Sitting of 24 March 1976

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

    Home Loans Scheme
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the home loans scheme for private house purchasers in Scotland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): The results so far of the special £7 million building societies' scheme for 1975–76 have been disappointing, but the scheme has paved the way for the current discussions between the local authorities and the building societies which I hope will lead to more successful arrangements in future.
    Mr. Gourlay: Since the allocation of funds to the local authorities for the next financial year has not yet been made, will my hon. Friend seek to increase that allocation or, alternatively, bring pressure to bear on the building societies to make provision for those persons who require assistance and who are unable to get loans from the local authorities?
    Mr. Brown: I hope to announce the allocation to the authorities for 1976–77 within the next week or so. I do not like the use of the word "pressure", but I accept that there is still an area for discussion between the building societies and the local authorities. They are proceeding at the moment to try to give cover by way of loans for property which seems to be attracting loans from neither source at the moment.
    Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister accept that the scheme depends on not only the
    374
    availability of cash but suitably priced housing? What steps is he taking to encourage research into and progress with the starter homes concept in Scotland?
    Mr. Brown: That is a much wider question. There is no cash problem in the sense that the money is available from local authorities and building societies at the moment. The trouble arises with property for which, for one reason or another, neither the building societies nor local authorities can provide funds. If any research is needed I am willing to consider how it should be undertaken.
    Mr. Canavan: Are the ratepayers not justifiably outraged at having to bear the burden of cheap home loan schemes for officials, some of which now appear to have been illegally introduced without the approval of the Secretary of State? If that is so, would it not be fairer to try to recover money from these overpaid executives, some of whom not only operated the scheme but benefited from it, instead of letting these bandits go scot free with the ratepayers' money?
    Mr. Brown: I shall not try to match my hon. Friend's exaggerated and outrageous language. I had enough of that on the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. It has to be accepted that perhaps this is just one of the problems to which not enough attention was paid after the reorganisation of local government. We have accepted in the special circumstances that the authorities concerned acted in good faith, but my right hon. Friend will have heard the comments and will no doubt bear them in mind.
    Mr. Canavan: This is worse than Clay Cross.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Many people in Scotland feel that this situation was an abuse and misuse of local government funds. Will the Minister say precisely why it has taken since last August for the Government to act on this matter—action which we fully support?
    Mr. Brown: There has been a misunderstanding and we have accepted that, but I would make clear that the authorities acted in good faith. The Conservatives must accept some responsibility for

    375
    what were freely negotiated arrangements implemented by the local authorities concerned.

  Devolution
  Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations have been made to him by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) on the subject of the Scottish Assembly.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I have now received the Council's formal submission recording its views on the White Paper of November 1975.
  Mr. Crawford: Does not the Minister agree with the Scottish Council that the White Paper totally refuses to recognise that the economic unity of the United Kingdom is not inviolable? Does he not agree with the Scottish Council that the refusal to recognise that the Scottish economy is not necessarily the same as the English economy means that Scotland's prospects of economic rebirth are not very bright?
  Mr. Ewing: It is strange that the hon. Member should call in aid the Scottish Council document. If the hon. Member cares to read it and not quote it out of context, he will see that the Scottish Council repeatedly rejects any proposal which will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] There is no point in the hon. Member disagreeing. I challenge him to read that document. It specifically mentions the question of separation and the hon. Gentleman's policy of withdrawing 71 Scottish MPs from the House of Commons. In the penultimate paragraph the Council makes the point that it is totally in favour of the retention of the Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Cabinet and the presence of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons. The hon. Member should therefore not be so hypocritical as to call in aid the Scottish Council's evidence. It has produced a very good document with much of which I agree.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to study the document produced by his colleagues in the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Group, which clearly indicates that, taking the White Paper as a basis for discussion, a series
  376
  of proposals has been produced making devolution for Scotland a meaningful consideration, far short of the separation which the Scottish National Party wishes, but in accord with what the majority of the people of Scotland want?
  Mr. Ewing: Yes, I have had an opportunity to study the document produced by my colleagues in the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Group. The document proves to me that the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Council of the Labour Party and the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Group are united in their views about the kind of devolution they want for Scotland. As my hon. Friend rightly said, there is a world of difference between the proposals contained in the three documents to which I have referred and the proposals put forward by the SNP, which would be a disaster for Scotland.
  Mr. Sproat: Interesting as the views of the Scottish Council are, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the biggest change in Scotland since the debate in January has been that important bodies such as the Scottish CBI, chambers of commerce, universities, doctors, secondary school teachers and accountants have made it clear that, on consideration, they are now against a Scottish Assembly? Will he also use this opportunity to clarify the numbers in the Scottish devolution unit?
  Mr. Ewing: Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify an answer which I gave in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I have written to the hon. Gentleman. I apologise both to him and to his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I confirm that the figure of 55 which I gave includes the staff in the Scottish Office and is not the total figure in the Cabinet Office Constitution Unit.
  I accept, as do all hon. Members, that there are differences of opinion about devolution. The CBI and the chambers of commerce represent one section with one opinion and the organisations to which I have referred represent another section with a different opinion. It is for the Government and the House to decide who may be right or wrong.
  Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman shares the view of the Scottish Council

  377
  about the desirability of retaining the office of Secretary of State for Scotland in the Cabinet, does he realise that it would not be tenable to put forward such a proposal if the Secretary of State were to be stripped not merely of the suggested powers but of the economic and manpower powers which the Government in the White Paper propose should be left with him?
  Mr. Ewing: The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) in its document does not suggest that the powers contained in Section 7 of the Industry Act should be taken from the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Scottish Council welcomes the fact that the Secretary of State has Section 7 powers and is to have the Manpower Services Training Agency and all the other manpower functions which are to be devolved. The Scottish Council supports the view that the Secretary of State ought to have these functions. As a Government we take that view. It will mean that it is important to have the Secretary of State in the Cabinet.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there must be a world of difference between the latest Labour Party proposals for devolution and the Government's White Paper, since the package which the Secretary of State said was just about right has now been subjected to some very hurried cobbling and patching?
  Mr. Ewing: Political differences and differences in policy emerge from time to time in all parties. My mind goes back to the 1966 election manifesto of the Scottish National Party. [Interruption.] Some hon. Gentlemen were not even in the SNP in 1966. The SNP at that time was saying that 36 seats would give it the right to set up a provisional Scottish Government. That is a direct quote. Now the SNP is saying that 36 seats would give it the right only to negotiate, obviously in the hope that negotiations would fail. I notice that SNP Members are becoming very Westminsterised.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If we are to have long questions and answers, we shall not go beyond Question No. 8 today.
  Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is making any attempt to sound out the views of Scots currently resident in England and Wales on devolution.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The White Paper on Devolution contains a general invitation to express views to the Government on the devolution proposals. A similar invitation was contained in the shortened version of the White Paper.
  Mr. Renton: That answer has about as much savour as porridge without salt. Are there not more Scots resident in England and Wales than in Scotland? Should not the Government make a specific effort to try to take their views into account before going forward with their half-baked measures?
  Mr. Ewing: I advise the hon. Gentleman that porridge is certainly good with salt, but it is even better with a spoonful of treacle in it in the morning. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] We do not have the information which the hon. Gentleman suggests should be available about Scots living in England and whether they outnumber those living in Scotland. We recognise the importance of Scots where-ever they live throughout the world. The Scots are always willing to share their expertise with all other nations, including England.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman's use of treacle does not spill over into the form of his answer. Since a form of obtaining the views of Scottish people on devolution would be a referendum, which has been talked about, are the Government thinking of it seriously? If so, are they giving consideration to what would be done about Scots living outside Scotland?
  Mr. Ewing: It is not part of the Government's policy to hold a referendum on devolution.
  Mr. Alexander Wilson: Will my hon. Friend reject the treacly porridge political attempts of the SNP in this matter? Will he also sound out English people residing in Scotland and the national and multinational companies which are responsible for employment in Scotland on their views regarding devolution or separatism?
  Mr. Ewing: I think that my hon. Friend will accept that there is no demand in Scotland for separation. Indeed, the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) document makes the valid point that 80 per cent. of industry in Scotland is either United Kingdom or international in origin.
  Mr. Peter Morrison: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why the Government will not take seriously the idea of a referendum on devolution?
  Mr. Ewing: I did not say that we did not take it seriously. I said that it was not part of the Government's policy to have a referendum on devolution. That is different from saying that we disregard it altogether as not being a serious matter. It is a very serious matter.
  Mrs. Bain: Does the Minister feel that the idea propounded by the hon. Member for mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) is worth while when a conference on devolution, planned to be held in Harrogate on 11th March, had to be abandoned for lack of interest? If we are to have a referendum, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the word "independence", not "separatism", appears on the referendum sheet?
  Mr. Alexander Wilson: It is separatism the SNP talks about.
  Mr. Ewing: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) could easily have sent a copy of one of his many speeches to Harrogate. That would have served the purpose. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) has a serious point. Scots living in England will be desperately anxious to ensure that Scotland does not separate, because a separate Scotland would have to tell Scots who wanted to come home that they could not do so, because a Scottish independent Government simply could not allow it.
  Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us will be delighted to hear that the Government take the suggestion of a referendum seriously and that the possibility is not ruled out? Therefore, will he convey to his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet the fact that the demand for a referendum is growing in all parts of the country and that we should be grateful if they would further consider it?
  Mr. Ewing: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's views, which I respect. No doubt Cabinet Ministers will read his remarks. We take the issue of referenda seriously. I am only saying that they are not part of the Government's policy on devolution.
  Mr. Fairgrieve: Returning to the Question on the Paper, would it not be more sensible to get the views on this issue of Englishmen living and working in Scotland rather than of Scotsmen living and working in England?
  Mr. Ewing: That, too, is a relevant consideration. In my constituency there are many Englishmen, Welshmen, Irishmen and people of other nationalities—and some Scotsmen. I find no warmth for the idea of separation among those people. They certainly make their views clear about the policies of the SNP.
  Mr. Reidasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with progress being made towards the establishment of the Scottish Assembly.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Reid: Is it not high time that the Minister stopped deceiving himself on this subject? If he looks at the balance of power in this House and considers the opposition to a meaningful Assembly Bill from Tynesiders, Merseysiders and centralisers of both the Tribunite Party and the Tory Party, he will have to concede that there are only two options open to the people of Scotland, because there is no chance of an Assembly Bill going through: those two options are independence and the status quo.
  Mr. Ewing: The balance of power in the House shifts almost from day to day, depending upon the attendance record of SNP Members. It is the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) who should stop trying to deceive the people of Scotland into believing that the Bill will not pass through the House. I notice from his constant Press and television comments that he does not believe that such a Bill will pass through the House. I therefore assume that the hon. Gentleman will vote against the Bill. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's last point. I forecast that if the eventual choice for Scotland is to be between separation and any other

  381
  form of government, whether based on total unity or devolution, the vast majority will be against separation.
  Mr. Alexander Wilson: Will my hon. Friend accept that we on the Government side of the House, in spite of recent television appearances and statements by an ex-member of the Labour Party, are not against devolution or any meaningful devolution? Will my hon. Friend now confirm that the SNP is the most dishonest party that has ever been represented in the House and that it wants not devolution or a Scottish Assembly but the complete disintegration of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Ewing: I think that I can agree fully with my hon. Friend's last point. However, I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would forbid me taking the two hours that it would take even to attempt to define what the SNP does or does not want.
  Mr. Grimond: On what date does the Minister expect the first meeting of the Scottish Assembly to take place?
  Mr. Ewing: I shall inform the right hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.
  Mr. James Lamondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now given consideration to all the representations he has received on the quesion of devolution.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Consideration is being given to those representations so far received; comments are still awaited from several of the bodies specifically invited to state their views.
  Mr. Lamond: In view of my hon. Friend's confidence in the good sense of the Scottish people, would it not be wise for the Government to obtain the full-hearted consent of the Scottish people to the devolution proposals by holding a referendum on the matter? Does he believe that the appointment of a new Prime Minister might bring about some change in Government policy in this respect?
  Mr. Ewing: Perhaps I should make clear to my hon. Friend, who represents Oldham, East, that I have confidence in the good sense of all the Scottish people from wherever they come, including my hon. Friend. I have already made the Government's position clear on the question
  382
  of a referendum and I have nothing further to add. As for what a new Prime Minister will do, sadly that is something upon which I cannot comment.
  Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister, with all his authority, give an assurance that the new Prime Minister—and, presumably, the new Secretary of State for Scotland—will in no way slow down the galloping speed at which the Government are proceeding with this matter?
  Mr. Ewing: There was a time in the middle of last week when it looked as though new leaders were the order of the day. We were wondering patiently what the new leader of the Liberal Party might say not only about devolution but about other areas of policy. So far as I have been able to ascertain and read in the Press, each of the candidates for the premiership is committed to devolution and has said that the policy and programme will proceed.
  Mr. Sproat: But has the Minister noticed that, perhaps for the first time since I have been in this House, we have seen two Scottish Labour Members who represent English seats tabling Questions during Scottish Questions, which indicates the degree of opposition to the proposal for a Scottish Assembly? Will he accept that the only true thing that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) has said on this subject is that his party seeks either total union or total separation, and that we should all stand behind one Britain and one Parliament?
  Mr. Ewing: I do not accept that what the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) says is a correct interpretation of the feelings of the people of Scotland. Nor do I accept that because hon. Members representing English constituencies are tabling Questions on Scottish affairs they are opposed to devolution. I prefer to draw the conclusion that they are now interested in devolution. That is a very welcome sign indeed.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. MacCormickasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish fishing industry regarding the forthcoming negotiations on the common fisheries policy.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): A resolution stating the views of the Scottish and English fishing industry on fishery limits and the reappraisal of the common fisheries policy was sent to Ministers on 18th February. Similar views have been expressed to me and my hon. Friends by the industry on a number of other occasions.
  Mr. MacCormick: Does the Secretary of State accept that previous dealings with the European Economic Community have not protected the best interests of Scottish fishermen or the Scottish fishing industry? Can he guarantee that, whatever deal is done with the Common Market, on this occasion he will stick out for a 100-mile exclusive zone for British and, of course, Scottish fishermen?
  Mr. Ross: I think that the hon. Gentleman may take it that the Government—this has been expressed before—will seek to get the best possible results from these negotiations to the advantage of our fishermen.
  Mr. Younger: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the fishing industry in Scotland is united today as never before and is more deeply concerned about its future than ever before? Will he bear that in mind when negotiating the vital matter of the 100-mile limit for our fishermen?
  Mr. Ross: Yes, Sir.

  Economic Affairs
  Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the prospects for the Scottish economy for the remainder of 1976.
  Mr. William Ross: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) on 21st January.
  Mr. Henderson: Is not that answer totally inappropriate on the day after the announcement of disastrous unemployment figures? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Fraser of Allander Institute forecasts that there will be no real recovery in output in the second half of 1976 and that unemployment will rise even higher?
  Mr. Ross: I do not consider the unemployment figures of yesterday disastrous. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I con-
  384
  sider SNP Members themselves a disaster. If we had taken all their advice about slowing down oil development and other matters, unemployment would have been even higher. There is every evidence of a considerable easement in Scotland as well as in the United Kingdom as a whole and there is not the same reason as in the past for gloom about unemployment. Of course, if the SNP is committed to the posters that it puts up about things like unemployed school leavers, its members must welcome gloom, but there is no gloom in the figures presented yesterday.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it true that not a great deal of the money that the Government have made available in Scotland for retraining has been taken up? What steps can my right hon. Friend take to encourage local authorities and employers to use the money that the Government have made available for a very good purpose?
  Mr. Ross: These matters are not my direct responsibility. We had a meeting in the House yesterday about training and job creation and we are putting forward proposals to get some steam behind the programme. The money is there and is being used, but we want schemes to come forward much more quickly. With the money at present being poured into industry, we hope to build up a pattern of prosperity which I am sure can be achieved with the co-operation of everyone in Scotland.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman really be so complacent about the unemployment figures, which have risen in Scotland at the same time as they have been reduced in the rest of the United Kingdom? Can he not recall the fuss that he made when he was in opposition about the news of 90,000 unemployed in Scotland? Why are the figures rising in Scotland when Scotland has the boost of the oil industry? Is it perhaps because the Government's policies towards the oil industry have slowed down and are strangling the important development which Scotland should be having?
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Member is talking nonsense. Over the last year, the Scottish economy and employment figures have stood up better than the figures for any other part of the United Kingdom—and that in the worst recession that we have

  385
  had since the 1930s. As I listen to hon. Members making these complaints, I remember how they voted against the Government's Chrysler solution and I imagine what kind of unemployment figures we should have if they had been in charge then. Have they forgotten that in March 1972 there were more unemployed in Scotland than there are today, when a Conservative Government were in office and when there was no world recession and no rise in oil prices? That was just the disastrous effect of Tory policies.

  Kirkintilloch
  Mrs. Bainasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Kirkintilloch.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Brace Millan): My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to do so.
  Mrs. Bain: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that that answer will be greeted with deep regret in Kirkintilloch? May I therefore express the deep concern of my constituents about vandalism there? Have the Government any plans to provide recreational facilities in such areas, which are totally without them at the moment? Does he intend to bring forward legislation to deter vandals effectively?
  Mr. Millan: We have had questions about vandalism before. I have always said that if there were any legislation or other provisions which could solve the problem, the Government would be willing to look at them.
  Mr. Selby: If the Minister yields to the hon. Lady's blandishments and goes to Kirkintilloch to examine the situation, will he stop off at Monklands to congratulate the electors there on showing such good sense as to reject the policies of the SNP?

  Passenger Transport Services
  Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to improve the co-ordination of the Scottish Transport Group, the traffic commissioners, and the local authorities in producing a cheap and efficient passenger transport service in Scotland.
  Mr. Millan: A working party which I established recently has drawn up procedures to facilitate consultation between individual regional councils and the Scottish Bus Group about the provision of efficient local bus services, and these have been endorsed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Bus Group. The traffic commissioners are an independent regulatory body and their in| elusion in these consultations would not be appropriate.
  Mr. Steel: When do the Government intend to bring forward their legislation on rural transport? Will it include steps to remove the authority of the traffic commissioners which merely gums up the works?
  Mr. Millan: We have promised first a transport review and a consultative document, which I hope will be published soon and which will deal with the whole of transport policy. As for rural transport, we announced certain proposals for: experiment last December. One of the experimental areas will be in Scotland. To carry the matter further, legislation would be required. I cannot put a date on it, but we want a more relaxed legislative position and then we can consider whether there are more flexible ways of dealing with some of the problems in rural areas. We are committed to that, although not to any precise way of achieving it.
  Mr. Fairbairn: If the Minister is genuinely dedicated to a more flexible approach to rural transport, why did the Government vote against the Bill, of which I was a sponsor, to allow private operators to operate in rural areas in Scotland?
  Mr. Millan: I am sorry to say, no doubt to the great disappointment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the fact that he had introduced such a Bill completely escaped my attention.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Since there seem to be so many insurmountable problems over the profitability of transport in Scotland by air, road and rail, would the Minister at least consider investigating the chances of rail transport being made free, so that the roads can be kept free of all kinds of pollution affecting them now?
  Mr. Millan: I think that my hon. Friend will find that the consultative document will deal with the whole subject of finance very comprehensively. Looking at the problems as we have them at present, I cannot see that the idea of making services free would be very attractive. It would add very considerably to the taxation burden, both centrally and locally.
  Mr. MacCormick: Is the Minister aware of the swingeing increases which have been imposed by the Scottish Transport Group's subsidiary, Island Ferry Services, and what do the Government intend to do about them?
  Mr. Millan: Yes, I am aware of those increases. I do not consider them to be swingeing. Considering the additional costs that the group has had to bear on ferry services, I think that the increases are reasonable in all the circumstances. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the subsidies to the Scottish Transport Group for island ferry services were considerably increased by the Government only last year.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: While most of the supplementary questions have dealt with the rural services, the Question itself does not specify rural services. Will the Minister accept that there is grave difficulty in the commuter areas, where expense and lack of frequency of service are resulting in an impossible position? Will he take that into account at the same time as considering the rural difficulties?
  Mr. Millan: Again, the consultative document deals with the urban areas as well. I agree with the right hon. Lady that, while there are pressing and difficult problems in the rural areas, it ought not to be forgotten that very large numbers of people in the urban areas now face considerable transport problems.

  West Stirlingshire
  Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make an official visit to West Stirlingshire.
  Mr. William Ross: I have at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend please try to arrange a visit to the naval depot at Bandeath in my constituency, where he will be able to see at
  388
  first hand an ideal site for an industrial estate right in the centre of Scotland, with excellent access by rail, road and sea? Will he support my proposal to the Scottish Development Agency for the development of this site as an industrial estate, in view of the impending closure of the depot and the need for jobs for the 160 Bandeath workers and others in my constituency?
  Mr. Ross: Yes. I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about the proposed phased closure in 1977–78 of the Bandeath establishment to which he has referred. He will appreciate that there is a Minister there today, an Under-Secretary of State for Defence. I am equally aware that my hon. Friend has also written to the SDA and is active on this matter, and I should be glad to support his efforts.
  Mr. Younger: Will the Secretary of State remind his hon. Friend that it is the policy supported by his hon. Friend—unplanned defence cuts—that has resulted in the potential loss of many jobs in his constituency?
  Mr. Ross: I did not get the feeling that my hon. Friend was exactly supporting the Public Expenditure White Paper last week.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: If the Secretary of State visits West Stirlingshire or any other constituency in Scotland, he will soon find that his failure to fight for Scotland in the Cabinet has led to complete—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put his point in the form of a question rather than a statement.
  Mr. Wilson: May I invite the Secretary of State to go to West Stirlingshire, where he will find that there will be a complete revulsion on the part of many people against the Labour Party for its failure to cure Scotland's unemployment problems?
  Mr. Ross: A week past Monday I was somewhere near Gretna and then I went across Scotland into Carlisle. On Friday I was at John o'Groats and around Caithness and Sutherland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing that occurred there bears out the reactions that the hon. Gentleman has prophesied. I find very

  389
  considerable concern about the continuing mysteries of the SNP refusing to produce a paper on the consequences, economic and political, of its policies for complete separation.

  A9 (Bypasses)
  Mr. Fairbairnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the bypasses for the villages of Blackford, Auchterarder and Aberuthven will be begun; and when they will be completed.
  Mr. Millan: On present plans and subject to the satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures and the availability of finance, I hope that the Blackford Bypass will start in 1977–78. Construction might take about two years. I cannot forecast when the other bypass schemes on the A9 are likely to start, although work is in hand on their preparation.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Minister appreciate that life in those three villages has now reached a state of absolute mechanical and barbaric hell for all those who live in them, that it is important that the bypasses for those three villages should be put in hand immediately, and that there is other expenditure that can be postponed in order to meet a serious human need?
  Mr. Millan: I agree that these bypasses are needed. One of them, as I have said, will be started reasonably soon. For the others, it is a question of priorities and finance.

  Dundee-Aberdeen Road
  Mr. Fairgrieveasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the road between Dundee and Aberdeen, via Forfar and Stonehaven, to be dual carriageway throughout.
  Mr. Millan: Dual carriageways are being constructed currently between Aberdeen and Stonehaven; the remainder is to be rebuilt mainly as a high standard single carriageway designed so that it can be converted to dual carriageways when the need for this is established.
  Mr. Fairgrieve: I accept that reply. However, may I suggest to the Minister that there is one part of Scotland which, for the sake of the United Kingdom, now needs a dual carriageway, and that is the
  390
  road to the oil areas? It is this matter that should be attended to, rather than building more dual carriageways in areas in which, we are told, industry is declining.
  Mr. Millan: I am sure that we are not building dual carriageways in Scotland where they are not needed. Again this is a question of priorities, and the capacity of the particular road concerned does not justify a dual carriageway at present.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Would it not be more desirable and economical if better use were made of the railway system to carry much of the goods now carried by road?
  Mr. Millan: That also applies in a number of other parts of the country, but, unfortunately, even if there were a major transfer of traffic from road to rail the effect on the road system as a whole would be comparatively marginal.
  Mr. Henderson: Bearing in mind the needs north of Aberdeen towards Peterhead and St. Fergus, where the system carries an enormous amount of traffic to and from the gas terminal and other developments, has the Minister any constructive proposals in terms of road or rail to relieve congestion?
  Mr. Millan: I am bearing those matters in mind. If the hon. Gentleman will bear it in mind to table a Question on the subject, I shall answer it.
  Mr. Doig: Is the route mentioned in the original Question the official main route approved by the Department for traffic between Dundee and Aberdeen?
  Mr. Millan: Yes, as we have made clear on other occasions. We sent formal intimation of this state of affairs to the two regional councils concerned in January, but we have not had their formal reply.

  Ross and Cromarty
  Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Ross and Cromarty.
  Mr. William Ross: I have at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Gray: Is the Secretary of State aware that if he decides to visit Ross and Cromarty it will be made abundantly

  391
  clear to him that the answer given by his noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, in another place recently on the building of the Kessock Bridge has caused anger throughout the Highlands, since this bridge is vital to the future prosperity of Easter Ross? Will he investigate the methods used in the roads department of the SDD and the arrangements in respect of this contract? Will he make a statement to the House following what was said by the Minister of State in another place?
  Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman thinks this question so important, it surprises me that he did not place it on the Order Paper, in which case he would have been able to get a direct and detailed reply.
  Mr. Gray: I have raised the matter before.
  Mr. Ross: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a complex issue of the type of bridge and involves questions of cost and tendering arrangements. Those matters are now under active consideration. I assure him, on the basis of information we already have, that the answer given by my noble Friend the Minister of State in another place was correct.
  Mr. Gray: Will the Secretary of State make a statement then?

  Local Authority Members (Allowances)
  Sir John Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the light of present costs, he is satisfied with the current arrangements for the reimbursing of regional and district councillors, and the existing level of such payments; and whether he has any changes in mind.
  Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the financial hardship suffered by members of local authorities whose earnings are in excess of the standard attendance allowance, if he will in such cases increase allowances legitimately to compensate those members; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Millan: The present system of allowances for members of local authorities has been the subject of a comprehensive review but I am unable at present to add to the reply I gave my hon, Friend
  392
  the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 13th October 1975.
  Sir J. Gilmour: Does the Minister agree that, in view of the widespread concern as to the amount claimed by some councillors, there could be some merit in changing the present system, so that councillors are partly remunerated for salary and claim expenses only in relation to their attendance at meetings?
  Mr. Millan: The question of salaries for councillors was discussed during the passage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. It is not the easiest of ways to obtain the right answer, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are some local authority representatives who earn much more than the £10 a day maximum attendance allowance and that as a result their household earnings are substantially reduced when they attend local authority meetings? Is this not unfair? Is there not some way in which the maximum figure of £10 could be supplemented to ensure that these people obtain adequate compensation to recompense them for what they have actually lost?
  Mr. Millan: I agree that the real value of the £10 allowance has gone down since it was introduced. Although there are sometimes criticisms and allegations in the Press that not all councillors deserve allowances, there is also the other side of the story—namely, that many councillors, by losing wages or salary, find that the allowance has lost a considerable part of its value. The Government have been posed with considerable difficulties in reaching the right answer on these conflicting considerations.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will the Minister say whether he approves of councillors claiming attendance allowances for attending church services?
  Mr. Millan: That raises the whole question of what is an official duty. The matter was considered during the review. But local authorities can take the initiative in defining what is an official duty.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that there is general concern among councillors as well as the public that the

  393
  present system does not operate satisfactorily and that the remuneration paid to councillors does not necessarily reflect the amount of work they do or the responsibility which they carry? Before increasing the sum, does he think it right to carry out a review, in which councils could participate, to find better ways of handling these matters?
  Mr. Millan: I agree that there is considerable concern. Before making any decisions, we shall consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and no doubt it will be able to put to us the kind of consideration that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

  Scottish Sports Council
  Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the grant to the Scottish Sports Council for 1976–77; and if he will make a statement.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): The estimates for the Scottish Sports Council's grant in aid for 1976–77 are at present being considered with other departmental estimates before submission to Parliament. The Scottish Sports Council will be informed of its grant in aid as soon as possible.
  Mr. Monro: Will the Minister say why he publicly criticised the Scottish Sports Council for giving grants in respect of golf courses which were freely available on a daily ticket basis to anybody, a facility widely enjoyed by young people? Was not the Sports Council set up to give grants where required?
  Mr. McElhone: We should try to get a proper balance in this matter. I am not in favour of giving public money for private golf courses, especially when there are various organisations and groups looking after the interests of young people who do not have the facilities of golf clubs—club house, one-armed bandits and all the other fund-raising facilities.
  Mrs. Bain: Would not the Minister agree that the development of sport in Scotland will be severely hit because, as a result of the education cut-backs, school facilities will not be open to outside groups?
  Mr. McElhone: I am not aware that school facilities are not to be opened to outside groups If there is any evidence, I should be interested to receive it. I had a meeting yesterday with Dr. Docherty of the Manpower Services Commission. He has £12½ million of public money to spend and I have encouraged him to get together with the Scottish Sports Council to provide pitches, kick-about areas and, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), even hockey and rugby pitches.

  Further Education Colleges (Salaries)
  Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now arrange for the immediate definition and payment of salaries to principals, depute principals, assistant principals and heads of departments in further education colleges and central institutions in Scotland, and for full implementation of the Houghton Report Stage 2.
  Mr. McElhone: So far as further education colleges are concerned, I understand that the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee agreed on 4th March to the final determination of salaries payable to heads of departments and higher grades of staff. As regards implementation of other aspects of "Houghton Stage 2", I understand a deputation met my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Employment today and I will be discussing the outcome of the meeting with him. As regards staff in central institutions, I understand negotiations about "Houghton Stage 2" broke down on 17th March and I gather that they have gone to arbitration.
  Mr. Stewart: I welcome such progress as has belatedly been made, but does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is great anger and frustration in the profession and among the people holding these posts because of the long time taken to bring the matter to a head? Is he aware that those concerned do not see any conflict with the wages policy and that the sooner this matter is cleared up, the better for the morale of the teaching profession in Scotland?
  Mr. McElhone: I should make clear that there has been some misunderstanding among many people about stage two of the Houghton Report. Most of it has

  395
  been implemented. This part of the dispute concerns restructuring and certain promotion posts in further education. Since the Labour Government came to power, the salaries of school teachers and further education teachers have increased by an average of 60 per cent.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a sense of unfairness among teachers of this class in further education colleges in Scotland? Will he tell the House what was the outcome of the meeting with his fellow Minister this morning?
  Mr. McEIhone: I have yet to discuss with the Minister of State the outcome of this morning's discussions. If it is unsatisfactory, I shall discuss with him the possibility of this item being reintroduced at the next general round of pay talks.

  ADVOCATES-DEPUTE (SALARIES)
  Mr. Fairbairnasked the Lord Advocate what are the salaries of the home advocate-depute and advocates-depute; and what rises they have had and in what years since 1964.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): There is no difference between the salary of the home advocate-depute and the other six advocates-depute. In 1964 the annual salary was £1,250, but in addition fees were paid for appeal court appearances. On 1st December 1965 the annual salary was increased to £1,750. On 1st April 1970 it was decided that Appeal Court fees should no longer be paid and that the salary should be increased to £3,500. On 1st January 1971 the salary was increased to £4,500; on 1st August 1974 to £7,500; and on 1st August 1975 to £9,000.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer, which shows an inflationary spiral even greater than the Government have achieved in other matters. Does he feel that these salaries are justified in view of criticism of the law profession? If so, is the pay based on the real Scottish crime figures, or the bogus figures that the Scottish Office has been putting out over the last six years, although it knew the real figures?
  The Lord Advocate: I disagree with both the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments. We have had justice on the
  396
  cheap in Scotland for many years and the services of advocates-depute have been greatly undervalued. There has been a considerable increase in the court time spent in prosecutions because of the increase in crime in the last few years. There has been a corresponding increase in the amount of office work of advocates depute.

  JUDICIAL REVIEW
  Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Lord Advocate what studies his Department has made of the process of judicial review in other countries.
  The Lord Advocate: In considering the question of judicial review, officials of my Department have had regard to the process of judicial review in certain other countries, including a number of members of the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland.
  Mr. Johnston: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I am pleased to hear that such studies have been undertaken, but have they led him or his Department to conclude that any effective decentralisation of power within the United Kingdom requires some formal division of power which, in turn, will require some interpretation of vires? Would it not be far better and more appropriate for a judicial matter of this sort to be decided by a court rather than by a political Minister, as suggested in paragraphs 58 and 59 of the White Paper?
  The Lord Advocate: It would be wrong to suggest that the studies of this aspect are complete. The hon. Gentleman will perhaps understand why I cannot give a categorical reply to his question at the moment.
  Mr. Buchan: Surely the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has got it wrong. Should not a distinction be drawn between the two types of ultra vires—that in relation to a Bill going through the Assembly, endorsed or otherwise by Parliament, and that in the judicial review afterwards in which the law can be challenged in the courts because, having passed the Assembly and the Parliament, it was thought to be ultra vires? I hope that we do not admit a judicial review and that what is passed

  397
  by the Assembly and Parliament becomes law.
  The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend draws an important distinction and tempts me, but I shall resist the temptation.

SEX DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Canavan36. Mr. Canavan asked the Lord Advocate how many prosecutions there have been in Scotland for contravention of the Sex Discrimination Act.
The Lord Advocate: This information is not collected centrally, but so far as I am aware there have been no prosecutions for offences under this Act.
Mr. Canavan: How can my right hon. and learned Friend explain the complete absence of prosecutions in view of the evidence of sex discrimination in Scotland, particularly in education, with relatively few female head teachers and the curriculum options for girls often restricted? Will he, in liaison with Scottish Office Ministers, see that these authorities are encouraged and even prosecuted, if necessary, in order to rid Scotland for ever of educational establishments which resemble male chauvinist pig sties?
The Lord Advocate: If my hon. Friend has evidence of sex discrimination in education, he has not put it before me. The Act rightly does not depend primarily on criminal sanctions.
Mr. Younger: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman go further than that and agree that he should exercise the greatest reluctance in considering any prosecutions under the Act, since a number of prosecutions would merely make the law appear to be an ass whereas application of common sense would achieve the aims of the Act?
The Lord Advocate: Yes.

MARRIAGE (LAW REFORM)
Mr. Rifkind38. Mr. Rifkind asked the Lord Advocate whether he has received recommendations from the Scottish Law Commission with regard to reform of the law in respect of religious marriage in Scotland.
The Lord Advocate: No, Sir.
Mr. Rifkind: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is becoming increasingly indefensible and absurd that members of the Moslem, Sikh and Hindu communities are unable to contract religious marriages in Scotland although they have a right to do so in the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he undertake to bring in the necessary small piece of legislation to remove this anomaly, in the interests of good community relations?
The Lord Advocate: Matters of this kind are not solely at my discretion. The hon. Gentleman asks whether I have received recommendations from the Scottish Law Commission. He knows that the matter was considered by the Kilbrandon Committee, whose Report of 1969 still stands. I agree it would be indefensible to attempt to justify the statutory basis of some religious marriages and not others, but this subject must be looked at in relation to the general legislative programme.
Mr. Fairbairn: In considering legislation on religious marriages in Scotland, since we are now considering a measure dealing with the dissolution of marriages in Scotland, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman remove the petty, bureaucratic and out-dated procedures in regard to the arrangements for the contracting of a marriage? Would he also, instead of trying to bring the law of Scotland into line with that of England, return to the law of Scotland and recognise that where a union is regular, it can be solemnised as a common law marriage?
The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Gentleman may have heard of the doctrine of approbate and reprobate. I was not sure whether he was approbating or reprobating marriage in his question.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (MEETINGS OF COUNCIL OF MINISTERS)
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about business to be taken in the Council of Ministers of the European Community

399
during April. The monthly forecast for April was deposited yesterday.
The Heads of Government of the member States will meet in Luxembourg on 1st and 2nd April. There is no formal agenda for these meetings, but on this occasion the Tindemans Report on European union, direct elections to the European Assembly and unemployment in the Community are among the subjects likely to be discussed.
At present, five meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for April. Foreign and Finance Ministers will hold a joint meeting on 5th April; Foreign Ministers will meet on 6th April; Agriculture Ministers on 5th and 6th April; Development Ministers possibly on 8th April; and Social Affairs Ministers possibly on 29th April. There will be an informal meeting of Finance Ministers on 26th April.
Ministers at the joint Foreign and Finance Council will consider the external financial commitments of the Community and will undertake an overall review of Community budgetary questions.
At the Foreign Affairs Council, Ministers are likely to discuss the outcome of the European Council to be held on 1st and 2nd April. They may also consider the problems posed by the creation of a 200-mile fishery limit; passport union; progress of the work in the four Commissions set up following the Conference on International Economic Co-operation; relations with Portugal; the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, Greece and Iran, and tropical products in the context of the multilateral trade negotiations. Ministers will have before them the arrangements for the signature of agreements with the Maghreb and will review progress in the negotiations with Spain.
Agriculture Ministers will discuss amended arrangements for beef imports, provisions for sugar imports from ACP countries during 1976–77, the exclusive use of butterfat and milk proteins in dairy products and a number of proposed measures for improving agricultural structures.
Ministers at the Development Council are likely to consider development co-operation issues arising from the discussions of the Conference on Inter-
400
national Economic Co-operation. They may also discuss the estimated trends for gross Community aid payments to the Third World financed from the Community budget or by member States; the implementation of the resolution on the harmonisation and co-ordination of development co-operation policies within the Community; Community financial and technical aid to non-associated developing countries; possible Community participation in the International Fund for agricultural development, food aid following the World Food Conference and relations between the European Communities and non-governmental organisations specialising in development co-operation.
The informal meeting of Finance Ministers will discuss unemployment.
Social Affairs Ministers will have an exchange of views in preparation for the World Employment Conference and will also consider the employment situation within the Community.
Mr. Hurd: The Minister's statement makes clear the great importance to this country of the matters to be discussed next week at the meeting of Heads of Government. Who is to represent Britain on this occasion? If the second ballot for the leadership of the Labour Party produces a result on 30th March, is it suggested that the new Prime Minister will have kissed hands and be able to go to Luxembourg for this vital meeting on 1st April, perhaps with a new Foreign Secretary? If not, and if the present Prime Minister is still in office, is it the Prime Minister's intention to take with him one or more of the surviving candidates for his office on the analogy of the Potsdam Conference in 1945? The matters to be discussed next week are of far too great importance to the country to be left to the party games of hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that at the meeting of Agriculture Ministers on 5th and 6th April, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will give no further commitments about the common agricultural policy, particularly on the skimmed milk powder surplus, without the full and proper debate in the House which we have been promised and have not yet had?
Mr. Hattersley: I assure the hon. Gentleman without qualification that the rules to which we have ascribed to make it possible for the House of Commons to have the appropriate discussion before Community decisions are taken will be fulfilled.
I do not begrudge the hon. Gentleman his first point, but I think he understands that it is not a proper question for today. I assure him that the procedures which are now going on will make absolutely certain that we do not have the sort of hiatus which Mr. Macmillan created in 1963.
Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us take these issues more seriously than do the Conservative Front Bench? Is he also aware that the House did not have the opportunity of a debate on the skimmed milk mountain before decisions were taken, and will he tell us for how much longer a proper debate in the House on the Order will be held up?
Mr. Hattersley: I accept the first point made by my right hon. Friend. I have discovered that fact to my cost on many previous occasions. The skimmed milk powder Order is essentially a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I share my right hon. Friend's view of the importance of the House expressing its opinion on these matters and I shall report his view, which is no doubt the view of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister tell us more about the meeting on 1st and 2nd April on the 200-mile fishery limit? Does his statement mean that the Common Market Ministers accept in principle the need for a 200-mile limit for each country, and will the Ministers responsible for fisheries be present at the discussion?
Mr. Hattersley: My statement certainly does not mean what the right hon. Gentleman suggested at the beginning of his supplementary question. The Common Market accepted the necessity for the creation of a common fisheries policy within days of Britain joining the Community, some would say rather suddenly and others would say in anticipation of
402
Britain's membership. That common fisheries policy was decided before the 200-mile limit was envisaged, let alone on the agenda of the Law of the Sea Conference. What has to happen now at the Heads of Government meeting and at other levels is to reconcile the common fisheries policy with the new possible 200-mile provisions. That will be done initially by the Foreign Ministers, and much of the detailed work has to be done in the Agriculture Council. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is the first to recognise that substantial political points are involved and that it is necessary for the Foreign Ministers, and particularly the Foreign Minister of Great Britain, to speak about this subject very strongly.
Mr. Donald Stewart: In view of the representations made in recent weeks on both sides of the House about fisheries policies, does not the Minister consider that the subject should have the highest priority at the European meetings?
Mr. Hattersley: No doubt the most important issue to be discussed in the Community from Britain's point of view during the next three months is the common fisheries policy and the necessity to make changes in it as it stands. The hon. Gentleman and I do not disagree about that.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite what the House thinks, the Commissioner for Agriculture takes the view that the scheme for milk deposits, particularly for feed manufacturers, is already operating? He repeated in Brussels on Monday that that was so, and that we should now be responsible for a series of deposits.
Mr. Hattersley: I was careful to say in answer to a previous question that the Government would observe the rules they set themselves as a result of the Foster Committee. One of those rules is an obligation to understand that sometimes Commission decisions as a result of negotiations have to be taken quickly and have to be implemented according to the rules and regulations governing the Community. That is what I said earlier and, whether my hon. Friend likes it or not, I fear I have to confirm it now.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not the Minister agree that it would be better

403
to postpone the meeting to be held on 1st and 2nd April until the leadership question has been decided and a new Prime Minister has been elected? Will he suggest that to his colleagues in the European Council? Will it not be necessary for the Minister to take a decision on the storage of protein at the Agriculture Ministers' meeting on 5th and 6th April? Will he give us an assurance that the House will be able to debate that subject before the decision is taken? The House has not yet had a debate on the deposit scheme which came into operation on 16th March and which is causing grievous difficulties throughout the Unted Kingdom. The subject was not debated properly either in the House or in Europe.
Mr. Hattersley: I must continue to remind the House that questions concerning specific debates must be addressed not to me but to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. If such a question is addressed to my right hon. Friend, he might want to consider how much was discussed during the general debate on agriculture on 12th February, when, some of us would argue, all the issues now under review were at least mentioned and an opportunity was given to air them.
The hon. Gentleman makes a number of assumptions about procedures now going on to elect a new Leader of the Labour Party. Whether or not they are completed by the time of the European Council, I have no doubt, looking at the wealth of talent at the top of the Labour Party, that we shall be adequately represented.
Mr. Powell: Will Her Majesty's Government co-operate with the French Government at the European Council to secure the deferment of the question of direct elections, if necessary indefinitely?
Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman has information about the attitude of the French Government which is denied not only to me but, as I understand it, to the President of France.
Mr. Spearing: Whatever the outcome of the debate at the Council on direct elections, will my right hon. Friend agree that it is being debated on a document and that, according to the reply he gave
404
me on 10th March, that draft document, although available in summary form, will not be available to the House on Monday? Will my right hon. Friend explain, in view of the dried milk fiasco, why this House will not have the document on direct elections which is to be discussed at the Heads of Government meeting?
Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend always remembers my answers to him a great deal more precisely than I do. I assure him that we are anxious that the House should have as much information on this subject as is possible. That is why, quite unusually, we have produced a précis of the document at a very early date, in order that my hon. Friend and others should know exactly what are the contents of the document.
Mr. Spearing: Not exactly.
Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend, by the nature of the question, has not had the opportunity that I have had to read both the précis and the actual document. Let me assure him that when he reads them he will discover that the information provided for the House is exactly a replica of that in the document, although the document may expand the point in a number of particulars. But the document—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hattersley: Although the document is not one which it is possible to present to the House at this stage, we are most anxious that the House should have the fullest information, and the House has received it.
Mr. John Davies: In view of the somewhat unhappy experience that the Government have had with skimmed milk powder, and in view of the Government's somewhat precipitate withdrawal from the metric noose tomorrow, may we be assured that no further action will be taken in the Council of Ministers on this vexed subject until there has been the opportunity to ventilate the matter in the House?
Mr. Hattersley: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Concerning direct elections to the European Assembly, will my right hon. Friend always keep in mind that direct elections are a prelude to a

405
federal system in Europe, to which the Prime Minister has on more than one occasion expressed opposition?
Mr. Hattersley: That is not a view which I hold, but if my hon. Friend is able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on Monday, when I understand that this subject is to be debated, no doubt the speakers who follow him will be able to convince him how wrong that point of view is.
Mr. Marten: As the balance of trade deficit with the Common Market, according to what I was told earlier this week, is now £2,354 million, compared with a surplus of £47 million in 1970, when will the Council of Ministers look at the so-called benefits of the wider home market which we were told about and do something about it, so that we at least get a slightly better chance in this market?
Mr. Hattersley: I have the good fortune to make the same point almost every month, which is perhaps an acceptance that the deficit has grown in the way the hon. Gentleman has described. I remind him, however, that all authorities on these matters suggest that our overall deficit on the balance of trade would be a great deal worse were we not members of the Community.
Mr. Hardy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these rather disadvantageous agricultural arrangements might be just a trifle more acceptable if we did not have evidence that some of our Community partners were purchasing large quantities of Eastern European coal sold to them at below cost price? Will whichever representative of the Treasury Bench takes part in the international negotiations seek to encourage our partners to buy some British coal?
Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that if by any freak of chance that comes up next month my right hon. Friend will take it into account when he discusses it in the Community.
Mr. Fairgrieve: The Minister's statement that the Finance Ministers will discuss unemployment is most welcome. Will they also possibly again touch on and remind people of the question of monetary union, for the simple reason that, had we had this, we might not have
406
had snakes wiggling one way, only downwards, and the pound going only one way, namely, out of sight?
Mr. Hattersley: My difficulty is that I am always squeezed on the one side by those who are more enthusiastic than some of us and on the other side by those who are not at all enthusiastic. The hon. Gentleman is in the first category. I do not subscribe to his judgment about the advantages for the United Kingdom of membership of the snake.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend convey to Mr. Lardinois, who stated yesterday that if we do not observe the rules with regard to economic and monetary union the Common Market will break up within five years, that some of us on these Benches would like it to do precisely that? We shall not conform to the sort of gobbledegook that my right hon. Friend has poured out from the Despatch Box today, and we shall reject all those measures which we feel are not in this country's best interests. Mr. Lardinois ought to know from the outset what we are about. Does my right hon. Friend also accept that an increasing number of British workers are urging us to take this stand?
Mr. Hattersley: That is a statement of my hon. Friend's position. My own is to rely on the wisdom of the British people and follow the lead they gave in the referendum.
Mr. Jim Spicer: In his outline of the agenda for the Foreign Ministers, the Minister, made no mention of the problems of Southern Africa. Will he accept that we within the European Community have a particular relationship with the countries which are signatories of the Lomé Convention, and therefore accept that it is for us in the United Kingdom to press in particular the problems of Zambia and Zaire, which at the moment are virtually in a state of siege and blockade?
Mr. Hattersley: These matters are discussed in the political co-operation machinery of the Community, and it is not the convention—developed in this House during the history of business statements—for statements to be given about the political co-operation issues. I have no doubt at all that Community Foreign Ministers, formally or informally, will

407
consider these matters, but it is not an appropriate subject for me today.
Mr. Spriggs: Can my right hon. Friend inform the House whether the use of skimmed milk in farm feeding stuffs will affect the farmers' costs and eventually increase the cost of living?
Mr. Hattersley: I cannot answer that question without notice.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Reverting to the question asked from the Opposition Front Bench, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that proper concern that this important summit meeting should be a success and that Britain's views should be fully and completely heard at it is not a matter for party games, and that there is no such suggestion from this side of the House?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that the German Government have indicated that it would be convenient if the summit were to be postponed a little so that Britain could be properly represented? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the Italian political congress now under way, it would be an advantage for Italy as well?
Will the right hon. Gentleman think again and consider whether it would not be wisest in the national interest that there should be a short postponement, in order that the very proper procedures on either side may be completed?
Mr. Hattersley: Of course, were we to believe a postponement to be in the national interest, or in the wider Community interest, we should wish to defer the meeting, but at this moment I am not convinced that that is the situation.
Mr. Torney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Commissioner for Agriculture, speaking in London yesterday, enumerated the terrible mess that the common agricultural policy is in and indicated its likely break-up, and that, in saying that, apparently he is now agreeing with a great many hon. Members of this House? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend take steps at the meetings which are to take place to press for a completely new agricultural policy for the Community which will take cognisance of the needs of Britain, especially those of the British consumer?
Mr. Hattersley: That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has been doing for the past two years.
Mr. Torney: My right hon. Friend is joking.
Mr. Fernyhough: Is my right hon. Friend aware, taking up the matter raised by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), that in the three years that we have been in the Common Market the visible trade deficit has totalled £5,547 million? Can he say how much of our overseas borrowings has been necessary to cover that deficit?
Mr. Hattersley: I cannot answer the precise question without notice, but the answer to the principle of the question is the one that I gave to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). No one has really any doubts that our economic situation overall would not have infinitely deteriorated had we left the Community on 5th June.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS (MR. SPEAKER'S STATEMENT)
Mr. Speaker: I myself have a statement to make.
I have given some thought to the points which were raised yesterday after the Prime Minister's Questions by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson).
Supplementary questions to the Prime Minister have long posed a difficult problem for the Chair, and the matter was considered with great care in 1972 by the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions to which, the House will recall, I referred in my statement on 16th February.
That Committee pointed out in its Report that supplementary questions frequently go wider than the Answers theoretically permit and said that it did not believe that the Chair should be asked to apply different standards to supplementary questions to the Prime Minister from those that are applied to other supplementary questions. On the other hand, the same Committee decisively rejected a suggestion that Questions to the Prime Minister might be purely extempore. Clearly the Committee

409
believed—and so do I—that the line must be drawn somewhere.
I have already endeavoured to intervene when supplementary questions to departmental Ministers have manifestly gone wide of the mark, and this, with the support of the House, I shall continue to do.
With regard to Prime Minister's Questions, when their content is clear and specific, I see no reason why the same practice should not be applied. When, however, their terms are general and vague, as most often is the case, for reason which hon. Members will know, I propose to follow the guidance of the Committee and to allow as much latitude as is consonant with the general rules of order.
I must make one final point with regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Tottenham, who I am sorry is not in his place, but I feel that I must make this statement today, having now had an opportunity to study his words in Hansard. The hon. Gentleman said:
"Hon. Members have gone to the Table Office seeking to place a particular Question and have found that one set of rules applies to some Members and another set of rules to another set of Members."—[Official Report, 23rd March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 204.]
This statement does less than justice to people who serve all parties in this House quite impartially. I am entirely satisfied that the Table Office makes no differentiation of any kind between right hon. and hon. Members when advising them on the rules of Questions. I remind the House that, in deciding whether a Question is in order, I am the final authority and that, if a Member wishes a disputed Question to be referred to me, it is the duty of the Table Office so to refer it. This it has never failed to do.
I wish to place on record, therefore, my appreciation of the courtesy and impartial service rendered to the whole House by those who serve in the Table Office.

RHODESIA
Mr. Cormack: 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
410
matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the situation in Rhodesia and this country's relations with that territory consequent upon Mr. Ian Smith's rejection of the British Government's latest proposals for a settlement."
It would hardly be possible to exaggerate the urgency of the situation in Rhodesia and, in view of Mr. Smith's refusal to accept Her Majesty's Government's proposals outlined in this House on Monday by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, it is important that the House should have an early opportunity to debate the whole complex issue.
That Britain has a de jure responsibility for all the citizens of Rhodesia, black and white, is not in dispute. Each day brings fresh news of moves on the African continent and beyond which have frightening implications for the future of those citizens. In these circumstances, I believe that they have a right to expect this House to recognise their plight and to discuss their future.
That these matters are specific and important and within the competence of this House to discuss is, I believe, self-evident. That they should be discussed immediately is, I equally believe, vital.
I trust, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that you will feel able to grant this request so that we can debate these issues tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) for giving me notice of his intention to raise this matter this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the situation in Rhodesia."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reason for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 9TH APRIL
Members successful in the Ballot were:
Mr. John Stonehouse
Mr. Tony Durant
Mr. Frederick Willey.

BILL PRESENTED
  CUSTOMS DUTIES (DUMPING AND SUBSIDIES) (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Richard Wainwright, supported by Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. David Penhaligon, Mr. Stephen Ross and Mr. David Steel, presented a Bill to amend the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1969; to establish a committee to consider action to be taken on all applications for anti-dumping measures under this Act; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (ELECTION OF MEMBERS)
3.58 p.m.
Mr. Bob Cryer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the election of the members of the boards of nationalised industries.
The modest Bill seeks to carry out part of our manifesto pledge to implement industrial democracy and, in particular, Clause Four of the constitution of the Labour Party, which was adopted in 1918 to ensure that the means, distribution and exchange of production were under the most popular system of administration.
We have failed so far to implement fully both the letter and spirit of Clause Four in that we have not achieved a system of administration in the nationalised industries which has given the workpeople in those industries any impression that part of nationalisation is to give workpeople an involvement in control. Instead, over the years we have built up a tight, oligarchic rule drawn from an elite group which in general terms in no way represents the workpeople. How can the worker on the shop floor identify, for example, with Sir Richard Dobson, the newly-appointed Chairman of British Leyland? Departing from British American Tobacco with a goodbye present of £80,000, and prior to this having had a salary increase of £20,000, to make his total salary £58,000, he is now to work part-time for a public industry for £22,500.
There is no information open to hon. Members as to the method of Sir Richard Dobson's appointment, his hours of work or even whether he now knows where the factories are in the group. That is hardly an example to inspire the workers with democratic fervour. My Bill will be a first step to rectifying this dispensation of patronage and ensuring that the method of selection and appointment is clear and open.
An examination of some of the nationalised boards indicates how unsatisfactory the position has become. They are littered with retired civil servants and captains of industry who, no doubt, share in some measure Sir Richard Dobson's anti-nationalisation views. The Chairman of the British Steel Corporation, Sir Monty Finniston, receives £27,750 a year.

