authority must have been granted to the individual commanding officer to give permission to use these powers. They do not automatically become the right of every commanding officer. The extended powers are to be used only where the case is not disputed, the material facts alleged are true or the facts constitute the charge brought. The proposals for these safeguards are written into them.
    The Select Committee in its consideration shared our view. It took the view that the powers and safeguards were right, and it mentioned particularly that it was satisfied that these changes should be made. If a Select Committee has gone into great detail, considered the matter and taken evidence, we are entitled to take some cognizance of that view.
    On the question of trade unions, I will refer to this very briefly, but I must make the point that Service men are already entitled to join a civilian union or association appropriate to their trades or specialisations. There is no bar in military law or in Queen's Regulations which denies the Service man the right to belong to a trade union. Indeed, Service men are encouraged to join trade unions as a preparation for their return to civilian life. The Services have negotiated with a wide range of civilian trade unions and professional bodies to obtain their recognition that prescribed levels of Service training and experience should qualify Service men for membership. My hon. Friends have started with a slight misconception if they believe that a Service man is barred from trade union membership because of military law.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Is the Minister suggesting that Service men can actually take advantage of trade union membership and officials if they are involved in any dispute?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: At a stage where a man is being prepared for leaving the Services and returning to civilian life, I doubt very much if we in Government would object to trade union officials meeting that man to assist him into a full understanding of trade union rules.
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer rose—
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I will give way in a moment.
    I come to the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West when he referred to the memorandum submitted to the Select Committee by a trade union. I deeply regret that this memorandum was submitted on almost the last day of the Select Committee's deliberations, and, therefore, it was not possible to give it the close attention which no doubt it deserved. However, it would be right and proper that if a trade union, or any other body, wishes to make representation to the next Select Committee on military discipline it should send in its memorandum so that the Select Committee can consider it carefully, sensibly, and fairly. If the Select Committee is satisfied with the points raised in the memorandum it will make recommendations to the House.
    Mr. Heffer: A little earlier my hon. Friend referred to the witnesses who were brought before the Select Committee. How many of them were even below the rank of sergeant or equivalent in one of the other services? Looking through the list I can see rear-admirals, a major-general, a brigadier, a colonel, a lieutenant-colonel and so on. How can my hon. Friend say that the rank and file of the Army are enthusiastic with these changes when no witnesses were called to express their opinon?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: That is a very good point. I am sure that the Whips will have noted my hon. Friend's desire on this matter that the Select Committee should hear the view of ordinary rankers. No doubt when the opportunity presents itself they will invite him to allow his name to go forward to serve on the Select Committee, as did I and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) on previous occasions. Those Select Committees certainly had the benefit of an ordinary seaman and a private soldier to give their views.
    This Select Committee visited naval detention quarters and the Military Corrective Training Centre at Colchester to meet and talk to people who are under detention.
    Mr. Rob Cryer: My hon. Friend said that the Government encouraged Service men to join trade unions when they were being discharged. But it

    675
    is not true, is it, that trade union representatives can be involved in any disciplinary proceedings brought against a soldier?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I do not think it is true that a trade union representative as such can appear before the courts on behalf of one of his members. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about industrial tribunals?"] I accept the point about industrial tribunals, but I am talking about a court the equivalent of a court-martial. Just as a trade union can provide legal advice and representation, I have no doubt that a Service man who is a member of a trade union can possibly seek the assistance of his union in providing legal representation under the various Service Acts if that is what he wants.
    Miss Jo Richardson: I had hoped to be selected as a member of the Select Committee because the nursing services of the WRNS are now included within the full scope of the Naval Discipline Act. I am sure that the Minister will want to ensure that a woman representative is included in the next Select Committee on such a Bill and that representatives of the women's Services should be asked to give evidence and should be encouraged to do so.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I have no objection to that. I share my hon. Friend's desire to see the elimination of sexual discrimination, and it is highly commendable that the WRNS is now being brought into line with the two other women's Services and will now enjoy the benefits which it has been denied for so long.
    I have tried to deal with the genuine and serious points that my hon. Friends have raised. I can only repeat that we in the Department have given the most careful consideration to this matter. I know that many of my hon. Friends disagree with me on many issues, but I speak as someone with experience in the Armed Forces on the lower deck and as someone with many years' experience in industry as a shop steward. It would not be my desire to bring before the Committee any measure which I thought detrimental or unjust in any way to Service men, and I do not do so on this occasion.
    I commend the clause to the Committee in the certain knowledge that on the examination that I have given it, on the examination that the Select Committee has given it and on the examination that has been given to it throughout the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere, the proposals that it contains are based on a sincere and genuine desire to extend justice and fairness to Service men.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Cranley Onslow: I rise only briefly to give the Minister some help. I am sure that the whole Committee will be grateful to the many Labour Members below the Gangway who have shown this evening an unaccustomed interest in defence matters and have given the Minister an opportunity to set the record straight and, I hope, to enlighten some of them on matters about which they seem to be strangely out of date.
    I welcome what the Minister said about visits to Service establishments. Such a visit is taking place tomorrow. I believe that nearly 20 Members of this place and another place are taking part. I am sure that the Minister regrets as much as I do that only three Members from the ranks of the Labour Party will be going.
    Mr. Wellbeloved rose—
    Mr. Onslow: There is another defence visit taking place next week. The imbalance between the parties will be practically the same. I can assure Labour Members that the Services resent very much the lack of interest which Government supporters show in the affairs of the Services of the Crown. It is not a matter—
    The Deputy Chairman: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to address himself to Clause 5. The clause has nothing to do with visits.
    Mr. Onslow: It would not be resented deeply, Sir Myer, if you were to give me as much leeway to cover this point as you were kind enough to give to the Minister.
    The Chairman: The occupant of the Chair for the time being is a servant of the House, and the House has laid down certain Standing Orders. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to observe them.
    Mr. Onslow: I shall always be anxious to abide by your rulings, Sir Myer. I was merely seeking to follow the remarks made by the Minister, which you regarded as totally in order. Indeed, I think that the whole Committee took that view. In referring to visits, there is no question of any hon. Member having to ingratiate himself with the Whips. Visits
    678
    are invitations extended to Conservative and Labour Members quite impartially.
    A close study of the clause reveals that it makes no mention of the Navy. It expressly does not apply to the Navy. With great deference, Sir Myer, I think that much of what was said about the Navy was out of order. However, I make no further comment about that as I am happy to abide by your ruling, Sir Myer.
    I thank the Minister for what he said about the trouble that the Select Committee took to try to cover all the points which have been sketched in this evening by hon. Members who have had so little time to read the Committee's report. I understand that they are busy people. I understand that it is a terrible business to table amendments in time for a debate. I appreciate the dreadful difficulties in which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) must have found himself. I feel sorry about his union. However, it is a fact that the Committee was sitting in December last year. We deliberated for nearly three months. The Richmond and Barnes constituency Labour Party managed to get a memorandum to us on this subject in good time for it to be considered. I make no corn plaint, because I am sure that the ASTMS had other things on its mind.
    I suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite should maintain their new-found interest in this matter until the next Select Committee. I am sure that the Select Committee will find Members from the Opposition Benches, which is where hon. Gentlemen opposite will then be sitting, welcome additions to its debates. They will learn a great deal. To judge by what they said tonight, there is no limit to the amount that they could learn if they served on the Select Committee.
    I shall gladly offer my support to the Minister if there is a Division. I have no hesitation in saying that the maintenance of discipline in the Armed Forces of the Crown is a matter about which all who serve in them care deeply. What has been said by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway tonight will do the Labour Party no good. I hope that there will be a substantial majority in favour of the retention of this necessary reform in the Bill.
    Mr. Mikardo: The one thing of which we can be sure is that whenever the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) intervenes in a debate he will lower the tone of it. Until he rose to make his contribution we were having a serious discussion. The fact that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force gave way so many times, and with such courtesy, shows that he was taking seriously the very serious arguments which had been put forward. The hon. Member for Woking would succeed in making petty party points in the middle of a requiem mass. There is no subject under the sun which he is capable of treating on its merits.
    When I came into the Chamber this evening, the last thing in my mind was to intervene in the debate. I confess at once that I have little knowledge of the Armed Services. Unlike some of my hon. Friends who have had direct experience, the only time in my life that I wore a uniform—it was a long time ago—was, believe it or not, in the Home Guard. In that very worthy, if not altogether serious, establishment, as a result of three years of blind devotion to duty and unquestioning obedience to my officers, I rose to the rank of private.
    I was induced to get to my feet by the speech made by the Under-Secretary, because I should like to comment shortly, but seriously, on four points that he made.
    The first point was that, as the Select Committee had looked into this matter very carefully and had come to a conclusion, we should not seriously query it. That is a new theory in this place. I was for three years chairman of one of the most important Select Committees of the House. In that period we produced a number of important reports. I am very proud of the fact that those reports were unanimous, although there was all-party representation on the Committee. Not one of those reports was discussed in the House and the Government did not do a blind thing about any single one of them. Therefore, I find it hard to be convinced that a thing is right because a Select Committee says so.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: This Select Committee was considering a Bill which had received a Second Reading in the House.
    680
    Therefore, it was undertaking a slightly different function from that to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. Mikardo: That is right. There is a difference of function. Nevertheless, the basic argument remains that the House does not normally accept something because a Select Committee says so.
    The second of the four points of my hon. Friend on which I want to comment is that he says that the proposal to double the penalty that can be inflicted upon a Service man without his having any right of representation or appeal, which can be inflicted unilaterally by deus ex machina, will be an advantage to the Service men themselves. I find that a bit hard to take. Hon. Members should think about it from first principles. I would not consider it to be advantageous to me if an on-the-spot fine which could be inflicted by a policeman were doubled. I would think that the chances were that that would represent a considerable disadvantage.
    The third point of my hon. Friend on which I want to comment is this. I took down his words. He said "The majority of the men in the Armed Forces will welcome the change." How does he know? I will make a deal with my hon. Friend. Perhaps he will take steps to find out about this. I am not talking about a referendum or anything like that, but there are these days methods of scientific opinion polling, getting a balanced sample and so on. My hon. Friend could do it on a 4 per cent., a 5 per cent. or a 6 per cent. sample. If he will entrust one of the organisations that are skilled in the operation of collecting opinions by means of a balanced, statistically significant sample, and if the men in the Armed Forces say that they welcome this, I beg him to believe that I will trot into the Lobby behind him without any arrière pensée at all.
    The Deputy Chairman: Order. The Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, will be put this evening.
    Mr. Mikardo: If I may put it to you with the utmost respect, Sir Myer, you are not alone in your desire to get home before midnight. We all share that desire. However, with the utmost respect, the Under-Secretary used it as his major

    681
    argument in this debate, and it was manifestly in order because otherwise you, Sir Myer, would not have allowed it—
    Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding my intervention. I am not objecting to his making reference to what he has just mentioned. I am only pointing out to him the practicability of carrying it out.
    Mr. Mikardo: I am not making a reference at all, but doing something much simpler. I am replying to a point that was in order because you allowed it to be made, Sir Myer, and, therefore, the reply must be in order.
    What I am saying to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is that if he can establish as a fact what he said, that the majority of the men in the Armed Services will welcome the change, I shall go along with him. I ask only one thing in return. That is that if such a test finds that they do not, he, too, will go by their judgment, as it is on their judgment that he rests.
    Mr. John Prescott: My hon. Friend is deploying an argument about ascertaining the genuine will of ordinary ratings. Perhaps I may support his case by pointing out that merchant seamen—I was one for 10 years—suffered under this kind of attitude under the Merchant Shipping Acts until 1970. Recently they have used the Tavistock Institute to find out from seamen themselves whether those who seek to say that they represent them, captains and leaders of industry, really want the fines that have been put in the Bill. The Tavistock report, which has been published for about six months now, has found that there is no necessity or justification for it, and it is certainly not desired by the men.
    Mr. Mikardo: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Now the Under-Secretary knows where to go to get the research done, because my hon. Friend has told him.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend is making a most interesting point, with which I have considerable sympathy. I have a difficulty in this respect. The constraints and, indeed, the pressure put upon me to curtail defence expenditure really would not justify me in accepting this extra expenditure on public funds. However, hon. Members, without any
    682
    undue cost to public funds, can themselves seek to make their own reasonable judgment of Service opinion by visiting the Services.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend must not tempt me too far. If he does, I shall have to put it as an opinion that the cost of the sort of survey which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) would be a good deal less than all the junketing of MPs which goes on around the Services. The Minister ought not be too worried about cost. He said it would cost too much to find out what Service men think about the clause, but he should not say that without finding out what they actually think.
    The Minister said that the procedures of the commanding officer taking action are quicker, less expensive and less cumbersome than a judicial process. Goodness me! What sort of argument is that for a democrat to use? If we applied such a system to the civilian scene and allowed policemen to impose not merely on-the-spot fines but on-the-spot prison sentences we could save a lot of money by getting rid of the courts. That is what he is saying.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: If the law, as far as civilians are concerned, allowed on-the spot lines with the absolute right for the person involved to opt to go before a civil court, that might be something which would commend itself to the general public. However, the Armed Forces can opt not to accept these judgments and revert to their previous right to go to court-martial.
    Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend might be right in saying that this might well commend itself to the public, but we have not adopted such a system except for marginal things like parking offences. I cannot conceive any circumstances in which the British public would stand for on-the-spot detention sentences—no circumstances whatever.
    If the object is to be quicker, less expensive and less cumbersome, we could achieve that object not only in the Armed Forces but also in civilian life by abrogating all civil liberties.
    There was once a gentleman named Attila who had a system of judgments

    683
    which were very quick and inexpensive and not at all cumbersome. There was once a gentleman named Barbarossa who had a system of imposing sentences which was very quick, not at all cumbersome and did not cost any money at all. But this is not something which we are seeking to elucidate.
    I think the Minister made the best of a pretty rotten brief. When he reads it tomorrow he will not be very happy with it.
    Mr. Nick Budgen: The Minister did not make a distinction between a volunteer force and a conscript force. I believe there must be some relevant distinction so far as disciplinary proceedings and the representation and non-representation of trade unions are concerned.
    Surely, when we have a volunteer force people choose to serve under certain conditions. If people are attracted to service in the present volunteer forces, presumably they are attracted to a disciplined and, possibly, an authoritarian way of life.
    Mr. James Lamond: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that we are at the present time changing these conditions from the conditions under which they volunteered? Would we accept that in any other job?
    Mr. Budgen: With respect to the hon. Gentleman I think his case would have been stronger when conscription was imposed by law. We now have a volunteer force; that is to say, those who serve in the Forces do so in the knowledge that they are joining as professionals.
    Mr. Tom Litterick: They have conditions already.
    Mr. Budgen: They have conditions certainly, and we in Parliament must be scrupulous in seeing that those conditions are fair. Conscript forces must take into account the vast variety of characters in our society. There will always be an element in society of natural barrack-room lawyers. As one who is now a lawyer by profession, I must confess to having been a natural barrack-room lawyer when I was one of the last conscripted soldiers.
    684
    I understand perfectly the attitudes of those who dislike an authoritarian regime, but those who enter the Services today voluntarily choose a disciplined and authoritarian regime. There is no reason to take into account our natural prejudices on the side of the rebel and the barrack-room lawyer and not take into account the fact that those who join today's specialist, professional and elite Forces do so with a particular cast of mind. They may have a more authoritarian cast of mind than that of the generality of people who were conscripted before 1957.
    Mr. Heffer: When I was in the Royal Air Force, I always avoided barrack-room lawyers. I always found that people who took their advice were put on a charge much more quickly than those who avoided them. Having listened to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who is a self-confessed barrack-room lawyer, I believe that that is sound advice. I hope that it was also the experience of other hon. Members.
    I should like to draw attention to the memorandum submitted by the Richmond and Barnes constituency Labour Party, objecting to the proposals in Clause 5. It effectively answers the case made by the Minister. This important constituency party saw the lessons to be learned much more quickly than anyone else. It says:
    "This memorandum argues that the powers of punishment of Commanding Officers of the Army, Royal Marines and Royal Air Force should not be increased as proposed in Clause 5 of the 1975 Armed Forces Bill, and it further contends that the proposed powers of punishment, if implemented:

    (a) will remove important legal safeguards from the individual serviceman;

    (b) cannot be justified by administrative savings and will further complicate the disciplinary process;

    (c) will produce no benefit for the individual serviceman, or his family, by loosening 'stigma";

    (d) will be contrary to principles of natural justice."

    The whole case is summed up in those four basic points.
    The memorandum develops one other point which is directly relevant to what the Minister said. I listened carefully to him, because I believed that there

    685
    might be a good case for these provisions. Indeed, I had a slight exchange of opinion earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). He also said that there might be a good case, but I said that I had not heard it yet. He may feel, as I do, that no good case has been put forward. I listened for it, but it did not come.
    The argument is that this procedure would be quicker and less expensive. To suggest that the power given to a commanding officer should be increased to allow him to award a period of detention of 60 days instead of 28 days because it would be quicker and less expensive is not a good argument.
    The Richmond and Barnes constituency Labour Party has something to say about that:
    "We feel, however, that the relative complexity of the courts martial procedure exists for sound reasons, whereas the plea of 'administrative savings' has all too often been advanced to justify an erosion of individual liberty."
    Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for rehearsing this argument. It serves to remind us that the Select Committee had all that evidence before it when it considered the matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we questioned the witnesses who came before us from various walks of civilian and Service life along the lines of the statements he quoted. If the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to read the evidence, he will see that we did not dismiss the matter without examination. We went into it thoroughly and were unanimously of the opinion that the Government's proposals should be supported in this case, although not in others. We have changed the Bill considerably.
    Mr. Heffer: I am not suggesting that the evidence was not examined. I am saying that it is unfortunate that the sound and serious arguments advanced by the constituency party were not accepted. The list of witnesses in the Select Committee's report does not include any rank-and-file members of the Armed Forces. The witnesses were all officers or civilians. No private, lance-corporal, LAC or able seaman is listed.
    Mr. James Lamond: Does my hon. Friend realise how difficult
    686
    it would have been for the Select Committee to have heard evidence from privates, LACs and able seamen when there is no trade union or organisation to supply a spokesman and to represent these men at that level? The Select Committee had to listen to rear-admirals and assume that they could speak for the other ranks.
    Mr. Heffer: But it is not beyond the bounds of possibility for the Select Committee to visit a Navy base, an Army centre or a Royal Air Force station. Service men read the unit orders every day. They could have been asked in the orders to volunteer to see the Select Committee. Even without a trade union, there are ways and means of doing this.
    I ask the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) not to believe that because hon. Members do not always want to go on trips to various places they are not interested in the Armed Forces or other matters with which the House of Commons is concerned. Some of us live in the same streets as do members of the Armed Forces. We know them personally, we speak to them when they come home on leave and well understand their problems. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be more humble in his approach.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. John Mendelson: Long before I heard the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) speak on defence in the House, many hon. Members on this side of the House visited our Armed Forces overseas and at home without the hon. Gentleman knowing anything about it. He should be more careful about making global statements about other hon. Members. He has shown his usual ignorance on the subject, as he has on so many others in the past. [Interruption.]
    The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. We are discussing whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Member for Woking can shout as much as he likes but he had better be more careful in future before making global statements about hon. Members. I know that hon. Members may not like what I say but they will be told just the same and they will learn to listen to the truth.

    687
    The debate is important to those who care about civil liberties—and that involves the Armed Forces. Those in charge of the Forces have, by their record, proved that they care as much for civil liberties as we do. Therefore, there is nothing between us on purpose and principle. It comes down to judgment.
    I came to the debate with an open mind knowing that there is room for reform and modernisation in the Armed Forces. It would be silly to have a closed mind. As my hon. Friend for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, a stronger and more convincing case could have been made by the Government which might have led us to agree with them. But that case has not been made, and I urge the Minister to reconsider the Government's attitude to the clause.
    When we faced the problem of advising someone who was to be court-martialed in the army the officer who accepted the task of defending the accused would always examine whether the court-martial was inevitable in the first place. Obviously, some cases had to come before a court-martial but in other cases one could gain valuable experience by asking the man concerned why he had not accepted the punishment of his commanding officer. Men do not take such decisions in a lighthearted manner. A number of considerations were usually involved which needed careful examination, as anyone with experience of Service life will understand. Strong reasons must be established for abandoning that procedure, which has served as a safeguard to many in their Service careers. Trust in a particular commanding officer often made a man say "I will leave it to the commanding officer to make the decision." Individual circumstances alter cases. Therefore, we cannot say generally "We can abolish it because that leads to a simplification of the whole process."
    Secondly, when a limited power is given to the commanding officer, that power in itself is a considerable safeguard in the cause of justice. We heard very little from my hon. Friend the Minister about this factor of limitation. It was the Government's duty to say something about it when asking for such a fundamental change. It is much easier for someone facing a possible trial to say "I
    688
    will leave the decision to you" when he knows that the limitation is there by law and regulation.
    Thirdly, if it is a part of modernisation that more power should be given, because the process will be speeded up, I cannot understand why the process should take such a long time when the total number of people in our Armed Forces has been so seriously reduced. After all, we are not now dealing with an Army of 5 million people.
    Here I come to the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who made a wholly unrealistic point about the changed nature of the Armed Forces. He must remember that a volunteer Army does not sell its right to natural justice because those in it volunteer to serve, nor are the duties of the House of Commons to see to it that the people serving in the Armed Forces have the same consideration as if it were a conscript Army in any way reduced.
    Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point I made. I concede immediately that it is the duty of the House of Commons to make sure that all the rules of natural justice are applied to any victim of military law. We must make sure that in a wider sense than just natural justice the rules are fair. The only point I was making was that in today's volunteer Forces we are dealing with a more specialist type of person than in the wider context of a conscript Force.
    Mr. Mendelson: We understand only too well. There is no wider sense than natural justice. There is natural justice or there is an absence of it.
    The case is clearly understood. The best way in which we can service the general cause that everybody has at heart tonight is simple and straightforward. That way is by indicating that there is a strong body of opinion which, whilst in favour of modernisation, is also very much concerned that the essential safeguards should be maintained. The Government have failed to persuade considerable numbers of us that the reform is justified or that they have made a case for it, and we therefore accept the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) to vote against the clause.
    Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
    The committee divided: Ayes 197, Noes 54.

    Division No. 186

    AYES

    10.54 p.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Archer, Peter

    Golding, John

    Oakes, Gordon

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Goodhart, Philip

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Arnold, Tom

    Goodhew, Victor

    Onslow, Cranley

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Owen, Dr David

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Graham, Ted

    Page, John (Harrow West)

    Bates, Alf

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Bean, R. E.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Beith, A. J.

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Park, George

    Bishop, E. S.

    Hardy, Peter

    Peart, Rt Hon Fred

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Harper, Joseph

    Pendry, Tom

    Boardman, H.

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Penhaligon, David

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Hicks, Robert

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Howell, Rt Hon Denis

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Buchanan, Richard

    Huckfield, Les

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Budgen, Nick

    Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

    Roper, John

    Campbell, Ian

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Carter, Ray

    Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Cartwright, John

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Sandelson, Neville

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    John, Brynmor

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Cohen, Stanley

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Coleman, Donald

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Small, William

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

    Cronin, John

    Le Merchant, Spencer

    Stainton, Keith

    Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Stallard, A. W.

    Crouch, David

    Luard, Evan

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

    Luce, Richard

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Stoddart, David

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Strang, Gavin

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.

    Deakins, Eric

    McElhone, Frank

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Tinn, James

    Dempsey, James

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Tomlinson, John

    Doig, Peter

    Maclennan, Robert

    Urwin, T. W.

    Dormand, J. D.

    Magee, Bryan

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Douglas-Hamilton., Lord James

    Mahon, Simon

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Dunn, James A.

    Marks, Kenneth

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Marquand, David

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Eadie, Alex

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Watkinson, John

    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    English, Michael

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Wellbeloved, James

    Ewing Harry (Stirling)

    Mather, Carol

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    White, James (Pollok)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Whitlock, William

    Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

    Meacher, Michael

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Millan, Bruce

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Monro, Hector

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Ford, Ben

    Moonman, Eric

    Woodall, Alec

    Forrester, John

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

    Woof, Robert

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

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

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

    Freeson, Reginald

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Freud, Clement

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Mudd, David

    Mr. John Ellis and

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Mr. Peter Snape

    NOES

    Allaun, Frank

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Ash ton, Joe

    Corbett, Robin

    George, Bruce

    Atkinson, Norman

    Cryer, Bob

    Grocott, Bruce

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Buchan, Norman

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Hooley, Frank

    Canavan, Dennis

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Flannery, Martin

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Noble, Mike

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    Lamond, James

    Ovenden, John

    Ward, Michael

    Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

    Parry, Robert

    Watkins, David

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Litterick, Tom

    Prescott, John

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Loyden, Eddie

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    McNamara, Kevin

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Madden, Max

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Rooker, J. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mendelson, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Miss Jo Richardson and

    Mikardo, Ian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mr. Stan Thorne

    Newens, Stanley

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 6 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 10

    POWERS OF COURTS IN RELATION TO JUVENILES
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 8, line 17, after '(5)', insert—
    '(a) of the word "authorised" for the word "provided", and
    (b)'.
    The Deputy Chairman: With this we may also take Government Amendments Nos. 24, 30 and 34.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: The House will be pleased to know that this is a purely drafting amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. David Walder: The Minister will recollect that the clause deals with what those who served on the Committee regarded as a particularly sensitive area, where proposals are set out to deal with juveniles. The difficult problem that the Committee found related to a reception order made overseas which had to be implemented in the United Kingdom.
    The obvious problem—if I may put it very much in a shorthand way—was where to send a juvenile in respect of whom a reception order had been made. Should he be sent to what was alleged to be his home county or home town, or to some area where perhaps his relatives lived? The Committee was rightly exercised with this problem. We were
    692
    assured that we would be hearing further about the details of the arrangements, about which, I would argue, we must be satisfied before we can properly say that this matter is settled.
    The Minister will remember that the Committee's problem was that the Bedfordshire County Council was chosen by the Ministry of Defence as what I might call the reception council. There was correspondence between the DHSS and the council which, in the Committee's view, was somewhat unsatisfactory. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could satisfy us a little more on this area.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. The whole question of juveniles and reception orders was left slightly in the air in the Select Committee. The Select Committee was concerned that there had not been formal consultation with Bedfordshire County Council over the proposal that children made the subject of reception orders should first go to an observation and assessment centre provided by that authority if there were no other authority with which they or their families already had close ties.
    This consultation has now taken place and on 8th June the council's social services committee agreed on behalf of the council to accept the task of caring for the children when they first arrived in the United Kingdom. Like the Select Committee, however, it is anxious that the children should not be subjected to uncertainties and has asked that it be given as long notice as possible of children's arrival. We and DHSS are equally anxious that these transfers should go as smoothly as possible and will naturally do our best to comply with this request. The council has also asked DHSS for an assurance that it would help in any case of difficulty. That assurance, too, is given.

    693
    Lastly, the council has asked for the working of the arrangements to be reviewed annually. This would seem prudent to us, and arrangements will be made for that to be done. We believe that, with good will on all sides, the new system will operate as successfully as have the long-standing arrangements for transfer to care in this country of children from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
    Mr. David Walder: The hon. Gentleman speaks about an annual review. Will the findings of that review be made known to the House?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall consider that request and see what can be done to meet it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 11 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 20

    DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF FORCES FOR HOUSE OF COMMONS AND NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 11, line 10, after "or", insert
    "a full-time member of".
    This clause deals with disqualifications, especially with the disqualifications for being a Member of this House or of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    It should not be thought that the question which this amendment raises is unimportant. I agree that the chance of a serving member of the Ulster Defence Regiment desiring at the same time to represent a Northern Ireland constituency in this House is remote, but the clause also covers the qualifications for membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Under the 1973 Act, I think by general consent, the Northern Ireland Assembly is unlikely ever to exist, because that ill-fated Act, whatever else is done, is unlikely to be activated. Nevertheless, what we do in this clause is likely to set the pattern and the precedent for any future devolved Assembly, to use the jargon, which may hereafter be established in Northern Ireland.
    694
    Clearly, if there were any such local elected assembly, it would become a highly practical question whether membership of it was consistent with part-time membership of the UDR. As the clause stands, it disqualifies for membership not only those who are full-time members of the UDR but those part-time members who are by far the great majority of that force. I concede at once that there is no precise analogy to the position of a part-time member of the UDR. Nevertheless, I think that there is no doubt on what side of the general dividing line, for purposes of qualification or disqualification at the time, its members should be considered as standing.
    11.15 p.m.
    Of course, members of the TAVR are not disqualified for membership of the Assembly, but it may be said that the Territorial Army is, in normal circumstances, not embodied, and the military duties of its members consist almost exclusively of training and preparation for the eventuality of embodiment in an emergency or in time of war.
    On the other hand, I would call to the Committee's attention the fact that whereas members of a police force are, as such, disqualified if they are full-time members, police reservists, special constables, and so on, are in no way disqualified. Here we have a closer analogy. It is thought that those in full-time service in a police force, by the nature of their situation and their duties in the community, should not duplicate the position by membership of this House or the elected Assembly in Northern Ireland. But the reservists in the police force and the special constables are performing exactly the same duties part-time, in relation to full-time members of the police force, as part-time members of the UDR are in relation to full-time members of that body. Indeed, the special constable or RUC reservist, who is not caught by the disqualification, may well be doing as much duty, as a constable, as a member of the UDR is doing actively in the duties the regiment performs. That is a very close analogy, which shows that the line between disqualification and the absence of disqualification, should, in the case of a police force or a military force, fall

    695
    between full-time on the one hand, and part-time on the other.
    Then I come to the nature of the UDR itself. I can accept that the Under-Secretary may not have a very extensive acquaintance—though I am sure he has some—with the nature of the work of this unique force which has existed for only seven or eight years, but certainly his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office would tell him that in respect of what I might call their civilian status, without any danger of being misunderstood, there is a complete identity between the position of the part-time member of the UDR and, for example, the TAVR volunteer in either Northern Ireland or Great Britain. The men who, day by day, live ordinary civilian lives, carry on with their jobs or their professional careers, and then at the cost of sleep and their families, and giving up a great deal, and in some cases virtually all recreation, serve for hours, almost invariably at night, in the UDR are really indistinguishable in their quality as ordinary citizens from the Territorial Army member or the police reservist.
    Surely, when we are considering disqualification, the question is whether a man by membership of a force has ceased to be an ordinary citizen like his fellow citizens, and therefore has ceased to be properly eligible for this House or another elected assembly, or alternatively, has dedicated himself to the performance of duties which, by their very nature, set him apart from the civilian population and render it undesirable that he should be invested with the double quality of a representative in this House and an executant of the power of the State as a policeman or as a soldier.
    The case that I am putting to the Committee and the Government is that whether one looks to the analogies or to the essence of the case, one should look at the actual people, at what their lives are and at what they are doing. Consider whether they have changed their character from that of ordinary civilians to that of professional soldiers or police. There should be no doubt on which side of the line they fall.
    I believe, therefore, that it should be clearly stated on the face of the statute, as it will be amended by the clause, that full-time membership of the UDR should
    696
    be a disqualification for membership of either this House or a future elected Assembly in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: May I first join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the men who serve on a voluntary basis in the UDR? I hope that I shall be able to convince him of the very sound operational and political reasons why the Government cannot accept his amendment. The present circumstances are that the Government believe that the policy has been clarified by Clause 20(a) in a most satisfactory way. I agree that the UDR is not in the usual sense one of the Regular Forces, the members of which are already disqualified from standing for membership of this House or the Northern Ireland Assembly. But, equally, it is important to have regard to the realities of the present situation in Northern Ireland and the special position there of what, after all, is an operational regiment of the British Army.
    The first reality is operational. The members of the UDR operate in formed military bodies of platoon, company and battalion strength. If one looks carefully at the pattern of operations and activity of the regiment, it is, I think, difficult to maintain sensibly the distinction that the amendment seeks to draw between full-time and part-time members.
    Part-time members of the UDR are liable to be called out on a number of occasions. During the 1974 General Elections over 50 per cent. of the regiment was called out. Last year, for the Convention Election and the EEC referendum, the figure was 35 per cent. Specific battalions have frequently been called out for extended periods of full-time service, in response to sudden increases in the level of violence, particularly sectarian violence. The UDR maintains a Province reserve company, which is provided by UDR battalions on a rotational basis for service anywhere in the Province.
    The UDR—in the form of full-time and part-time members alike—participates in those operations, in aid of the civil power. The UDR's involvement in this way in Northern Ireland cannot be construed as being the same as that of the TAVR, which may be called out only when it appears that national danger is imminent or that a great emergency has

    697
    arisen. The TAVR cannot be, and is not being, used to support the civil power; paragraph 0382 of TAVR Regulations 1967 states:
    "Officers and men of the TAVR are not liable to be called out in aid of the civil power as a military body in the preservation of peace."
    Moreover, we have to have regard to the nature of the duties carried out by the UDR and the context in which they are undertaken. The duties, as hon. Members will be aware, include patrolling, vehicle check points, and guard duties. These duties are carried out in the same way as they are by Regular troops. And they are undertaken in circumstances of violence and sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. In those circumstances of a highly charged political environment, the Government are very firmly of the view—it is a view that has been endorsed by successive Governments—that the UDR can operate effectively and as it should only if it can be clearly recognised as a non-sectarian force. In Northern Ireland at present active involvement in politics is inconsistent with that role.
    Mr. Powell: Perhaps it will make for clarity if I intervene at this stage. The hon. Gentleman said that the UDR was called out in ordinary circumstances, and is currently called out, for the same duties as the Army. Surely he is overlooking the fact that the police reserve is continually called out for the same purposes as the police in exactly the same political and military conditions.
    Secondly, if I may presume on the hon. Gentleman having kindly given way, he said that the previous Administration had taken the same view. Will he explain why the amendment is necessary at this stage, and how the disqualification has been operated hitherto if there has been no statutory basis for it?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I have not overlooked the police point—I shall be coming to that. Hon. Members will observe that the operational and political considerations apply equally to part-time and full-time members. On that ground also the equation of the UDR with the TAVR cannot be sustained. In taking the two factors together, the Government are clear that for the purposes of disqualification it is right to regard members
    698
    of the UDR, both full-time and part-time, as more akin to the Regular Forces than the reserves.
    I turn to the right hon. Gentleman's point about the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Policy in this respect is a matter for the Chief Constable, but I am advised that members of the regular and reserve police forces are debarred under their own regulations from taking an active part in politics. This is interpreted to include membership of the House of Commons or any Northern Ireland Assembly. My advice is that the Royal Ulster Reserve is under exactly similar debarment requirements as the proposal in the legislation now before the Committee.
    Mr. Powell: Will the Minister deal with my other point before he sits down?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, I think I should give him the fullest possible reply. If he will allow me to write to him on that matter, I shall ensure that it is adequately covered.
    Mr. Powell: I am not sure that we have yet exhausted the considerations that are raised by the amendment.
    If it is necessary to make a disqualification from being a Member of this House—and many would regard membership as a fundamental right of a citizen unless duly suspended by statute—we should be providing for all we disqualify in the same way.
    I cannot think it can be satisfactory that we should by statute be stating that all members of the UDR, whether part-time or full-time, are ipso facto disqualified and at the same time leaving on the statute book a provision referring to full-time service in the police, although a particular police force is, on top of that, making its own internal arrangements with those who join it.
    We are entitled to require the matter of disqualification, which is an extremely serious one, to be dealt with on all fours for all types of force by statute. If the Government are to insist that the part-time as well as the full-time UDR member should be disqualified, they should in all justice and good legislation apply the same principle to the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the same way.

    699
    11.30 p.m.
    I put another question to the Minister which he did not answer. If this has been the law hitherto, why are we now in 1976 legislating for the disqualification? Is it a disqualification which has hitherto been tacit? Is it something which has been done by agreement. Is it only now that this disqualification is being introduced, although there has been no case in point where a member of the UDR, full-time or part-time, has been elected to either of the assemblies in question? I hope that the Minister will be able to clear those two points.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman to make it even clearer. In this highly charged political environment, it has been the policy of successive Governments to hold firmly to the view that membership of the UDR and of the House or of a future Northern Ireland Assembly is undesirable. That policy is being given the force of law in this legislation.
    Mr. Powell: We have certainly got clarification as to what we are actually doing. For the first time, we are introducing the statutory disqualification of members of the UDR, full-time and part-time. But that strengthens the case that, if we are to do that, we should use the same procedure in regard to the RUC.
    The Minister will be aware that in the principal Act the police are specifically indicated and their full-time service is distinguished for this purpose from part-time or reserve service. I believe that when we next come to deal with this matter we ought to put it on a proper basis for both forces.
    Having said that, I am obliged to accept that there is a close analogy between the duties of the police in all relevant respects and the duties of the UDR. Having regard to the standing convention governing the police reserve and the exclusion of the regular RUC by the principal Act, I do not seek at this stage to press the amendment upon the Government.
    Mr. James Dempsey: Before the right hon. Gentleman seeks leave to withdraw the amendment, may I ask whether police regulations in Northern Ireland bar a temporary
    700
    constable, as we would call him here, standing for election either to this Parliament or to some type of Assembly there? If so, and if the Chief Constable were to remove that regulation, would temporary officers be able to serve because we had made no provision in this Bill on the same lines as is made for temporary members of the UDR prohibiting them serving in an elected Assembly?
    Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am very much of his mind. If we are to impose a disqualification to be elected, for example, to this House, that disqualification should by statute be imposed upon those in full-time and reserve service. It is unsatisfactory that we should by statute impose that disqualification in both cases on the UDR, whereas in the case of the RUC we impose it by statute for full-time service and by internal regulation for part-time service. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will unite with me in expressing the view that when we next deal with disqualification we shall put everyone in both forces on the same footing in this respect. At any rate, that matter will have been clarified by this short debate. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 11, line 14, leave out
    'section 1(3) of the former Act and section 1' 'subsection (3) of the former section and subsection'.
    The Deputy Chairman: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Like all the Government amendments, these amendments are to clear up drafting errors.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 4, in page 11, line 16, after "means", insert "the Royal Navy".
    No. 5, in page 11, line 19, leave out from "1955" to end of line 21 and insert
    'Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service and the Women's Royal Naval Service"'.—[Mr. Wellbeloved.]
    Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 21 and 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

  Schedule 3

    STANDING CIVILIAN COURTS
    Amendments made: No. 6, in page 16, line 1, leave out "their" and insert "its" 11.
    No. 7, in page 16, line 34, leave out "before a" and insert "by".
    No. 8, in page 16, line 36, leave out "paragraph 6" and insert "sub-paragraph".
    No. 9, in page 17, line 3, after "trial", insert "before".
    No. 10, in page 17, line 4, alter "alone", insert "the magistrate".
    No. 11, in page 18, line 33, leave out "such" and insert "Standing Civilian".
    No. 12, in page 19, line 15, leave out first "the" and insert "a Standing Civilian".
    No. 13, in page 20, line 10, at end insert—
    '15A. Section 138 of that Act (restitution or compensation for theft, etc.) shall have effect as if—

    (a) the reference to a court-martial in subsection (1) included a reference to a Standing Civilian Court; and

    (b) the following subsection were substituted for subsection (9):—

    "(9) The operation of an order under this section made by a Standing Civilian Court shall be suspended—

    (a) in any case until the end of the period within which notice of appeal may be given; and

    (b) if such notice is given, until the appeal is determined or abandoned.".'.

    No. 14, in page 20, line 39, after the first 'the', insert 'provisions of the'.
    No. 15, in page 20, line 40, after '1955' insert 'relating to courts-martial'.
    No. 16, in page 21, line 19, leave out 'other'.—[Mr. Wellbeloved.]
    Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

  Schedule 4

    ORDERS THAT MAY BE MADE ON TRIAL OF CIVILIANS
    Amendments made: No. 17, in page 24, line 10, leave out '(5)' and insert '(6)'.
    No. 18, in page 24, line 26, leave out
    'or a Standing Civilian Court'.
    No. 19, in page 24, line 29, leave out court' and insert court-martial'.
    No. 20, in page 24, line 31, leave out from first 'in' to 'any' in line 36.
    No. 21, in page 24, line 38, leave out from 'offence' to first in 'in' line 39, and insert—
    '(8) If a Standing Civilian Court finds a person guilty of any offence (including an offence under sub-paragraph (6) above) committed during a supervision period, the Standing Civilian Court may deal with him for the offence for which the community supervision order was made'.
    No. 22, in page 24, line 44, leave out 'under sub-paragraph (7) above' and insert
    'for the offence for which the community supervision order was made'.
    No. 23, in page 25, line 17, leave out '(6)' and insert '(7) or (8)'.
    No. 24, in page 35, line 9, after '"authorised"' insert—
    '( ) in sub-paragraph (2), for the word "II" the word "I";'.—[Mr. Wellbeloved.]
    Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

  Schedule 5

    PROOF AT COURTS-MARTIAL BY WRITTEN STATEMENT
    Amendment made: No. 25, in page 35, line 29, leave out 'who is a civilian'.—[Mr. Wellbeloved.]
    Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.

  Schedule 8

    FINANCIAL PENALTY ENFORCEMENT ORDERS
    Amendment made: No. 26, in page 41, line 21, leave out 'a' and insert 'the'.—[Mr. Wellbeloved.]
    Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.

  Schedule 9

    MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS
    Amendments made: No. 27, in page 43, line 44, leave out '1A' and insert '1AA'.
    No. 28, in page 45, line 12, leave out those 'sections' and insert 'them'.
    No. 29, in page 46, line 10, leave out 'section'.
    No. 30, in page 46, line 44, at end insert—
    '14A. In Schedule 4 to that Act (application of Act to civilians subject to it) for the words from "and paragraphs" to the end there shall be substituted the words "and in relation to such persons—

    (i) paragraphs (e) to (m) of section 43(1) above shall be omitted; and

    (ii) paragraph 15 of Schedule 4A below shall have effect in substitution for the words in that subsection from "and references in this Act" to the end."'.

    No. 31, in page 47, line 46, leave out 'civilian order made' and insert
    'order made by virtue of Schedule 5A to the Army Act 1955 or to th Air Force Act 1955 or Schedule 4A to the Naval Discipline Act 1957'.
    No. 32, line page 48, line 3, leave out 'subsection (4A) below,' and insert
    'section 17 of the Armed Forces Act 1976 (rehabilitation of civilians).'.
    No. 33, in page 48, leave out lines 4 to 17.—[Mr. Wellbeloved.]
    Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

  Schedule 10

    REPEALS
    Amendment made: No. 34, in page 51, line 17, third column, at end add—
    'In Schedule 1, paragraph 2(8).'.—[Mr. Wellbeloved.]
    Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported, with amendments; as amended (in the Select Committee and on recommittal), considered.
    11.43 p.m.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I think that there is general agreement in the House that this Bill introduces a number of desirable changes in the law relating to Service men and
    704
    associated civilians, and that its provisions will be of benefit both to the individuals directly affected and to the Services and their administration. We have taken to heart the injunctions of the 1971 Select Committee not to introduce "change for the sake of change", and to keep "the interests of the Services themselves" as our prime object, and I think all that we have proposed bears this out. That view, it seems to me, is fully shared by the Select Committee that examined the Bill, as is illustrated by its report.
    I should also like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) who chaired the Committee in his usual distinguished and courteous way and to my right hon. and hon. Friends and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who served on the Committee. I believe that the system of Select Committee examination of Armed Forces Bills and military discipline Bills is highly desirable and beneficial to the Services and conducive to the workings of Parliament.
    I should like to pay tribute to the Minister of State, Home Department, who played a distinguished part on the Select Committee and who has been kind enough to stay for part of the debate this evening. I am pleased that the recommendations of the Select Committee have been accepted. I wish that the whole debate could have been happy and unanimous, but that is the process of democracy. I am pleased to move the Third Reading, in the knowledge that it will be universally accepted.
    11.45 p.m.
    Mr. David Walder: We on the Opposition side were pleased to sit on the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), and submit ourselves to his summary jurisdiction, but it was a very easy discipline, and I should like to thank him.
    Important provisions in the Bill arise out of the last report on this subject, which was made to the House in the Session 1970–71. The first is the increase in the powers of commanding officers. No one who served on the Committee doubts that the ordinary Service man would prefer to be dealt with speedily

    705
    by his commanding officer—someone who knows him—rather than wait a considerable time to appear before a court-martial. We did not make that recommendation lightly, but every member of the Committee took the view that has been expressed in the Bill.
    The second important provision is the establishment of standing civilian courts. It is to be regretted that that matter was not more fully debated tonight. It is an important matter, concerning families and juveniles serving in BAOR. The system is now akin to civilian law, under the aegis of the military power. This is a commendable development.
    Thirdly, I do not think it is unfair to the Ministry to say that these quin-quennial studies of the Armed Forces and their discipline probably represent the right time scale. Five years is a reasonable period within which to consider matters like the power of commanding officers and standing civilian courts. It is in essence a period of experiment. Obviously, Ministers will consider developments within that period.
    However, the Committee felt that we should at least have the opportunity annually to consider discipline in the Armed Forces, and that to give it up would be to abdicate our responsibilities. Who knows what might arise in one period of 12 months which we should wish to consider? Such matters cannot be fully considered in the ordinary defence debates, which deal with general policy rather than with particular questions such as these.
    On these three matters there was unanimity in the Committee. I am happy to commend the report and to support the Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

TELEVISION RECEPTION (KINGSWOOD)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Ellis.]
11.49 p.m.
Mr. Terry Walker: The matter of the poor television reception
706
in my Kingswood constituency is of great concern to many of my constituents, especially those who are unfortunate enough to live in the Woodstock area of Kingswood, which was formerly a mining area.
Many people living there who purchase or agree to hire a television set from a shop in Bristol or Kingswood find when they get the set home that there is such bad reception that it is impossible to watch any programme. In the days of black and white television, reception was always bad in Kingswood, but now, in the days of colour television, reception is impossible.
I have been inundated with complaints over a long period, as have the television dealers over a wide area, and I have discussed these matters with them and with several aerial erectors in the area. The dealers and aerial erectors are most unhappy about the reception in my constituency, particularly in Woodstock.
On 13th January 1976 I wrote to the Home Office, but the reply I received from my noble Friend the Minister of State was not very satisfactory. I wrote setting out the specific problem of my constituent Mr. Cox, of 74 Orchard Vale, who has to have a 20-ft. aerial on a pole on top of his chimney stack to enable him to get a television picture. The Home Office reply stated that
"Kingswood generally is considered to be well served by the Mendip high power main station and the Ilchester Crescent relay station."
The area is not well served. Whoever did the research for that letter knows nothing of the problem. The Ilchester Crescent relay station is on the other side of Bristol and does not help us.
The Home Office letter also stated that advice had been sought from the Post Office interference investigation staff, who act as agents of the Home Office. They confirmed that the screening effects of intervening high ground, on which houses have recently been built, was the reason for the unsatisfactory reception from the Mendip station. They confirmed that Mr. Cox's aerial reached approximately 40 ft from ground level and went on to say that Mr. Cox should seek advice from a reputable local dealer. The letter was inaccurate and badly researched, and that is why I am pursuing the matter tonight.

707
The Home Office has not considered the tremendous television reception difficulties of my constituents, many of whom have realised that buying a television licence is a complete waste of money. A 20-ft aerial on a chimney stack creates difficulties and is impracticable, for the following reasons. The pole is liable to break off regularly, especially during high wind; it has to be replaced, and this involves additional cost. It causes damage to property and often causes the chimney stack to crack. Perhaps more important, it represents a danger to life and limb, because it could fall on the roof, or what is worse, on a passing pedestrian. Insurance cover cannot be obtained because insurance companies say that the risk is too great.
Evidence has been given by television dealers which proves that television sets wear out more quickly under such conditions. That hits the pockets of my constituents if they own their own sets and the pockets of television dealers if the sets are rented. The situation represents a waste of resources. Television dealers are getting fed up with the problems, and many are thinking seriously about the future of business in the area.
As more people switch to colour sets, more people in Woodstock are without good reception than with it. Kingswood is hilly and was once a mining area. As more houses are built on the higher ground, the reception becomes worse for everyone. Many homes were particularly badly affected earlier this year when a fair was held on high ground at Rodway Common. That was disgraceful. I have a list of the roads in Kingswood which are affected by bad television reception. It was compiled from information supplied by television dealers who are concerned not only about the goodwill of their business but about their future prospects in the area. I shall be pleased to pass that list to the Minister in the hope that it will help the Post Office interference investigation staff when they look at the matter again.
My long-suffering constituents need help. A relay station is needed on the eastern fringe of Bristol. The relay station at Ilchester Crescent is not near enough to help the situation in Kingswood. I know that that would involve expenditure and that in days of public
708
expenditure restraint such problems are always cropping up.
I have a map which shows the true position of the Bristol side of the Bristol Channel and I have compared it with the other side of the channel. As a Welsh Member, the Minister will know that on the Bristol side we have two relay stations and that on the Welsh side there are many more. The reason is that the terrain is so bad that it has been very sensible to have a great number of relay stations on that side of the Bristol Channel. But the eastern fringe of Bristol and my constituency just outside it have very similar problems. Therefore, I ask that we should be given similar consideration.
Efforts should be made to provide something to help us. I do not know whether help should be in the form of a relay station or a small booster. Responsible action is needed. As the Home Office told me in its letter, great care is taken to provide the best possible service. I well remember having a meeting with some of the people affected on the Friday night before the Cup Final. They were all worried about what the reception would be like next day. People should not be subject to that kind of worry. I hope that action can be taken to help us to overcome the problem, which is increasing in the Kingswood area.
12.2 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) both for the persistence with which he has tackled the matter and for the eloquent way in which he has put his constituents' case. Despite the late hour, nobody could have put it with more clarity and force on their behalf. Inevitably, what I have to say must in part sound like a lecture on broadcasting and transmission policy generally, but I hope to relate it as nearly as possible to the matters which my hon. Friend has raised.
The first point I should like to make is that the planning and provision of television transmitting stations are the responsibility of the broadcasting organisations. They naturally closely co-operate with each other and with the Home Office.

709
My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the fact that the advent of UHF 625-line colour television has aggravated the situation, because for colour one needs a somewhat stronger signal. Wherever VHF is available, a weaker signal gives an adequate picture.
The principle which is followed is that a transmitting station should provide all three services—BBC1, BBC2 and ITV. There are two categories of stations. The main or high-power stations have a transmitting radius of 30 to 40 miles, and the relay stations, of low power, fill in gaps, sometimes covering only a mile or two in their immediate vicinity. It is estimated that when the final pattern of broadcasting transmission is established we shall have about 50 main stations and about 400 relay stations covering the whole country.
Kingswood is in the area of the Mendip transmitter, one of the main, high-power transmitters, about 15 miles to the south, so that theoretically at any rate it should be well within the compass envisaged by the radius of which I have spoken. But there are blind spots in all areas. We have not received many complaints, except from my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituents, but I accept that the fact that we have received none may not be an accurate reflection of the situation.
My hon. Friend has spoken about the Ilchester Crescent relay station. I accept that it is some way from Kingswood, but he will equally accept that there was some controversy in the Bristol area about the exact siting of the Mendip transmitter. The transmitter is further away from Bristol than the BBC would like. Had it been sited elsewhere, the signal might have been stronger and more useful in the constituency.
About 96 per cent. of the population of Britain are covered by UHF transmissions, but about 4 per cent., or 2 million people, are not covered at all by UHF. The efforts of the broadcasting authorities are concentrated mainly on bringing as many people as possible from the remaining 4 per cent. into receipt of such a signal as quickly as possible.
The broadcasting authorities at present are engaged in extending coverage to hamlets of 1,000 or more population,
710
mainly in rural areas where, if anything, dependence on television as recreation and entertainment is stronger than in the town.
The problem of all broadcasting and one of the shortcomings that science has not overcome is that the terrain can obstruct the signal even in areas which in theory are well within the range of the transmitter. Some pockets might amount to a square mile or so or to only a few houses which do not receive the same quality of picture as the area generally.
My hon. Friend has fairly singled out Woodstock and Chiphouse as two particular areas in his constituency which suffer. All I can say to him is that we looked into the whole area, as my noble Friend told him in a letter in March. On that occasion the Post Office acted as our agent.
Obviously my hon. Friend feels strongly about the matter, and he mentioned that he has more evidence which seems to suggest a wider spread of poor reception than we had perhaps imagined. I promise him that if, in accordance with his offer, he passes to me the list which he has mentioned relating to streets which have poor reception, not only shall we approach the BBC again with the list, pointing out the numbers of people affected, but we shall put the BBC in touch with my hon. Friend so that he can communicate directly with the corporation and discuss the situation.
The Bristol area was covered at an early stage by the UHF system, and it is inevitable that part of the feeling which lies behind some of the complaints to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention is an impression that nothing is being done in Bristol because the area has already been covered. There is, however, financial and technical constraint upon the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority, and it would be idle to suppose otherwise. We have to work out the priorities. The corporation and the authority are right in concentrating mainly, but not exclusively, on covering areas of the country which are not already covered. I recall that in the broadcasting debate in the House a week ago tonight there was complaint from some rural constituencies that they had no coverage whatever in the UHF band.

711
We believe that the overcoming of that situation would not only contribute towards the justice of the matter but would assist in countering the drift from rural areas that sometimes occurs when young people are not content to forgo amenities in the same way as perhaps their fathers and mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers would have done without them.
Within the constraints that are obvious in the matter of finance and within the inherent limitations on reception which apply throughout the whole of broadcasting while technical difficulties still exist, the corporation and the authority do whatever is possible to provide good reception wherever possible.
My hon. Friend drew a comparison between his area and South Wales. I can understand the problems that exist in hilly districts, and I certainly understand the difficulties of reception in hilly mining districts because my home is in an area so affected. However, the main station in South Wales is situated on the coast in the Vale of Glamorgan. Consequently, the hilly areas are behind the coast rather than between the coast and the receiver, which is the position in my hon. Friend's constituency. I can well understand the erratic nature of
712
reception and the complaints that can arise when people become maddened by the fact that they cannot get reception when everything seems to point to the fact that they should be receiving a very good picture indeed.
I shall do what I can to assist my hon. Friend's constituents in this matter. I do not promise that a result can be obtained easily or quickly. I promise, however, that I shall draw to the attention of the BBC the facts which my hon. Friend makes available to me. I shall ask the corporation to look into the matter and I shall contact my hon. Friend, so that he and his constituents may feel that every possible representation that can be made is listened to. If that occurs, I hope that in the fullness of time the reception in the area of my hon. Friend's constituents will improve and they will be satisfied with the standard of reception.
In the meantime, I reiterate that my hon. Friend has done a service to the House and to his constituents in drawing attention to these matters. I hope that my hon. Friend will in turn be satisfied with the response he has been given.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.

FOREIGEN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nigerian High Commission (Parking Offences)
  Nigerian High Commission (Parking Offences)
  Portugal
  Portugal
  Mr. Nkomo (Visit)
  Mr. Nkomo (Visit)
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Iceland (Fisheries Dispute)
  Iceland (Fisheries Dispute)
  Mogadishu
  Mogadishu
  Hawley Report
  Hawley Report
  Nuclear Proliferation
  Nuclear Proliferation
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Sri Lanka
  Sri Lanka
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Direct Elections
  Direct Elections
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  South Africa
  South Africa
CIVIL SERVICE
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Costs)
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Costs)
  Governmental Compensation Payments
  Governmental Compensation Payments
ENERGY
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Oil (Minimum Safeguard Price)
  Oil (Minimum Safeguard Price)
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Offshore Oil (Licences)
  Offshore Oil (Licences)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Summer Recesses
  Summer Recesses
  LORD ADVOCATE (APPOINMENTS)
  LORD ADVOCATE (APPOINMENTS)
ENVIRONMENT
  Winchester Bypass
  Winchester Bypass
  Kirkby Fields Training College
  Kirkby Fields Training College
  A5(D)
  A5(D)
  Rates
  Rates
  Hyde Park (Cycle Routes)
  Hyde Park (Cycle Routes)
  Railways (Grant)
  Railways (Grant)
  Driving Licences (Issue Rate)
  Driving Licences (Issue Rate)
  National Transport Council
  National Transport Council
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Sewerage (Planning)
  Sewerage (Planning)
  Local Government Finance (Consultative Council)
  Local Government Finance (Consultative Council)
  Shepherd's Bush (Safety Barriers)
  Shepherd's Bush (Safety Barriers)
  Local Commissioners
  Local Commissioners
  Whale Products
  Whale Products
  Liskeard-Bodmin Road
  Liskeard-Bodmin Road
  National Freight Corporation (Factory)
  National Freight Corporation (Factory)
  Football Grounds Improvement Trust
  Football Grounds Improvement Trust
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Local Authorities (Private House Purchases)
  Local Authorities (Private House Purchases)
TRADE
  United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
  United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Poultry Meat
  Poultry Meat
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police (Casualties)
  Police (Casualties)
  Health and Safety at Work (Fines)
  Health and Safety at Work (Fines)
  Lotteries
  Lotteries
  European Community (Migrant Workers)
  European Community (Migrant Workers)
  British Citizens Overseas (Voting Rights)
  British Citizens Overseas (Voting Rights)
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  Stolen Goods
  Stolen Goods
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Water Safety (Working Party's Report)
  Water Safety (Working Party's Report)
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Parking Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
  Parking Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
  Passports (Mercenaries)
  Passports (Mercenaries)
INDUSTRY
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Staffordshire (Investment)
  Staffordshire (Investment)
  Wales (Government Aid)
  Wales (Government Aid)
  Planning Agreements
  Planning Agreements
  Govan Shipbuilders Ltd.
  Govan Shipbuilders Ltd.
  Government Aid (Company Information)
  Government Aid (Company Information)
  Investment Grants
  Investment Grants
SCOTLAND
  Rabbits
  Rabbits
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Playgroups
  Playgroups
  Social Work (Voluntary Organisations)
  Social Work (Voluntary Organisations)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Children in Prison
  Children in Prison
  Rent Arrears
  Rent Arrears
  Loudspeakers
  Loudspeakers
  Police (Examinations)
  Police (Examinations)
WALES
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Housing (Household Costs)
  Housing (Household Costs)
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Council Houses (Relets)
  Council Houses (Relets)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  House Improvements
  House Improvements
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farm Subsidies
  Farm Subsidies
  Skimmed Milk Powder
  Skimmed Milk Powder
  Quarantine Kennels
  Quarantine Kennels
DEFENCE
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
  Resistance to Interrogation
  Resistance to Interrogation
  Training (Winter Survival Courses)
  Training (Winter Survival Courses)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Immigrants (Contribution to the Arts)
  Immigrants (Contribution to the Arts)
  Student Fees
  Student Fees
  Schooling Costs
  Schooling Costs
  Children (Non-selective Schools)
  Children (Non-selective Schools)
EMPLOYMENT
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Trade Unionists
  Trade Unionists
  Cornwall
  Cornwall
  Holidays
  Holidays
NATIONAL FINANCE
  War Widows
  War Widows
  Governmental Compensation Payments
  Governmental Compensation Payments
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Customs and Excise Tariff
  Customs and Excise Tariff
  National Debt
  National Debt
  Brazil (Double Taxation Agreement)
  Brazil (Double Taxation Agreement)
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Taxation (Higher Rates)
  Taxation (Higher Rates)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing (Owner-Occupation)
  Housing (Owner-Occupation)
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Community Patients (Special Care Service)
  Community Patients (Special Care Service)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Food (Select Committee's Report)
  Food (Select Committee's Report)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Observation and Assessment Centres
  Observation and Assessment Centres
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Health Visitors
  Health Visitors
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Seafarers
  Seafarers
  Dental Health
  Dental Health
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Midwives
  Midwives
  Maternity Patients
  Maternity Patients
  Institute of Medical Labroratory Sciences
  Institute of Medical Labroratory Sciences
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
  Children's and Old People's Homes (Cleveland)
  Children's and Old People's Homes (Cleveland)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock. (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Rochester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LOCAL AUTHORITY FUNDS AND EXHIBITIONS
Lord INGLEWOOD: 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 on what grounds they would justify local authorities' (such as the Greater London Council) contributing from public funds to the mounting of partisan exhibitions such as that which is to commemorate the 1926 General Strike, at a time when there are more pressing claims on all Councils' resources.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it is not for the Government to justify individual acts by local authorities. We have made clear the constraints that exist at present on local authority expenditure, but within those constraints each authority is responsible to its own electorate for its own expenditure.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that that is really only half an answer? Against the background of the Environment Secretary's recent stern exhortation to local authorities when he made it clear there would be no hailing out of " defaulters ", is it not irresponsible for any local authority to give several thousands of pounds to projects of this sort and provide them with premises rent free?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my honourable friend the Secretary of State has made his views known to all local authorities. It is for the local authorities to decide what constraints they have on their expenditure, not for the Government.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as the Secretary of State for the
1252
Environment appears to have indicated that any overspending in future must be entirely borne by the local ratepayers, will the Government, in certain circumstances, intervene to advise against expenditure which is proposed and has nothing whatever to do with local authority function?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we have issued guide lines to local authorities; we hope that local authorities will heed them. They know the consequences if they are not constraining their expenditure as requested.