413
He is assisted by six full-time members, who draw between £16,000 and £22,500, and six part-time members, who draw from £1,000 to £4,000 each. The part-time members include the Dean of Nuffield College, Oxford, the Chairman of the Weir Group of Companies and a retired Permanent Secretary to the former Ministry of Housing.
The British Transport Docks Board, which owns and operates 19 active ports, apparently manages with a part-time chairman, who naturally, because of his limited availability, receives the reduced rate of £10,283 a year. In the same incredible way the British Airports Authority, which owns and operates seven major airports, has a part-time chairman on £9,000 a year. The British Railways Board has a full-time chairman, who will shortly leave office, and my Bill, if given Government support, could well provide the means for obtaining a replacement democratically instead of autocratically.
Sir Richard Marsh, who owes his present position to electoral success in the past, rubs along on £23,100. With five full-time members, the Board is supplemented by part-timers who pick up between £1,000 and £3,000 apiece. They include the Chairman of Pilkingtons, the glassmakers, who apparently can spare the time, a retired civil servant, who is presumably supplementing his meagre pension, and Lord Taylor of Gryfe. Lord Taylor of Gryfe supplements his part-time work on the British Railways Board with more moonlighting as Chairman of the Forestry Commission, and as part-time Chairman he receives a pittance of £6,200 a year. It is to be hoped that he receives suitable incomes from membership of the boards of Scottish Television Limited, bankers Whiteaway Laidlaw and Co., Friends Provident and Century Group and Scottish Metropolitan Co. Limited, to enable him to make ends meet. He is not untypical of some appointees to nationalised boards.
From what I have said so far, it will be clear that many board members are quite unable to devote their time to the interests of the nationalised industries. They give no lead to the workpeople either in philosophy, style of life or example. We need leaders in the publicly-owned industries who are not there merely because the money is good and they have the approval of a Minister.
414
They should be there because they believe in public ownership and in the democratic control of industry. The only way that that can be achieved is if they have a sense of responsibility to the workers by being elected by them.
My Bill proposes that nominations be made by both the Government and the workers for the chairmen and members of the boards. It would not be true to suggest that only the workers' nominees would be elected. There has been an example recently in Coventry where the former manager of Jaguar Cars, by his example and by his concern for the workers, and not solely concern for production, was able to win the workers' esteem and electoral support. If my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) had been a Government nominee, he would have had a good basis of support. The Bill would require that the two Government nominees with most votes served on a board in order to prevent the growth of narrow syndicalism and to enable the board to receive a broader picture of the needs of the nation as a whole as opposed to a single industry.
The electorate would be the full-time workpeople of the industry, and elections would normally be held every five years. But the Bill would include provision for variations of this pattern by regulation to meet the needs of special situations. I anticipate that voting would be at the work-place, by secret ballot in the well-tried manner. Voting at a work-place also involves discussion of the policies and personalities involved and is more practical and cheaper than a postal ballot, when the media might be able to exercise excessive influence.
Regulations made under the Bill would provide for the limiting of expenditure by candidates in the election documents, but the cost of the elections would be borne by the industry itself. On the other hand, since my Bill would provide a new and radical method of obtaining the leadership of these industries, new criteria would operate. The incentive would no longer be solely financial with the rules of the executive market place prevailing, with lavishly paid people seeking ever-increasing payments which places them on a salary level way beyond the wildest dreams of the average worker. People will come forward who want to

415
serve their fellow men, people who seek a good but not outlandish salary, people who want to see publicly-owned industries work both in financial and in Socialist terms. The lavish salaries currently paid would therefore disappear. Provision would also be made for report-back meetings with workpeople.
To those in this elected assembly who say that the system would not work, I say that they should give democracy a try. A number of vacancies are arising on the various nationalised boards and it seems an opportune time to implement my Bill. To those who say that talent exists only within a small group of capitalists and top civil servants, and that it is terribly difficult to find people to serve on these boards, I say that they have the wrong attitude. They are looking only within a tiny group of people who demand large salaries and are remote from the ordinary people. The evidence is, in any case, against them. The shop stewards of Chrysler brought to the House a plan of how the company could be turned into a viable concern with emphasis on a switch to products for the Third World. Lucas Aerospace shop stewards have brought schemes for switching production from armaments to production for peaceful purposes. British Aircraft Corporation shop stewards have produced a plan for the democratic control of their organisation. The talent is there if only we bother to look.
Technical knowledge and experience would continue to be available from the full-time officers of the corporations in the same way as such advice is available to local authorities which are composed of elected representatives. The responsibility of a board would remain a corporate one. Certainly the vast salaries currently being paid never seem to result in individual members of boards accepting the responsibilities that those salaries allegedly represent. Local councillors have responsibility for the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds, yet the working men and women who are elected seek no large salaries for that responsibility.
The wider responsibilities of the elected boards would reduce the possibility of such grave errors as the Stokermatic affair, which still burns brightly at the
416
National Coal Board, and the purchase of steel plants at £42 million from GKN at Brymbo and Cardiff, the investment of £4 million of taxpayers' money and the reselling of the plant back to GKN for £20 million by the board of British Steel which resulted in a loss of £26 million. Elected representatives would guard the public interest more zealously than has often been the case in the past.
There is a long tradition of industrial democracy in the trade union and Labour movements. At the beginning of the century the miners' leader, A. J. Cook, produced a plan for the coal industry called "Miners—The Next Step", which involved the complete democratic control of the pits. My Bill would not provide for that sort of structure, but at least it would be a good start and an indication that the Government mean what they say when they talk of industrial democracy.
The newly-elected boards would enter into negotiations for the evolving of democracy that would ensure that workers in the nationalised industries were involved in the decision-making affecting them. We have for too long held out to working people the prospect of a changing society. For too long we have retained structures that are based on the old bosses who, in many cases, leapt joyfully back into the cushy jobs they held under private ownership. We succeeded in changing only the sign over the door.
Industrial democracy is not a catch-phrase for the rank and file. It must apply to all, including the leadership. My Bill will give an opportunity to apply democracy to the nationalised industries. It is a small start but it is one that we should make, and I hope that the House will give its overwhelming approval to the Bill.
4.9 p.m.
Mr. Teddy Taylor Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman rising to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Taylor: Most certainly, Mr. Speaker.
I hope that the House will reject this foolish Bill. Although we can understand the frustration felt by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and his

417
hon. Friends about the fact that the Government pay no attention to their outlandish views on industrial democracy, we do not want to add to the nation's problems by inflicting this solution on our State-owned industries.
There was one word which the hon. Member for Keighley never mentioned in his speech—"consumer". He talked about the need for workers being adequately represented, democracy for the workers and a change in the system, but he said not a word about the consumer. If there is anyone who needs protection against exploitation from the State-owned industries it is the consumer, who is sick and tired of nationalisation, which always means higher prices, fewer jobs and poorer services. If the hon. Gentleman wants to help the State-owned industries, he should look at them from the point of view of consumers, who are sick and tired of the prices now being charged and the amount they have to pay through their taxes for the extension of State control.
The hon. Gentleman wishes to extend democracy. The House should bear in mind the danger that we now face of bringing democracy into total disrepute because of a superfluity of elections. We are to have elections for the European Parliament, a Scottish Assembly and regional councils and now, it appears, for the boards of nationalised industries as well.
The hon. Gentleman has hit upon an important point. In two recent Bills the Government have committed themselves to industrial democracy without defining precisely what they mean. If the hon.
Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends do what trade union leaders have done recently and carefully examine industrial democracy, I am sure they will share the declining enthusiasm in the trade union movement for the principle of industrial democracy. The more one studies industrial domocracy, the more one realises that it could undermine the whole structure and basis of the trade union movement.
The hon. Gentleman has been scathing in his criticism of certain heads of the State-owned industries. It is interesting that those whom he attacked most vigorously, such as Sir Monty Finniston, are the products of working-class homes who have tried their best to help those industries, in spite of a Socialist Government. The Peers whom he criticised are Socialists, who are voting for Socialism at the same time as they hold the jobs he mentioned.
There are many things wrong with our State-owned industries which should be put right, but the hon. Gentleman's contribution has been further to emphasise the basic split in the Labour Party between the Social Democrats and the neo-Marxists. The Government should be trying to reorganise the State-owned industries to ensure proper protection for the consumer. Let us bring forward Bills to help the consumer, not to extend extreme Left-wing Socialism.
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 133, Noes 144.

Division No. 97.]

AYES

[4.14 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Allaun, Frank

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Flannery, Martin

Ashley, Jack

Corbett, Robin

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Ashton, Joe

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Forrester, John

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Crawford, Douglas

Freud, Clement

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Crawshaw, Richard

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Cryer, Bob

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Bates, Alf

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

George, Bruce

Bean, R. E.

Delargy, Hugh

Gould, Bryan

Beith, A. J.

Dempsey, James

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Dunn, James A.

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Bidwell, Sydney

Edge, Geoff

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Bradley, Tom

Ellis, john (Brigg & Scun

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Buchan, Norman

English, Michael

Heffer, Eric S.

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & p)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Henderson, Douglas

Clemitson, Ivor

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Horam, John

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Cohen, Stanley

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Coleman, Donald

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Hunter, Adam

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Janner, Greville

Molloy, William

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Thompson, George

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Newens, Stanley

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Noble, Mike

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Oakes, Gordon

Tinn, James

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Ovenden, John

Torney, Tom

Kelley, Richard

Pardoe, John

Tuck, Raphael

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Perry, Ernest

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Lambie, David

Richardson, Miss Jo

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Lamborn, Harry

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Ward, Michael

Lamond, James

Rooker, J. W.

Watkins, David

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Watkinson, John

Lipton, Marcus

Sedgemore, Brian

Weetch, Ken

Loyden, Eddie

Selby, Harry

Welsh, Andrew

Luard, Evan

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Skinner, Dennis

Whitlock, William

McElhone, Frank

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Mackintosh, John p.

Snape, Peter

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Spearing, Nigel

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Madden, Max

Spriggs, Leslie

Young, David (Bolton E)

Mahon, Simon

Stallard, A. W.

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Maynard, Miss Joan

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Mr. Dennis Canavan and

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Mr. Russell Kerr

Mikardo, Ian

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

NOES

Adley, Robert

Grylls, Michael

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Aitken, Jonathan

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Mudd, David

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Neave, Airey

Baker, Kenneth

Hampson, Dr Keith

Nelson, Anthony

Banks, Robert

Hannam, John

Neubert, Michael

Bell, Ronald

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Normanton, Tom

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hastings, Stephen

Onslow, Cranley

Biggs-Davison, John

Higgins, Terence L.

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Blaker, Peter

Holland, Philip

Page, John (Harrow West)

Body, Richard

Hordern, Peter

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Parkinson, Cecil

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Hurd, Douglas

Percival, Ian

Braine, Sir Bernard

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

James, David

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Brotherton, Michael

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

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Raison, Timothy

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Budgen, Nick

Jopling, Michael

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Burden, F. A.

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Rifkind, Malcolm

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Kershaw, Anthony

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Kimball, Marcus

Royle, Sir Anthony

Clegg, Walter

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Kirk, Sir Peter

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Cope, John

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Shepherd, Colin

Corrie, John

Knox, David

Sims, Roger

Costain, A. P.

Lane, David

Sinclair, Sir George

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Skeet, T. H. H.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Drayson, Burnaby

Lawrence, Ivan

Stanbrook, Ivor

Durant, Tony

Le Marchant, Spencer

Stanley, John

Dykes, Hugh

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lloyd, Ian

Tebbit, Norman

Elliott, Sir William

Luce, Richard

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Eyre, Reginald

Macfarlane, Neil

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Marten, Neil

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Mates, Michael

Wall, Patrick

Fookes, Miss Janet

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Warren, Kenneth

Weatherill, Bernard

Forman, Nigel

Mawby, Ray

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Fry, Peter

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Wiggin, Jerry

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Winterton, Nicholas

Goodhart, Philip

Molyneaux, James

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Goodhew, Victor

Monro, Hector

Younger, Hon George

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Montgomery, Fergus

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Morgan, Geraint

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gray, Hamish

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Mr. Iain Sproat and

Grist, Ian

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Mr. Patrick Cormack.

Question accordingly negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [14TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dunn.]
4.23 p.m.
Mr. Terence Higgins: I do not believe that anyone in the House would dispute that international trade is of vital importance to the economic survival of the United Kingdom. There is no doubt whatsoever that we as a country live by trade, and it was for this reason that the subject was chosen by the Opposition for debate today. The extraordinary thing is that, as far as I can establish, there is no precedent for debating this subject, despite its overwhelming importance. Certainly I cannot recall an occasion on which we have debated it, and the Library has been unable to establish any precedent, so that we are faced with a wide-ranging debate which raises a tremendous number of complex and diverse issues.
It is interesting to contemplate why this House has not previously debated this subject in its broader context. No doubt pressure of legislation of various kinds under successive Governments has had something to do with it, and perhaps a desire by the Executive of both parties to keep the matter off the Floor. But there is, I believe, no lack of interest in the House itself. It is true that we have from time to time debated exports, export credits and the problems of the textile industry. We have had one debate on monetary reform in the context of trade in the last 12 years and, of course, we have debated the European Economic Community in most general terms. But we have not looked at the whole range of subjects covered by international trade and it is this that I should like to do in my opening remarks.
The situation in other countries varies a great deal. Following the passage recently of the United States Trade Act, that country in addition to having, in
422
effect, a presidential negotiator, has subcommittees, both of the Senate and the House of Congress, which are in effect monitoring the proceedings of multilateral trade negotiations as they go along, which is a very interesting innovation. The degree of parliamentary control varies quite a bit between various countries, both in the EEC and outside.
I believe that, despite the risk that this could be an occasion for particular pressure groups to exercise influence on the Government, none the less it is right that these issues should be ventilated, and I am glad that we have an opportunity to do so this afternoon. The time we have available is very short—only half a day, with a cut-off at 7 o'clock following a statement and a ruling by yourself, Mr. Speaker, a Standing Order No. 9 application and a Ten-Minute Rule Bill with a Division.
I very much hope that, bearing in mind the obvious importance of these matters, the Government will find the time necessary for a further debate on this subject, and I hope that it will become a regular feature of parliamentary debates. We become too obsessed with legislation in this place and are not sufficiently preoccupied with debating major issues which are of vital importance to the country.
That having been said, I would stress that we want today to press the Secretary of State for Trade to take a lead in these matters. It is, of course, the case that we now operate within an EEC context, but we very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman's well-known antipathy to the EEC will not be a disadvantage but in this respect will in some ways be an advantage because there are a number of aspects of EEC policy which require reform and a number of areas in which we hope to add the weight of the EEC to a specific British viewpoint.
One of the main points I want to stress, therefore, is the importance of getting the Secretary of State for Trade to play a rôle in the EEC and, I hope, to take a lead as far as the EEC is concerned. Obviously there are many subjects we could discuss. I suggest that none of those which we have already covered—for example, textiles—although important, should be the centre-piece. I shall suggest a fundamental approach to what the trade policy of this country should be,

423
touching upon some specific problems in respect of invisible trade—invisible exports and imports—and East-West trade; some comment on the very important United Nations Conference on Trade and Development—the fourth UNCTAD—which is to take place very shortly; and, finally, some comment on multilateral trade negotiations.
First, it is important that we should turn to our fundamental approach to trade policy. Here, on the 200th anniversary of the publication of The Wealth of Nations, I am bound to say that I believe that Adam Smith was right and that we ought to press for freer trade, because that is the foundation for expanding world trade. That is extremely important if the prosperity of this country is to be advanced. Having said that and having spoken out against protectionism, we must face the fact that the matter is not all that simple. I want to say something about the growing pressure for import controls. Personally I believe that the main, fundamental case for free trade remains overwhelming. There are, of course, more theoretical viewpoints. Professor James Meade, in a two-volume work with appendix, pointed out the difficulties of proving that case, and there has been a great deal of talk lately about the Cambridge New School's view on the case for import controls. There, again, I am totally unconvinced. I find that the assumptions on which the arguments are based would be likely to be invalidated by the policies they are advocating on the basis of their analysis. At all events, the point needs to be argued.
I do not think that this is a partisan point between the two sides of the House. There is broad agreement on this side and among the bulk of hon. Members opposite on the danger of this country going in for protectionism. It is important that we should resist pressures to go into protectionist postures and the kind of double talk that we have had from a number of people on this issue, whether the argument starts off as one for selective import controls and gradually broadens out into wider advocacy, or whether it is one for more general import controls.
I do not want to get involved in any particular polemical matters which may be a matter of dispute between right hon.
424
Members, as much as hon. Members, opposite. I seek to persuade hon. Members opposite to take the view, which for example, has been put by Mr. Ron. Hayward, the General Secretary of the Labour Party, and a number of others—and I distinguish import controls carefully from dumping, because the crucial distinction is between fair and unfair competition—that the advocates of import controls are mistaken in believing that there is any case for the kind of import controls for which a number of people in the Labour Party have been arguing.
I find it very difficult to understand how they do not realise the dangers of going back to the 1930s—the very great danger that we could turn what is now a world depression into a world slump in precisely the same way that protectionism and beggar-my-neighbour policies in the 1930s turned that world depression into a world slump.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman opposed to protection and restrictions on agricultural and food products as well as manufactures?
Mr. Higgins: I shall come to that point when I speak about the multilateral trade negotiations.
The fundamental points are very simple on the idea that there should be more general import controls. First, general import controls would invite retaliation. I beg hon. Members opposite to appreciate that the protectionist pressures overseas are very great. I have travelled abroad, particularly to Washington, and I have no doubt that the danger of starting a trade war of the kind which I have described is very great. Even the very small measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in December produced a pronounced reaction in Washington, and, of course, many of the protectionist lobbies in the United States and elsewhere would welcome a move of this kind as a chance themselves to promote protection for their own industries in their own countries.
If that were to be so, world trade would shrink, and no one would lose more than the United Kingdom from such a shrinkage. I have no doubt that that is the fundamental argument, but there are others.

425
The second argument is that general import controls would reduce consumer choice, and that is not an unimportant matter. Many hon. Members even today have stressed the importance of maintaining consumer choice. In addition, such controls would reduce the competition that imported goods have exerted as a downward pressure on prices, which, in turn, tends to ameliorate inflationary pressures. That is an extremely important aspect.
The third argument concerns the idea that import controls would somehow give a breathing space to this country in which economic recovery could take place. I do not believe that it would create a breathing space in which British industry was regenerated. I believe that it would reduce competition and lead to degeneration. It would increase costs and add to the unemployment, not ameliorate it—the unemployment that those advocating these measures are themselves also anxious to ameliorate. It is very important that we should take an impartial and unbiased view and not press for a solution which would make our problems a great deal worse than they are—and they are bad enough.
Finally, there is the question of the floating exchange rates. We have recently seen a major change in the sterling parity. This itself in many ways is a form of protectionism in one sense, because it means that imports are more expensive and it makes our exports more competitive. I was disturbed when the Secretary of State for Trade, when he last answered Questions in the House, said that this was a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is also very much a matter for the Secretary of State as well, because if we get reaction from abroad from those who believe that we are engaging in competitive exchange depreciation—again of the kind we had in the 1930s—that will be a very dangerous situation.
I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to make it clear, because the Chancellor failed to do so after the meeting on the Continent a few days ago, that such policy forms no part of the British trade policy, because once we got into that position we would once again be in danger of falling back into the old postures of the 1930s which have proved so dangerous in the past. I hope that the
426
right hon. Gentleman will be able to make it clear that it is not the Government's intention to get into that position. If that is so, the exchange rates were badly managed and the cut in the minimum lending rate, made immediately after we went through the psychologically important $2 barrier, was a sad event. The point should be taken in the context of our basic approach.
That having been said, the fact is that one can justify the position I have outlined only if we take effective action against dumping and unfair competition. I have discussed these matters with many trade associations, and my experience, particularly with the most sensitive industries, such as textiles and footwear, is that they are not convinced that recent voluntary agreements are adequate to deal with their problems. My impression is that all these industries would much prefer effective and faster action against dumping rather than a general relapse into protectionist pressures and a general system of import controls, which would be likely to damage them in their overseas markets.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find himself able to take a more flexible attitude towards the problem of dumping. When he last answered Questions, he seemed to be adopting a more flexible attitude. He assured us that he was prepared to help complainants about dumping to find the data. Certainly, Government Departments are in a better position to do that than are individual industries and firms.
Mr. Robert Boscawen: Would not my hon. Friend agree that we want more than simply flexible reaction from the Secretary of State and that we need adequate reasons why he cannot stop dumping? We never get a fully adequate reply, particularly about the onus of proof.
Mr. Higgins: I hope that we shall get an explanation from the Secretary of State. Many hon. Members are particularly concerned about the problem of the onus of proof, which is difficult. There is the old adage in trade circles that "You dump and I price competitively". I think that there is always a problem with the onus-of-proof argument. But industry should be helped in the collection of data.

427
We also need to consider whether it is a sensible arrangement that a reference is made on dumping only if an industry as such complains. One sometimes gets divergent views between different industries and different firms about whether anti-dumping action is required.
One must take a balanced approach. I believe that a more flexible attitude on this matter, consistent with our international obligations, is much more what our industry wants than anything of the more general sort advocated by some who would perhaps like to see us slowly decline into a protected market—in effect, a siege economy.
I want to deal now with export credits. There has been controversy as to whether this matter falls within the competence of the Secretary of State in terms of signing agreements or within the competence of the EEC Commission. There is, however, growing concern that the extension of export credit may be getting too large. The Under-Secretary said in reply to a Question:
"The current value of outstanding fixed-rate export finance made by the banks and guaranteed by the Export Credits Guarantee Department is £3,021 million."—[Official Report, 10th March 1976; Vol. 907, c. 243.]
Although there is the Berne Union arrangement, which is supposed to prevent excessive competition in credit terms, my impression is that this has been unsuccessful in preventing the situation where the developed countries, particularly in their trade with the less-developed countries, come out more and more in favour of extending export credit, on which they seem to have no unified position, but become more and more unified over rescheduling the debts subsequently incurred. I am far from sure that this is a desirable situation.
Our trade in invisibles is tremendously important. We have had debates recently on insurance. We appreciate, of course, the importance of the commodity market, the Baltic Exchange for shipping and other contributors to invisible exports. I am somewhat concerned about whether Lloyd's Register of Shipping and classification societies in other countries are getting freedom of access to the United States market. There is some indication that non-tariff barriers have been erected to their competing as regards the classification on both ships and oil rigs. In
428
contrast, the American classification society is able to compete freely in our market, for example on oil rigs. I hope that the Department will be prepared to look into this matter.
My other question on this point concerns our national merchant marine. It has always been tremendously important in terms of both the invisible earnings which we obtain from it and the benefit to our balance of payments. It is very much an industry where historically we have been and, I believe, still are remarkably competitive. As I said at Question Time recently, however, the growth in the Russian tonnage operating on a subsidised basis and at cut rates is placing in jeopardy our position not only in the direct trades but on the cross trades from which much of our revenue comes.
For example, container ships, in which a lot of investment has taken place, are affected by the combination of the growth in the Soviet merchant marine and the Trans-Siberian Railway which has led to rates being cut far below what seem to be economic levels, and this may have serious implications for the balance of payments. This is clearly an area in which some degree of communal representation needs to be made in terms of the OECD countries. I hope that the Secretary of State will give his attention to this very important matter for the sake of both our economic life and perhaps, within the wider context, of security.
I come now to Anglo-Russian trade generally. Just over a year ago the Prime Minister returned from Moscow with what he described as a tremendously important deal. We know that in the event comparatively little—by the Prime Minister's standards, very little—trade has developed. This may be due to the timing of the Russian five-year plans. But my feeling is that the Russians' need for grain and other agricultural produce may well encourage them to buy foreign exchange effectively at a very big premium, which will mean that their exports to us will grow fast.
Hon. Members in many parts of the House have expressed concern about the dumping from centrally-planned economies of particular consumer goods. Hon. Members from both sides have particularly mentioned footwear and textiles. The Government took action in that respect

429
in some ways a few days ago, but we have no indication of the criteria by which they decide on the figure to be selected in the negotiations. In fact, there appears to be no criterion whatever. It is purely an arbitrary figure which is plucked out of the air. Many of those in the textile and footwear industries feel that the arrangements which have been made are inadequate and that the definitions—for example, showing the difference between sandals and ordinary shoes—are open to abuse. We have not so far managed to take sufficiently effective action on that.
On export credits between this country and Russia, the Russians, admittedly because of our interest rates, but perhaps also because of international interest rates, are able to purchase textile equipment at far better repayment terms and at far lower interest rates than our own industry is able to do. That appears to be the case, but we have not been given the information on the actual terms extended to Russia. I see no reason why it should not be made available to the House, and I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to do that this afternoon. Overall, the policy which the Government are pursuing on Russian trade, on both imports and exports, is in serious need of reappraisal. It is not operating to the advantage of this country, and we need to look at it very carefully.
I come now to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, which is a matter of passionate concern to the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) and to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Following the traumatic increase in oil prices, the position of the less-developed countries, particularly the poorest of them, has been very seriously eroded. The impact on them has been far greater than anything which has happened to the developed countries. That point is worth stressing and it lends added weight to the need for us to take an effective position in the UNCTAD in a few weeks' time. We must bear in mind that 60 per cent. of the Third World's earnings comes from trade in primary commodities, and it is upon this that the Secretary-General of UNCTAD, Dr. Corea—I had the privilege of meeting him yesterday—places a great
430
deal of weight. I hope that the Secretary of State will give us some indication of his position on that.
I hope that at UNCTAD IV we can make progress by consensus. A lot of passion has been aroused by the situation in the United Nations and its organs where the growing number of members from the Third World have the voting strength to carry particular resolutions. We should recognise that at the end of the day they end up with a resolution which the majority has carried, but that is all. It would be far better to reach a consensus arrangement which is worth something than merely to make political gestures.
We shall be interested to hear how the Secretary of State regards the proposals for commodities in the light of the Prime Minister's proposals at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference last year. They do not seem to fit in very well. After the dramatic and damaging way in which commodity prices went up in 1972–73, with the frightful effect on inflation for this country at that time, all of us would recognise the case for moves which would lead to greater stability in prices. The Secretary-General of UNCTAD is pressing for an integrated programme of commodity agreements covering 10 products. He makes the centre-piece of his proposal a fund which would not operate the schemes but would provide finance by various means. We would be interested in the Secretary of Slate's reaction to that. The important thing is that these measures should be to stabilise prices, but there is always the danger that instead they will try to affect the long-term trend.
I doubt whether that is in the interests of countries which depend on such commodities. If the long-term trend is downwards, it is important that those countries should diversify. We would be still more concerned if arrangements were made which had the effect of creating a series of OPEC-type bodies for different commodities which were positively designed to alter the trend and make it upwards. That, again, is not an effective way of giving assistance to developing countries. I know that there is a great diversity of opinion on this matter. Mr. Fred Bergsten of the Brookings Institution, for example, argues that there is a danger of the creation of numerous

431
OPEC-type organisations for many commodities. Mr. Bergsten is too fearful of that happening. However, there is a danger that we might create institutions which would tend to bring about that kind of situation.
Despite the difficulties which the Lomé Convention appears to be running into if Press reports today are to be believed, I think that we need to consider whether we can move towards a more general system of preferences, perhaps based on Lomé, which would not be restricted to countries which had formerly been associated with EEC countries. That may be the right direction in which to move, though there are serious problems regarding the repercussions on industries within the EEC.
Finally, I turn to the multilateral trade negotiations. Barclays Review recently contained a very good article entitled
"World Trade Reform—The Forgotten War."
This issue, which has largely been forgotten, has not been debated to any great extent in this House. It is right that the EEC should take an outward-looking approach to the whole issue. I hope that the Secretary of State, partly for the reasons which I have mentioned, will adopt that kind of attitude to the negotiations. The trouble is that the negotiations have been significantly slowed down. Originally they were expected to be completed by the end of 1975. They are still going on in Geneva.
The impact of the United States presidential election normally has that effect. None the less, I hope that we can make progress on the technical side so that, when that issue is resolved, we can get down to solving the real problems facing us in this area.
It is important, as I have said, for us to do all we can to reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade and make other arrangements which will lead to a growth in world trade. The snag—this was the right hon. Gentleman's point, and I am glad not to disappoint him—is that a considerable procedural wrangle is going on within the negotiations as to whether agriculture should be discussed only in the Agriculture Committee or in other committees as well. I understand that the United States, anxious to ensure that progress is made on the agricultural side,
432
particularly with regard to the CAP, has been pressing for the matter to be discussed in a number of different committees, whereas the EEC has tended to wish to restrict it to the Committee on Agriculture. I shall be interested to know the Secretary of State's position, given that this is a matter of some controversy in the House. We must resolve the matter if we are to make progress on the broader issues of trade generally outside agriculture.
Mr. Jay: Is it not more than a procedural difficulty? The EEC's negotiating position is that the principles of the CAP are not to be called in question at all. Does the hon. Gentleman support that position?
Mr. Higgins: This is something on which we want to inquire of the Secretary of State. It is a procedural point and a question whether—
Mr. Jay: It is more than a procedural point.
Mr. Higgins: It is more than a procedural point. It is both a procedural point, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, and a point of substance. We need to establish to what extent we can make progress without resolving this matter and what the dangers are. I hope that we shall have an indication from the Secretary of State regarding that matter. I do not underestimate the pressure in Washington or the pressure the other way in certain EEC countries. I had a long discussion with the American Secretary of Agriculture on this matter last summer. It is vital that this matter should not lead to the negotiations generally breaking down.
Another important matter concerns whether we feel obliged to go for a linear reduction on tariffs or for the kind of reduction on tariffs which will eliminate many of the American peaks on tariffs which have represented an extremely serious matter for our trade. With a succession of rounds having been completed, we are in a position where a percentage reduction across the board would not on balance be as favourable to our exports as a system which tended to diminish the various peaks on tariffs in the American structure at present.
There are a number of technical matters into which I shall not go now,

433
except one. It is important that on the non-tariff issue the Americans should understand how strongly we feel about the so-called "grandfather" clause which enables them to take countervailing action against exports from other countries which are not subject to the injury test. That is part of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which requires radical revision. It all comes within the general context of the negotiations as a whole.
I hope that this will be only the first of a number of debates on this subject and that the Government will find time to debate it as well. By and large, this matter raises tremendous issues regarding both East-West trade and the important relationship of North-South issues. I hope that the United Kingdom can form a bridge in both those directions. I hope that we can form a bridge between the EEC and the United States and beyond to Japan and other countries. I hope that we can also form a bridge between the developed world and the Third World on a number of these issues on which I believe that we have a great community of interest. We should be in a stronger, not weaker, position to negotiate on these matters as a member of the EEC than we have been for a very long time.
4.57 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): I hope in the course of my remarks to take up a number of the points made by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) regarding dumping, export credits, UNCTAD, the multilateral trade negotiations and other matters.
I should like to make two brief comments on certain points made by the hon. Gentleman. First, he invited me to take initiatives in the EEC in terms of the evolution of its trading and commercial policy. I take such initiatives as are available to me. I do not think that any of my right hon. and hon. Friends would expect me to be silent in that forum; far from it. We have a clear view of the right commercial policy for this country and we try to get it adopted within the framework of the EEC. That covers matters such as the multilateral trade negotiations, the Generalised Preference Scheme, the Multi-Fibre Arrangement—although that got under way before this
434
Government had a chance to take over—and various aspects of the North-South dialogue. The hon. Gentleman should have no doubt that we shall do our utmost within the EEC, but he should remember that, as a result of the decision that was taken, we are only one voice among nine. The institutional arrangements allow for a major transfer of initiative from member States to the Commisison particularly relating to trade.
The second comment I wish to make relates to the hon. Gentleman's reference to trade with Eastern Europe. We should approach that matter in a serious and commonsense way. Of course I am aware of the various products that come from Eastern Europe, some of which are highly competitive and some of which my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite consider to be dumped. We shall watch out for them, as we have done in the recent case of those notorious East German suits, and we are prepared to act upon them.
But let us get the matter in proportion. Our trade with Eastern Europe is one of the areas where we are in substantial surplus—apart from the Soviet Union. They take from us manufactured goods which give work to our people and earn us valuable foreign exchange. We have a deficit with the Soviet Union, partly accounted for by diamonds which we process here, and which always distort trade figures, and partly by essential raw materials.
My concern and that of any responsible Government is to see that Britain's exports grow. As a result of neglect in the past of Britain's trading effort towards the Soviet Union, we export there less than half what France or Italy does, well under half what Japan does, and only about one-sixth of what Germany does. There is a substantial market, and if we are to get our share of it, it is no good pretending that we can offer credit terms inferior to those offered by our competitors. It is humbug for the hon. Member for Worthing continually to make that point.
Mr. Higgins: Is it not therefore sensible to ensure that the credit terms offered by all these countries in trade with the Soviet Union and other Communist countries are not driven down to levels

435
at which it is a very bad deal from all points of view?
Mr. Shore: My philosophy on this matter is perfectly straightforward, and exactly what the House would expect. I am not seeking to undercut, but I shall match the competition. I will not see our exporters put at a disadvantage when faced with more strongly based and more successful trading rivals in other parts of the world.
I can strike one note of agreement with the hon. Gentleman. I also welcome this debate. I agree that no subject is more important to us all than that of trade, which affects not just the prosperity but the very survival of this country. I should like to drive home a fact that is frequently overlooked. To feed our 55 million people, in order to obtain the raw materials essential for our manufacturing industry and essential fuel supplies at least until North Sea oil comes on to full stream, we have to spend on imports about £10,000 million a year.
To pay for those absolute necessities and the many other things that we require, such as semi-manufactures and capital goods, we must export goods and services in return on a massive scale. Indeed, no less than 30 per cent. of our GDP is exported in goods and services and well over one-third of the output of our manufacturing industry goes into the export trade.
This need to import and to export is the abiding reality of British life. We have therefore three continuing major objectives in world trade. First, we must seek an expansion of the world economy—an expansion in which all countries can share. Secondly, we must strive to ensure that world-wide markets remain open to our exports. Third, we must ensure that our goods and services remain competitive. It is necessary only to state our major objectives to realise the formidable problems that we face today.
We are in the grip of a major world economic crisis. After a quarter of a century of virtually uninterrupted trade growth, during which the volume of world imports increased at about 10 per cent. a year, in 1974 the rate of increase fell to 3 per cent. and in 1975 there was an actual decline in the volume of world
436
trade of no less than 5 per cent. Throughout the world, production has fallen, unemployment has increased and the struggle for export markets has been sharply increased.
The causes of the world trade recession are familiar, but because their effects are ongoing they are worth repeating. The hyper-inflation of 1973 in world trade in commodities and foodstuffs of all kinds, would itself have produced corrective action affecting trade and output in 1974 and 1975, but we had the additional and major impact of the quadrupling of oil prices at the beginning of 1974, which led to a violent redistribution of deficits and surpluses among nations.
In 1973, before the oil crisis really hit us, the OECD countries, collectively, were in surplus to the tune of $2·5 billion, the OPEC countries had a $3·5 billion surplus and the non-oil developing countries a deficit of $5 billion. In 1974, the OECD countries had a deficit of $33 billion, the non-oil developing countries had a deficit of $18 billion, and the OPEC surplus had risen to $67 billion.
Last year, surpluses and deficits were again redistributed radically. The OECD countries, as a whole, almost achieved a balance—they almost wiped out a deficit of $33 billion—the OPEC countries, as a result of greatly increased imports, reduced their surplus to about $40 billion and the non-oil developing countries plunged still further into deficit. The balance of payments recovery of the OECD countries was, of course, achieved at the price of economic contraction, falling production and rising unemployment throughout the Western world.
Our major problem has been and is to find a solution to this new set of problems. The IMF, the Eurodollar market and bilateral borrowings have all played their part in mitigating the consequences of these changes. I am glad to say that the OECD countries have collectively resolved to work together to achieve a new expansion of world trade. At Rambouillet, in November, the leaders of the major trading countries—the United States, Germany, France, Japan, Italy and the United Kingdom—agreed on the need to continue to consult together in order to get world trade moving again.
Some corrective action has been taken; this is particularly notable in the upturn

437
of the United States economy. World trade this year will undoubtedly grow, and there are even more valuable prospects for 1977, but the underlying problems of the financing of balance of payments deficits globally and of the redistribution of surpluses within the OECD area remain. It is right to stress that Trade Ministers can succeed in expanding world trade only if Finance Ministers can find the solutions to the problems of financing world trade.
Long before the events of the last two years, the problems of the developing countries were urgent and in some cases desperate. As the World Bank's recent report on the world economy in 1973 revealed, 61 per cent. of the world's population lived in countries with a yearly per capita income of below $500 and 30 per cent. where it was less than $200.
I have already referred to the dramatic effects that the oil price increase has had since 1973 for the developing countries. It is this, of course, that has given such a special urgency to recent discussions in UNCTAD and elsewhere, and it has led to far reaching proposals designed to give those countries a larger share of the world's income.
I shall shortly be attending the UNCTAD IV Conference in Nairobi. It is the next major international meeting between developed and developing countries at which a very wide range of trade and development issues are to be discussed. In particular, we hope for tangible progress in commodity trade. We should like to see agreement in the Conference to give impetus to the achievement of improved and more stable arrangements for producers—arrangements that will recognise at the same time the interdependence of the interests of producers and consumers alike. We have played a constructive rôle in recent negotiations on tin, cocoa and coffee, and we are currently exploring—though there are difficulties—the possibilities of international action on tea. Together with countries in the Community and the OECD, we shall actively pursue our objectives on commodity trade both at UNCTAD and, indeed, in other forthcoming international meetings.
There are naturally differences of view and emphasis between those engaged in the debate—differences which we have
438
played our part in bridging in the Prime Minister's initiative at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting last May and in the subsequent discussions. Since then, although a considerable gap remains, a further step has been taken, with the agreement of the EEC countries, that the proposals put forward by the UNCTAD secretariat for an integrated approach are acceptable as a basis for further discussion.
I can assure the House that I shall not go to Nairobi with a closed mind on this or any of the other major issues upon the agenda. Clearly, the proposals will require greater elaboration and examination in detail. In relation, for example, to the proposed Common Fund, we shall need to be satisfied that a common institutional framework can play an effective rôle in this complex and difficult field. But if, at UNCTAD IV, we can initiate this further work with a will to find solutions, both at the political and practical level, we shall have at least one major and positive achievement to our credit.
There will also be discussion there of the continuing need of the developing countries for improved access for their exports of manufactured goods. Their special needs have been recognised in the Generalised Preferences Scheme operated now by most developed countries and in the commitments accepted by developed countries regarding the GATT multilateral trade negotiations. At the same time—and this is difficult, above all during a period of recession such as we are going through—we have to have a proper regard for the impact of trade liberalisation on our own producers.
I hope, in any case, that before the conference opens the Community, with other industrial countries, will have made offers on special concessions on tropical products as part of the ongoing progress in the GATT multilateral trade negotiations. Tropical products are of particular importance to so many of the very poorest developing countries, as the House knows.
The Nairobi conference will face up to other important areas of economic relations—resource flows to developing countries, including their debt problems; prospects for further trade liberalisation; and questions of building up their technological base, technological transfers, and

439
so on. We hope that constructive progress will prove possible in all these fields.
In the GATT multilateral trade negotiations, too, the position and problems of developing countries are assuming, I am glad to say, a much larger importance than in previous GATT rounds, including the Kennedy Round. The GATT should, in our opinion, remain the principal forum in which world trade problems as a whole are considered and dealt with.
There are three aspects of the multilateral trade negotiations that I should like to draw to the attention of the House. First, although previous GATT rounds have brought about major reductions in general tariff levels, there is still scope for further reduction. We are particularly concerned that the biggest reductions should be made, in genera], in the highest tariffs, and this is the line that the EEC is taking in the current discussions. Those who have studied the particular problems of tariffs in Europe and elsewhere will, I think, understand why this approach is one that naturally suggests itself to us.
Secondly, a particular feature of the current GATT round is the attention being paid to non-tariff barriers. In a world of reduced tariffs these are of larger importance though they embrace very complex problems. In the multilateral trade negotiations certain types of non-tariff barrier are being grouped together, such as quantitative restrictions, customs procedures and technical standards. We shall need, and no doubt we shall have to have, a flexible approach to these different problems.
Thirdly, as a corollary to the efforts to achieve a further and significant measure of liberalisation of world trade—I think that this will be welcome news to the House—it is even more vital that satisfactory machinery should exist to deal with disruptive imports. I am now talking not about dumping but about disruptive imports that come on such a scale and over such a period that they disturb the expectations and the possibility of adaptation by importing countries. The existing provisions under the GATT—I am thinking of Article XIX—are not wholely satisfactory, and we attach importance, therefore to the adoption of
440
new provisions that will allow a greater degree of selectivity in approach but with improved arrangements for international surveillance.
On the question of agriculture in the multilateral trade negotiations, there is no doubt at all that we have considerable difficulty in getting agriculture firmly on the agenda for discussion—and the reasons are well known. The original members of the EEC take a highly protectionist view on agricultural trade and they wish at all costs to maintain the fortifications which today surround the CAP. I should not like yet to say how far we have been able, as it were, to open the door or, rather, to get the door ajar. However, there is some arrangement now for what I think is called mutual surveillance and common disciplines, and at least an effort will be made by all those concerned to look at their own systems and to see, in the first instance, just what is the nature of the protection which they afford and then whether some common approach can be established for further negotiations. We shall help in all of this to the best of our ability.
I turn to our own position, as distinct from the general survey of world problems which I have tried to give. Our task in adjusting to the current world situation is doubly difficult because we have not only, with others, to deal with the problem of the oil deficit, but we entered the world recession and the oil problem with entirely different and serious problems of our own. In 1973, even before we felt the impact of oil, we had a widening balance of payments deficit. Indeed, in 1973 our current account deficit was £840 million, and in the last quarter of that year it was running at an annual rate of about £1,500 million—a much higher figure. On top of this we had the self-inflicted damage resulting from the three-day working week. Therefore, our balance of payments position at the end of the last boom was substantially worse than that of any of our major competitors. It seems to me that we have a very long way to go.
We have to look to expansion in world trade. We must certainly look to those of our trading partners who are in a stronger position, especially as regards their international payments, not to be too cautious

441
in reflating their economies. That is not a selfish point of view. The degree of recovery in world trade and the world economy is dependent upon their actions and it is, if anything, even more essential to the developing world than to ourselves that the course of recovery is unhindered. We are, unfortunately, restricted from taking a major lead in that process. This time our rôle must be to ensure that we are in a position to benefit as the general recovery of world trade proceeds.
We have many problems to solve. We still need to achieve a substantial shift of resources into investment and export. The need for more investment is self-evident, and I need not pursue that matter now. Certainly the need for more exports is clear if we are to make up the still large deficit that remains in our balance of payments. That deficit last year, even after the immense improvement that we sustained, still left us "in the red" on current account to the extent of £1,700 million. That was how we ended last year. Therefore, we still have a long way to go. For this reason we have further developed in the past year export credit facilities and other means to assist our exporters.
Four new facilities have been introduced in the last year in regard to export credit. I shall not repeat the details, which I hope are reasonably well known to the House. They cover, in appropriate cases, cost escalation, which helps exporters to deal with their problems flowing from our higher than average inflation, and they also deal with performance bonds, pre-shipment finance and certain risks of insolvency on the part of a consortium member, which is important for those who are engaged in large contracts with OPEC and other countries. Improvements have also been announced in the short-term credit facilities of the ECGD.
In all this activity there is a balance to be struck between the need to ensure that our exporters are not at a disadvantage vis-à-vis their competitors, while avoiding a race over credit support. Indeed, it is for this reason that we are playing an active part in negotiations to bring export credit competition under greater control. That is what we are trying to achieve. I hope soon to be able
442
to tell the House the results of these prolonged and difficult negotiations.
It is essential that the Government and our exporters deploy their efforts where the opportunities he. Even before the oil price rise, we were giving special attention to some OPEC markets. After the oil price increase, we strengthened and widened our efforts. As a result, the indications are that last year we achieved the largest increase in exports to OPEC countries of any country in the world. In terms of export growth, we did better than any other country in the world.
Now that recovery is in prospect in major industrial countries—and the countries of North America and Western Europe account for by far the largest proportion of our exports—new opportunities are opening. We can be encouraged by the fact that in last year's recession we more than held our share of world trade. That is a most encouraging and welcome development.
Our exports are now beginning to rise. In volume, they fell during most of 1975, but rose again in the last quarter of the year. In the latest three months, ending February, our exports were 4 per cent. in volume higher than in the previous three months. Moreover, a survey carried out in January of this year by my Department, in co-operation with the larger exporting companies, indicates that these major exporters are looking to an upturn in the volume of their exports this year amounting to 10 per cent. Recovery has begun, and there is a good prospect that it will continue. This is one important reason why it is so important to us that world markets should remain open. We have the prospects, and we must have an open market in which to sell our exports.
In May last year we subscribed to the renewal of the OECD declaration or pledge, with its emphasis on expansion and not restriction. However, I made clear at the time that our renewal was subject to two qualifications. The first was the fact that adequate finance should be available to cover deficits and, secondly, that the economically stronger countries should recognise their obligations to the rest of the world.
Inevitably, a period of recession places a particular strain on certain sensitive

443
sectors whose short-term problems cannot be met by an expansion of exports. Thus, the House will recall that last December my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a number of selective measures to restrict certain imports. These were applied in conformity with the international rules which provide for action in cases of disruption. We have also taken anti-dumping action, about which I should like to say a few words.
The present recession has given rise to a large increase in the pressure for antidumping action. That is hardly surprising. In the last 18 months my Department has received 26 applications for antidumping action. It has imposed three duties, obtained six price undertakings to eliminate dumping, and found no dumping in three cases; five cases are being handled by the EEC. The remainder are in course of investigation. There is inevitably much work involved in an investigation, which cannot be short-circuited if we are to comply with the law and with our obligations under GATT.
I should like to address my next remarks to those who are genuinely concerned about these problems. Our aim is to bring all cases to a conclusion at the earliest possible moment. We are asking firms only for such information as we think essential to establish a prima facie case. We are anxious to assist in any way we can. I do not believe that this is an issue between myself and my Back Bench colleagues, or between the Government Benches and the Opposition Benches. We are entitled to take antidumping action. For once, time and international law are on our side. Let us take advantage of that situation. Let industry co-operate with the Government in providing evidence. We cannot co-operate without receiving reasonable evidence.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend explain why we cannot take similar action to that taken by other countries—namely, to put the onus on the importer in cases of dumping rather than to ask our manufacturers to prove their case? In many cases, particularly involving textile products, companies have gone out of business while investigations have continued.
444
Why cannot the onus be put on the importer to prove that he is not dumping?
Mr. Shore: There are one or two countries whose Governments take the line suggested by my hon. Friend, but nearly all major trading countries which subscribe to the GATT cannot, and do not, act without first receiving evidence. That is a requirement, but in my view it does not necessarily mean that we must envisage situations such as my hon. Friend describes, in which, for want of swift action, a firm is driven out while we are assembling the case. I can take preliminary and temporary action. I shall not do so recklessly, but I am willing to take action when a serious case is put to me.
I conclude by making one or two final remarks. First, the world trade and payments system is subject to great stresses. Nobody doubts that there are many major difficulties still to be overcome. I think that our economic international statesmanship will be tested to the full in the next few years. Although there is an upturn in world trade, the underlying monetary problems are still unsolved in terms of the world community, with all that means for world trade. Secondly, our balance of payments deficit, already greatly reduced, still remains far too large. It is our responsibility to get that right.
I wish to pay tribute to all those who have helped to improve our export performance in such a remarkable way comparing 1975 with 1974. We then saw a reduction in the trade gap of £2,000 million. That was wholly due to the efforts of Britain's workers and managers in the export markets.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the magnificent job done by our workers, managers and exporters has been principally outside the Common Market? Our exports to the Common Market have gone down.
Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend is right. It has been disappointing to see that the share of our trade going to the EEC has fallen during the last two years. We must direct a far greater effort into the Community, because we have to do well there if we are to prosper in the years ahead.

445
The home and export markets go together. Firms whose products compete successfully in export markets will also, by and large, compete successfully with imports into the United Kingdom.
That does not mean there is not a great deal which can be done to save on imports into the United Kingdom. The House will know my attitude on this matter. I have tried to alert consumers and British industry through the NEDC network to have a constructive dialogue between purchasers and suppliers so that we can get a larger proportion of our needs from our home-based industries.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the situation in which multinational companies are exporting British design and technology to Japan, importing the finished product from Japan and putting people out of work by closing factories in this country?
Mr. Shore: I am into the closing words of my speech, and my hon. Friend has raised a particular problem. I invite him to put it to me after the debate, because I shall be anxious to discuss it.
We cannot fully recover except as part of a world recovery. Our economy is now very closely meshed with that of the rest of the world. That is why countries in the strongest position must lead the way, in their own interests and in the interests of the trading world as a whole—not only the developed countries but the developing countries, with their enormous difficulties.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I remind hon. Members that the debate must, unfortunately, finish at 7 pm, and 15 hon. Members wish to take part.
5.32 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: The detailed length and content of both Front Bench speeches demonstrated the overdue necessity of this debate. Many of us are concerned that there should be the fullest possible examination of our international trade strategy. We are grateful for the detailed comments of the Front Bench spokesmen, although there has been a restriction in the time allowed for this debate because of earlier proceedings in the House.
446
This debate is all about trade strategy and our priorities by geography, industry and currency, and in politics. I regard the EEC as our home market and the power base from which we should operate. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State say that his guiding star would be to match the competition. What a welcome conversion that is! It was music to my ears.
However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman ensures that the ECGD is always aware of the competition being offered by other countries. This has so often been a bone of contention. I recognise the problem of proving the facts of a case, but in negotiations to decide new credit insurance arrangements we should not outwit ourselves and find our ability to compete reduced while other nations catch up. I say this not from any lack of confidence but as a warning. I have been active in exporting for many years and know from bitter experience how we can be out-manœuvred by Government departments of other countries. I hope that we shall not allow that to happen again.
Reference has been made to trade with the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries. There is a problem here which is simply shown in the illustration of what happens in the shipping trade. The Eastern bloc countries will decide to purchase fob but then insist that goods are carried in their own ships. They will sell cif but again insist that the goods travel in their vessels. These are machinations to our disadvantage. They create a real difficulty in our world shipping operations.
During the trade negotiations in February last year, we had an opportunity to make a deal on this shipping question, but we lost it. I asked the Under-Secretary at the time what action we were taking to ensure that we protected our interests while negotiating that trade deal. In choosing our strategy, we should not put ourselves in the hands of any one bloc. My motto for the Secretary of State would be "Don't put Britain in hock to any bloc". We must strike a balance in world trade.
We have an opportunity to develop the sale of our invisible export services to developing nations. We have a superb record, which is second to none in this field. With the Chancellor of the

447
Exchequer, I have attended a conference in Tehran, another in Caracas, with the governor of the Bank of England, and a third in Brazil. We are regarded as the world's financial management experts, and this is something that we can and must sell. Recent figures show that our private invisible earnings have topped £10,000 million for the first time. In 1975, they increased by 9 per cent., to £10,400 million—equivalent to 56 per cent. of Britain's visible exports. That is a terrific record, of which we can be proud.
Much of the increase in private invisible earnings reflected higher returns on overseas investments. Those who advocate that we should sell these investments in order to solve our economic problems should realise that we would be throwing away about £1,300 million a year.
We have to learn from the Committee on Invisible Exports that we have much to gain from exchanges and exchange visits. Trade exchanges can set up orders for the future and demonstrate to people how we conduct our business and handle our affairs. That would help us set up activists in every nation, to generate the trade that the Secretary of State wants to see.
There are opportunities for the Government to act. They can do much to help trade promotion. The Committee on Invisible Exports works on a shoe-string and would be grateful for more assistance. Invisible exports should be given the same sort of recognition that is given to visible exports. In Government Departments there is apparently a lack of understanding and awareness of the contribution that invisible exports can make. I am sorry to have to say that, but I believe it to be true.
It might also be helpful if, in the presentation of figures, we ensured that invisible exports were more clearly analysed to show their true contribution. For instance, they could be separated from Government expenditure, including overseas military expenditure and service payments on local government borrowing.
I am grateful for the opportunity to have taken part in this debate and I hope that it will not be long before we can have another and more lengthy opportunity to debate these problems.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire,
448
South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) who spoke for only seven minutes. If subsequent speakers follow his shining example, we may be able to hear a substantial number of hon. Members.
5.40 p.m.
Mrs. Judith Hart: I shall try my best to follow the excellent example set by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth). I should be delighted to reply to the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) wearing my National Executive Committee for Import Controls hat, but I shall leave that to others, because I want to talk about our trading relationship with Third World countries.
I wish to consider two related aspects. The first is the general position of our trade with the whole world. We do not always fully appreciate the statistical breakdown of our exports. According to the 1974 export figures for commodities issued by the Department of Trade, we send £5·5 billion worth of exports to the EEC, £2·9 billion to the rest of Western Europe, £2·6 billion to North America and £5·8 billion to the rest of the world. The rest of the world includes the OPEC countries; exports to them which are growing but are still comparatively small; centrally planned economies—the Department of Trade's description of the Soviet bloc—other developed countries, which description, broadly, means Australia and New Zealand; and developing countries.
In 1974 the developing countries bought almost 18 per cent. of our exports of machinery and transport equipment, amounting to more than £1,000 million. They bought over 20 per cent. of our exports of chemical and pharmaceutical products and over 11 per cent. of our chemical elements and compounds. They bought almost 12 per cent. of our textile industry exports and almost 16 per cent. of the various ranges of manufactured goods. Those are substantial figures, and they are for 1974, when the developing countries were already in the state of desperate economic crisis that accompanied the rise in oil prices. Their rates of growth, which often reached 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. during the 1960s, had fallen to 2 per cent.—in some cases to barely 2 per cent. In other words, they bought those exports at a bad time for them.