INFANT DEATHS
2.33 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the tragic fact that in Britain each year 2,000 babies, an average of six a day, aged between one week and two years die suddenly and unexpectedly in their cots, what action is being taken to try to prevent this sad loss by the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths and other researchers.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Government are concerned about the incidence of cot deaths and the need for more information. In replies to Questions in another place my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health on 10th May gave details of research his Department is sponsoring, at a cost of over a quarter of a million pounds, aimed at identifying the groups of children most at risk of death and the avoidable medical and social factors. The Department is of course in touch with the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths and is aware of the valuable research and other voluntary work which it sponsors.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply. I am sure he realises the tragic circumstances in which these deaths occur. A mother can put her baby looking healthy to bed one night and wake up in the morning to find the baby dead, without

1253
any indication at all of the cause. So what advice is to be given to mothers of newborn babies?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I should like first to say that the Department of Health and Social Security has a three-year programme at Sheffield University to study in detail the circumstances leading up to unexpected deaths in children under the age of two. My Department has also financed, to the tune of a quarter of a million pounds, a three to five year study in five areas in England and Wales aimed at identifying those groups of children, aged from one week to 2 years, most at risk of post-perinatal death. So far as we can tell at the moment, there is no precise cause for cot deaths, although the research which has been done indicates an interconnection of several factors including low birth weight, low socio-economic status, underlying respiratory conditions and bottle feeding. As a result of the studies which have suggested this, my Department, with the Health Education Council, is giving every encouragement to mothers to breast feed their babies for a minimum of two weeks and preferably for the first six months of life.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me whether cuts in advances for maternity services will in any way affect this research?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am speaking entirely from memory, but I understand that so far as the maternity services are concerned the Personal Health White Paper which we issued referred to our giving an increase of 9 per cent. If I am wrong about that I will write to my noble friend.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us whether any consultations with health visitors have taken place?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is so. Consultation with health visitors and general practitioners has been undertaken so that we can give support to bereaved families when this kind of thing happens. Any family that suffers from a death of this kind is being supported, if it wants support.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, can
1254
the noble Lord say whether other countries are suffering from similar kinds of deaths? Is anything known about their experiences, and can the noble Lord say what research is being carried out abroad?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, other countries are experiencing this problem. We are in touch with all medical thought in respect of this matter. I come back to what I said a moment ago, that there is no precise cause known at the present moment, hence the two experiments that are being undertaken.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the United Kingdom has the highest rate of infant mortality of all Western European countries? Can the Department of Health and Social Security he in touch with other departments in Western European States to find out how they deal with this problem?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the answer is that we are in touch. The fact that it appears that we have more deaths in this country occurs because we have not narrowed the yardstick by which a cot death is measured. We perhaps estimate over-generously.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is not the greatest cause of these deaths the fact that the babies turn over from their backs to their stomachs and suffocate themselves in their pillows? Would it not be possible to devise a style of pillow which is stiff rather than soft, shaped like the letter E on its side, so as to make it impossible for a child to turn over on to its stomach?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, undoubtedly some children die in that particular fashion. The evidence that we have does not support the assumption that the majority who die do so from that particular cause.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, may I ask if it is true that the United Kingdom is well served by health clinics, and young parents are given excellent medical advice at these clinics as to how children ought to be looked after and what actions should be taken?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords,

1255
we are grateful to general practitioners and, as I said earlier, health visitors, who are very much aware of the situation, and are giving a great deal of assistance with this particular problem.

THE CLOSED SHOP
2.39 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Britain is the only member of the European Economic Community to have introduced legislation to promote a compulsory closed shop.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, so far as I am aware, no EEC country, including Britain, has introduced such legislation.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether we are in violation of the Treaty of Rome? Would it not be possible for us to be taken before the European Court of Justice, as the decision to do so may already have been taken regarding the fees of overseas students?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, so far as I am aware, there are no provisions in the Treaty of Rome or in the regulations, Directives, decisions or recommendations issued by the EEC which affect rights of association or organisation in trade unions.
Baroness EMMET of AM BERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether legislation for a compulsory closed shop would not be working against both the Declaration for Human Rights by the United Nations and the European Com-munity?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, first with regard to the European aspect, Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights gives everyone the right of freedom of association, including the specific right to form or join trade unions. It does not give any specific right not to be compelled to belong to an association, and I am advised that the Convention's authors deliberately excluded any such provisions
1256
when drafting it, because of difficulties it might pose for lawful closed shops.
The position concerning the United Nations is dealt with by Article 23(4). That Article gives a right to belong but not a right not to belong. The ILO position is dealt with in Convention No. 87. It gives workers the right to establish and join unions, but gives no right not to belong. In fact, a Motion was moved that such a right should be given, and the Motion was defeated.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the Minister be kind enough to look at the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural rights which the Government have just ratified? May I ask him please to study carefully the Article referring to the right to work without any impediment, obstacle or any other obstruction, to see whether that is in conformity with closed shop agreements? Would the noble Lord also confirm whether EEC nationals coming to this country will be obliged to join a trade union, contrary to employment relationships existing in other EEC countries, before they can get a job in a place of employment where there is a closed shop agreement?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Baroness's question is concerned, I am always pleased to oblige her. Concerning the second part of the question, I see no reason why somebody from an EEC country should be treated differently from a citizen of this country.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the Minister kindly look at the draft Directive concerning employment relationships in which there is a clause—a draft clause admittedly—which impedes any obstacle to free employment, regardless of the national treatment?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, again, I shall be pleased to oblige the noble Baroness.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it would be a serious calamity if we were taken to the European Court and closed shops were stopped? What would happen to the lawyers' closed shop, to the doctors' closed shop and the accountants' closed shop, regardless of the trade union closed shop?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether we are the only member of the European Community where in certain parts of industry the closed shop is operating?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, it depends on whether we are dealing with the practical or the theoretical position. If it is the practical position, I can easily answer the question. Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Ireland and Italy in practice all have closed shop agreements or customs and practice agreements throughout various industries, particularly the docks, printing and ship repair.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, may I ask whether your Lordships' House is regarded as a closed shop?
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, since we passed the legislation dealing with closed shops, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of days lost through industrial disputes and that the trade unions have adopted a far more statesmanlike attitude than ever before, as witness the decision of the Trades Union Congress today?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the facts are right, but I would attribute the reason to the whole of the Government's policy on industrial relations.

TEES TUNNEL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
SCOTTISH AMICABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

THE FAMILY IN BRITAIN TODAY
2.45 p.m.
The LORD ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY The LORD ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY rose to draw attention to the continuing importance of the family in the changing circumstances of Britain today; and to move for Papers. The most
1258
reverend Primate said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking to the Motion which stands on the Order Paper in my name. I note that there are two maiden speeches, and we look forward with particular interest to what these noble Lords have to say. I am sure they will receive a generous reception in your Lordships' House.
In venturing to draw your Lordships' attention to the continuing importance or the family, I do so in the words of the Motion, in the context of " the changing circumstances of Britain today ". For many of these changing circumstances we can he profoundly thankful. It is possible that the Morning Star does not find its way with any regularity on to the breakfast tables of the majority of your Lordships. I therefore quote from an article entitled " The Battle for a Healthy Society " which I wrote for that paper and which appeared in its issue of 29th May last:
" Social conditions as I saw them in Manchester and in North London in the early and mid-1930s and as they are in Britain generally in the mid-1970s, present a contrast that has to he seen to he believed. The people of Britain today are far better provided for than they were 40 years ago: they have opportunities for a fuller life, in education, in provision for the elderly, in the care of the sick and in the realm of the arts, of which their parents knew all too little. Who would want to go hack to the social conditions of four decades ago? No-one who knew them at first hand!"
Yes; from some points of view changing circumstances augur well for the family. There is less grinding poverty of the kind I saw in North London in the mid-1930s. There are fewer women worn out with child-bearing, since contraceptive knowledge and methods have been made available. An understanding of the marriage relationship in terms of complementarily rather than of dominance of one member of the partnership over the other, of mutuality of relationship, of symmetry rather than of demand and response, of sharing both of goods and of responsibilities—all these have helped in the stabilisation and strengthening of family life. The striking advance during this century in the position of woman in society, the realisation that a smaller proportion of her life is given to the rearing of a family, and that it is quite possible, and very often highly desirable, that she should have a profession of her own and an income of her own—these too have led, and I believe will increasingly

1259
lead, to great changes in the pattern of social life and particularly of family life in Britain.
Some, indeed, would argue—and they do so vigorously—that the family as the basic social unit is finished, and that we should cease to regard it with that reverence and take it for granted with that assurance we have accorded it in the past. I believe this would be a totally wrong reaction to the changing pattern of life we see around us. It is deeply significant, to my mind, that some non-Christian cultures—Russia and Maoist China, to take but two examples —which have attempted to develop on collective principles as opposed to the Western patterns of marriage and family life, have turned their hacks on these new patterns and returned in large measure to a reverence for the family, or at least to inter-personal relationships which approximate to the norms of Western society.
It would seem to be difficult, perhaps impossible, to find a substitute for the family. Social instability, juvenile delinquency, the experience that fragile and tenuous sexual relationships do not make for human happiness—all these things have led those who at first wished to abandon it to see that marriage as we know it (or something very similar to it) is necessary if there is to he a stable society in which to bring up a new generation. For security and continuity, a micro-society is called for within the larger body corporate. Marriage provides economic, social and psychological support of a kind which is difficult to substitute, acts as a first line of defence in times of crisis or strain, and provides a small society in which human values are preserved against the pressures of mass living. An anti-family policy will not work.
An examination of such experiments as those I have mentioned might serve as a healthy warning to those who take lightly the rapidly rising figures of divorce in this country. I will not bore your Lordships with too many figures in this debate, but I think a few are necessary to make the picture clear. The divorce rate in England and Wales in 1975 was 320 per 1,000 marriages; that is to say, 120,000 divorces in 1975, which is three times as many as in 1967. I ask your Lordships to forgive these figures, but I believe that they show a very interesting graph. The rate had risen
1260
steadily from 8 per 1,000 in 1920, to 11·1 in 1930, to 16·5 in 1940, to 86·1 in 1950, and in the succeeding quarter of a century it leapt from 86·1 to 320.
If we take the figure of 120,000 divorces in 1975 which I have already mentioned, we can see that it is likely that some 200,000 children were involved. Of course, neither the effect on them during the years of their childhood and adolescence nor that on their attitude to marriage when their own time conies to found a home of their own can be calculated. Further, it must be borne in mind that the figure of 120,000 divorces last year does not indicate the total extent of marriage breakdown, for many couples, especially among the poorer sections of the population, simply separated without a divorce.
A modern writer and broadcaster, dealing recently with family life, described it in these terms:
"… a closely knit environment in which a new generation can discover the meaning of life, and the values upon which life must he based. It is because of the small number of people involved, the intimacy of their relationship and the long period of time in which they arc in close touch with each other, that the family has a greater educational influence than any other group in society. A handful of people, of varying ages, temperaments and interests have to learn how to face together the ups and downs, the joys and sorrows which life brings to them. It is a school for living which has no adequate substitute. For here, more than anywhere else, is learned that interdependence which gives meaning to life."
I think that that writer hit the nail on the head.
If, then, the family must be regarded as the bulwark of a stable society, we should do well to do two things: first, we should ask what are the factors in our society which constitute a major menace to its continuing stability; and, secondly, we should ask what action is called for in the strengthening of family life. The first course may appear to be negative, but it necessarily calls for mention; and the second is wholly positive. Let me come, then, for a moment to those factors in our society which constitute a menace to the stability of our family life. I mention certain things which need very little elaboration, and in no particular order of precedence, but which constitute serious setbacks in the establishing and maintaining of stable family life.
First, I mention bad housing. Many marriages—and the evidence is all around

1261
us—get off to a bad start, because the newly married couple have no home of their own. Their accommodation is inadequate, the starting of a family has to be postponed, or else the tension produced by young children in a house where grandparents live with the parents has to be contended with. Tensions are at once created and the roots of bitterness are sown. For all that I said at the beginning of this speech about improved social conditions in Britain today, as contrasted with those of 40 years ago, it is still the case that there are grievously bad housing conditions in certain areas, conditions which, so far from improving as years go by, only worsen and constitute a disgrace to our society. No bath or indoor sanitation—this is not right for a Britain in the late twentieth century! A heading in The Times of 8th June this year ran:
"Three million homes either unfit or lack standard amenities."
That was a summary of the findings of the Building Research Establishment published in its report for 1975.
I believe, also, that further thought ought to be given to the rightness or wrongness of rearing children in high-rise flats, where there is nowhere easily accessible for them to play; where mother is very often cut off from friends and finds herself lonely and, as a result—who can blame her?—bad-tempered; where any sense of community is almost non-existent, and where there is not a blade of grass or a tree to be seen. Is this, I ask, the right environment for a youngster to grow up in? I very much doubt it.
Secondly, may I mention the matter of too early marriage? It is, I think, an undoubted fact—and any graph would prove it—that the proportion of divorces is greater among those who marry very early than among those of any other age group. The fact seems to be clear; the reasons behind the fact are considerably more complex. The earlier age of the onset of adolescence is one reason. The influence of a philosophy—if one can dignify it with that name—which says, I want it, therefore I must have it and have it now; I will not, and I cannot, wait ", is another.
The fundamental falsehood lying behind much that leads to early marriage is the
1262
argument that, because a boy or girl is physically mature, he or she therefore has the necessary maturity which is required for marriage. Nothing could be further from the truth, for marriage calls for a maturity of mind and spirit, of the total personality, which goes far beyond the maturity of the body. The lack of that maturity frequently leads to rapid breakdown in the marriage relationship, and sometimes to that exasperation of spirit which leads to wife-battering or baby-battering. Wife-battering seems to be a newly recognised feature of our society. First estimates—and they are never very accurate—point to a figure in the region of 25,000 a year, and this in itself constitutes a grave social problem.
Thirdly, I touch upon the matter of unemployment which, especially when it occurs among the young and the young marrieds, is a shattering experience. It seems to be a part of man's natural dignity that he should have work to do. It is not enough to say that, in the absence of work, the State will provide money more or less equivalent to what the man would earn if he were employed. That is to beg the question, even if the money were adequate. Work, particularly if it is to be of the kind which the worker can see to be worth while—and how much work is not in that category?—provides an incentive for the keeping together of the family unit. Its absence makes for breakdown. The head of a family deprived of work finds himself deprived of a dignity which he feels is his by right. Thereby he senses a diminution of his own authority and he ceases to be a person in his own right and proper stature.
Fourthly—perhaps the factor above all others which leads to the breakdown of marriage and of the security of the home—is, if T may coin a phrase that I want to be a broad one, what I would call the trivialisation of the sexual. I find that this is all too prevalent in our present day society. I would not be so foolish as to begin to compare the morals of the late 20th century with those of a previous age to the detriment of our present society. Some people try to lead me up that very worthless garden path and I always refuse to be led. The imponderables in any such comparison are far too many to allow of any valid conclusions.
I am not one of those who would rewrite the old hymn and ask your

1263
Lordships to join me in singing:
" Backward, Christian soldiers,
Marching as to war,
Yearning to recapture
The good old days ' of yore ".
That is a singularly fruitless exercise. But I would engage in the more profitable task of keeping one's eyes open to dangers around us and ahead of us. When I use the phrase " the trivilisation of the sexual " I do so out of the conviction that sex is to be regarded as a gift of immense value and joy, to be treated with responsibility and with reverence. The attitude of the Church in days gone by has not infrequently been negative, and sometimes oppressive, and it is no good trying to pretend that it has not. But he who charges the Church on that score today shows, I think, that he does not know what he is talking about and is badly out of date. Dr. Jack Dominian recently wrote, and so rightly:
" Sex should not be seen as something frightening, fearful and inhibiting, but as something from which the renewal of two people, as well as new life, comes. This is a great reversal of Christian thought, from considering marriage primarily as being for the benefit of children, to thinking of it primarily as a relationship of two spouses from whose love children benefit enormously ".
It is precisely because the Church appreciates the glory of the thing that it seeks to fence it around from harm. It is because we value human life that we have white lines down the middle of the road or safety belts in the seats of our cars. They restrict our freedom a little—true enough—but they save our lives.
Thus, to lower the age of consent, as some would have us do, would not be kindness to the young but an act of the greatest possible cruelty. Or again, to use the powerful media to stimulate the idea that to be " with it " you must throw over the wisdom of the ages, and that material things matter more than cultural and moral values, is to strike a blow for the undermining of the health of society. To hint that it is a small thing to start a human life, or a small thing to snuff it out by abortion; to teach that abortion does little to the woman who undergoes it and that it can be done with little more effect on her than a tonsilectomy or a tooth extraction; to suggest that a one-parent family is much the same as a two-parent family when all the evidence goes to show that a child needs the support of both mother and father; to teach that any kind of sexual
1264
activity will do, and practically at any age; to suggest that acts of homosexuality can be engaged in with impunity by the young whose patterns of sexual activity are as yet undetermined and unformed; to encourage or allow the publication of pornographic literature which inflames instincts which on any reckoning take some strength of character to control and discipline; to suggest that minds cannot be polluted by such stuff as easily as bodies can be infected by dirty water—these things, and like things that often go with them, are the lies which damn, the fifth column that betrays our national wellbeing and undermines the stability of our homes.
Enough, my Lords, of the factors in our society—I have touched on a few—which constitute a menace to its continuing stability. Now I pass on, I hope a little more positively, to ask: what action is called for in the strengthening of family life? Here I would be not only positive but comparatively brief, for others of your Lordships, far better qualified than I, will point the way forward for us.
First, I would plead for education in marriage. I would ask your Lordships to notice how I have phrased that: " Education in marriage ". I am not referring to sex education in the schools which, at its worst, can be little more than the teaching of the physiological facts. Often it is much more and much better than that, but it can be little more than that. I am referring to that kind of educational work which helps to shape the attitudes and expectations of young people to marriage and family life, long before the stage of getting married—the kind of assumptions conveyed throughout childhood and adolescence in such fields as relationships between the sexes, commitment and freedom, sharing, the capacity to adapt and so on. Family life education may be a relatively new concern; it is certainly one of vast importance. Others of your Lordships will, I hope, speak of the importance in this connection of religion in schools—a vast field. I would only say that I think we ought very seriously to bear in mind that courses of lessons on comparative religion can never take the place of the teaching of the facts of the Christian religion and of their ethical relevance.
While I am speaking of education, I should mention the need for the counsel-

1265
ing of couples whose marriages are under stress. The criticisms made at the time of the passing of the Divorce Reform Act 1969, that it was wrong to leave reconciliation efforts until instructions for divorce were given seem to be justified. That stage is too late. Counselling is needed earlier and an expansion of the services will need to be undertaken. And when the cost of marriage breakdown in sheer financial terms is recognised, surely it is not too much to ask that more money should be spent on educational and counselling services.
Secondly, I have already said enough about the effects of bad housing and of lack of play facilities for the young on the stability of family life. This, and the attempt to lower the figure of unemployment, should surely be very high on the list of priorities of Government when capital expenditure is being considered. Thirdly, my last plea for the consideration of your Lordships would be this: is it not time that thought were given to the appointment of a Minister for the Family? We have a Minister for Sport and we have Ministers for this, that and the other, but we have no Minister for the Family.
In putting forward this idea, in expressing this hope, I bear in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in his speech last January in this House in the debate on sex education. May I quote four sentences. The noble Lord said:
" I think I must make it clear … that there are four Government Departments which have a particular interest in this subject "—
sex education—
" The Department of Education and Science in its responsibility for the education service including schools and colleges of further education has perhaps the major interest … The Department of Health and Social Security is also closely concerned because of its general responsibilities for sex education … The Scottish Home and Health Department and the Welsh Office have responsibility for these matters in Scotland and Wales."
There is cause for encouragement but there also, I think, is cause for anxiety, for there is always the possibility that when a matter is the concern of too many people it becomes the concern of none: the soup presided over by too many cooks is poor stuff, and this concern may very well fall between two stools, or in this case between four.
On the 2nd May this year the Prime Minister was reported in the Sunday Times as having said:
" What is needed is more family responsibility and social cohesion. No Government can legislate for it. It can only be done by a moral approach."
I believe there is a profound element of truth in that, but it is only part of the truth. Of course you cannot make people good by law; but you can make them had by bad law. There is much that the Government can do. They can protect young parents and single parents where the problems arc basically those of housing and income, and they can do the reverse. Let me illustrate here. The Government decision to abandon the child benefit scheme which was due to start in April next year is bewildering. The alternative offered, of El for family allowance for the first child, will be worth 30p to the average family after tax, and less for the poorer families who in many cases will lose more than £l in the benefits they already get. There was a very wide consensus in favour of child benefits and it was accepted and supported by the TUC. More support was needed, and now apparently it is to be withdrawn in this particular area. I find myself perplexed.
In fairness, it should be said that the new Consultative Document from the Department of Health and Social Security provides for continual expansion, though at a lower rate than in the past live years. Slight increases are envisaged in capital and current expenditure for the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and the elderly, and that is good, so far as it goes. But the point I am making holds good; namely, the need for a Minister whose task it would be constantly to keep abreast of the facts relating to the family; to study the impact of the Government's social and other policies, including regional employment policies; to ensure that in practice they do not work against the best interests of families, and to watch with an eagle eye the progress of legislation.
A Minister for the Family would find himself surveying the present divorce law, and facing evidence which shows that not only does that law make divorce far too easy, but also that it often proves unfair on the husband, who finds that after his wife has walked out he has to sell his house to provide for his children.

1267
Such a Minister would have to consider seriously the value of some kind of service for young people who would otherwise be unemployed. I refer not to military service but to something parallel to it, such as was employed by the Government of Iran who succeeded very largely in reducing their illiteracy rate. Young people were allowed to spend 14 out of 18 of their months of military service in doing not military work but educational work: teaching the children by day, and in the evenings teaching the adults how to read. There was a meteoric drop in the illiteracy rate of Iran as a result of that programme. If some of our young people could he drafted into positive work for the good of our society it would be good for us and for them at the same time.
Such a Minister would cast a highly critical eye on the abortion laws as they now obtain, and on the laws governing the sale of pornographic literature or of the showing of films, the advertisements for which degrade our London streets and those of other cities. Such a Minister would watch the legislation which affects the teaching of religion in schools, and he would do so fully aware of the inadequacies of much that has passed for this in recent years, and also of the fact that I have already touched on, that lessons in comparative religion can never take the place of systematic and intelligent teaching of Christianity and of its ethical relevance to life. Lastly, such a Minister would show himself aware of the ill-effects on society when its structure becomes two-tier instead of three-tier. By that I mean when society is so ordered that grandparents are separated from grandchildren and the only family influence on the young is that of the parents.
If, my Lords, I end by quoting an essay from an eight-year-old entitled
What a Grandmother is, I do so not only to provide a slightly lighter element to a speech which your Lordships will, with great unanimity, agree has been over-heavy and over-long; I do so because I believe the essay enshrines a truth which society neglects at its peril; namely, that if a child is to be healthy, and hence if the family is to be healthy, and hence if the nation is to be healthy, the child needs to be given time-consuming attention by its seniors. This can often be provided, not by the next generation but
1268
by the next generation but one. How often have we found that things can be done between grandparent and child which cannot be done between parent and child. Explain that as you will, but it is one of the strange facts of life.
This is what that eight-year-old boy wrote with the insight of a child and a charming brevity:
" A grandmother is a lady who has no children of her own, so she likes other people's little girls and boys. A grandfather is a man grandmother. He goes for walks with the boys and they talk about fishing and tractors. Grandmothers don't have to do anything but be there. They are old, so they shouldn't play hard or run. They should never say, ' Hurry up '. Usually they are fat, but not too fat to tie children's shoes. They wear glasses and funny underwear, and they can take their teeth and gums off. They don't have to be smart, only answer questions like why dogs hate cats and why God isn't married. They don't talk baby-talk like visitors. When they read to us, they don't skip hits, or mind if it is the same story over again. Everybody should have one, especially if you don't have television, because grandmothers arc the only grown-ups who have time."
The point of that little essay is in the last sentence. My Lords, I beg to move the Motion for Papers.
3.19 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I can imagine few propositions more likely to unite all of us in this House than that so magnificently expounded by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in his moving and delightful speech; namely,
" the continuing importance of the family in the changing circumstances of Britain today ".
We are most greatly indebted for this splendid, all-embracing, wide-ranging survey of the problems of the family. Those of us who have had the good fortune to be brought up in a united family, to have had one ourselves and then known the final joy of being grandparents, are indeed greatly blessed.
Of course, the family has been a going concern for a very long time. It has a lot of experience behind it. It has existed for millennia, indeed ever since the very appearance of man. It has survived appalling threats and appalling strains and has been the healthy private bond in most societies. The biologists tell us that, from analogy, the human species is only at the beginning of its evolutionary career and it may be that

1269
other patterns of living together will emerge. But so far, at any rate, the best known way of bringing up human beings is the family. Other ways have been tried but, as the most reverend Primate has said, the family remains the bulwark of our society. In his masterly survey he has identified the factors which endanger the stability of the family today. In a speech on Monday of this week—a speech of great compassion—he highlighted the dangers confronting our society by the menace of racial incitement and racial hatred now spreading in our cities and against which all of us, whatever our sex, age, colour or faith, must make a determined stand. On Monday, as today, he has made it clear that the Church will he heard on social matters. We thank him for it.
I think the most reverend Primate was right to identify some of the beneficial changes which have taken place in our society. I believe it is a more compassionate and civilised society than it was. It is true that urban poverty and deprivation still make it difficult for a large number of families to lead happy lives. But when we compare this with the total misery of not many decades ago, with which so many of us were familiar—the bare-footed and rickety and stunted children, the Dickensian squalor in the heart of our great cities—we see we have made progress.
A major change has been in the status of women in our society. As the most reverend Primate pointed out, relief from the burden of excessive childbearing, equal partnership in marriage and equal opportunities at work have raised that status. In this context I am glad to be a member of the Government which introduced the Sex Discrimination Act. But the biological differences inevitably remain despite growing equality in the pattern of life between the sexes. Their significance was starkly summarised when Mark Twain was asked, " What would men be like in a world without women?" He replied, " Scarce: mighty scarce " This fact was stated more -lyrically by Maxim Gorky when he wrote:
" Without the mother there is neither poet nor hero."
I read recently in an American publication an article about the challenges to the family created by the changing
1270
relationship between the sexes. It referred to the plight of the " latch-key " children, a striking phrase which conjures up all too clearly the plight of a child who returns from school and lets himself into an empty house. The article drew no moral conclusion as to the role of women. Its theme was rather that it did not matter which parent was at home when the child came back. It could be the father or the mother or, in relation to the conclusion of the speech we have just heard, the kindly grandmother—but the article ended, " Please God, let there be somebody ". I think that noble Lords will agree that we should echo that prayer.
However, I must not stray for too long in the paths of sociology on which others more expert than I are waiting to give your Lordships the benefit of their views, and in view of the long and distinguished list of speakers I will be brief. I will turn to some of those aspects of the law which the most reverend Primate has mentioned. The law relating to the family has been of primary concern to the Law Commissions since their inception and successive Governments have implemented their major proposals. In England the Divorce Reform Act followed from the Law Commission's survey on what it called " the Field of Choice " as to the grounds for divorce. Then came their comprehensive Report on Financial Provision in Matrimonial Proceedings which has led to better and fairer arrangements for distributing the family assets on the breakdown of a marriage. More recently their Report on Family Provision on Death led to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, and we are now waiting for their Report on Ownership of the Matrimonial Home and Household Goods. The most reverend Primate made some comments on our present divorce law. As to the increase in divorce since the Divorce Reform Act came into force there can, as he indicated, be no dispute. The figures of 60,000 decrees in 1970 and twice as many in 1975 speak for themselves. However, it does not follow from these figures that it is the new divorce law which has caused the increase in the incidence of marital failure or the break up of families.
Your Lordships will remember that the charge against the old divorce law was that, through the rigidity of its grounds based on the matrimonial offence, while

1271
it dissolved some broken marriages it left many others, equally broken and equally sources of unhappiness, subsisting in name though not in fact, as " hollow shells ". The breakdown of a marriage is always distressing particularly where there are children. But so, I believe, is the enforced continuation of a marriage that has totally broken down. Moreover, the dissolution of one unhappy family may lead, and indeed often has done, to the creation of one or more happy families in its stead. Dr. Johnson, as your Lordships will recollect, described a second marriage as, " the triumph of hope over experience ". But I am sure we all know of instances where that cynical observation has been disproved in practice and where second marriages have indeed given a fresh opportunity of happiness to both parties and to the families that they created.
Although the present divorce law may be criticised, I do not believe that it would be an improvement to return to the old law of the matrimonial offence. That would indeed, in the vivid phrase of the most reverend Primate, be " marching backwards ". I do not believe it would contribute to the stability of family life. At most it would again conceal the true extent of matrimonial breakdown.
My Lords, I should now like to remove some misapprehension as to possible changes in the law on sexual offences. There is, apparently, a fairly widespread impression that the Government are planning to introduce legislation which would, for example, relax the law against incest, reduce the age of consent for sexual intercourse and amend the law on homsexual offences. I must make it plain that this is not so. The position is that in the light of public discussion of these matters, the Home Secretary has referred the whole question of the law on sexual offences to the Criminal Law Revision Committee. Of course, that Committee is a most distinguished and expert body under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies. They are at work and will in due course report on these matters. Their recommendations will then be considered by the Government. I fear that what has happened is that publication of the evidence submitted to that Com-mittee on behalf of certain organisations has been misinterpreted as indicating
1272
that the changes prompted by the Government in these matters are imminent. I say for the second time that this is not so.
My Lords, I understand that questions may be raised in this debate as to whether the Obscene Publications Act is to be amended, or legislation introduced against the display of indecent material. These issues are not easy to deal with, as Ministers on both sides of the House with previous experience of the matter will probably readily confirm. Their solution has, indeed, evaded Governments in most countries. We have debated them quite recently on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and the position of the Government remains as my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich stated it then. We share the general con-cern and disquiet about indecent display, particularly of matter which may fall into the hands of children. Speaking for myself, I would welcome an early and workable solution to this problem. We shall look sympathetically at the need for reform of the law when the Working Party on Vagrancy and Street Offences has made its report.
My Lords, I turn now, briefly, to housing. My own experience in 29 years as a Member of Parliament with weekly surgeries in my own constituency convinced me that bad housing is, as the most reverend Primate has confirmed, one of the principal sources of social misery. The Government are not complacent. We indeed acknowledge that mistakes have been made in the family context. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said recently in Vancouver:
" We are determined henceforth to build on a human scale. High-rise dwellings are right for some people in some areas. But I do not want to see any more massive schemes of high-rise blocks of family dwellings. Even in inner city areas they create more problems than they solve ".
I am sure the House will welcome this acknowledgement and will agree with what has been said before; that is, that although high-rise blocks may have some use they are ill-suited to families with children. I can assure noble Lords that the Government attach great importance to the improvement of the standard of dwellings in general and of the environment.
I regret that in one respect I must part company with the most reverend Primate; that is, on his proposal of a Minister for

1273
the Family—attractive, high-sounding, impressive, with respect, though that may sound. I part company with him on that largely because I am not sure, of the useful, practical function that such a Minister could perform. As I understand it from the description we had of him, he would apparently have no executive task, but would act as a kind of universal watchdog on behalf of the family over the whole social field. His main function would be to remind his colleagues of the impact of their work on the family. Frankly, I do not think it would be justifiable to create a new Minister to ensure that the needs of the family are borne in mind when Government policy is being formulated. I think this factor is constantly borne in mind.
It is not lack of awareness of the problems in the family sphere which stands in the way of their solution: unhappily, it is their intractable nature. I have already referred to the Committees which are looking at the law on sexual offences and on indecent display. We have also a Select Committee on the Abortion Act and a Select Committee on Violence in the Family. If I may say so, in this context I doubt whether wife battering is a newly recognised feature of our society. Alas! it has gone on for a very long time, but it is, of course, disturbing that it should survive still today, even to a far lesser extent, as I believe. At any rate, in those fields where the problems arise, there is no lack of investigation, no lack of research and, if I may say so, no lack of good will by the Government to implement helpful and practicable proposals. The theme of the speech of the most reverend Primate was not, I think, that the Government should solve these problems by themselves; clearly they cannot. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, he makes no claim that, " Jim can always fix it ". Effort is needed by all of us, by every family, every citizen. The call that has gone forth today is a call to the nation as a whole.
I fear that in the time available to me I have touched on only a segment of the subject matter covered by this Motion, but I am comforted to know that my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell will be speaking for the Government at the end of the debate, and will no doubt be dealing
1274
with the matters in the field of social security and health. May I say that the Government welcome the debate and will take careful note of the views which will be put forward in its course. I know we shall be looking forward with special pleasure to hearing the contributions of the two maiden speakers. I hope that at any rate I have made it clear that I believe passionately in the importance of the family. I believe it has come to stay. I believe everything should be done by the Government, public authorities and, indeed, the whole community, to protect and to sustain it.
3.37 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we must all be very grateful to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for introducing what I am sure will come to be recorded as one of the most important debates in this House. It could without exaggeration mark the turning of the tide, for it comes at a time when a great many people are seriously concerned at the breakdown of the fabric of society. May I say right at the beginning how much we look forward to hearing the two maiden speakers this afternoon. We shall listen with great interest to what they have to say on this important matter.
My Lords, in the course of his speech the most reverend Primate has given us some figures about marriage and divorce. The devastating thing about all the figures with regard to the family is that whichever way you interpret them, the facts remain the same. There are, it is true, more marriages today than ever before, but out of 400,000 marriages annually, one quarter are for the second time. There are now more divorces, more children in the care of someone other than their parents; I believe the number was estimated to be 120,000 in 1971. The Finer Committee has estimated that there are 100,000 father-only families, and 520,000 mother-only families. More than ever before there are what have come to be called " the yo-yo children "; those who go backwards and forwards, into care, back to the parents, into care, back to the grandparents, and into care again. Child battering, although not new, is on the increase; so is wife battering.
The pattern of marriage has changed enormously this century. The returns of

1275
the Registrar-General show that in 1900, life expectancy was 44 years for a man and 47 years for a woman. In 1911 the average marriage lasted for 28 years. But because of increasing life expectancy, by 1967 the average marriage lasted 42 years and it is longer still now. It is not altogether surprising that in the course of this period of time the failure rate has increased, too. After all, it was John Gilpin's wife who said to her spouse:
" Though married we have been,
These twice ten tedious years, yet we
No holiday have seen ".
Perhaps her complaint is one that might he echoed by many others today.
Not only has the length of marriage changed, but so has the family unit. At the turn of the century, the job of parents was thought to be complete when the children had passed through adolescence, and medical practice, or rather lack of medical knowledge, meant that childbearing was indeed a very risky thing. The incidence of death among mothers was very high. But the tremendous advances of medicine have meant that, unbelievably, infant mortality dropped, from 124·4 deaths per 1,000 in 1911 to 18 per 1,000 by 1970. Fewer pregnancies are, therefore, required to maintain the population. So we have today the development of what has come to be called the " nuclear family "—father, mother, two children, living in a unit on their own, usually separated from all other relatives.
The position of women, too, has altered beyond recognition. I am not someone who subscribes to the view that all the faults inherent in the breakdown of family life can be attributed to women going out to work. Even if true, which it is not, it is not a trend which is likely to be reversed. But I am still asked, more often than anyone would think likely, whether I believe that women should work when they have children. I have always replied that, as someone who has worked throughout married life, not only to bring up three children but at a job, I am certainly not in a position to criticise, if criticism is called for.
What I think is really important is that there should be a choice for girls and for women, and that no girl should feel guilty, as some undoubtedly do now, because she chooses to devote herself full
1276
time to her family or, conversely, to have a job. There can, after all, be no more important job than bringing up a family, and the danger of too much emphasis on having a career is that those who choose to stay at home will feel that they have done so because there is absolutely nothing else they are capable of doing. It would, I think, be very dangerous for me to quote anything from the Bible in the presence of so many right reverend Prelates, but if there is something in the parable of the talents it is, I believe that each person must develop the talents that he or she has and that each should have a choice.
What I think is undoubtedly true is that there are now tremendous pressures on girls during a very short number of years of their lives. Before the war, a girl left school at the age of 14, she went out to work, she met her boyfriend, she married him a few years later and, over the space of about 15 or 20 years, she had her family. This process took up a very large proportion of her life, so that each big experience was divided from the next one by quite a number of years. Now, the race is on to grow up and to grow up very quickly. Before a girl has left school at 16 she already has her boyfriend, she gets her job, she marries and, by 25, the chances are that she has had two children. Every great emotional experience has happened within a space of less than ten years. All these emotionally very testing experiences come very quickly together. I am not altogether sure that it is surprising that, at 30, a great many of them either collapse from a kind of nervous exhaustion as a result of having been through too much, or quite simply adopt the modern phenomenon of walking out. I believe this is another trend; husbands are astonished to come home one evening to find that the wife has gone for no apparent reason, and leaving them with the children. I suspect it is because the wife has been through too much too quickly and simply cannot manage at all.
At the same time, while all these enormous changes are taking place, we must, I believe, be living through a time which later generations may well describe as the age of cynicism. Cynics of the past—and I believe there have been some very distinguished ones—usually confined their pamphlets or their remarks to a relatively small, sophisticated circle, and

1277
they operated against a background of moral certainty as to what was right and what was wrong. Now, cynicism, which is often most amusingly presented and presented as good entertainment, has been directed at all institutions, including marriage and the family; they are subjected to this cynicism and sometimes simply to light-hearted sneering not because they are not good but because, like all human institutions, they are not perfect. Nor indeed is there a background of stability of belief to help people.
My Lords, what can be done? I would very strongly support the most reverend Primate in his remarks about housing. Housing is basic to the family unit; it is an absolute requirement. I do not intend to be contentious this afternoon, nor, I hope, to make contentious remarks on what is bound to be a highly contentious subject. But I believe we have succeeded in creating a situation in this country where we have more homeless families, more empty properties, longer council house waiting lists and more under-occupation, all at the same time. I feel certain that we could do better. I believe that housing ought to be something that we could resolve. I myself have tried in the course of the last year to suggest two or three practical ways out of the logjam. I believe that it is in this House that we could discuss between the Parties the areas where we have agreement and where we could reach agreement in order to make matters better. I would be prepared to go as far as I can to find any way forward out of what I regard as a tragic situation for the young.
I believe that relatively small amend-ments of the Rent Act would allow people to let part of their own homes and be able to regain possession of their property. This would enormously help young couples, and it would help to reduce under-occupation. I believe that a vastly more flexible arrangement for housing for the elderly would enable them to move, for example, to new towns, where there are many young couples, and so enable young couples to have grandmothers nearer to them. I believe this is not without the bounds of possibility. It is, after all, an administrative matter. I believe that we have learned a great deal about the break-up of whole communities and the dis-astrous policies of redevelopment rather
1278
than rehabilitation. I hope that no future Government will encourage the building of high-rise flats and the des-truction of whole communities.
Secondly, I think we could look at changes in taxation. There are still a great many anomalies. Although I do not intend to enlarge on the technicalities of this situation, far too frequently a married couple who are both working find themselves far worse off than they would be if they were living together. Surely, that cannot be a desirable state of affairs. Furthermore, child allowances paid to married couples have not in any way kept pace with inflation. I very much regret what has happened to the child benefit scheme, which would have helped those families which are least well off. It is a tragedy that that scheme was dropped. Furthermore, the level of taxa-tion is such that, in many cases, a man is now better off out of work than he is in work. That in itself cannot be helpful to the family. I return very strongly to the policy of my own Party on tax credits, which we would have introduced had we been returned to Government in February 1974. This is a scheme which would have helped the most vulnerable members of families—children, separated wives and the old—without the need for means-tested benefits.
I am not sure that I altogether go along with the most reverend Primate in his plea for a Minister for the Family. But I take his point that there is a need for far more co-ordination between Depart-ments and a far greater drive between Departments to get something done. My right honourable friend Sir Keith Joseph, when he was Secretary of State for Social Services, initiated a scheme, based on the Department of Health and Social Security, for parent education. That seems to have lapsed. It is not clear how far the Department of Education and Science was ever committed to it. The present Departmental working party on marriage guidance was set up by the Home Office in conjunction with the Department of Health and Social Services, but with the latter as a junior partner, and the Department of Education and Science, I believe, was not involved at all. It does seem to me, if these facts are correct—and I believe them to be so—that there is a need for far greater co-ordination and co-operation to help the family.

1279
Lastly, I believe that we need a new climate of opinion. I said a few weeks ago when we were debating social policies that parents must at all times be encouraged to accept their parental responsibilities. Far too often we provide a situation in which they can off-load them on to teachers, social workers or somebody else. It happens not necessarily from ill-intent but because the teacher asks the parents to come to the school, the parents do not come, and the teacher acts unilaterally instead of taking steps to find the parents and to involve them at all stages in the important decisions in their child's life.
I would very strongly support what has been said about early marriage. I think that intense pressures are put on young people to grow up far too quickly; they are made to feel that there is nothing else for them but to have a girl/boy friend at the earliest possible age. I believe that we need a campaign for education for family life, not within the narrow confines of sex education—as if sex were something that can be divorced from people—but education based on an understanding that, for those entering marriage, it is a serious and responsible job and one that involves very hard work indeed. We need far greater understanding for young people to understand what the responsibility of having children really is. A great many people talk nowadays of their rights, but a baby really has a natural right to two parents and to a home. And what I think is so frequently not understood is what very hard work it is to bring up a family.
I was very touched last autumn when the House sat all night on the Community Land Bill and many people very kindly said to me afterwards, " You know, I do admire your stamina doing that all night ". I was tempted to say to some of them, " I have brought up three children and I have, before now, sat up all night with a sick child." I know something about very long hours of work, and I knew it a long time ago. It is not the same kind of work but, believe me, it is a very great worry, and that is what so much of family life is about. It is not something glamorous out of the colour supplement of a Sunday newspaper, to be looked at in the middle of the afternoon in a deck chair in the garden; it is something that requires a great deal of very hard work.
1280
Family life is, after all, what people really want, for who does not want to be loved, and to love? Family life still provides the basis of our society and the greatest opportunities for individuals to create their own homes, each of which will be unique, and, in so doing, to make his or her greatest contribution to our country.
3.53 p.m.
Lord SELWYN-LLOYD: My Lords, I ask your indulgence for several reasons. First of all, this is the first speech that I make in your Lordships' House; secondly, it is the first speech that I have made in Parliament for nearly six years; and, thirdly, the older I get, the less I like making speeches or, indeed, making them up. In the other place, my task was really fairly easy: " Order ! Order !" or, " That is not a proper point of order" does not need a great deal of previous thought. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, this is not the first maiden speech I have made in this Chamber. My first one was over 30 years ago. I made it on the Second Reading of a very controversial Bill, the Trades Disputes and Trade Union Bill. I am afraid I made a very controversial speech, and broke all the rules. I even succeeded in getting an angry Attorney-General to interrupt me during my maiden speech. When I sat down I received a charming note of congratulation—I made the speech from where the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, is now sitting—from the occupant of the Convervative Front Bench. I was very pleased to get it. But somewhat to my disappointment, I saw that it was addressed to Brigadier A. R. W. Low. I am glad to think that the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, really did not suffer very much in his future career from that case of mistaken identity.
The Motion raises very many issues and problems, and on the general approach I agree with much of what has already been said. I was filled with admiration for the broad sweep of the most reverend Primate's speech. I agree very much with what he said about housing, unemployment, and the trivialisation of sex. With regard to the Minister for the Family, I am afraid I lean rather to what the Lord Chancellor said. I could not help being reminded of what Elizabeth I said to Speaker Puckering in, I think, about 1584:

1281
" Let there be no laws in this Parliament, there being many more already than be well executed."
I thought it was tempting to say, but of course, it might be thought controversial, that there are many more Ministries already than be well occupied.
With, I hope, appropriate brevity, I want to say something about three matters which, in my judgment, affect family life. First, the position of the ageing members of the family. I declare an interest. I am not exactly in the first flush of youth myself, and am a member of a large and closely-knit family and, therefore, my interest, I suppose, is enlightened self-interest. Also, I am chairman of the appeals committee supporting the Lord Mayor of London's Age Action Year Appeal. I am told that in this country we are very good at looking after geriatrics, looking after people when they are old, and our geriatric service is the envy of many overseas. But what we are not doing is to attack with sufficient vigour the prevention of senility. As the Lord Mayor put it, " We are one of the few countries in the world where there is no central co-ordinated body set up to research into old age and the process of ageing." This is very much a family matter, as the most reverend Primate has pointed out.
I firmly believe in the three-tier family: ones where the grandparents play an important part. A much loved grandmother, as has already been said, can do a great deal for the family, and not only the usual chores of mending, shopping, cooking, and baby sitting and taking the children out. I adopt at once, so that I keep the right side of the Sex Discrimination Act, the grandfather as a " man grandmother " for this purpose. But in addition to doing those chores, the grandparents are very often people in whom the grandchildren find it easier to confide than in their own parents. Then it begins: forgetting where the spectacles have been put; forgetting where the money has been put; forgetting whether the medicine has been taken; forgetting what the message was they had to give; and the failure to remember names; the failure to recognise members of the family; the inability to follow a conversation, looking and listening but not understanding; finally obvious confusion
1282
and distress—in fact, complete senility. At first, received with sorrow and sympathy, then, perhaps, impatience and annoyance and finally perhaps discord in the family as to what is to be done.
If that process can be halted, if it can be halted only for a year or two in each case so that the mind remains healthy, surely it is a very great benefit indeed, not only for the older people themselves but for the family. But we lack the proper research facilities into the facts and causes; the flow of blood; medication; reasons for loss of memory; diet; et cetera. I am told that almost all research into gerontology in this country is carried out alongside other mainstream projects. Certainly those projects should continue, but in addition we need specialised units for research with chairs of gerontology. There are none now. We are behind the United States, France, Switzerland, Holland. The Soviet Union is spending a great deal of money on this kind of research at the present time as well as other Eastern European countries. On present trends in the next fifteen years the number of senile old people will increase by 60,000. There is an obvious case for a national foundation, and that is a major objective of the Lord Mayor's Appeal.
The second matter which I wish to raise is a very different one; it is the strain upon family life caused by one of the children being mentally handicapped or autistic, a strain often leading to an agonising choice. The mother of a mongol son said to me the other day, " I love him very much, but he is getting too strong for me ", and there may be other children in the family to consider. But what is to be done if the child has to leave home? I have become very interested in a type of project now receiving more attention and support, the kind of residential home, sponsored, for example, by the Home Farm Trust, of which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, is president, and with which I am associated, where mentally handicapped young people can live with sufficient land for them to grow food, to look after animals, learn carpentry and other trades. The work is therapeutic in itself but is also useful and helpful over costs and there is no arbitrary change at the age of 16. There really have been some remarkable results and some remarkable improvements.

1283
In the Wirral, my home, a similar project is being attempted for autistic children. Suitable premises have been acquired and are being prepared. This is a very difficult field indeed but the Somerset Court Autistic Adolescent Community has shown what can be done. The advantages are several. Although the capital costs are considerable—and in these days must he raised, for the most part, privately, although it would be ungracious if I did not express gratitude to the Department of Health and Social Security for one substantial allocation of money—capitation fees from local authorities cover most of the running costs. The parents can continue to take a close interest and, as I have said, there is no change at 16 years of age. There is always the chance of such improvement that the child can live at home again and he re-absorbed into the family unit.
The third matter to which I wish to refer, a very different one, relates to the family background to truancy and the standard of learning attained by some children. I spoke the other day to a young and keen schoolmaster teaching at a school in a poorer area of a big city. He gave figures for the truancy rate and I found them absolutely staggering, as were the figures of those who went to school but could not read or write and those who left unable to read or write, and he said that the parents could not care less; they could not care less whether their children went to school or whether they learned anything if they did go. That was a cry of despair from an enthusiast and idealist. I have no doubt that there are exceptions, perhaps many exceptions, and that there are parents who do care, but I am afraid that there is a lot of truth in what he said. And what sort of family life can that attitude mean; latch-key children, if they have latch-keys, or otherwise they are in the streets or wherever else they go.
A long-term solution is, I think, very difficult indeed and obviously it will never be a 100 per cent. solution, and whatever it is it will have to be arrived at by a combination of measures which will take a long time to develop. However, in the short-term there are ways to help: by providing a sort of substitute for the firm family base which such children lack, as can be provided by voluntary organisations, boys' clubs, youth
1284
movements and the like. I know that many of your Lordships are interested in that kind of work, but I still think that it is a field of endeavour which is inadequately tilled but which could yield rich harvests. I do not think that there is anything like enough support from the community in general, although there are many dedicated individuals working in it. The relevance of this to the subject under discussion today is the hope that these young people can be so influenced in this way, can be given a kind of firm base, that when they themselves marry they will be determined to provide for their children something better than they had.
My Lords, to sum up, under my first heading I ask for support for the Lord Mayor of London's Appeal in this Age Action Year, for the dissemination of the facts, making known the need to move forward in the study of ways to prevent senility. Under my second heading, while realising that the capital costs must be raised privately for the most part, I would urge local authorities and Ministries to continue to help with the capitation fees and perhaps sometimes with materials or services. Under my third heading, I ask for such financial help as is possible and I am sure that many of us hope for a big boost from the response to the Jubilee Trust Appeal next year. Meanwhile, I ask for acceptance that voluntary effort independently organised has a big part to play. There is need for more backing and more interest from public authorities, private concerns and individuals. I believe that along each of these very different paths help can be given to family life. It is not just money. It is interest, support, concern and faith: and if these are there to a sufficient extent they can indeed move mountains.
4.4 p.m.
The Duke of NORFOLK: My Lords, I have the good fortune to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, on his maiden speech. His fame in another place has preceded him here and I can see by the way he spoke that we are all extremely pleased to have him come to our counsels. My Lords, the right reverend Primate has already men-tioned some figures and I hope that your Lordships will allow me to mention some more, but they are in no sense mathe-

1285
matical figures. I mention them because I do not think the real gravity of the problem has yet been brought out in the speeches I have heard so far.
The first Divorce Act was passed in 1857 and it took a century before I million people had been divorced. The second million people were divorced in the next 15 years and the third million in the next six years; and such is the progression. Today, one marriage in four ends in divorce. In 1973, the last year for which I have figures, there were 171,000 children of divorced families. That is an army of children. To put it another way, the number is equal to the present strength of the British Army. What are we to do about it? I have five points to make and I make them with great sincerity, hoping that the Government will do something about this problem. I do not make them as comments or debating points but as points for action.
My first point is the need to increase the resources of health visitors and community nurses. These are the people who go round and know what is happening and can, if possible, prevent divorces starting. We must do all we can to prevent them because there is often no question of trying to cure them at a later stage when the harm has been done. When a marital relationship is going wrong it is the health visitor who gets to know about it, but health visitors are too few in number. The same applies to community nurses, and I should like to see the Government increase their num-bers.
My second requirement, if I may put it that way, is for State aid to be given to the two marriage research centres in this country. The most reverend Primate has already referred to Dr. Dominian, who has established a marriage research centre at Middlesex Central Hospital, and I must declare that I am the president of this marriage research centre, and a friend of Dr. Dominian. He happens to he a Christian, like me, and he turned to me as someone who had changed his name and thought I might he able to help; whether I do help people by having changed my name it is difficult to know. In any event, he has received no State aid at all—the only State aid that he has received is in the sense that he is not being charged rent within the hospital
1286
for the Crown land on which his little research centre works. This research centre is the result of about £100,000 having been collected by the charity of which I am now the president. The other research centre is the Tavistock Centre, which has now moved to St. John's Wood, and I gather that that, too, gets very little State aid. In my view, something should be done about this at once.
My third requirement is for the Government to think very seriously about the most reverend Primate's suggestion of setting up a Minister for Family Life and I completely take up cudgels with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this. We have done so much in our social security arrangements—so much to prevent starvation and so on—but much of it has resulted in family life being on a more awkward plane; people can be more selfish; and I should like to see a Minister for Family Life. Naturally he would he in the Department of Health and Social Security, but there ought to be a Department watching what is happening every time something comes up. I understand that there is a similar situation in the United States of America and, I believe. on the Continent, too.
I come now to my final point, but it is by no means the least important; in fact I put it at the end so that I can sum up with it. The point is that something should be done about rescuing the Churches from their financial plight. I realise that this may be thought to be a slightly different subject, but the most important element in preserving families is the Christian Churches. It needs to be said and said over again: how can anybody imagine that the decay of Christianity has done anything but have a very poor effect on the family life? The ease with which divorces have taken place, and the legislation which goes through, threatens the families, and the marriage contract now has become no more than a relationship. It is the Churches which are perhaps the residue of those who are trying to keep it as a contract—I need hardly say that I am referring also to the other Churches besides the Christian Churches; I am referring to the Humanist societies which also are concerned with families.
When one comes to think about it, the Churches are short of money; they

1287
are trying to repair buildings which are inherited and it is not necessarily their duty at all. In England the Church schools have to pay 15 per cent. of their costs at present, whereas in Scotland the Church of Scotland was wise enough to get a Bill passed so that the Scottish religious schools are provided entirely by the State. It is in matters of this kind that we should try to help our Churches. I sum up by saying that the best marriage counsellor who would, I hope, prevent divorces from taking place is the priest visiting his parish.
4.13 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in a debate of this kind, and it is a particular privilege to be able to endorse and underline everything that has been said by previous speakers—one can say that only very rarely at this stage in a debate. I refer first to the very thoughtful, compassionate and understanding introduction by the most reverend Primate, which was followed by the eloquent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd. His speech was charming not only in its brevity and its wit, but also in its humanity. I also wish to endorse the remarks of my noble friend (if I may so refer to her) Lady Young. Many of the remarks which I intended to make were of a similar character to hers and so I can now strike them from my notes.
I start the day in a way in which perhaps many of your Lordships are not privileged to do. I take my five-year-old grandson to school each morning, and during the day my mother, who is a 95-year-old of great energy and enthusiasm, is visited either by one of her grandsons or great-grandsons. So I am happy to inform the most reverend Primate that in one particular at any rate the family is alive and well and living in Fulham. Therefore I should like in my short contribution to pay tribute to the mums—the mothers of the nation. I sometimes think that a very gloomy picture is painted in this respect. I see the mothers each morning with two or three small children, all beautifully dressed. They go to the school in the rain and in the snow and, as has been the case more recently, in the warm weather to ensure that their children are at school by nine o'clock.
1288
Only a woman can appreciate what this means.
This represents much energy, love and concern, and I have had the privilege of working with this group for a long time now. They live in the kind of conditions about which so many of your Lordships have already expressed concern—these wretched high-rise blocks of flats. They live in old centres of decaying cities, surrounded by demolition or areas where people dump all their rubbish and where there is no real open space for the children to play. They live in expanded towns, or in some of the new out-county estates. These are soulless, vast places, without any of the amenities that make life bearable. Through all this they not only survive but create a wonderful family life.
I remember on one occasion visiting a young wife in what was laughingly called " temporary housing accommodation ". I told her, " I think you are terrific. You have four small children and a lovely home, and it is all thanks to you." Tears came to her eyes, and she said, " No one has ever said that to me before, whereas the girl down the road, who has been cruel to her children, has had support and help from four social workers." Do we say, " Thank you " enough to the people who really do the job well? Or do we constantly look towards those who have fallen down on it? No one, whether he be extreme Left or extreme Right, would deny that the family is the basic centre of a stable society. It is a unit linked together. But it must be a unit linked together by the right kind of ties; by love, by respect for one another, and by a recognition that each person is a separate human being.
The mother has a very unique role. No other human relationship has exactly the same delicate link with another human being. We in our society do not always help the mother to carry out her very special responsibilities. I sometimes get the feeling that in this country we do not really like children. We certainly do not make it easy for those who have to move about with very small children. I recently saw a pregnant mother struggling up an escalator with two small children, and of all the dozens of people passing by I, a grandmother, was the only one to step forward to do anything about it.