449
We should make more of the goods which the developing countries need. There should be production for need as against production for conspicuous consumption—the production of the small truck rather than the second suburban motor car. When I was recently in Lesotho I saw perfectly designed small Toyota trucks produced by Japan whistling around. Why is not British Leyland designing, making and selling trucks of that kind? Let us produce what the developing countries need and by that means build up the trading relationships that we already have with them.
We should, of course, assist in promoting the rate of economic growth of the developing countries. There is a massive possibility for the expansion of trade for their good and ours. There is a deep identity of interest between us and them. This raises the issues of the UNCTAD Conference in Nairobi. Britain does not have a particularly good reputation at UNCTAD. In 1964 and 1968 we did not shine brilliantly, and the 1972 meeting was not at all a happy experience. If my right hon. Friend goes to Nairobi he may recall that in 1972 there was a fascinating exchange in the Chamber, when I challenged the then Minister of Trade—Mr. Noble, the former right hon. Member for Argyll—and accused him of attending the UNCTAD Conference in Santiago for only one day. He shot to his feet, interrupted me and said "No, no, it was a day and a half". I warn my right hon. Friend that any ministerial attendance at UNCTAD should be complete and that attention should be given to the fine print of the resolutions and amendments in committee. That is what makes or breaks Britain in terms of her achievement at UNCTAD.
The conference will be concerned basically with the various elements of the new international economic order. It will follow on from the declaration and programme of action debated in Manila by the Group of 77 three or four weeks ago. It was summarised to me in Geneva three weeks ago, when one of the leading members of the Group of 77 said:
"We have condemned the traditional approach to negotiations. We do not present a list of requests but a global statement of what must happen."
That will be the firm approach of the developing countries at the meeting in
450
Nairobi. They retained their unity throughout the tremendous tensions of the Manila meeting. Let no one suppose that the tensions between the better off and the poorer developing countries—between Latin America and the African countries—will cause a breakdown between them at some point, and that we need not worry too much about an eventual confrontation. That was being said when I was involved in the Lomé negotiations and when Britain was involved in the sugar negotiations, and each time the people who said it were wrong. The developing countries will preserve their unity, which they regard as being of the greatest importance.
I cannot explore as I would wish the many issues that arise, including the reform of the monetary system and the link between commodity prices and the prices of manufactured goods. The developing countries say that their commodity prices fluctuate but that the price of manufactured goods from the rich countries always goes up. The question of debt arises, as well as the question of the ownership of natural resources, which is a self-evident proposition to the developing countries. Just as we have a right to own our coal, so they say that they have a right to own their tin and copper. They understand why the West quibbles about the ownership of natural resources, but do not think that they should. They believe that the pressure of the multinational corporations exercises too great an influence.
I want to concentrate for a moment on the Common Fund and commodity agreements. The 10 core commodities are all regarded as important. Progress can possibly be made on all 10, and certainly on some. Two countries—the Netherlands and Norway—have now said that they would support the Common Fund. The Netherlands is a colleague of ours within the EEC, What will the EEC say? Are we likely—I trust not—to feel ourselves bound to adopt a common EEC approach? I do not think that is possible, because the Dutch have gone out on their own and said that they will support a Common Fund. That means that there is the possibility of an individual approach. If that possibility materialises there will be no excuse for us. I say to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues that there will be no excuse

451
whatever for Britain behaving in any less progressive way than the Netherlands. We must also quite soon declare our readiness to say that we shall support a Common Fund.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) put a Question to my right hon. Friend the other day, from the Answer to which it appeared that the cost of the Common Fund approach would be about £38 million a year. If I were still associated with the Ministry of Overseas Development, I should have thought that such a sum—coming in general from Government funds, but some of it, if need be, out of aid funds—would be as good a use of aid to the developing countries, giving them the basis on which to plan and to get the exchange earnings which they need, as many of the other projects on which we spend our money. But I trust it would be regarded as an extra to the aid programme.
Would it put up prices? It is worth considering that only in one or two cases is it likely that commodity arrangements under the Common Fund would be likely to produce an increase in prices. In most cases it would merely establish price stability.
Even where a slight increase in price might be involved, it is worth remembering, when we look at the price of a bar of chocolate or a tin of cocoa in the shops, that within that price only 6 per cent. is represented by the primary commodity; the rest goes in processing, packaging, marketing, advertising, and so on. Even in the case of tea, which needs less processing and treatment, the primary commodity element represents only 15 per cent., at the highest. For all products in the list, it is between 6 per cent. and 15 per cent. In view of what could be gained for us, as well as for the developing countries. I do not think we need regard price increases as a significant factor. It would occur only in the case of one or two commodities.
My right hon. Friend ought to go nap on the common fund. He ought not to hesitate. I hope that the Cabinet will agree that we must take an identifiably forthright and an identifiably progressive line at Nairobi. We need to take a much more positive approach than has been taken in the past. This is precisely
452
the moment for that positive approach, because we now have to recognise that an understanding of our own self-interest leads us directly to maximum co-operation with the Third World.
5.53 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: I am always tempted by the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), and never more than when she is talking about UNCTAD and with particular sensitivity about the problems of the developing world. However, in the interests of brevity I would rather refer to her right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his response to a Question some weeks ago, when he said:
"The longer I stay in this job, the more I realise that trade is becoming more and more influenced by Governments throughout the world. I sometimes wonder whether we in this country have a system sufficient to meet what we encounter overseas. I have particular thoughts in that direction. I am not being idealogical about this matter. It is a practical question of how we deal with overseas trade. This may need new instruments in this country."—[Official Report, 28th January 1976; Vol. 904, c. 414.]
Many of us, on both sides of the House, with some experience of the commercial world, realise that Britain's representation and posture overseas have become increasingly uncompetitive in relation to those of many other countries. In particular, I believe that we suffer from a lack of qualified staff on the ground and very inadequate organisation. It is for those reasons that in recent weeks I have put down Questions to the Secretary of State for Trade, to his right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, and to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Considering first the Department of Trade, I was staggered to note that no members whatever of the right hon. Gentleman's staff, serving in this country or overseas, have recognised qualifications in market research, marketing, advertising or public relations. Furthermore, I was astonished to discover that none of them, apart from the right hon. Gentleman's own personal industrial advisers, has more than five years' commercial experience with a private company.
As to the Ministry of Overseas Development, again it was staggering to note that

453
it, too, had no qualified people in these respects. I suppose one can forgive that Ministry, for certainly under the right hon. Lady's leadership it was a little careful to be not too closely involved with trade matters, preferring to stick to aid, despite the fact that there is undoubtedly a developmental impact of trade, particularly in developing countries. I am glad to note that her successor has modified the right hon. Lady's policy slightly, and that he now at least recognises that trade plays an important part in development.
As to the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, in the rather typical manner of that office, he simply informed me that it would be too expensive to find out whether any of his staff were qualified. This, I believe, is the most disgraceful response to a very serious matter.
I hope very much that the Central Policy Review Staff will look very carefully into the staffing of these three great Departments of State to ensure that we have qualified people on the ground overseas. How often do those of us who visit overseas countries, particularly in the developing world, find members of Governments asking us why we deploy our resources so badly when they are so anxious to buy from us, so anxious to see British exporters, and so anxious to co-operate with us. It is true to say, as I have said in this House before, that the good will which exists overseas for Britain today, now that we have gone through the post-colonial era, is second to none.
Similarly, I refer briefly to the fact that geographically the Department of Trade, the Ministry of Overseas Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office again do not precisely match up. This shows a fundamental structural weakness in the capabilities of these Departments to consult with one another to the benefit of the overseas export effort. I note, too, with great regret, that there is no common regional export strategy which is identifiable as between those three Departments.
I believe it was a Conservative Government which set up the Ministry of Overseas Development's experiment with the development divisions; it has proved to be of extraordinary assistance to our development effort overseas. The House
454
will know that this enables regional specialists to be available to a number of countries over the area at a relatively small cost. In the West African Development Division there are engineers, agriculturalists, teachers, economists and sociologists available to all the posts in the whole of West Africa. The same is true of the other four regional divisions.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Trade would consider it worth while setting up a similar regional structure to give marketing and selling advice to the posts through, perhaps, a parallel organisation to the Ministry of Overseas Development's Development Division organisation.
It is absolutely essential that we begin to co-ordinate our regional sales effort on the ground. Let me take a brief example to illustrate what I mean. The right hon. Lady referred to the need for agricultural machinery. It so happens that we have some of the largest exporters of these commodities in the world. Yet it is remarkable that they still look at markets individually. Ghana is a different market from Nigeria; Nigeria is a different market from Sierre Leone. Although there is some sort of regional supervision, there is no regional inter-Government negotiation to see whether, by bringing the markets together, the export effort could be improved by making it more efficient, perhaps by setting up a regional manufacturing or assembly capacity from which, for example, assembled tractors could be re-exported to different parts of the region.
All this requires inter-Government effort and inter-departmental effort of very considerable importance, and I hope very much that when the CPRS reports it will have looked into this new trend in world trade and produced a plan for reorganising our posture overseas to take note of the points that I have made.
A terrible example of the lack of cooperation between Departments is to be seen in the fact that, on a day like this, only the Department of Trade is represented on the Treasury Bench. I should like to see representatives from the Foreign Office and from the ODM. I am not making a party political point but a serious point that international trade involves all three Departments and that, if we are to debate it, it would be very helpful for the Ministers from all

455
these Departments, and perhaps the Shadow Ministers, to come together and listen to what right hon. and hon. Members have to say.
I congratulate the ODM on its recent decision to restore allowances for pre-investment studies and to make available public money for that purpose.
Mrs. Hart: I indicated that I would not be tempted, but on this point I must be. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that this was a Conservative Government decision opposed by the official Labour Opposition, abolished by a Labour Government, and now restored by a Labour Government.
Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: The right hon. Lady will forgive me for pointing out that the responsibilities of office bring an increased sense of reality. I am glad that her successor has shown such a sense.
The right hon. Lady will know that British investment in overseas countries, especially in less developed countries, can be not only an important springboard for development in the country concerned but also an additional source of invisibles, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) referred earlier. We should never forget that investment and trade are at least as important to the less developed countries as is aid itself. In this connection it is very important that we should make a concerted effort to export our intermediate technology to the less developed countries. We know that the ODM is shy of trade and that it prefers aid, but there is an enormous potential overseas for engineers, educators, agricultural advisers, and so on.
Although I welcome the recent appointment of a new chairman to the Agricultural Export Council, this, too, is another body which, in my view, is extremely badly financed, and one to which, perhaps, the Government should consider giving far greater support to enable these technologies, of which we have so large a surplus, to be exported to the mutual benefit of LDCs and to our balance of payments.
The Secretary of State will know that the Select Committee on Overseas Development is shortly to look at the role
456
of private investment and trade in the development of less developed countries. A report will not be published for a very long time, unfortunately. The study will take a year or so to complete. I hope that in the interim the CPRS will recognise the enormous potential for Britain overseas, especially to invest in trade with and to advise the less developed countries to our mutual benefit in times of domestic economic strain when increased aid is not practicable.
As I said just now, trade is always preferable to aid, even to the LDCs, and I hope that the CPRS will propose a substantial organisation for overseas representation and departmental liaison to enable the United Kingdom to exploit these important opportunities.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. Mike Noble: On a day when we are debating international trade, I am very surprised to see the Liberal Bench totally empty. I note particularly the absence of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), who earlier today presented a Bill on dumping, and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who has had a lot to say about our trade in textiles. He is in the building today, but he is not present in the Chamber to utter a word. I am sure that any constituents from the Northwest of England will be glad to see that there is, however, a fair scattering of textile and footwear Members in the House at the moment.
I am very tempted to comment on the recently concluded textile agreements. However, I refrain from doing so, in view of the time, and confine my remarks to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This is a treaty which is in urgent need of restructuring, in view of the changes that have occurred, some of which have been mentioned by Opposition Members and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend dealt particularly with dumping, and I am pleased to see that recently the Department of Trade has acted with a little more speed in dealing with dumping cases. However, the procedure still leaves a great deal to be desired. In this conection, I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle), because there is no doubt that, as the procedure works at the moment, especially in this country, material

457
damage can and does occur before effective steps are taken to prevent the dumping of cheap imports.
There are difficulties of proof where we have non-market economies, as they are called, and now, as I understand it, in certain parts of the world there are difficulties where cross-pricing within multinationals takes place, so that the price on the market is an artificial one and is simply a book transaction within one company.
I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) about Foreign Office staff. I am amazed that our embassies do not employ people with the specific resposibility of checking dumping allegations in the countries of origin. I put a Question on this matter to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. To this, he again replied that he could not afford it. Taking the total cost of the unemployment caused, that seems to be a ridiculous answer.
But there is another matter that needs looking at, and it is the way that GATT operates with regard to trade as a whole. It operates at two levels. There is the aggregate level, to deal with balance of payments problems. Then there is the industry level, to permit structural adaptations to be made to compensate for changes in international trade.
It so happens that I represent a constituency in which the structural changes have had more effect than in most others, since my constituency is very much involved in footwear, textiles and paper. This problem will spread, because it is my guess that in about 10 years virtually every underdeveloped nation will want a motor car assembly plant, with all the other advantages of costs that they may have.
For a number of reasons, we have to reconsider the whole process of international trade. First, it is a fact that in recent years an increasing number of countries have taken measures that contravene the GATT. We have had our own country taking the step, eight or 10 years ago, of a temporary import surcharge, and this has been copied by France, Canada and Italy. We have had non-tariff barriers of the kind that we have now—voluntary restraint agree-
458
ments. We have had administrative restrictions. A firm in my constituency has just had a supply of slippers sent back from Eire because the words "Made in England" are on a label which is stuck on rather than being stamped on the product. How it is possible to stamp black on a black sock or a black sole, I do not know. The consignment has been sent back. I shall take the matter up at another time.
I understand that the United States of America has introduced 70 voluntary export restraint schemes since 1972. That shows that the GATT is failing to meet the problems that it is meant to deal with. It is falling into disrepute. But it has safeguards to enable countries to protect domestic industries. Article 19 authorises emergency measures to be taken to restrict imports if there is an actual or threatened injury to industry. That is interpreted according to the absolute level of imports of a particular type rather than on the degree of penetration. Injury or threat of injury is produced not by the volume of imports but by the degree of penetration into a particular industry. If the domestic market is falling and imports remain at a constant level, there will be injury. This has been seen in the textile and footwear industries in recent months, even when imports are falling.
The definition of injury is vague. I do not believe that anyone knows what the definition is. In the absence of a definition, I do not know how the Government can act specifically and quickly. Governments are afraid to use that article of the treaty because they fear retaliation and having to pay compensation.
The present structure of the GATT has been reduced to a farce. The Secretary of State and the EEC Commissioners have a responsibility to renegotiate the treaty. I hope the Government will bear that in mind.
My final point concerns competition with the developing world. In a recent speech in Basildon, the Secretary of State, referring to cheap imports, said:
"Nor should we comfort ourselves with the pretence that cheap imports are unfair imports. Some countries are in fact able to produce goods very competitively—because they have natural advantages in raw material supply; because they have invested in more modern machinery; because their labour is either cheaper or more efficient than our own.

459
Certainly we cannot claim that cheap labour is itself unfair competition."
The point of importance in that is the Secretary of State's reference to cheap labour. We should be talking not about cheap labour but about low labour costs. If that cheap labour was slave labour we would throw up our hands in horror, but in much of the world workers are little wage slaves, and nothing more.
We should be asking ourselves, when competing with a country, whether there is collective bargaining there, so that employers face the same kind of costs, the same pressures and, therefore, the same final pricing costs as we do. We should ask what kind of social security benefits exist in such countries. The answer to that would usually be "None". In Malaysia for example, men working a 40-hour week in the textile industry are paid only £5·20. How can the Lancashire textile industry be expected to compete with that?
It is time that the Socialist countries of the world—the other EEC countries and ourselves—got together to produce a labour code to be attached to the GATT, which could be policed by the United Nations. If that is not done, the problems in the textile and footwear industries will continue to grow, and this kind of debate will become part of a recurring cycle, until the industries disappear altogether.
6.14 p.m.
Mr. Edward Gardner: As the Secretary of State pointed out, the deficit in the balance of payments is now leaving us "in the red" to the tune of £700 million on current account. But there is something which we can do to solve that problem. In the short term perhaps we cannot make an effective contribution by exports alone, but in the long term—and one hopes that it will not be a very long term—the solution will be an increase in exports. Those exports will come mainly from the private sector of industry and not from nationalised industries. I hope that the Government realise this.
Selling abroad is not fun. I have always suspected that it is not, and I am told by many people involved in the export business that I was right. The problems are depressing and formidable.
460
I detected some of the problems in Tokyo a few weeks ago on a wintry afternoon when I stood on the corner of the busiest part of Tokyo. Traffic jams there make ours look like civilised processions of traffic. I saw only three British cars in half an hour, and I greeted them with the same sort of surprise which I suppose Stanley reserved for Livingstone.
The indifference which some countries, certainly in Asia, show towards this country as a trading nation is disquieting. The best example that I can give the House is when, in Tokyo, I inspected a large wooden wall map. The sea was painted blue and various countries were raised above the blue sea. Represented on that world map, which was for the guidance of business executives, were all the countries in the world except one—our country.
Mr. Hoyle: Did the hon. and learned Gentleman make inquiries not only about the difficulties facing Britain in penetrating the Japanese market with our cars but about the difficulties which other countries face because of the Japanese barrier?
Mr. Gardner: Of course I made inquiries. I discovered that the Germans, Italians and others in Europe were getting into the Japanese market while our people were not.
I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) when he said that it was a pity that in a debate of this kind a Government representative from the Foreign Office was not present.
I take this opportunity to speak on behalf of 500 of the loneliest business men one is likely to meet anywhere in the world. They are to be found in Taiwan, which I visited recently as a member of a mixed parliamentary delegation. If those 500 British business men were given proper support and were not deserted—as they feel deserted—by the British Government, they could make a considerable contribution towards balancing the deficit which is rightly troubling the Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that those 500 business men have no Government support. They are doing a remarkable amount of export work and they feel that, if only they had some means of attracting the support and the

461
encouragement of the British Government, they could double and probably treble the amount of money which they are earning. I beg the Minister to see whether something can be done to help them. We have no diplomatic representation in Taiwan, and those 500 business men can obtain some kind of security only by relying on the Americans. That is a situation of which no one can be proud, and I hope that something can soon be done to remedy it.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ron Thomas. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I did not realise that the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), who is a Privy Councillor, was seeking to catch my eye, and I had others in mind.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Ron Thomas: I am worried by the artificiality of this debate. I find it strange that both Front Benches can divorce problems of international trade from Britain's present economic situation. Listening to the debate, one would not realise that we have about 1½ million unemployed, that our index of industrial production is lower than it was in 1970 and that capital investment was down by 12 per cent. last year and looks like going down another 14 per cent. this year. We have about 200,000 workers on short time, and redundancies are being reported to hon. Members day in and day out.
The Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Worthting (Mr Higgins), offered us a lecture, including mention of Adam Smith and the 1930s. The hon. Gentleman did not tell us that America, Germany and the other industrial countries completely ignored Adam Smith and industrialised behind high tariff barriers. If they had listened to Adam Smith they would probably still be importing guns and knives from Birmingham and exporting nothing but wheat. It is nonsense to compare the present situation with the 1930s, when we did not have multinational companies, with their oligopolistic price fixing, transfer payments and so on, and their control over international trade.
Those of us on this side of the House who believe in import controls do not ask for them as an end in themselves,
462
and we do not want them on their own. We see them as part of a general economic strategy. We do not believe that the market mechanism suggested time and again in the House will get British capitalism out of its present crisis. We think of a strategy involving the regeneration of British industry by the direction of funds. We do not believe that that will happen unless there are import controls. We also believe in reflation to deal with the high level of unemployment. That cannot be done without import controls. The whole of our strategy is linked. Every proposal that we make relies on another.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that imports, both visible and invisible, accounted for about 30 per cent. of the gross domestic product. Our import bill last year was £24,000 million. We were told at the Labour Party Conference that it was red-blooded Socialist courage to have planning. We heard that we must have planning of wages. Is it suggested that imports and exports are not, and never will be, part of the planning mechanism, and that we should simply leave them to market forces and multinational companies? We believe in planning, including a planned trade policy. That is the essential point.
My right hon. Friend also told us, in true A-level or perhaps even O-level economic style, that we must export in order to import food, raw materials, fuel and so on. But he did not tell us that practically half our £24,000 million import bill last year was for finished and semi-finished manufactured goods. He did not tell us that if fuel is deducted from that bill, because of its distorting effect almost 60 per cent. of our imports are finished and semi-finished manufactured goods. In 1966 the proportion was only one-third.
The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) referred to the balance of payments deficit. Our deficit with the Common Market countries last year was almost £2½ billion, although the Common Market was supposed to save and regenerate British industry. Before we went in, we were almost in balance.
My right hon. Friend's official statistics in the Trade and Industry Gazette give the following import volume indices compared with 100 in 1970: food, 98;

463
fuels, 89; and basic materials, 78. It is not those items that are creating the balance of payments problems but semi-finished manufactures, for which the figure is 135; finished manufactures, at 183; and road and motor vehicles, at 203. They have doubled on a volume basis since 1970.
We are told that if we have any kind of import controls there will be retaliation. We do not accept that. We have already heard examples of import controls being introduced. The bulk of our manufactured imports come from—in order of magnitude—the United States, almost £1,200 million; West Germany, £1,100 million; France, £700 million; Japan £446 million; and Italy, £440 million. We have a considerable trade deficit with each of those countries. With the United States it is £574 million, Germany £724 million, France £460 million and Japan £362 million. We doubt very much whether any country will cut off its nose to spite its face because we take certain action to protect British industry, which is in a spiral of contraction and decline.
The United Kingdom took action between 1964 and 1966. France took action in June 1968, the United States imposed a surcharge in 1971, and Italy had an import deposit scheme from 1974 to 1975.
My right hon. Friend spoke of a resurgence in world trade. Twelve months ago my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised us a resurgence in world trade that would deal with unemployment. How many of the 1½ million unemployed will be put back in work by the resurgence in world trade?
Against our economic strategy, which includes import controls, all that the Conservatives can offer is deflation and devaluation, the classic ways of dealing with a balance of payments deficit. We have the deflation, and we have had a devaluation of almost 33 per cent. since we entered the Common Market. The hon. Member for Worthing suggested that imports helped to deal with inflation. He could easily do some economic analysis to show that imports have led to the devaluation of the pound. They have certainly helped to devalue it by 33 per cent. since it was floated. That has been the main force behind inflation.
464
My final point is linked to trade in terms of the Budget and the whole question of sterling. Two weeks ago the Sunday Times said that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor could raise tax thresholds in the Budget and then allow sterling to float downwards because
"if the Chancellor can cut taxes by (say) £500m, he can devalue by enough to reduce real wages by rather less than that, without people being any worse off. A devaluation of 2 pe cent, would cut real disposable incomes by about £400m."
Therefore, the Conservatives' answer—further deflation and a further devaluation to meet our balance of payments problem—will not work. It will not get Britain out of its present economic crisis. Only a totally different economic strategy based on the Labour manifesto will do that.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Tim Renton: I am delighted to be able to leave to the Under-Secretary, who will reply to this debate, the task of answering the points just made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas). The hon. Gentleman referred to the artificiality of the debate. He was the only one who did so. I would have thought that the common complaint from both sides of this House had been, unusually for this Chamber, its brevity. Those who are winding up the debate have each left themselves only 15 minutes in which to do so, and brevity has been a requirement for all of us, though we would far rather have had longer time for the debate. I hope that the Government will find time for another debate on this subject in the future, perhaps even a series of half-day debates in which we can tackle individual subjects within the very broad context of international trade, because clearly we have had within three hours to compass a very broad spectrum.
I was particularly interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) on the subject of invisibles, of which he has very great experience. Clearly, the contribution of the City and the country generally to invisibles has been the mainstay and prop of Britain's external trade for many years past. It is against that background that I find incomprehensible the demand from a certain sector of the Labour Party that

465
banks and insurance companies should be nationalised.
Mr. Robert Adley: Does not my hon. Friend consider it rather disappointing that, while tourism accounted for 11 per cent. of our invisible earnings in 1975, neither Front Bench speaker thought fit to mention the subject?
Mr. Renton: Not at all. My hon. Friend will realise that unfortunately it is one of the subjects which have suffered in this brief debate this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) gave us from his deep experience of the subject a most interesting analysis of some of the problems in international trade at the moment. I hope the Secretary of State will see that his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary carries out a study of just how many people in his Department have commercial experience, because clearly, as commercial advice becomes a more and more important part of the service given by embassies and legations abroad, it is essential that members of those embassies should have a thorough background in the commercial matters on which they are advising British companies.
In opening the debate, the Secretary of State spoke about credit insurance. In the few minutes that I have available, I do not propose to go in any detail into the new policies which ECGD has introduced in the last year. I should like to congratulate ECGD on the flexibility and variety of its arrangements, but I thought that the Secretary of State showed remarkable inconsistency when dealing with credit insurance in relation to the USSR. He told us that in respect of that country both in insurance and—I take it—in credit terms it was necessary for this country to match the competition. But surely in this case there is a danger that the competition is continually driving the terms downwards, both in interest terms and in insurance, in the type of credit insurance and the length of credit offered.
In a degree, the Secretary of State seemed to recognise the point himself, because he went on to say later that he was anxious to see that a war in credit insurance did not develop and that he was taking part in negotiations to ensure
466
that it did not. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to clear up this inconsistency when he replies, because on many occasions at Question Time many of us have asked for details of how this famous bilateral trade pact with Russia was working out, but we never get specifics in answer. Therefore, inevitably, we are left with the impression, without having any bias against trading with COMECON countries, that it is working to the benefit of the USSR and to the disfavour of this country. I feel that Ministers owe this House a detailed explanation of whether or not this is happening.
I hope also that on the subject of credit insurance Ministers will be able to tell us whether they welcome credit insurance coming within European Community competence. The Secretary of State shakes his head, which shows his chameleon nature in relation to the EEC. But I wonder whether, when it is within Community competence, that will help him to clip the wings of some countries, like France and Italy, which may at times go further out of the way in offering excessive credit insurance terms than the ECGD wishes to do.
The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble)—I hope that he is recognised by his constituents as a very good constituency Member—and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) both raised the question of dumping. I believe that there is a general sense of dissatisfaction in this House that, although the Secretary of State pays lip service whenever he appears at Question Time to his interest in dumping procedures and requests industry to bring him information, we are left with the feeling in this House that nothing special is being done. It is true that when dumping regulations are enforced customers may claim that this makes high prices higher, but this is a small price to pay if the effect of dumping is otherwise to transfer an industry from the home country to another country.
What we see from the pattern of past years, however, is that those nominally free trade countries which administer their trading pattern force the other free market countries to adapt to the commodity structure of exports and imports chosen by themselves. Thus, to be specific, we all

467
claim to be free traders within GATT but some, ourselves among them, are inevitably more free traders than others, and over the post-war period the two industrialised countries which have done best, Japan and France, have not hesitated to administer their international trading policy. I do not pause for one moment in my commitment to free trade, but I believe that Britain should always look at, and demand investigation of, all types of non-tariff barriers. Quality standards, pollution controls and safety regulations are the devices used by other countries which are nominally committed to free trade so as to protect themselves. This point was very well taken up by the hon. Member for Birmingham, North-field (Mr. Carter) in an Adjournment debate on 22nd January 1975, when he pointed out that in 1973 Japan exported to the rest of the world more than 2 million vehicles but that imports of vehicles into Japan amounted to just 37,000. He listed some non-tariff barriers such as design approval and emission requirements that were some of the causes of this.
In this debate many hon. Members have referred to the EEC and have felt that the Community should take a major initiative in the forthcoming UNCTAD negotiations. I support that view very strongly. I should like to press on the Minister a particular point: the dependence of the EEC for its vital raw material and mineral supplies on overseas sources. Is not this an area where the cost of developing a new mine overseas, for example, is now so large and where the political risk can be so great that it is both beyond the financial resources of an individual company within this country and beyond the size of risk that the ECGD itself wishes to take on board? I hope, therefore, that an EEC initiative will be developed in providing credit insurance against political risks for mineral and raw material developments in less-developed countries in the world.
There is another side to this coin in that the Community is a very important customer for raw materials. For example, it imports some 65 per cent. of all internationally traded copper. It will therefore have a greater influence on the policies of the producing country than any single country within the EEC would
468
have by itself. I believe, however, that the availability of political risk insurance for such development is now crucial to the financing of new mines and new raw material sources.
The right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), from her deep experience, spoke mainly about UNCTAD. It is now at the crossroads. The Group of 77 is pressing for action following the Manila Declaration. The market economy countries, with the exception of Norway and the Netherlands, are still holding fire and wondering how far to commit themselves. These are decisions which must be resolved within the EEC before UNCTAD IV meets in only six weeks' time. We hope that the EEC will take a positive and progressive attitude towards UNCTAD IV and will not simply be content with pious hopes and a stale reiteration of positions already adopted.
Here I take issue with the right hon. Lady on a matter of detail—only one of many details that I should like to have covered. She mentioned the commodity stabilisation schemes. It is so much easier to talk about them than to introduce and make them effective. I should declare an interest here as I have been a representative subscriber of the London Metal Exchange for many years.
I believe that commodity stabilisation schemes are politically desired by everyone. They are sometimes commercially feasible. When one looks back on them, however, one wonders whether a developing country has done better as a result of a scheme than it would have done without it.
I shall quote one example—copper. We know that the copper exporting countries have tried unsuccessfully to reach an agreement for many years. It is said that the need was for a buffer stock of about £400 million. In copper, there is a 30 per cent. scrap factor. Therefore, with such a stock, they could control only 70 per cent. of the market. With £400 million or more tied up in copper stocks, at the end of the day one must wonder whether that money could not have been better used in the form of grants or aid to those countries rather than being tied up in a physical stock of metal.
In considering the question of commodity stabilisation schemes rather than a theoretical commitment to them, let the

469
Secretary of State instead go to the City of London, where there is the greatest repository of expertise in futures markets in the world. Instead of knocking the City, the right hon. Gentleman should ask people there to act as devil's advocates as many of them do not believe in commodity stabilisation schemes, and to use all their available skills to produce the best commodity schemes possible, commodity by commodity, and then see what the result is. That I believe to be the most effective way of seeing in which commodities, and how, stabilisation schemes could be worked out.
We are all slowly coming to understand that the stability of relationships among the industrialised nations is influenced by the stability of Governments and institutions among the poorer nations. The Northern Hemisphere cannot afford to ignore the South. The EEC cannot afford to ignore UNCTAD IV or to see it end in utter disillusionment. The right hon. Gentleman said that he is not going to UNCTAD IV with a closed mind. I hope that his open mind will be full of ideas and that there will be greater awareness in the Government that UNCTAD IV is only six weeks away than was shown in his remarks.
6.45 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): This has been a brief debate, and I congratulate all those who have spoken on making their points so succinctly. It makes it much more difficult for me to reply to all the points raised, but at least there has been no beating about the bush.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) suggested that we were not very good in the ECGD in matching competition. But the Department has very good relationships with credit insurers throughout the industrialised world, and there is a great deal of swapping of information about credit terms being offered by various organisations which can only be to our mutual advantage. We get a lot of information about what other people are doing. I do not believe that the Department or our exporters are as laggardly as the hon. Gentleman suggested in this respect.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the shipping competition from the Soviet Union. That is too big a subject for me
470
to deal with at the tail end of the debate. My hon. Friend responsible will have noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks and his concern, which my hon. Friend shares.
I agree that we must strike a balance in our approach to world trade and not place too much reliance on trade with one bloc. That goes with every trading bloc, including those of which we are members. The danger is that our exporters, who were used to regarding the Commonwealth as their own preserve and were perhaps not exporting enough to the rest of the world, will perhaps come to see the EEC in that light now. That would be a mistake. The EEC is of vital importance. It consists of some of the richest and most highly industrialised nations. But there are other nations outside the EEC which are highly industrialised or are developing in that direction. We have to treat the world as our market place. It is an objective which our exporters must hold before them all the time.
The hon. Gentleman also stressed the importance of invisible earnings. We go all the way with him on that. We accept that there is need to expand our services overseas, but I am not aware that our invisible exporters are lacking in initiative and enterprise—far from it. I have met them in many countries, especially in developing countries, and I know that they are doing a good job. I do not think that they are in special need of Government assistance. They have the benefit, among other services, of the British Overseas Trade Board.
Invisible earnings are a matter not just for the City of London but of tourist earnings, for example, as well. We must not see invisible earnings through blinkered spectacles, seeing only what goes on in the City of London. There is a lot of invisible trade outside the City, and we should be proud of those domestic industries which play a large part in earning valuable foreign exchange.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) spoke of the need to produce goods for use in developing countries. I agree with her 100 per cent. She instanced the small trucks which the Japanese were exporting successfully to many developing countries. I regret that our motor firms in the past have not

471
thought fit to produce goods of this nature which could find a market in the developing countries. One of the basic reasons why our motor-cycle industry's share of the market has gone down from 95 per cent. almost to nil is that it neglected the lighter end of the market, allowing the Japanese to come in, build up volume and take over sector after sector in the lower-price and cubic capacity ranges.
On the other hand, in Swaziland five years ago I saw a small tractor, a very simple machine—for example, with a very simple lever operation. I am not a technical expert, but it was without doubt a first-class invention. It was a British invention, and I hope that one of our motor car firms will take it up. It would, I think, help in our exports to the developing world.
My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) talked about UNCTAD IV—one of the most vital issues we are facing. Perhaps I may make a few general remarks about UNCTAD. This is an important subject on which I have met some members of the World Development Movement, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently met the Secretary-General of UNCTAD to talk over the problems. The approach that we shall be making, together, we hope, with other developed countries, will be to ensure that this conference is much more successful than were the previous three. We shall approach UNCTAD IV in as constructive a spirit as possible. We hope that it will result in a worthwhile advance in agreement on international trade matters between developed and developing countries. Such a matter must be based upon a consensus, and it must be acceptable to the international community if it is to form the basis of action.
My right hon. Friend and one or two other hon. Members mentioned the common fund. We have not yet adopted a final attitude to it. We have not rejected it, but we have doubts about it. We believe that we should start, as the Prime Minister suggested at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference last year, with guidelines for commodity agreements, giving a general framework of principles. Within that structure com-
472
modities would be examined case by case. The point of this approach is that it is the only practical way to proceed. There should be negotiation on commodity agreements and then a decision about buffer stocks. They would be appropriate for some commodities, but that would not always be the case. Products such as tea and sisal would probably come in the latter category. Consideration will then be given to financing these stocks, and arrangements which might be necessary in other spheres, such as grubbing up tea estates in developing countries which ought to use their land to produce food for their people rather than tea for export, would be examined. A decision could then be taken on whether a common fund was necessary. We feel that to start with a common fund is rather to put the cart before the horse.
Mrs. Hart: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the great problem is that people in Whitehall can sit down and work out their grand plans and the best possible strategy but that the confrontation to co-operation in Nairobi will be on the basis of the proposals put forward there? Those proposals will include the common fund.
Mr. Deakins: As I understand it, there was a meeting of the Trade and Development Board in Geneva yesterday or the day before, and there were signs of a certain amount of give in the positions of both developed and developing countries. There is a mutual desire to try to make things work at UNCTAD, and that approach is vital if we are to get international agreement. Every country recognises that UNCTAD will have a very heavy agenda. It will talk not only about commodities but about the whole business of debts for the developing countries, whether they should be rescheduled or whether the slate should be wiped clean. That is just as important, or even more so, as the question of commodities.
There is talk about the transfer of technology which involves multinational and some British companies. It raises the question of what more we can do to help transfer technology to the developing countries. Last but not least there is the vital question of trade access for the products of developing countries to the markets of the developed nations.

473
Together with the EEC, Japan and other countries, we have started to look at this matter within the generalised scheme of preference, but we have only so far scratched the surface. We have to bear in mind the effects of access on the employment situation in this country, and that means that we have to look to the industrial strategy which is, fortunately, a part of the Government's programme to alleviate the worst impact of exports from developing countries.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) said that there was a lack of adequate and qualified staff in Government Departments. He talked about a structural weakness. He should appreciate, however, that there is a structural weakness in British society. He said that many people in the Civil Service were not commercially qualified, and that may be true. But it is more trenchant to say that there are many people in British commerce who are not commercially qualified, trained or experienced. Many people in British management, unlike French, German or Japanese management, are professionally qualified neither in a technical sense nor in terms of management degrees and management education. We should therefore be looking to put our house in order on the management side.
Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Surely that is an invalid remark. Surely it must be the Minister's responsibility to ensure that the people who service him in his Department are qualified. We cannot expect the Government to reform the whole of British commerce, but we can expect them to put their own house in order.
Mr. Deakins: Where necessary, we employ consultants and technical experts to advise us on matters where appropriate. I do not believe that the hon. Member would want to change the system of recruitment and qualifications in the Civil Service. That would require a major revolution in British society—
Mr. Ron Thomas: Hear, hear.
Mr. Deakins: I fear that my hon. Friends may have misinterpreted my meaning, but it is splendid nevertheless to have a Conservative Member calling for a revolution in the recruitment system of the Civil Service.
474
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) raised the question of dumping. The Government's record and present policy stand any amount of criticism. We have to proceed within the international rules of GATT and its anti-dumping code. We conduct our anti-dumping activities as flexibly as possible so as to offer applicants the maximum help. We help them in preparing their case, and in some instances we almost prepare it for them. We give them the benefit of any doubt in establishing material injury. Since inflation affects anti-dumping duties, we try wherever possible to avoid them and to get an undertaking from the exporter to raise his prices to a reasonable level.
It is said that we expect too high a degree of proof, but we must ask for some evidence. We want reasonable prima facie evidence. Applicants do not have to prove the anti-dumping case; that is the responsibility of my Department. But we cannot do it on the basis of allegations, hearsay or merely gossip. We have to have some factual evidence, and if persons are unwilling to provide it—I am sure they are not—we cannot proceed with those cases. My hon. Friend talked about GATT being flouted and gave examples of non-tariff barriers. He referred to Article 19 and non-tariff barriers. We shall be dealing with this as a serious and important subject in the multilateral trade negotiations currently taking place in Geneva.
It is in our interests to eradicate all non-tariff barriers. Our exports suffer more than those of most countries from these barriers since we have rather fewer of such barriers than most other countries. My hon. Friend talked about Article 19 saying that it needed revision because it did not refer to the degree of import penetration. I agree that it does not, but I remind him that our exports won a bigger share of world trade in 1975 for the first time since the 1950s. If my hon. Friend's reform had been undertaken in 1974, it would have opened the way for anti-dumping and other applications to hinder our exports to many of the markets where they have taken a bigger market share.
We have to ensure that if there are revisions of the GATT anti-dumping codes under Articles 12 or 19, which deal

475
with import restrictions, they cannot be used against our own exporters, who are doing a first-class job.
My hon. Friend mentioned cheap labour, but I remind him that British labour is cheap by comparison—
It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (FELIXSTOWE) BILL
(By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
7 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to Clause 6 of the Bill:
"The agreement between the Board and the Company dated 21st November, 1975, set out in Schedule I to this Act is hereby confirmed and made binding upon the parties thereto."
Schedule I sets out the terms of an agreement which was made between the British Transport Docks Board and the Felixstowe Company. That agreement has ceased to exist, because the Company has changed. The directors are not able to make an agreement on behalf of their shareholders. Only the shareholders can enter into such an agreement. The shareholders, for reasons I shall not go into at this stage, have changed their minds.
My point of order is that the Bill is surely technically deficient in referring to an agreement which no longer exists. Therefore, I ask you to agree that the Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time", should not be put until the Bill is brought to the House in a shape which is in order and correct according to the state of the agreement between the Board and the Company.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. All the requirements of Standing Orders have been complied with. The Bill is in order. Subsequent events which may have taken place have nothing to do with the Chair. The point made by the hon. Gentleman might be considered a good debating point for the House to consider. However, it is not a matter of order.
7.3 p.m.
Mr. Tom Bradley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I do not wish to weary the House with an elaborate explanation of the individual clauses of the Bill, which are simply put and make their intention very clear. The principal purpose of the Bill is to enable the British Transport Docks Board to acquire the ownership of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company.

477
In recent years Felixstowe has become one of Britain's most successful, flourishing and fastest-growing ports. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that neither side of the House is in dispute about that. What was once a silted dock has grown into a modern port with roll-on/roll-off cargo facilities, passenger ferry services, cold-storage buildings and a high standard of handling equipment.
As an expanding port, it has been able to invest in all the new technologies. However, towards the end of last year the directors of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company came to the conclusion that they simply did not have the cash available to develop the port because despite the recent completion of a £10 million improvement scheme, at least a further £5 million was needed to spend on new cranes and other equipment.
Added to the problems of this financially highly-geared private company were certain political doubts. Rightly or wrongly, the directors were deeply concerned about the extension of the Dock Labour Scheme and the possible nationalisation of the Company at some unspecified future date. I mention these as matters of fact, not for doctrinal discussion between the two sides of the House.
The directors, taking those views, had to decide the long-term future of the port. Therefore, when the British Transport Docks Board last October, after preliminary discussions, made an offer to acquire the Felixstowe Company on a cash basis of 150p per share, the directors recommended it to their shareholders. A deal was agreed and was confirmed by nearly 88 per cent. of the votes cast at a shareholders' meeting on 21st November 1975. In effect, this Bill ratifies that contractual agreement.
I emphasise that the agreement was freely entered into and is set out fully in Schedule 1. I believe that it is still binding. Despite the control of the Company passing effectively to another concern in the meantime, that concern inherited that agreement. The opposition to this Bill tonight is neither more nor less than an exercise to use Parliament to breach that agreement. Frankly, I think that that is indefensible.
Mr. Ridley: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that no contractual situation exists until the shares have been
478
exchanged and payment has been made for them. Therefore, how can he suggest that the provisional agreement was anything near approaching a contract? It was just a provisional agreement, as he said.
Mr. Bradley: The directors signed the agreement. It was freely entered into and they have not departed from it.
Mr. Ridley Mr. Ridley rose—
Mr. Bradley: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. We cannot have a dialogue at this stage. The directors are holding to their original position. The agreement forms part of Schedule 1.
The directors have throughout supported and still support the Bill. They have not exchanged their 134,00-plus shares for the counter-offer put in by European Ferries.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I realise that interrupting him at the beginning of his speech is a discourtesy. I declare an interest in intervening in that I have been a director of one of the Felixstowe companies. What the hon. Gentleman said is untrue. I shall not go into detail now. However, it is not the case that the directors hold to the original agreement.
Mr. Bradley: The directors have made it perfectly plain that they are prepared to continue—
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No.
Mr. Bradley: I shall give chapter and verse before concluding my speech, because I have a certain quotation to make later. I ask the House to note particularly that, were it not for the provisions of Section 17 of the Transport Act 1962, this deal would have been completed before last Christmas and would not have been the subject of discussion here at all.
In the meantime, there has been an alternative bid by European Ferries at a theoretically higher price than that previously agreed between the Felixstowe Company and the British Transport Docks Board. That offer is mainly in the form of a share exchange. Its ultimate value depends on the stock market valuation of European Ferries' shares from time to time. I believe that the share

479
quotation today is 64p, which makes the value of its offer only marginally above the 150p offer originally made by the British Transport Docks Board. I fully understand that the offer made by European Ferries has been taken up by about 81 per cent. of the shareholders, but not, I repeat, by the directors of the Felixstowe Company.
Why did not European Ferries make an offer at the time the British Transport Docks Board was in this business last October? The Chairman of European Ferries has suggested that no consideration was given to him or his company. I suggest that he and his company knew perfectly well what was going on. Indeed, in the Journal of Commerce of 6th February 1976 the chairman is quoted as saying:
"We wanted to do it then, but quite frankly we weren't in a position because we had just come to the end of a rights issue and our share price was only two-thirds of what it is now."
So this company comes along and gazumps the offer of the British Transport Docks Board—
Mr. Peter Rees: "Gazumps"?
Mr. Bradley: I use that term because it is readily understood. No doubt Opposition Members will use a more felicitous expression—
Mr. Rees: Or a more exact one.
Mr. Bradley: —but I can find nothing better to describe the activities of European Ferries than to say that this company was gazumping the agreement of the Docks Board with the Felixstowe Company. It did so in the full knowledge that the directors of the Felixstowe Company have said, and are still saying, that it is in the best interests of the port, the security of the port, its users, its employees and the surrounding area that the ownership of the port should pass to the Docks Board.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It is not true.
Mr. Bradley: I am sure that the hon. Member will have ample opportunity to express the view that he holds so intensely. He is only delaying his opportunity of doing so by seeking continually to interrupt me.
480
I remind the House that the directors of the Felixstowe Company have throughout maintained a perfectly consistent position. They are not members of the Government, they have not been pressurised by the Government and they are certainly not Socialists. They are people who have built up a very prosperous port with links with the town, and their attitude must be respected.
What is the case against European Ferries, which has made a counter-bid to the deal done between the Company and the Docks Board? I suggest it is that European Ferries' main business is shipping. In my judgment and in the judgment of many better qualified people than I, it is a bad thing for a single port user to be in control of a port. It will quickly discover, should it continue with ownership, that it is impossible to balance its own long-term interests with those of other port users and the employees. Anyone with any knowledge of the port of Liverpool and of the difficulties with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board will know what I mean. It is emphatically not in the national interest for any port to be in the hands of a single port user.
It is important that Felixstowe should remain free to maintain its existing business and attract new customers without being inhibited by a single-user owner. If the port of Felixstowe becomes part of the British Transport Docks Board business, it will continue to be operated as a multi-user port. It will enjoy the advantage of being merged with a larger organisation with a record of commercial success. No single user will be given preference at the expense of others.
The Docks Board has already demonstrated at its other ports the success of its policies of decentralised management and commercial expansion. Southampton alone is proof of that. Only today it is reported that Southampton has gained a new container service to the Far East, involving 35,000 containers a year, in direct competition with other ports.
The Docks Board has said that it will develop Felixstowe. It has the resources to do it and it means what it says. There will certainly be no drain on the public purse. The Board's cash flow is sufficient to buy the port for the

481
£5½ million on offer and it can go on with the necessary development of the port.
In their statement of 5th March, the Felixstowe directors confirmed their belief in the assurance of development given by the Docks Board. In a circular to ordinary stockholders they said:
"Your Board continues to rely upon the assurances of BTDB for the long term development of the Port of Felixstowe and will continue to give support to the bill before Parliament not only because of the long term consideration but also because the Company is under a commitment to BTDB to aid and assist in and support the promotion of the Bill "—
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Rubbish
Mr. Bradley: Did someone say that it was rubbish?
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I did.
Mr. Bradley: I am quoting from the official circular issued by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to its ordinary stockholders. That is the answer to the interruptions of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a good deal of regard for him, but I am afraid that he is out of date. The directors have said today—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of it, or he would not have said what he has—that they recommend all the ordinary stockholders who have not already accepted the offer by European Ferries to do so before 2nd April 1976. The individual members of the board have said today that they themselves are doing so. The board has certainly gone back on what it previously said, as the hon. Gentleman fairly described it to the House, but what he is now saying is no longer true. There has been a change by the board today.
Mr. Bradley: The board, of course, has always advised its stockholders that it would be to their financial advantage to take the offer of European Ferries, speculative though it is. Their position, as I have understood it, as directors is that they were not exchanging their 134,000-plus shares. If the hon. Member has later information than I am quoting, in print dated 5th March—which was certainly the position until yesterday—he has the advantage of me. It is my understanding,
482
however, that the Felixstowe directors are holding themselves to the binding agreement which they contracted with the Docks Board.
I know that it is part of the folklore of the Conservatives to denigrate public involvement in industry, but I want to disabuse their minds of any preconceived notion that they may have about the nationalised undertaking known as the British Transport Docks Board. This is not some frail, flagging, incompetent, inefficient publicly-owned organisation. It is a highly successful undertaking with an excellent record of profitability. Since 1972 it has been self-financing. It has borrowed no Government funds for its capital investments. The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company was certainly supported by Government money in recent years.
In 1973 the Docks Board had a surplus of £11·7 million, showing a return on capital of 7·6 per cent. In 1974 it had a surplus of £12·1 million, showing a return on capital of 7·8 per cent. The 1975 figures are not yet available. It is well known that it was a difficult year for all ports. However, I am told reliably that when the British Transport Docks Board accounts for 1975 are published we shall see yet another improvement on the previous year's figures.
It is in the interests of employees of Felixstowe—I understand that they have expressed an open mind on this contentious matter—that the port should develop on as broad a base as possible, without being inhibited by a single port user. I do not wish to enter now the controversy over the Dock Labour Scheme. I have given my reasons for that earlier. As I have said, it is certainly, rightly or wrongly, one of the factors that influenced the directors in the first place to seek an arrangement with the Board.
I remind the House that the British Transport Docks Board docks are all schemed ports. The Board has learned to live with the Dock Labour Scheme. It has immense experience in the running of ports. On the average, industrial relations throughout the Board's undertakings have been far better than in the ports industry as whole. The TUC evidence to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in 1972 testified to that. With

483
great respect European Ferries is a shipping company and has never had to deal with dockers.
I Know that there have been anxieties—I fully understand them—about the Board's intentions. But the Board's policy is very clear. It is to encourage competition within and without its own port structure. Felixstowe will certainly continue to be free to compete with Hull and Immingham, which are BTDB-owned ports, and with other Board ports such as Southampton. There will certainly be no stranglehold, neither is it the intention that there should be. The Board does not permit cut-throat competition within its structure. However, it will certainly be in Felixstowe's interests as well as those of other people that it should become part of this vigorous and publicly owned sector of the transport industry.
At present the British Transport Docks Board accounts for about 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom seaborne trade. With the acquisition of Felixstowe that percentage will rise to 30 per cent. In other words, the British Transport Docks Board will remain in a minority position, and there will be continuing competition within the ports industry.
I know that petitions have been laid against the Bill. They are concerned about Section 15 of the 1962 Act. The British Transport Docks Boards has made it abundantly clear, and has given the necessary assurances to the various petitioners, that it has no intention of seeking compulsory purchase by the operation of Section 15 of the 1962 Act. It has no intention of invoking that section and it never has done that throughout its history. The Board is quite clear—it has expressed this repeatedly to petitioners—that it would come to Parliament if ever it required to acquire further land for development. However, that is an aspect that can be properly and adequately probed in Committee.
To sum up, I believe that Felixstowe is a national asset and that it is far too important to remain in private hands—hands which now belong to a single shipping company. I believe that it is the intention—I hope it is—of the present Labour Government eventually to bring commercially-owned ports in Britain into public ownership. The British Transport
484
Docks Board, in seeking to acquire Felixstowe, is taking a step in the right direction. Surely it is better to do it now than to leave the port with European Ferries for another year or two's uncertainty to hang over the dock before, in any case, it is taken into public ownership.
If the Bill is given a Second Reading tonight, ownership will move to a responsible and successful public body, over which this House will continue to have some control. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby tonight in support of the Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I propose the Question, it will be convenient to inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison) and the names of other right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that despite the existence of the Register of Members' Interests, it is still imperative for hon. Members to declare an interest, should they have one, in any legislation that is before the House? I did not hear the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) fully. I did not hear whether he said that he had an interest as a director now, or that he had been a director in the past. May we have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to the need for all hon. Members participating in the debate to declare an interest if—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a matter for individual Members and not for the Chair. The Chair understood that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) did declare an interest as a former director of the Company. Perhaps that will clear the hon. Gentleman's mind on this point.
Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This matter cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) made a full and frank declaration of past interest.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths Mr. Eldon Griffiths indicated assent.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It has been confirmed by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. It is not a matter

485
for the Chair; it is a matter for individual Members. However, I think that that settles the question.
Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that it does not settle the question. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) may not have been present, or he may not have heard, but whichever it was, it seems to be absolutely monstrous and quite out-with the courtesies of the House that he should make an absolutely baseless insinuation against my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. I therefore request you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask the hon. Member for Sowerby to make a fulsome apology to my hon. Friend and to rebuke the hon. Member if he is not prepared to do so. It was one of the worst breaches of courtesy that I have heard in the House for a very long time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) would care to reply to that suggestion by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). It is a matter for individual Members.
Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry if I offended the sensitivities of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I was asking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to confirm that it is imperative for Members to declare an interest in the proceedings of the House should they have one, despite the existence of a Register of Members' Interests. I was asking you to confirm what I had not heard fully, and to say that if a Member had an interest it should be declared during the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has debated this matter fully in the past. There is a register, and an understanding on the matter.
7.28 p.m.
Mr. Keith Stainton: Forthwith I bare my breast and declare an interest—a beneficial interest in 1,800 shares of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, in regard to which I have accepted the offer from European Ferries.
486
Having said that, I should like to strike a note of amicability with the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden). He has fought against me in campaigns in my constituency. We have been over the ground about Felixstowe Dock, on the spot. I am sure that the hon. Member will find much accord with what I shall say as the Member affected by this issue and not as the Member for the landlocked constituency of Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) who might have been better advised, instead of concentrating his speech so much on invective vis-à-vis European Ferries, to concentrate on the content of the Bill, and the importance of Felixstowe and the A45, and all that goes with that, in terms of getting the produce out of his industrial area to the seaboard, the Continent and elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East put his finger on the root of the matter but ended by taking a side-swipe at European Ferries. He said that he hoped that it would not be too long before the Labour Government found it possible fully to nationalise all ports. He put the matter in terms of another year or two of uncertainty. But it is that year or two of uncertainty that has provided the background of my campaign in Sudbury and Woodbridge ever since the by-election of 1963. Ironically, that has stood me in good stead in the township of Felixstowe.
There are three documents now before the House—the Bill, the three petitions, and the statement by the agents for the promoters. Our overriding concern must relate to the Bill itself. My purpose is to speak against what I consider to be a straightforward nationalisation measure—a disruptive and confiscatory measure, and, indeed, a measure that will not advance by one iota the well-being of the port of Felixstowe, its employees and users, the transport and shipping industry, and the nation at large.
Last year Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, to give it its full and splendid title, celebrated the centenary of its foundation—100 years of mixed fortunes which have culminated in one of the most remarkable success stories of the individual entrepreneur and of British port development. Felixstowe is the only private port of any size in the United Kingdom, and it owes its existence and

487
much of its achievements to the present Chairman and Managing Director, Mr. Gordon Parker. When he took over 25 years ago the once grandiose concept of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company had been reduced to a small silted-up dock, rotting away, and unlikely to be used again. That, presumably, was the opinion of those enlightened gentlemen who were then in charge of the fortunes of the British Dock Board.
If at that time they had chanced their arm and "had a go", they could have made something of it but it was all left to the individual private sector to resuscitate the fortunes of the port. Now the port handles upwards of 4½ million tons of cargo a year, compared with a figure of 423,000 tons in 1965. Now the tonnage is up by a factor of 10, and since 1965 the number of ships has more than doubled. All this has been achieved by a slow, methodical build-up with, throughout, an eye to Europe.
Many said that it could not be done. Indeed, many people doubted it personally and averred strongly that it could not be done. But by working on a shoestring and ploughing back profits, by methodically building up and reshaping the port, by a young and enthusiastic approach, and by aggressive selling, much was achieved. I quote from the Financial Times of 14th March 1969, when the Director and General Manager of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, Mr. Ian Trelawny, said:
"We went out and sold the port of Felixstowe. We carried out market research into cargo patterns and movements, we advertised to specific trades, such as cars, timber and plastics, and we put in a lot of leg work at home and abroad trying to interest potential customers. All this was quite unusual for a British port. What's more, we were spending our own money."
Other important reasons for the development of Felixstowe included the creation of a bond of common interest with a work force willing to accept new handling methods. This led to a quicker turn-round of ships than was being achieved by any other rival in this country. This was combined with the development of the hinterland, with adequate assembly areas, wharves and cold stores, and also the role of Trinity College. I hope that we shall hear a good deal from both sides of the House about
488
the role of Trinity College and the land that it made available for this purpose.
By these means Felixstowe has had such success that it now finds itself eyed covetously by the public sector—the very people who sat in the Ministry of Transport in the late 1960s and told me that the A45 did not justify "trunking" between Ipswich and Felixstowe because they regarded our traffic projections as wildly optimistic. I went to see the Minister every month, armed with a census of traffic compiled by the county council. The Minister must have got so fed up with me that he caved in and relented. Under pressure, the National Ports Council invested funds to supplement those of shareholders.
I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, East that substantial public money has been invested in this concern, but it comprises no more than 88 per cent. of the fixed capital, and none of the equity. Let us keep the matter in proportion. It is not for me to develop the point about the importance of the infra-structure imposed on the locality, because many of these loan tranches from the Department of the Environment have interest rate of up to 16⅛ per cent. This contrasts vividly with the borrowing powers and capital liabilities as set out in the last report and accounts of the British Transport Docks Board. Under the subheading "Capital Liability: Loans from the Secretary of State to the Environment", we see a figure of £76·9 million out of a total of £123 million. It is of the order of 70 per cent., with interest of 3·61 per cent. per annum, redeemable in 1978 at 8 per cent.
In Felixstowe dock, we have four roll-on/roll-off berths, a specialist container and bulk cargo-loading apparatus, and rapidly growing passenger ferry services. The ferry services started in the early part of last year, but in August alone 59,000 passengers were transported through the dock. From a labour force of about 30 men on a make-and-mend basis at the start, the last annual report and accounts shows 1,160 employees in the company's payroll. Aggregating all the dependent activities in the immediate hinterland, I estimate that there are between 3,000 and 4,000 people fairly directly engaged on business to do with the activities of the dock. They are all deeply concerned about their future.