1289
One travels on public transport every day and sees the inconvenience and the difficulties to which the mother with small children is subjected. I have in mind, for instance, when the mother goes shopping, or when she visits a hospital, and may have with her other children besides the child NN ho is being taken for treatment. I wonder whether any of your Lordships have ever had to try to take the clothes off one child to enable the doctor to examine it, while trying to keep an eye on two other toddlers, to see whether they are running up and down the cor-ridors.
I sometimes think that we even design our cities to make life difficult. Have you ever tried pushing a pram up and down rough kerbstones, which are certainly not designed for this kind of vehicle? The myth remains that the family is not affected by unemployment, poor living and lack of opportunities. But I shall underline what has been said this afternoon by telling your Lordships of what a young priest of my acquaintance told me of his very recent experience in a large provincial urban estate where, he said, violence within the family seems to him to spring not from what they see on television but from the frustration and the ignorance which come from lack of knowledge of sexuality and indeed from the pressures that we exert by our society. Fie made the rather witty comment that there is something very ironic in sitting in the average small house looking, on television, at the " Cinzano high life "—with all apologies to Cinzano, in case I get a writ for defamation! We increase people's expectancy of the material things and then wonder, my Lords, why that is what they devote their whole energies to obtaining.
How far do we counsel our young people in the arts and problems of marriage? Even now, instruction in parentcraft when a woman is pregnant is mainly a voluntary exercise; and while no one would employ a typist who admitted she had never touched a typewriter before, we leave a woman, having given birth to a baby, without any kind of instruction or help unless she voluntarily seeks it. It seems to be considered that there is some divine inspiration that teaches you the skills of caring for another human being. The frightening figures of
1290
child cruelty in this country show how far we still have to go.
My Lords, what of the status of women which has already been referred to? I believe that the position of the homemaker still does not get the status it deserves. If you are a home-maker—and I prefer to call a woman that rather than " a housewife "—when you fill in a tax form you describe yourself as " non-gainfully employed ". Your Lordships may ask how important this is; but from the lack of recognition within society flow the difficulties of the disabled housewife and of the widow, and indeed the fact that the woman herself, when you ask her what she does, always replies, " I am only a housewife ". To that I promptly reply, " A home-maker is the most highly-skilled and most rewarding occupation that anybody could have "; and we must say it loud and clear if we want the woman to remain as the heart of the family. There are 14 million children in this country, and the responsibility for the welfare of these children rests on a minority of the population. My Lords, 81 per cent. are in a quarter of all households, so it behoves those who do not have children to recognise that they will have to make a contribution, even though it may be through taxes and child benefits.
May I make some brief reference to the one-parent family? I take as an example a member of my staff who was first widowed, then remarried, was then deserted and has finally been divorced. She is left with the sole responsibility of bringing up four children. One day she alone must visit the doctor about one child's health; another day she must go to the headmaster to talk about the second child; another day she must discuss the problem of mortgage. These are some of the many tasks which, in a two-parent family, would have been shared by two people. There is a very large number of these one-parent families, and they are a group which merit our maximum help and support, both monetarily and in other ways.
I am not today going to harass the Government, they will be very glad to know, by asking for too many things, but may I ask them to look again at what they are doing to the child benefits scheme? It seemed to me that maybe they were considering a little too much the man's tax

1291
problems and not enough the fact that the woman derives great benefit from the child benefit being paid directly to her. And before anybody says that it is spent on gin and cigarettes, I can assure your Lordships that I know that all the mothers I see save up that little bit of money in order to go and buy some clothes, or some such thing. for their children. We need far more support for the mother and the child. We need more nursery schools. We need support and help for the working mother. Often, she has to work; she has no alternative.
My Lords, I conclude by asking your Lordships to recall that the child who has the happy, the loving and the stable family life will inevitably be the good citizen, and we are, after all, if we as Christians believe this, part of one family, and our responsibilities are to one another. I like, particularly, the thoughts of one of the Indian poets—not a Christian, hut obviously a man who loves, first of all, people, and, secondly, particularly children. He says:
" Your children are not your children but our children. You may give them your love but not your thoughts, for their thoughts dwell in the realms of tomorrow ".
4.25 p.m.
Lord ROBERTSON of OAKRIDGE: My Lords, as is customary in your Lordships' House, as I speak for the first time here I ask for your Lordships' indulgence. My plea for that indulgence is all the more strong as I find myself speaking in the middle of a long list of speakers, all of whom are much more distinguished than I am. I speak simply as one who has tried to consider the matter of the family against Christian background and teaching. In this, I have been helped by my membership of two London churches. One, South of the river, has a large and varied congregation; and the other, in the City, is attended each week by about 1,000 men and women, most of them in early adulthood, so they have a wide experience of the problems posed by the challenges today to our traditional concept of the family. In particular, their concern is that what they see as the prevailing tendency nowadays to avoid becoming committed to anything, and therefore sometimes to take the easy way out when the going gets tough, is spreading to family relationships, especially to
1292
marriage; and it is on this subject of commitment that I should like to base my few remarks.
With a certain amount of trepidation in this company, and at the risk of gross oversimplification, I should like to pick out three areas of Christian teaching on the family which I feel are relevant: first, that marriage should be a life-long partnership based on love; secondly, that parents and their children have duties to one another; and, thirdly, that there are certain courses of action which can damage the family and the family relationships, and which therefore should be avoided. I mention these points, not in order to moralise on them, for even if this were appropriate in your Lordships' House I am certainly not the person qualified to do so. Rather I mention them because through each of them I find a practical thought, which is that family relationships are based on commitments which can be renounced only at the cost of pain and unhappiness—tension and insecurity in the house, broken homes, runaway children and abandoned children, with all the social and psychological problems with which we are familiar. Even the tacit admission of the possibility that the commitment of marriage or parenthood can be renounced can undermine and change the family relationship, and yet the alternatives that one finds put forward to the traditional family concept are often advocated for the very reason that they seek to avoid total commitment. I find that this is contrary to Christian teaching, and therefore likely to end in unhappiness.
My Lords, the pressures on the family today have been well covered already in this debate, and we shall no doubt hear more on such points as housing, unemployment, pornography, advertising and so on—all very important. More difficult to pinpoint, but perhaps no less serious, is the widespread and possibly growing tendency to feel that there is no such thing as right and wrong except what one chooses to believe oneself. In my view, Christian teaching seeks to protect us against these and other dangers by instilling in us a sense of total commitment, so that the abandonment of our family responsibilities is not thought of as a possibility. Certainly, we should be unlike the lady I heard of who was travelling by train with a baby on her

1293
knee. She leaned across to the man opposite and said, " Here, you have a mackintosh. You take him!" Instead, it encourages us when the going gets tough—as it undoubtedly will—to find a way through by determination, by compromise and by prayer.
So that there is no misunderstanding, I should emphasise that in these remarks I am not advocating that those w ho make a disastrous mistake should be made to live with it, regardless of the consequences. That is a very different question, one which has to do with dealing with the effect of trouble rather than seeking to prevent it by helping a man or woman approach family responsibilities in the right frame of mind.
The Church with which I am associated tells me that their experience is that far too many couples approach marriage without any idea of what it involves. Without the time and resources available to them at that stage, there is little they can do. I would therefore put a question similar to that put by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I would ask whether more could not be done through the educational and social services to help those who might at some future time bear any family responsibility to understand the nature and extent of the commitments involved and the degree of commitment required. I would urge the Government to make every effort to make this an essential part of sex education and preparation for parenthood in the schools. At the same time, I think we should note the value of religious education in this connection.
Furthermore, I wonder whether the social services could not provide, and give publicity to, greater facilities for counsell-ing before marriage. If this leads to fewer broken marriages, then money would be saved in another direction. I would ask the Government to work through those voluntary organisations in this field and only those whose teaching is based on the committed family. To end, I would thank the most reverend Primate for introducing this debate and for the way in which he did so. It has been an honour to take part in it.
4.33 p.m.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, it is a very genuine pleasure to be able to offer
1294
the congratulations of the whole House to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. I can remember how very nearly paralysed with nerves I was when I first addressed your Lordships' House. He has acquitted himself with great distinction and I am quite sure that we all look forward to hearing him on many future occasions. Next, I should like to say how much I enjoyed and how much I agree with the speeches made by the two noble Baronesses, one on either side of the House.
If I may, rather than look at family disintegration or break-up or divorce statistics, I should like to pose the question of whether there is such a thing as " normal family life ". I believe there is, and I believe most of your Lordships will have grown up experiencing such a thing and that we can all recognise it when we see it and meet it. To my mind for normal family life to be present one first needs two parents. One needs the spiritual factor of loving and affectionate relationships between all members of the family. Preferably this should be backed up by a commitment to permanent lifelong marriage. In addition one needs the material factors of an adequate roof over the family's head and an adequate income.
Having said that, may I now look at certain things which militate against normal family life. Two of them have already been touched on in this debate. make no apology for returning to them. First, housing stress: the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor touched on this as did the most reverend Primate who mentioned the difficulties of young families living with their in-laws and other families living in appallingly bad physical housing conditions. I would mention the statutory homeless, those who have lost or who have never had a home of their own, and those families who are obliged to live in premises where no children are allowed. There are other families who suffer from gross overcrowding, and others who are obliged to share the basic facilities of cooking and washing. It does not require much imagination to envisage the effect that these conditions have on family life.
Secondly, there have been several mentions of the difficulties that face the one-parent family. My noble friend Lady

1295
Young touched on this, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. This whole question has been extensively researched by the Finer Committee and I think we are beginning to see that the one-parent family is an amputated family. We know some cases are only temporary: for example, the wives and children of men in prison. But others are much more permanent, and I am thinking of widows, deserted, separated and divorced wives. It is among this group that we find the combination of bad housing and low income. It is among this group that there is a very great burden placed on the one parent who has to take on the roles of both father and mother.
Another category of families greatly at risk and in need of help are those in which one member of the family suffers from a handicap. This may be a physical handicap, the effect on the family of which will strike anyone and I will not say much about that. I will leave that to my noble friends on the " mobile benches ". I should like to say a little more about the families with a mentally handicapped member. This is something which is less obvious to the general public. But such simple things as arranging a holiday or getting the services of an experienced and knowledgeable baby-sitter may pose real difficulties. The stresses on a marriage where there is a mentally handicapped child can be very great. I would mention such things as the fear that subsequent children may also be born handicapped and the worry about the future of the handicapped child when the parents grow old or eventually die.
It may be said that the factors I have just mentioned affect only a minority of the families in this country. That may be true, but I would reply that housing stress already affects an intolerable proportion of all families. I would point out that children in one-parent families exceed I million and that more handicapped children are being born year by year, that more of them survive and more of them live to grow up into handicapped adults.
We know that this is a time of economic stringency and that little, if any, money is available for new projects even to help such deserving categories of families. But I would ask that more ingenuity be devoted to them: that we work harder and think
1296
harder about their problems: that we should give greater scope to individual responsibility and that we do not leave everything to he done by official bodies: that we should try to enlist greater voluntary help and greater self-help so that whatever the difficulties and temporary problems all families throughout the whole nation may be enabled to enjoy normal family life. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke about a call to the nation. This to my mind is the call which should go out. I hope that it will be taken up by the mass media and broadcast to every corner of the land that there shall be no family unable to enjoy what I have described as normal family life.
4.40 p.m.
Viscount INGLEBY: My Lords, I too should like to begin by offering sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. I very much enjoyed his maiden speech. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a declaration of the United Nations. This is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16(3). This Article states:
" The family is the natural and fundamental group-unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State ".
I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply for the Government whether the Government will now reaffirm their support for this Article. I should also like to draw your Lordships' attention to the UNICEF Declaration of the Rights of the Child. 1959, in which Principle 2 states:
"… the child shall enjoy special protection, and shall he given opportunities and facilities, by law, and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually, and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity"
I would ask your Lordships whether freedom from pornography, which at the present time shouts at us from so many different places as we pass by, is not a protection which we should give to our children and young people. I think it is generally admitted that the definition of, " tendency to deprave and corrupt " is one which has not worked in practice. I wonder whether a simple definition of " gross indecency " to be decided by the jury would not be more helpful. It would have to be accompanied by a

1297
change in the right of challenge of the jury which at the present time, with often the printer, publisher and author involved, gives 21 challenges which are used very cleverly to result in a very young jury. When I was young I thought that more or less anything went. Now I am a little older and perhaps a little wiser—although still one of the youngest Members of your Lordships' House—I realise that there are a great many things in life which if just let go will lead to unhappiness for someone. I feel that the effect of pornography is in this category, and I should like to ask the Government whether they can tell us what their thinking is on this matter.
My Lords, I should also like to make a reference to incest. This surely must be one of the most harmful influences on family life. It must produce enormous stress on those concerned. Of course the law must be applied flexibly and humanely; but to alter the law itself would surely imply approval of an act which the great majority of people would regard as abhorrent. I suggest to your Lordships that the same arguments apply to the age of consent. So often the influence of the media seems to he directed against family life. Of course, family life is not perfect; I know my own is far from perfect. Nor are the media perfect. either. I feel that they could use their great influence in support of family life rather than in making fun of it. I believe it was Burke who said:
" For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing ".
I suggest that this is the time for all good men, particularly in the media, to do all they can for the family.
4.45 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I should first of all like to apologise to the most reverend Primate for the fact that, due to along-standing business engagement, I was unable to hear the main part of his speech. Hearing just the last 10 minutes of his speech convinced me how very worth while this debate has already been. Listening as I occasionally do early on Sunday mornings to an admirable programme entitled " Sunday ", I and others have heard the most reverend Primate's words of wisdom as well as those of others in a programme which can teach one a
1298
great deal about family life, not only in this country but throughout the world through the medium of the Church. I should also like to join in the congratulations already extended to the noble Lords, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, and Lord Robertson of Oakridge, on two outstandingly brilliant maiden speeches—often may they be heard in further debates in your Lordships' House.
At a time when Parliament is tending to tear itself apart—at least metaphorically —it is a characteristic measure of the sanity of your Lordships' House that we should debate a subject which transcends Party politics and which I think transcends religions. The family is surely the root of our life. Like many of your Lordships, I am a lather of teenage children—if one can still call them " children " these days—and one who has just left her teens. Frequently, we disagree with their views, as they do with ours, but in the last analysis, a reconciliation of views very often transpires. My own daughters, aged 20 years and 17 years, are both active members of the Church. One is at teacher-training college at Nottingham. She is a pillar of activity in one of the churches in the centre of the city. The other daughter helps to read to elderly people and has recently taken on a part-time Sunday job in helping elderly people, since she is hoping to be a nurse.
All this brings me into contact with people in all walks of life and with all branches of family life. Mention has been made of the elderly. Before the reorganisation of the National Health Service, I served on the House Committee of one of the seven mental hospitals in the area in Surrey where I live and I have seen something of the geriatric problem there. In many cases—and this is probably so all over the country— these elderly people are not necessarily in hospital because they are mentally unstable. They are there because, through many circumstances, they have no family which is available or willing to look after them.
A case was mentioned only yesterday in Cheshire about the ruling of the Registry authority on an edict that elderly people in a mental hospital in the Cheshire area should be allowed to vote. The Recorder of Warrington has decreed that they should be allowed to vote, even though they have no families or people

1299
to look after them and are therefore resident in a mental establishment, because they are of sound enough mind to know what is going on around them. I believe that that is quite right and that they should be allowed to register their vote. This, one hopes, will bring them into some further contact with family life.
Many years ago one's concept of the family centred round the piano, with the father, or at any rate some fathers, leading the singing. Nowadays, perhaps, life is lived rather more round the tele-vision screen, except that, if there is more than one generation, there may be differences of opinion as to which channel should be chosen. Who among us has not had such an experience? We all know what tact and talent for arbitration is needed to sort out this problem.
In most cases it is the mother or the wife who has to cope with the difficulties in the home. I know of the experience of my own life. My wife, like many Members of your Lordships' House, is a magistrate and thus comes into contact with many family problems. After her work, she comes home and from time to time may well face problems with our own children. I get home after a problematical day at business or a long sitting in your Lordships' House and perhaps I may not be in the best of tempers. It cannot be too strongly stressed that our wives have an enormous amount to cope with—and how well they cope, even if at times we are critical and say things which can hardly be described as kind, and which certainly do not conduce to good family life.
Turning to children, even now there is the problem of the " latch key " child—the child of seven or eight, who comes home after school with no parent in the house, both father and mother possibly being at work. Particularly during the winter, it is necessary to get some heating going and this can have tragic cones-quences. These things all cause dangerous pressures on family life.
It is fitting that the highest representative of the Church of England should so admirably have moved the Motion we are debating today. I believe it brings us back to reality and it will, I hope, help to reunite our nation at a time when family life is in some danger of disinte-
1300
grating because of a number of reasons already mentioned. For example, we have an all too liberal society in which too much freedom seems to be given. I believe that there are tendencies now, particularly among the young, to do a complete switch-over, though not necess-arily to Victorianism. The fact is that, having seen some of their friends under the influence of drugs, pornography, and so on, they have realised the consequences of these things. Perhaps previously they may have pooh-poohed such results and may have accused parents of being out of touch or " not with it ", and so on.
Looking to the future, as one must, we may well find future generations adopting a harder and perhaps a more Christian attitude to the bringing up of children. One thing is quite certain: whatever may be said in some sections of the popular media, in the church in the village in Surrey where my family and I live, young and old certainly co-operate strongly in the running of the church. We are fortunate in having an outstandingly fine rector and some very good curates. The young people work very hard in a number of groups and the church is nearly always reasonably full, particularly in the evenings. I believe that it is through the Church that family life will ultimately succeed or fail.
4.57 p.m.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, I am pleased to hear that since our debate on pornography there have been profitable discussions with the Home Secretary and that the whole question of obscene display has received a sympathetic hearing. Looking at our Hansards, we seem to produce quantities of words in this House, and it is encouraging to feel that our words sometimes have a good effect. Let us hope that that will be the case today.
At one time I would have considered that a personal, stable, one-to-one relation-ship out of which grew family life, with its ties and pattern of life, was an essential part of human nature. I think this was everybody's ideal—the dream of young love—but one becomes increasingly familiar, in personal as well as national life, with the fact that stability is not the outcome of many such relationships. whether or not that was the original idea.

1301
It is rather easy to say, " I think most people want this or that ", because we want to believe it. But human nature being what it is, we are rarely satisfied with what we have. We want freedom for ourselves and restrictions for others.
As children, we thought that everything was as it seemed to be and it is only as we get older that we realise that this is not so. We all act a part, but the adult occasionally sees behind the mask of families. We do not always find marital bliss: in fact, it is rather rare. Many start off expecting bliss, and many settle for very much less. Some people seem to become very cruel as the years go by. Some men become domineering as they get older and wives become slaves, but I hasten to say that this works in reverse also.
We are all striving for a relationship that will flower, give pleasure and bring forth fruits of comfort, security and companionship, but often we are contemptuous of those with whom we arc familiar and cruellest to those to whom we should be kindest, and the fruits of the harvest are dry and bitter. We are often more charitable towards strangers than we are to our own kith and kin. This is one of the facets of human nature that is very destructive of marriage.
Do not let us waste our time with allusions to the family joys of the good old days. We cannot make any comparison between 1976 and 1876. If. in 1876, a man had a comfortable home, he was the lucky one. Not only his home but his security for old age, not just his heart but his treasure, was a careful hardworking wife. And it was together, and by staying together, that theycould provide the necessities of life for themselves and their children, and put aside something for a rainy day.
But what have we today? The State has taken over the rôle of family provider. Just as the use of insecticides has produced an unexpected chain reaction upsetting the balance of nature, so we have the paradox of good intentions producing harmful results. To give one example, a young girl with a part-time job has just moved into a quite expensive flat. I wondered how she managed with only part-time work, and her reply was:"
1302
"Well, if I worked full-time I could not afford it. Now social security pays." The State now provides for families that would not have existed in the past. The weak, the idle and the incapable were weeded out by the harsh realities of life.
We have the recent case of a man with 11 children receiving £70 a week in social security benefits, a man who has been kept in idleness by the State for six years receiving far more for doing nothing than my husband does for working full-time. How many men can take home £70 a week after tax? In my home town of Hastings, in May, there were 1.776 unemployed people, but one local firm may have to turn away business because it cannot get enough workers. These cases are common, causing great discontent, and the lesson for youth—tomorrow's family—is clear. The old way is over. There is an easier, better way to live. My Lords, it is the way to disaster for us all.
My view on the survival of' the family as we know it today is pessimistic. Society has changed too much and too quickly. There is a malaise spreading through the country. Weakness and idleness seem to he encouraged. Vandalism, hooliganism, muggings and crimes of violence are on the increase. We seem to have lost the standard of public be-haviour that was once our national pride. The turmoil of the street reflects the instability of the home.
Our people have turned to Mammon and dance again around the golden calf, and worship at the altars of the pound sterling. Mene-Mene-Tekel-Upharsin. The writing is on the wall for us, and our modern Daniel, Solzhenitsyn, has translated it clearly. Could our debate serve as did the warning of Jonah to Nineveh, it would have served some purpose. Let our leaders, men like Mr. Callaghan and Mr. Jenkins who have greatly impressed the nation with their integrity and decency, proclaim, as did the King of Nineveh, a new order, a new priority that will turn us back as a nation to the straight and narrow path.
5.4 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: I am a great admirer of the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, but I cannot in the time

1303
available attempt to do justice to her or to the other 10 previous speakers. I must rather try to do more justice to the 15 who are to follow me, and I can do that only by keeping a much closer eye on the clock than I did on the last occasion when I addressed your Lordships. But I must, at least, pay tribute to the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop, who is clearly recovering from his exceptional labours, for his great initiative and splendid oration: and to the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, of whom the same appears to be true. But the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is with us and I can, at least, salute him and refer to his speech as one of the highest quality. He brings to this House an honoured name which he himself will clearly make still more honoured.
With the 15 speakers to follow never far from my thoughts, I assure your Lordships that I propose only to lay down a few simple propositions, and I trust you will forgive me if they are not argued at length. We can all agree that the strength and stability of the family is essential to the health of our society. Nobody is likely to challenge that—certainly, nobody who has spoken or, I hope, who is likely to speak later. Secondly, we can agree that for this purpose love and security in the home provide by far the best background. Thirdly, I hope we can go further and agree that this same atmosphere of love and security is much more likely to arise where the parents are bound together by the aspiration of lifelong loyalty, and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, dwelt on that aspect with very telling eloquence.
I was just saying, before the return of the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop, how deeply I admired his initiative and the speech with which he inaugurated this debate. Christians believe that such a lifelong pledge of loyalty is, in its turn, more likely where there is a religious conviction regarding the sacredness of marriage. God, who is love, is at the very core of a truly I Christian marriage. Parents, in the Christian view, participate with God in his own creative work and children are received and welcomed as his gifts. Nevertheless, there are many—perhaps some people here, and certainly plenty in the country—who would not call themselves religious, but who would
1304
insist that their marriages are just as satisfying and full of love as those of; Christians. While recognising that, 1 shall not pursue the religious argument further today.
My next submissions are slightly more controversial, though not, I think, out of line with anything that has been said so far. We are aware that the number of divorces has been rocketing in recent years, and the change in the divorce laws cannot be ignored in this connection. My own record in this matter is not without blemish, because I was election agent many years ago to A. P. Herbert, who introduced the Herbert Act. I feel sure that, in spite of my affection for him and his fine character, I shall do many years in purgatory for that irregularity. But I assure the House that I have not done any harm in that connection in the last 40 years.
One must regretfully conclude, leaving out the change in the laws, that the idea of the lifelong commitment, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and others, is a good deal weaker today. One cannot prove a statement of that kind, but I challenge anybody to deny that it is weaker today than it was some years ago. It has not, of course, disappeared. It still inspires, I should hope, the great majority of marriages. One hundred people admire the family life of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth for one who admires that of Elizabeth Taylor, and there is no doubt that family ideals still command the assent of the great majority of the nation. Nevertheless, this idea of commitment is a good deal weaker than it was and, if the divorce figures are any guide, it is becoming weaker with each passing year.
I am not such a pessimist as the noble Countess—who is the most cheerful-looking pessimist I have ever encountered —but I understand what she means in that connection. What is the explanation? Why is this commitment weakening? I do not myself accept the view—it can be argued—that this is all due to a decline in religious belief. I do not personally accept the view that this is a less religious country than it was when I was growing up, though one would like to see it vastly more religious than it ever was.