489
The latest figures that I have been able to obtain on the efficiency of docks are, unfortunately, for as long ago as 1972, but it is as well to put Felixstowe in perspective with other docks, especially those run by the British Transport Docks Board with its magnificent return of 7½ per cent. on historically-valued capital. In terms of cargo divided by the number of dockers, the figures in thousand metric tons are 6·2 for Felixstowe, 1·3 for Liverpool, 1·4 for London, 1·7 for Hull and Goole—a BTDB dock—2·5 for Medway, 4·3 for Grimsby and Immingham—another BTDB dock—5·6 for Rotterdam and—I give this figure in the hope that the Scottish National Party will support us tonight—6·4 for Clyde. I apologise for not having been able to provide more up-to-date figures, but they are the latest available from the National Ports Council.
Although overtime bans have been part of Felixstowe Dock life from time to time, a hard-headed appreciation on both sides of the value of consultation, together with skilled planning and enthusiasm, has made Felixstowe into a veritable paragon compared with what has been referred to as the jungle of dockland elsewhere. The elements of success in this story are a determined, dedicated and responsive local private enterprise management—an enterprise not wedded to the past but constantly advancing—an eager, competent and involved team of employees and an aggressive build up of marketing, shipping and forwarding agents.
Why does the Docks Board, that creature of Government and happier twin of the British Railways Board—they were both born out of the same roan—want this Bill to take over Felixstowe? Why are there these political exclamations regarding European Ferries? Sir Humphrey Browne, the Chairman of the Board, said in a letter to The Times on 30th October 1975:
"It has potential and is suitable for further investment and expansion."
He did nothing about getting it off the ground or through its serious phases of development. He has now discovered that it has potential and is suitable for further investment and expansion. One welcomes such a clear, flat-footed statement of basic business motives from a nationalised undertaking, but let us probe it further.
490
It is no secret that the Board has looked endlessly at Felixstowe over the last three or four years. From the mid-1960s, if not earlier, Felixstowe has been threatened with nationalisation. There is a whole sorry story, starting with the Rochdale Committee in 1962, whose report suggested the establishment of the National Ports Authority.
The Labour Party manifesto of 1964 made no mention of dock nationalisation. We thought we were in the clear, but along came the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) who, in 1966, chaired a Labour Party commission which suggested dock nationalisation. In 1969, we had the White Paper from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) on the organisation of the ports, which precipitated into the Ports Bill of 1970. My hon. Friend for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) and I sat through the Committee stage of that Bill. We had got to the last lap when the Dissolution of Parliament was announced, we started a General Election campaign, and the Bill disappeared without trace. Since the 1974 elections, the social contract and all that has gone with it has made nationalisation increasingly more likely.
The Government's position is difficult to determine. We had proposals from the Minister on 20th August which were described in The Times as
"wide ranging in concept, although vague in detail."
There has been a further consultative letter which, in my judgment, emphasised certain points, but made no substantial change.
The proposals of 20th August are in a vacuum. There is no Government statement on a concerted overall transport policy, though this has been much promised and long awaited. At present, 80 per cent. of overseas trade is through ports which are, in one way or another, already publicly-owned. Of our total trade, 25 per cent. is handled by the 19 ports operated by the BTDB. We are told with complete equanimity that this would rise to 30 per cent. if Felixstowe were taken over and that this would be inoffensive.
I find it offensive that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) can endeavour to refer the case of European Ferries to

491
the Director General of Fair Trading under the monopoly legislation, but does not find it appropriate to comment on the fact that, as a statutory authority, the Docks Board is exempt from any of the monopoly tests. The proposal of 20th August failed to recognise the vast changes that had come about in the dock industry since 1969. I refer to decasualisation and massive investment, of which there would have been more had there not been a constant nagging doubt in the background.
Throughout all that, Manchester and Felixstowe coped fairly well for themselves by themselves. It can be said that there has been duplication. I cite the example of the construction of two new major container terminals, one at Tilbury and the other at Southampton. I commend Ministers to reflect that the Southampton end was constructed by the British Transport Docks Board. The link ought properly to have been with the National Ports Council. I see no reason why that organisation should not be rapped over the knuckles and appropriately strengthened.
Against that background, Felixstowe encountered growing difficulties in rephasing its finances. Here I start to close with the hon. Member for Leicester, East. As a result of these measures and its financing difficulties, Felixstowe was thrown into the extended arms of the British Transport Docks Board and that, purely and simply, is the reason for the Bill.
The Bill is petitioned against by one of the port's major users, European Ferries, by the Port Users Association, and by Trinity College—not admittedly, in its capacity as a shareholder. The Bill is a grab for 150p per share when the net book asset value written down is 196·5p. It extinguishes competition between the Thames and the Tees. It is drawn in such terms that the so-called undertakings in paragraph 2 of Schedule I are qualified by overriding powers held by the Secretary of State under the Transport Acts of 1962 and 1968. The users of Felixstowe attach great importance to paragraph 2(a) and (b). It is qualified by such phrases as "financial policies and objectives" and "subject to general trading conditions ". It is qualified by the omission of freedom to compete on
492
specifically normal financial terms. Those words are not written in. I have endeavoured to have them written in, but have merely had an exchange of letters. I have been told that the Department of the Environment felt itself fully stretched in producing what is now within the Bill and that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to persuade it to go further.
If the Bill is successful, the logical course would be for it to go to Committee. I find it deeply offensive to read in the Bill and in the supporting document sent out by the promoters that in the event of a material alteration which is not acceptable to the Board, the Board shall have the option to withdraw. In other words, Parliament is being put under threat in terms of what it can or cannot do, otherwise the British Transport Docks Board risks turning tail and letting down the whole enterprise.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a threat to Parliament the other way. Has not European Ferries told its shareholders that it will give an additional 15p for every share if the Bill is defeated tonight? Is not that a threat to Parliament? I suggest that it is a breach of Privilege. On the basis of his 1,800 shares, the hon. Gentleman is likely to pocket another £270.
Mr. Stainton: I ask this rhetorically, because I have not seen the hon. Gentleman's last election address, but did he not offer roads, hospitals and schools in his own constituency, or wherever, were he and a Labour Government elected? He has not a point there at all. I rest contentedly on my point about material alteration to the Bill.
In this enlightened age of worker participation the Bill is curiously drawn so as to take no cognisance of it. It is brought forward in the face of a bid worth, on paper, 190p—that is, 175p plus a bonus of 15p. If it passed the winning post it would be 46·1 per cent.—a vastly higher percentage than is offered by the British Transport Docks Board.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East talks about the market price of European Ferries shares. He was Parliamentary Private Secretary to a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that the efforts of the last week or two, the reverberations of the vote in the Chamber, the

493
comments from his colleagues, the eloquent comment from the Stock Exchange when the index fell below 400, and the eloquent comments from the foreign exchange market mean something to him. Let us hope that once his endeavours in the present campaign for leadership are over—I wish him bonne chance—European Ferries and all of us will happily retrieve this situation.
European Ferries is a quoted public company with a dynamic record, adequate finances, a clean bill of health from the Director General of Fair Trading—who has examined its operations in detail—extensive experience of shipping and a good port ownership and operation record. It has received acceptances from 85 per cent. of the stockholders of Felixstowe.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East and the promoters of the Bill make much play of the green handout—the resolution passed by the 87·9 per cent. majority at the extraordinary meeting on 21st November 1975. We have to be precise about this. It was 87·95 per cent. of the votes cast. The votes against were 12·05 per cent. That gives us 100 per cent. in terms of votes cast, but as those votes represented no more than 62·92 per cent. of the total capital of the company, the assenting votes are not 87·95 per cent. but, according to my Boots the Chemists Japanese calculator, 55 per cent. of available votes.
The bid is unconditional. The Board is due to change, and I am informed that employee representation and the representation of local interests are very much in mind, as is a fresh extraordinary general meeting. There has been a mass meeting of dockers at which a vote was taken. The alternatives put to the men were these: first, "Do you favour the British Transport Docks Board?"; secondly, "Do you favour European Ferries?"; thirdly, "Should we let matters take their course? "
It was the third option that prevailed at that meeting. Indeed, on this point I quote from The Times of 7th October:
"Mr. Albert Booth, Minister of State for Employment, visited Felixstowe yesterday to discuss extending the Dock Labour Scheme to the port."
494
I shall not go into that part, which is quite contentious, but the article goes on to say that the
"senior shop steward said the men were in favour of the labour scheme, with its guarantee of employment, but they disliked the idea of nationalisation."
I also received, this morning, a large petition, which is headed:
"We, the undersigned salaried employees of Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, wish to record that we are giving our full support to European Ferries Limited following their take-over of the Company, and that we hereby require Mr. Keith Stainton,"—
that is a breach of Privilege if anything is—
"the Member of Parliament of the constituency of Sudbury and Woodbridge, to do all in his power both personally and by the encouragement of his colleagues towards the defeat or withdrawal of the British Transport Docks (Felixstowe) Bill."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Who signed it?"] A vast number of people. The petition will be available for inspection after the debate, should there be any doubt as to its veracity or content.
I close now—[Interruption.] I must beg the indulgence of the House. As the local Member, I am more than a little concerned. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shareholder."] As to shareholding, I wish that whoever made that remark would address himself to the Chair. If we are talking about Members' interests, and slurs can arise after such a frank and straightforward declaration, I think that such observations should be made from a standing position, so that we would know who made them. I should then be able to address myself to them and deal with them properly. How else can I seek justice?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear, in fact, any comments made from either side. If such comments were made as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, they should not have been made. The hon. Gentleman declared his interest at the very beginning of his speech.
Mr. Stainton: The interest is quite tiny. This organisation—I was about to say "institution" but it is far too dynamic to be damned with that title—has been of fundamental importance to my constituency over the years. In closing, I quote from an article by Alan Hamilton

495
in The Times of August 21st last. He said:
"Even the most nationalised of port authorities, the British Transport Docks Board, is no friend of Mr. Mulley. Sir Humphrey Browne, BTDB Chairman, is a strong believer in a mixed economy, and has said that he welcomes the competition of the private ports. He is in a position to be of such a mind, as his board shared with the British Steel Corporation the food fortune of being the only profitable nationalised industry last year."
I condemn the Bill. I regard it as superfluous, harmful and hurtful. I only hope that we shall vote it down tonight, and that, in addition, Sir Humphrey Browne will have cause to reflect on the wisdom of the words that he used, as given by the writer of that article. Instead of having £4¼ million of Treasury money at 3·61 per cent., or whatever it was, absorbed in this venture, why not repay it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and help him with the funding of the National Debt?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before calling the next hon. Gentleman I remind the House—it is self-evident—that the Bill relates only to Felixstowe Docks. Although the Chair has allowed some latitude in the arguments advanced for and against the measure before the House, we must not now allow the debate to develop into a general debate on nationalisation. The Chair would deprecate it if that should occur.
8.5 p.m.
Mr. Ken Weetch: I have a number of reasons for speaking in this debate on the British Transport Docks (Felixstowe) Bill. I am interested, first, in the general principles of the argument. I support the purpose of the Bill, which is to implement an agreement freely arrived at between the board of management of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and the British Transport Docks Board.
Secondly, I have a close constituency interest, because some of my constituents work in the port and have long done so. For a considerable period they have been in touch with me over a varied range of matters, and particularly of late they have been concerned with the question now before the House.
My third reason is more important than either of the first two. The efficiency and prosperity of the port of Felixstowe is of very vital importance to the
496
economic development of this part of East Anglia. I hold that principle to be of the first importance, especially in view the rapidly developing threat from Europe.
I am very sorry that the dispute has degenerated into a battle along party lines.
Mr. Stainton: Who started it?
Mr. Weetch: I shall answer that in a moment. It need not have happened in this way. I am also very sorry that so much of the language has been emotive. A report in The Guardian of 27th November last described Felixstowe as the white hope of capitalism in East Anglia.
It has also been described as the jewel in the crown of free enterprise. I have read remarks about resisting the stranglehold of the State. All this language does the essential argument no good at all. Much of the jargon of the Right and Left is totally beyond my political thinking. I want to consider in the debate what is best as a practical proposition for the future of the port.
I submit that the aims and objects of the exercise must be to ensure an efficient and prosperous future for the port of Felixstowe for those who trade in it, for those who work in it and for those, including myself, who want to see the port expand and develop. That, I think, is the crux of the whole argument from start to finish. These are the thoughts which are uppermost in my mind in arguing in this debate in support of the Bill.
The main arguments in outline were put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) when he opened the debate. The main lines of his analysis, I submit, are absolutely correct. But let us first clear the ground. The Bill is being promoted on the basis of an agreement freely reached last November between the management of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and the British Transport Docks Board. That is an agreement still honoured by the board at Felixstowe port, which, even under the heavy pressure of the last few months, has not gone back on its word. I saw no official announcement before I came into the debate which suggested anything to the contrary. That is my most recent advice.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: This is material to the deliberations of this House on the Bill. I make no editorial points. The hon. Gentleman should know of the announcement made this evening from the directors of Felixstowe port. It says:
"Your directors therefore recommend that those ordinary stockholders who have not already accepted the offer by European Ferries should do so".
They say also that
"Individual members of your Board are now free to accept the offer, and will be doing so."
That has changed the situation completely from what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Weetch: The hon. Gentleman is telling me nothing that I did not know before. I always knew that the directors of the Company would recommend the sale of its shares. That is a natural commercial operation, as I understand it. But my latest information is, as I have said, that the board of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company is still on record as being of that view and has not gone back on its word. If there is later information to contradict what I say, I shall give in to it. At the moment, however, I stand by what I have said.
The point I wanted to make is that this is no Draconian manoeuvre. It was an agreement arrived at by a willing buyer with a willing seller, and this was the judgment reached by the board of management of the port—a board of management which, I agree with the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), knows its business.
Mr. F. A. Burden: Is not it a fact that the directors do not own the Company? The shareholders own it. All that the directors can do is to put before the shareholders the offer and get their views. If a better one comes up, it is the duty of the directors to give the shareholders, who own the Company, the opportunity to express their views.
Mr. Weetch: Indeed, and subsequently they may do that. I am talking about the factual situation as it is at the moment.
In support of what I say, let me quote some words of the Chairman of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, Mr. Gordon Parker. In an article entitled
"Felixstowe Docks opts to desert capitalism".
498
Mr. Parker described himself as
"a self-confessed bastion of free enterprise."
He would not have advocated any such agreement with the British Transport Docks Board had it not been in the best interests of the port of Felixstowe itself, he said. That is on record. Those are the words of a "bastion of free enterprise".
Mr. Parker went on to underline the point by saying:
"You must look at the reality of the situation. You must not allow your sentiments to cloud your judgment".
I suggest that that is a suitable theme for this debate. In fact, I might suggest to the free enterprise thinkers on the Opposition Benches that when this agreement was reached by this apostle of free enterprise with the British Transport Docks Board, it may be that he was guided in making it by the hidden hand of Adam Smith. We never know in these matters. We can go only by what we read in a facsimile report going back to last November.
If the Bill is passed, the agreement will be implemented, with very substantial advantages for the port of Felixstowe. In my view, the practical arguments—I am advancing practical arguments at every stage, if I can—are overwhelming. The first is that the British Transport Docks Board has the resources, arising from the commercial profitability of its operations, to provide a sound economic future for the port. It is quite unscrupulous to suggest that it will mean a charge on public expenditure, because the Docks Board has financed all its expansion since 1972 from retained profits arising out of the efficiency of its operations. That is the plain commercial fact of this matter. In fact, the British Transport Docks Board, from start to finish, is acting in a commercially responsible way. I hope that that will appeal to Opposition Members.
Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the port of Bristol, which is municipally owned, was prevented from expanding so that his friends in the British Transport Docks Board could make money on the other side of the Bristol Channel.
Mr. Weetch: I cannot comment on that intervention because it is totally irrelevant to the issue under discussion.

499
The second point that I make is the crucial one in this argument. It is that the British Transport Docks Board is not a shipping company. It is an organisation which can bring enormous experience and expertise to bear on the practical problems of the port of Felixstowe and its future for the benefit of all concerned. It has a wealth of experience, and it has the overwhelming advantage of group strength combined with decentralised management and local port autonomy in day-to-day operational matters. The Docks Board can muster the experience of Britain's largest port authority, stretching from the Humber to Southampton and to the ports of South Wales and elsewhere.
I have heard it argued that the Docks Board's overall policies might conflict with the aim of expanding Felixstowe. Frankly, this is rubbish. I have heard it agreed that, just because the British Transport Docks Board has an overall policy, this is likely to limit the expansion of Felixstowe in some way. Personally, I am glad to see that the Board has some overall policy and that it can bring such expertise and experience to bear as part of the total framework of its operations.
The fact is that the British Transport Docks Board has demonstrated the success of its policy of decentralised management and commercial expansion. I have sought its advice and I am assured that Felixstowe will be told by the British Transport Docks Board to go out for more business and to be competitive. As far as I am concerned, that is fair enough.
It is my view that the port of Felixstowe, for whose future I care a great deal in practical terms, would be in good hands with the British Transport Docks Board. If I did not believe that, I should not be participating in this debate.
But what of the alternative? Here we have a guardian angel waiting in the wings to bring sweetness and light to the port of Felixstowe in the form of free enterprise. Let us examine that for a moment. If we look at the alternative, I see first of all that the whole of this operation has been jeopardised by this counter-proposal, which has led to uncertainty, delay and procrastination when what we should be doing is pushing
500
ahead with constructive plans for the future.
If the counter-proposal were successful, we should have a situation where the port was controlled by one of the users. I suggest that that is a very unhealthy situation. We have had an example of that in Liverpool.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is my hon. Friend aware that during the period when the merchant princes and the port users made up the composition of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board they ran the place into bankruptcy in 1970 in their own interests by keeping charges artificially low because they were the people paying them?
Mr. Weetch: I thank my hon. Friend for reinforcing my point. He has more knowledge of the port of Liverpool than I have. My general point, however, is that it is an unhealthy situation when control of a port devolves into the hands of a large user. It is an unhealthy situation in principle.
Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Weetch: No. I have not much time.
Mr. Ridsdale: The hon. Gentleman appears willing to give way to his hon. Friends.
Mr. Weetch: Yes, but the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) was the first from my side of the House.
I want now to touch briefly on labour relations at the port of Felixstowe and to say a little about certain events which have occurred concerning labour relations in the past week. I am sure most hon. Members will agree with me when I say that the basis of prosperity of any port is good labour relations and that without good communication and a spirit of understanding, in addition to good working machinery, no port will prosper. As a general principle, I think that that is defensible in any terms. I agree with the hon. Member for Sudbury and Wood-bridge that without a shadow of doubt labour relations at the port of Felixstowe have been very good. I go further and say that both management and unions at the port can take very great credit for this substantial performance over the years.

501
What of the future? Everyone would agree that the record I have just described must continue. I firmly believe that this record of good relations will be maintained by the Docks Board and that there is every precedent for that assertion. Labour relations at British Transport Docks Board ports have, for an industry plagued with the difficult problems of technical change and the legacies of the past, been above average and high in quality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East said, that point was submitted by the TUC to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. Although the TUC admitted that there had been difficulties in a difficult industry, it submitted that the overall pattern in the British Transport Docks Board was above the average and that it was good in comparative terms.
We come now to the 64-dollar question. What about the alternative of European Ferries, which is poised waiting in the wings? Last Saturday night I was asked to go to an emergency meeting in my constituency to meet the National Union of Seamen working for European Ferries. They told me about the dissatisfaction that exists throughout that organisation about labour relations. One of them, a representative on the Felixstowe Port Committee, described labour relations in European Ferries as an archaic, paternalistic, monolithic and appalling framework of consultation.
A substantial strike was narrowly averted this week at European Ferries at the Felixstowe Docks. It arose because two ships were withdrawn without consultation. The whole situation hit the men like a bombshell. They were due to discuss washing machines at a meeting, but then they were told that two ships were to be withdrawn, affecting redundancy. This was a matter in which there should have been close and detailed consultation, but there was not. The trouble brew up, but luckily for everyone the matter was settled. If it had not been, there could have been considerable damage.
When the strike was settled, two statements were issued. The National Union of Seamen said that in view of European Ferries management's offer of no redundancies and its offer of discussions on consultation machinery, the union would
502
advise its members to withdraw the dispute notice. Hon. Members should note the offer of consultation machinery. If the company is going to bring all these reforms to the docks, I must say that it has not done much so far.
I now quote from a letter from the Merchant Navy Officers' Association. It recommended no participation in the dispute and said:
"We must stress that failing a marked improvement in the matter of communications and consultations, we shall be forced to reconsider the advice given to our fellow officers."
That is a striking comment on industrial relations in European Ferries. That was the moderate element speaking, and it spoke with some knowledge.
The crucially important point is that ominously, in the critical area of labour relations, European Ferries wishes to establish its control as the alternative to the British Transport Docks Board. It does not have a tradition of good labour relations and will not bring that to the port of Felixstowe. It has been emphasised to me that the incident in which a damaging strike was narrowly averted was symptomatic of general dissatisfaction within the European Ferries organisation. The British Transport Docks Board has the labour relations and expertise to continue the traditions of good industrial relations of which the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge spoke.
I believe that after a decision freely reached by the board of management of Felixstowe Docks and Railway Company to enter into an agreement with the British Transport Docks Board, the counter-bid by European Ferries has created uncertainty and instability. This champion of so-called free enterprise, European Ferries, is playing political ducks and drakes with the future of the port. Its intervention was not only irresponsible but was thoroughly disreputable and unscrupulous.
I shall now quote from page 5 of the offer on behalf of European Ferries by Warburg and Co. Limited, which states:
"Provided that the British Transport Docks (Felixstowe) Bill in its original or any modified form (' the Bill ') currently before Parliament does not receive the Royal Assent, Ordinary Stockholders who accept the offer will be paid an additional amount of 15p

503
in cash for each Ordinary Stock unit of Felixstowe Dock within 21 days of the Bill being withdrawn or otherwise lapsing."
Let us get to the root of that. It means that if the Bill falls each shareholder will receive another 15p apiece. I stress that I am not making any personal imputation. I have a high respect for the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge, and I wish to scrub any such thought from the minds of hon. Members. It could well have been the case and can be interpreted that any hon. Member was being given a financial inducement to take a certain political course of action. That is the principle at stake in this issue.
Mr. Ridsdale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member casting an aspersion on all hon. Members of the House?
Mr. Weetch: Certainly not.
Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman took the view that this could be considered as an inducement to hon. Members to throw out the Bill because they would receive financial gain.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Order. If that was what the hon. Gentleman said, I am sure that he will withdraw.
Mr. Weetch: I shall not alter one semicolon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the facts are on record.
Mr. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to pursue the matter, but it is completely wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches can be bribed to vote in a certain way on a Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have indicated to the hon. Gentleman that if he suggested that there is any question of bribery he should withdraw that suggestion.
Mr. Weetch: There is no question of my suggesting bribery, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All I am saying is that the 15p above the odds if the Bill falls can be construed as a financial inducement from European Ferries. The facts are on record, and I have them in front of me.
Mr. Stainton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand the purport
504
of the word "construe" to be "construe to some purpose". The hon. Gentleman must finish his sentence.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr Weetch) has been trying to tell the House is that an offer has been made by European Ferries that if the Bill s thrown out 15p will be added to the amount paid for the shares. On the basis that there may well be hon. Members who would gain a financial advantage if the Bill were thrown out, my hon. Friend is saying "If the cap fits, wear it".
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that if there are any hon. Members in that situation they will declare their interest.
Mr. Weetch: When I read that part of the printed offer, I took the advice of senior Members as to whether I should raise it as a question of Privilege. I decided on balance not to do so. But I am certainly in order in raising the matter in this debate. The word I used was "disreputable", and disreputable it is.
I have already said that I give the Bill support so that a freely-reached decision may be implemented. I know that the argument will suggest itself to all hon. Members that the Bill represents the honouring of an agreement freely reached. If Opposition Members defeat the Bill, they must realise that they will increase the period of uncertainty and that a large question mark will hang over the future of Felixstowe.
There is talk about free enterprise and the shareholders. The shares in the Felixstowe port are not now held by little men, the yeoman of East Anglia. They are held by a great juggernaut. The situation has greatly altered.
I am a strong supporter of the Bill on practical and, I hope, hard-headed grounds. I hope that its provisions come to pass. If they do not, because of doctrinaire opposition, there must be uncertainty for a long time about the port of Felixstowe.
8.33 p.m.
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: My interest in the Bill stems from the fact that I was at

505
Trinity College, Cambridge, with which I have kept in touch over the years. Hon. Members may laugh, but I owe a great debt to the College. Trinity takes no partisan or political view of the matter before us, but it is deeply concerned, because it owns land in the area. That lands, most of it agricultural, was acquired many years ago. It provides income that is used entirely for educational purposes. No individual is involved, and no individual receives direct money benefit from the land.
A number of years ago, 100 acres belonging to Trinity were leased to the Dock Company for development- More recently, another 200 acres have been developed by the College, with excellent roads, drainage and other services. The area has been made available to commercial firms using the docks. There are now office blocks, considerable warehousing facilities, cold stores, a lorry park, a hotel, and other facilities, which have all contributed to the efficiency and success of the docks and the well-being of the people in the town. Relationships all round have been excellent.
Trinity does not take a political line, but it is concerned that a change of ownership could have adverse affects. The British Transport Docks Board already controls about 19 ports, including Hull and Southampton. If it acquired Felixstowe it might not be quite so single-minded in development there as those responsible have been in the past. Any falling off in use and efficiency at Felixstowe would, of course, affect for the worse the prosperity of firms there and individuals in the area for whom Trinity feels some responsibility, as a landlord.
The second and perhaps more important question is that of education. I mentioned that no moneys from the area go to private individuals; all the money goes for educational purposes. Nor does the College keep all the revenue for itself. Under an agreement operating with Cambridge University, certain of the wealthier colleges pay into a pool to build up the endowments of less well-off colleges. About £250,000 has been involved in this system in the past few years and it has been very helpful to the women's colleges.
In addition, Trinity had a large stake in the founding of Darwin College and through its own resources it has estab-
506
lished the Cambridge Science Park—a 30-acre area on the outskirts of the city for special science-based industry working in close touch with the university science departments. I am not a scientist, but I am very glad to be able to tell the House that among Nobel Prize winners in science, 20 have been at Trinity College—just the one college—compared with 21 for the whole of France and 17 for Belgium, Holland and Italy combined. I believe that we would all agree that this is an outstanding and generous record, which should, if possible, be continued.
In these days, when money is not so readily available for education, it seems to me that no steps should be taken which could lessen these contributions—but that could happen if Felixstowe does not continue to prosper.
Trinity probably would have preferred it if the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company could have continued as before, because its relationship with the Company was excellent, but in the new circumstances of today the College feels that Felixstowe would be better in the hands of a one-port owner than in the hands of a multi-port owner. That would ensure more competition, better development, greater concentration on a single entity, and a steady income. Dispersal of effort would be avoided. As we all know, size is not everything, and it very often leads to inefficiency. Small, single entities can often prove more efficient. For all these reasons, Trinity College petitioned against the Bill, and in my humble view it was right to do so.
8.39 p.m.
The Minister for Transport (Dr. John Gilbert): It may be helpful to the House if I intervene at this stage of the debate not to reply in detail to it but to indicate very briefly the Government's attitude to the Bill. This is, of course, a Private Bill; it is not a Government measure. The Government are, however, sympathetic to the objectives of the Bill, for the reasons I shall explain, and I very much hope the House will give it a Second Reading tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) has given the House a full and eloquent explanation of the background to the Bill and its detailed provisions, and it would not be appropriate for me to go

507
over all the ground again. I should, however, re-emphasise that the Bill derives from an agreement between the British Transport Docks Board and a Felixstowe company—a freely-negotiated commercial agreement.
I make clear also that the Government were in no way the instigators of the agreement. So far as I am aware, the Docks Board and Felixstowe came together entirely of their own volition. It was a love match, and not an arranged wedding. The Docks Board properly informed me of its intention at an early stage in the negotiations. I made clear that it would have to win the consent of Felixstowe by its own efforts but that, provided agreement could be reached on reasonable terms, I could see no objection to its proceeding with the matter.
Last October, the Docks Board reported that it had made the proposal to acquire the company at an agreed price of 150p a share. After due considerations, I told it that the Government were prepared to bless the union, and consented to the introduction of the necessary Private Bill. The Government's reasons for supporting the Bill were, and are, straightforward.
In the first place, it seems to us that the take-over makes good sense for both parties. The Docks Board will acquire a flourishing East Coast port of particular strength in short sea trades, which will provide a useful addition to its ports of Southampton and Hull. For its part. Felixstowe will gain the advantage of a merger with a larger organisation with a record of success and one which enjoys the financial strength and experience to undertake further developments at Felixstowe, as they are needed.
Mr. Burden: Does the Minister agree that it is not the directors but the shareholders who own the Company? Was this offer put to the shareholders? Did they accept it? If not, why not? The board of the Company alone could not accept. If a better offer was put before the shareholders as the owners of the company, had they not the right to accept that offer rather than a lower one, which was apparently negotiated without their being consulted by the board?
Dr. Gilbert: I have no quarrel with the proposition that the shareholders of Felixstowe are entitled to accept a higher offer. The consequences for European Ferries are another matter, which no doubt were taken into account by the board of that institution when it made its offer.
For its part, we see Felixstowe gaining the advantage of a merger with a much larger organisation which has a record of success and financial strength and experience to undertake further developments at Felixstowe, which is one of the matters which, in this debate, have weighed clearly in the minds of hon. Members. The original price was freely negotiated between the parties, and seemed reasonable in the circumstances.
However, apart from these immediate advantages to both the Docks Board and Felixstowe, the Government support the Bill because this merger would fit in very well with our general plans for reorganisation of the ports industry. I am still considering the precise shape that this reorganisation should take, in the fight of reactions to the two consultative documents issued by my predecessor. One essential objective will certainly be to bring commercially-owned ports into public ownership, and the Docks Board's acquisition of Felixstowe would therefore be a step in the right direction.
As I have said, European Ferries was perfectly entitled to make the counter-bid that it has made. I understand that a large number of Felixstowe shareholders have now accepted its offer. European Ferries will soon, therefore, be in effective control of the Company, and it will presumably be seeking withdrawal or defeat of the Bill. I say "presumably", because I do not wish to speculate as to its motives in making the counter-bid.
The Docks Board, however, continues to believe that it is right to press ahead with the Bill. The basic question that we have to consider, therefore, is whether it will be better for the port of Felixstowe to be owned and operated by the Docks Board or by European Ferries. To this, I believe that the answer must be "the Docks Board". The Board has immense experience in the running of ports and, as I have said, a

509
very long record of success both in financial terms and in labour relations. In recent years, it has made steady progress in financial terms, in its share of United Kingdom traffic, and in the quality of its services.
I am confident that, quite apart from political considerations, which I am happy to proclaim from this Box, the Docks Board would be the better organisation to own and operate Felixstowe. When, in addition, we take account of the Government's intended reorganisation of the ports industry, it must surely make better sense for Felixstowe to join now with the Docks Board, rather than to go it alone with European Ferries for a year or two before it is in any case taken into public ownership.
In conclusion, I should like to emphasise once again that this is a Bill to ratify a contractual agreement, freely entered into by the Docks Board and Felixstowe. Part of the agreement was that the Docks Board should bring forward the Bill now before us and should
"use their best endeavours to secure its enactment"
For part, the Felixstowe Company agreed to
"aid and assist the Board in the promotion of the Bill".
The intervention by European Ferries does not alter this agreement. European Ferries knew the terms of the agreement before it made its offer, and, as owners of Felixstowe, must, of course, inherit the obligations of the Felixstowe Company to carry out its part of the agreement. I suggest that those who oppose the Bill are really trying to use Parliament to secure the breach of a binding agreement. I am sure that Parliament would wish to be very wary of using its powers to overrule a private agreement in this way, and since in the present case there are strong grounds of public interest for upholding the agreement, I strongly urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading tonight.
8.47 p.m.
Mr. Norman Fowler: I shall intervene briefly in the debate. I had intended to be brief in any event. The Minister's speech allows me to be even more so, because there
510
was nothing in it to persuade anyone who had not already made up his mind.
There is general agreement on one point; the growth of the Felixstowe Company has been an outstanding postwar success story. When Gordon Parker took over in Felixstowe in 1951 the dock basin had silted up, the piers were damaged, and the equipment and warehouses were in disrepair. Recovery was the result of combined efforts of management and staff—and I emphasise "staff". About two weeks ago I went to Felixstowe and, like any visitor, was struck by the good relations that exist. They are an example to the whole industry, and they have played a significant part in the success of the port. No one can dispute that success. Whatever measure is used, the result is the same. In 1957 the port handled 82,000 tonnes of cargo. Last year it handled 4·2 million tonnes. In 1963, 1,200 vessels arrived at the port. Last year the number was 4,500. When the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) says that Felixstowe is too important to be left in private hands, he may reflect that this is exactly how its development was achieved.
Trade has expanded sharply. Felixstowe has earned for itself a world-wide reputation for efficiency and reliability, as evidenced by the number of users who have transferred there. They include the United States Line, Sea-Land Container-ships, and American Export Lines—three big companies in the United States. The net result has been that the increased trade and profits earned have lead to a dramatic rise in the number of people employed in Felixstowe. When Gordon Parker took over in 1957 the labour force was around a dozen. Today the company alone employs 1,150 people directly, while the port users provide hundreds of additional jobs. That is the true background to the Bill.
A great deal has been made that in the original negotiations last autumn the board of Felixstowe recommended acceptance of the Dock Board's offer. We are told that this was a willing buyer—willing seller situation. That argument, however, conveniently ignores one crucial point. Felixstowe, like most other companies in this country, was hit by the recession. Had it been any other private sector company with the same profit record

511
there would have been no great problem, but, of course, Felixstowe faced the prospect of nationalisation, and that introduced serious uncertainty.
Gordon Parker has made no secret of the effect that this threat had. When he circulated shareholders on 30th October, he specifically mentioned the threat
"of being taken into public ownership in an unspecified way and at an unspecified date".
He added that
"unless Felixstowe Dock's future is clarified it is now faced with increasing uncertainty".
That is the true background. At that stage the board of Felixstowe Docks and, indeed, the shareholders, neither saw nor had any alternative.
But that position changed dramatically two months later, when European Ferries put in its counter-bid. The result is that, whatever the position may have been last November, no one can seriously suggest that today we are dealing with a willing buyer-willing seller situation. The British Transport Docks Board certainly remains a willing buyer, but the vast majority of those most closely affected by the proposed take-over do not want it. I suggest that their views should be treated as overriding in this debate and in taking a decision on the Bill. The House should follow their guidance.
The shareholders could hardly have made their views clearer, as has been said. The people and the institutions who have invested money in Felixstowe have voted overwhelmingly in favour of the counter-bid, and therefore against the Bill.
We have not heard much about the port users. Many users at Felixstowe are seriously concerned about the effect of the Bill. They have been accustomed to local management and local decision-making, and to the port's being run by an independent company. I gather that the reaction from customers has been adverse. Indeed, some say that they will transfer their business if the Bill goes through. Therefore, to put it at its most moderate, there is no evident enthusiasm for the Bill among the port's users.
What about the people who work there? The local branch of the Transport and General Workers' Union says that it will work with whichever party gains control. However, many workers make
512
no secret of the fact that they would prefer the port to remain independent. Again, to put it at its most moderate, there is no pressure to have the port taken over in the way proposed in the Bill.
Lastly, there is the view of Trinity College. If hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that Trinity College takes an unworldly, academic view, I suggest they arrange to meet the bursar, Dr. Bradfield. Trinity's interest is in the revenue from the warehouse estate adjoining the dock. It is interested in seeing Felixstowe prosper and develop. That is Trinity's concern, and it, too, is against the Bill.
Mr. Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, in its petition, Trinity College says
"it is no part of your petitioners' "—
that is the College's—
"case that the Board "
—that is, the British Transport Docks Board—
"should not acquire an interest in the port of Felixstowe in the manner proposed in the Bill"?
Mr. Fowler: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has grasped the point that I was making. There is no doubt about what Trinity College wants. That has been published, and can be confirmed by the hon. Gentleman in minutes. Trinity College is against the Bill. Of that there is absolutely no question.
Mr. Stainton: The Trinity College petition was laid prior to the offer emerging from European Ferries.
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information.
There is hardly a voice raised in support of the Bill by the people most closely concerned with the port of Felixstowe, yet the effect of the Bill—this point should be emphasised—is to defeat their will. This is not an enabling Bill. If we give the Bill a Second Reading we shall effectively be giving control of Felixstowe to the British Transport Docks Board. I cannot see how, in all honesty, we can give a Second Reading to a Bill that defeats the will of the shareholders and those most closely connected with the successful operation of Felixstowe.
It is a common view in the House that Parliament should rely on the advice of the people on the ground. We are being

513
asked here not only to ignore their advice but to override their view that such a step simply cannot be justified. We are left with arguments that seek to denigrate European Ferries. I regret the introduction of those arguments, particularly the way in which they were used by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch). If there is anything disreputable about this debate it is the kind of attack that he made on European Ferries.
Although I oppose the Bill, it is no part of my case to claim that the BTDB is incompetent or yet another candidate for public subsidy. It makes profits, and men like Sir Humphrey Browne and Keith Stuart are shrewd and profit-oriented business men. But I would have hoped that Labour Members would show the same fairness in their view of European Ferries.
Some might take the view that a company which has built itself up from 1963, when it had 7 per cent. of cross-Channel trade, to its present position, when it has 50 per cent., is precisely the kind of company that this country needs. Some might take the trouble to check with the port authorities at Dover, where European Ferries is one of the biggest users. I visited Dover two weeks ago. The reputation of European Ferries stands high there because it has brought extra trade and employment to the town.
Some might think it more appropriate, rather than attacking the labour relations record of European Ferries, which is in fact very good, to remember that the company now provides employment for over 3,500 people, whereas 10 years ago it employed only 300. Nor are the other arguments used against the company any more accurate.
It is claimed that it would discriminate against other users. Yet the other users at Felixstowe do not take that view, and experience at Larne shows entirely the opposite. European Ferries bought Larne Harbour Limited in 1973. At that time the Scottish arm of British Rail's Sealink was the largest user, and it has continued its use without discrimination. In addition, a subsidiary of P & O Shipping, one of European Ferries' biggest competitors, has been encouraged in, while in the same period that Larne has developed profits have increased and the work force has risen by 40 per cent.
514
It is claimed that European Ferries does not have the necessary financial strength to develop Felixstowe, yet in the last two years it has financed a shipbuilding programme of £50 million. The most immediate need at Felixstowe is likely to be a deep-water channel to handle the large container ships, at a cost of £1½ million. Therefore, there seems to be nothing in the record of European Ferries to justify the kind of criticism that we have heard tonight and there is a great deal which deserves our praise.
We are told in the Press this morning that European Ferries has "very limited experience" of port management. Exactly the same argument could have been used against Gordon Parker 25 years ago when he started to redevelop Felixstowe. It could be used against virtually every other innovator in the country.
What is certain is that there is nothing to justify the House seeking to intervene and to impose its will, as would be the effect of the Bill. I have said that I do not wish to attack the British Transport Docks Board. It already runs 19 ports and has 25 per cent3, of the market. If the Bill goes through, it will have 30 per cent. If Felixstowe comes under the Board's control, the biggest of the private enterprise companies goes too. The public interest is better served if Felixstowe remains independent and in competition. The Docks Board says that it will seek to preserve the independence of the Felixstowe operation. That independence and that local management, which have so much explained Felixstowe's success, are better preserved outside the BTDB structure.
What we are in effect being asked to do tonight is to intervene and to defeat the expressed wish of the shareholders and to ignore the equally clear views of those who know most about Felixstowe and depend most upon its prosperity. I do not believe that we in this House would be justified in taking that course. In my view, the interests of Felixstowe port and its customers require that the House should reject the Bill
9.0 p.m.
Mr. John Prescott: As the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has shown, and as has been reflected in speeches from both sides of the House, it

515
is inevitable that the differences between us on this matter, however we view Felixstowe, tend to be influenced by our political attitudes on how we should reorganise this important industry. It is not necessarily an ideological battle, but there are very strong differences between various people in the House reflecting differing political philosophies as to how we reorganise our very important ports industry. When one takes into account the circumstances and the ingredients of the events involved here, one appreciates that it is inevitable that these differences have arisen tonight and that the debate would follow in the way I have described.
Felixstowe is a very important and growing port. Those who have taken a considerable interest in port development and the future of our ports have noticed this port in particular. There are a number of reasons for that. We must give credit where it is due. There has been a great deal of entrepreneurial ability, good management and good labour relations. Felixstowe also has good deep water as well. These are factors that have played a significant part in the development of the port.
Felixstowe has become a thriving port. It is a private port and thus has connotations in our general debate in regard to the differences between the parties. It has been held up almost as a private enterprise jewel, particularly in regard to the entrepreneurial judgment that has built up the port. However, people do not seem to draw the same conclusion when it comes to the fact that those who exercised the entrepreneurial judgment to give it this force of growth are the same people as are recommending that the British Transport Docks Board should be given the ownership of the port in order to continue with its growth. That is the judgment of the one person who has been personally identified in the Press and by the Opposition Benches on occasions in ports debates. It is clear that it is his judgment today that the British Transport Docks Board deal should go through despite the offer now made by European Ferries.
Perhaps I may add that an awful lot has been said about shareholders and about the management team. Whatever decision the team comes to, the final decision lies with the shareholders. How-
516
ever, it was not the shareholders who gave growth to the port, as has been amply illustrated this evening. It was this entrepreneurial ability. Therefore, there is a contradiction and a conflict in this matter.
Mr. Burden: With great respect to the hon. Member, may I say that he should recognise that, no matter how good an entrepreneur a man may be, in order to develop a port such as Felixstowe he has to have the backing of finance, without which he can do nothing?
Mr. Prescott: An awful lot of companies have had the backing of finance but have been disasters—both private and public companies. I do not know why hon. Members are shaking their heads. If they had been present during previous port debates, they would know that much play has been made about entrepreneurial ability by one particular person. All right. He required labour and capital in order to make it a successful enterprise. That should come as no surprise. But this man has been the very key to Felixstowe's success, and this has been illustrated in our debates. It is his continued judgment that the port should now be given over to the Board.
However, a private organisation has entered into the arena at a late date offering a better deal. That is the essential ingredient in the considerable political disagreement in the debate. Clearly, the intervention was somewhat late. As evidenced by the offer of European Ferries, the delay was able to arise particularly because of the requirements of the Transport Act 1962 and the delay enforced by the Prayer against the Bill put down by a number of Opposition Members.
I do not flinch from any conflict on these matters. This is not only an ideological battle, because obviously there is a fundamental difference of view between the two sides as to how to deal with this important port industry. We are dealing not just with Felixstowe or even with the ports industry but with the whole transport question.
When we consider the subject of the ports, we must also consider the subject of infrastructure such as the roads comlex. As soon as cargo begins to grow in ports like Felixstowe, we must ensure

517
that we provide good communications to assist development of that port and others. However, we as politicians must face the problem of allocating resources and of setting the priorities between the ports.
It is clear that the ports have been plagued with considerable problems. Felixstowe has been held up to the House as an example in its handling of labour relations. We all appreciate that the Rochdale and Devlin Reports and various Commissions have examined the problems of the industry. We also appreciate that the industry has lacked investment. That argument is true of both the public and private port concerns.
Various Governments have produced differing policies. The Conservative Government tried to bring financial disciplines to bear. They decreed that the ports should pay their way and they laid down financial targets at a high level, thus forcing the ports to put up their rates. In that process many of the ports were put to considerable disadvantage and traffic was diverted. A number of reports have examined the problems in various areas, such as the Humber, and have tried to analyse the situation thrown up by dock strikes and other difficulties in the industry. Certainly those reports contained recommendations to the effect that the Government had to do something in developing small wharves and in certain cases in siphoning off traffic.
Some large ports face problems flowing from the return on capital. Obviously the problems related to an investment of £20 million are much greater than those related to an investment in a small wharf involving, say, £30,000—a wharf which, because of that very fact, can charge lower rates. Those arguments are separate from the question of labour relations and whether they are good in Felixstowe or bad in Hull or wherever it may be. We must try to solve the problem, and in setting our priorities we must look at the existing traffic as it is dispersed throughout the ports.
Obviously we have reached the conclusion that there needs to be more control over the development of traffic so that one port should not be played off against another. We must remember that the
518
State is often called upon to pour millions of pounds of public money into various ports and wharves. This is a problem that Parliament must decide. Felixstowe highlights that problem in a nutshell.
I believe that the previous Labour Government were mistaken in not including Felixstowe within their nationalisation plans. We have now recognised that mistake and are awaiting proposals that will include that port within our plans.
The main issue before us is to decide whether Felixstowe, which is undoubtedly an important port, should be allowed to develop under the British Transport Docks Board or European Ferries. A number of arguments have been deployed against both organisations. We must now examine the problem and decide which organisation represents the best bidder in the interests not only of the port of Felixstowe but of the development of the ports industry as a whole. There is the nationalised body, the British Transport Docks Board, which owns 19 ports, and there is European Ferries, which owns one or two ports and has experience in shipping.
I was a seaman for 10 years. I suppose I should declare an interest. I shall not be paid, but it seems to be a night for declaring interests. I never sailed on Townsend Ferries, which is a part of European Ferries, but I know something of the history of the company and the development of its shipping activities. We cannot yet measure its ports activities because it has only just taken over some ports, but it certainly had considerable success in expanding its shipping fleet.
When Mr. Wickenden gave evidence to the Select Committee, he told us why the company had been able to expand at such a tremendous rate. He said that due to tax allowances and free depreciation for shipping, his company had not paid any taxes in the past few years. I asked whether this had assisted the massive capital development which had enabled his company to have much newer ships than its major competitor, British Rail. He replied "Yes, without doubt." Unfortunately, although British shipping had made money, British Rail had made a loss and British shipping was not able to enjoy the same tax advantages as the private company.
Mr. Peter Rees: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in his cross-examination of Mr. Wickenden he complimented the company on its labour relations?
Mr. Prescott: That is quite right. When I asked Mr. Wickenden about labour relations, we were having certain problems with the nationalised Board in Dover and he gave us his view. Naturally, I am interested in why labour relations are good in some areas and bad in others, but I should point out that labour relations can be good in one place and bad in another even though the men are all employed by the same company. There are many factors affecting labour relations.
The hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field spoke about the great expanding private sector. There are a number of reasons for this which the hon. Gentleman could read in the Select Committee's Report, together with our recommendations.
I am surprised that the Opposition are not concerned that a single shipper has control of Felixstowe. I should have thought that this would concern them a great deal. When a nationalised industry owns a port and the shipping, the Conservatives criticise the monopoly aspect of it, but there is no such criticism of the private sector.
The port of Liverpool collapsed when it was deliberately put into bankruptcy by the last Government. The money which many people had invested in shares was thrown away. The owners who controlled that port refused to put up freight charges as demanded by the Government. That was what destroyed the port.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ips-which (Mr. Weetch) has referred to the question of labour relations at Felixstowe, and the members of my union are extremely concerned about the situation there. I do not know whether those members are the politically motivated onces, but this description does not apply to the union's officers and they share the concern about the handling of labour relations. The company did not call the officers to tell them that two ships were being taken out. The men told the officers that they had heard the rumour. The officers were not even given the courtesy
520
of being told that information at the meeting.
What has emerged from the debate is the close association of the Conservative Party with the development of the company. I shall give some examples. When the Labour Government was disposing of Transport Ferries, of which European Ferries was a part, it was proposed that the company should be sold to British Rail. When I asked the Conservative Government whether they proposed that that sale from one nationalised concern to another should go ahead, the Conservative Government said "No" and sold it to the private sector. That was how European Ferries came to be such a thriving company and to own ports. At that time at Hull, there was a dead shipping company, owned by the same Transport Ferries, not making a profit, which was not bought by the private sector. As a result, 300 or 400 men were put out of work. Had British Rail taken it over, it would have been developed on the profitable North Sea routes.
The close association of the Conservatives with this company is also shown by the number of Conservative Members who have declared a personal interest. Apart from the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, all Conservatives who have spoken have declared an interest.
Delay has been caused by the Prayer tabled by six Tories against the Bill, which I regret. The directors of the Company did not oppose the sale of the Company to the British Transport Docks Board. Then we heard of the documents of 5th March and 19th March, which clearly stated, after the shareholders' decision, that the directors still agreed that the Company should go to the British Transport Docks Board. Then, in time for tonight, we are told that the directors have conveniently changed their minds. All that suggests close association which reflects badly on the directors, and it is about time they went. Clearly, there is something wrong with their judgment.
The alternative purchaser, the British Transport Docks Board, is a large organisation which employs 11,000, 4,000 of whom are highly experienced on the direct labour scheme. That labour scheme is important if we are to have good labour relations. There have been times when there have been far from friendly

521
relations. There is a large amount of investment in the Board, and profitability has increased from year to year, which should be a telling factor for the Conservatives. As we are to nationalise the ports, and soon, Felixsttowe should be put into the public sector as a first step towards public ownership of all ports.
9.18 p.m.
Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I do not intend to follow the speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) nor shall I speak at such length. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), who has already given much help to the Felixstowe Dock Company. I recommend his speech for consideration by all hon. Members before they vote on the Bill. I wish that it had been heard by more.
In Suffolk we are proud of what has happened in this port and we are ever grateful to Colonel Parker for leaving his neighbouring county of Norfolk to carry out that work. Many in my constituency travel up to 25 miles to go to Felixstowe Docks, yet I have never received a letter showing dissatisfaction with the conditions under which those people work. Relations have been good, and good wages have been paid.
I had letters of disapproval from some of the shareholders when the first offer was made because they felt that it was at too low a figure in relation to the assets of the Company. Acceptance was recommended because there was a threat of nationalisation. I think that was behind the board's agreeing to it. It thought that under the British Transport Docks Board, which has some decentralised control, it would be left as an independent business.
The haven ports, as we regard Felixstowe, Harwich and Ipswich, with one estuary, together form the third largest port in England. My figures are not up to date, and it may well be that it has now overtaken Liverpool. It is important for the whole of the area that it should be well served by the port. Both this Government, and the Conservative Government before it were keen that there should be proper communications from the Midlands, from which so many goods are exported through Felixstowe to all
522
parts of the world. They wished to see the communications brought up to a high standard.
I was very glad to see the Minister for Transport here earlier, and hope that he will be told about these matters. I know that from the point of view of his own constituency interests, in the Birmingham area, the Minister is also anxious about road communications with the port.
A great deal has been said about European Ferries and the extra bid made tonight. I believe that it is perfectly legitimate that this offer should be made to shareholders who did not accept the previous offer. There was no contract. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), in his intervention, showed a lot of non-knowledge of contractual law. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) had caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that he would have drawn attention to this.
We are all concerned with the future well-being of Felixstowe, but there is no secret on the Government side that they want Felixstowe Docks to be nationalised. Here we have a big private enterprise dock, and it would be a very good example to keep outside nationalisation, so that we can compare one with the other.
Since we have been in the EEC, the importance of Felixstowe as a dock has increased tremendously. A great many ships can come there now. When it is dredged, so that the bar is lower, many more ships, which would otherwise go to Rotterdam, will be able to come direct to Felixstowe. There is a chance to increase the trade of the port.
I hope that some hon. Gentlemen on the Government side will have been convinced by these arguments. I believe that the Bill in its present form should be turned down. If it goes through, the people employed in the port will not have the knowledge they now have that their future is assured. At present, they have opportunities to advance. That is what I want them to have. Great expansion is taking place in Suffolk and that expansion can continue, provided that the Felixstowe dock expands and grows. It has a tremendous record under private enterprise—far better than that of any

523
other port. Let us keep it that way in the future.
9.25 p.m.
Mr. Walter Johnson: At the outset, I have to declare my interest, in that I happen to be an honorary national officer of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association—one of the unions that negotiate for the staff of the British Transport Docks Board—and vice-chairman of the National Joint Consultative Council of the Docks Board, in that second capacity, I have opportunities to see the Docks Board in operation and to understand the fundamental way in which it approaches the problems in this industry.
In the Docks Board Joint Consultative Council there are provisions for each port to make regular reports. The meetings are held every two or three months, and the opportunity is provided at those meetings for individual reports on the activities of the various port authorities. This means that each of them has the opportunity to run its own show, and that is what we are saying in the terms of the Bill.
Whether we like it or not, this debate has developed into a fundamental one. Opposition Members obviously believe in private enterprise. Government supporters believe in public ownership where it is essential in the national interest, and we shall continue to pursue that line.
In any event, the record of the Opposition is not a very proud one. Most of our national industries were taken over between 1946 and 1950. Then, for 17 years, we had two periods of Conservative government, Apart from handing back the profitable section of the road haulage industry in the 1950s, there has been no denationalisation of the major industries taken over by the Labour Government between 1945 and 1951. The Conservative Government burned their fingers when they were last in power by denationalising Thomas Cook and Son. We know that that business is in serious financial difficulty today. The Conservative Party has nothing to boast about in its attitude towards the nationalised industries.
I consider it necessary to give some of the facts about the port of Felixstowe.
524
As we know, the port is the largest privately-owned port in Britain, excluding the Manchester Ship Canal. The docks employ approximately 1,200 staff. In1974, the Company made a pre-tax profit of £724,388 on a turnover of £8·55 million—an increase of almost 35 per cent. over the previous year. In 1974, 4·2 million tons were handled—an increase of 14·8 per cent.
Felixstowe is a modern installation, and a £10 million improvement scheme has been completed only recently, but it needs - to spend at least another £5 million on new cranes and other equipment. I submit that a takeover by an existing public body such as the British Transport Docks Board would be a distinct advantage for the port.
The Docks Board has stated that it is prepared to put money into Felixstowe to ensure a more rapid growth rate for the; port. At the same time, the Board has: stated that the port would be run outside its overall umbrella, but that if the port: is to draw money from Docks Board assets for future expansion, the returns from the port should be fully integrated with Docks Board finances, to the mutual benefit of all Docks Board staff.
European Ferries, which is the company behind the alternative bid, is one of the five major users of the port. The others are International Paper Corporation, Tor Line, British Anzani and Christian Salvesen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) told the House that at an extraordinary meeting of the Felixstowe shareholders on 21st November 1975 a proposed acquisition was approved by a majority of more than 75 per cent. of those voting. The final figure, however, showed that 871 stockholders, representing 1,932,598 shares and 87·95 per cent. of the votes cast, were in favour of the takeover, while 434 stockholders, owning 264,758 shares—12·05 per cent. of the votes cast—were against it.
The Chairman, Mr. Gordon Parker, stated at the extraordinary meeting that in his view the acquisition by the Board would enable the port to be developed further, to the benefit of customers, employees and the nation. I emphasise that he thought it would to be the benefit of "customers, employees and the

525
nation". I hope that hon. Members will take that into account when they vote tonight.
The Bill contains a unique undertaking from the British Transport Docks Board not to divert traffic using Felixstowe to any of its other ports. That provision is contained in Schedule 1(2)(a). The unions in the industry believe that the port should be completely absorbed within the Board. The general manager of the British Transport Docks Board has outlined the advantages of leaving the Company as a wholly-owned subsidiary. In his view the Company has built up statutory rights and obligations during its 100 years' existence, and he believes that there are advantages in operating through the existing framework. In addition, there are further advantages in retaining the Company's financial structure, including the existing debentures.
An alternative bid for the port has been submitted by European Ferries, and during the debate much has been made of the suggestions that this is a better offer than that made by the Board. It could be said that the success of such a bid might militate against the other port users and, in the long term, be disadvantageous to the port, the customers and those who work in the industry.
Mr. Ridley: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, who is reading from a union brief. Can he explain why the users of the port have made it clear that they would like European Ferries to take over?
Mr. Johnson: That is contrary to the information we have. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) made it clear that in discussions he has had with the staff he learned that they wanted this takeover. My hon. Friend also had discussions with European Ferries, whose labour relations leave much to be desired. That is the information that has been given to the House, and I see no reason to say that it is not correct. I believe that this is the right move, and that it will be in the interests of customers, users and staff. I believe that the British Transport Docks Board will do an exceptionally good job. The Bill requires, and should have, the support of the House, and I hope that we will vote in favour of it tonight.
9.34 p.m.
Mr. Peter Rees: Since there have been a variety of allegations levelled against my hon. Friends from the Government Benches, I shall declare my interest before taking part in the debate. In deference to the sensitivity of Labour Members, I must tell the House that neither I nor my family have any shares in the Felixstowe Dock Company or European Ferries. But I notice that, in common with all other taxpayers, up to 1972 I contributed my share of £120 million to the finances of the British Transport Docks Board.
It may come as a surprise to hon. Members on the Government Benches to hear it, but if they had taken the trouble to look at the Public Expenditure White Paper—perhaps it is a little unkind to remind them of the traumas of a fortnight ago—they would have discovered that this year we are again contributing £12 million to the Board and we will continue to do that for the next four years. If we are to make comparisons between the finances of European Ferries and the British Transport Docks Board, we should know all the figures and not just a partially doctored account.
I am participating in the debate because European Ferries has operated with conspicuous success and with a great deal of local good will from, and in, the port of Dover.
After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), I find some imperfectly understood words of Dryden coming to mind:
"Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike".
It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had thought through his speech a little more carefully and if he had grounded his allegations against Opposition Members and the companies concerned more carefully on facts and perhaps repeated them outside the House, where those who are not Members could have had some recourse against him.
However, enough of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I make only the following point, because the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) placed some weight on the evidence that the hon. Gentleman gave the House about the state of labour relations in Felixstowe. After listening to the hon. Member for Ipswich, I would not accept a word he said on

527
that subject unless it were corroborated to the hilt.
I wish to reassure those of my hon. Friends who represent East Anglian constituencies that I am not for a moment advocating the colonisation of Felixstowe by Dover. I want to put my credentials on the record so that they may be scrutinised. We could enlarge the debate—as Labour Members have done, including the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley), who moved the Second Reading—into a far-ranging debate on the merits or demerits of nationalisation. I would willingly take up that challenge. If it would not embarrass him, I could portray Mr. Keith Wickenden of European Ferries as a free-enterprise David taking on the Goliath of nationalisation.
However, in the time available I prefer to concentrate on the narrower issue of whether it is right for the House to legislate to override a bid freely made by European Ferries and freely accepted by 85 per cent. of the Felixstowe Company's shareholders, in order to substitute a less attractive bid by the British Transport Docks Board. It has been argued that the Board's offer preceded that of European Ferries. So it did. We can examine the reason in a moment. It has been rightly argued that, initially at any rate, it was recommended by the board of directors of the Felixstowe Company and accepted by a majority of the shareholders. However, it failed to become a binding agreement.
That is a point that the hon. Member for Leicester, East and the Minister for Transport—
Mr. Bradley: The agreement to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just referred, which forms Schedule 1 to the Bill, is under seal. Surely that makes it binding.
Mr. Rees: I do not want to be led into a mesh of legal arguments, though I would willingly enlighten the hon. Gentleman. The mere fact that the agreement is under seal does not of itself make it immediately enforceable. If the hon. Gentleman had studied the agreement scheduled to the Bill a little more closely, he would have seen that it was conditional on the Bill's becoming law. In other words, it was not immediately enforceable.
528
The Minister, I hope unwittingly, misled the House on this point. He would have been better advised to seek the advice of the Law Officers, who, I am sure, would have given the same advice as I am perhaps rashly giving him now. There was no question of there being an immediately enforceable agreement between the Board and the shareholders of the Felixstowe Company.
All these arguments must be viewed against the background of the facts. The Felixstowe Company received in October 1975 a conditional offer worth 150p a share. Be it noted that that would have involved the shareholders in an immediate charge to capital gains tax. The European Ferries offer is worth about 190p a share, based on the value of its shares. The hon. Member for Leicester, East said, as he is entitled to say, that it was a speculative offer and that the value of the shares is likely to rise and fall. So it is, but the shareholders were well able to weigh that, and when the offer was made there was no doubt where the balance of financial advantage to them lay.
The recommendation of the board of the Felixstowe Company to its shareholders is about the coolest recommendation I have ever read. It was cool to the point of frigidity. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), who spoke from the Front Bench, read a passage from the chairman's letter. I should like to add one short passage:
"I have set out the background so that you can understand the difficult situation which confronts your Board and also so that you can understand the reason why your Board is receptive to the conditional offer made by the BTDB."
In a way, that letter of the chairman is one of the most revealing industrial documents that has been presented to us, because in a non-partisan, almost unconscious way it passes a verdict on 13 years of Wilsonism. It demonstrates so very clearly why British industry has not been able to compete as effectively as its foreign competitors, because those in British industry have never at any moment been able to say exactly what the Labour Government were going to do to them or able at any moment in time to see the way ahead and whether any investment required would have yielded fruit.

529
If hon. Gentlemen want to know why there has not been sufficient investment in British industry, they should read and re-read the letter of Mr. Gordon Parker to his own shareholders against the background of this particular bid. It seems that, in spite of all the sensitive treatment of private capital by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the even-handed way in which the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) has treated the most outrageous claims of the major unions and the Wykehamist moderation with which the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has handled private enterprise, Mr. Gordon Parker had firmly come to the conclusion by October 1975 that he had had enough, after building up one of the most successful private enterprises in Britain. That is a commentary on 13 wasted years of Wilsonism.
Unfortunately for the shareholders of the Company and its board, they did not at that time know that help was at hand in the shape of Mr. Keith Wickenden and European Ferries. In February 1976 a much better offer was made which was accepted by 85 per cent. of the shareholders, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) will confirm, the board and, I believe, the families of the board. If anything was needed to demonstrate the altered view of the board against the background of the offer by European Ferries, it is this particular fact. That offer now has become unconditional.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East, with all his legal knowledge, cannot gainsay that the offer is now unconditional, and, if he would like me to condescend to legalities, the beneficial interest in the shares of the Felixstowe Dock Company has now passed to European Ferries.
I would, however, ask the House to look beyond the situation of the shareholders, important though that is. First of all there is the question of the future of the dock itself. It will be noted that the guarantees of the Docks Board are highly qualified and they depend on directives that will be given to it by the Minister for Transport, who read to the House tonight, with his head down, a brief presented to him by his civil servants.
The Minister was remarkably uncommunicative on what he had in mind for
530
Felixstowe, but those who work in the dock, both management and employees, will want to know his future plans. What about the future effects on those who work there? All who have direct experience of Felixstowe—and I totally disregard the evidence of the hon. Member for Ipswich unless it is corroborated to the hilt; it was so shot with partisan bias that it was not worth the hot air that the hon. Member blew into the Chamber—have told us that labour relations there are excellent.
I can testify that the labour relations so far as they concern European Ferries at the port of Dover are very good. It has been involved in only one official strike in 20 years, that by the National Union of Seamen in 1967, described by the Prime Minister as a strike by politically-motivated men. I am sorry to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull. East (Mr. Prescott) that the Prime Minister is now less mealy-mouthed and calls them not politically motivated men but Marxists, and is backed up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer calling them blackmailers with tiny Chinese minds. I leave the House to choose which of those particular descriptions it prefers. My point is that the only major industrial confrontation in which European Ferries has been involved was the strike in 1967 by the National Union of Seamen.
It is no part of my case, or that of the Opposition Front Bench, to attempt to criticise the position of the Docks Board. It has a difficult industry to run, and no doubt, with the Minister for Transport breathing down its neck, the position of the Board is yet more difficult. I ask the House to consider labour relations in Southampton, however. Regrettably, labour relations there are in an unenviable state. Would the people who work at Felixstowe welcome this change of allegiance?
I turn now to the situation of the port users. It was rashly said by Labour Members that it would be wrong for a shipping company operating from Felixstowe to be in control of that Dock. Does the same principle apply to the British Rail ports? What about Holyhead and Folkestone? One may well say that what is sauce for the private enterprise goose is sauce for the nationalised gander. Is

531
it a good idea that British Rail should have this monopoly position?
Let us test it this way. European Ferries controls two ports, Larne and Cairnryan. How has it exercised its monopoly position there? It is noticeable that it has admitted one of its most formidable competitors, P & O. If there were any real worry on that score, would the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection have turned down the suggestion by the hon. Member for Ipswich that this matter should be referred to the Monopolies Commission? She sized him up in about the same way as hon. Members will have done this evening.
If any monopoly position is involved in this issue it will be the position of the Docks Board if it acquires the Felixstowe Company, because it will acquire 30 per cent. of the market. Every container port on the East Coast—excluding Harwich, which is not a container port, of course—will be under the control of the Docks Board.
Mr. Ridsdale: Parkeston is a container port too.
Mr. Rees: Then every major container port, leaving aside Parkeston, will be under the control and ownership of the Docks Board. Is a near-monopoly any more healthy if it is public? I doubt it.
I turn now to the question of port expansion, because we are told that the reason why the Felixstowe company has had to bow out is that it has not got access to funds. One understands the position. It is made clear in Mr. Parker's letter to his shareholders. One sympathises with his predicament.
But European Ferries is well able out of its own cash flow, without recourse to the public purse, to finance the developments that are necessary. Hon. Members have made cheap jibes about the company not having paid any tax. It has not paid any tax precisely because it has taken advantage of the capital allowances presumably introduced and left in force by Labour Governments because they wished British shipping to take advantage of them. Is that a legitimate basis of criticism of European Ferries?
It has been admitted by hon. Members opposite that the Docks Board has not
532
paid much tax—I doubt whether it has paid a penny over the last 10 or 12 years. When we look at the sources of capital for Felixstowe for development and maintenance, is it better that the money should be found from the capital market by private enterprise or that the Docks Board should come to this House year after year for greater and greater infusions of capital? I remind the House that £123 million of our money was injected into the Docks Board up to 1972. Do Labour Members want public money to be channelled into hospitals, schools and so on or into Felixstowe when money for Felixstowe could be found far more readily and administered with greater efficiency by a private company? I am unconvinced that the Docks Board could run Felixstowe more efficiently, more cheaply, more competitively or with better labour relations than European Ferries.
We must look for a little reason behind the Bill. Of course, the hon. Member for Leicester, East has no concern in his constituency for the viability of our ports, exception a general sense. I find behind this Bill the urbane but sinister figure of the Minister for Transport. That has come out. We are told that this is too important an asset to be left to free enterprise. Of course, with the laurels of his great victory in the seat belts debate still fresh on his brow, the Minister is now moving in for the kill in another sector. The hammer of the motorist has now become the hammer of the private docks. His greedy hand is hovering over this Naboth's vineyard in East Anglia. I hope that we shall be able to brush that hand aside. He has secured his niche in history, along with his predecessor who introduced the Belisha beacon, as the introducer of the Gilbert seat belt. Let him be satisfied with that and let us reject the Bill tonight.
9.51 p.m.
Mr. Peter Viggers: In seeking to draw together the threads of the debate I have to declare an interest that will no doubt delight hon. Members who sit below the Gangway. My interest is recorded. It is that I have visited ports in the United Kingdom and Germany by arrangement with the British Transport Docks Board. I found the visits most valuable, and I learnt to respect the Board's management.

533
We have heard a lot this evening about the dramatic growth of the Felixstowe Dock and Railways Company from its incorporation in 1875 through to the 1950s when it was virtually moribund, with only nine dockers. We have heard about the dramatic growth since then and of the developments that have taken place supported by the twin pillars of dynamic management and private enterprise, reaching out across the North Sea to secure trade. Felixstowe Dock has always had a good pensions scheme, profit-sharing bonuses, life insurance and sick pay at basic rates. These are important. The growth of the dock was a triumph of private enterprise.
We have heard about the threat posed to Felixstowe from both nationalisation and the extension of the Dock Labour Scheme. The Scheme is irrelevant in the context of the thriving and thrusting spirit of Felixstowe's expansion, and its imposition on Felixstowe would undoubtedly dampen the port's competitive edge.
We have heard about the approach by European Ferries. Its offer was better than that of the Docks Board. This has been clearly demonstrated, because the holders of 85 per cent. of the shares of Felixstowe Dock have already accepted European Ferries' offer. The question is whether European Ferries is a worthy operator of a major port. It has an exceptional profit and growth record. Its value on the Stock Exchange is £50 million. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) called it a juggernaut, perhaps not realising that it represents 70,000 shareholders, 70 per cent. of whom are private shareholders and the other 30 per cent. institutions, including the trade unions.
European Ferries' cross-Channel ferries are the most modern in existence. The average age of its ships is five years. The average age of the ships belonging to its main competitor—British Rail Sealink—is 17 years—
Mr. Loyden: Why?
Mr. Viggers: Why, indeed? It is a good example of the way that private enterprise can plan and buy modern ships.
European Ferries has a short but excellent record as a port operator at
534
Larne. Since it acquired Larne Harbour in 1973, the work force there and at its associated port at Cairnryan has increased from about 100 to 160. The profits at Larne have trebled, despite the fact that it has some of the lowest port charges in the United Kingdom.
When Larne was acquired by European Ferries it was used by British Rail's Sealink. It is now also used by a P & O subsidiary, which proves that European Ferries will not operate solely for its own benefit and is not frightened by competition. More port activity in Larne means more jobs and prosperity for the area. That is what will happen at Felixtowe.
I have no intention of attacking the British Transport Docks Board. Its return on capital employed is fair. To use the chairman's words in the 1974 report, the return on assets of 7·8 per cent. in 1974 was not discouraging in the un-favourable circumstances that prevailed. But he went on to say that it was clear that if the Board were to be assured of a sound commercial and financial future the rate of return on assets employed must be substantially increased.
It is a fact that the Board benefits from substantial amounts of loan capital, totalling £76 million, which are linked by the Secretary of State for the Environment at a rate of 3·61 per cent. That is £76 million, at approximately 3½ per cent., aiding the profits of the Docks Board. I pay tribute to those who work to achieve results for the Board, but none of these is relevant in the context of deciding which is the better offer for Felixstowe. Such a comparison should be made from the point of view of those concerned.
From the employers' point of view, the European Ferries offer will be better. The British Transport Docks Board has given an undertaking that it will not seek to direct existing traffic away from Felixstowe. No one doubts the good faith of that offer. But it would be contrary to the duty of the Board and of the interests of its other port employees and operators if it were to seek to build up Felixstowe at their expense. However, European Ferries would have the single-minded and whole-hearted determination to build up Felixstowe as rapidly as possible.
From the shareholders' point of view, the offer by European Ferries gives a

535
substantially higher cash value than the other offer. Felixstowe shareholders who have accepted and will accept the European Ferries offer are free to realise more cash than they would have received under the other offer, or they can continue as shareholders in a private enterprise company with a fine growth rate.
The hon. Member for Ipswich indicated that the 15p extra offered by European Ferries could be construed as an inducement to hon. Members to vote the Bill out. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we can be bought for 15p, I suggest that that shows the breadth of vision of his "Chinese mind ".
From the national point of view, it must be right that the only substantial port in private enterprise ownership should continue to blaze a trail of success and innovation. On every count and from every point of view, the European Ferries offer must be preferred.
This Bill does not call on us, as a legislative body, to judge the comparative
merits of two competitive take-over offers. The better bid has succeeded and European Ferries now owns 85 per cent. of Felixstowe. Events have overtaken the Bill. Instead of permitting the British Transport Docks Board to buy the Felixstowe shares from the original shareholders, the Bill will have the effect of compulsorily wresting the shares from European Ferries. The effect will be a compulsory nationalisation and the Felixstowe company will be wrested from the welcome embrace of European Ferries and thrust into the arms—
Mr. Walter Johnson Mr. Walter Johnson rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 236.

Division No. 98.]

AYES

[10.00 p.m.

Allaun, Frank

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Freeson, Reginald

Anderson, Donald

Corbett, Robin

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Archer, Peter

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Armstrong, Ernest

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

George, Bruce

Ashley, Jack

Crawshaw, Richard

Gilbert, Dr John

Ashton, Joe

Cronin, John

Golding, John

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Gould, Bryan

Atkinson, Norman

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Gourlay, Harry

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Dalyell, Tam

Graham, Ted

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Davidson, Arthur

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Bates, Alf

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Grocott, Bruce

Bean, R. E.

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Deakins, Eric

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Bidwell, Sydney

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Harper, Joseph

Bishop, E. S.

Delargy, Hugh

Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Boardman, H.

Dempsey, James

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Doig, Peter

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Dormand, J. D.

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Heffer, Eric S.

Bradley, Tom

Duffy, A. E. P.

Horam, John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dunn, James A.

Howell, Rt Hon Denis

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Dunnett, Jack

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Eadie, Alex

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Buchan, Norman

Edge, Geoff

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Buchanan, Richard

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

English, Michael

Hunter, Adam

Campbell, Ian

Ennals, David

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Canavan, Dennis

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Cant, R. B.

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Carmichael, Neil

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Carter, Ray

Faulds, Andrew

Janner, Greville

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Cartwright, John

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Flannery, Martin

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Clemitson, Ivor

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

John, Brynmor

Cohen, Stanley

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Coleman, Donald

Ford, Ben

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Forrester, John

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Concannon, J. D.

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Jones, Dan (Burnlay)

Conlan, Bernard

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

Judd, Frank

Kelley, Richard

Newens, Stanley

Stoddart, David

Kerr, Russell

Noble, Mike

Stott, Roger

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Oakes, Gordon

Strang, Gavin

Lamborn, Harry

Ogden, Eric

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Lamond, James

Orbach, Maurice

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Ovenden, John

Swain, Thomas

Lee, John

Park, George

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Parker, John

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Parry, Robert

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Pavitt, Laurie

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Lipton, Marcus

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Tierney, Sydney

Loyden, Eddie

Pendry, Tom

Tinn, James

Luard, Evan

Perry, Ernest

Tomlinson, John

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Phipps, Dr Colin

Torney, Tom

Mabon, Or J. Dickson

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Tuck, Raphael

McCartney, Hugh

Prescott, John

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

McElhone, Frank

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Price, William (Rugby)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Radice, Giles

Ward, Michael

Maclennan, Robert

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Watkins, David

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Weetch, Ken

McNamara, Kevin

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Weitzman, David

Madden, Max

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Wellbeloved, James

Magee, Bryan

Robinson, Geoffrey

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Roderick, Caerwyn

White, James (Pollok)

Mahon, Simon

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Whitehead, Phillip

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Whitlock, William

Marks, Kenneth

Rooker, J. W.

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Marquand, David

Rose, Paul B.

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Rowlands, Ted

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Meacher, Michael

Sedgemore, Brian

Williams, Sir Thomas

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Selby, Harry

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Mikardo, Ian

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

Millan, Bruce

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Woodall, Alec

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Woof, Robert

Molloy, William

Silverman, Jullus

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Moonman, Eric

Skinner, Dennis

Young, David (Bolton E)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Small, William

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Snape, Peter

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Spearing, Nigel

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Moyle, Roland

Spriggs, Leslie

Mr. Walter Johnson.

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Stallard, A. W

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Cockcroft, John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Altken, Jonathan

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Alison, Michael

Cope, John

Goodhart, Philip

Arnold, Tom

Cormack, Patrick

Goodhew, Victor

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Corrie, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Baker, Kenneth

Costain, A. P.

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Banks, Robert

Critchley, Julian

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Beith, A. J.

Crouch, David

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Bell, Ronald

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Gray, Hamish

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Griffiths, Eldon

Benyon, W.

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Berry, Hon Anthony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Grist, Ian

Biffen, John

Drayson, Burnaby

Grylls, Michael

Biggs-Davison, John

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Hall, Sir John

Blaker, Peter

Durant, Tony

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Body, Richard

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Bottomley, Peter

Elliott, Sir William

Hannam, John

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Emery, Peter

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Eyre, Reginald

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Braine, Sir Bernard

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Hastings, Stephen

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Fairgrieve, Russell

Havers, Sir Michael

Brotherton, Michael

Fell, Anthony

Heseltine, Michael

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Hicks, Robert

Bryan, Sir Paul

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Higgins, Terence L.

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Fletcher-Cooks, Charles

Holland, Philip

Buck, Antony

Fookes, Miss Janet

Hordern, Peter

Budgen, Nick

Forman, Nigel

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Bulmer, Esmond

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Fox, Marcus

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Carlisle, Mark

Freud, Clement

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Fry, Peter

Hurd, Douglas

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclitffe)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

James, David

Clegg, Walter

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

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

538

539

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Shepherd, Colin

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Silvester, Fred

Jopling, Michael

Mudd, David

Sims, Roger

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Neave, Airey

Sinclair, Sir George

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Nelson, Anthony

Skeet, T. H. H.

Kershaw, Anthony

Neubert, Michael

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Kimball, Marcus

Newton, Tony

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Normanton, Tom

Speed, Keith

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Noll, John

Spence, John

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Onslow, Cranley

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Knox, David

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Lamont, Norman

Page, John (Harrow West)

Sproat, lain

Lane, David

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Parkinson, Cecil

Stanley, John

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Lawrence, Ivan

Percival, Ian

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Lawson, Nigel

Pink, R. Bonner

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Stradling Thomas, J.

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Loveridge, John

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Temple-Morris, Peter

Macfarlane, Nell

Raison, Timothy

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

MacGregor, John

Rathbone, Tim

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Townsend, Cyril D.

McNalr-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Madel, David

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Marten, Nell

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Mather, Carol

Ridsdale, Julian

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Maude, Angus

Rifkind, Malcolm

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Mawby, Ray

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Wall, Patrick

Mayhew, Patrick

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Walters, Dennis

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Weatherill, Bernard

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Wells, John

Miscampbell, Norman

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Royle, Sir Anthony

Wiggin, Jerry

Moate, Roger

Sainsbury, Tim

Winterton, Nicholas

Monro, Hector

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Montgomery, Fergus

Scott, Nicholas

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Morgan, Geraint

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Mr. Richard Luce and

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Shelton. William (Streatham)

Mr. Peter Viggers.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time and committed.
Postponed proceeding on Question, That this House do now adjourn, resumed.
It being after Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (FELIXSTOWE) [MONEY]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to authorise all such increased payments into and out of the Consolidated Fund and the National Loans Fund as may result, under sections 19 to 21 of the Transport Act 1962 (borrowing by the British Transport Docks Board and other Boards; loans by the Secretary of State and Treasury guarantee of Boards' other borrowing) from an Act of the present Session extending the powers and duties of the British Transport Docks Board with respect to the Port of Felixstowe and vesting in the Board the share capital of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company.—[Dr. Gilbert.]
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I should like to inquire a little about the Money Resolution. I am sorry it is such a thinly attended House. I expect this is because of the generally non-controversial nature of today's business.
We had no Whips on this side. Our first debate today was on international trade, which was so clearly non-controversial that my hon. Friends were not asked to be here. It is also well known that my hon. and right hon. Friends do not intend to divide later against the money for British Petroleum. As the interim business was only a Private Bill—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed a long preamble. The hon. Gentleman should now come to the Money Resolution.
Mr. Ridley: In such a thinly attended House, it is difficult to make oneself heard, Mr. Speaker. I was waiting to gain the attention of the House and was merely making the point that it is odd that we should have so much interest in this Bill on an evening when hon. Members could have spent their time at the cinema or the theatre. I do not know whether this is because of difficulties in the Whips' offices. I do not know whether the Liberal Party crisis—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has ignored the warning I gave a moment ago. We are discussing the Money Resolution. While we have all enjoyed his preamble, I hope he will now get to the Resolution.
Mr. Ridley: The point I was coming to, Mr. Speaker, is that the Resolution will bring the total public expenditure to more than 60 per cent. of gross national product which is over the maximum amount the Home Secretary has said he would tolerate. I was, deviously I admit, working round to that because it is relevant to the contentious political climate in the Liberal and Labour Parties. However, I leave that point because, as always, I wish to bow to your request that I should stick firmly to the Money Resolution, Mr. Speaker.
I do not see why we need this resolution. The British Transport Docks Board has said that the £5,238,225 it will cost to implement the Bill can be made available without the need to borrow from public funds. Yet we are being asked to pass a Resolution which allows the Board to borrow from public funds specifically for the purpose of investing in the Felixstowe Docks.
I do not intend to divide the House because hon. Members have given their verdict on the principle of the Bill. Of course I do not know what other hon. Members may wish to do, but I shall simply ask a few questions.
Why do we need this Money Resolution when the money is already available? I have the accounts of the Board with me, and in short-term and long-term investments it has £6 million liquid. Why cannot the Board spend that money? If it has £6 million liquid, why has it not paid it back to the taxpayers already?
This is the Board that was described by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) as a shining example of the success of public enterprise. He held it out as one of the great examples of the commercial success of the nationalised sector. I have to acquaint the House that it has capital employed of £154·9 million, on which it made profits last year of £1½ million, which works out at 0·45 per cent., and the Board, in all its history, has never paid one penny in taxation.
If the Board is prepared to stack up millions of pounds, why cannot it pay

543
a dividend? In the previous Labour Government's time there was an invention called public dividend capital. We used to use the initials "PDC", which was said to mean "payment deferred constantly ". Why cannot the Board pay a dividend to the taxpayers? If the Board is so rich that it can buy the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, why cannot it pay back something to us who finance it? Why must it have more money? Why does there have to be a Money Resolution? Why cannot the Board be allowed to spend its money on Felixstowe Dock instead of asking for more? Why does nationalisation always take money from the Exchequer, whereas the private sector always has to pay money into the Exchequer? Why cannot the process be reversed?
If we pass the Money Resolution, it will directly add to our financial problems. The amount is only £5¼ million, but, in an admittedly desperate economic situation, £5¼ million will be taken out of the public purse and put into the private sector. It will be given to the shareholders of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, who will spend the money, thereby increasing the pressures of demand and the money supply. Although the amount is small, it is a token of the way the Government behave. On every occasion when there is opportunity for public retrenchment and reform, all they do is spend more public money.
When my hon. Friends have been challenged about how they would cut public expenditure, they have given examples. This is one more example to add to the list. If only the Government would desist from being financially irresponsible by making available money which they do not have, we might not have such a serious economic crisis. If the Board has £5¼ million to spare, it would be better to pay it back into the Exchequer and leave the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to be taken over by European Ferries. The private sector transaction would make no difference to the public sector or to the money supply.
These are such simple ideas that it is worth asking the House to dwell for a moment on the absurdity of our position. We have been through a week when the pound has been falling hourly. We have constantly been told that we have a public
544
expenditure explosion which is almost un-containable. Yet the Government cannot be diverted from their determination to go through every little piece of Socialist dogma, spending money on any bright idea they have even when, as tonight, they are faced with such an economic and industrial argument. They are still determined to go ahead, spending money. It is that more than anything else which loses them confidence in the international money markets, destroys their credibility as responsible people and damages employment prospects and prosperity. If they insist on pursuing this Money Resolution, the retribution will not come by a vote in which they will be defeated. It will come by a further diminution in the value of our currency and the confidence in which this Government are held.
10.25 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: The whole House is obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) for drawing our attention, with his accustomed wit and good humour, to some of the deficiencies in the legislation before the House this evening.
I should like to add to my hon. Friend's comments that it is a curious fact that the Money Resolution refers to public expenditure when in actual fact the statement makes it quite clear that no demand on public funds is intended or required.
Furthermore, when we examine the Money Resolution, we are led to believe that it has not gone through the customary satisfactory drafting processes which we might expect. I have taken the opportunity of looking at the guidance given by the Treasury on the drafting of such matters, set out in a document referred to as "Supply and other financial procedures of the House of Commons", published by the Treasury for official use.
It draws attention to the procedure which is applicable particularly in the case of a Private Bill. It points out what the procedure might be, and I hope we shall have an assurance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the proper procedures have been observed in regard to what should happen when there is an incidental money clause requiring a Financial Resolution.

545
At that point we require to know that a letter has been sent by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the Clerk of the House of Commons. We then find that we draw on the normal procedure for Bills which are sanctioning expenditure, and we find there that where there is such a Resolution we must make sure that there is an identity of interest between the clauses contained in the original Bill, which are in italics, and the terms of the Money Resolution before the House. When we compare that with Clause 3 on page 3 of the original Bill, we see immediately that there is a disparity between the two things.
This raises the question whether we are satisfied with the terms in which the Money Resolution is drawn up. It is also clear, to quote from "Erskine May", that a Money Resolution
"must not be more detailed than the terms of the corresponding clause in the bill as that might unduly restrict the power to move amendments."
The Money Resolution draws specific attention to
"sections 19 to 21 of the Transport Act 1962 (borrowing by the British Transport Docks and other Boards …".
The Bill has no restriction as to sections.
I suggest that the Money Resolution is more restrictive than the terms of the Bill, and therefore restricts our ability to place amendments before the House. In these circumstances I suggest that we need an assurance from the Financial Secretary that he has carried out his proper duty in accordance with the wishes of the House.
10.29 p.m.
Mr. David Lane: As I have a direct constituency interest in the matter, I should like briefly to support my hon. Friends and remind the House of one or two of the main arguments which have not been answered, and of the reasons why we should not pass this Money Resolution.
First, the promoters of the Bill and the Government have not answered the argument that overwhelmingly the port users and the port workers of Felixstowe are opposed to the proposed take-over by the British Transport Docks Board.
Secondly, they have not answered the argument that overwhelmingly the shareholders of the company are opposed to this take-over.
546
Thirdly, they have not answered the argument that the take-over would be bad in general both for Felixstowe and for the country. I underline only one reason here, that the shift to State control of this port is very likely to undermine the whole reputation which it has built up. It is well known that Felixstowe has captured much of the deep-sea container trade, including that of American companies, and there is a big risk that if this take-over goes through, much of that trade will be lost to rival ports, such as Rotterdam.
I come, then, to my direct constituency interest. It is that any decline in the activity and prosperity of Felixstowe would reduce the income flowing to Trinity College in my Cambridge constituency, which is the owner of much of the land concerned.
I need not repeat the arguments so well put earlier in the evening by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison). But, simply for the benefit of hon. Members who were not present, this is another reason why I am opposed to the Money Resolution which will enable this take-over to be put into effect. The income which flows is used for the general purposes of education and research and for the benefit not only of Trinity College but of other less well-off colleges in the rest of the university through the equalisation fund—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) will relate his speech to the Money Resolution.
Mr. Lane: I am trying to do that, because, to my simple mind, it is the Money Resolution which will make possible the carrying into effect of this Bill, and I am reminding the House of one of the harmful effects which we fear.
The money that is channelled through Trinity College also goes to many good causes in my constituency right outside the university. So, if the activity of Felixstowe declines through this Bill, made possible by the Money Resolution, education generally and good community causes in my constituency will suffer.
As there was misrepresentation earlier of the attitude of Trinity College, let me make it clear in this context that the college, as an objector, is not satisfied

547
with the assurances so far given by the promoters of the Bill.
If the Money Resolution is passed and the State steam-roller is allowed to override the opposition, not only will there be yet another chunk of unnecessary public expenditure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has reminded us, but the consequences will be lower efficiency in the whole of the British port industry, another set-back for democracy, and a blow against the wishes and interests of many individual people.
10.32 p.m.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, really as a point of order, that, notwithstanding that the last two lines of the Money Resolution read:
"… the powers and duties of the British Transport Docks Board with respect to the Port of Felixstowe and vesting in the Board the share capital of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company ",
Clause 5 of the Bill is not printed in italics, although the clause potentially creates a charge upon the Revenue and should not therefore be amended by the House of Lords, since that would be in breach of the privilege of the Commons.
The clause which executes the last two lines of the Money Resolution should properly have been printed in italics so that the prerogative of the House of Commons to control expenditure is not abrogated. Since it has not been printed in italics, it is a defective Money Resolution, and, therefore, I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it would not be proper for the Money Resolution to be withdrawn, since it entails powers which, on examination, are not found to be printed in italics, thereby preserving the prerogative of the House of Commons solely to control the voting of Supply.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that there is part of the Bill which is printed in italics. The Money Resolution applies to that part of the Bill.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I have noticed that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no complaints about the powers in Clause 3 which are covered by the Money Resolu-
548
tion. "Erskine May" states that all clauses which create a charge must be printed in italics. It is not good enough that one clause in the Bill is printed in italics when the Money Resolution extends to other clauses which are not in italics.
The point which I have put to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is supported in "Erskine May", not, as you have rightly said, with respect to Clause 3—about which I lodge no complaint. The last line in the Money Resolution is covered not by Clause 3 but by Clause 5.
On pages 3 and 4 the Bill reads:
"As the price for the ordinary stock of the Company vested in the Board by virtue of section 4 (Vesting in Board of ordinary stock of Company) of this Act the Board shall, subject to the provisions of subsections (3) and (5) of this section, forthwith after the appointed day pay to the persons holding the ordinary stock units of the Company immediately before the appointed day, being the persons then registered in the Company's register of stockholders, the sum of £1·50 for each stock unit so held."
Because that reference to subsection (3) is not printed in italics, it would be open to the House of Lords to substitute £1 million for £1·50, in which case a major charge on public funds would be created. No one can deny that that is at variance with the advice in "Erskine May." "Erskine May" gives advice and is not part of our Standing Orders, but it is a major point of privilege that the House does not give a right to increase a charge on public funds to the Lords.
Unless Clause 5 is in italics, it would be amended in the Lords to increase the charge on public funds. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I submit that it is your clear duty not to allow the Question to be put on a Money Resolution which is in breach of the privilege of the House of Commons.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may be of assistance to the hon. Member and to the House if I express the view that what is not in italics does not, in fact, extend the powers of another place and, therefore, as part of the Bill is in italics, that part is the one which is covered by the Money Resolution.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That does not happen to be what the Bill says, nor does it happen to be what the Money

549
Resolution says. The Money Resolution covers:
"vesting in the Board the share capital of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company."
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said and I have contributed what I can. If any further time is spent on this point of order there will be no answer from the Minister.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Minister is not responsible for maintaining the privilege of the House. That is the responsibility of the Chair. The Chair has not explained how the House of Lords is prevented from increasing the charge on public funds which is not printed in italics on page 4.
If the Money Resolution is allowed to be put to the House and accepted, the privilege of the Commons to control supply is abrogated and a charge is potentially placed on public funds by amendment in another place. The whole purpose of the italics rule is to prevent that. That is not a matter for a Minister to reply to. A Minister is not responsible for maintaining the privilege of the House of Commons.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is in italics is there to draw the attention of the House to matters which hon. Members should have their attention directed to. It does not affect the powers of the House of Lords.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: This is exactly why Bills which originate in the House of Lords and which abrogate the privilege of the Commons, in that they impose charges, must have printed in italics those clauses which do so. They are deleted from the Bill by the Lords before they give a Third Reading to the Bill. It is not just to draw attention—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a House of Commons Bill. If the hon. Gentleman were dealing with a Bill from the other place, there might be something in what he says.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am well aware that the Bill originates in the House of Commons, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we are discussing a Money Resolution which, if it is passed, will activate—that is the word used in "Erskine May"—a clause which is not printed in italics. This House
550
must not by its own rules of privilege pass a Money Resolution activating a clause which imposes a charge but which is not printed in italics. That is the clear precedent. If you rule otherwise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will establish a new precedent depriving the House of Commons of the power, unique as between the two Houses, to control Supply. You will be creating a precedent of which I should have thought some hon. Members below the Gangway on the Labour Benches would strongly disapprove.
The Minister for Transport (Dr. John Gilbert): Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, Clause 5 does not need to be in italics because it provides for payment by the British Transport Docks Board for the company, and as the Board is finding the money from its own resources no special money needs to be voted by the House for it or approved by Money Resolution.
10.44 p.m.
Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: In 40 seconds I should like to put four quick questions on the Money Resolution, the purpose of which some of us think to be merely to advance the cause of doctrinaire Socialism.
Does the taxpayer benefit by what is proposed? Do the users of the dock benefit? Do the workers in the dock benefit? Do the owners of the dock benefit? Nobody benefits by it.
In other words, the whole point of the Bill is irrelevant, and the Money Resolution should be defeated.
Mr. Patrick Mayhew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister's contribution is blown out of the water by the terms of Clause 3(1), which is partly printed in italics and relates to
"powers, duties and obligations of the Board ".
If it is properly thought necessary by the draftsmen to put that in italics, why is it not necessary for Clause 5 to be in italics?
10.45 p.m.
Sir David Renton: I think that perhaps the Minister might be able to help us further in the light of his experience as a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He will correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that ever since financial matters

551
were taken away from the competence of the House of Lords by the Parliament Act 1911 it has been not only customary but a rule of this House that legislation going from this House to another place shall be put in italics when there is a charge on public funds. The reason for that is, first, as a warning—a red light, if hon. Members opposite prefer that term—and, secondly, in order to make it perfectly clear that the matter is vetoed from alteration by another place under the Parliament Act.
The Minister, in support of your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, has argued—I would be grateful if you would consider whether his argument was sound, because I have some doubts—that the provision of funds by the Docks Board out of its own funds is not a charge on public funds.
I do not know where one finds the definition of "public funds", but I can say that the Estimates Committee, the Expenditure Committee and the former Public Accounts Committee, round which so many of the rules in this matter were built, took it upon themselves to look into the accounts of all kinds of public bodies because of the use of the expression, which brought it within their terms of reference, that these public bodies were handling "public funds".
In other words, italics need to be used not merely where there is a charge directly upon the taxpayer through the Exchequer, but also where there is a charge on public funds. We know that the nationalised industry in this case is able to resort to the Exchequer, and does, for a fair amount of its capital expenditure. If I am wrong about that, I concede the point. But it seemed to me in the hon. Gentleman's intervention that he may have taken too narrow a view of the expressions "public funds" and "charge upon public funds".
Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I submit that what the Minister told us must be wrong because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said, if in another place their Lordships were to remove the sum of £1·50 from Clause 5 and substitute, say, the sum of £15, a charge in the region of £50 million would
552
fall upon the taxpayer. The Docks Board, with all its over-liquidity and because of its unprofitability, would not be able to find the sum of £50 million, and would have to come back to the Exchequer to borrow under the National Loans Fund provisions and this Money Resolution. There would be no doubt that the charge would fall upon public funds if their Lordships were to amend Clause 5.
I therefore formally move that the promoters of this Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Privileges as causing a breach of the privileges of this House. I therefore ask you to adjourn the debate and to rule tomorrow as to whether in your judgment it is right that they should appear before the Committee of Privileges for a breach of privilege.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that motion.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I referred to "Erskine May", which is advisory. A further examination of "Erskine May" has elicited Standing Order No. 168 of the Standing Orders for Private Business. It is binding upon the Chair and is in no way discretionary. The side heading reads
"Charges affecting public revenue to be printed in italics".
The Standing Order itself reads
"Subject to the provisions of Standing Order 156A (Modification of practice as to charges on public revenue) all charges in any way affecting the public revenue, which occur in the clauses of any private bill, shall be printed in italics in the bill when presented to the House."
We find that Standing Order No. 156A has nothing whatever to do with this matter and, therefore, does not modify it. That Standing Order reads
"In the case of a private bill, it shall not be necessary to comply with the standing orders and practice of this House relating to provisions authorising charges upon the public revenue, by reason only that the Bill contains provisions authorising expenditure by a local authority which would or might operate to increase the sums payable by way of Rate Support Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland."
I submit, therefore, that it is not within the discretion of the Chair to waive the provision of Standing Order No. 168 which controls the Money Resolution on a Private Bill.
Dr. Gilbert: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might be helpful for me to remind the House that under Standing Order No. 89 expenditure to be a charge on public funds must be payable out of either the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That in no way nullifies Standing Order No. 168. The only question that arises is whether Clause 5 constitutes an imposition of a charge against public funds. Clearly it can. It affects public revenue, and it cannot be seriously contended that if Clause 5 is amended in the way to which I alluded earlier an increased charge on public funds may not arise. This is, therefore, a clear case where Standing Order No. 168 applies and must govern the Money Resolution.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened to all that hon. Gentlemen have said. I am perfectly satisfied that the Bill has been italicised in the correct manner.
Mr. Timothy Raison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that there is considerable confusion here. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has pointed out, subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 156A all charges in any way affecting public revenue in Private Bills shall be printed in italics. With great respect, I fail to see how this Bill cannot affect the public revenue. I suggest that the proper course would be for the Minister to withdraw the Money Resolution and think again.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have looked at the Standing Orders and listened to what the hon. Gentleman said. I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
Mr. Lane: Further to that point of order. With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and meaning no disrespect to the Minister for Transport, would it not be helpful, before we proceed further, to have the presence and advice of a Minister from the Treasury as public expenditure is involved?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
The Question is as on the Order Paper—
Hon. Members: No.
Sir John Eden: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although you have given your ruling on this matter, I think that it would be extremely helpful if you gave a brief explanation to the House. A reasoned case, as I am sure you will agree, has been made in relation to a Standing Order of this House. Therefore, I think it right that, where confusion exists, you should explain how your ruling is sustained by Standing Orders. Is it possible for you to explain briefly how your ruling falls within Standing Orders? My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has carefully brought chapter and verse to sustain his case, which has made a considerable impact on hon. Members on both sides of the House. [Interruption.] It is clear that this matter should not be steamrollered out of the way. It merits a proper explanation as to how the case presented by my hon. Friend should not be held to rule at this time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have listened to all that has been said and done my best to explain my view. I have given my ruling that the Bill is correctly drafted.
Mr. Keith Stainton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Hon. Members: It is not a point of order.
Mr. Stainton: We are starting a new point of order. Is that correct, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I wonder whether my hon. Friends are happy with that terminology—that we are starting a new point of order.
I find myself utterly confused and disturbed. A very reasoned argument has been put before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Admittedly, it has been put at some length and perhaps it might have been better had it been put more shortly. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) took pains to describe his viewpoint to you with great consistency and humility. Therefore, I can only repeat my perturbation regarding your ruling. A mere—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who are familiar with Standing Orders will know that it is now my duty to put the Question as on the Order Paper.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
It being three quarters of an hour after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As many as are of that opinion say "Aye"?
Hon. Members: Aye.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: To the contrary "No".
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Clear the Lobbies.
The House proceeded to a Division—
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Norman Fowler(seated and covered): On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Ridley (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have put the Question and ordered the Lobbies to be cleared.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr Ian Gow(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a serious issue concerning the rights of this House and of another place. Is it not in accordance with the traditions of this House that before a Division takes place you should give a reason for the decision you have given?
Mrs. Elaine Kellet-Bowman(seated and covered): On a point of order—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I deal with one point of order at a time? Standing
556
Orders make it quite clear that I have to put the Question at the time I did put the Question. Therefore, there is no other procedure than for us to have a Division.
Mrs. Keilett-Bowman (seated and covered): With all due respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I submit that you did not put the Question, but only ordered "Clear the Lobbies".
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps if there was a little less noise it would be possible to hear what was going on. At the moment I am trying to take the names of the Tellers.
Mr. Norman Fowler (seated and covered): On a point of order—
Hon. Members: On a point of order—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is as on the Order Paper. As many of that opinion say "Aye", to the contrary "No". Ayes to the right, Noes to the left. Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. Walter Johnson and Mr. Cryer. Tellers for the Noes, Mr. Jopling and Mr. Shelton.
Mr. Norman Fowler (seated and covered): On a point of order. With all due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the House is in some difficulty, not having had a reply to the point put by my hon. Friend. That is to say, that no explanation has been given of your ruling. With due respect, it is extremely difficult to come to a conclusion without that ruling being given before a vote takes place.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I had in fact heard everything said and took it into consideration in giving my ruling. Under Standing Orders, the Question must be put at the time I put the Question. I had no alternative but to put the Question.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Standing Orders certainly do not provide that you shall put the Question on a motion which is itself out of order because it is in breach of privilege. Therefore, surely, the Question must not be put until you have finished taking points of order on whether the motion is within order and can or cannot be put to the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have ruled on the point the hon. Member puts to me.

557
It is clearly laid down in Standing Orders that the Question must be put three-quarters of an hour after the business started.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop (seated and covered): Further to the point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) was addressing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a new point of order, about the validity of the motion which is now purported to be before the House. Surely you must hear such points of order, particularly when the motion is apparently in defiance of Standing Order No. 168, before the Question is put.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is wrong. The Standing Order makes
it clear that the Question must be put at a certain time, and that is what I did.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop (seated and covered): Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has not been determined, until you have finished taking points of order, that there is a valid motion to put to the House pursuant to the Standing Order you quoted. As the motion is apparently in breach of Standing Order No. 168, that matter must be properly determined before you put the Question.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I had already given a ruling on that matter. We then proceeded to a Division, in accordance with Standing Orders.
The House having divided: Ayes 223, Noes 179.

Division No. 99.]

AYES

[11.00 p.m.

Anderson, Donald

Dormand, J. D.

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Archer, Peter

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Armstrong, Ernest

Duffy, A. E. P.

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Ashton, Joe

Dunn, James A.

Judd, Frank

Atkinson, Norman

Dunnett, Jack

Kelley, Richard

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Eadie, Alex

Kerr, Russell

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Edge, Geoff

Lamborn, Harry

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Hey wood)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Lamond, James

Bates, Alt

Ennals, David

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Bean, R. E.

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Bidwell, Sydney

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Lipton, Marcus

Bishop, E. S.

Faulds, Andrew

Loyden, Eddie

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Luard, Evan

Boardman, H.

Flannery, Martin

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

McCartney, Hugh

Bradley, Tom

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

McElhone, Frank

Bray, Or Jeremy

Ford, Ben

McGuire, Michael (lnce)

Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

Forrester, John

Mackenzie, Gregor

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Maclennan, Robert

Buchan, Norman

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

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Buchanan, Richard

Freeson, Reginald

McNamara, Kevin

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Madden, Max

Canavan, Dennis

George, Bruce

Magee, Bryan

Cant, R. B.

Gilbert, Dr John

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Carmichael, Nell

Golding, John

Mahon, Simon

Carter, Ray

Gould, Bryan

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Cartwright, John

Gourlay, Harry

Marks, Kenneth

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Graham, Ted

Marquand, David

Clemitson, Ivor

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Cohen, Stanley

Grocott, Bruce

Meacher, Michael

Coleman, Donald

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Harper, Joseph

Mikardo, Ian

Concannon, J. D.

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Millan, Bruce

Conlan, Bernard

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Corbett, Robin

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, ltchen)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Heffer, Erle S.

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Horam, John

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Moyle, Roland

Dalyell, Tam

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Davidson, Arthur

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Hunter, Adam

Newens, Stanley

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Noble, Mike

Deakins, Eric

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Oakes, Gordon

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Ogden, Eric

Delargy, Hugh

Janner, Greville

Orbach, Maurice

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Ovenden, John

Dempsey, James

John, Brynmor

Park, George

Doig, Peter

Johnson. James (Hull West)

Parry, Robert

Pavitt, Laurie

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

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

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Pendry, Tom

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Ward, Michael

Phipps, Dr Colin

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Watkins, David

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Silverman, Julius

Weetch, Ken

Prescott, John

Skinner, Dennis

Wellbeloved, James

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Small, William

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Price, William (Rugby)

Snape, Peter

Whitehead, Phillip

Radice, Giles

Spearing, Nigel

Whitlock, William

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Spriggs, Leslie

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Stallard, A. W.

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Stoddart, David

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Stott, Roger

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Strang, Gavin

Woodall, Alec

Rooker, J. W.

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Woof, Robert

Rose, Paul B.

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Rowlands, Ted

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Sedgemore, Brian

Tierney, Sydney

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Selby, Harry

Tinn, James

Mr. Walter Johnson and

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Torney, Tom

Mr. Bob Cryer.

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Tuck, Raphael

NOES

Adley, Robert

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Aitken, Jonathan

Glyn, Dr Alan

Morrison, charles (Devizes)

Alison, Michael

Goodhart, Philip

Mudd, David

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Goodhew, Victor

Neave, Airey

Baker, Kenneth

Goodlad, Alastair

Nelson, Anthony

Banks, Robert

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Newton, Tony

Beith A. J.

Gray, Hamish

Normanton, Tom

Bennett Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Onslow, Cranley

Benyon, W.

Grist, Ian

Page, John (Harrow West)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Grylls, Michael

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby

Bitten, John

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Parkinson, Cecil

Pattie, Geoffrey

Biggs-Davison, John

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Percival, Ian

Blaker Peter

Hampson, Dr Keith

Body, Richard

Hannam, John

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Prior, Rt Hon James

Bottomley Peter

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Braine, Sir Bernard

Hastings, Stephen

Raison, Timothy

Havers, Sir Michael

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Heseltine, Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Brotherton, Michael

Higgins, Terence L.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Holland, Philip

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hordern, Peter

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Rifkind, Malcolm

Budgen, Nick

Howell, David (Guildford)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Bulmer, Esmond

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Ross, Stephen (lese of William)

Carlisle, Mark

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

James, David

Roosi, Hugn (Hornsey)

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Shepherd, Colin

Clegg, Walter

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Silvester, Fred

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Kimball, Marcus

Sims, Roger

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Cope, John

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Cormack, Patrick

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Corrie, John

Lamont, Norman

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Costain, A. P.

Lane, David

Speed, Keith

Crouch, David

Sinclair, Sir George

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Lawrence, Ivan

Sproat, lain

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Le Marchant, Spencer

Stanbrook, Ivor

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Stanley, John

Durant, Tony

Loveridge, John

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Luce, Richard

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Macfarlane, Neil

Stradling Thomas, J.