1305
I myself connect the rocketing of the divorce rate to some extent with the availability of contraception; but, more fundamentally, I would link it with the large extension of sexual practices outside marriage, whether before or after marriage. At any rate, the two unhappy trends— the rise in the divorce rate and the extension of sex outside marriage—undoubtedly have gone forward simultaneously, and we are entitled to seek an explanation common to both of them.
In each case one must refer to the availability of contraception, but I do not regard that as the most fundamental factor. Much more fundamental is the emergence of a far-reaching attitude which can he called a by-product of democracy—and we are all, I am sure, strong democrats in this House. I refer to the widespread opinion today that one is morally entitled to seek pleasure wherever one happens to find it: that one has not only a right but almost a duty to seek it. Everybody does not hold that view but it is very much stronger than it used to be.
The assertion of this so-called right is usually accompanied—in sophisticated quarters, at any rate—by the qualification, " so long as one does not harm others ". But this harm to others is just what indiscriminate sex has brought about throughout the ages. There may be something to he said for adultery, but we have not heard it said in this House this afternoon- and perhaps we shall not —and for the moment I cannot think what it is. But nothing more anti-social than widespread adultery can readily be imagined. Imagine a country in which adultery was universal. The mind boggles at that ghastly prospect. Certainly adultery is the most deadly antagonist of family happiness—surely that is a platitude rather than a bold assertion—and if it once became part of our normal way of life we could regard the family as finished: that indeed the time had arrived which the noble Countess fears is coming, anyway.
Many of us have dear friends whose marriages have broken down. That has been stated earlier more than once. We attach no blame to them and we would always do anything in our power to help them. In many cases their second marriages are happy and we are over-
1306
joyed that that should be so. But it is not these admirable people, a relatively small minority, who are sending the divorce figures rocketing upwards. The figures are rocketing, not as the result of any high-minded activity, but because a high proportion of the population no longer treat marriage as a life's commitment. They feel under no obligation to try to keep their marriages going, albeit under difficulties. Many of them persuade themselves that there is nothing wrong in throwing over their existing partner and gaily embarking on a new alliance. It is this point of view which is the deadly menace.
Differing a little from the noble Countess here, I am not one who believes that this country is going to the dogs. As was said earlier by the most reverend Primate—and I am very glad he began in that way so as to remove any misconceptions—in many ways I believe that our society is today vastly better than it has ever been. It is more compassionate. We are more aware of our responsibilities to those who cannot look after themselves. Whatever Party was in power, I am sure that today we would never tolerate the hell of the distressed areas, to mention only one aspect of the pre-war years. But in the all-important area of fidelity in marriage I am sure we ought to face the fact that our standards have fallen and that our performance has, not unnaturally. deteriorated. One would expect that performance to deteriorate if standards fell.
I support all that has been said and may yet be said about the positive steps that the Government should take to encourage the family spirit, including most certainly the establishment of a Minister for the Family, and I support entirely the most reverend Primate. But, in the end, the health and stability of the family will depend most of all on the degree of unselfishness and fidelity shown by fathers and mothers up and down the country. I am not for a moment a defeatist.
In the endless struggle for morality and sanity in our national life we have admittedly lost one or two battles in recent years, but whether the war is won or lost depends on ourselves in the present and in the future. This country has before now shown herself capable of moral regeneration when things looked dark. The Government cannot divest themselves

1307
of responsibility. They cannot pass the buck elsewhere—nor can the Churches, nor can any of us, particularly those of us who play our part in public life. I believe that the people of this country are, deep down, as full as ever of the ancient family virtues. I believe that, given enlightened and inspiring leadership, they will demonstrate those virtues more bravely than they have demonstrated them in recent years. I believe also that they will hand them on enhanced and, where necessary, adapted to our children and our children's children.
5.15 p.m.
Lord GLENDEVON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was good enough to tell me that his name was on the list of speakers by mistake. As mine was on it on purpose, I am ready to detain your Lordships for, I hope, not too long with one or two things that I should like to say. First, I must pay my tribute, as have others, to the most reverend Primate for initiating this debate with such an inspiring speech. Then I should like to congratulate your Lordships' House on the fact that we have got through 12 speeches in just over two hours. I hope that example may well be followed for quite a long time to come.
Now I must pay my tribute to the maiden speakers—to the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. I served exactly 20 years ago under the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, as Under Secretary of State at the Foreign Office. It is good to see that he survived that experience, and other more formidable ones, with such unruffled composure. As for the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, his assured and charming speech would have made him an excellent Speaker, had he been in another place at the right time. We look forward very much to hearing in future from both the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd.
A few years after the war when I was in another place Stanley Evans, who was then in the Labour Party—I do not think that he was a Minister then—led an all-Party delegation to Moscow. On one occasion —I was not there but some of my friends were—while they were there the Com-missar, who was host at a party raised his
1308
glass to the toast, " Here's to our relations". Stanley Evans was fairly bored with the proceedings…not without reason—by this time, and was heard to say in a rather louder tone than sotto voce, " Our relations … he can have some of mine ". He was, of course, being funny, which is why I have told the story, but it leads on to what I want now to say: that none of us who has had a happy family life can afford to be smug. Nothing is sadder than the knowledge that many families have not been, and are not, happy. Mine, from childhood onwards, has always been happy and for that I shall always be supremely grateful to those, both past and present. who have made it so.
The only point I wish to concentrate upon is the attack on the family as an institution, and I was very glad that the most reverend Primate went straight to that point in his speech. I have watched with concern the crowing tendency over the years to attack the family as an institution. This attack has by no means always been indulged in by evil men. I remember my old friend Dr. Edmund Leach's Reith Lectures in 1967. I think that he is a very good man, but in those lectures he said things which I have never forgotten and have never quite understood. He said, for instance, and I quote:
" Far from being the basis of the good society the family with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrecy "—
he meant by that a reference to monetary affairs—
" is the source of all our discontents …".
Then:
"the contemporary English monogamous neo-local nuclear family "—
whatever that is—
" with its matrifocal emphasis is historically an unusual form of domestic grouping."
If by a " neo-local nuclear family " he meant " a family " (and I take it he did), I think that is an inaccuracy. It is true that the mother and her influence are dominant in the United States of America. That of course goes hack in history to the drive to the West and the scarcity of women, but here surely the father is still very much the head of the family, and that is relevant to something I want to say in a minute.
Before that, what about the evil men and what they are trying to do? By way of a short preface, I should like to refer

1309
to an article published yesterday in The Times by its religious affairs correspondent on the response to the most reverend Primate's " Call to the Nation " of last October. I quote the correspondent:
" The letters were by no means invariably right wing, although the collective paranoia which believes in a Communist plot to overthrow the constitution of a Christian state by subverting the morals of the young was one recurrent theme."
I would submit that the phrase " collective paranoia " in this context is undeserved. It may not be the Communists but somewhere, perhaps among anarchists, there has certainly been a pattern at work, even including phraseology. Those of us who have taken trouble and who have shared the experience of friends—and very few of us have not known of some sort of trouble very near us in this sort of way—have noticed the extraordinary similarity in the way in which attacks upon parents are made. Things generally come right but it is not just a coincidence.
I wonder whether your Lordships remember that three or four years ago there was a most obnoxious document which was called, The Little Red Book. It was published in Denmark and was fairly quickly—and, in my view, quite rightly—suppressed in this country, but it was a book containing detailed instructions to very young school children (not teenagers) on how to break up relationships with their parents. The language was all of incredible viciousness. It told them how to break up relationships with their parents and their teachers and for good measure also how to stimulate each other sexually, and no detail was spared. I think we should be careful before we talk about " collective paranoia ". These things are true. There is, I have no doubt, a concerted attempt being made to drive out the central fact of a united family which, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has just said, is love.
Love, be it noted, is the most deeply significant quality—or so I myself feel—which distinguishes man from the beasts. If anybody were to take me up on that and ask, " What about mother love among the beasts? What about the love of a bitch for her puppies, of a bear for her cubs, or of a lioness for hers?" my answer would be, " Yes, all right; that is a short-lived love, but in that world there is no father love." To make my point
1310
here, it is father love rather than mother love to which I would refer. En that concept there lies a very potent weapon in the search for truth. That quality of love is the secret—is it not?—of unselfishness, and it is that that some people want to destroy. I think it is not difficult to see why, at least in some cases. It was on this note of unselfishness that the most reverend Primate dwelt in his message to the nation. He came in there, and at that point it is time for me to sit down.
5.25 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I must begin by apologising to your Lordships and particularly to the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government, in that I may possibly not be able to stay until the very end of the debate. I have no urgent engagement except the necessity to get home, but we have been getting on so well that I am hoping f may be able to stay until the very last word. I think we are all grateful to the most reverend Primate for having introduced this debate today. It has been an extraordinarily uniform debate. There has been very little opinion against what he laid down and there can be no doubt that the united family is the best background that a young person can possibly have for his future life. In its ideal form the child learns his guiding principles from his parents, and here I should like to say that there has been quite a fashion lately for saying that it is wrong to teach children principles, or anything like that. That is absolutely false. When a child is very young he needs his parents' guidance and the parents are shirking their responsibility if they do not give it. Later, when the children have matured, they begin to develop their own ideas, but guidance at the first is absolutely necessary.
Another thing, if he has brothers and sisters it is a very good school for learning to mix with other people. The fact that it is the best start for future life is known to anybody who has had anything to do with teaching. Practically all of the really difficult children in school whom one comes across are children from broken homes. It is quite extraordinary how one can trace these children. It is practically inevitable and it is not surprising. Even animals know to a certain

1311
degree when there is a discordant atmosphere in the house. Sometimes it even puts them off their food; and if an animal can sense it, how much more can a child. So that is the reason why a broken home is very bad indeed for a child. During the last few years, however, there has arisen also another fashion and that is to teach children that they must be free and that they should not bother to listen to their parents. Freedom is a word that I think has been more misused than any other. At the moment there is a great fashion for teaching the wrong type of freedom, teaching freedom where it should not exist and not giving it where it should exist. The freedom to do right should certainly always be given, but not the freedom to do wrong. Today some say that there is no such thing as right or wrong, but anybody who is a convinced Christian knows that that is an absolute fallacy. Even if one has no particular conviction one can see that anything that harms the community as a whole must be wrong. The great point is that the very young have not yet learned these things, so they need their parents' guidance. They are in urgent need of it until the time when they have formed their own standards. This guidance comes best and most effectively from their parents. Of course, a child may not always agree with its parents. I remember disagreeing very strongly with my own parents on occasions, but when I grew a little older there were many cases in which I realised that they were right and I was wrong.
Here I should like to mention again what the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. said; that is, that both parents and children can disagree with each other but it need not destroy the unity of the family. Parents can have other influences on their children. They can introduce them to new interests, encourage their progress in whatever career they decide to take up and in all sorts of ways they can enlarge their children's lives by their own experience and their own wisdom. Here I should like to join with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in paying a tribute to our mothers. Very few, if any, men have the faintest idea what tremendously hard work it is to be the mother of a family. I certainly have not the faintest idea—I have never been one—but it is terrifically hard work and many mothers carry it out superbly.
1312
There is another point. The memory of a happy childhood can be of great value in after life. It is something that can remain with one throughout one's life and give stability and confidence and happiness. It is a wonderful thing. It is of greater influence on one's life than practically anything else. I should like to make one final point which has been brought out by several other noble Lords; that is, on too early marriage. There are several reasons why I am against this: one is that young people, particularly young girls, should have the opportunity of some years in whatever profession or career they decide to take up before having to take on this laborious task of managing a family. I do not mean too long, but to start at 18 or around that age it is too much to ask of any girl. She will have had no life of her own. At that age one has not learned that there is more than one form of what is commonly known as love. At that age they look upon love as the sexual passion which they may feel for their opposite number. They do not realise that in time that wears off but its place is taken by a far more enduring and real form which is the companionate love which lasts throughout married life. That is something which I do not think the very young are capable of developing and that may account for the number of divorces among the very young. This has been a tremendously constructive debate and once again I thank the most reverend Primate for having introduced it.
5.36 p.m.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, we have been going so rapidly that I very much hope that I will not detain your Lordships for more than five or, at the most, six minutes. I do not want to make a speech so much as to ask two questions to which I do not know the answers. though I know the answers which I think are right. I may be in a minority of one. From some of the speeches during the debate I am inclined to believe that there may be some sympathy for my point of view. The question is whether there is one member of a family who is underprivileged; that is, one who is between conception and birth who has been mentioned once or twice in reference to abortion. It is an extremely important question, and will possibly be a very controversial question so I shall not waste your Lordships' time in saying

1313
how enormously I appreciated the way the most reverend Primate introduced an enormous subject in such short time, The only comment I would make on his speech is that I am in two minds about the Minister of the Family. I feel rather like G. K. Chesterton who once said he had a great belief in liberalism; all his life he kept that but as he went on he had less belief in Liberals. Some sort of a Ministry of the Family I can imagine. but I should like to reserve my opinion about the Minister. It is a very interesting suggestion, and one which people should think about.
I should also like to say how much enjoyed the two maiden speeches; an elderly maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, and if I may say so the excellent, perhaps younger man's speech by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. I agree with almost everything in each. The question of whether an unborn child is a member of the family I think is more important than whether, if so, it is underprivileged. If it is a member of the family it certainly is. I have here a quotation from a reputable gynaecologist. I will not give any statistics but as I believe that the most reverend Primate has a daughter who is a trained gynaecologist, he himself knows what is true and what is not true about the unborn.
It says:
" By the end of the third month, the unborn child has become very active. He can now kick his legs, turn his feet, curl and fan his toes, make a fist, move his thumb, bend his wrist, turn his head, squint, frown, open his mouth and press his lips tightly together; thumb-sucking is also noted at this stage, the fingernails appear and he starts to urinate."
If that is not a description of family life, I do not know what is. I am a family man only in the sense that I have been a member of a family. I am not the father of a family. But it seems to me that a child at the third month is behaving in a way that anyone who brings up a family—a point which has been ably brought up by everyone—will realise is a difficult proposition to deal with, and needs immense care. It seems that the case that an unborn child is not a member of the family needs defending by those who say it is not. A question was asked earlier in the debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, about the deaths a infants; if
1314
the word " foetus " had been substituted for the word " infant ", then the feeling of the House would have been very different.
I am suggesting that there is an arbitrary distinction between the time when a child is actually visible and when it is not visible. I do not know whether any of your Lordships saw an article in the Daily Express some time ago. I will not labour your Lordships with it, but it mentioned a child horn at 26 weeks, and the paper has a rather emotive heading, " Wrapped in love and tinfoil ". But the baby was looked after admirably by the nurses at the hospital, and survived.
In a paper called the Nursing Mirror, on 13th May 1976, there was a less emotive but I think more surprising case of a baby which was delivered at only 22 weeks, who was wrapped in rags and, according to the parents, looked like a rag doll. Both of these children survived. In either case they could have been legally killed, torn to pieces, if they had not managed to get themselves horn. In the case of one baby, it would have had two weeks still to go before the 28 weeks when it " came out of quarantine " so to speak, and in the other case, six weeks and, of course, the child I was mentioning at the third week would have had to go more than that. If that is so, if a foetus is a member of a family, it is under-privileged.
I do not mean that every family at all periods in history has always been perfectly fair. I understand that a Roman father had a right to kill any of his children at any age without giving a reason. We have been more modest. We have only allowed a mother, with the agreement of two doctors, to kill any child up to a certain age before birth; but I think they are both things which this House should continue to think about, as to whether they are right. That is one of the tasks, as well as being deputed, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, to a Select Committee in the House of Commons, which the Ministry for the Family might look into, because this is a very, very important question.
I have already spoken for several minutes. It is almost impossible to give my reasons more clearly than that for thinking that the unborn child is a

1315
member of the family. As the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said, we all have our own ideas of what is a family. His was the idea of people round the piano rather than round the television; mine is the idea of four, because I happen to be the fourth member of a family. I am a second child in a family—a father and mother, an elder sister and myself. I remember my immense relief when I was told that there was a fifth member of the family added. I felt that this was delightful, and said to myself, " As soon as she has got legs, I will he able to show her some of the things that my elder sister had not shown me ". I was immensely pleased that this should have happened, but I had not known that she was there before. Now we do know that; we have pictures of what a child in the womb looks like.
Unfortunately, we do not have visual aids in this House but I should like to be able to show to the most reverend Primate a picture by Millet called, "Peasant Family ", showing not a family of four, but a family of three. However, it is obvious that the fourth member of the family is coming. To my mind this picture explains very well what was the old idea of a family. The fact that there is a dog in one corner and two hens another is perhaps a dated French idea of a family. Another picture that comes to my mind (and I cannot remember any particular artist in connection with it) is one of the feast, coming on in two weeks' time, of the Visitation of Mary to Saint Elizabeth, in which—unlike the game of Happy Families which we used to play in my childhood, where there were two females and two males—there are two females, both visible. The point of the picture is that there are also two males, neither of whom is visible. The only reason why that incident has ever become one that affected the history of the world is that the two males who are not visible are, indeed, the point of the whole picture, one being a foetus conceived at a late age, namely, John the Baptist, and the other being the foetus unique even by standards of Christianity or of any uniqueness; the only foetus in history who cannot be described literally, as "Someone Christ died for". That description would apply to any other foetus except Our Lord. That is all I have to say. I am sorry to have taken so long.
5.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER: My Lords, the most reverend Primate must realise by now that it is in no formal sense that we have thanked him for raising the important subject of the family. It concerns that part of his call to the nation which is, perhaps, most suitable for discussion in a general legislative assembly. I am sure that by the end of the debate much wisdom will have been expressed and we can only hope that some of it will percolate through to the general public. I count it a particular honour to be speaking in a debate marked by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd. It seems only a little while to me, although it is in fact a matter of 50 years, since I used to see his name announced. as it was in those days on the Union Society announcements in Cambridge, as "Mr. J. S. B. Lloyd of Magdalen College ". Since then it has been his lot the applause of listening senates to command, and we are fortunate that at last it is our senate that benefits by his mature wisdom. We also appreciate very much the maiden speech of the noble Lord. Lord Robertson of Oakridge. He was certainly not ashamed to show his colours. He will always find that your Lordships' House is very generous to all those who speak with sincerity and honesty of their beliefs and their faiths, whatever they may be.
I do not propose to deal with certain urgent problems which tragically concern large numbers of families but which even still we may consider as marginal to the main problems of family life in our country today. There are, for instance, all too many homeless families, and clearly when families are homeless there is no opportunity for them to live a creative and happy family life. There are alarming numbers of families sadly marked by violence within the domestic scene, a subject which has just been highlighted in a recent book. I think at least one radio announcement presented the picture in a slightly false perspective; it actually suggested that it was more dangerous to be at home than it was to be out on the streets at night. But it is bad enough in all conscience, and there could be nothing more opposed to the mutual society, health and comfort that man and wife ought to have of the other, than for the wife to he living in fear and trembling of

1317
the return of a drunken and violent husband.
Then there are the one-parent families, the subject of the Finer Committee. presenting their own economic and psychological problems, not to mention the particular difficulties and problems of the immigrant families growing up in an alien culture, sometimes unsympathetic to their way of life. All these deserve special treatment, but if we were to get deeply involved in any of them they would distract our minds from what we might call the general problems of the ordinary family today.
If I digress for a moment to the biological side of family life—and this has been touched on by one previous speaker—one notices that in the life of most mammals the male's share in the family life is but fleeting. Although very short-lived, in bird life there is a sharing of the parental responsibility, which has some points of contact with the life of a human family. But the peculiarity of human family life is that the period during which the young are in need of care is much longer, and long after this particular necessity has passed bonds of affection and mutual care often remain and spread out beyond the parent-child relationship to grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts and all the network of family life. One of our problems today is that during the short period when children are very young family life still seems to work moderately well, but the wider interaction beyond the nuclear family is often arrested or non-existent. The cessation of direct responsibility for the children with their adolescence is often accompanied by tension on both sides, sometimes by bitterness, leading at times to rejection of the home environment by the children long before emotional stability has been achieved.
Of course, there are other great problems confronting the family today. The most obvious of all is the increase in the divorce rate. We used to be shocked to hear that one in four of early marriages broke down. We are now in a situation where there is at least one divorce per year for every four marriages of any age, and it may be by now one in three. This does not necessarily mean that one in each of three marriages is destined to
1318
failure, as we are still catching up with some of the backlog brought about through the Divorce Reform Act, but the situation is sufficiently alarming to give us all pause for thought. It has been estimated that there are already a million children who are living in one-parent homes, most of which are one-parent homes because of broken marriages.
Another change that has come over family life is brought about by the mobility of the modern population. If one goes to a country village in the Alps, or even to a fairly isolated English village in the country, one will find that a good many of the families have the same name; they are all inter-related, and perhaps the whole population consists of two or three clans. Nowadays, when people move so rapidly, the nuclear family, consisting of a one-storey unit, father, mother and children, becomes the norm and related groups are miles away and rapidly fall out of touch. This is one of the major causes of family breakdown, not marriage breakdown necessarily in the narrower sense of the word; and it is, I believe, incidentally, a major cause of juvenile delinquency. Hardly anybody knows anybody else except in the most casual, superficial way.
Thirdly, there is the housing problem: not only the shortage of houses or the badness of housing, but the fact that houses are built to accommodate one small family unit and it is almost impossible to accommodate an extra member of the family, a grandfather or grandmother, an uncle or an aunt; hence the need for endless old people's homes and other geriatric institutions, and, incidentally, a great absence of useful baby-sitters in the average home, especially when the mothers are working, as they are in so very many cases today.
These being some of the problems, the question then arises, what possible actions by Government could contribute to any alleviation of the situation? It is quite clear that not all the problems are susceptible to Government action anyway, but we must look for those that are. For even if under present economic conditions nothing can be done, we must prepare the ground for times when something more is possible. My principal suggestion is that in all administrative action, either by central or by local government, it should

1319
be made clear that the family is thought of as a unit and that action on behalf of an individual member of the family is always regarded as a second best, an extreme step only to be taken in real emergency situations. How could this work out? First, when shelter accommodation is needed, it ought to be regarded as totally wrong for families to be separated. However humble, even primitive, the accommodation to be provided, it ought to be provided in family units. This would be a great visual aid which would show the country that the Government ' believed in family life first and foremost and was not prepared to separate father, mother and children, as though their unity as a family was a matter of incidental or secondary importance.
Secondly, we should continue what is becoming more and more the policy of our social service departments, namely, to provide support for handicapped or retarded members of families in their family setting rather than elsewhere. I have noticed that even excellent residential, schools for subnormal children now sometimes have vacancies because of this new policy. This must be disappointing to those who have planned them so carefully, but I believe that the ultimate objective is a right one: namely, if at all possible, to keep the family together.
Thirdly, in the difficult area of sex education I regard it as of supreme importance that physiological education about sex should be subordinated to instruction about courtship, marriage, and family life—particularly the need for I not expecting the impossible, and for treating difficulties as hurdles to be got over rather than excuses for immediate recourse to the divorce court. I should like the words " sex education " to disappear from our syllabuses, and " family education ", or something of that sort, to take their place. I believe that the isolation of sex education from education for family life to be the most serious fault in much of our sex education.
Of course, what can be done by legislation, or administration, is limited. Much of all this is governed by the climate of opinion, as has already been stated by the noble Baroness. Lady Young, and it is almost impossible to tell exactly who it is that creates this climate. Of one thing we can be quite certain: that is, that the
1320
publicity given to film stars, who are popular heroes, and who marry five or six times—sometimes marrying and remarrying the same spouse—does no good at all to the image of stable family life.
I doubt whether we can do anything to affect what I believe to be a fact: namely, that in England children break away from their parents and form up into their young teenage groups at a rather earlier age than they do on the Continent of Europe. I doubt whether many parents now err on the side of too strict a discipline. Such an error is obviously possible, but many young people in their heart of hearts desire some rules, even if only to know what rules there are to break. They do not want to drift on an entirely uncharted sea. How many parents I have heard say, when faced with apparent anti-social and unconstructive behaviour on the part of their children, " What can you do? " I believe that this abandonment of responsibility is a terrible mistake, and that parents must go on trying to do something, however tactfully and skilfully, to influence their growing children.
The most reverend Primate has mentioned the possibility of there being a Minister for family welfare, and this proposal has received a somewhat cold welcome by the House up to this point. I think that perhaps a little information is needed in order that your Lordships may get this matter into perspective. Last December at Oslo there was a conference concerned with family welfare for Ministers from the countries of Western Europe. There were such Ministers present from a number of countries. I do not remember every one of them, but I know they included France, Germany, Switzerland, Portugal, Italy, Austria, and several others. Britain had no Minister to send who was charged with this responsibility. One can just imagine the scene in the Cabinet when they looked round to see who they could land with this responsibility. They chose a most excellent Minister, Mrs. Shirley Williams, but her formal qualification was that she was the Minister for Consumer Protection. No doubt families are consumers in a very good way, but the idea that there is something quixotic or eccentric about having such a Minister is quite a false one, and the sooner the Government and the rest of us get that into our minds the better.

1321
Before making this speech I held many discussions with magistrates, teachers, parents and others concerned. All are agreed that there is an urgent need for working together: for parents to support teachers; teachers to support parents; magistrates to support parents; and magistrates to support teachers. There is much too often a kind of division of authority and responsibility, so that whenever anyone tries to exercise any kind of discipline always another authority steps in to undermine it. That, I believe, is almost fatal if we are really going to achieve what we want to achieve.
Of course we have to allow full understanding for the rising generation of their need for experimentation, for freedom of expression. We cannot expect them to think exactly as we do. I f every generation thought exactly as its parents did there would he no progress. But we must nevertheless, on behalf of our community, set certain firm guidelines beyond which it must he clearly understood people must not step without making life very unhappy both for themselves and for others, and we do this believing it to he for the ultimate welfare and happiness of young and old alike.
6.7 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My
Lords, I must start my few words by apologising most sincerely not only to the most reverend Primate but also to the whole House for not being here during the first part of the debate. I am most apologetic and I hope that the House understands that it is no discourtesy on my part. I had a particularly difficult case in my juvenile court and particularly long-winded barristers, and I could not shut them up however hard I tried. I seem to have got the House with me, which is nice. I gather that I have missed some brilliant speeches; two brilliant maiden speeches, and also other brilliant speeches not only of course from the most reverend Primate but also from my noble friend Lady Young. I understand that her speech was a particularly brilliant contribution.
I now find myself, not for the first time, following the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester; and again, not for the first time, he has taken every
1322
word out of my mouth that I had intended to say. As I have only been in this House for a short time this afternoon I am going to confine myself to one particular aspect, which I have not heard touched upon since I have been able to he here. I think that we have recently been slipping into two-tier families. I think we should go back to three-tier families. I say this because the immigrant families with which I have to deal, either in court or in other capacities, seem to live much happier lives, and one of my reasons for thinking this is because they are three-tier families.
The grandparents in our society today think that they are not wanted by either their own children or by the adolescents in our society. I think that this is absolutely wrong and that it is wrong thinking on their part, and I should like to make a point of trying to instil into them the fact that the adolescents in our families now desperately need the older person, the third tier. So often they quarrel with the second tier in their own families. So often the second tier opt out and do not want to know. The grandparents, the third tier, on the other hand, have a special involvement with the adolescents. I know from personal experience that grandparents are not afraid to speak up; they are not afraid to say, " You must not do this " or " You should do that ". Grandparents have a special place of respect with adolescents. Perhaps communication has broken down between the first and second tier, and noble Lords will be aware that there are many reasons for such a lack of com-munication.
As I say, I speak from experience, including experience of hospital work. It does not take much imagination to realise that the third tier, the older members of the family, may have greater wisdom to impart to the younger members of the family. I recall that when my very precious daughter became engaged it was not my approbation or that of her father's whom she sought. She approached her grandmother and because she decided that the young man whom my daughter wished to marry was right for her, she went ahead without any fear of the future, and how right she was. Communication is difficult because, as one noble Lord said, grandparents are sometimes not able to be in the family home.

1323
I do not believe that they should he, but there is a wealth of experience to be gained from contact between the first and third tiers especially if the grandparents can be made to feel that they are deeply needed to help bring up the first tier. I have delayed your Lordships for a few minutes because I felt that I could speak from experience, including experience of broken homes, and in my view the third tier, the grandparents, are perhaps more important in those circumstances than they arc in happy family homes. This is a small hut vital aspect of the subject under debate and I hope that I have not bored your Lordships unduly.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, may I, on behalf of the House, recommend the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, to read twice every word of the postscript to the most reverend Primate's introduction to the debate in which he put, I think even better than she did, exactly the case she made?
6.14 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I too congratulate the two noble Lords on their excellent maiden speeches. I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for initiating this debate and for his invitation to me to speak. This subject is so vast and human that when I was trying to tackle it I thought that the only way for me to proceed was to give your Lordships some of the personal experiences with which I have been involved. In a society which is fast becoming impersonalised and selfish, I hear so many cries for help that I hope that this debate will help to kindle in some hearts an urge to want to help others and not only themselves.
Our society has so many problems that without a concerted effort of help coming from all sections now we will become an even more sterile society. I hope that the leadership of the most reverend Primate today will penetrate out into the furthest corners of our country. The churches need to speak out before it is too late. Our Lord died that we might live, but I know some people who are not living their lives today; they are existing, surviving their lonely lost days under the cover of alcohol or valium. They often become the prey of one of the non-Christian
1324
religious sects which seem to be springing up and getting stronger. When a mother becomes an alcoholic her children suffer because of the insecurity of not knowing what she will do next. They stop bringing their friends home because of the intense embarrassment she causes them. They do not know how to explain their predicament. As soon as they can, these young people leave home and can he swallowed up by a wicked underworld. They are at risk and often they themselves go off the rails. In our huge schools in which children never have their own lockers in which to put their books or coats, how can these human problems be known? In the big downtown schools where the staff often changes, what hope have these children? The large impersonal housing estates without local shops and pubs have bred groups of people without any community ties. If you have no roots you have no duty to each other.
It seems that we have bred a generation of young people who consider it their right to take revenge on society. For I5 years I have been attached to a borstal and have met hundreds of young people. I can tell your Lordships from first-hand experience that many of the boys come from families in which there is serious illness and death. If the pressures are too great, their only outlet seems to be crime. A few years ago it was unusual to have more than one or two 15 year olds. Now one third of the boys at my borstal are schoolboys. When the boys come to borstal they come in contact with people who can help them and they begin to show promise, but all too soon they are thrown back into the same unsatisfactory society without a job and with the stigma of borstal. When I have had boys at home to share a meal and some family life our relationship is quite different from the institutional " miss " they call me when in borstal. These boys have a great respectability; if their home is broken and the mother has a lover, he is always the uncle. In some areas foster care schemes have started with various problem cases. This is a hopeful sign and I hope that it will blossom and prosper.
To break the cycle of deprivation which is passed on from one generation to the next, an example other than the usual one must be attained. Many families are suddenly thrown into complete confusion

1325
when a severe accident with lasting disability happens. It has been proved that, when possible, if the disabled person can remain in the family, he or she lives longer and happier than in an institution, and even if there is considerable help in the form of community services coming into the home, that is cheaper.
Often it takes more thought and more planning to do this and the big question is who is going to do it, the Health Department, the social services or perhaps the Department of the Environment. Instead of getting together in a united team, which seems to be the best way, still some authorities try to pass the buck. I note today that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has only his secretary in the box; perhaps the reason is that the Government have realised that if there are Government Departments here they will only pass the buck. The noble Lord has to shoulder the whole responsibility of this debate alone.
My Lords, over the years I have had too many struggles for help on behalf of disabled people and their families. I should like to mention a case so that your Lordships can understand what I am talking about. It was brought to my notice that a mentally handicapped child was being very anti-social and the community was at risk. He had been throwing bricks into prams and screaming, among other things. I contacted the social services department of one of the London boroughs where the family lived. Some time later I got a desperate letter from the mother who had a deaf unem-ployed husband and another mentally handicapped child living at home, and a third child, the eldest, also mentally handicapped, was in care after he had tried to gas her. The letter told me that the council had put a six foot fence around her house. She said that she was now a complete prisoner within a hopeless situation. The boy, who had just reached puberty, then broke up all the furniture. She and her only daughter could not stand the situation. She told me that she was at breaking point. It was not until I contacted the DHSS and the Director of Social Services himself that at long last the boy was taken into care. At the weekend, the mother visited the hostel to see her son and the warden told her that he had wrecked most of the
1326
furniture there, and he asked the mother, " How did you cope? ".
We need more day centres and more acceptable places for the different groups of people with handicaps and disability who cannot manage to live at home and whose home cannot cope. I have met some wonderful families who love and care for their handicapped relations. They will never have peace of mind unless they know that facilities are available when they are no more. Recently I visited a hospital for the mentally ill. I was devastated when I saw the endless, impersonal white wards which were clinic-ally clean—with empty lockers and not even a mat on the floor by the bed. I know that the Health Service is short of money, but this type of thing is totally inhuman. When I asked why there were no personal belongings in the lockers, I was told, " They might be stolen." Many people enter the hospital with depression. After visiting the patient the whole family most likely suffers from depression because this is a traumatic experience. It was because of a complaint from a relative about the conditions that our community health councillor visited this hospital. Section 17 of the Chronic-ally Sick and Disabled Persons Act—"Separation of younger from older pati-ents "—was not being followed. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Act of 1970 is supposed to cover mental hospitals.
One hears the saying, " small is beauti-ful ". After visiting that human factory of numbers I now understand that saying. Just as I was leaving a young woman rushed out calling my name. People need people and they need personal friendship as human beings. I am sure that encouragement should be given for friendship groups to be attached to such huge places if they have to exist, to help the families to feel that they are not alone and that the patients will not be swallowed up by a soulless nothingness. Troubles shared are troubles halved.
My Lords, I live in a district in York-shire which is surrounded by Army camps. I have noticed the pressures on the wives of soldiers. The husbands are constantly away for long periods—so often in Northern Ireland—and young wives are far from mum. There have been several cases of baby abuse. Should

1327
young people being recruited for the Army not be warned about these difficulties and pressures if they intend to marry? I believe that the break up of the family in the Army is becoming an increasing problem.
I must end by asking the most reverend Primate: is it not so that these families that pray together are more likely to stay together? Being disabled I should like to tell the most reverend Primate that there are still many churches throughout Britain which have no access for wheelchairs. One church I occasionally go to with my husband is accessible to me only when we go to a funeral when the ramp is down for the coffin. When I look nowadays at so many of my contemporaries whose marriages have failed and the shattering blows which tear the children to pieces, I believe that our marriage is a very precious thing. Our religious faiths are different, but our Lord and the Ten Commandments are the same. My Lords, I hope that more people will follow them.
6.26 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, it is always a privilege to speak in a debate in which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, has taken part, and certainly I was moved—and I believe ail of your Lordships were greatly moved—by what she said. I have no experience to enable me to enter into the areas of which she spoke, except where she spoke of the family praying together and staying together. Perhaps I might otherwise begin by echoing what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said about raising a song and a hymn to our mums. I do this just as I am approaching the fortieth anniversary of my wedding, and I cannot thank my own mother nor my own wife enough for things which have been done to keep me out of trouble all these years.
We are all greatly in the debt of the most reverend Primate for the choice of his subject and for the manner in which he introduced it. If this is not the word of a great Christian leader, full of the Spirit, I do not know what is. It behoves us all to greet and to salute today's two maiden speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd—dour, with his Celtic flavour, and his commanding, compelling concern for the helpless—and the noble
1328
Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge— fluent, with his evidence of sincere and prayerful commitment.
The proposal of the most reverend Primate for a Minister of the Family has not had quite the fair wind this afternoon that one might have hoped. It might be well to suggest that, although he put it in the shape of a proposal for a Minister with care for the family, it might perhaps be considered in a rather wider context to see whether there should be a freelance Minister, like the erstwhile Ministers for brains (and successive regimes have had them to little advantage); whether he should be a Minister in some subordinate capacity; or whether the matter should involve a separate Department. These points need to be considered. It might make the study of the matter more useful if one also threw into the pot the idea of a type of standing commission, not of Ministerial responsibility in the Cabinet, but perhaps more on the lines of the Scarman Commission on the Law. What is absolutely certain is that the idea put forward by the right reverend Primate is surely rooted in several unassailable facts. There are four Ministries concerned. Wherever there are four Ministries, vertically parallel in their authority and independence, there is likely to be the lack of lateral communication, and surely one thing is absolutely certain and has run through the whole of this debate so far, and through all the pleas for the amelioration of this or that service or lack of it; it is the requirement for a consistency of standards, including moral standards.
My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in his gracious and elegant speech following the most reverend Primate, skilfully avoided any mention of morals as the basis of the family, it merely recalled a succession of evasions which one has seen in Government after Government and Minister after Minister. Governments invariably en-deavour to deny that there is any State, let alone governmental, responsibility with regard to moral issues at all. We are fobbed off with tales about public taste, what the public will bear and what the public will stand for. Yet all that flies in the face of fact. This very Government have legislated against open expressions of racialist opinion. This Government for ever appeal to the

1329
notion of social justice. The State extols courage in the Armed Forces and rewards with medals those that excel in it. The State demands integrity in the public service. The State requires honesty with regard to tax obligations. To say that the State and the Government have no interest in moral standards is simply a contradiction of the facts of life.
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, has already invited the Government to re-affirm the most solemn pledge which was involved in the British voice among the overwhelming majority that voted for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It is true, and it is perhaps worth recalling, that, a matter of weeks after that vote, the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, told Parliament —and the reference is to Commons Hansard of 14th January, 1949, cols. 16 to 18:
" The Government subscribe generally to the ideal enshrined in this Declaration … and will continue to work towards it ".
The Government have been asked to reaffirm that Declaration, and I support the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, in his pressure for that. I believe that that is not a very exacting requirement, and I look forward with confidence to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, meeting us in that regard.
But I should like to ask the Government a further question, and that is whether the Government will recognise that there is an obligation which overrides all that; something that overrides the context in which any Prime Minister takes office and forms a Cabinet at the hands of Her Majesty. That is done in the light of Her Majesty's anointing, consecration and coronation as Head of State after she has taken a series of oaths. If those oaths are binding on Her Majesty, I submit that they are binding on her Governments. One of the oaths to which I should like to draw attention is this one. She swears:
" To maintain the laws of God and the profession of the Gospel ".
My Lords, it is difficult to find anything more categorical than that, and I repeat it. She swears at her Coronation:
" To maintain the laws of God and the profession of the Gospel ".
Now, whatever else may be comprehended in that, certainly Christian marri-
1330
age can by no conceivable argument be thought to be excluded. Its protection and its defence are mandatory. It is in the context of that oath that Governments take office. So no matter what Governments take office, no matter what their ideas may be, no matter how Governments are composed, surely they will admit that they take office within the context of that oath and therefore in support of it. It is an oath solemnly given and solemnly subscribed by the Queen, at the instance, ultimately, of the State. It is binding, it is mandatory, it is categorical; and I ask the Government to affirm that that is so.
I ask this question, my Lords, because although among politicians the esteem of religion is profitable the principles are troublesome. We are all against sin hut, with a punctuality to make the clock blush, Ministers take issue when challenged on particulars, and I should like to quote one or two examples which go back to a debate on sex education in schools which we had in this House on the 14th January of this year. The question was put to the Government: " Do the Government think that sex education in schools must be related to right and wrong?" That was the question. The answer was in these terms—and I quote precisely:
" I do not know that it has ever been considered in [that] way …".
That is in column 156 of that debate. We were told—and I quote the words:
" Health behaviour is covered in depth in an integrated way ".
That is column 255. The question was put:
" Does … it … mean that children are taught that things are right and that things are wrong …? "
The answer was:
" I cannot give … a precise ' Yes ' or '
No ' … because … how … things are taught differs in different schools ".
My Lords, in later correspondence with the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Mr. Gerald Fowler—
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to interrupt him? Is he getting at me? If so, will he please say so?
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. The first quotation, of course, did relate to

1331
the noble Lord, and I warned him the other day that I was going to refer to it. The next came from the noble Lord who wound up the debate and is no longer in that office. Now I am going to come to Mr. Gerald Fowler's correspondence which followed that debate. I have the correspondence here, and if the noble Lord wants to see it he is welcome to do so. I made the one reference to the noble Lord opposite and I did not want to embarrass him unduly by identification because when I asked him the question originally it was a fast ball, as I said at the time.
In the subsequent correspondence the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, Mr. Gerald Fowler, retreated further to hide behind the morally neutral adjective " responsible ". The school approach to sex education was of course responsible. But how the word " responsible " would he interpreted, he said, would be influenced by the attitudes of those concerned. I put it in correspondence to the Minister of State—not the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, because we know his heart is in the right place; he knows that we know it, and we all know—in this way, and I put it to your Lordships in this way:
" In the Christian tradition and in the civilisa-tion of Western Europe that we have inherited, the sanctity of marriage is fundamental and this involves an absolute distinction between right and wrong."
The answer:
" I fear that we are not going to reach a common understanding on this issue ".
In the same correspondence I asked for an assurance about holding up, about supporting, the distinction between right and wrong. Ah!—the Minister was far too clever here. He stood my question on its head and said:
" It would not he appropriate for the Government to attempt to lay down absolute moral standards ".
What about courage in the Army? What about integrity in the public service? What about honesty in paying taxes and the rest? Moral standards are laid down and are required by the Government, but not when it is inconvenient.
My Lords, may I just say that I put roughly the same point to a previous Minister of State at the Home Office, when the Tories were in office. I put this question:
1332
" Do the Government accept any overriding obligation to watch over the interests of, and to protect, family life generally—' Yes ' or ' No '? "
The answer:
" It would he quite wrong for me to try to give a simple answer ' Yes ' or No "
My Lords, this just will not do. It flies in the face of our subscription to the Declaration of Human Rights. It simply blasphemes the Coronation oath that, I repeat, is the context of all authority delegated by Her Majesty to whatever Government are in office. We have almost reached the point— thanks to the nebulous line the Government take on moral issues—where virtue is driven underground and the decencies of life are practised by consenting adults in private.
If there is one purpose more than another in this debate, I believe that it is to persuade the Government to have regard to the principle, set out by Adam Smith originally, that bad money drives out good. With regard to the media and their influence upon our manners and morals, nothing succeeds like excess. We need to persuade the Government that we face not a crisis but a chronic malady. We need to persuade them that the hour for Western civilisation is late; we need to persuade them that the hour for the family is very late. We need to persuade them that the current chaotic whirligig of chaotic expedients is not enough.
Above all, we urge the Government seriously to look at the idea expressed in the speech of the most reverend Primate, and his call for a Minister of the Family or of Family Welfare (or, as I would put it, a Standing Commission on that subject). In asking the Government to look at that seriously, I urge them to remember, in a time of stringent economy, that truth is not to be economised in like everything else.
6.42 p.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I wish I could say that it gives me pleasure to follow the noble Earl, for whom I have respect and affection, but I think that his bullying questions: " Are you a good man?" and " Are you a bad man?"—
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am a bad man.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I agree. Therefore, in a way, this has been a very raw intervention in what has been a really interesting debate. I am truly grateful to the most reverend Primate for his debate on the continuing importance of the family and especially in the changing circumstances of Britain today.
First, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, on his maiden speech and I hope to hear him often; and I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for not having been in the Chamber to hear his speech because I was rewriting my own speech and scratching out the points already made by the most reverend Primate —and others, I may add—for I did not want to repeat everything that had been said. The Family—in capitals—for myself, long may it continue! I remember a debate in this House some time ago when the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, said with regard to the family that marriage was a contract. In the first instance some of us may not have read the small print! and a good second marriage can make for a good family.
My Lords, what the most reverend Primate brought out so clearly was that the continuance of the family involved the whole fabric of our economic and social life. At a time of rapid technological change in a crowded island this fabric becomes worn and tattered in times of stress. Young people at the beginning of the century inherited ideas from the Victorians built upon ignorance and evasion about the nature of the human personality. Our parents and grandparents seemed to need the protection of an armour-plated self-deception to cope with the harsh realities of life. So, whatever we may feel about the changes in moral ideas, I find a more honest approach welcome; and I recommend this to my noble friend Lord Lauderdale.
My Lords, two great recent revolutionary changes have greatly affected the style of the family— mostly for the better. One is the great strides towards equality for women. It should be emphasised that this was made possible by progress in safe and efficient birth control. Without this change it could never have happened; and if this stops it will not go on.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, what the noble Baroness says, on the face
1334
of it, is unlikely to be true; but can she explain why she thinks it is true?
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I do not regard that as an interruption to be answered at this point. I will talk to the noble Earl after the debate and explain it. If the noble Earl really thinks that those women with as many as eight, nine, ten, eleven or even twelve children can also work (which is required of them) and can also earn money (which is required of them) and can look after all those children in poverty, he really does not know what I am talking about.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not, actually.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord interrupted my flow of ideas. Birth control has released women from the bondage and hardship of large families which their husbands could not properly support. The ensuing poverty and hardship fell mainly on the women. I wish to underline the fact that birth control has been of paramount benefit to family life. In this day and age, women have a chance to be more free, less child-hound to the home, able to enjoy the family and to be less solitary altogether. Whatever the interim difficulties in social adjustments, do not let us under-rate the increased happiness and fulfilment that women's liberation has brought.
I know that there are sad aspects—especially where there are children and the family is fragmented when there is divorce—but the truth is that family break-up is a fact of life for all sorts of reasons, both personal and social. For the poor people there is much that we can do—for instance, in the case of the one-parent family—to organise trained child minders, nursery schools and play groups. All these could be obtained in less time than it would take to build houses—although, as everyone has said, housing is so important for the continuance of family life. So long as we have a system of benefits which are given through the tax system only those families who pay tax, the better-off families, will benefit. The poorer families will lose out. As for the one-parent families and the raw deal that they receive, I cannot

1335
help feeling that it is somehow due to an old-fashioned punishing attitude towards them.
I believe that the most reverend Primate called for marriage education; and I believe that I heard him alright. When I think of the debate that we had on sex education for children which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. I think it was a very poor curtain raiser for this interesting substantial and serious debate. Surely if we want to give young people guidance in marriage it should be given with sex education for the young. Yet, as I say, in the debate in this House there was a great attack on sex education in schools, and on the Family Planning Association, judging it to be damaging to the family itself. It is just the opposite: it helps the family; it has always helped the family, and I know it will go on helping the family.
For my part, I believe that education and understanding are necessary for maintaining a good family relationship. There has to be frank communication and trust between the parents, children, husbands and wives. Ignorance, shame and guilt destroy this. I will give a very brief quotation from the latest information pamphlet sent to me by the Family Planning Association. I think this will interest the most reverend Primate. It is very short. It reads:
" Sex education is really moral education and is the responsibility of religious education ".
May I thank the most reverend Primate again for initiating this debate; and may I also congratulate him on his statement condemning racial violence, which is especially important when it comes from the Church.
6.52 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, I am very happy that the most reverend Primate should have raised this debate on family problems at this time. In recent years we have debated some specific problems touching on the family, but never before the family as the central subject of debate. My collateral ancestor, William of Corbeil, was Archbishop of Canterbury and consecrated Canterbury Cathedral in 1130.
" A dedication so famous "—
1336
wrote a chronicler—
" was never heard of on earth since the dedication of the Temple of Solomon."
I mention this because the most reverend Primate has recently appealed for funds for the restoration of Canterbury Cathedral. It is not just a public monument; its builders conceived it as a national shrine for family worship. I am sure that he will agree that family worship is the best centre for family unity. I am sure, my Lords, we all wish him every success.
I said when I spoke on the Divorce Bill in 1967 that for Christians the true portrait and ideal of family life is set before us in the Holy Family at Nazareth—Jesus, Mary, Joseph. This is an ideal that is central to the Christian faith. My attention was drawn the other day to the Church Times, which reported an admirable sermon by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester which called attention to the role in the life of Christians, of Mary as a wife and mother. In our present-day life, I think families are under great stress, when one thinks of pornography, obscenity and indeed other things which are a contradiction of decent family life. We need to judge things by Mary's standards.
It is now nearly two years since the Finer Report, the Report of the Committee on One-Parent Families, was published. This is a noble report which reflects great credit on all those who were concerned with preparing it. It covers an enormous range. It is concerned with some 620,000 families, of whom 520,000 were fatherless, and the rest motherless. In the case of the fatherless, 190,000 mothers were separated, 120,000 divorced, 120,000 widowed and only 90,000 single. Together these families form no less than 10 per cent. of the whole: one family in every 10 one sees walking down the streets. We have never yet found time to discuss this report, and this is more than a pity; we need to settle down to discuss it in detail.
Mr. Jonathan Bradshaw of York University, and others,
are doing valuable research into this and related problems. There are also grave problems for families where there are handicapped children, and where one parent or the other is handicapped. We live, it is true, in difficult economic circumstances, even if

1337
there may seem to he some rays of light on the horizon. We live also with a fund of practical knowledge that our forebears did not possess. We still have to learn to divide the food at what Pope John called, in a striking phrase, " The banquet of life ". Today, we are far too inclined to look upon the Welfare State as an uncle whose pockets are stuffed endlessly with pound notes. Everyone on both sides of this House is all too painfully aware that the pound notes at the disposal of the " uncle government " are limited.
Often it seems to me that the Welfare State has snapped family initiative. People are all too ready to expect and demand Government assistance. I am told that a recent statistic showed that one spouse in each four of all existing marriages has been previously married, and that this is increasing rapidly through divorce and remarriage. I regret that I have no figure for the number of children involved, nor how this puts stress on the family.
Many of these are not questions which can be resolved by Government action but it is right that they should be raised in this House and discussed here, if only because it is part of our function to give some lead to the nation in thought and in action. It is not so much instruction in human biology that is needed in schools, as if biology could answer moral problems; it is instruction in marriage itself in all the duties and responsibilities of both motherhood and fatherhood that is so sorely needed. It is true that serious efforts are being made in many places and by devoted individuals, but much more co-ordination is needed. I very much regret the Government's decision (I think it was the week before last) to scrap their plan for the re-organisation of child benefits. Mothers were to have received not only the child's allowance for the first time for all the children, not just the second and successive issue, but also the child tax allowance.
As the most reverend Primate has already said, the Trades Union Congress were in agreement with the Government's proposed benefits scheme and understood its importance in family life. Therefore I am all the more sorry that the Government are cancelling the original proposal. I can understand that there are difficulties, hut I should have thought that this was
1338
an occasion when the difficulties of wives outweighed those of explaining the plan to husbands. I cannot see that it would do any harm for there to be a little plain speaking from the Government. I am sure that the Government are strong enough not even to be bruised by any criticism in the matter. I hope that the Government will watch this because I believe that it will probably have the effect of pressurising mothers of young children to go out to work when otherwise they would stay at home to take care of their own children, particularly those below school age in circumstances where there are no pre-school facilities. I hope that I may ask the noble Lord who is to reply to agree to keep a close eye on this. This is a sphere where the Government can help reduce family tensions.
We now know of human life on this earth of 3½ million years. Even the earliest finds on the river Awash in Eithiopia show that man had already some concept of the family in that he exercised care in the burial of his dead. He thus showed some sense of the dignity of his brothers. Our earliest human records of 5,000 years ago already show a developed institution of family life. If in our present age we fail or neglect to pass on the lessons of past experience to the young in the matter of family, we shall only lead them to catastrophe. Never before in human history has man been capable of utterly destroying human life by the misuse of atomic science. Unless we resolve to live together constructively as a whole human family, we know only too well the fate that can overtake our race here on earth.
7 p.m.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, my remarks will be directed to one important aspect of this important subject which has already been mentioned, that is the sex aspect of family life, and in this I will be following to some extent in the steps of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. Like other speakers, I often think when reflecting on social conditions when I was a boy, some 40 years ago, that there have been many changes for the worse. The most reverend Primate has told us that we must not hark back; I am sure he is quite right, and I do not propose to do so. But there are many fields where the reverse is true. One of these, in my

1339
opinion, is the attitude to sex. By this I do not mean the encouragement of pornography, which I believe to be wholly bad. Our treatment of it compares most unfavourably with how it is treated in some other countries. In this I go along with a number of previous speakers this afternoon. I am referring to the improvement in sex education. There are no more of the mysteries, the confusion and sometimes the deliberate lies with which my generation was faced and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has referred. These could so often do untold harm to people of sensitivity. Instead, sex is generally discussed as a perfectly normal and natural function of the body, and as something which can bring great happiness if it is not abused. Equally, it can bring misery if its is not properly understood.
One of the organisations which plays an increasing role in sex education is the Family Planning Association, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president. The position, although honorary, is one which I nevertheless regard as a great privilege to hold. As there may have been some misunderstanding about the part played by the Association in sex education, and as it has recently been the subject of attacks in your Lordships' House—attacks totally without justification—I should like to say something to put the record straight.
It seems to me difficult to think of any organisation which has done more to support and to stress the importance of the family in the changing circumstances of Britain today than has the Family Planning Association. Just consider for a moment, my Lords, the objects of the Association. The first is to preserve and protect the good health, both mental and physical, of parents, young people and children, and to prevent the poverty, hardship and distress caused by unwanted conception. The second is to educate the public in the field of procreation, contraception and health, with particular reference to personal responsibility in sexual relationships and to the consequences of population growth. The third objective is to give medical advice and assistance in cases of involuntary sterility or in difficulties connected with marriage relationships or sexual problems for which medical advice or treatment is inappro-
1340
priate. What could be more helpful to the family than these general principles?
Of course, the Association believes in preventing unwanted pregnancies, which are estimated at the present time to be running at 200,000 a year, because that in itself so often puts strains on the family, causing hardship and distress, not least to any children who may be concerned. But the Association is not concerned solely with preventing pregnancies. They also advise in cases of involuntary sterility; as one who was married for eight years before a child was conceived, I know just how important that function can be.
The main criticism levelled against the Family Planning Association concerns their role in education. It is suggested that sex education is either the function of parents alone or it is a natural process that does not have to be taught. But many parents either refuse to undertake the task or, if they do undertake it, they do so inadequately or badly. If people are left to find out for themselves, many will do so but they may well be hurt in the process and their marriages may be less happy than they otherwise might have been. Moreover, there is always the minority who may not find out at all. I am sure we all know a number of people who have entered upon matrimony without knowing the basic facts of life.
The other principal charge brought against the Association is that their sex education increases promiscuity and encourages the young to indulge in sexual relationships, if only as a matter of experiment. I do not believe that to be true. It is not sex education which encourages such behaviour: rather it is the endless exploitation of the sexual theme on television, in books, magazines and the cinema which must take the blame. Perhaps it is we in Parliament who should take part of the blame; but sex education, if it is carried out responsibly, as it is by the Family Planning Association, can and does mitigate the evil effects of this exploitation.
The Association is staffed by thousands of dedicated doctors and laymen, many of whom work for little or no reward. They have relieved much individual suffering and anxiety, and have brought comfort and relief to thousands of families up and down the land. In this debate about the

1341
importance of the family, for which we are so indebted to the most reverend Primate, I think it is right that a tribute should he paid to the magnificent and selfless work which this organisation has performed in the past and which it continues to undertake now, when so much of its original function has been absorbed into the National Health Service.
Viscount INGLEBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, might I ask him whether he is aware that in the guidelines for sex education produced by the Family Planning Association in 1974, the subject of marriage is barely mentioned?
Lord VERNON: My Lords, all I can say in answer to the noble Lord is that the Family Planning Association support marriage and the family, and this is certainly one of the matters which they take into account and on which they give guidance in the educational field.
7.8 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships this evening I should, like everybody else, like to thank the most reverend Primate for introducing the subject and giving us the benefit of his thoughts on it, together with an opportunity to express our own. in what has been a most interesting debate. If I may select one speech I was particularly pleased by, it was the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Robertson. I knew and admired his father. and it was a great pleasure to hear him acquitting himself so well before your Lordships' House today. It was most agreeable in content and I found the views he expressed reflected my own most precisely. The speech was fully in conformity with the tradition of your Lordships' House as to how a maiden speech should be delivered.
I should like to take up the thread of the argument at the point where the most reverend Primate left it: namely, the function of the grandparents. This links with what the noble Baroness. Lady Macleod, was saying. She is not now in her place, but I am sure she will read Hansard tomorrow. I entirely agree with what she said about the three-tier
family. It also links with the lance which was tilted by. I think, the noble Lord, Lord Glendevon, against those who
1342
misuse the phrase " nuclear family ". Of course, a family consists of a set of households acknowledging consanguinity and linked by a communications system of some kind or another. To call the family " nuclear " within the scope of the household may make good sense, but it does not account for the family, which concerns a much wider group of relationships.
I am currently going through the phase where, as the senior member of my surviving branch of what was at one time a more extended set of relationships which have now made their transition into time past, it is my responsibility to try to hold it together in what remains of' my own period as the senior member. So I begin with my efforts—and they are seen by everybody to be efforts—to hold together the second cousins in parallel groups, reminding them of their common ancestry from somebody I knew—that is, their common great-grandmother, my grandmother—of whose personality and qualities they probably have only very vague childhood recollections. It is my task, my very pleasant duty, to tell my grandchildren what my mother was like. Of course, I knew my grandmother and my great-grandmother, who lived on into my adult years, and l made her a great-great-grandmother before she finally died, but it is a very exceptional state of affairs to have five generations of a family in existence at once. So much for the second cousins, who see that I am taking trouble over this and it has convinced them that it is something worth taking trouble over.
Then I come to the first cousins—that is, my own grandchildren—and I will take the case of two daughters who have suffered the type of dispersion about which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester spoke. One of them married an officer in Her Majesty's Forces and has for some time been successively in Western Germany, then in Hong Kong and he now has a couple of years to do in Ottawa. If I had allowed it to happen, this would have meant the disruption of connections between myself and my grandchildren on the one hand, and between themselves and their first cousins in England by my other daughter. on the other hand.
But just as General Booth defended the rousing martial qualities of " Onward

1343
Christian Soldiers ", by asking " Why should the devil have all the good tunes'? ", I thought to myself: why should the devil have all the media of telecommunications placed at his disposal by the BBC, the ITA and so on? Why should I not have my own system of telecommunications? So through their own efforts, or my efforts, or our joint efforts I saw that there were three centres of telecommunications in this dispersed little family, in the form of portable tape recorders. You can talk to your absent grandchildren for 60 minutes on one 40p speech quality tape, and we circulate these tapes around the family and are continually in touch with one another.
They arc much more human documents than a letter. Children like recording their own voices and hearing them played back. The last tape that my grandson sent asked, " Will you please do Albert and the Lion, like you did at Christmas?" His father was then over here on leave. So in my best Lancashire dialect I did Albert and the Lion for a grandchild, for whom I am still a reality. Some of them are charming family records. I have the whole development, both meteorological and familial, of Typhoon " Elsie " in the Pacific last year. All the broadcast meteorological reports were filtered through on to the tape, with comments from my daughter and son-in-law on the precautions they were taking in battening down the hatches. As the wind reached a speed of 139 mph, and I could hear the wind whistling around the house, there was a charming intervention by my grandson when it was announced that the eye of the typhoon was only five miles away. He said. " I can see the eye of the typhoon and it is winking at me." What a charming record to pass down in family history.
These tapes circulated all around the family and by taking some trouble we are held together, so that when they come over on leave and my grandson, who is not quite so strong on Greek verbs as I was at his age, but is much stronger on dinosaurs, asks me to take him to the Natural History Musuem, we go trotting around together as friends, in complete trust and confidence, and the family has been held together by effort. I am not blowing my own trumpet. What I am trying to say is that I am inculcating in the
1344
young the fact that this is something worth putting effort into. One of these days, this will become part of a cultural tradition and they will put effort into it, and the problem of keeping a family going under modern conditions will have been solved for one family.
Your Lordships may well ask: " Is this not all élitist and remote from people with difficult housing problems? " No, my Lords. In terms of Christian ideology I do not think it is, because if you have tackled and solved a problem yourself, you become acutely aware that it is only one kind of problem and that you have a duty to help other people solve theirs. I am much more interested now in getting decent housing conditions as a means of holding a family together. Before I had to make any efforts to do it myself, it all seemed to be happening naturally without any effort at all. That is only a small contribution to thought in this field.
I fully agree with everything that has been said about the undesirable character of what is involved in flooding us out with pornography, obscenity and incest. Every culture in the world has a taboo on incest. On what good ground, psychological or otherwise, do we want to lift that taboo? It has frequently been argued how it was generated, what its function is. Never mind about that, my Lords. It is there, so leave it there for the time being.
I should like to make one last comment on the question of a Minister. I do not think that this subject is ready for a Ministry, and if you have a Minister within one of the Ministries you have to assign a Ministry to him. This is difficult, because the problems will tend to be inter-departmental and will be shirked. I should like to put into the mind of the most reverend Primate the thought that, instead of going for a Minister, a Parliamentary Secretary should be attached to a senior Cabinet Minister without departmental responsibilities—somebody like the Lord Privy Seal or the Lord President of the Council. That is the way science was looked after at one time after the war, and it was looked after better in that way than by almost any other method.
7.16 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that my name is not on the list of speakers, and I crave your Lordship's indulgence for a few moments. In paying tribute to the most reverend Primate for initiating this debate, may I give support to the consideration of a Minister for the Family or, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has said, of some alternative? At the moment, there is no pressure group for the family as a whole. The elderly have age Concern and Help the Aged. Your Lordships have had evidence of that this afternoon in an outstanding maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, supporting the elderly. The disabled have a Minister and the mentally ill and the handicapped have MIND. There is, of course, a large number of voluntary and religious organisations giving a service to one or other aspect of the family, but there is overlapping in the work of the different Departments, both central and local, and a Minister could perhaps co-ordinate such work leading to less expenditure and greater effectiveness. A Minister could, perhaps, co-ordinate the work of voluntary and statutory agencies.
It is impossible to draw attention to all the needs of the family, so may I confine myself to three brief points? First, there are the needs of the family with children under the age of five. It is agreed by most parents, and confirmed by research, that the foundation of a positive and satisfying inner life is laid in a child's early years. It is then that the process of maturing and the ability to form relationships is begun. May I ask the Minister to say, in his reply at the end of the debate, whether in each local authority a survey could be carried out to assess the needs of families with children under the age of five, particularly the 20 per cent. Of working mothers with young children, to make recommendations to meet those needs and show how resources could be co-ordinated and positively used. Such resources include the pre-schools play groups, nursery schools, day nurseries an excellent day centres.
May I drew the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to the new and very good day centers run by Dr. Barn-ardo's for handicapped children? Also may I speak of the very great importance
1346
of a service which the community provides for itself—the child-minding service? The surveys carried out by the National Educational Development Trust and the National Children's Bureaux show that the child-minding service is not being constructively used for the care of young children, and opportunities are being lost to make known sound practices and principles in child care.
The Minister will perhaps agree that the survey called for by his Department in 1970 regarding the needs of the disabled went some way towards assessing needs and producing a more positive policy. Then, on a quite different aspect in his maiden speech the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, drew attention to the missing generation of grandparents, due to the break-up of communities. May I draw attention to an action volunteer programme, initiated in Washington, which has now spread across the United States, whereby retired men and women volunteers give service, not only in the ways well known in this country, but by accepting invitations to go into the homes of those in need, particularly where there are handicapped children and elderly people. In some particularly difficult cases a small payment is made. Such a scheme could well be organised by the National Association of Voluntary Help Organisers.
Thirdly—again a quite different subject —may I draw attention to the need for imaginative family community schemes and, in particular, draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the scheme using a disused prison at Abingdon, known as the Old Gaol. It is very well built and has lasted for hundreds of years and was converted into an Arts and Sports Centre by the then Abingdon Borough Council, serving a population of 21,000. Within five months of opening, 250,000 people, at a cost of lop per adult, 5p per child or £7·50 per family per year have visited the centre. Thus it is a family centre, the youngest member being nine months. The music section has children attending as young as 2½ years. In this way parents and children are together projecting their joint interests on to music, art, drama and sport. The setting up of such a project at this time by a local authority would be a financial impossibility, but existing community projects might well have lessons to learn from the Old Gaol and,