Elliott, Sir William

MacGregor, John

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Emery, Peter

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Eyre, Reginald

Marten, Neil

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Mather, Carol

Trotter, Neville

Fell, Anthony

Maude, Angus

Tugendhat, Christopher

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Fookes, Miss janet

Mayhew, Patrick

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Forman, Nigel

Miscampbell, Norman

Viggers, Peter

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Moate, Roger

Wainwright. Richard (Colne V)

Fox, Marcus

Monro, Hector

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Fry, Peter

Montgomery, Fergus

Walker Rt Hon P.(Worcester)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Wall, Patrick

560

561

Weatherill Bernard

Wiggin, Jerry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Wells, John

Winterton, Nicholas

Mr. Michael Jopling and

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Mr. William Shelton

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise all such increased payments into and out of the Consolidated Fund and the National Loans Fund as may result, under sections 19 to 21 of the Transport Act 1962 (borrowing by the British Transport Docks Board and other Boards; loans by the Secretary of State and Treasury guarantee of Boards' other borrowing) from an Act of the present Session extending the powers and duties of the British Transport Docks Board with respect to the Port of Felixstowe and vesting in the Board the share capital of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you intend to order it to be entered in the Journal of the House that Standing Order No. 168 concerning Private Business has now been suspended, since it has clearly been abrogated?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

BP CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
11.14 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I beg to move,
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to pay, or undertake to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972, as amended by section 22 of, and Part I of Schedule 4 to, the Industry Act 1975, in respect of the construction of an acetic acid plant at Hull by BP Chemicals International Limited sums exceeding £5,000,000 but not exceeding £10,140,000.
The House will recall that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced last year new measures to stimulate investment and improve the balance of payments. The accelerated projects scheme provides special assistance to encourage companies to go ahead with new investment and modernisation projects. The assistance is provided under Section 8 of the Industry Act 1972. The approval of the House is required before assistance of more than £5 million is granted for any one project. I am inviting the House to authorise the Secretary of State for Industry to provide a grant or not more
562
than £10,140,000 to BP Chemicals International Ltd. towards the cost of an acetic acid plant at Hull. BPCI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of British Petroleum.
This is the first time the House has been asked to approve assistance under the accelerated projects scheme. The purpose of the scheme is to generate additional spending on capital equipment during the current recession. We are helping companies to go ahead with sound investment and modernisation projects, using the powers to make grants and loans offered under the Industry Act.
This scheme is proving to be most effective. It adds to the orders for capital goods at a time when there are unused resources because demand is slack. The capital goods industries always suffer most when investment falls during a recession. As a result, capacity is underutilised, output is lost, and men are made redundant. Many firms tend to be reluctant to invest during a recission and, in order to conserve their liquidity, they are particularly cautious in undertaking large and additional financial commitments. With this scheme we are able to reduce some of these concerns by making available grants or loans at reduced rates of interest, and many companies have reconsidered their investment programmes with a view to advancing new projects that would otherwise have been delayed.
All proposals are examined carefully in accordance with the criteria for selective assistance. In particular, to qualify for consideration, projects must be within the companies' planned capital expenditure programme, they must be shown to be projects that would be deferred if no accelerated projects assistance was forthcoming, they must be commercially sound, and make a contribution to improving the balance of payments, and they should cost more than £500,000.
The scheme has been very well received, and there has been a very good response from industry. To date, the Industrial Development Advisory Board has advised that financial assistance of nearly £31 million should be made

563
available towards 21 projects with a total cost of some £190 million. We estimate that these projects should lead to a balance of payments gain of about £170 million per annum in foreign exchange by 1980. They cover a broad range of geographical locations, and will help expand capacity across a wide spectrum of industry—in, for example, the diesel engine, chemical, pharmaceutical, food processing, and electrical and mechanical engineering industries. Many other projects are under consideration at the moment which could involve investment of the order of £500 million and a correspondingly large contribution to the balance of payments.
This proposal from BP for an acetic acid plant at Hull is an excellent example of how the scheme is helping the economy. The capital cost of the project, excluding working capital, is budgeted to cost £50 million, and BP has had to defer it several times already. The BP parent company faces heavy commitments in its activities in the North Sea and in Alaska, and BPCI already faces commitments in other chemical projects costing over £100 million. Like most firms, its operations are generally under pressure in the present difficult financial circumstances. Consequently, the project would be subject to further postponement. But, with the help of the grant now proposed, the Government can help to get it under way this year.
BP already produces acetic acid from its complex at Hull and the new plant will benefit from close contact with the expertise and facilities already in the area. The new facility will increase capacity from 190,000 tonnes to 340,000 tonnes by 1980. Acetic acid is an essential factor in the production of textiles and paints and is also used for the manufacture of industrial solvents, herbicides, adhesives and pharmaceuticals. By 1980 increased exports of acetic acid are expected to be earning some £20–£30 million in foreign exchange. This location of additional capacity in the United Kingdom will also provide greater security of supply for United Kingdom buyers, and bring import savings and further benefits to the balance of payments.
564
This plant will be one of the largest items of capital investment for Humberside in recent years. It will consolidate Humberside's strong position in the petro-chemical and chemical industries.
The Hull site is also ideally situated to use natural gas from BP's West Sole Field as a raw material for the new plant. The gas would be transported through the British Gas Corporation pipeline, and the British Transport Docks Board jetty facilities at Salt End, Hull, would have the capacity to cover the export shipments of the acetic acid produced.
The project will create in due course some 140 permanent direct new jobs in the Hull travel-to-work area. Over the next three years construction of the plant will involve 700 jobs, for most of which the company plans to recruit locally. There will, in addition, be a useful spin-off in local service employment, of both a temporary and a long-term nature. All these benefits would be most welcome to the Hull area. Also, the bulk of the equipment for the project will be purchased from British suppliers, including the British Steel Corporation, and such purchases should provide a useful general stimulus to activity and employment.
This is the second major investment project under this scheme to be located on Humberside. The first, announced a few weeks ago, is the construction of a major new pharmaceutical factory in Hull by Reckitt & Colman. This will lead to many local construction jobs and, as the facilities are established, over 100 new permanent direct jobs. These developments and the new motorway communications now coming in should strengthen the industrial base of Humberside.
In asking the House to approve the assistance proposed for this project, I would, therefore, particularly commend its value to the petro-chemical capability of the country, its significant contribution to the balance of payments, its wide-ranging employment benefits, and its special contribution to the industrial structure of Humberside.
11.23 a.m.
Mr. Tom King: This is a debate of considerable importance for the

565
House, and it goes rather wider than the motion before us. This is the first opportunity of discussing the accelerated investment scheme to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has allocated £120 million of public money. It is only because this Order trips the £5 million procedure under the Industry Act 1972 that we are able to consider one of the schemes coming forward under this proposal. I invite the Minister to give us more information about the scheme.
I trust there is no division in the House on the fact that there is an acute need for greater investment in industry and on the importance of that investment to create wealth. We should realise that it is only by the efforts of our industry that we shall solve our acute economic problems. It will certainly not be done by the wasteful expenditure of public money we saw earlier in a measure which will bring no additional benefit to the country and no additional port facilities to Felixstowe. That was a classic example of money being spent for no additional benefit.
This scheme is a different animal. It involves public money and we must scrutinise it carefully, but it has certain features which commend it more to my hon. and right hon. Friends than did any of the Government's earlier measures. I understand that BP will put up between £40 million and £45 million for the project. Although the payment is couched in terms of being not more than £10,140,000, I understand that it will be that amount. It is an interest relief grant and will not be paid before 1978, when the main progress payments become due.
There are several criteria for accelerated investment schemes, one of which is the creation of employment. It is sobering to realise that the expenditure of £10 million of Government money will produce 140 permanent jobs. For my figure of 100 jobs, the cost would be £100,000 per job created. Admittedly, up to 1,000 jobs will be created during the three or four years of construction. That is an extremely high price to pay. It is a measure of the capital-intensivity of the project that the total cost of £35 million will produce 140 jobs. Those who believe that massive investment will solve the unemployment problem will ponder on those figures and realise that it is no solution.
566
Will the Minister confirm that the project is subject to planning approval and to the approval of the main board of BP and has received only interim approval.
What interests us is how the Government arrived at what is in effect a 20 per cent grant. Is it based on the original development grant? How did they arrive at the formula? I understand that £32 million has already been allocated to the accelerated investment scheme covering £200 million worth of investment projects. The Minister quoted Reckitt & Colman. Ransome Hoffman Pollard and Lucas have also taken advantage of the scheme. How genuine are the schemes what tests are applied? I question whether the schemes would have gone ahead anyway. How did the Department, the Treasury and the European Commission satisfy themselves that the project would not otherwise have gone forward without assistance?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer refers to the scheme as his 6:1 multiplier. If he allocates a £120 million grant he looks for over £700 million of accelerated investment. According to a Press report, BP did not go ahead with the project before and did not intend to go ahead with it now because of poor market conditions. Will the Under-Secretary of State confirm that that is incorrect? Is the Department's understanding that the present plant operates profitably and has orders in excess of its capacity and that market conditions look extremely encouraging? It is important that we should not consider this project in any sense as having been pursued for non-commercial reasons, but should know clearly the basis on which it has been pursued.
This is a measure of considerable importance and substance. It looks as though it has identified a product area with considerable potential. There may also be considerable opportunities for exports to Europe. Against that background, it would seem to be one area where investment is well justified.
At the same time, in looking at the time scale of what we are trying to do with accelerated investment—and the fact that the plant will provide very little permanent employment and have very little effect before 1980—I shall be interested to hear whether the other accelerated investment schemes put forward

567
are likely to have rather greater employment results and rather earlier prospects of a real effect on the economy.
11.32 p.m.
Mr. James Johnson: After the pseudo-pantomime of the last hour or so I have no intention of detaining the House for very long. I may even make a parochial speech by comparison with that of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
Speaking as a burgess of the city of Kingston upon Hull, I greatly welcome the proposal, which will mean a great deal to us in the difficult conditions on North Humberside.
By a happy coincidence, it coincides with a deputation today from the city of Hull, led by Councillors Schultz and Pearlman, to tell Yorkshire Members of Parliament of their difficulties on Humberside. The outlook there is very bleak, particularly in Hull itself, where employment was never good. It is worsening now. Male unemployment is running at 10·6 per cent. I cannot imagine that any area is in a much worse situation. There is a steady decline in fishing and in shipbuilding.
Over the years, each wave of unemployment seems to have made the next wave of unemployment worse. Great concern is felt by our local authorities and our business community. Despite the M62, the Ml8, and the Humber Bridge, which is to come in two years' time, there is still a malaise, and a shot in the arm of the sort proposed will help our people locally to feel that they are not quite forgotten. We want development area status but apparently it is not easy to get at the present time. The action of BP and of the Government may help to dispel some of the malaise.
Selective assistance of this kind is ideal for us. I listened to what was said about capital-intensive industry. We need jobs, because we are losing them right, left and centre. We have lost jobs with Imperial Typewriters and the Humber St. Andrew's Engineering Company. We are being hit in this way all the time. Our people are getting very worried about it.
I am told that the proposed extension will create about 150 permanent jobs. It will significantly enhance the total capacity
568
of the company, which I understand is possibly the largest in Western Europe. The company has provided some stability of both employment and financial input. Despite the waves of unemployment constantly hitting us, BP Chemicals has managed to keep all its work force in full-time employment during all these months and years of difficulty on Humberside.
I do not wish to quote the Minister too much, but I listened carefully to him. He told us that BP Chemicals holds a major position in the European production of acetic acid. I believe he said that the new plant would provide an increased output of 150,000 tonnes per annum, and that the total production would be about 350,000 tonnes. Estimates have to be finalised, and so I cannot speak about them, not being an accountant, but am I correct in saying that investment could be about £50 million? If so, that is not chicken-feed by any standards.
Not a word has been spoken about this, but I am also informed that there are possible objections by the environmental lobby. I am told, however, that there is no significant danger of pollution, or of any hazards to the local community. I understand that the project is to be passed by whoever may be the powers that be—perhaps the Health and Safety Executive—but I hope that the Minister will confirm that there have been no comments in this field.
In the next year or two there will be about 700 additional jobs in the locality, in the building industry. That is not to be sneezed at, because we are not building as many houses as we should. There is no doubt that there is unemployment in that industry. Therefore, this project, with all the spin-offs, is more than welcome to the people of Hull and elsewhere.
When will the new plant be commissioned? Was it 1979? We shall have to wait. I believe that some hon. Members opposite said that it would be 1980. I am not sure of the date, but we are willing to wait when we see something positive on the skyline—something that is not pie in the sky, about which we are told so much.
I know that we have to apply for outline planning permission, but, with all its "ifs" and "buts", we hope that this is on the way, and we welcome it with all our hearts.
11.37 p.m.
Mr. David Crouch: The House will recognise the sincerity with which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) spoke—as he always speaks—on behalf of his constituents. I know that his constituents have suffered a great deal of disturbance and distress, and high unemployment, in the fishing industry and other industries. The hon. Member dealt with the facts. It is his duty to represent his constituents. I see that the two other hon. Members for the Hull constituencies are present, being similarly interested in proposals that affect their constituents. But we are all interested in our constituents, and we are interested in the constituents that we represent in totality—the people of the whole of Great Britain.
I speak as one who is much concerned with unemployment and who is involved in the chemical industry. I declare an interest. I remember sitting here in 1972, one Friday afternoon and into the night, supporting the then Government against my colleagues, who at the time were against the passing of the 1972 Act, Section 8 of which was subsequently amended to increase the amount of help that can be given to industry under the 1975 Act.
I was in favour of the House being able to provide help to industry both in development areas and in those areas in which industry needed help—wherever those areas were—to enable it to succeed and to produce more wealth for this country. Having paid my respects to those hon. Members who represent constituencies in Kingston upon Hull, and recognising their particular interest in the matter, I can, however, tell the Minister that to ask for the provision of £10 million or a little more to provide 140 jobs is to ask the House to swallow an awful lot. That applies particularly when we talk about BP—a partly nationalised industry—when we talk of the most successful industry in Britain, bar none, and when we say that we must give an interest-relief grant of 20 per cent. to the company.
Perhaps I am wrong even to suggest opposition to this proposal, but I utter a word of caution, because I am concerned about Government expenditure. What about Government expenditure on education, on health, on roads, and on other matters?
570
Here we are discussing Government expenditure of £10 million for 140 jobs, and late at night when there are few hon. Members here to consider the weight of this sort of decision. A couple of weeks ago, when I was abroad, there was a great debate about Government expenditure which exercised the minds of hon. Members on all sides of the House. Tonight, we are calmly proceeding in the same old way, on behalf of all our constituents, talking about £10 million to provide 140 jobs.
Mr. James Johnson: It is not just a matter of simple arithmetic about X jobs for £Y million. We are turning out acetic acid by the million gallons, and that will be exported. Surely there is more to this than just a matter of so much money for so many bodies going to a site.
Mr. Crouch: I accept that. We are thinking of the national output of wealth and the production of acetic acid from one of the biggest production plants in the country. I know the plant on the estuary in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is very big. But why do we have to vote the taxpayers' money to achieve this? I do not understand it. This is not the industry that I knew. I was in ICI, as the House knows. Is ICI to be the next to come cap in hand to this House saying "We, too, want to invest £50 million, but may we have £10 million from the Government first?"
I cannot understand why BP is doing this. I have great respect for BP, and I know many people in it, including people on the shop floor. But I am surprised that this rich and great industry, which prides itself that it can compete with the world, is coming cap in hand to the Government saying "Give us £10 million".
The answer, of course, is that the company is thinking "We see a way through. The door is swinging. The two Industry Acts allow the door to swing. Let us make use of them". People in industry today are not fools. Certainly the people in the chemical industry are not. They are spotting their opportunity. Perhaps it is up to us to latch the door occasionally and to say that we need that £10 million for overseas aid, for another hospital, for education, for the social services, to help the disabled, for a new mental hospital,

571
or for some of the other great expenditure in that area.
I do not want to overlay the point, but I speak as one who comes from industry and who is concerned that we in this House should be careful not to be railroaded into thinking in terms of more money for industry simply because industry wants more money.
Why cannot the industry channel more money? BP is not an unsuccessful company. I cannot imagine that BP is unable to find £50 million for its investment if it wants to. Last week the Chemical Industry Association announced an investment programme of £2,008 million over the next three years in Britain. That is about £700 million a year for the next three years. That is not a bad prospect for a flourishing industry. Yet, in the midst of it, we have one of our great chemical companies coming to the House because it sees the door swinging. It sees a loophole.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: The hon. Gentleman seems to have misunderstood the intention of the scheme completely. The justification for this investment finance in the scheme is that the investment costs the country at least 20 per cent. less if it is made during a recession than if it is made at the peak of an investment boom. That is why it is a good bargain for the nation.
Mr. Crouch: I always listen to the hon. Member on these matters. He has great experience and knowledge. But his observation was too clever by half. He is talking about taxpayers' money, not the money raised by a capitalist company. I should like to see the money coming from the profits of the company. He is saying that it will help the company because we are living in a period of 25 per cent. a year inflation which was generated by this Government, and, therefore, we should extract the money from the taxpayer. It is a false argument and I do not follow it.
I do not take exception but I express my concern that late at night the House is being asked to vote another £10 million, to an industry which is not in terrible distress. I argued in favour of keeping British Leyland going when many of my hon. Friends said that it was
572
a lame duck and should not be propped up.
There is an argument for reinforcing success. Let BP reinforce its own success. I am sure that it does not need this extra £10 million, but it has found a way of getting it out of a benevolent Governement.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) not aware that over the last 20 years successive Governments have found it necessary, as a result of falling profits, to cosset the private sector by handouts and persuade them to invest in difficult areas in order to provide jobs? That is one of the problems with which the private sector will have to grapple to a greater extent than before. The system to which the hon. Gentleman wants to hark back is now no longer one which can be sustained. The answer is to adopt a Socialist approach, but in the meantime we shall continue to do this to prop up the system and provide jobs. The alternative is the one that we have proposed for many years.
Mr. Crouch: I knew that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), in his sweet and reasonable way, would turn my argument round. I cannot accept what he has said. He may think that he wants to see this happen to a greater extent, but then there would be no door at all. The door is restricted by the two Industry Acts. The Government have to ask the House for permission to give this money because it is excess of the amount laid down.
The Minister has not sufficiently justified the case for asking for £10 million for BP to extend the plant, notwithstanding the need, which I recognise, for the creation of jobs in an area of high unemployment.
The chemical industry is capital intensive, not labour intensive. The argument is to create the size of industry to produce acetic acid on a world scale in competition with any other country. The company says it cannot do that on its own. Let the House be warned. If the door is allowed to swing open too far every company in the country will try to go through the gap to obtain contributions from the taxpayer and the Treasury coffers. If so, there will be no hope of

573
our achieving stability again and increasing our gross domestic product. Instead, there will be an increase in our gross taxation.
11.50 p.m.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened with interest and some alarm to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who missed the boat on two counts, as also perhaps did his hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
First, it is not as though only 140 jobs will be created by the scheme. The industry is highly capital intensive, and production of the plant will involve many concerns throughout the country. It will mean a considerable amount of work in chemical engineering areas which have been suffering from unemployment.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should not talk as though BP were the only company receiving selective assistance. Every major chemical company, including ICI, has already received such assistance for many of its capital projects under the regional planning strategy, and has also had the advantage of the regional employment premium, which Humberside does not have. But I have not heard hon. Members say that companies in the depressed regions, as Humberside now is, should be prevented from having that type of assistance. The hon. Member for Canterbury made a niggling criticism which I had not expected from him.
The plant in question will be situated not in any part of the city of Hull or in the constituencies of Kingston upon Hull, Central, West or East, but in the constituency of Bridlington. It is interesting that there is no Tory Member for the old East Riding present to support this important capital investment on the north bank, investment that the area desperately needs. It will mean 700 jobs in construction alone, a number that will increase as the project gets under way towards the end of the year and the beginning of next year, subject to planning permission. It will make an appreciable hole in male unemployment in the Hull travel-to-work area of over 11,000 and in Humberside generally of over 18,000. That is immediate positive help within our area, quite apart from the spin-off outside the area of which I spoke earlier.
574
I understand that of the 140 permanent fresh jobs at least half will be for craftsmen. It will be work of a high technological character. That is important in an area lacking in skilled opportunities. In anticipation of the programme the company has already taken apprentices into employment. It has also prepared its work and training schedules for the semiskilled operatives who will be involved.
It is regrettable that, the situation in 1974 being such that BP could not then go ahead with its plan, only now is it able to take advantage of this section of the Industry Act. This help is being given under the same provision as help was given to British Leyland, Chrysler and Alfred Herbert. The operation of the Act on a wider scale also shows an important development in regional policy.
If, as I hope it is not, it is the Government's intention to be adamant against the creation of new development or special development areas, this provision of the Act enables them to give assistance to areas of an intermediate nature, or perhaps not even that, where there are very high pockets of unemployment and need in this time of tremendous difficulty for our constituents and their families. It is at least an opportunity for the Government to give some boost to the economy of Humberside. If we are to have a more flexible development of regional policy in this way, it is to be welcomed.
Mr. Crouch: Section 8 of the 1972 Act does not apply to regional development. It is concerned with the development of industry with regard to national importance. It does not concern help to a region. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that.
Mr. McNamara: I assure the hon. Gentleman that 700 jobs in the construction industry and 140 permanent jobs, as well as the spin-off in other sectors responsible for capital plant, constitute regional assistance, whether general on a national scale for national industry or whether for a local industry. This accelerated project scheme is in an area of Very high unemployment with very little capital-intensive industry and very little skilled technology, and it is to be welcomed.
But this boost, along with the M62 and the Ml8 and the Humber Bridge, when it comes, welcome as they are, is not

575
sufficient for the needs of our region. We need far more positive help from the Government to bring the level of permanent unemployment on Humberside down considerably. We need much more effort by the Government; we need to get development area status; we need to have industry steered and directed to our area if we are to tackle its core of unemployment, which has been worsened by the decline of traditional industries.
This one project must not be seen as an enormous boost to the area. A lot more has to be done; a lot more capital has to be invested in the area if we are to get rid of our core of unemployment on Humberside.
11.59 p.m.
Mr. Michael Grylls: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has made an excellent speech on behalf of his constituents, and we on the Opposition side fully understand his feelings. A few weeks ago, in a Friday debate on regional policy, Labour Members were complaining about the terrible levels of unemployment in their constituencies. But it is Government policy which has led to rampant inflation, a lack of investment and high unemployment. How can the Government's supporters complain, therefore, about the situation in the regions?
There is an Alice-in-Wonderland situation in our economic and industrial affairs. This measure is a condemnation of the Government's whole policy. We do not intend to vote against the motion because we are as concerned as anyone about the level of unemployment. The proposal is being implemented basically under the 1972 Act, which has been of assistance to companies.
It is an extraordinary situation when BP, until recently 50 per cent. State-owned, and internationally respected as one of the giants of business, should have to ask the Government for a contribution of £10 million to an investment project of £50 million. That never happened with companies the size of BP under the Conservative Government. Other companies will now probably be queueing up for help. I appeal to the Government to get their industrial and economic policy right so that these companies can generate
576
sufficient cash flow and profits to undertake their own investment.
One of the directors of BP, Mr. Bob Fenning, who was responsible for sales and commercial services, was reported in the Financial Times last September as saying that certain investment was under review
"because of the effects of inflation and the depressed economic situation."
Part of the economic troubles are worldwide, but our rate of inflation is double that of any of our competitors. Talking of BP's cash flow, Mr. Fenning said
"We are suffering from a cash flow crisis bigger than any other crisis. We are not generating enough to build plants to meet the demand in the future."
That is why the motion is before us tonight.
It is convenient that we should be discussing this giant of the chemical industry tonight. It is only a few days since the report of the little NEDC on the British chemical industry was published. That report is important and should be discussed in a wider context than simply the investment covered by the motion. The little NEDC is an example of one of our happier innovations. Its report is a study produced by management, unions and Government working together in the common interest of that industry. It highlighted the No. I problem as being inflation. It did not say that it was the failure of the private enterprise system. That comes into difficulties only with a 25 per cent. rate of inflation. Not only can private companies not invest, but they cannot maintain their capital base to continue to exist. That is the problem which Labour Members must appreciate.
Inflation is the main problem which has hit investment in the chemical and other industries. The little NEDC's document clearly stated that the capital investment costs of putting up plants, such as we are discussing in Hull, have more than doubled since 1970. That is one of the reasons why the problem has been created.
The two projects with which BP is concerned relating to North Sea oil in the Forties field have cost an extra £75 million this year because of inflation. It is not getting anything new or extra for that money.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall end where I started.

577
We are not against this investment. We hope that it will create more than 140 jobs. Indeed, we hope that it will do many good things for Hull. Looking at the country as a whole, however, I suggest that the Government must get their framework right so that industry can produce proper cash flows and invest and produce not 140 jobs but 140,000 jobs. That is what we need. But that cannot be done by doling out odd sums of £10 million at midnight in the House of Commons. It can be done only by getting the Government's crazy policies in the economic sphere right. If the Minister takes that lesson home from the debate, it will be more worth while than the proposal we are discussing tonight.
12.7 a.m.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: I support both the accelerated investment scheme and this project in particular and the constituency case which has been so ably put forward by my hon. Friends and which no doubt will be put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) shortly.
I should like to deal with the industrial and economic question which has been mentioned by Conservative Members and to which my hon. Friend the Minister addressed himself. I could hardly do other than support this scheme. The Prime Minister, in an interview with James Margach reported in the Sunday Times last week, said:
"But our biggest reforms undoubtedly have been in consultation with industry and in the whole approach of Government to industry. All moderate comment now—and this isn't confined to a single Party—stresses the need for micro-economic, sectoral intervention and planning, as opposed to the lurches of macro-economic Keynes-type financial policies".
Even the jargon is lifted directly from my book "Decision in Government", which the Prime Minister did not see fit to acknowledge in his interview with James Margach and for which he sacked me in 1969. It does not pay to be before one's time. Unfortunately, the Department of Industry does not seem to have read that book. I am not entirely sure that my hon. Friend does not need to refresh his memory of certain passages in it. We need to set such a project in the context of the Government's general industrial policy, the general state of the industry and the general economic background.
578
With that in mind, I should like to take up the question put by the hon. Members for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls)—namely, could the need for such measures be avoided by general economic policies? I am in favour of an increase in company liquidity and even of some relief of company taxation, possibly going beyond the extension of the stock valuation relief in the Budget. We shall see.
In trying to make the case for this approach to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury, I asked Jim Ball and Terry Burns, of the London Business School, to run through the effect of a major cut in company taxes in the Budget. To produce this £50 million increase in investment by a cut in taxes on companies would require a £75 million cut in company taxes, whereas the Government have achieved this by Government policies for a mere £10 million. The reason for that enormous disproportion between £75 million in tax cuts and £10 million in grants is that if one makes a tax cut it falls on the just and the unjust, it falls on those who will invest and on those who will not, and some of it has a marginal effect in encouraging investment. But it undoubtedly pays, if one is regulating demand through cycle, to be as highly selective in one's instruments as one can. There are problems in being so.
The first question I should like to ask the Minister is whether this is an outright grant conditional on construction of the plant or a loan repayable in certain circumstances. Neither tie wording of the motion nor Section 8 of the Industry Act, amended by the 1975 Act, makes it clear. It can be in the form of assistance by loan, grant or anything else.
If, when this splendid plant is built, it is found that this additional capacity is employed profitably from the start and that the luck of world markets means that BP, as it then seems, never needed the incentive after all and would have done well if, in its own sole, uninfluenced commercial judgment, it had gone ahead, is it not reasonable that the Government should get some reimbursement of the £10 million?
My second question is this. The grant seems to be up to about 20 per cent. of the cost of the project, which covers at

579
least two years' interest costs, at real interest rates—and, of course, it is real interest rates and not the interest rate which includes a large allowance for inflation which matters in considering the effect of such a grant.
Considering that this project was first mooted a year ago and the size of the grant is sufficient to finance its being advanced for two years, I find it a little difficult to believe that BP needed quite as much money as that to bring the project forward.
The whole chemical industry is poised with many projects in the pipeline. There is a certain amount of stickiness in the approval of projects at the moment. People are holding back for the Budget to see the effect that it will have and how the economy develops in the next few months. But we could have a substantial increase in the chemical industry investment in the next few months. I am referring to approval of projects which will not have an effect for three or four years. This project will not be completed until 1978–79, with the peak in 1978, which could be at the peak of the boom. It seems a little late in the trade cycle to be encouraging long-lead investment of this kind. If there could be shorter lead investment, for example in engineering, this would provide many more jobs in Hull, and I take the importance of that.
What are the criteria for accepting different projects? Why this one? I understand that 50 per cent. of projects proposed are turned down. What were the reasons why some were turned down and others were not? I hope that it is not the formality of their appearing in investment programmes. Many hon. Members have seen projects put in and out of programmes. It is a purely formal process. The judgment that should be made is whether, without encouragement, the company could not be expected to go ahead in the circumstances of the time, taking into account present capacity, competitiveness and demand prospects.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was precisely wrong in saying that there should be a cast-iron commercial case. If there were such a case, BP could go ahead. The case for a grant like this must be just slightly dodgy, so that BP would not go ahead on its own commercial
580
judgment. Otherwise the grant would not be necessary.
Mr. Tom King: There could be a commercial case, but with one tiny snag: one may not have the money.
Dr. Bray: I accept that, but BP can borrow at the moment. When one is trying to find £45 million towards a £50 million project, it is hardly likely that £10 million will make much difference. However, I accept that it helps from the point of view of financing.
The Secretary of State for Industry is statutorily obliged to consult the Industrial Development Advisory Board. That Board should be taken seriously. If it disagrees with the Secretary of State, its advice has to be given to Parliament. I do not see why this should be done only if it disagrees with the Secretary of State. I should have thought that, as a matter of course, the Secretary of State would wish to give the Board's report to Parliament, certainly when Parliament's approval is required for a project. What specific consideration was given to this project by the Board?
Another problem arises over what consideration is given to directly competitive projects from other companies. What if ICI said "We should like one of these too"? ICI currently claims that it smooths out investment throughout the trade cycle. In a speech last year I suggested that it did not, and I promised members of the company that I would correct that false impression.
If ICI is smoothing out investment, however, it cannot make the case for getting a grant like this because it does not meet the conditions for bringing forward a project which otherwise it would not bring forward. But does that imply some sort of Buggins' turn? Does it mean that if BP gets the acetic acid plant ICI will get the next ethrylene plant and Shell Chemicals will get something else? It might be simpler, but it would be wrong if it were done on that basis. The right way to face the difficult problem of choosing which project to go for is to set it in the context of a broader industrial analysis.
What measures does the Department maintain of the pressure or demand in the chemical industry for its products—the pressure of demand among the wide-

581
spread customers for acetic acid, for example, the pressure of demand on its suppliers? Process plant manufacturers have an important interest in the stability of investment in chemicals.
I referred to pressure of demand, not to output. It is the difference between output and the capacity of the industry and its related industries which the Government should be watching. I am sure that they are watching it in a general sort of way. If I might answer for my hon. Friend, I am equally sure that they do not maintain any sort of running analysis of demand on industries which can provide a background for weighing projects like this against one another.
What conditions are attached to the use of United Kingdom contractors and plant suppliers for this project? I am delighted that 1,000 men will be employed during the construction of this plant, but for every 1,000 men employed on site 2,000 more will be employed off-site in engineering factories making the equipment. If they are not employed in this country, they will be employed in Germany, the United States or Italy. I should like some assurance that they will be employed in Britain.
I support the accelerated investment grant scheme generally and this project in particular, but the Minister must answer these industrial and economic questions—if not tonight, on a future occasion. Unless the Department of Industry gets its administration of this scheme sorted out and properly integrated with the making of industrial and economic policy generally, it will get into the most unholy mess and have to abandon the scheme, and we shall not then have many more examples of this imaginative kind.
The Government have taken this necessary first step. I do not blame them in the least for getting on with the job now. It would have been better if they had started the job seven years ago, but at least they are now on the right path.
12.20 a.m.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: I shall be brief, as I am aware that another hon. Member with a direct constituency interest wishes to participate in the debate.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) made a typically interesting contribution and critical analysis of the motion. It is a sad reflection
582
on this sort of debate that such an important question as whether or not the money concerned is repayable should slip out half-way through the debate. It is absolutely critical to know whether it is a grant or a loan. I am amazed that there is misunderstanding about this, and I should like a clear answer from the Minister.
The Minister said that BP Chemicals International is very hard pressed for investment funds. So indeed are my tax-paying constituents. They too are hard pressed. We have a proper right to question the viability and what right the Government have substantially to increase the amount that they are allowed to pay under Section 8 of the Industry Act for an investment such as this.
I should like to direct to the Minister a few specific questions about the accelerated investment grant scheme and, in particular, to ask whether the hon. Gentleman feels that the money is most usefully used by applying it in such large amounts to major capital projects rather than perhaps to some smaller projects. I was interested to read recently that the threshold level for consideration of such grants may be reduced below the level of £500,000. I personally would regard that as a welcome development. I rather regret that such a large tranche is now to be made available. I would question whether this is the first of many that we shall see and whether they will grow larger and larger.
There is an opportunity-cost element, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has mentioned. Many of us cannot understand how even the most ardent Socialist can sanction spending such large sums of money on companies which can well afford, either through reinvested profits or through borrowings, to finance such programmes, when there are industrial projects and companies which would employ many more people and projects in the social field which also have very pressing claims.
Therefore, I seek further clarification from the Minister as to the criteria that he has employed in granting this loan. I also understand that it is a grant that is substantially higher than he would otherwise have considered. There appears to have been some special factors in this case. Just what made him decide to make this money available?

583
Furthermore, I understand that the Monsanto process is to be used by this new chemical plant and that this will be employed under licence from the Monsanto Company. I assume that this will be an expensive licence. Just what are the arrangements with regard to paying Monsanto? How much is involved, and what proportion is that of the total capital cost? Is this included in the cost of some £55 million which has been proposed for the project?
My final comment is that, when questioning the propriety of making available massive amounts of public funds to bring forward the investment plans of industry both to ensure that industry installs capital equipment when the cost is perhaps lower than it would be in a few years' time and to ensure that productive capacity is there in a few years' time, one must question both the viability of the industries into which the money is injected and the opportunity cost. The real problem is that the incentive just does not exist under present conditions for industry to invest that money itself. The real way in which we should be encouraging industry to invest is not by the lavish ladling out of money from Whitehall, which it is now the remit of every corporate financier to seek out, but by instilling an atmosphere of confidence in industry, both by fiscal means, as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw mentioned, and by retracting some of the most damaging aspects of the present Government's legislation in the industrial field, notably nationalisation. That would give industry confidence to reinvest its own money or to draw down loan capital for investment in capital plant.
I question whether the Government have the ability to invest these funds. Would the Government have made such money available for capital investment in the synthetic fibre industry, a highly cyclical industry? I question whether this plant will make the contribution to our balance of payments in four years' time that the Minister forecast. We must proceed with caution, but our priority must be to encourage an atmosphere of confidence in which industry will invest of its own accord without Government assistance.
12.26 a.m.
Mr. John Prescott: In view of the limited time avail-
584
able to us, I shall deal with only one or two points. My colleagues from Hull have already emphasised the point that the unemployment figures in Hull are far higher than the general average. Our unemployment rate has increased to a far greater extent even than the rate in the development and intermediate areas. The problem is becoming so bad that we are becoming known as the "black hole" of Humberside. However, there is not the time to develop those arguments, and the case has been well made by my colleagues.
I welcome anything that is done to improve the job situation in my area. The fact that this measure will bring 700 building jobs to my area is welcome indeed, because we have a huge pool of unskilled workers in the building and construction industry. The fact that a further 150 long-term jobs will be brought into the area is also very welcome.
Having welcomed certain aspects of the scheme, I have certain doubts about the amounts of money involved. We are talking about a £50 million project and there is talk of 20 per cent. grants and sums of £66,000. If the justification behind the scheme is that it seeks to accelerate investment and to assist industry to do somthing to relieve the job situation, we must ask whether this kind of scheme is the most effective way of going about the matter.
I do not deny that what is being done is welcome, but I should like to give one or two examples of what has happened on Humberside, where, as the House knows, jobs are at a premium. Those of us who represent the area are anxious to bring in as many jobs as we can because we want to halt the decline. Certainly the number of jobs lost has been far greater than the number of jobs created. We see in the area a number of industries in decline and significantly less money available for employment projects. I do not think we have looked carefully enought at the totality of investment and development.
Let me give one or two examples. British Petroleum will bring in chemicals by freightliner, but, because of the lack of investment at the Liverpool end, those chemicals will come not by rail but by road. This will mean a further decline in the railway industry.

585
I also wish to point out that the firm of Imperial Typewriters in my constituency was closed down following a multinational decision. The decision which was reached was to the effect that machines would be imported rather than made in this country. If action had been taken early enough, 2,000 jobs could have been saved.
Furthermore, the shipping and shipbuilding industry has liquidity problems involving a sum of £1½ million, and this very week 1,000 men will lose their jobs. That is happening now. The fishing industry is declining and money needs to be spent on it. In that case some 10,000 jobs are involved. There are many areas in which considerable help could be given to save jobs, and I believe that money could be used to preserve jobs, if that is the purpose of the exercise.
The Department of Industry is attempting to help with jobs and grants, but then the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts VAT on luxury caravans and hits Humberside, which is the biggest producer of such caravans, particularly hard. This action loses us more jobs than can be created by a £50 million investment by the State.
These are the sort of problems which arise when one has constantly to offer more carrots to industry to invest in particular areas. This is a carrot to a huge multinational company, and we must question whether the control of its finances are all they should be when public money is being given to the firm.
I cannot say much more because of the limitation of time, but I have reservations about this measure. The Government's regional policies, which are designed to create more jobs, are becoming increasingly suspect. Far too much money is being spent to create far too few jobs. We need a fundamental change, and I hope that the change in my party's leadership might result in a rethinking.
We are bringing a delegation to see the Minister in the next couple of weeks, and I urge him to consider the question of regional employment premium payments to firms in development areas competing with firms on Humberside which, although only an intermediate area, has an unemployment rate higher than many develop-
586
ment areas. This is particularly affecting our shipyards. I was told by a Government Minister recently that it would cost no more than £20 million to extend REP to intermediate areas with unemployment levels as high as those in development areas. That would be a far better way of bringing help to areas like Hull. We must consider a more effective way of using public money to create jobs.
12.32 a.m.
Mr. Tom King: With the leave of the House, I should like to reinforce points which have been made from both sides.
There has been, understandably, almost a desperation in the speeches of hon. Members from the Hull area about unemployment there. Against that background, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) showed courage in questioning whether we are using this money in the most effective way. The Government cannot buy their way into investment on the sort of scale—£6,000 million has been mentioned—needed for this country. There is no substitute for industrial confidence and real investment by industry.
Our acceptance of this measure is only because, against the background of the Government's economic policies, it is a matter of urgency that something should be done. This is very much second best to real investment. The question of Buggins' turn will have to be looked into. I understand that the Government went to BP—not the other way round, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch)—and asked whether the company would undertake this scheme. Whom do the Government choose to approach, and what is their order of priority?
12.34 a.m.
Mr. Carmichael: With the leave of the House, I shall try to deal with some of the many questions raised in the debate. There is not much time left to me. I do not complain about that, because this is an important subject which we could, perhaps, debate more fully at another time, although the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said that he had sat for many hours in Committee and in the House dealing with the Industry Acts of 1972 and 1975.

587
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) asked for information about Section 8 schemes. This is a capital-intensive project. The scheme has been approved by the Government collectively and cleared with the EEC Commission. I confirm that no environmental pollution will be caused by the project.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr Bray) referred to his book. We remember the circumstances in which he wrote it. What occurred was largely a matter of etiquette rather than the contents of the book. I shall bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
BP has large resources, but it also has large commitments in the North Sea and Alaska. Its net borrowing requirement for 1975–76 is over £600 million. The project has been deferred three times in the past three years. The Industrial Development Advisory Board supports the use of the accelerated investment scheme in this case. Reference was made to "Buggins' turn". There is no Buggins' turn. Each case is viewed strictly on its merits, taking into account the market, the industrial context, commercial prospects and the risks.
I was asked whether the money was repayable. The Department had the choice of making assistance available by loan with concessionary interest or by interest relief grant which compounds the assistance into grant form. A loan would be repayable, but it would cost more immediately than would an industrial grant.
My hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), while accepting the scheme, put forward a strong plea for additional effort to get jobs to the Hull area. My hon. Friends welcomed the construction jobs which would be produced by the project. The scheme involves more than the creation of jobs. It gives a great deal more security to British industry. The multiplier effect on employment in Hull will be considerable. If the House approves the motion and if everything goes well, work will be able to start before the end of September this year.
588
I should like to give some idea of how the accelerated investment scheme is administered, for the information not merely of the House but people outside. It is important that industry should realise that the scheme is available. The detailed criteria have been published and widely disseminated through the CBI, banks and leading accountancy firms. The first criterion is that a project should be for new investment or modernisation, or both, with a capital cost, including working capital, normally, but not invariably, exceeding £0·5 million. To go much lower than that would overload the machine, because the Department makes full investigations into whether the scheme has been deferred. Proof must be provided that the project has been genuinely deferred.
Secondly, the project should be a net addition to the firm's capital investment programme in this country—that is to say, it would not take place or it would be deferred but for the Government's assistance. Thirdly, the project should be commercially sound and lead to an improvement in the United Kingdom balance of payments. Fourthly, the project should be planned to commence before the end of September 1976, and projects which would be completed early should be given priority. Fifthly, modernisation projects must lead to significant improvements in efficiency.
The scheme is administered selectively, with each case examined on its merits. The applicant must produce the information justifying the project against these criteria, and an appraisal is then made of the investment proposed and of the company in accordance with the criteria for selective assistance, details of which have been placed in the Library of the House. Other hon. Members who are not quite as involved in this aspect of our interests may also find it helpful to check there in regard to firms in their own areas.
The most critical areas of this appraisal, apart from commercial viability, are the evidence of deferment, the foreign exchange benefits and the ability of the company to start work by the end of September. There are no standard terms for the assistance, which will vary with the circumstances of each case—the scale of the project, the ability of the company

589
to secure alternative finance, its effect in terms of enhanced efficiency and benefits to industry, and the balance of payments. The actual assistance offered will therefore be a matter of negotiation between the Government and the applicant. We would normally regard it as very exceptional to have a ratio of assistance provided to investment value lower than in the present case, which is particularly attractive in terms of the purposes of this scheme.
The form of the assistance can be either loans at concessionary rates of interest or the equivalent interest relief grants. No equity stake is involved. The House will appreciate that, in view of the close attention being given to public expenditure, in general we concentrate assistance in interest relief grant form, since viable companies should be able to obtain most of the finance from private sector sources.
The scheme is counter-cyclical in purpose, and to stimulate worthwhile new investment quickly it is essential to have arrangements which, while allowing a wide range of our successful companies to apply, will enable cases to be processed without undue time being wasted. The threshold for the minimum size of projects was set at £0·5 million since only companies with a sound record, of significant size and with well-developed systems of project and investment appraisal would be in the position of having deferred investment projects above this level. The viability of projects would be much more easily checked with firms like this, and the Government would be assured that they were genuinely deferred.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) asked about Monsanto. BP announced on 6th February that it had signed a licence agreement with Monsanto relating to the process for the manufacture of acetic acid which will be used in the plant. The arrangements between the two firms are a matter of commercial negotiation, and they have been taken into account in estimating the benefits from the project.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to pay, or undertake to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972, as amended by section 22 of, and Part I of Schedule 4 to, the Industry Act 1975, in respect of the construction of an acetic acid plant at Hull by BP Chemicals International Limited sums exceeding £5,000,000 but not exceeding £10,140,000.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Ordered,
That the Licensing (Scotland) Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Harper.]

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

EMPLOYMENT (NORTH-WEST REGION)
12.44 a.m.
Mr. Paul B. Rose: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment will be answering this debate, as we worked so well together on the Industrial Relations Bill when facing the Conservatives at that time. My hon. Friend will forgive me if I raise what at first sight may be regarded as a constituency matter, but it epitomises the problem faced in the North-West and affects about a dozen constituencies in the area.
On Saturday, at my advice bureau I received a deputation of workers from ICI, whose works in Blackley will be closed in four years. Already 165 jobs have been lost and 620 more workers will be affected by 1980. This decision is described as unalterable. In almost all cases, manufacturing operations in the works will cease by 1980, and the result will be that on the north-east side of Manchester there will be little industry at all. Indeed, earlier this year I saw a similar deputation from what is locally known as Connolly's, which relies largely on telecommunications products and on Post Office contracts. Already one-third of its work force has been made redundant. Since then we have had some

591
better news. Indeed, the placing of Government contracts is one of the vital parts of an integrated strategy for the North-West and for the North as a whole, because with the new M62 motorway and the east-west road, together with the railway, we must consider this in terms of one large regional problem.
As for ICI, I hope that my hon. Friend will speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment concerning the pretext which has been given that the new plant in Blackley cannot be built because of environmental difficulty. One wonders why it is not possible to put other chemical products into production—paints, foam and plastics—or, indeed, any non-toxic chemicals, remembering that this is at a time when the chemical industry plans to spend £2,800 million over the next three years in building new plant in Britain. It is in that context that one looks at the situation in the area.
This is all symptomatic of the position in the North-West, the cradle of the Industrial Revolution, which I trust my hon. Friend and the Government will never allow to become also its grave. The problem of the North-West is that it has not had the lobby that areas such as the North-East and Scotland have had, and the situation has deteriorated imperceptibly. If one looks at yesterday's unemployment figures, which, in general terms, are encouraging, one sees that none the less the North-West still has 6·4 per cent. of its employees unemployed—a figure, seasonally adjusted, of 177,600. One can compare that with the figure for Scotland, about which one hears a great deal of outcry, notwithstanding the far better prospects that Scotland has because of North Sea oil. The figure for Scotland is 6·3 per cent. Perhaps a more significant comparison is with the South-East of England, where the prosperous area of the metropolis has a figure of 3·8 per cent. That means that the North-West is almost twice as badly off as the South-East.
If we consider the vacancies, we find that the position is even worse. For the North-West the number of vacancies, again seasonally adjusted, is 10,800 and for Scotland it is 14,200. The position is a little brighter than I would have been able to refer to had I been speaking only two days ago on the figures for mid-
592
February. That is perhaps a tribute to the strategy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and other members of the Government. Money has been injected into the economy on two separate occasions—money which, I hope, will be added to in the near future.
The North-West faces a particular problem, for a number of reasons. It has been permitted to slide unnoticed into this inferior position. But the general level of prosperity in the North-West reveals a rather unusual feature. If we look at Social Trends, the rate of consumption can be seen to be still relatively high. What we discover—and it is essential to isolate these areas—is that there are pockets of poverty and neglect in the North-West, and, therefore, it is in these areas that we must look for Government assistance.
Those pockets seem to be spreading, and I want to know what the Government are doing, for example, to give the sort of incentives to a firm like ICI—an enlightened firm which provides employment in my constituency—to remain in an area like Manchester rather than moving to, say, a development area.
We need an urgent review of regional policy in order to create new job opportunities and even more, in the North-West, to safeguard existing jobs, many of which are imminently threatened. In their strategy the Government may offer some rather icy calculations with regard to the cuts in expenditure and the theory behind their policies. They have to be modified to a degree by very important human considerations.
Looking at a map of the North-West and taking Cumbria, the coastal strip—the Fylde coast—Merseyside, and even those meccas of Rugby League like Whitehaven, Workington, St. Helens, Widnes and Wigan, together with North-East Lancashire, we see the reflection of the decline of industries such as cotton and coal and these are perhaps the worst-hit areas. But this is spreading, and I see no reason why the development status of Merseyside has not been enough to protect Liverpool other than that further action is necessary and that the Government must look closely at the steady decline of the North-West, with all the skills and potentialities that are available there.

593
Why, for example, would it not be a good idea for the future headquarters of the nationalised aviation and shipbuilding industries to be placed respectively in Manchester, which is a great centre of aviation, with Hawker Siddeley, and shipbuilding in Liverpool? That—or, at least, one or other of them—would be an example of direct action that the Government could take.
Clearly there are parts of Lancashire which have borne the brunt of the competition from cheap imports. To take a comparison, although it is always invidious to do so, Scotland receives a much higher level of Government assistance under the Industry Act 1972 notwithstanding Scotland's better prospects and the figures that I have given for job vacancies.
I ask the Minister to consider a special stimulus for the North-West—indeed, for the North of England as a whole, because we must not minimise the position in the North-East. We do not want to be two nations, the North and the South.
There is no doubt that the first package of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer allocated a fair amount to the North-West with 32·7 per cent. of jobs safeguarded by the temporary employment subsidy, 21·5 per cent. of jobs created by the school-leaver recruitment subsidy and 14·4 per cent. of jobs made available under the job creation programme. But is it satisfactory to employ people virtually to dig holes and fill them up again when there are other possibilities?
I rember an Adjournment debate that I had in the early hours of the morning on the HS146 project, the airbus. It seems to me that, even if it were not commercially profitable, it would be more profitable in terms of the balance of payments to keep the airframe industry going and to help employment in the North-West especially if we proceeded with a project like that, rather than employ people on jobs created specially to cut down unemployment. It makes little economic sense to pay people quite large amounts in social security instead of having them at work creating the wealth of the nation.
In the North-West, the footwear, clothing, television tube, telecommunications
594
and construction industries need special help. Carefully-imposed selective import controls on cheap Asian products—television tubes come immediately to mind—are justified. I have never before believed that they were desirable, but we are in a crisis situation. Almost one-quarter of those employed in the clothing and textile industries are in the North-West Region. We should look at the Thorn Electrical situation at Skelmersdale, the television tube plant at St. Helens which has been closed, and Mullard's. All these companies have been badly hit and are important industries on which whole communities depend. I would welcome the placing of orders by the Government and a purchasing policy which would have a direct impact on the region. I would also welcome aid for building and construction within the National Health Service and a major sum for Operation Eyesore, which has been terminated.
One of the area's difficulties is industrial obsolescence. That sort of environment will not attract bright young executives. It is necessary to provide the sort of environment and infrastructure upon which industry depends.
I appeal to the Minister for an allocation of offices to the North-West. I am fairly satisfied with the number of advance factories, but they will be underused unless there are incentives to fill them.
Over 12 years the region gained only 4,200 dispersed Civil Service posts and 850 new ones. I am delighted that the Equal Opportunities Commission has been set up and that 400 people will be employed by it in the area. That, however, is a drop in the ocean. Much more is needed to tackle the problem. More apprenticeships are needed from employers and the industrial training boards.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has announced the creation of new skillcentres in the Middleton and Prestwich constituency, Rochdale and Preston as a result of the Training Services Agency review. I welcome that, but it is only one item among many which we need. There are signs that the Government are responding to the needs of the area, and I hope that this debate will assist in bringing on faster recognition of those needs.

595
I believed that regional policy was one of the good reasons for this country joining the EEC, but it is ludicrous that out of £38·8 million spent on projects and decided not in Brussels but in this country only £3 million has gone to the North-West. That is less than half the average, leaving aside the special needs of the North-West. The EEC Regional Fund should be channelled westwards, away from the prosperous heartland of the Community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) would also like to take part in the debate. We must look at the problem as a whole with an integrated strategy. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give an ear also to the special problems only 30-odd miles away from Manchester, with a view to developing the North-West as a great centre.
The North-West has a great airport, a canal and all the facilities for shipping. It has great skills, and it has a great history in industry. It could also have a good future in tourism. Where better than Manchester from which to see the beauties of North Wales, the Trough of Bowland or the Lake District, or to take a trip to Stratford-on-Avon or even to London for a few days? Apart from Wales, the North-West is the area most neglected by foreign tourists.
I ask my hon. Friend to look into these matters with a view to injecting new life and prosperity into the very area upon which Britain's prosperity was founded.
1.2 a.m.
Mr. Eric Ogden: Adjournment debates are usually matters between one hon. Member and one Minister, so I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Under-Secretary and the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) for allowing me a minute each of their time to make a few comments. I should be less than grateful if I did not say that it seems an excellent example of co-operation between Minister, Manchester and Merseyside, which is what this short debate is about.
First, I wish to emphasise that Merseyside and the North-West have always seemed to be among the first areas to be hit by a recession and the last to recover when prosperity comes to the rest of the
596
country. For many reasons we ask that the North-West should have a special call on a Labour Government.
Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind not only that the North-West has special problems but that special skills are available in it which are not available in the rest of the country. It has opportunities for investment and expansion and it has a mobile work force skilled in electrical, industrial, commercial and other activities.
I urge my hon. Friend to have a proper regard for the interdependence of not only Manchester, North Wales and South Lancashire but the whole of the northern industrial area. We have long passed the time when the problems of the North-West could be settled in the North-West alone. We must look at the axis of the M62 and at the north of our trans-Pennine ridge, from Merseyside, Lancashire and Yorkshire through to Humberside and the North-East Coast. We have common problems that can be solved, with Government help and support, if we look at the problems and opportunities of the area in a northern context. I ask my hon. Friend to use all his power and influence to help the efforts being made by the industrial development associations and local authorities to look at the problems as a northern region.
I thank both my hon. Friends again for the opportunity to take part in the debate.
1.4 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): There is precious little time left for me to reply. Perhaps I may begin by telling my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) that, as somebody who has lived in Cumberland, whose wife is from Salford and who spent his last holiday on the Leeds to Liverpool canal, I have a knowledge of the area and have considerable sympathy with those experiencing the problems not just of Lancashire but of the whole North-West.
I cannot answer my hon. Friend's detailed comments about ICI dyestuffs, which are mainly a matter for the Department of Industry, but I shall make sure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of that Department.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the HS146 aircraft. The Government

597
are financing a considerable amount of work at HSA Hatfield to maintain a sufficient tempo of effort so that it is feasible fully to relaunch the project if and when that seems to be justified. The Organising Committee for British Aerospace, and later the Board, will give high priority to that question.
I fully accept that unemployment in the North-West is unacceptably high. Moreover, it is bound up with a number of special regional situations—some areas are cut off, like parts of Cumberland, for example. The regional unemployment figures mask considerable variations within the area. The Government recognise, for example, that Merseyside in particular has an extremely serious unemployment problem, and we are fully committed to bringing down the present unacceptably high level of unemployment.
Although unemployment in the North-West has increased proportionately less than in the country as a whole, this is in part a reflection of the fact that even a year ago unemployment in the region was extremely high. I accept, therefore, that a great deal more needs to be done, not only to bring down unemployment in the short term but also over the longer term to reduce regional disparities.
My hon. Friend welcomed the reduction in the unemployment figures announced this week. It does not amount to a great deal in the North-West, but it is good to see a turn in the tide. But we have not turned the tide completely. We still have a long way to go, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was right to point out the real hardships for those who become unemployed through no fault of their own and that we must not be complacent about the recent welcome but very modest change in the figures.
A great deal of concern has been expressed about unemployment in terms of prospects for young people—rightly so, because they have their vision blunted most by the effect of unemployment. The Government share this concern because it is important to a person's self-esteem to be able to get a job quickly on leaving school or college, and we know how demoralising prolonged unemployment can be. This is why the recent Government measures were deliberately angled to help young people.
598
Those measures do not solve the basic long term problem of unemployment, but it was right in things like the job creation programme to do what we could to mitigate the worst effects and to ensure that when the upturn in world trade comes the country is well placed to benefit.
The North-West has had a considerable benefit from those measures. In the job creation scheme up to 12th March, 177 projects had been approved in the North-West, providing 2,318 jobs at a cost of £3·21 million. I must reject my hon. Friends suggestion that this is simply a matter of digging holes and filling them in. The programme is much more helpful, constructive and satisfying than that. There is no reason why the sort of Operation Eyesore projects he mentioned should not be undertaken under the programme.
Under the temporary employment subsidy scheme, up to 19th March 91 applications had been approved, saving 8,533 jobs in the North-West at a total cost of £4·09 million. The recruitment subsidy for school leavers up to the end of February resulted in 5,749 applications being approved.
We expanded the Community Industry Scheme, and the region now has 500 places spread between Liverpool, Knowsley, Manchester and St. Helens. I accept, however, that in relation to the total number of unemployed in the North-West the numbers helped under these schemes have risen relatively small, but they have brought some relief to the area and have proved of particular benefit to young people.
In August last year over 26,000 young people were unemployed in the region, and the present figure is 3,714. That fall gives some idea of the success of young people concerned in finding employment and of the considerable impact of the Government's measures.
Again, a measure not aimed exclusively at young people but also looking at our future prospects was the increase of £70 million to strengthen and accelerate the training programmes, both to alleviate the effects of high unemployment by increasing training opportunities for individuals and to help industry safeguard the long-term supply of skilled manpower. In all, over 40,000

599
people will benefit from these measures, many of them young people.
On 12th February this year, as part of a set of measures designed to reduce unemployment, the Government allocated a further £55 million for special training in industry. It is hoped that this will produce an extra 30,000 to 35,000 training places in industry in 1976–77. The combined effect of both sets of measures will be to provide between 60,000 and 65,000 extra training places within industry and to increase the target of the number of people to be trained under the Training Opportunities Scheme in 1976 by over 12,000. In addition, training allowances have been increased.
The North-West is likely to benefit substantially from the measures to support training in industry. It is not possible at this stage to give precise figures of the allocation of grants and awards to particular regions. However, it was recently estimated that over 1,700 awards or grants have so far been made in the region.
Under the Training Opportunities Scheme, a total of 10,661 trainees were trained in the North-West Region Training Services Agency in 1975. The target for 1976 for the North-West is 12,700. A substantial proportion of this training is carried out in skillcentres. The North-West already has a more than proportional share of skillcentre places in relation to its population compared with Great Britain generally. There are eight skillcentres and two annexes in the region. A further two at Rochdale and Preston are expected to be operational in late 1976 or early in 1977.
The recent measures to stimulate training should not only benefit the North-West in the short term but should help to ensure that the region has the requisite skilled men and women available when the upturn comes.
Perhaps I may turn to the problems of particular industries and to those measures which the Government have taken to help them. The region should also benefit from the recently announced schemes for the modernisation of particular industries and for selective
600
assistance to encourage companies to bring forward deferred capital projects.
The recent measures to help the construction industry should also be of benefit to the region. Of the £24 million allocated to the English regions on 24th September, just over £6 million is going to the North-West. The region is also to receive £8 million of the £50 million allocated to improvements on public sector housing.
The Government have, of course, recently introduced further restraints on imports of textiles, clothing and footwear. In addition, the Government are providing £20 million to the clothing industry to raise productivity through modernisation and re-equipment.
The Government have undertaken schemes of Stockbuilding. The National Enterprise Board is already discussing with the machine-tool industry ways of providing for the finance for the stockpiling of machine tools of types which are expected to be needed during the recovery. In regional development grants, £40·7 million was paid out in 1974–75 and £22 million in the first half of 1975–76 towards the cost of investment in industrial machinery and buildings.
Twenty-seven million pounds was paid in 1974–75 on the regional employment premium. Payments this year are expected to be around £40 million. There has been assistance under Section 7 of the 1972 Industry Act. Thirty-nine advance factories have been allocated to the North-West in the six programmes announced in July 1974. In addition, the Department of Industry has received authority to purchase land against future advance factory requirements in Tame-side, Oldham, Rochdale, Colne and Bury/Heywood.
The dispersal of Civil Service posts to the regions is, of course, an essential component of regional policy. Between 1963 and October 1975, 4,200 existing Civil Service posts were dispersed from London to the North-West Region and 850 new posts were created. In fact, the has done best of all the English regions. Current plans provide for the dispersal of about 4,500 more posts and some 600 new posts are also to be set up in the region. In addition,

601
the headquarters of the Equal Opportunities Commission has been established in Manchester and will be employing some 400 staff by 1978.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening,
602
and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at fourteen minutes past One o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
  School Meals
  School Meals
  House Building
  House Building
  Devolution
  Devolution
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Irvine
  Irvine
  Economic Affairs
  Economic Affairs
  Social Work
  Social Work
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Education (Television Service)
  Education (Television Service)
  Fishing Limits
  Fishing Limits
  Rothesay (Surgical Unit)
  Rothesay (Surgical Unit)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Prison and Reformatory Costs
  Prison and Reformatory Costs
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Larkhall Industrial Estate
  Larkhall Industrial Estate
  Handicapped Persons (Glasgow)
  Handicapped Persons (Glasgow)
ENERGY
  Coal Exports
  Coal Exports
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  British Petroleum Shares
  British Petroleum Shares
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (BICENTENARY)
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (BICENTENARY)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Nutrition
  Nutrition
  Skimmed Milk Powder
  Skimmed Milk Powder
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Milk and Beef Stocks
  Milk and Beef Stocks
ENVIRONMENT
  Caravan Sites
  Caravan Sites
  Vehicle Testing
  Vehicle Testing
  Housing (West Lancashire)
  Housing (West Lancashire)
  A6—A600, Bedford (St. Johns Bridge)
  A6—A600, Bedford (St. Johns Bridge)
  Ports (Handling Facilities and Road Communications)
  Ports (Handling Facilities and Road Communications)
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Compulsory Purchase Orders (Hitchin)
  Compulsory Purchase Orders (Hitchin)
  Departmental Forms
  Departmental Forms
  Council House Building
  Council House Building
  Departmental Custody Guards (Dispute)
  Departmental Custody Guards (Dispute)
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Stranraer—London (Coach Link)
  Stranraer—London (Coach Link)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Penal System
  Penal System
  Boundary Commission for England
  Boundary Commission for England
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (STAFF)
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (STAFF)
  Equal Opportunities Commission (Staff)
  Equal Opportunities Commission (Staff)
INDUSTRY
  Steel Prices
  Steel Prices
  SERVICE PERSONNEL (LONDON)
  SERVICE PERSONNEL (LONDON)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Toxocariasis
  Toxocariasis
  Children in Care (Secure Accommodation)
  Children in Care (Secure Accommodation)
  Child Benefits
  Child Benefits
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Doctors (Pay)
  Doctors (Pay)
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Students
  Students
  Hospital Beds (Brent and Harrow)
  Hospital Beds (Brent and Harrow)
  Meals on Wheels
  Meals on Wheels
  Health and Personal Social Services
  Health and Personal Social Services
  Family Fund
  Family Fund
  Pornography (Use in Hospitals)
  Pornography (Use in Hospitals)
TRADE
  Suits
  Suits
  Paper and Board (Imports)
  Paper and Board (Imports)
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
  Ships (Purchases)
  Ships (Purchases)
  Commodity Agreements
  Commodity Agreements
WALES
  Health and Personal Social Services
  Health and Personal Social Services
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Bahrain
  Bahrain
  Consuls (Visits to British Subjects)
  Consuls (Visits to British Subjects)
  Ocean Island (Phosphates)
  Ocean Island (Phosphates)
  Angola (Mercenaries)
  Angola (Mercenaries)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Industrial Injury
  Industrial Injury
  Property Demolition (Compensation)
  Property Demolition (Compensation)
DEFENCE
  Aircraft
  Aircraft
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Soviet Missiles
  Soviet Missiles
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers
  Teachers
  School Building
  School Building
  Cambridgeshire Grammar Schools (Selection)
  Cambridgeshire Grammar Schools (Selection)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Yield (Industry)
  Tax Yield (Industry)
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
  Government Debt
  Government Debt
  Departmental Forms
  Departmental Forms
  Farms (Taxation)
  Farms (Taxation)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Local Authority Borrowing
  Local Authority Borrowing
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Tomatoes
  Tomatoes
EMPLOYMENT
  Distributive Industry Training Levy
  Distributive Industry Training Levy
  Departmental Forms
  Departmental Forms
  Training
  Training
  North-West Region
  North-West Region

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

NORTH SEA FISHING RESTRICTIONS
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree that, unless the catches not only of cod but of herring, mackerel, and luxury fish such as salmon and lobster are drastically restricted over the next two or three years by international agreement, the whole North Sea fisheries industry will die.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government are fully aware of the need to conserve fish stocks and the United Kingdom has consistently pressed for measures within the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. Quota controls for cod, haddock, whiting, soles, plaice and herring are already in operation, together with other restrictions on gear and landing sizes. Lobsters are protected by minimum landing size regulations, and there is a total ban on fishing for salmon in the NEAFC Convention area outside national fishery limits.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that this continuous bullying of Iceland by Her Majesty's Government is doing this country no good in the world and that it is also putting NATO, upon which we are absolutely dependent for our defence, in the gravest jeopardy? In view of the fact that, as the noble Lord himself said, conservation of fish stocks is the only answer to the North Sea's fisheries problem, does he not think that it would be better to come to an agree
634
ment with Iceland as quickly as possible?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord's supplementary questions. It is not bullying to protect British trawlers which are legitimately fishing in international waters. The naval protection afforded is purely defensive, but it is essential while Icelandic gunboats continue to harass our trawlers.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, arising out of this Question and the obvious troubles of frigates in the fishing world, would the noble Lord suggest to the Government that it is time we had a Minister who is really responsible for the whole of the fishing problem?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I will certainly take note of what has been said and pass it on to those who are responsible for these matters.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the attitude we have taken in relation to the 200-mile limit claimed by Iceland is absolutely correct and that it is essential that our trawler-men should be assured of their safety when fishing in distant waters whose limits have not yet been established internationally at 200 miles? Further, can the Minister stop the Russians and others in the North Sea from using small meshes to catch the young fish?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right, as he usually is. The Government support the concept of 200-mile limits by international agreement at UNLOSC. As the House is aware, the Conference is now meeting in New York. To act unilaterally now could prejudice our position at the Conference, and other countries would not agree to be bound by a unilateral move on our part. With regard to the Soviet Union, we shall take note of what my noble friend has said, although the Soviet Union are members of NEAFC.
Viscount MASSER EENE and FERRARD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what applies to the North Sea fisheries applies also to the fisheries on the West Coast of Scotland? For the last two years we have caught hardly any mackerel there. Is the noble Lord further aware that the reason is

635
largely that three years ago Her Majesty's Government had an arrangement with Norway and that three Norwegian factory ships were being supplied with herring fry from many local boats? Is the noble Lord also aware that, having cleaned out the herring fry, there is no natural food for the mackerel and other fish to feed upon, and therefore this has ruined the fishing?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there are restrictions on industrial fishing for mackerel in the North Sea and these are already in force. Measures covering the Western stock—the other major source of mackerel—will be considered. We shall certainly note what the noble Viscount has said when the International Scientific Working Group that is studying the situation produces its report later this month.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the restrictions with which he seems to be so pleased are utterly useless so far as herring stocks in the North Sea are concerned: that fish of all sizes are taken by factory ships and that the inshore fishermen on the East Anglian coast are suffering very considerably as a result?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, in answer to the noble Earl, I can assure him that the Government are not complacent about this matter. I agree that the herring situation is serious. That is why the United Kingdom has been instrumental in calling a special meeting of NEAFC which will take place in London next month when this and other measures will be discussed.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the basis of this trouble is that the sophisticated equipment to be found on the largest trawlers and factory ships today is so accurate that a very small number of them can decimate the fish stocks in a large area in a few years? As the noble Lord has said, successive Governments have been fully aware of the urgency of this problem for 15 or 20 years, but they have continually been overtaken by events, and it looks as if they are still being overtaken by events.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there are of course regulations as well as quotas on mesh sizes, minimum landing sizes
636
for fish, and so on; but these are all matters which continue to exercise the Commission when they meet. The NEAFC Joint Enforcement Scheme which was set up in 1970 enables inspectors from one Member-State to board and inspect vessels of other Member-States to ensure that catches and gear comply with the recommendations of the Commission.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the only way to overcome this problem is by international agreement, and that means that those who are parties to the agreements, whether in the past or in the future, should adhere to them?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Earl. The NEAFC quota schemes are still relatively new, but I believe they will prove to be an effective method of conserving stocks. As the noble Earl has said, it is only through co-operation and agreement that effective conservation measures can be achieved.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in view of the fact that supplies of fish from the sea are likely to be reduced in the coming years—for all the reasons that have been mentioned—can my noble friend give an assurance that the Government will pay far more attention than has been the case in the past to the question of establishing a really large sized fish-farming industry?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this is certainly something that has been considered and a Working Party is sitting at the present time.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I should like to ask one last question. Is the noble Lord aware that in the years when I was Member of Parliament for East Aberdeenshire we exported every year over 1 million barrels of herring to the Continent of Europe and to Russia; that now the great summer fishing off Scotland and the great autumn fishing off Yarmouth and Lowestoft is extinct and we are exporting no herring? Is he aware that herring, which once one could buy at six for sixpence—that is in old money—is now a luxury fish? That is a scandal. Will the Government give an assurance that they will at least take international

637
action to put a stop to this overfishing and that they do not contemplate a continuation of the cod war with Iceland for an indefinite period?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there is already a ban on industrial fishing for herring, together with quota restrictions. Her Majesty's Government will press for whatever further measures are necessary.