1347
indeed, communities themselves might seek to raise the money to initiate such a scheme.
Lastly, may I support the call made in his maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for spiritual values as the basis of family life.
7.23 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, since it is possible that I have the largest family of anyone in your Lordships' Chamber, perhaps I have the right to speak in this debate—at least, I hope so. First, may I thank the most reverend Primate for giving us the opportunity of this debate. Also may I thank him for the invitation he gave me to join the consultations at Windsor when I had the opportunity to meet so many people from so many organisations w ho are concerned about the kind of society that we want—and, within that society, obviously the family.
I must, of course, congratulate the two maiden speakers. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, will not mind my saying that he has cheated a little. He has had so much practice at making maiden speeches that obviously he has made more than anybody else. In his most professional speech the noble Lord made many valuable points, and later I should like to touch upon two of them. In his notable maiden speech the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, ably covered the immeasurable importance of Christian principles in binding together the family and I am sure that all noble Lords were most impressed by what he had to say.
Many speakers have covered the housing and financial pressures of today which affect the family. The mother is of paramount importance to the family, and these pressures can he very wearing. I am afraid that often the mother does not get her fair share of the family budget, and this has been borne out by a number of surveys which have been made. On this point, when the noble Lord the Minister replies to the debate I am sure that he will understand me when I say that I was sorry that the child benefit scheme was abandoned because, if implemented, it would have meant that mothers would be able to get hold of money. In the vast majority of cases the wife is not under extreme pressure, but in some cases she is.
1348
Not all of the problems are financial—or environmental, for that matter. We all know of many families that have flourished under appalling conditions while others, with every advantage, have broken up. The point is that the mother is the cornerstone of the family. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, gave her vote of thanks to the mum, and I concur. Children have the most effect upon mothers. Divorce rates soar. If there are no children, not so much harm is done. The damage occurs when children are exposed to the traumatic experience of the break-up of the family. One quarter of marriages are second-time marriages. Some children find a secure family the second time round. but obviously it is a had experience for them. There are many. however, as we know only too well —and I want to come to this point later—who do not get the chance of a totally secure family and have to soldier on in one-parent families.
The noble Baroness Lady Young, made a point about the working mother. I must say a word on behalf of the noble Baroness. She has had to slip away to see members of her family. and the noble Baroness has asked me to make her apologies for not staying to the end of the debate. Some working mothers work by choice, others by necessity. Some mothers do not work. The noble Baroness. Lady Phillips. mentioned the self-effacing phrase. " I'm only a housewife ". To he a housewife is a very tough job, as any father who has had to look after the children knows only too well. Having had that experience I felt quite exhausted after coping with the family for a relatively short time. Many divorces occur because the wife did not really want to have children but was forced or conditioned into having them.
Education— not just sex education—is important here. Girls should be educated to believe that marriage does not necessitate children. Some women are naturally maternal. They can cope, and enjoy coping, with a large family. In other cases, either the wife or the husband feels that they ought to have a family and this builds up pressures for the wife. In the end she resents the children, and in some cases, as we know, the mother walks out. So it comes back to educating girls from the start that while some may choose a career others should feel quite happy and very proud that their role is to be a

1349
maternal one. If freedom of choice can he put over in education, at a later date there could be a smaller number of families, but larger ones, while there would be many more happily married couples with no children. On this basis a rather more secure system would be built up.
The most reverend Primate and other speakers mentioned the problem of marrying too young. I heartily concur with them. Again it comes back to education. Most young people feel that marriage, or whatever the association is, is to he for ever. What they do not realise is that they will change. We all change, and we go on changing throughout our lives. Consequently most divorces occur in the 25 to 34 age group. They have stuck together for a while; at the point of change the pressures build up and the marriage tends to break up.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned the race to grow up. The young grow up so much earlier that obviously they will still change. So hopefully if we can bring this education which I mentioned earlier into schools, then perhaps we could see them accepting that marriage is on such a long-term basis that it is preferably taken later.
Reverting to the problems of the one parent family, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the one parent family as the amputated family. Unquestionably it puts enormous strains on the single parent, whether it is the mother or the father, and they need all the help we can give them. I join with the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, in paying tribute to the Finer Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, and the most reverend Primate spoke about the advantages of the three-tier as opposed to the two-tier family. I do not think it is quite as simple as that, although I think it is something which one should go for. I would just pose the thought: when does the mother-in-law come out of the ugly chrysalis and become a beautiful granny butterfly? I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, and also the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, are the wonderful people who talk about fishing and tractors and I can see that this is part of the family which is so valuable. But, seriously on this point, there is the
1350
problem in families—and it comes hack perhaps to the housing problem—where, when the families are younger, the parents can exert quite destructive influences upon a marriage which result in a breakup. Let us hope it is a point where the individual matters and the opportunity for a three-tier family unit can he encouraged and perhaps the destructive influences can he avoided.
To come now to the question of responsibilities, the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, referred to the fact that too much help, or perhaps interference, could he counter-productive and destroy a sense of responsibility. We see this happening, and I believe that the responsible family is the secure, strong family. It also comes down to discipline. The noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, spoke about truancy and the fact that some parents do not care. We all know of many cases of violence in schools and I have seen this in a comprehensive school which my own children attend. The violence can be quite extreme and it conies hack to the parents not being responsible. It is all very well to say, " What can you do about making parents responsible? " Perhaps it is impossible to change parents; one cannot teach old dogs new tricks. So it comes hack to the point about education and the question of its being not only sex education but education for family development; education for marriage, and here the responsibilities can be taken more seriously. I think this would produce much stronger families at a later date; this is not something for the present but very much for-the future.
The question of having a Minister for the Family was raised. I can see the advantage of this, but perhaps there are some quite extreme difficulties in pulling all the strands together, and perhaps the conflicts might be too extreme. However, I very much accept the need for closer co-ordination between various departments and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will cover this adequately because I know what an expert he is on this particular subject.
Before the most reverend Primate says, " Come in No. 26, your time is up "—after so many speeches—I must make one last plea. I believe that we must help in every way to encourage

1351
fostering. I may sound like a gramophone record on this subject, hut for all the sad debris of broken marriages, or non-marriages for that matter, it offers a fresh start in real families. I accept that it creates pressures and strains on those families but it is well Worth while. On the mundane level it saves the local authorities a considerable amount of money in terms of homes, as we know only too well. So it is an extremely cost-effective way of really helping some of these children, and especially, if possible, the handicapped ones, because we know the strains under which these children live. So this last plea is for the children who are perhaps not lucky enough to be in a single-parent family but who are totally alone, and who need this help.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask whether he would agree that it is desirable that the education he wants should be given within the context of the family whenever possible rather than in schools? And would he also agree that there may be considerable scope for adult education courses aimed at the parents themselves, so that they in turn can pass it on to their children?
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I accept very much what the noble Lord has said. However. I believe I said that the problem of educating the parents is a rather more difficult one than educating the children.
7.36 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, first, I should like to say something from these Benches to the two Members of your Lordships' House who spoke today for the first time. I am not going to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd; it would be a piece of impertinence on my part to do so. He has had such a wide experience in another place and has held such high office that few of us will he able to aspire—and I say this advisedly —to the great contribution which he has made in the Mother of Parliaments. Perhaps I may just say very sincerely from this side of the House, because I know it is felt from the other side of the House, how delighted and privileged we are to have him in this House.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, those of us who knew Lord Robertson's father, will say—and I am sure it is always being said to him—" Well, if you are half as good as your father you will he very good ". There is every indication that he is going to he every bit as good, if I may say so, and the only comment I want to make—and I say this with some sincerity because sometimes we overdo this a bit—is that we hope he will, first, attend regularly as his father did and, secondly, that he will speak even more frequently.
I am in some difficulty. Reference has been made to the fact that the only person occupying the Officials' Box is my secretary. If I may say so, your Lordships are not entitled to draw the conclusions that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilion, did, but if she can put the cat among the pigeons or "stir it " a hit, she will do so without very much encouragement, as I know only too well! The short answer is this: there are a large number of Government Departments, all of whom have some responsibility for the family. It would not have been fair—quite apart from the fact that the House could not accommodate them all—to have had as many representatives from those Departments coming to your Lordships' House as one would have in the normal way.
Secondly, it is a subject in which I have been particularly interested for some 40 years. I did my first piece of research into the family in 1938 and was horrified to find that there were 7,000 divorces. I tried to find out what the underlying causes were, and I knew the answers then. I knew the cause of juvenile delinquency then, but as I have got older, I have come to the conclusion that I know less and less about more and more. Therefore I shall make no pronouncements tonight. Before I continue I should like to say how much I am personally indebted to the most reverend Primate of All England for introducing this debate. I knew that he had taken on something for some of us in the sense that he was going to range over a much wider area than any debate I can remember since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House.
He has touched on a large number of things. I do not think there is anything between him and myself. I want to refer to one or two things and f do not suppose there are any here who fundamentally

1353
disagree with anything he has said. I am an active member of the Anglican Church; and as he knows I am Vice-Chairman of the Church of England Council for Social Aid. I may not have another opportunity of saying to him publicly, " Please do not retire too soon " —we feel very strongly about this.
The only other thing I want to say by way of introduction is how very grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her opening. She has saved me saying a lot. I thought I must have left my notes somewhere and she had borrowed them as she was using phrases that I was going to use. I am particularly grateful to her and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. They seemed to he the only two people who have spoken in the debate today who have recognised that there is a limitation to what the Government, or any Government, can do. There has been a certain amount of implied criticism but coming from my opposite number her words were very welcome. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for recognising the limitations placed on Governments in this particular matter.
The most reverend Primate of All England raised a number of matters which I want to come to in a moment, but I think we ought to make up our minds against a picture of what is really happening to marriage and family life today. Unless we look at what is really happening we cannot make a fair appraisal of the situation. Of all the changes in life in the 20th century the transformation of marriage has been the least noticed and the least talked about—at any rate, I think so. I think one can say that the anatomy of marriage has been reshaped by forces which nobody planned and which no Government could direct. It just happened, and it appeared to happen overnight.
I do not want to talk about what I think is the greatest impact. I would he interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on this. I would have thought that the changing status of women has made a tremendous impact on marriage and family life. The advance of medical science with the consequent improvement
1354
in health is another factor. One has to hear in mind also that unhappiness in marriage is not now tolerated and as a result society has had to meet the demand for easier divorce. There is nothing wrong in that. Why should unhappiness in marriage be tolerated? Today a marriage can exist for between 45 and 50 years. Can you imagine what it must be like for some people to he looking at the same face every morning over breakfast for 40 to 45 years?
A noble Lord: They enjoy it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Some might enjoy it, but a large number of them do not. It can put a tremendous strain upon them and they would not he able to stand the strain of a prolonged marriage. We also have to recognise that two-thirds of all children are horn before the mother reaches her 28th birthday and that four-fifths of the children are horn to a mother by the time she reaches the age of 30. This means that by the time the average mother has had the number of children she is going to have she still has 30 or more years of life before her —I do not know whether the noble Baroness is disagreeing with me. As a matter of fact, today women have an expectation of life until they are 75; we poor men, only until 70.
The interesting thing is that because of the kind of relationship which develops in a good many marriages quite a substantial number of wives—you will have to take my word for this but it is true—go out to work, not necessarily for money but for companionship. and work to them becomes a kind of leisure occupation. Most men have a very wide cruising area: most women have a very narrow one; consequently wives are not prepared to accept that in these days.
I do not want to say very much more except that medical science by its advances has changed the relationship, of which a good deal has been said. I think there is some evidence that marriage has been sexualised—there is no doubt about that. With the changing status of women, they have naturally wanted to get a great deal more out of the relationship at that level than ever before. We have heard a good deal about the " third tier ". Several people mentioned it. The most reverend Primate of All England referred to it as

1355
well. I am depending, too, on some research that I did. The demand for houses grows as each family of parents and children desires more privacy. I can remember being a probation officer in the East End of London for several years before the war when I had Stepney, Whitechapel, Bethnal Green, Limehouse, Pennyfields and the Isle of Dogs. It was no uncommon thing that children could not go to bed at night until the parents had come in because they were sleeping in the passage. When they grew up they were not going to stand that kind of existence. They were not going to live with mum— either mum. They wanted their own accommodation.
We have to face this fact. In spite of what some of your Lordships have said, a new aim and purpose has arisen among young people—that is, of mother-in-law avoidance. The mother-in-law is grandparent, but they do not want to live with mother-in-law; they do not want her too near, certainly not in the same house. Some do, but they want privacy, to be on their own. It is not without significance, I think I am right in saying, that every Member of your Lordships' House who has raised this question is a grandparent. In many instances the desire is coming from there, not from the young couples.
Lord REDESDALE: Not in every one, my Lords. I did at least point out the dangers of the mother-in-law.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
May I now try and deal with some of the matters which have been raised. A number of noble Lords, including the Archbishop, raised the question of housing accommodation and the inadequacy of it. Do not let us make the mistake of thinking that when a marriage breaks down it takes place because of inadequate housing. A good many marriages break down because of a personal inadequacy in the individual. Social workers will tell you that when a marriage has broken down and there seems to he a great deal of conflict and aggression between the parties, if they have been moved into a new flat sometimes the situation has got even worse. I am not saying that inadequate housing does not make a contribution, but do not let us think it is the sole contribution or even a major contribution.
1356
We, the present Government—and I am not making a political point out of this—have set our faces against building high-rise flats. We do not intend to continue the policy of building high-rise flats. We think that in the high population densities which often produce high-rise schemes, the whole scheme of building high-rise flats could he reduced if the very low densities elsewhere were to be increased to reasonable levels. know only too well that this will cause conflict, but we cannot have it both ways. We are all agreed—the Government are certainly agreed—that high-rise flats could create a lot of personal and social disorder. Therefore, we feel that their building has got to be stopped.
My Lords, the only other point I would make about housing is this, in case there was an implied criticism. The Government continue to regard the provision of new houses as a priority, and no limits have been imposed on the number of new houses local authorities can build. We have encouraged local authorities to build as many houses as possible to meet local needs for rented accommodation. We have given them direct financial support through the Housing (Rents and Subsidies) Act. We have expanded through the housing corporation the contribution of the voluntary housing movements in this country, and the new towns have continued to make a valuable contribution. As a result, there was s a. considerable upturn on public sector house building in 1974. This upward trend was sustained in 1975. when 152,000 new public sector dwellings were completed, and 174,000 started. It is the highest figure in the last five years, and the trend is being maintained in 1976.
My Lords, a good deal was said about education, marriage, and about counselling marriages in distress. This is not an easy thing for a Government to organise. It is very difficult, I think, for local authorities to organise. As I have said many times before in your Lordships' House, we must look to this being done, along with a good deal of other voluntary work, by voluntary organisations, for which we can provide a good deal of money. I want in particular to mention the National Marriage Guidance Council which every week in hundreds of colleges and schools provides education
for marriage. I also know that in, I

1357
should think, every town there is a very substantial counselling service.
I thought the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, was a little critical of my Department, because he said that Dr. Dominian had started a research centre and could not get anything for it. I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but many years ago Cardinal Griffin invited me to discuss with him the possibility of setting up a marriage guidance council for the Roman Catholic Church, which I did. For three years I organised and took part in their selection procedures and training programme, on which I lectured, and the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council was born. It is only within the last few days that I have been considering at my Department an application for a grant in order to develop the work more. If he has not already been told, the noble Duke will be glad to know that we have decided to give, within the next few weeks, a sum of £30,000 to enable them to develop their work. We gave them £16,000 last year and £8,000 the year before. We have been giving them a grant since 1971.
We must recognise that education for marriage and counselling marriages in difficulties have got to be done. It may well be it is best done by people in the voluntary sector, because usually, if they are adequately selected and adequately trained, they can give the time. Provided voluntary organisations measure up to a standard of selection and training, I do not think there will be any difficulty in getting money from any Government.
The Duke of NORFOLK: My Lords, if I may intervene, in no sense was I speaking for the Roman Catholic Church, because I consider all the Christian religions to he together as far as this House is concerned. Dr. Dominian's institution is one which researches into what has gone wrong, rather than counselling marriages. It is research on how marriages have gone wrong. Perhaps I might talk to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, afterwards.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Duke mentioned using health visitors and other people. I do not want to give a wrong impression. I do not think we ought to allow anybody loose on
1358
the community to take part in education for marriage, preparation for marriage and counselling unless we can satisfy ourselves that he or she is temperamentally suited to do this kind of work. They can do far more harm than good. I feel very strongly about this.
My Lords, the most reverend Primate again mentioned the question of the child benefit allowance as did a number of your Lordships. It is true that we, as a Government, are disappointed that we were not able to bring in the child benefit allowance scheme when we had hoped to do so. There were various reasons why we felt we could not do it at this time. There was a financial reason. I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that financial benefits given under the auspices of the Department of Health and Social Security amount to £23 million a day, £160 million a week, nearly £9,000 million a year. Last year, and again this year, we spent something over £4,000 million on housing. That is only two Departments. It is an enormous figure. I do not think any of us would claim that we are doing enough but, as far as child benefit allowance is concerned, as your Lordships know, we intended to do it, but it really was not the right moment. If I may he honest with your Lordships—and I always try to be—let me tell your Lordships the reason why.
Inevitably, the Government were faced with a dilemma over take-home pay. On the one hand, restraints on pay policy required that there should be only a limited increase. On the other hand, the full implementation of the child benefit scheme would have meant that for many workers the whole of this increase, and sometimes more, would be taken away when they lost their child tax allowances. In the present climate of a pay pause and so on, it really was not the best time to do it. We might be wrong about this, but what we want to do is to have another pay pause for the forthcoming year. In our wisdom or stupidity, we decided to bring in a benefit for the first child in April next year, hearing in mind that we have already given, some months ago, a child interim benefit to the one-parent family—not very much, but perhaps better than nothing at all.
A number of noble Lords raised the whole question of a Minister for the

1359
Family. I ought to say that, although there are no officials here, I knew some days ago what I intended to say because I knew a number of points which your Lordships would raise. One picks these up as one goes along. One knows how your Lordships think, one reads Hansard, and one or two noble Lords were good enough to give me some indication. So whatever I am saying now in fact has the approval of those much more senior to myself, and is not my view. With regard to a Minister for the Family, reference has been made to the fact that we have one for the disabled. The disabled form a relatively narrow group that can be treated as a single entity largely from within the resources of one Department. In this connection. the Minister's role was defined on his appointment as one of co-ordination within his own Department, and that was made perfectly clear at the time. The problems of the family are so wide that they are the responsibility of nearly every other Department. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, referred to four because I referred to four when we were talking about sex education. But we are not talking about sex education today, we are talking about everything that affects the family and, as far as I can tell at a rough glance, there must he at least eleven Government Departments involved. Therefore, it is felt that it would be an impossible thing to organise, for a whole variety of reasons.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, if the noble Lord would be so kind as to allow me to intervene for one moment, can he say whether perhaps the Government would look at the alternative idea which I threw out—that is, that there might perhaps he some kind of Standing Commission? I appreciate that the more Departments are involved the more difficult it becomes. For the same reason perhaps the more important it is to monitor developments in a coherent way. Would the Government consider the idea of looking at a Standing Commission of some kind?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, because I was going to say that while we have set our face—and I would not be honest if I said otherwise —against having a Minister for the Family, I will, naturally, convey his suggestion to my colleagues,
1360
because obviously it is something worth considering.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, raised two questions. I apologise to the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Auckland, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for being out of the Chamber while they were speaking. It was imperative—and I will not go beyond that—that I was absent from the Chamber. The noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, raised the question of Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
" The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State ".
The International Covenant on Human Rights was recently ratified, however, and will take effect from 20th August next. This is an attempt to give legal force to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 16(3) of that Declaration is now enshrined in Article 23, Section 1, of the Civil and Political Rights in the International Convention and we shall have a legal obligation to meet it. So I think the answer to the noble Viscount is that we subscribe to it and that when it comes into force we shall have a legal obligation to apply it.
The noble Viscount also raised another question. The Convention says:
" The child shall enjoy special protection and shall be given opportunities and facilities by law and by other means to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner …"
My recollection is that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dealt with this in his speech. What he said was that the Government accept that children should be protected against exposure to pornography. I think, again, that this is what the noble Viscount wanted.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if my noble friend will permit me, he has exactly stated what I would have said had I applied my spoken word to the question.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords. I thought the noble and learned Lord said that the Government's position remains as my noble friend Lord Harris stated it then:
" We share the general concern about indecent display particularly of matter which may fall into the hands of children ".

1361
I do not think there is anything between us. I think we have been able to assure the noble Viscount that that is precisely what he wanted.
I come to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. I have dealt with the question of a Minister for the Family. He asked about the obligation of the Government. I think the answer to that is that what applies to the Monarch and the Constitution as a whole applies no less to the Government. I think one must follow the other. I am not going to enter tonight into a discussion on sex education, on what is right or wrong. I think the noble Earl, if he does not mind my saying so, tends to oversimplify this business of right and wrong. I wish I was as sure as he is.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord says, and I have great difficulty; as I get older, I find it more and more difficult to make the distinction. The point is to recognise that there is a distinction and that this is relevant to the upbringing of families. I am sure he will agree with that, and we are back again at one.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there is no doubt at all in my mind, and I know there is no doubt in the mind of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, that the Government believe implicitly—and if I say certainly this Government it is because I am speaking for this Government —in the family and recognise that the family needs all the support that society, through the Government, can give it: because we realise—we have said so over years—that much of the personal and social disorder in this country stems from bad family life. If there is anything that we can do, then it must be sustained. I can give the noble Earl that assurance. The noble Earl might like to know—he probably does not know this and I think very few people do—that one of the things I was able to do, with two other people, in 1947, nearly thirty years ago, was to go to see the then Registrar-General to talk about the importance of getting across to people who were being married in register offices what marriage is all about. Perhaps very few people know that in a good many register offices today—not all of them because there are
1362
sometimes circumstances or marriages where it would not apply—the Registrar says:
" Before you are joined in matrimony I have to remind you of the solemn and binding character of the ceremony of marriage."
This is the part that some of us were able to get put in in 1947:
" Marriage according to the law of this country is the voluntary union of one man with one woman, entered into for life to the exclusion of all others."
I hope it will remain in it.
Finally, I should like to make one or two comments on what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said. She mentioned the survey of the needs of the under-fives. Perhaps I may shortly say that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has been carrying out a national survey of 2,500 under-fives, commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Security, to determine the extent of and the need for day provision for the under-fives. I could go on, hut I do not want to take up the time of the House. That is certainly well under way. When it comes to child minding, the National Educational Research and Development Trust, on the research and report side, has a tendency, I think, to sensationalise a situation in order to increase public attention, not always. I think, on sound evidence. An example of this is their estimates of the numbers of unregistered minders, varying up to 300.000. which the Community Relations Committee last year sharply criticised.
On the other hand, their reports—and I am thinking in the main of action registers—are examples of good practice in minder support schemes. A number of other local authorities offer such schemes, which are of undoubted value. We share the concern with the Trust that the whole status of child minding should be raised to encourage minders to register and to be regarded as a full and valuable part of the day care services. We are in a great deal of sympathy with what they are doing.
Since 1974 my Department has financed a programme of research involving some 20 projects—I shall not list them all—which is administered by the Social Science Research Council, at some considerable cost to us, into social problems in successive generations of the same family, and any factors associated with apparent breaks in the cycle. The pro-

1363
gramme is expected to run for seven years, and so far 20 pieces of research have been commissioned.
For those of your Lordships who are interested, I would commend to you two publications which were the responsibility of the last Government under the then Secretary of State for the Social Services on Preparation for Parenthood—some 30 professional voluntary research organ-isations met for quite a long period to produce this book—and on the Dimensions of Parenthood which also was dealt with by the Secretary of State in the last Government. They are documents containing a whole wealth of information and are worth having.
I do not think that I ought to take up more of your Lordships' time, except to say what I said at the beginning; that is, that we in the Department of Health and Social Security and the Government are grateful to the most reverend Primate of All England for initiating this debate. It has ranged over a far wider field than any one person could deal with at this stage, but I can assure you that this Government are not unmindful of the importance of the family, and they are not unmindful of the severe strains which the family is experiencing. I can assure your Lordships that anything that this Government can do to strengthen family life—and this is not just a phrase—they will do, and do so gladly because they recognise that a happy family life creates the kind of atmosphere which one wants to see, and recognise that a bad family and bad family life give rise to far more personal and social disorder than we can sometimes deal with.
8.13 p.m.
The LORD ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY: My Lords, at this hour of the evening I am sure you would wish me to be very brief, and that indeed I shall be. I must express my gratitude to all those who have taken part in a debate of very high level and given us speeches of wonderful quality. May I express my own gratitude for the care and courtesy with which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, dealt with the points raised in the course of this long debate. Having looked at the same face over breakfast for just over 40 years, and done so with maximum pleasure, I am perhaps a little
1364
biased in the way in which I make my concluding remarks tonight, though I have enough experience of life to know something of the strains and stresses which lead so often to the breakdown of marriages.
May I just express a word of gratitude to the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, for her kind " commercial " for Canterbury Cathedral. I almost feel inclined to tell you how the appeal is going on, but that I will bypass. May I accept the rebuke from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, for the lack of ramps in all too many churches for those who are physically handicapped, and at the same time express to her my gratitude for her speech, so clearly made against a background obviously of very deep concern and very considerable knowledge of many of the problems which we have been debating today.
There are two things I want to say in conclusion. First, a great deal has been said about the handicapped in the course of the debate—handicapped children in particular, physically handicapped—and mentally handicapped and I would express the hope that the Government will keep in mind the service being rendered by the Family Fund and will see to it that it is continued even when the voluntary agency now carrying out this service has to hand it over. I do not think that the matter was raised in the course of this long debate, but it is a matter of considerable concern that that good work should indeed continue.
The last thing I want to say is just a word about this matter of a Minister for the Family, which was praised with faint damns by a number of speakers and then was rescued from a rather grisly end by a number of speeches of considerable weight, among which I would mention those by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. I care not very much what his title is, whether he be called a Minister for the Family, but it seemed to me that the noble Earl. Lord Halsbury, made some suggestions which were well worth looking into as to what he is called and
to what he is attached. These are matters which, in my ignorance. I would not feel confident of speaking about.
What I am anxious about is that there should be a watchdog, The fact

1365
which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, mentioned in his concluding speech that the breadth of the legislation is such, and the range of the social care is so wide, that it covers some 11 Government Departments, only underlines for me the need for some such watchdog, some cohesive person to hold this all together and see that the issues in fact do not fall between 11 stools. Let me just close with that. I take the word " watchdog " from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his speech. That is precisely what I want to see, and impenitently on that note, I plead for further consideration for this matter, whatever the title of the man concerned may eventually be and to whatever Department he be attached. With that, may I say once again a word of deep gratitude for the way that this Motion has been received, and beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

STRATHCLYDE UNIVERSITY AND MACKINTOSH SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a" and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a" and reported from the Committee.
TYNE AND WEAR BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee (on Recommitment) with Amendments.
BUCKS LAND AND BUILDING COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with an Amendment.
LAND DRAINAGE BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.
NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  NATO TANK STANDARDISATION
  NATO TANK STANDARDISATION
  DRUG OFFENCES
  DRUG OFFENCES
  MAGNA CARTA PRESENTATION: SPEECHES
  MAGNA CARTA PRESENTATION: SPEECHES