USSR DISARMAMENT PROPOSALS
2.46 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been their response to the proposals made by Mr. Brezhnev at the recent Party Congress in Moscow for (1) the ending of nuclear weapons tests, (2) the banning and destruction of chemical weapons and of new types of weapons capable of mass annihilation, (3) the examination of the question of ending the arms race in the Middle East, (4) a world treaty on the non-use of force in international relations, and (5) the convening of a world disarmament conference at the earliest opportunity.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is discussing these questions with the Soviet Foreign Minister during Mr. Gromyko's current visit to London.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming that Answer, may I ask the Minister whether the fact that one of the two supreme Powers has now made these proposals does not mean that they are now on the world agenda and would Her Majesty's Government support urgent consideration of these proposals in the United Nations?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, all these proposals are currently being discussed multilaterally and, in addition, as I said in my original Answer, we shall be talking to the Soviet Foreign Minister about them this week. However, while we subscribe to all these objectives
638
so admirably summarised in my noble friend's Question, we must insist upon effective verification.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that perhaps the criterion on which one should decide whether or not these admirable objectives should be pursued is whether or not the Helsinki Treaty is observed by the Soviet Union both in the spirit and in the letter?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly these objectives coincide closely with the objectives of the signatories to the Helsinki Agreement. The Helsinki Agreement of course did not go into the detail that these various discussions are intended to do, and certainly did not enter into the vital field of effective verification.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we are only too anxious to believe that the Russians mean what they say, but would he not agree that recent events justify our scepticism?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, most countries give cause for scepticism at some time or another. It is the purpose of Her Majesty's Government to pursue single-heartedly but practically every possible opportunity for arms control and disarmament.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, with regard to the fourth part of the Question, is it not the case that once upon a time we had a pact called the Kellogg Pact for outlawing the use of force in international affairs—and what happened to it?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords—whatever happened to the Kellogg Pact, or package? Article 2 of the United Nations Charter expresses exactly the objective of the Kellogg Pact, and indeed of the Soviet proposals which we are now considering; that is to say that all members of the United Nations should abjure the use of force in international relations.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government are taking the opportunity of our Russian guest being here to discuss the problem of the freightage of their cargo

639
ships compared with ours, which is very bad for our shipping industry? Would he not agree that it is a wonderful opportunity to have a very good discussion on this very important subject?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is an important matter. While I cannot give a guarantee that that particular matter, important as it is, will in fact be discussed this week, I will convey the desires of the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, to my right honourable friend.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether it is not the case that, while the Kellogg Pact and the United Nations Charter laid down certain principles, what is necessary now is that technical details should be carried out in the fulfilment of these proposals? May I also ask him whether, if there is doubt about their sincerity, it might not be best to make a test of these proposals?
Lord GORONVVY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords. There is continual discussion by very capable experts of all these questions. This kind of discussion is going on now. Among the fundamental questions are not only the technological ones, but also procedural questions of verification. Our friends in Eastern Europe believe that verification can be conducted on a national basis. We disagree. We do not think there can be effective arms control leading to disarmament without international verification.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether we need be lulled by statements of this kind from the Soviet Union so long as my noble friend Lord Brockway is neither Minister of Defence nor Foreign Secretary?
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that the nuclear weapon and chemical biological weapons are very different from other weapons of war, in the sense that they are indiscriminate and furthermore can spread all over the world? Would the Government bear in mind, therefore, that these weapons are quite different from the sort of weapon used in an attack on one particular objective?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure the whole House has listened, as always, with respect to my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones, who himself is an expert in this sphere. We are well aware of the peculiar differences between nuclear and chemical weapons and the more traditional type of weapons.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, the repeated assurance of the noble Lord the Minister that something is required in respect of international verification is, I think, welcomed. Would he go further, however, and say that if some kind of real international verification were achieved progress might be very dramatic?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, indeed I would. I think we probably have the size of the technological threat, but we cannot cope with that until we have fully assessed the psychological need for assurance, and that means international verification. We must work on that point. I gladly give the assurance asked for by my noble friend Lord Gore-Booth, that we believe that if effective verification were agreed on, then progress in real disarmament would be inevitable.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that, apart from the opinions of individuals relative to the Minister from the Soviet Union coming to this country to meet the Foreign Secretary on the basic issues that confront both countries, the nation itself will gladly welcome the visit because they will be able to discuss many of the questions concerning many Members of this place and the other place in their talks? We can rest assured that the Foreign Secretary will be able to put forward the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I entirely agree with the spirit and content of my noble friend's interjection.

EEC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: APRIL BUSINESS
2.54 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, a Statement is being made in another place today about the business to be taken in the European

641
Economic Community Council of Ministers during April. As usual, I will arrange for the Statement to be made available in the Official Report.
Following is the Statement referred to:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement about the business to be taken in the Council of Ministers of the European Community during April. The monthly forecast for April was deposited yesterday.
"The Heads of Government of the Member States will meet in Luxembourg on 1st and 2nd April. There is no formal agenda for these meetings, but on this occasion the Tindemans report on European Union, Direct Elections to the European Assembly and unemployment in the Community are among the subjects likely to be discussed.
"At present five meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for April. Foreign and Finance Ministers will meet together on 5th; Foreign Ministers on 6th; Agriculture Ministers on 5th and 6th; Development Ministers possibly on 5th; and Social Affairs Ministers possibly on 29th April. There will be an informal meeting of Finance Ministers on 26th April.
"Ministers at the joint Foreign and Finance Council will consider the external financial commitments of the Community and will undertake an overall review of Community budgetary questions.
"At the Foreign Affairs Council Ministers are likely to discuss the outcome of the European Council to be held on 1st and 2nd April. They may also consider the problems nosed by the creation of a 200-mile fishery limit; passport union; progress of the work in the four Commissions set up following the Conference on International Economic Co-operation; relations with Portugal, the CMEA, Greece and Iran, and tropical products in the context of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Ministers will have before them the arrangements for the signature of agreements with the Maghreb and will review progress in the negotiations with Spain.
"Agriculture Ministers will discuss amended arrangements for beef imports, provisions for sugar imports from ACP countries during 1976–77, the exclusive use of butterfat and milk proteins in dairy products and a number of proposed measures for improving agricultural structures.
"Ministers at the Development Council are likely to consider development co-operation issues arising in the discussions of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation. They may also discuss the estimated trends for gross Community aid payments to the Third World financed from the Community budget or by Member States; the implementation of the resolution on the harmonisation and co-ordination of development co-operation policies within the Community; Community financial and technical aid to non-associated developing countries; possible Community participation in the International Fund for agricultural development, food aid following the World Food Conference and relations between
642
the European Communities and non-governmental organisations specialising in development co-operation.
"The informal meeting of Finance Ministers will discuss unemployment.
"Social Affairs Ministers will have an exchange of views in preparation for the World Employment Conference, and will also consider the employment situation in the Community."

SEYCHELLES BILL [H.L.]
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Seychelles of fully responsible status as a Republic within the Commonwealth. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

OBSCENITY AND THE LAW
2.55 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD rose to call attention to the weakness of the law with regard to obscene publications and indecent displays and the need to strengthen the law to make it effective; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in opening this debate I should perhaps explain why it is I who am doing it, and not the natural leader in these matters, the noble Earl, Lord Longford. It is simply a matter of convenience, that my noble friends on the Front Bench were able to give today for this debate, and it fitted in well with the joint delegation which is shortly to be received by the Home Secretary. I should say in explanation that if the mantle of Elijah somewhat envelops Elisha, perspective will be restored later when the true prophet himself speaks.
My Lords, I am opening this debate, conscious of the difficulties of the subject. Most people prefer to ignore it, and past experience of legislation has shown just how difficult it is to get the right balance between freedom of expression on the one hand and a reasonable control of pornography on the other. My justification for troubling your Lordships today is my belief that the existing law is failing, despite the best efforts of the police

643
and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I believe that today there is widespread anxiety among many people, especially among parents with young families, at the great volume of increasingly offensive pornography being produced and publicly displayed. I think that the failure to secure a conviction in the recent case of R. v. Hatiatt has triggered off this growing sense of public alarm. If a court cannot find that the Linda Lovelace book is obscene, then the law really is defective.
The Statute law depends mainly on the 1959 and 1964 Acts. Both Acts declare, in their Long Titles, that their purpose is to strengthen the law with regard to pornography. As the reverse has so clearly happened, to my mind there is an obvious obligation on the Government to take action to implement the wish of Parliament. All of us experienced people here know very well there is nothing new about this pornography problem. Indeed, it has troubled all civilisations throughout the ages. What is new in our time is the dimension. It is hugely expanded by the modern means of communication, and the great strength of the financial interests behind it, so that today, instead of the occasional pornographic book or picture which 50 years ago used to circulate under the counter, modern production today can produce and is producing a flood of material which is appearing on every street corner.
What is also new in our time is the thought that public interest might best be served in this sphere by removing all legal restraints. I feel I should say a word about that later. But our starting point must be that traditionally, all public opinion has considered that pornography is harmful and should be restrained. Certainly that is my belief, and I must put it on the record. I believe pornography has a corrupting effect on the minds receiving it. Probably older people have the strength of mind to resist it, if only by turning away from it; but young people, especially teenagers, are very vulnerable.
In my judgment, pornographic ideas are dangerous because they lodge in the mind. They lodge like the eggs of an icnumen fly, which hatch out, become living things and feed on the guts of the
644
victim. The ideas of the pornographer do the same thing: they lodge in the mind, they spawn into prurient imagery which feeds off the mind of the victim and consumes all the decent feelings there. This creates an appetite for ever more extreme forms of pornography. It takes a great effort of will to rid the mind of this seductive stuff—and seductive it is once planted. A Christian would say that he is helped by an act of grace. There is the modest commercial for the right reverend Prelate sitting opposite.
I turn now to the argument of the removal of all legal restraints. I suggest that this must be considered, as I have said, in the perspective of history: that all mankind up till now has regarded pornography as dangerous and needing control—that is to say, potentially polluting. Today, when great efforts are made by all of us to protect our environment against physical pollution, it really would be inconsistent if we took no notice of this threat to pollute the moral life of the nation. I suggest that, as with any other potentially dangerous substance, there should be no legal relaxation until there is convincing evidence that it is safe. I am aware, as I am sure all noble Lords are, that in some countries—and I suppose Denmark is perhaps the leader in this—experiments are being made where they have removed all legal restraints. But the reports that I hear—no doubt we shall hear of others in the debate—are conflicting, and I suggest that the right course is to watch what happens in the corning years. It is a beguiling suggestion that this would be the easiest way to deal with it; it would save everybody a lot of trouble. But it would be some years before we can safely reach the conclusion that all legal restraint could be removed. I suggest that in the meantime we should try to make our law here more effective, and I suggest that there are two main aspects that need attention.
First, there is the definition of "obscenity", as set out in the 1959 Act; and, secondly, there is the control of films and displays. We are fortunate that in the debate this afternoon my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley will be speaking; indeed, he will be making his maiden speech. Perhaps these are rather rough waters for a maiden voyage, but I am sure he will safely negotiate them. He

645
was the Home Secretary who introduced the 1973 Bill on Cinematograph and Indecent Displays, and I regret that noble Lords and the present Government did not continue with it. I see also that a Law Commission Report which came out yesterday had some comment to make in this field, too. So we shall hear some helpful advice from my noble friend in this particular field of how the law might go.
I will turn now to say a word about the weakness of the 1959 Act, as I see it. There the definition of "obscene" in Section 1(1) is to define obscenity as a tendency to deprave and corrupt persons. That sounds common sense, but in the courts it has been a nebulous and difficult concept to prove. Therefore, I suggest that should be dropped and that primarily the Act should rely on the general meaning of the word "obscene"; that is to say, that obscenity would be left as a matter for the jury to decide. For myself I would be content to rest on that.
It has been suggested, and I think it is worth considering, that to that offence should be added the offence of what is grossly offensive to contemporary standards of decency. I believe that means something specific in the minds of everybody. They may have different judgments about what it is, but I believe that would be a helpful second definition in the Act. I should mention in passing that there is an alternative approach, which I believe the police prefer, of specifying in a Schedule the various matters which are to be regarded as obscene. This has its attractions, but on the whole they do not appeal to me. I shall be interested to hear what others think.
The second weakness of the Act of 1959 is the defence of public good given in Section 4. This, I imagine, was put in in order to protect works of art, literature and science, and in so far as that intention was concerned personally I would go along with it. But, unfortunately, at the end of the section on public good "other objects of general concern" is added; in other words, the section has opened the defence to anything which can be pleaded as public good, and the section allows for expert witnesses to be called to make out a case. So what has happened here is that defence lawyers have skilfully used Section 4 on the
646
defence of public good, to establish that the most extreme forms of pornography, like the Linda Lovelace book, can confer a public good, because in the judgment of expert psychiatrists and doctors who gave evidence, this material has a therapeutic value for patients suffering from sexual disorders.
My view of this is that these experts, in so far as their evidence is valid, are experts in the abnormal, and their evidence does not have a general application. It would be a strange form of medical practice which prescribed to the whole community a special and potentially dangerous treatment or drug suitable for a sick patient. That is what this amounts to. I am interested to see that the Law Commission have also picked up this point and have recommended that the defence of public good should be limited to literature, art and science. In my view, too, that is how it should be. I hope that would be the second main amendment to the law.
My Lords, may I say in conclusion that this problem seems to be in the context of the general conservation of our national life. In the past 30 years I have been fortunate enough to play a part in the prevention of pollution in the environment, particularly of our rivers, and have had the satisfaction of seeing some measure of progress in that field, especially in recent years when public opinion has become more aware of it. So I now express the hope that there might be a similar measure of success in the next 30 years—most of which I shall not see—in checking the pollution of the mind of the nation, which I see threatened here. That will be much easier in cash, because in the field of rivers it costs thousands of millions of pounds to achieve, although it is much more difficult in the field of definition of what constitutes pollution. Definition of pollution in this field depends on an act of moral judgment which must express the collective feelings of our people, through Parliament, and ultimately in legislation to be implemented through the courts.
I suppose it is right to ask of me whether I think that our people have the moral strength of mind to make such a judgment. Well, I certainly do. I have a great admiration for Alexander Solzhenitsyn, but I do not agree that we

647
in the West—and in this country particularly—are completely decadent. In a free society like ours weaknesses are lived openly, unlike in the Soviet Union to which he is accustomed, where there is an official facade which conceals a great many frailties. Maybe we do have too much selfish indulgence here; that is perhaps only human. But my belief is that the average Englishman is still strong in the qualities which made us great: integrity and decency.
I believe that our countrymen will follow a firm lead from the top, from Her Majesty's Government, and that a move in this field to check the pollution of our family life and the national life would make a very useful contribution. I hope that we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, today, and from the Home Secretary when he receives us in a few days' time, that they are willing to give such a lead. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.11 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, I am happy to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, alike upon the choice of the debate for this afternoon and the reasonable and quiet efficiency with which he has introduced a subject which must be of great importance and demands radical action. Let me follow his good example and immediately nail my own ecclesiastical colours to a mast—the mast of a ship in which I think the officers and crew sitting immediately in front of me are in complete agreement. There is a specific and deplorable meaning to the adjectives obscene and indecent, in that they are particular in the sense that they have an articulate relationship to a particular practice, of which pornography is the noun. But there has been such a great tendency towards the increase of such obscene and indecent publications that this in itself is to be deplored, and every right and proper method should be used towards a diminution of what is a manifest evil by any standards of civilisation, and not least by the standards of the Christian faith, which I seek to hold.
If we link this particular moral problem with the law, then I think it will not be inadvisable if, in the first beginnings of this debate, certain of the fundamental
648
issues which lie behind the application, or non-application, of the law should receive consideration. Therefore, I shall presume to speak in the first instance of one of the basic weaknesses of the law as I see it, a weakness which is all the more to be seen when the interpretation of pornography is left to juries.
We, in the Christian Church, have a not too enviable record. I have listened from time to time to various criticisms of Christianity, and one of the most trenchant of them, which is not as frequently used as I feared it might be, is that there is little evidence in the original documents, if you like to think of them as the New Testament records, of the teaching of our Lord as to what in fact is decent and what is indecent in the sexual field. Therefore, a great deal of the interpretation of what is pornographic and what is morally decent, what is sexually acceptable, comes to us not directly from that original teaching but from an interpretation, in order to fill the gap, by great leaders of the Christian faith, such as St. Paul who, if you will remember, said that it is better to marry than to burn (he was referring, of course, to desire and not to faggots) but his inference was that it would be better, on the whole, to do neither. This history quickly of Christian reaction officially to the role of sex was summed up when Augustine regarded the whole thing as a massa damnata, which has a robust Latin sound to it which is not essentially diminished if you think of sex, as he did, as a damned or condemned lump.
It is perfectly true, and quickly ought to be added, that from time to time the Christian Church has modified this extreme view, but inasmuch as the original canon laws were couched in terms which, in the main, reflected the attitude of celibate clergy, it is not surprising that their attitude was one of great care not only to specify the dangers but also to regard the penalties as equally obligatory. Their varieties of religious experience were obviously small compared with those which are so loudly advertised today. But one of their attitudes which still persists, and which must, I think, corrode the minds many times of jurors today, is that what is unusual can be regarded as peculiar; what is peculiar can be regarded as unnatural; what is unnatural can be regarded as sinful;

649
and what is sinful ought to be regarded as criminal, in this descensus averno which in each stage is arbitrary and un-Christian. But it does reflect the attitude of a great many people today who believe that sexual behaviour and sexual concerns are possibly right in private but for public exhibition are entirely wrong. Until we can persuade those who will be required to implement such legislation as we think is right and proper, it will be necessary to clear away this undergrowth of misapprehension and misunderstanding in order to represent sex, and particularly the various and delightful ways of sexual enjoyment, as part of the conferment of God upon his creatures to be taken with responsibility.
This leads me to the second matter. If this is the weakness, or part of the weakness of the law—and I will specify other weaknesses later on—the strength of any law consists in its reputability in the minds and hearts of the majority of people who are expected to respect it. It is because there is such a widespread lack of intelligent appreciation of what are the evils of pornography that I would venture to delay your Lordships for a little to describe what I have seen, and, as I think, would be all the better with a wider publicity in the general mind.
I do not know very much about corruption, or the specific results of pornographic titillation. What I do know is that the sex drive is one of the most powerful, and that if it is over-exercised, or if the invitation to it, as the noble Lord quite properly said, is over-emphasised, then there is the likelihood that there will be a basic imbalance in the background and life of those who are constantly bombarded with sexual invitation. It is the proliferation of such sexual invitation which I think is one of the most dangerous of all the imbalances to which young people in particular are exposed today.
In the second place, I believe that the trivialisation of sex is probably a major reason for this situation, and it should attract the opposition of every civilised person. Unless sex is regarded with a sense of responsibility and not as innocuous as blowing your nose, washing your face, or laughing, or taking part in any of the other immediate exercises in which humanity is able to indulge, unless sexual practices are set within a framework
650
which regards them with a seriousness which such a powerful drive demands, then it is, on the whole, deleterious and its effects must be dangerous.
I would add one third reason why I am convinced that pornography has a major influence upon what decadence we can see in the community today. There is an intimate and quite well recognised relationship between sexual frivolity and violence. I have listened to a great many people talking about the incidence of violence today, the way to correct it, and where it springs from, and so on. Any psychologist worth his salt is well aware of the fact that there are elements of this intimate relationship within pornography as a presentation of sexual activity, let alone sexual activity itself. The aggressiveness and the selfishness, and the actual violence of sexual behaviour, has only to be seen in many of the illustrations on the Underground, to warrant the kind of comment that I have tried to make.
With the caution of the unhappy background of a totalitarian view with regard to sex in which the Church, not able to pronounce with any great authority on some of the more social and economic matters has strained itself to the utmost to express dogmatically a point of view which has seeped into the minds of all kinds of people who no longer attend Church services, I would think that there is a paramount case for strengthening the law in two ways: by the recognition, in the first place, that the law as it stands carries, as a kind of residuary legatee, ideas about sex which are basically unchristian as well as utterly unassimilable in a modern society. To strengthen the law demands at the same time that we should acquaint those who are to make their response to any such legislation with the basic structure of the argument not to spend too much time talking of corruption, which is a very vague word, but to talk of the imbalance of the trivialisation of sex, of its intimate relationship with violence, and, therefrom, to induce the result which, I believe, most reasonable people would make that we cannot afford to treat this profoundly important drive in a frivolous manner.
The question which remains is this: to what extent will legislation be available and be effective? I appreciate that one

651
cannot make people good by Act of Parliament, though I am not so sure that the Chinese would agree with that. However, I think there is a large realm in which one can not only make it more difficult for them to be bad but one can create a climate in which they will find it the easier and the more acceptable to try to be good. If we in the Church have from time to time emphasised all too greatly the purely personal obligations of the Christian faith, here is an opportunity to recognise that that Christian faith and, indeed, that civilised society depends almost as much, if not quite as much, on the surrounding environment, for those who breathe a clean climate are likely themselves to be clean.
I believe that the noble Lord is entirely right in endeavouring to transfer the kind of definition away from the tendency to corrupt and to leave it very largely, as I saw in an article or letter in the daily Press the other day, to an intelligent response on the part of 12 good men and true who will be aware of what is the basic connotation of pornography and will be ready to regard it as a moral affront to the kind of society which we desire. I believe that is so. I will not trespass further on the time of the House, except to say—as, I am sure, noble Lords will allow a Minister of the Gospel to say—that I believe that nothing in this world can ever be fully expressed and justified until it is seen Sacramentally. I am not asking at this moment for any rigid code of sexual morals. There is wide divergence as to what love can do in the purification of many irregular alliances. I am concerned to say that unless the idea of sex is linked to the ultimate purpose of man, that idea will go a begging and we shall be the worse. It is for that reason that I heartily commend the noble Lord for what he has said and hope that there will be a fruitful outcome of his demands.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, has the noble Lord considered the possibility that crude pornography can be violently anti-erotic? I visited a play called "Oh! Calcutta!" the other day and on the way out there was behind me a nice middle aged couple. He turned to his wife, touched her on the shoulder and said, "Well, my dear. I am afraid that's the end of sex for us for at least a year."
652
That does happen sometimes; crude pornography does not stimulate eroticism.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, speaking as one who is relatively the same age as the noble Lord, it would not surprise me. Most of my ideas about pornography are now retrogressive if not, I was going to say, almost of the past. However, I would think that whatever may be true of middle-aged couples paying the occasional visit to "Oh! Calcutta!" the general impact on youngsters travelling on tube trains is that they will be considerably disenfranchised in their true and proper vocations by a proliferation of sex and the crude pornography which has increased, as some of your Lordships will know, on the posters.
3.26 p.m.
Viscount NORWICH: My Lords, I should preface my remarks by a brief, if potential, apology; at about seven o'clock this evening I shall be forced to leave the House. I hope that I shall be able to stay till the end of the debate—certainly I shall be here until very near the end of it—but if by chance I fail to be here at the closing stages, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me. I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for raising this matter today. I am grateful particularly in that it allows me to get a number of views off my chest. I yield to no one in my respect and admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who has spoken far more articulately, cogently and logically and with far greater authority than I could ever hope to do. Yet despite that, I am afraid that I find myself in the unfortunate position of having, with great humility and respect, to take issue with both of them.
In considering this matter, we really must be rather more realistic than we have been to date. In the immortal words of Miss Marilyn Monroe 15 years ago, "Sex is here to stay" and, with sex, here also to stay are its concomitants, of which there are many, but I suppose the two principal ones are prostitution on the one hand and pornography on the other. It has always seemed to me that we in this country have been remarkably enlightened in regard to prostitution in that we have never actually made it in itself an offence. Loitering, soliciting and things of that sort have been an

653
offence but we have been content, sensibly and rationally in my view, to accept that it exists but to keep it within decent and reasonable bounds because we know it is there and that we should be foolish if we tried to brush it under the carpet and pretend it was not. I only hope that we shall be equally sensible in relation to pornography because pornography is here, it cannot be done away with and we cannot legislate it away, however hard we try. What I hope we can do—I shall come to this later—is once again to try to keep it within reasonable, moderate and decent bounds, if that is not a contradiction in terms. More than that we cannot hope to do.
If we try to go too far and try to legislate it away completely, what shall we succeed in doing? We shall sweep it under the carpet and create a black market in pornography. Those who want it and, I say in all sincerity, those who need it, will, I hope, continue to know where they can find it and will continue to go and get it but they will be forced to pay greatly inflated prices for it, the pornographers will grow richer and richer and the law will be brought into disrepute. I hope that we have seen this happening enough. Nobody could have seen it better than in the 1920s in America in the days of prohibition. That succeeded in only one thing, which was to produce enormous fortunes for the bootleggers and the proprietors of speak-easies. I am told that in the very few States in America—I believe there are two—and certain other countries in the world where prohibition continues to this day it is kept in force largely by the bootlegging lobby, who are reluctant to see a superb source of income and profit disappear.
Any law that cannot be enforced is, by definition, a had law. It brings not only that particular law but the whole concept of law into disrepute. It makes people less respectful of the rule of law than they were before. The law is something which must be respected, and it is very important not to allow it to be unnecessarily abused and disregarded. This point is made even more serious and urgent in the case of pornography by the fact that there is a very considerable and reputable body of opinion which believes that, in certain cases, pornography is not only not harmful but is necessary.
654
It is perfectly true to say that this may only apply to those who are already abnormal, but I suggest that, in this particular field, there are a very great number of abnormal people—far more than any of us know. The sexual drive stems from within ourselves. It is not like alcohol—an external force—but is there within all of us. Far more of us may, for all we know, be abnormal than is apparent. We ourselves-I myself and many of your Lordships—may, possibly unknowingly, be abnormal in these respects and I believe that it is not true to say that the abnormal must, by definition, be very few, and that for that reason we need not bother about them in framing laws. I believe that there are a great many abnormal people who may be helped by pornography.
I feel it is interesting and significant to remember that, in the recent case of the prosecution of the book Inside Linda Lovelace—a case which, so far as I could make out, succeeded in doing nothing but immeasurably enriching both the publisher and the authoress—it was necessary for those who wished to prosecute to go all the way to Australia to find a psychiatrist who was willing to come to this country and stick his neck out to the point of saying that pornography was in all respects inevitably and always harmful. I do not believe that it is and, even if it is—
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Viscount has his facts wrong on that point, but it does not affect his main argument.
Viscount NORWICH: My Lords, so long as that is the case, perhaps I may continue. I believe that the situation is such that there is a reasonable element of doubt. That in itself will encourage those who wish to break the law to feel that they are not doing anything wrong in doing so.
So much for the rights and wrongs. Next, there is the problem, which has already been touched on this afternoon, of defining the meaning of obscenity. It is more than a problem; it is an impossibility. We have already heard we already know and do not need reminding—that the phrase, "a tendency to deprave or corrupt" is meaningless and futile. It has failed again and again. I do not

655
feel that it cuts any ice to say that there was, six months ago, the case of a man who committed some hideously bestial crime—I do not remember what it was but that does not really matter very much—who said that he had been led to it by the fact that he had been to see the film "The Exorcist". He said that it had excited him to such a pitch of irrational lust that he did not know what he was doing. Nor does it seem pertinent to refer to the case which, I believe, was mentioned in the report on pornography by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, of a man who, late at night, raped a woman whom he had never met and said that he had been reading pornographic literature or looking at pornographic photographs for two hours beforehand and that it had stirred him to such a pitch of passion that he was no longer responsible for his actions.
These seem to me to be perfectly natural cases of people who were in trouble and ashamed of themselves and who, very understandably and naturally, wished to transfer a small portion of the blame to something else. Even if what they claimed was true—and I am not sure that it was—how do we know how many other cases there are of potential rapists and beaters-up who have been able, through the reading of pornographic literature or through looking at pornographic pictures, to get rid of their tensions in this way and who have not gone out and beaten up or raped some innocent person on Wimbledon Common in the middle of the night? It is impossible to say how many there are and, without such statistics, I do not feel that one or two isolated examples of the other kind mean anything at all.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, suggested in his report that we should change the definition of pornography and should decide that obscenity meant anything which had in its entirety the effect of outraging contemporary standards of decency and humanity, as accepted by the public at large. That sounds all right, except that we have to think about whether the public at large is very easily outraged. I do not believe it is. We are here this afternoon bewailing, deploring and worrying about the fact that there has been an enormous spread—an
656
explosion—of pornography up and down the country, right, left and centre. I suggest that pornography would not be exploding in all directions if there were no public for it. Four years ago, when we were debating the same subject, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, pointed out that "Oh! Calcutta" was already in its second year, was playing eight performances a week to roughly 1,000 people at a time and that it had already been seen by something like 50,000 people. In fact, the mathematics of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, were slightly wrong but the principle was right. I checked in the newspaper yesterday, and "Oh! Calcutta!" is now, to quote The Times, "in its sixth triumphant year". The Duchess Theatre, where it is now playing, seats 499 people, so that, by any standard of calculation, the piece must have been seen by over a quarter of a million of the British public. The British public is not outraged. The British public has not protested. There have been no riots inside or outside the theatre. If we are worrying about the effect on the British public, its only complaint about "Oh! Calcutta!" which I have ever heard is that it is terribly disappointing and exceptionally dreary—an opinion with which I am totally in agreement, having seen it myself. I defer once more to the noble Earl.
The EARL of LONGFORD: My Lords, may I put a question to the noble Viscount? If bullfighting were introduced into this country, does he not believe that it would be very easy to fill Wembley time and again?
Viscount NORWICH: My Lords, I believe that that may very well be the case, but if we could stick to pornography this afternoon I believe that we should do so. Bullfighting is a large and difficult subject, and I feel that we have more than enough on our plates this afternoon-without starting on bullfighting. I shall be delighted to speak on bullfighting whenever the noble Earl would like me to do so, except possibly this afternoon.
I have suggested that it is impossible to legislate successfully against pornography. It has also been pointed out that it is virtually impossible to define because one man's pornography is another man's art. Yesterday's obscenity is tomorrow's A Level set book. What can one do?

657
Perhaps all this is academic. Even if we could successfully legislate against and, indeed, define pornography, should we do so? I believe that we should not. I believe that every man has the right to read what he wants in the privacy of his own home. I deeply resent being told what is good for me so long as there is no danger of my corrupting the public or children and so long as I do not cause a public scandal—as long as I do not frighten the horses!
I believe that we must differentiate very carefully between crime, felony, on the one hand, and sin on the other hand. I speak with humility. I cannot, like the noble Lord, Lord Soper, speak with authority on moral subjects and sin, but I most earnestly believe that it is no function of the legislation of any Government to lay down the law about matters which should be private between a man and his own conscience.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a regular flow of unsolicited pornographic literature passing through our postal services and that that must be inspired by a desire for profit?
Viscount NORWICH: My Lords, I am coming to that point. None the less we must differentiate between crime and sin. Crime is a matter which affects the public. It involves offences against the public; cases against which the public should be protected. This is the proper field of legislation. Matters which exist, or should exist, between a man and his conscience are not. What I do in private is my own affair. What I do in public, in so far as it affects any other innocent members of the public, who are adult, and who do not wish to be involved in such activities, is a matter for legislation.
Here—at last—I come to the point where I am entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and I believe that something could, and should, be done. Unfortunately pornography, obscenity—whatever one wishes to call it—is no longer entirely a private matter. It has now exploded to the point where we have it all around us all the time, and we cannot escape. It is corrupting the atmosphere. I use the word "corrupting" with a slight feeling that it should be in inverted
658
commas, because it is very hard to decide on a degree of corruption, or even to establish whether corruption exists. We may not know very clearly whether pornography is deeply harmful. We may not know how much harm it really does. But one thing we can all agree upon is that it is extremely ugly, and ugliness is something which the public has a right to be protected from. I believe that we could easily strengthen—
The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER: My Lords, the noble Viscount will not forget that he said that one man's pornography was another man's art.
Viscount NORWICH: I have not forgotten that, my Lords. Even if we are to try to control the amount of public pornography on hoardings, in advertisements, in films, in publicity, on the sides of buses, or alongside the escalators on the Underground, we shall have a hard time. Nevertheless, in this particular case it may be worth doing; even if occasionally we are deprived of perfectly innocent pictures of the Rokeby Venus advertising the National Gallery if, in return, we may also be spared the pictures of the star of the Whitehall Theatre, whose admittedly magnificent frontal development goes half way across Northumberland Avenue. That would seem to me to be a small price to pay.
It may be difficult to draw the line, but in this particular case let us draw the line at a slightly more rigid level. It does not matter; no one will actually complain that he cannot see Miss Linda Lovelace topless, or whatever it is, on a hoarding in Shaftesbury Avenue. What people will justifiably complain about is being told that they may not read a book which they want to read because other people, who think that they know better, regard it as pornographic.
To wind up, it seems to me that pornography is very like smoking, but not quite so harmful. Those who wish to do it should be allowed to do it, provided that they do it in private and do not "louse up" the atmosphere for everybody else. Let them. It is probably bad for their health. But it is their health, so let them mug it up if they wish. But please, please, do not let them also spoil our enjoyment. I resent having my atmosphere spoiled, whether it is by tobacco smoke from other people's half

659
extinguished cigarettes, or whether it is by publicity for films, underwear, or whatever, displayed outside cinemas or alongside the escalators. Let all of us be allowed to breathe the free air in the outside world through which we walk every day. Let us, in our own homes, be allowed to do what we like.
3.44 p.m.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, it is a great honour to address your Lordships' House for the first time. I must confess that I feel slightly uncomfortable doing so from this apparently exalted position at the Dispatch Box, and I might feel somewhat happier if I were on the Back Bench, where I was sitting the last time I made a maiden speech in this Chamber. This is not the first time I have spoken here, although it is the first time that I have addressed your Lordships. When, a long time ago, I was first elected to Parliament, your Lordships were sitting elsewhere and your proper Chamber had been taken over by the other place. It was from almost exactly where the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, is now sitting that 26 years ago, all but two weeks, I made my maiden speech to the other place. I still have here those terrible notes, and as I grip them again I can feel my clammy hand around them, my shaking knees, and my dry throat. I never dreamt that I would make another maiden speech addressing your Lordships' House.
At least, I am not quite as terrified today, and I hope that your Lordships do not take that remark as any lack of respect for the terror which you ought to instil into a new Member. I have less terror, partly no doubt because of 25 years' experience of being fired in the heat of debate elsewhere, but mainly because in the two weeks in which I have had the honour to be a Member of your Lordships' House I have been even more impressed than I expected to be by your courtesy, tolerance and friendliness. If it is your Lordships' practice to give to a maiden speaker more than your normal standard of tolerance, patience and kindness, I suspect that I may feel that I have been transferred not just to another place, but to the other world, perhaps having got in while Saint Peter was looking the other way.
660
My Lords, this is a very difficult and and very important subject which arouses strong feelings. Fortunately, on the whole, they are not Party political feelings. But the feelings are strong enough to make it a little difficult to maintain the proper non-controversial nature appropriate to a maiden speech. All I can do is to try my best to express my own views in a positive way, rather than argue against views held by other people. It is certainly not at all difficult, within the proper non-controversial context, to thank and congratulate my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for bringing forward this subject for debate today, and to say that I am sure that in doing so he is reflecting both the concern of a large and, as I believe, increasing number of people and a growing desire for Parliament to strengthen our legislation in this field.
It is also perfectly easy for me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Soper, for his contribution, and for pointing out the limitations of the law, as well as drawing attention both to some of the basic evils in pornography and to the fact that without a more profound and personal approach and leadership in moral behaviour the law itself is certainly not likely to be very effective. I should be the first to say that it can be no more than a supportive framework.
I must confess that it is somewhat more difficult for me to refer to the speech of the noble Viscount while at the same time maintaining the degree of non-controversiality that I should wish. I believe that he made a valuable point in stressing the danger of trying to over-legislate. But perhaps he will forgive me for at least saying on this occasion—although on some other occasion I might go further—that it seemed to me that some of his arguments might lead in the direction of under-legislating, or perhaps even not legislating at all. There I would not find it possible to agree, because I agree strongly with my noble friend who moved this Motion that the law is necessary and it needs strengthening.
As your Lordships may know, when I was Home Secretary I introduced a Bill in another place to deal with one aspect; namely, the aspect, essentially, of indecent public display. That Bill obtained an unopposed Second Reading in another place and completed its Committee stage

661
without undue controversy. It was then overtaken by the General Election of two years ago, and I must say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that I am rather disappointed that he and his right honourable friend the present Home Secretary have not seen fit to reintroduce that Bill, or at least something like it. I must also say that I now believe strongly, in a way that I did not three years ago, that it is also now necessary to amend the law relating to obscene publications.
My Lords, most of us, thinking as we do, on the sort of lines I have just been indicating, do so, I think, by our instinctive judgment of what seems right and wrong and of what we feel more people are thinking and wanting, and by applying our common sense and experience to what we see happening all around us. This is sound enough, and it is very important that these voices, our voices here, should be raised in Parliament. But I think that if Parliament is to legislate on such a delicate and difficult subject, and above all if the Government of the day, whatever their Party may be, are to give the lead or at least the support without which an attempt to legislate is unlikely to be successful, then it is necessary for us to try to justify what we believe is needed more rationally, in terms of basic principles of public policy and the proper role of the State in a democratic society.
I believe that there are at least two such basic guiding principles by which support for stronger legislation can be argued. The first of these basic principles that I have in my mind is the principle of freedom itself. Of course, much of what we object to is, I recognise, although I think paradoxically, defended in the name of freedom and of personal liberation; but this seems to me largely (not entirely, but to a large extent) a spurious claim, because it confuses liberty with licence and ignores the undoubted fact that the motive for most of what is done to which we object is pure commercial exploitation. Freedom means, does it not?, the right to do one's own thing—but within limits; only to the point where doing one's own thing begins to stop other people from doing theirs. Freedom for a whole community, in other words, depends on consideration and respect for other people's interests and
662
feelings; and this can be achieved only when our own natural and sometimes erring and weak instinct for self-discipline is guided, and in the last resort reinforced, by a framework of rules and standards. At the intimate level of the family, of course, these rules are informal and unwritten; but at the national level, for the whole of society, these rules have to be formal and are, of course, what are enshrined in the law. It is the law, and in the last resort only the law, which protects each one of us from other people's excesses, and other people from ours. In my opinion the present law relating to pornography is patently failing in this fundamental function, and that is the basic justification for seeking to strengthen it.
I really do not think one has to be a prude to feel that many of the displays and advertisements which strike our eyes, whether or not we like it—no longer in just a few relatively limited areas of big cities, but increasingly wherever we go—are anything but an offence to ordinary decency and to the standards and feelings of the majority of people, particularly, perhaps, of parents bringing up children. It is a form of pollution; it is a serious erosion of the reticence and the quality and standards of everyday life. This sort of display does not liberate anyone: rather it serves to enslave—and, above all, to enslave women. This is not freedom: it is a commercial assault on the freedom of the majority of people. This is the basic case, I submit, for up-to-date and enforceable legislation to control indecent public display, such as I put forward in another place when I was Home Secretary. That is not a case for censorship of what people can deliberately choose to read and to see: it is a case for protecting people from being forced, without choice, to read and see what is seriously offensive to them—and that case is, I believe, an unanswerable one.
That, my Lords, brings me to the second and much more difficult guiding principle of public policy; namely, the role of the State in laying down basic standards of right and wrong for what individual people can lawfully acquire, see, read and do, even in private. Here we are talking not about defending people's freedom by protecting them from the excesses of others, and from being forcibly exposed

663
to what they do not wish to be exposed to, but about restricting what individual people are free to do by deliberate choice, and even in private, when they are apparently not interfering with or injuring other people in any way. This is a much more serious and, I would agree with the noble Viscount, a much more debatable matter, however our judgment finally comes down. Some people, of course, say that the State has no right at all to impose such restrictions on what individuals choose to do in private; but this has never been the accepted view in Britain, despite our long and very strong tradition for personal freedom. Nor, in my view, should it ever become the accepted view in Britain. But we must, I believe, recognise that restrictions on personal choice and purely private action ought to be much more limited and narrow than what it is right to impose on public display, where the object, as I have already said, is mainly to protect the majority of people against involuntary exposure to material which they believe is offensive and dangerous.
This is why the laws dealing with indecent public display and obscenity, as we now call it, must be dealt with separately and should not, in my view, be mixed up together. In my view they both now need dealing with, and dealing with as a matter of urgency; but let me emphasise that the need, as I now see it, for new law to deal with obscene publications is not because of a need which I perceive to inject any new principle of restriction. It is required—my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford brought this out only—because the present law is failing to fulfil its own declared objective. The Long Title to the 1959 Obscene Publications Act, as my noble friend reminded us, states that its purpose is:
"… to provide for the protection of literature; and to strengthen the law concerning pornography".
I believe that recent cases make it clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the law is now failing to achieve both these declared purposes, and so I repeat that it is not to introduce some new principle of restriction but to make the declared purpose of the law effective that I, at least, ask for it to be reformed.
How are we to do this? Certainly the present law on obscenity will need to be
664
amended in relation to the definition, although there are various ways to deal with that, as my noble friend made clear in his opening speech. Also, as he made clear, it will certainly need amending in respect of the present definition of the defence of the public good, because the way in which the public good defence can succeed on the grounds that pornography has some therapeutic value in certain cases seems to me to be dangerous nonsense. It really is like saying that because some patients can benefit from, and indeed need to have, the prescription of a dangerous drug, that drug should be on sale without restriction to everybody. I believe that the present definition of "defence of the public good" will have to be changed, but the nature of the necessary amendments need very full study because they are, as has already been said in this debate, very complicated and difficult. I should be trespassing too much on the time of the House if I were to embark on a description of the various detailed possibilities.
So, my Lords, may I sum up. In making the case for strengthening our legislation in this field, I have sought to depend on two basic principles of public policy. There are many other important supporting arguments such as those we have already heard in speeches in the debate so far, such as those included in The Times leader of 30th January and a further article in The Times on 5th February; but I have depended on those two basic principles. My conclusion is that we should agree strongly with the main proposal in this Motion, that the law in this field is too weak and needs to be strengthened; and, secondly, I believe that we should say to the Government that the first step we ask for ought to be the re-introduction of the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill, or something very like it—and I say that because, relatively speaking, this is easy. It has a very large measure of support which has nothing to do with Party divisions, so that it is a relatively quick and easy way of taking action of a kind which I believe would be much appreciated. It would, one hopes, clean up the streets—and perhaps also the shops—in a way equivalent to that which was achieved in another context by the Street OffencesAct of some 15 years ago. I think I can agree with my noble friend in that area. It might

665
also succeed, if we were to clean up the streets in that way, in reducing the appetite for pornography. If it did that, that would be an even more fundamental gain.
My Lords, my third conclusion is that, having acted quickly—because we are ready to act quickly—on the law in relation to indecent displays, we should follow up at a later date with the much more difficult and, no doubt, more controversial, task of amending the law relating to obscene publication. That I believe requires some preparation; so I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that I would hope that the Home Office and the Government generally might consider preparing a report which could be in the form of a Green Paper or some people might like to see some form of Parliamentary Select Committee which could be requested for our benefit to set out in advance of any Bill the possible Amendments to the law on obscene publications so that we may consider the various alternatives and the various advantages and disadvantages of at least three different fundamental lines of approach. So I urge the Government to act in this matter and to act quickly, because I believe it is a real need and because I believe that a growing number of the public demand it.
4.4 p.m.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, I am happy to congratulate the noble Lord. Lord Carr of Hadley, on his maiden speech. I would call him my noble friend if any ex-Speaker ever had any friends from another place. The noble Lord brings to this House the breadth and depth of his experience in the other Chamber. He has much to give us and we have had today a specimen of his wisdom, particularly in the field to which he has devoted much of his time in the House of Commons as Home Secretary. There are certain intimacies in the House of Commons which he has lost. We welcome him to the intimacies of the House of Lords, which are equally precious. Before I begin, may I say that in a long life I thought I understood what was meant by a liberal non-conformist conscience until I heard the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich. I must now reconsider all that I knew about liberalism and non-
666
conformism since the day when I was a boy at my Liberal father's feet.
I hesitated to join in this debate and I do so chiefly because my noble friend Lord Nugent urged me to. Like so many, I am one of those who sidle away when people cast the first stone; but I believe that this debate is important and I would thank my noble friend Lord Nugent for raising again, as it was raised some four years ago, this important subject. Most of my life has been concerned with children, especially handicapped children. Christ was peaceful, gentle and kindly and yet he said of whomsoever hurts a child that,
"It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea".
This to me is a basic statement of life. Our children live in a dangerous, materialistic society. In view of the general tenor of the debate which will follow my speech, let me say that most children are coping with this society despite certain defects in the media. In our schools and universities we have youngsters never so healthy, never with such opportunities and never so much taking advantage of their opportunities and, even more important, throughout our young folk, a willingness to help people less fortunate than themselves. Let me give a simple example. I learned this week of a seven-year-old boy, the son of one of the staff of the Commons Library, called Brian Pound, who walked 12 miles in a charity walk a few days ago on behalf of Help the Aged. I could give 1,000 illustrations of the young folk of ours in the schools and the universities and factories who are reaching out to help others despite the materialistic media.
But it is the new generation that is endangered in ways more subtle than any children encountered when you and I were young. To me, the grave danger is what is being called the pornography of violence—not sex and its precious wonders but sex plus violence, sex plus abnormality, sex plus cruelty and, indeed, violence and cruelty without sex. The Marquis de Sade has been rescued from his madhouse at Charenton to become a trendy figure in this generation of ours; to become a philosopher.
A few days ago, there was in London a scientific conference on the environment, and Professor McClintock, director

667
of the School of Criminology and Forensic Studies at Edinburgh University, said:
"Violent sex crimes can be seen as an indication of general attitudes to both sexual behaviour and violence.
"In these spheres there is a growing trend to exploit for commercial purposes and for entertainment physical violence and the physical aspects of sexual behaviour."
Violent pornography is a growth industry. There is money to be made out of the corruption of youngsters, and we have almost reached the stage where to prosecute a "bad" book is to advertise it—and only to advertise it. Therefore I would hope that this debate, with the Bill dealt with yesterday in another place, will help our children to achieve what we seek for them. Professor McClintock also said that there could be a closer link between changing sexual mores and sexual violence than some people would have us think. He mentioned some of the disturbing examples of new criminal sexual conduct, which I need not describe to anyone who reads our newspapers today.
I took part in debates years ago in another place which led to the abolition of the horror comic—an obscenity if ever there was one—and at that time I worked with a colleague in America who was a distinguished psychiatrist, Dr. Wertham. Over there, in a life devoted to helping the young victims of a sick society in the slums of New York, he has consistently urged in his books that if children are exposed to media which steadily portray violence, cruelty and cynical disrespect for the old values, one cannot be surprised when they go wrong. Dr. Wertham was bitterly attacked by the horror comic industry in America. Their profits were at risk, and he was defeated.
The violence shown on television in the United States has to be seen to be believed. There is at least some correlation between the violence of television in America and the extraordinary violence of the crimes in the great cities of the United States. Our own television is much better, but it is not faultless. In a study of the revolt that took place at Kent University in Ohio in 1970, the author wrote:
"In the average dramatic situation shown of television, a solution is found through immediate action, often through non-legal channels. That the action is violent is not so important, apparently, as the fact that it by
668
passes the normal legal processes. Taking things into one's own hands, which triumphs in thousands of television dramas, has become a way of life."
If violence in universities is at least partly the effect of the media in literature and television on university students, or at least on the semi-intelligent minority of university students, one cannot fail to realise its effect on less intelligent children who never reach university or college. What can save such children—what indeed does save so many such children—is the influence of father and mother, of a good home, a good school, a youth club or a church fellowship.
In my youth the customs, habits and ways of life were shaped in the home; but for many families, as the Crowther Report said some years ago, the old mores have gone and Church and parental influence, even parental care, have disappeared. A friend of mine from my county council days used to advocate the teaching of parenthood to young parents. I believe that if all parents accepted their responsibilities there would be fewer vandals and juvenile delinquents.
We now place on the shoulders of teachers heavier burdens, moral and social as well as intellectual, than ever before. Some parents leave everything to the school; but real education is a triangular partnership of parent, teacher and child, and the task of the teacher who has to deal with a child whose parents could not care less or who are even hostile, becomes very difficult indeed. I believe that it is in our schools that the battle to preserve real values is being fought—and it is in all our schools, not only the Church schools. It is a mistake to think that only the Church schools give moral and spiritual education. When a child leaves school at four o'clock, or half-past four or whenever it is, and goes out into a vastly different world—into a world with a vastly different ethos from that he or she enjoyed at school—it is a world of Wordsworth's,
"getting and spending, we lay waste our power."
It is a world of violence; it is a cynical world. And so, if by State action we can assist in the preservation of values, and in the prevention of some of the evils we know exist today—the rape of minors, indeed rape itself; child battering; child nelect; child corruption; vandalism and a record number of juvenile crimes in

669
London last year—then I think one would sacrifice a little bit of personal freedom towards that end.
I was horrified to read some days ago that the National Council for Civil Liberties were seeking to lower the age of consent and to enact that incest and homosexuality at almost any age between consenting persons should be allowed. That is liberty gone mad. The first long war in our history was to win freedom. Having won it, I think we have to fight for discipline; and in a free society that discipline must be free discipline, freely imposed by oneself. But the ambience and atmosphere created by the media can help, and the law can help, at least a little, to curb the worst features of obscenity and corruption. I am one of those who think that Christian and non-Christian, politicians of the Left and of the Right, those of any faith and those of none, can surely work together for the protection of children from those forces which seek, consciously or unconsciously but certainly profitably, to deprive our children of their high destiny as children.
Viscount NORWICH: My Lords, before the noble Lords sits down, may I put a brief point to him. At the end of his speech he referred to the recommendation by the National Council for Civil Liberties for a diminution in the age of consent. May I suggest that the noble Lord has fallen into a very popular misconception here. The idea of the National Council for Civil Liberties was not simply to make it legal for men to have intercourse with girls at a younger age than before. It was to keep boys of 14 and 15 who inevitably—though perhaps not concerned with rape or even intercourse or anything like that—are involved in sexual experimentation of a juvenile kind, as they have always been and will invariably be, from landing up in the criminal courts. That was the purpose of this suggestion.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, I understand that there is difficulty about this from both points of view. But we have drawn the line at 16, and I would not shake that line for anything.
4.20 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, the House has listened, as always, with great attention to the noble Lord who
670
has just spoken. We have indeed listened to five notable speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was clearly the ideal person to open this debate. Apart from his great personal popularity here, he has that combination of audacity and elevation on the one hand, and common sense and an air of responsibility on the other, which some of us find so very difficult to come by, particularly in regard to these unpleasant subjects. Of course, we have listened with enormous interest to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carr. If I say that he has at once stepped into the front rank of this House, that is no more than one would expect. It was a speech which will be studied for a long time to come and will carry a great deal of weight.
A Back-Bencher is a Back-Bencher is a Back-Bencher, and I must not exceed the average quota. I hope that I shall be forgiven if, in trying to be brief, I am somewhat dogmatic and no one, alas!, knows better than I the infinite ramifications of this unattractive subject. I begin by submitting these four propositions: first, pornography under any ordinary definition is always squalid—what I think the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, would call ugly—and often positively evil; secondly, in varying degrees it offends, or should offend, all of us; thirdly, it is almost certain to cause moral damage to the young and vulnerable; and, fourthly, as regards normal adults, which I agree is an important and difficult point, the damage done by a particular piece of pornography, such as "Oh! Calcutta!'', which was mentioned, or the Linda Lovelace book, is often extremely difficult to estimate. But no sane person doubts that a national diet of pornography will lower the moral level of a nation. Even the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, who delivered a beautiful speech in what I thought was a slightly confusing way—and I shall come to that in a moment—almost conceded the word "corrupting" to an atmosphere of pornography. He said "corrupting probably". So I think that with that one slight doubt on the part of the noble Viscount, there is a general consent, which is likely to be sustained throughout the House, that a national atmosphere of pornography is corrupting.

671
If I am told that these four propositions are incapable of scientific and mathematical proof, I can reply that that is true of all the main social axioms on which we found our national policies. If we had relied on scientific and mathematical proof, we should never have introduced any social reforms at all into this country. The propositions mentioned are, in my eyes, obvious and unassailable. What is much more puzzling and arguable is the precise use of the criminal law in defeating this grave social menace. We would all agree that there are many social evils which we deplore, but we do not turn them into criminal offences. Adultery is an obvious example. So far as I know, no one is proposing to make adultery a criminal offence. In some other world it might happen, but it will not happen here; and there are many other examples of social evils which we allow to run their course.
There are verbal and visual productions—what one might call quasi-pornographic—which many of us would like to see discouraged, and which are, in fact, discouraged, by the responsible authorities in broadcasting, newspapers and publishing. Yet, in many such cases, it is accepted that prosecution is too clumsy an instrument and would be too likely to interfere with traditional freedoms. Therefore, if I use the word "disgusting" about some production, it does not follow that I, or most people, would say that it ought to be prosecuted.
But almost all of us agree that somewhere or other a line must be drawn. Almost ail of us agree that complete freedom of speech must be interfered with, and that the criminal law must step in. We all accept the existence of a law of libel, a law of profanity and a law of sedition. But I am submitting now that we also accept the necessity of drawing a line somewhere in the area of sexual exploitation, of cruelty, or a mixture of the two—what is now called sadomasochism—or racialism or anti-Semitism. If we had time to debate these matters, the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, would no doubt like to answer questions as to whether or not he is in favour of laws against racial discrimination—and there are many questions of that kind. Once one takes up the position
672
of complete freedom of speech, one is on fairly easy and, hence, in my opinion, somewhat foolish ground, but I am sure that that ground will not be taken up precisely by the noble Viscount. Lord Norwich.
Viscount NORWICH: My Lords, just to clarify this point, I hoped I had made very clear the distinction between things which were only matters between a man and his conscience, and those which were matters between a man and society. Any kind of anti-Semitism or racial discrimination is, of course, anti-social, and I should be in favour of the strongest possible penalties.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, what the noble Viscount has not, perhaps, investigated sufficiently is the damaging effect of someone who is corrupted by pornography. Let us assume that people can be corrupted by pornography, and a typical person of that kind becomes an agent of corruption. So the noble Viscount must not assume that anybody who becomes corrupted manages to enjoy his corruption all on his own. The noble Viscount reminded me, if I may say so with great respect, of the philosopher, Kant. It was said to me by the late Archbishop Temple—I do not know who said it originally—that his trouble was that he began at both ends of the road at once, and never met himself in the middle. I felt that that applied to the speech of the noble Viscount. I see him frowning in trying to understand the meaning, but I think it is plain enough. However, I shall try to spell out the point.
The noble Viscount started by assuming that nothing whatever must be done to interfere with pornography, but in reply to a question—I am not suggesting that he altered his line in reply to the question—as to what he would do about all this advertising of pornography through the post, he said that he would deal with that. Then in another part of his speech he said that he was prepared to take a very firm line against the propagation of pornography. We cannot carry that much further this afternoon, but I found the same trouble with him as with his eminent predecessor, Kant, the philosopher.
This is not a question of censorship—the word "censorship" has not yet been

673
used, although we may have it later—and is simply the operation of the law of the land, through the ultimate decision of a jury giving effect to the Obscene Publications Act or whatever is the Act in question. But where and how is the line to be drawn? This is the crux of the problem before us. For reasons of time, I must touch only briefly on the special question of films where, alone, we possess a censorship. We do not have a censorship, but we have a very peculiar mixed kind of censorship in that one area.
Most of us will have noticed, though few will have had time to study it, the Report of the Law Commission published yesterday. Again, for reasons of time, I do not think I shall begin to criticise their findings, because other people have not brought that Report into the debate and it may be that we shall return to it on another occasion. The Director of the Festival of Light made some telling comments in The Times about the removal of the common law offence, and in a leading article The Times was very sharp about the suggestion that one could hand everything over to the area of the Obscene Publications Act, which Act already is in such an unsatisfactory condition. However, I will pass from that point, despite the fact that the Report came out this morning.
In the report of our Committee on Pornography in 1972, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, was kind enough to refer, the three main recommendations called for, first, a fundamental change in the Obscene Publications Act 1959; secondly, we called for a new law of indecency and, thirdly, for a new law against human exploitation. I have time to deal only with the first of these recommendations today, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, pointed out, is the hardest. I agree entirely with the noble Lord what he said was implied, too, in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford—that the 1963 Act, which, after all, had an unopposed Second Reading, should be reactivated without delay. I am referring to the law against indecent displays.
May I concentrate my remaining remarks on the Act of 1959. The peculiar, self-defeating complexity of the Act of 1959 is familiar by now—all the
674
more so after its handling by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. These almost insuperable difficulties were brought home to me five years ago by the Director of Public Prosecutions when I was preparing to open the debate which, as the House will recall, was held in your Lordships' House at that time. Everything since has confirmed what the Director told me then: the extraordinary difficulty of getting a conviction under the Act as it then was, and as it still is. In our own report we brought forward, as the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, was kind enough to mention, a solution contributed by some of the best legal minds in the country. I do not think, however—and I say this frankly to the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, and others—that that was regarded afterwards as an ideal solution by most of us, including the eminent legal people who drew it up. I regard the way as completely open for an approach along similar lines, but not inhibited in any way by anything we said then.
The intrinsic problem, however, goes deeper than the special defects of the 1959 Act, apart from all these problems—the question of juries and the rest. That and other questions have not been touched upon, but we know that all kinds of snags have arisen. Whatever the merits or demerits of that Act, the problem goes deeper than a mere dissection of the Act. I do not believe that we can ever be satisfied with an Act which will not allow conviction unless a connection is legally established between an individual piece of pornography—"Oh! Calcutta!", Linda Lovelace, or what you like—and the moral damage to citizens. The collective damage done by pornography in the bulk is surely beyond reasonable doubt—even the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, hardly seemed to object to that—but pornography cannot be prosecuted collectively. The task has to be performed in relation to particular pieces of pornography, and at the present time the cards, for the reasons stated, are heavily stacked on the side of the pornographers. So it is an Act which undoubtedly is good for the pornographers but not for anybody else.
I submit—this follows what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and by the noble Lord,

675
Lord Carr of Hadley, and I am sure that it was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Soper—that we need a law of pornography, of obscenity—call it what you will—that gives reasonable effect to the public standards of the time, although, of course, there will always be differences among juries as to whether a particular production is or is not to be regarded as criminal. Whatever the law, some alleged pornographers will be acquitted and others convicted. We must start on a new road, though not on one which is unknown to British law.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has offered certain alternatives and I should like to support him in all that he said on that matter. As the noble Lord indicated, it may be that the present Act can be amended so that the meaning of the word "obscene" should no longer be limited in the manner which has caused so much confusion but should be given a more natural meaning. It may be that the present Act can be amended so that a production becomes obscene either if it is convicted under the present text or if it is grossly offensive to contemporary standards of decency—or some better phrase may occur. There are plenty of possibilities, but II agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, that clearly the first step should be to reactivate the Indecent Displays Act 1963, or something like it, and, while that is going on, to get ready to bring forward afterwards a more fundamental Act. I suggest that the concept of gross offensiveness should prove of much value, but I do not wish to anchor myself to a particular form of words this afternoon.
The crucial question is whether we do, or do not, want an effective obscenity law. Once we are convinced that we want such a law we are not likely to be satisfied with the present law. If we do not want an effective law we shall stick to the present law because it is obviously very ineffective; but if we want an effective law we shall want something very different. Once we are satisfied that we want an effective law we are not likely to allow the conviction of pornographers to depend, as now, on establishing legal proof of the demonstrated corrupting effect of a particular item of pornography. Of course there
676
will be legal differences and difficulties, but I submit it is unbelievable that we cannot overcome those difficulties, once we are agreed that this task should be carried through.
Before I sit down may I say one word of reassurance to those whose interest in these matters is not so much legal or sociological as artistic. I acknowledge that when we drew up our report three years ago we did not pay sufficient attention to the anxieties of the artistic world at the time, although we did our best: we did not ignore them altogether. But it was noticeable in the debate in this House not so long ago on the theatre and the cinema, which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that those who care most for the Arts tend to dislike pornography at least as much as the so-called moralists. In the climate of Britain today it is inconceivable that real art would be prosecuted successfully, when even the filthiest pornography gets away with it all too often. Yet the anxieties of the artists remain and they must receive a high priority in any steps that are taken to counter this evil flood.
It was once said that England wants to be clean but not to be cleaned by Chadwick, Chadwick being the great health reformer at the lime. We can be certain of this at least: that England will not permit me, or any other noble Lord, or any other individual, to impose our morality on others. I speak, however, as one of millions who have been silent a long time, but who are saying of pornography what the young Abraham Lincoln once said of slavery:
"If ever I get a chance to hit that thing, I'll hit it hard!"
My Lords, the hour has struck.
4.39 p.m.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: My Lords, the recent increase in pornography, with the attendant need to amend or reform the Obscene Publications Act 1959, is very important, as previous speakers have already shown. I, too, would like to add my congratulations and thanks to my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley for his excellent and helpful maiden speech. The subject of pornography is one which, oddly enough, despite its importance, doctors—I for one—come across comparatively seldom. Having been very happily married for 35 years and having

677
had live children, I am in no way an expert on this subject.
There are four general questions that I should like to ask this afternoon. The first is about the so-called educational value of some of these obscene publications. Are they of any use in sex education? One of the most odd publications I have met was distributed privately some years ago in a school by a girl of 12. A copy reached the headmistress. She expelled the girl, who was brought to me by her mother, with her little booklet on sex which she had edited and illustrated for the benefit of her school friends. Her story was that she had seen an advertisement in a paper about advice on family planning. She had written for the literature, which arrived by return of post; she copied some of the more fascinating passages and pictures and had imagined the rest—it was a remarkable document. I told the headmistress that I thought this was an enterprising girl, inquisitive about sex, who had tried to find out something about it in quite an intelligent way; that what she had done was not really wicked—it was just one aspect of self-education in this subject—and that if there had been any attempt whatever towards sex education in the school this would never have happened. The headmistress took her back. She was a good pupil and did well.
At the other end of the sex-education scale some recent pornographic publications, such as the renowned book Inside Linda Lovelace, although written primarily for financial gain, are defended for their value in sex education. A leading article in The Times of 30th January, discussing the jury's acquittal of this obscene and erotic manual on lovemaking, quoted Dr. Brian Richards' defence, in another trial, of some of the most unpleasant and cruel pictures in a pornographic magazine. His defence was that they were valuable as a stimulus for masturbation. On this ground he convinced the jury that the publication was for the public good, which most people have found very difficult indeed to understand or appreciate, as my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has already pointed out.
Many of my medical colleagues who specialise in psychiatry or in diseases associated with sex tell me that they disagree absolutely with Dr. Richards' view.
678
Pornographic literature, they say, plays on the deep-seated instincts of violence and sexuality which are present to a greater or lesser degree in all of us. It is degrading and it appeals deliberately to the baser, more aggressive aspects of sexuality, making sex ugly and unpleasant, violent, cruel and callous towards women. Love and affection are completely excluded from most of it. It is the cause of many breakdowns in marriage. My specialist friends do not consider that any of that is good sex education. Neither do I.
My second question concerns the need for pornography. Is there ever any real need for it? When the developing human race lived in the jungle, hundreds of thousands of years ago, girls probably became pregnant about the age of 12, they went on being pregnant or feeding their babies until perhaps the age of 45 or 50, if they survived that long ordeal. These girls probably needed no special sex education. In the words of the popular song they were "Doing what comes naturally"; some of them may hardly have connected sex with having babies. When they grew older and needed it less they did not mind: they had other things to do.
Much the same applies to many healthy people nowadays, although contraception helps them to limit their families. They do very well and lead happy married lives without much sex education beyond what they have picked up for themselves on the way, and without any recourse to obscene, pornographic or erotic literature. But certain men and women in our modern civilisation, especially some who live in cities and those who are physically or mentally unfit, now need extra artificial and erotic stimulation to obtain sexual satisfaction. This is a terrible pity—one symptom of a sickness in our modern way of life, some of the others being the increase in crimes of violence, alcoholism and drug addiction—and it is one of the reasons for the popularity of pornography.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, has already pointed out, other unfortunate people are born with a true sexual deviation which is not really their fault—they are made like that—and they may feel the need for something of this sort. If so, they deserve our sympathy and help rather than our scorn or contempt.

679
A case can be made out, perhaps, for the use of mild pornographic literature, occasionally, to help the elderly and others who may be partially impotent. The difficulty is that if pornographic material is available to those with sexual deviations, the under-sexed and the elderly it will always be obtainable by inquisitive and enterprising adolescents; which brings me to my third question: Should teenagers and young adults be our first and main concern?
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, in his admiration of our young today. Many of them are splendid people, but schools of all kinds are a ready market for pornographic publications. The sex drive is strong in adolescents, and reading even soft porn can give them twisted ideas about sex. Having no natural sex life, and perhaps not even knowing what normal sex really is, they may greet their first introduction to soft porn just with a giggle. But later they remember some of it, perhaps think about it seriously, and become further entangled. The borderline between soft porn and hard porn is ill-defined: both stress the deviant and the abnormal.
The peculiar things some of these children read may bring out from the bottom of the subconscious traits which might otherwise remain dormant for ever, but which interfere with, or even replace, normal sexuality later. Doctors sometimes see youngsters, boys and girls who, after reading pornographic literature, are bewildered by it all and worried as to whether or not they are normal themselves. To the immature a display of unreal and absurd sexual athleticism may lead them to assume that they are inadequate sexually and as persons. They come to us with all kinds of physical complaints, when what they really want is reassurance that they are sexually healthy. This is one of the reasons why good sex education in schools is so important—to help most of these children to understand that it is they who are normal and that there are others who are not, rather than the other way round.
One of our best known headmasters, with long experience of boys in two of our largest schools, wrote to me the other day in these words:
680
"Confronted with hard porn, nearly all adolescents (and many adults) find it compulsive reading. They have to read through to the end. It may leave a deposit of guilt—of feeling unclean—but it will certainly leave a latent excitement and curiosity about the deviant."
Many of us here this afternoon may never have seen really hard pornography. It is disgusting stuff.
My headmaster friend wrote on:
"Lots of 15-year-old boys and girls have seen it. They write off to the small advertisements in the ordinary soft porn magazines (obtainable in any small bookstall). What comes back frightens them, stimulates them, and often corrupts them. I have often had to deal with it, and ordinary lesbianism and buggery are like Sunday-school outings compared with it. The sort of thing which may result—breakdown, suicide, etc.—is described by Lord Longford in his book, when he tells what happened in a State boarding school when the prefects decided to put their reading into practice."
The headmaster concluded:
"My point is that acquaintance with hard porn during adolescence persuades the young to live beyond their emotional and sexual capital. It jeopardises their future happiness. In fact it corrupts."
I, and I believe many of your Lordships, will agree with most of that.
My fourth and last question is: What are we to do about it? In the battle that doctors wage against diseases, they can eliminate the cause of some by surgery; they can prevent the spread of others by the use of antibiotics and special drugs. Better still, they can prevent some altogether by making the body immune, so that the sickness never gets a hold. It is much the same in our battle against obscene publications. All these three therapeutic measures are needed. We can try to cut them out by stopping production, or preventing their entry into this country; we can reduce their spread by cutting distribution; but it would be far better in the long run to develop a widespread resistance or immunity against this evil. A large number of people already have such an immunity and are unaffected by pornography. They see indecent publications on the bookstalls, but do not buy them because they are not interested, or are revolted. There are ways of encouraging this uninterest or revulsion. I believe that for the future good of our society more could be done by parents, doctors, schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, sex educationists, and

681
clergy, social workers and by many others towards this end.
My Lords, I and many of my friends in the medical profession, and outside it, will welcome, I am sure, the amendments suggested here today to the law on obscene publications. We must accept the fact that however toughly we try to discourage pornographic publications and displays by changes in our laws, it will be impossible to abolish them entirely. But they must not be thrust upon our adolescents for commercial gain. Surely we must all do our very best, as soon as possible, to protect our young from that.
4.52 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of WAKEFIELD: My Lords, I notice that there remain 16 speakers on the list in this debate. I feel the kindest thing I can do in the circumstances is to edit what I have to say so that I omit that which has already been said—not that that leaves very much. Either we remove all restraints in this matter, as in Denmark, on the grounds that what is no longer prohibited loses its attraction, and on the ground that it is difficult to enforce a law which defies definition—it is too early to say what the effects will be of the steps that have been taken in Denmark—or we must recognise the need for a law dealing with obscene publications and indecent displays. We must also recognise that, in spite of the difficulties of diagnosing depravity or corruption, we must apply ourselves to the fashioning of a law which will have the effect of controlling the filth and moral squalor which has become a very profitable industry.
My Lords, I am persuaded that we need a law of this kind. Although I would support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in his plea that the law be strengthened, I have some questions which I hope will not give the impression that I am the Devil's advocate about this. These questions really are troubling my mind, and I share them with your Lordships in the hope that by doing so I might find some echo in your Lordships' own thinking. We have to face the problem of the relationship of the law to prevailing public standards. Is it any good strengthening the law if juries are not going to find for the prosecution? By and large, juries reflect public standards. The stronger the law,
682
I should have thought the less likely are there to be convictions. I simply ask this question of those who know more about the subject than I.
Another issue troubling me is that of the relationship of conscience with personal freedom, for the two are inseparable in my judgment. We cannot so order society that we remove all temptation from it, because the resistance of temptation is a condition of the development of character. Am I a better man because I do what is right because I must, or because I choose? If we have stronger laws, the effect of which is to make the morality mandatory, we may find ourselves getting dangerously near an ugly thing called censorship. Censorship means that a group of people abrogate to themselves the power to decide what is good for other people. It is based on the assumption that people are basically weak, feeble, and need protecting from themselves. It is power over other people's right of choice. It is more dangerous for those who exercise it than for those upon whom it is exercised. I ask this question because it troubles me. But those who, in the name of art, self-expression and entertainment claim a total freedom to say, do, enact or provide for public consumption what they like, regardless of moral standards or the effect on public behaviour, are in danger of destroying the very freedom they value, for they will provoke a kind of dictatorship of righteousness. This is where my thinking leads me. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, should I appear to be frustrating his intentions.
The issue of personal freedom to exercise conscience—that still, small voice which governs our choices—is, I believe, involved in this matter. The more court cases we have involving obscene publications, the greater the publicity given to this kind of filth. The definition of obscenity is something very difficult to arrive at. Juries find it difficult to judge a publication as obscene, and it is not necessarily a weakness in the law, but an indication of a genuine difficulty in arriving at a conclusion as to whether depravity and corruption can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. But the law must be sufficiently clear and unambiguous so that a person is in no doubt at all that what he is doing is a criminal offence.

683
Having ventured to share with your Lordships some of the questions which worry me, may I close by asserting that in the general trend of obscenity and pornography, enough is enough. We have arrived at a point at which we must ask ourselves how long we can continue to call ourselves a civilised nation, in so far as civilisation is a pursuit of excellence, loyalty to moral values, a concern for the wellbeing of its weakest members, the responsible use of freedom, and reverence for truth, beauty and goodness. How far can we allow these priceless values to be destroyed, and to be replaced by violence, sadism, perversion, and those things which defile man made in the image of God?
My Lords, there are those who would deny that we are any longer a Christian country, although I am bound to say that we are a good deal more Christian than is generally conceded. But there are none who would deny that we are a civilised country. I believe our laws should reflect our standards of civilisation and morality. We must ask that the servants of the Crown (the Attorney-General in respect of the stage, the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of films) apply the existing laws more energetically. None of us can escape the need for the strengthening of our own personal standards, for being clearer as to the boundaries between good and evil and exercising a greater readiness to act wherever the opportunity presents itself. I hope that the result of this debate in your Lordships' House will be to encourage those who fashion and apply our laws to act in the knowledge that there are millions of people in Britain today who are deeply disturbed on this issue and who are thoroughly sickened to see the life of the nation poisoned by a minority dedicated to its corruption.
5.2 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I think we shall all feel that my noble friend Lord Nugent has performed another service to this House by bringing forward this issue today. I know nothing about the law as it affects obscenity, but from what I see going on around me I do judge that the present condition of the law cannot be regarded as satisfactory. It would be an absolute impertinence on
684
my part to attempt to answer the questions that the right reverend Prelate has just posed to us in his most thoughtful and interesting speech. I am only venturing to speak for a very few minutes, not because I think anything I can say will be in the least helpful to your Lordships, but because I feel that on an issue like this the more people who are ready to stand up and be counted the better. I hope, in passing, that in this debate when we use the word "obscene" we intend it to mean what it is intended in the English language to mean, because one finds it a rather overworked word nowadays and it is often used in a loose and almost meaningless context.
My Lords, as a principle, I believe strongly that in matters affecting an individual alone maximum liberty should prevail. But, alas! in our complex and interdependent society how few of our actions fall naturally into that category and do not affect other people in some way apart from ourselves. Personally I have no sympathy at all with the views of those who want all restrictions on obscenity removed. Some say that, because society has become so largely permissive already, it must be sensible to remove the remaining restrictions on conduct of whatever kind. Such people sometimes claim that in such libertarian views they are speaking in particular for all young people.
I doubt whether either of those two propositions is entirely true. My own experience is that the extreme views that are advanced are sometimes put forward by people who are rather shallow and superficial thinkers, or even occasionally by some who are unstable and disturbed in character themselves. I hasten to say that I am very far indeed from including the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, in either of those categories. He gave us a most interesting and obviously deeply felt speech. I do not think that, in changing the law, one need go to the length of some of the extremes that the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, feared.
May I say what a pleasure it was to listen to the distinguished maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley. His wide and long experience and his human wisdom will be of enormous benefit to your Lordships' House. I know we shall look forward to hearing from him on many occasions and on many

685
different subjects. I liked the analogy that my noble friend, Lord Carr, used, when he said that because some sick people require a dangerous drug that is no argument for making it available to all without prescription. I think that is very true. I am sure we all want our young people to grow up breathing clean air, and if we are honest we have to admit that some of the air they breathe today is by no means clean or unpolluted. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, in what your Lordships will agree was a most impressive speech, emphasised what I feel, that the impact on the young is the most important aspect of this problem altogether.
When it comes to definition of "obscenity" I realise, as we all must, that there are real difficulties. But bearing in mind the manifold difficulties with which the law copes with fair success in definitions of difficult matters, like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I cannot believe that problem is unmanageable. I should have liked to tell a little story about the noble Earl, but I do not see him in his place, so I must defer that to our next debate on obscenity. I shall not forgot it. To what extent obscenity depraves and corrupts I do not know, but that it never does so is something I personally find impossible to believe. Where an intention to deprave or corrupt is shown, then surely there must be a cast-iron case for the law to intervene effectively. But personally I would take my main stand on what is considered grossly offensive to contemporary standards of decency, on what disgusts and outrages, deeply held convictions of large numbers of ordinary normal people.
Some say that what is printed in books or periodicals—which the public need not buy—or is shown in films or on the stage—which the public need not pay to see—should be exempt from any supervision. I have considered whether I could accept those difficulties, but I do not find such an argument conclusive, in view of the compulsiveness to many people of such reading, and particularly in relation to the availability of such books or films to the young. I suggest that sensible laws can be a valuable support to weaker minds who really need all the help they can get. But from the fact that many things which are offensive and disgust
686
ing to wide sections of public opinion are displayed and made available, I conclude that the present law does want reviewing and clarifying, as my noble friend Lord Nugent has so cogently argued.
My Lords, no nation which has proceeded on the assumption that social conduct should be freed from any elements of self-discipline has survived for long. It has always eventually succumbed from a loss of vital spirit and progressive debilitation from within. Some past civilisations have not been destroyed from without, but because their societies grew to feel that the ancient standards were no longer worth defending. Let us ensure that our society will have a stronger will to survive, and to defend standards and distinctions between right and wrong which the great majority of our nation still in their hearts know are the hallmarks of any lasting human civilisation.
5.10 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL: My Lords, the list of speakers is long and I must do my best to abbreviate my remarks. I hope your Lordships will allow me at the outset to express the great delight that I felt as I listened to the second maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. He tried hard to be non-controversial. Having held the high offices that he has held, and being the author of the 1973 Bill, it would have been expecting too much from him, almost inhuman to ask him to be wholly non-controversial. May I say that he was delightfully controversial, and I think he assisted the House greatly by his experience and the contribution that he made. I am quite sure that I speak for all Members of your Lordships' House when I say that we shall look forward in the future to hearing from him as often as possible—and as controversially as possible.
Having said that, may I get one thing out of the way. I speak purely on my own account, but I am much more concerned with what my noble friend Lord Longford referred to as the literary aspect of this question. A noble Lord earlier in the debate said that one man's obscenity might be another man's literature. In order to get this tonic out of the way may I cite shortly at the outset from Lord Longford's report on pornography.

687
This is what he says on page 261:
"Just take, for example, the experience of Thomas Hardy. Jude the Obscure was written in 1593–4 and published in 1895. The novel was violently attacked in the Press as immoral. Bishop How announced that he had burnt the book. A Mrs. Margaret Oliphant hounded Hardy over it, in a nationwide campaign. In Blackwoods, in January 1896, she published an article under the title The Anti-Marriage League in which she denounced the novel as … the strongest illustration of what Art can come to when given over to the exposition of the unclean' and added, 'Nothing so coarsely indecent as the whole history of Jude… has ever been put in British print…. These attacks finally led Hardy to abandon novel writing and literature was thereby sadly deprived."
That to me is an absolute tragedy, and I frankly confess that when I think of the millions of people all over the English-speaking world since 1893 who might have had their spirits elevated and derived the most intense pleasure from other novels written by that great writer had he not been deterred by those two people whom I will describe as of evil memory. I think that what is there said in the report of Lord Longford is an absolute tragedy.
It is not only limited to this century or to this country. In France in the 1850s Flaubert was prosecuted because he wrote Madame Bovary. It was said that Madame Bovary was indecent. Later on an English publisher, still in the last century, Vizetelly, was prosecuted because he brought out an English edition of Madame Bovary and Emile Zola's La Terre. He undertook to withdraw from publication all works by Emile Zola. That is such an appalling situation that it looms larger in my mind than the other considerations which have been discussed by your Lordships in the course of the debate.
Having said that, may I put it aside and not revert to it. It seems to me that the difficulty in a debate of this sort is that one is so tempted to assemble strong adjectives such as filthy, disgusting, corrupting, degrading, and all the rest of it, and think that they constitute a substitute for argument. They do not. I propose to use the word "indecent", which I suppose comprehends what people mean and is not emotive as these other terms are. At the outset of the argument the great difficulty is in defining the word,
688
"indecent". What do you mean by indecent? From the practical point of view, it seem to me that the debate has divided itself into two parts. Cinematographic displays, theatres, public displays of all sorts: they can be kept under control by the law. After all, a few years back we passed what I think is called the Theatre Censorship Act. But one has the difficulty again of what you mean by indecent. It is easy to say that you must not put on an indecent performance in a theatre or cinema, and prosecute those who do it, but you first have to ask yourself what you mean by the word, "indecent". It seems to me that the initial difficulty arises there.
I hope that I shall not be transgressing your Lordships' rules if I read to your Lordships the transcript of a passage which I should have thought was, by all ordinary standards, grossly indecent. I should like to take your Lordships' view on it. I hope it will not be transgressing because the transcript comes from what I think is one of the most beautiful and moving passages in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. It conies from the nurse's speech. The nurse makes this speech to Juliet, who is only 14 years of age, and also to her mother, who is also present. This is what she says. The transcript is quite short. The nurse says in Romeo and Juliet. Act 1, Scene III:
"On Lammas' eve at night shall she be fourteen;
… And since that time it is eleven years: For then she could stand alone; nay, by the rood,
She could have run and waddled all about;
For even the day before, she broke her brow:
And then my husband—God be with his soul!
A' was a merry man—took up the child:
'Yea', quoth he, dolt thou fall upon thy face?
Thou wilt fall backward when thou hast more wit;
Wilt thou not, Jule?' and, by my holidame, The pretty wretch left crying and said 'Ay'…. 'Yea', quoth my husband, fall'st upon thy face?
Thou wilt fall backward when thou comest to age;
Wilt thou not, Jule?' it stinted and said 'Ay'."
The nurse, in the presence of a little girl of 14, jests about the fact that her husband, a grown up man, makes what I should have thought an indecent suggestion to this young girl, that is, if she fell on her face when she was young she

689
would be more sensible later on and fall on her back when she was older, I suppose for the purpose of sexual intercourse. Is that indecent or not? I should have thought that by most ordinary standards this is grossly improper for a married man to talk like that to and in the presence of a young girl. I am sure that none of us would think of doing such a thing. In my view, that is one of the most beautiful passages in Shakespeare, and it highlights the difficulty of what one means by "indecent".
There are at present available two Private Bills. One was presented by Mr. Rees-Davies, a distinguished Queen's Counsel and a Member of another place, and he wrote to The Times a letter which I felt was helpful in that he suggested an amendment which in his view would properly define what one means by indecency. The definition was in two parts but I will read just one passage. It has two limbs and both must be satisfied. The first is:
"any material shall be obscene if it grossly affronts contemporary and community standards of decency."
How in the world does one decide whether a publication offends in that particular respect? Is evidence to be allowed as to what the contemporary community concept of decency requires? I do not know. I suppose that counsel would submit that he was entitled to call evidence to show that everybody in the community would be disgusted, or that he would be entitled to call evidence to show that only 5 per cent. would be disgusted and that the others would not take the slightest notice. That, I should have thought, if I may say so with the greatest respect to Mr. Rees-Davies whom I know well and who is a personal friend, was the worst sort of criminal drafting that one could possibly conceive. Whatever one should have mind to when drafting a criminal Statute—and after all, we speak in the wake of our debate on the Renton Report only a few weeks back—for goodness' sake draft it in such a way that counsel advising his client who is contemplating a particular course of action can, with reasonable precision, say, "You will be committing an offence if you do that", or "You will not be committing an offence"! If counsel is asked to say whether if one publishes something one will offend against that first
690
part of Mr. Rees-Davies's definition, the only answer I submit that he could possibly give to his client is, "I do not have the remotest idea. It depends entirely on the accident of who sits upon the jury which tries you." With great respect that is very bad drafting. If we are going to put the citizen at risk of a conviction if the wrong people sit on the jury and an acquittal if they do not, then we are doing a great deal of harm to our legal system.
Other public considerations are involved and one is this. I should have thought that all of us now were very much concerned at the growing disrespect for the law. It is time and again set at defiance; perhaps that is an exaggeration, but it is much more the case than it ought to be and that is also a primary public interest with which we should concern ourselves. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who I thought introduced the Motion with great moderation and restraint, for which I am most grateful to him. I ask him what would be his conjecture supposing an offence is created which makes the dissemination or possession of hard porn an offence. Will it stop it? I am sure that the answer to that is 100 per cent., No; of course it will not. It will go on just the same but under the counter instead of over the counter. Those who make large sums of money now by selling it over the counter will, I suppose, make even larger sums of money by selling it under the counter and the attempts to corrupt the police will increase, and we shall be increasing the disrespect for the law to the extent that it at present exists. That is exactly what we should avoid most carefully doing at the present time.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord was asking me a question which he expects me to answer, but I think that perhaps I should. I would expect that if the law were drafted in such terms that hard porn (as the noble and learned Lord defines it) was judged to be obscene within the meaning of whatever Act there was and by the court and the punishment for the offence proved was a heavy punishment in the confiscation of the material and in the measure of the fine, this would have a restraining effect. Although it might drive a certain amount of material underground,

691
it would most certainly restrain the public display of material and restrain others who were similarly selling the material from doing the same. This is, of course, a matter of judgment, but assuming that the law is effectively observed in this matter, then I should expect it to have a restraining effect. I quite agree that it will not eliminate it—it never has—but it is a matter of restraint.
Lord STOW HILL: I am grateful to the noble Lord, my Lords, and I would say in reply to what he has just said that supposing one is talking about advertisements, then, yes; that can be stopped. Supposing one is talking about cinematograph shows; those, too, can be stopped. Supposing one is talking about displays in the theatre; that is already governed by Statute, the measure we passed a few years ago. But if one is asking: Is it likely to deter those who can make money out of it by selling hard porn under the counter instead of selling it over the counter, then my conjecture would be—I may be completely wrong—not that it would have next to no effect but that it would have the reverse effect; they would charge more money for it. I accept that that is conjecture, but I venture to reinforce that conjecture with my own personal experience; and I hope I am not talking too much about myself.
I go back to the 1945 Parliament when I was privileged to work with my great friend, Lord Shawcross, who will go down in history as a great Attorney General, and we had the question of "red petrol". Your Lordships will remember that petrol in the post-war stringency was extremely short and, finally, in an endeavour to try to limit the consumption of petrol to necessary needs—commercial needs and so on—a system of red petrol was introduced. It did not work. It was sold under the counter and the system had to be abandoned. It was formally abandoned and that damaged the law.
My noble friend Lord Longford said "Yes, but consider something like the laws against racial prejudice". I again apologise for talking about myself, but I did, in fact, in my own handwriting, draft a good deal of the law of 1965 making it an offence to disseminate race hatred and, of course, before I did that I con
692
sidered most carefully whether it could be stopped and whether the police could enforce this law. As for the public dissemination of race hatred, it has been found perfectly possible to stop it; there have been prosecutions for it now and again and it would be quite untrue, I should have thought, to say that that law has not operated, because it has. It has operated very effectively and I should have thought that in the very important context of trying to prevent the dissemination of race hatred against, for example, coloured people it has had a very useful effect. I hope I can say that without conceit, but I say it with conviction. I respectfully submit, therefore, that it would be counter-productive, as it is sometimes called, to make the dissemination of hard porn an offence, even if one could find a satisfactory definition, and goodness knows what that definition is going to be.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, may I place one fact in front of the noble Lord? I do not believe that anyone doubts that less hard porn is being sold in Soho at the moment than was the case when we reported. One great change has been that most of the porn shops have closed and quite a number of the leading pornographers are in prison. I believe that the noble Lord should bear that in mind when trying to estimate the effect of prosecuting.
Lord STOW HILL: My Lords, one can go on making conjectures about this ad infinitum. I still, with great respect, adhere to the view which I ventured to express. It is that all one would do—"all" is perhaps a strong term and I qualify it and say instead that one would succeed in doing little more than causing the present over-the-counter sales of hard porn to be sold under the counter for rather more money. One would also increase the attempts which it has been said are unhappily being made to corrupt the police. I believe that would be a great tragedy.
For those reasons, while I personally would never make the least endeavour to stop the display of this type of thing in cinemas and theatres and so on—and, in theatres, it is not necessary for we already have an Act of Parliament to stop it—I must point to the extreme difficulty of trying to do it and of achieving

693
a workable definition which will not gravely impair our criminal law. With that, having, I hope, not taken up too much time, I will resume my seat.
5.31 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, those of us who are disturbed not only by the escalation in quantity but by the depraved quality of the pornography with which we are bombarded near the purlieus of all our main line railway stations in the Metropolis and near the entertainment industry and restaurant centres, are doubtless as grateful as I to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for having given us an opportunity to debate these matters this afternoon. It is a tiltyard on which I have for many years wanted to break a lance.
I have spoken of escalation. I think that a bad thing. The noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, seemed to think that a mere expansion of pornography indicated that it was serving some kind of social purpose. There is a copybook heading which we forget at our peril: namely, that appetite grows with what it feeds on. Why is pornography escalating except through sales promotion? The plethora from which we suffer is, in my view, a direct consequence of the licentious society in which we live. That society is a product of the learned fools who extol it and the treason of the establishment which fails to control it. I choose my words so as to try to translate two rather more colloquial idioms from the French. These are the concepts of l'idiot savant and la trahison des clercs. I have called that the treason of the establishment. There can be no translation of clerc into English. It does not mean "clerk". It goes back to an earlier period.
I call our society licentious rather than permissive to remind your Lordships that in Latin the words licentia and permissio are synonymous. That is why we have a driving licence, a gun licence and a dog licence and why, if one wants to be married, one must have a wedding licence. One must have permission to do it. The permissive society is the licentious society. To avoid the use of the word "licentious" and to use the softer "permissive" is merely one of those meioses—one of those understatements—in which the licentious society rejoices.
694
I shall not take up time in shocked moralising because pornographers and their lobby can take the point that morality is a matter of personal opinion and of judgment, and who am I to be a judge of such matters? I do not accept that view and I should be happy to go along with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, on morality, but that is not the battle that I want to fight this afternoon. I would sooner take my stand on the effects that continual perusal of pornography must have upon individual and social psychology. At every point of reality, whether through the printed word, the still photograph, the moving picture or the stage play, pornography gets its emphasis entirely wrong—destructively so, in my view.
Some animals—and man is an animal, albeit a spiritual one—have a strongly developed sense of privacy. Others do not. Dogs and monkeys have no sense of privacy whatsoever so far as the performance of the natural functions of their body, of excretion and copulation, are concerned. Cats have a very strong sense of privacy with respect to the same functions except upon those occasions when they come under the doom of Noah. I believe that men, like cats, have a very strong natural instinct for privacy and that it is a natural instinct which we disregard at our peril. Taboos vary from place to place, from time to time and from culture to culture. One thing may be for free in one culture at a particular time and another at another, but for everything that is permitted there is always something that is taboo. The concept of the taboo, the indecent—decet, it is proper, it is fitting; indecent, it is not suitable—permeates all human cultures, and the instinct for privacy is totally violated by treating the natural functions of the body as a spectacle, no matter what means are used to display the spectacle. By being, as it were, voyeurs in potentiality, we violate our own natural instinct for privacy.
The latest nonsense from the pornographic lobby is that pornography is good for us because it relaxes tension. The whole literature on this subject is unanimous in supporting the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, that it does nothing of the kind. Nor is that its intention. The whole object of the contemplation of pornography is to

695
enhance tension by the stimulation of fantasies. If relaxation ensues it is not by contemplation but by the methods indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. From the start, pornography treats people not as people but as objects of contemplation in media which mentally debauch those who allow themselves to be so treated. I refer to the models who allow themselves to be photographed and the actresses who take part.
Sex, as part of the whole union of persons is thus expelled from the outset. In literature, pornography treats the clinically regarded orgasm as the only factor to be pursued as many times as can be crowded into a lifetime, and that is that. The developing family life between partners who are dedicated to one another, to their children and, later to their grandchildren, and who are loved and cherished as ends rather than as means, is wholly foreign to the pornographic outlook. The latter is therefore destructive of the whole man in anybody who indulges himself with these fantasies.
Yet there is no escape from having pornography brought to one's notice. Every main line station that I know of is covered by a dirty bookshop. I used to have offices near Paddington and every single approach to the station from the Southern direction by which the main traffic approaches the station had a dirty bookshop. There is one outside Victoria Station and another outside Waterloo. I cannot speak about Euston and Kings Cross because I only go there by Underground. The BBC and ITV invariably go as far as they dare. Last night, I switched off, revolted by what I saw. It was the fingers of a doctor feeling a female breast. So far so good. That was in the clinic. But the next shot was of a the doctor gloating over the stimulus which it had aroused in him. He was doing so in salacious language over drinks with a commercial traveller who was peddling pharmaceutical drugs and so on. Disgusted, my wife and I said as one, "Switch the damn thing off!" If I may borrow a little from the Shakespeare of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and send him a quotation in return, what I should have liked to say at that time was:
"Give me an ounce of civet, good apothecary,
To sweeten my imagination."
696
Anyone yielding to this battering must be damaged by it; that is to say, corrupted and depraved in proportion to the battering. That those who defend it are corrupted and depraved to the point that they cannot see what has happened to them is the proof of it.
I have said nothing of the further battering of human sensitivity that ensues from representations of perverted sex and the conversion of sexual pleasure, which is natural and right, into the evil pleasure that arises against nature by the infliction of pain and suffering on a fellow creature. I am not in this context referring to homosexuality, because I prefer to regard that as an inappropriate direction of sexual effections. I am concerned rather with such horrors as bestiality, and everything else one can find in the index to von Kraft-Ebbings Psycho pathologia Sexualis. When it comes to definitions of what is corrupting and depraving, I am not myself a lawyer and I do not know what their difficulty is. When one studies logic one is told that there are many methods of defining words. One is the ostensive definition. That is the way one teaches one's children the names of animals when taking the children around a zoo. One says that that is a camel, that is a giraffe, that is a lion, that is a tiger. The children learn their mother tongue that way, not in terms of dictionary definitions. I do not know what objections the lawyers have to using the method of ostensive definition in this type of context. Why can they not say, quite simply, that if it is in the index to von Kraft-Ebbing it may not be sold on the public counter. That seems to be one way of going at it—
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, would the noble Earl forgive me if I intervene for a moment? I have been following his argument with great care. A camel is of course always a camel, and can always be seen and recognised as a camel, but obscenity cannot be recognised quite so well.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord was following me quite as attentively as he claimed. There is no question of recognising it, except in the index to von Kraft-Ebbing's Psycho pathologia Sexualis. If it is there, it is in, and that means it is out. I hope I am explaining myself clearly.

697
Through the kindness of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, who drew my attention to the matter, I am greatly obliged to a total stranger, a Mr. O. R. Johnston (to whom I expect your Lordships are also obliged), for a memorandum circulated for the use of Members of both Houses, in which the current state of the law is analysed and amended notionally to deal with the situation. Today we have available the report of the Law Commission, to which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford referred, and I hope that the law will be amended on the lines suggested. In time gone by I was depressed by the fact that every unsuccessful prosecution for obscenity was, in effect, a licence to all-corners to go just that far in the future. So we got a kind of creeping debasement of the literary and pictorial coinage. Disappointed as I was, I worked out something more akin to the liquor licensing laws, designed to protect the public and young people from infection, rather than attempt total prohibition, directed against what was already so corrupt that a breach of the law would not matter to those who were determined to achieve their objective.
If what I am now to say resembles some of what the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, said. I ask your Lordships to register that I do not go along with all that he said. So I assume that an amended law will be brought to bear in a current situation where organised, commercialised, pornography is being supplied to an unspecified number of members of the public who, by this time, want it. The problem is to prevent this organisation going underground. Remember, my Lords, what the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, said about prohibition in the United States of America. I could not agree with him more. The result was a disaster of surreptitious law breaking, entailing the connivance, and ultimately the corruption, of the police. Vice laws are always a sensitive area from the standpoint of police integrity, and there is a case for issuing limited licences on terms, at any rate, while the worst of the poison is bled out of the system.
These, my Lords, are the kind of terms I have in mind. First, there should he a substantial deposit of money as a guarantee of compliance with the terms. Secondly, the shop should display a notice
698
"Licensed pornographer". Thirdly, there should be a Government warning: "Pornography corrupts and depraves." People will not probably pay any attention to that, any more than they do to the warning on cigarette packets, but it is at least a sop to Cerberus. Fourthly, there should be no display in the shop window, and the interior of the shop should be invisible from the front with the door open. Fifthly, no premises should be licensed within one mile of a theatre or restaurant centre, or a mainline railway station.
Sixthly, no goods other than pornography should be sold. This is the heart of what I have in mind, because if pornography may not be sold in the high street bookstall, and nothing else may be sold by the back-street pornographer, a joint prosecution for selling the same publication must catch one of them. Therefore they will come to an understanding with one another, so as to keep themselves jointly out of trouble. Thus there will be the type of system which is self-monitoring as it goes along and which will not require a lot of intervention from outside. Seventhly, no minors should be allowed inside the premises in question, in much the same way as the laws on liquor operate, and, eighthly, there should be no trading in perverted sex of the type I have indicated. So it would substantially be soft porn which was sold there. Ninthly, there should be special powers of entry and search by the police at any time to ensure that the law is being kept and that premises are not being used as an under-cover establishment for some other activity, such as the peddling of drugs.
These thoughts have been in my mind for a long time. If your Lordships will overcome an initial repugnance at the idea of compromising with unrighteousness, and concentrate on effectiveness, you may think that these ideas are worth a second thought. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said, there always was a trade in "rara et curiosa" enjoyed, for the most part, by the well-to-do in back parlours at the rear of "arty" bookshops. There, when I was young, one might be lucky to get a copy of Aristophanes' Lysistrata illustrated by Aubrey Beardsley; a good ithyphallic joke, according to the standards of today, but still capable of offending pictorially those who would not find

699
a stage performance of Lysistrata offensive. So, with the noble Lord, I assume that there will always be a residue of what some of us disapprove. It is as well to keep it under observation and control. Control does not imply approval. It is not enough to pass laws if they are not kept. One way of accomplishing this is to play-off human weaknesses against one another. It has been written that:
"the history of mankind is the history of its loves, its hates, its hopes, its fears, its crimes, its follies, and its greeds."
It is greed that I would offset: the greed of one person against that of another; the greed of one man for sexual stimulation: the greed of another man for money; and by putting them under control ensure the governance of men in the domains where positive law finds it difficult to bend powerful drives under its yoke.
5.48 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford on his courage in introducing this debate. Without any doubt he will receive floods of letters from those who want to reduce all our standards and ensure that everything is for free. I also wish to add my congratulations to those already extended to my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley on his maiden speech and on his felicitous choice in selecting a subject in which, as a former Home Secretary, he had very real knowledge. He will know all too well the impact upon crime of the evils of pornography, particularly in our capital city.
During my years in Parliament the lowering of standards has, I believe, encouraged the proliferation of sordid, sadistic, and even violent exposition of sexual relations, wholly derogative to the human love and respect which those of us who want to see the quality of life, as well as the standard of life, maintained, believe in. These new displays, this new literature—if one can call it such—are only too readily available to the young and, in particular, to the impressionable minority who, unhappily, and sometimes tragically, are very seriously influenced by it. We also have the quite appalling displays around our main centres, which confront residents, visitors and, particu
700
larly, tourists in our major cities. But I am concerned in this debate, not about the middle-aged man or woman who, in the privacy of his or her own study, revels over some pornographic literature. I am far more concerned about the increase in the availability of really horrific and regularly published journals, and the ease with which they come into the hands of the young and the adolescent, mature or immature, and about their being used and touted by those who consider themselves more mature and who believe that they are educating their young friends by forcing, touting and pushing these documents upon them.
I was privileged to sit on the Standing Committee which dealt with the indecent displays legislation which, unfortunately, was lost due to the fact that the February 1974 Election overtook it. During the protracted debates in that Committee, those who opposed the Bill assured us time and time again of their sincerely held principles that they vehemently opposed all forms of violence but, with that, they were against all forms of censorship. If you look at some of these journals, then those two principles are incompatible in relation to hard porn. There was also the popular theory that publications and the media had nothing like the influence attributed to them, and were unlikely to influence the mind of anyone or any serious activity on their part. If this were truly so, my Lords, then The Bible and The Koran would have made no contribution to the great religions, and would have had no impact on world opinion. Also, the hardheaded businessmen who are today pouring out millions of pounds on commercial advertising on television would be wasting their money, because it would be having no impact on the customers they were seeking to solicit.
True, in terms of the whole country the distribution of the more aggressive porn is limited, but it is rapidly increasing in its availability to the young, to the impressionable, and to those most vulnerable. I am not concerned with the "girly" magazines containing mainly pictures. And I have no doubt I should be shot down in flames if I dared to suggest what I believe to be true—that the majority of Members of your Lordships' House have probably never wallowed in 50 or 100 volumes of really hard porn

701
and the type of disgusting journals that are being circulated, except for those who have done so in the course of their duty either when studying for legislation or carrying out inquiries by the clergy, or under the auspices of such a committee as that which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, presided over, or who indeed have had to deal with the seamier cases within the law. But I had not appreciated the extent of this type of literature until some words of mine in the Standing Committee were rather widely reported in the Press. Immediately I had an avalanche of evidence sent to me from headmasters, from parents and even from young boys and girls who had not dared show their parents that they had had this sent to them unsolicited through the post. One noble Lord today referred to the addict being a pusher. I would agree with him, because many of these magazines offer three free issues or a reduced subscription if readers introduce two of their friends and get them on the mailing list, in the pushing manner of their circulation. Young people who had received this literature and who were frightened to tell their parents lest they might not believe that they had not solicited it, brought it to me and sent it to me for the purposes of the Committee of which they knew I was a member.
I should like to cite one particular case. A widow with a young daughter, greatly distressed by events that had taken place the previous week, came to see me and virtually this was the story. The mother had allowed the daughter to go out with what she thought was a nice young man living down the street. They had gone to the cinema. The young lady had then pressed to be taken home, as she honoured a time limit her mother had put on her getting home. She was swept into a newsagent and confectioner's shop where a journal was purchased quite easily and openly. It was handed to her, and she was told to read it and "get educated". The mother found her daughter, trembling and sobbing, going through this pictorial journal; and although it may not be quite as classic as the quotes from Romeo and Juliet made by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, I think there is one item of many similar ones that I saw which should be expressed or summarised to your Lordships' House.
702
It was not the photographs which were so objectionable; in many cases it was the alleged readers' columns, where they gave of their experience and added their advice. Also, some of the specialised articles, one of which, in the journal given to this young girl, covered the merits of birching before love-making or intercourse, of constriction and of thonging. If any parents maltreated a teenage daughter to the extent recommended in these articles and these letters, they would be regarded as brutal and inhuman and would be charged by the police. Yet vicious young men could boast that though their girl-friend had been a bit shy, slow and immature they had obtained excellent results by caning her; or, in another case, after tying leather thongs round the most delicate parts of her body, restricting the normal blood flow and then releasing it, the resultant pain of restoring the circulation had, said the young man, achieved fantastic results. I showed three of these journals to a friend of mine, a consultant gynaecologist. He was someone full of compassion and with great experience of some of the more deprived areas where, in his younger days at any rate, he knew all the horrors and tragedies of back-street abortions and various forms of maltreatment. His opinion on the danger and the horror of this journal, regularly published and very easily available in London, was of the nature that Members of this House will appreciate.
My Lords, at this moment we have a headmaster charged with giving "two of the best" across the backside of a recalcitrant pupil, and the very people who will complain that that is an infringement of civil liberties are the same people who will say that pornography does not create and encourage violence, and is of no danger to the young. It is about the influences on and the danger to the young and the immature that I am concerned—and the age range is quite wide. The range is between the young girl who matures early, is full of herself, perhaps brought up in a home with brothers older and younger than herself, and the far more mature girl, perhaps three or four years more mature than a young and later-developing girl, who may be the only daughter in a good home and who goes out into a society where this sort of literature, in some areas, will be pressed

703
upon her because, in their words, she has got to educate herself and catch up. When we say that it has no influence, my Lords, ask any policemen who have taken in charge somebody accused of sexual assault what percentage of the dwellings of such people have a fine library of violent, pornographic literature.
I believe that our duty is very much to ensure that we give our young a chance to grow up decently and to support the overwhelmingly large number of good parents why try to do just that. I believe that the general and widespread undermining of the standard of social conscience and behaviour, particularly through literature, through films, through these little "blue" film cinemas and the like, is reducing our standard of living and the quality of our life. We have an increase in every single form of juvenile crime: dishonesty, theft and other minor offences but, most of all and more seriously, an increase in rape and indecent assault. I believe that indecent displays, indecent journals, some television films and pornographic literature have played their part in contributing to this situation.
I am sorry the Government did not see fit to introduce the Bill which was lost through the 1974 Election which at least went somewhere to help in this issue. I want to see measures taken so that we can prevent the debasement of human relationships in the context of men and women of today's society. I believe that much that we are allowing in the name of liberty now has produced a licence to undermine family life and to create instability within our society. I think that this is particularly true of those who come from deprived backgrounds. All right, the majority come from good homes and have had the background, experience and example of home. They can resist it, although not all do so. But those who are weak, who have not the parental support or discipline, those who may lean so much on someone whom they may think stronger and in their adolescence believe everything that they say to be right, can be influenced for wrong and evil and harmfully affected. We protect the handicapped, we go out to seek and help those who are not mentally as substantial as others. We protect the people who are ill, maimed or in other physical danger,
704
I believe that we must add our contribution by some means, such as suggested by my noble friend Lord Nugent in his opening speech today, in order that we shall do justice and accept our responsibilities to the younger generation.
6.3 p.m.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, freedom of choice is a fundamental right in a free society, choice of television, choice of newspapers, of where we live or where we shop. Choice weakens freedom and yet strengthens it. It is an attack and a defence at the same time. The cost of this freedom is almost freedom itself. The freedom to walk about with a transistor radio blaring your favourite programme is the loss of someone's peace and quiet. The freedom to "do your own thing", that ugly catch-phrase of the permissive society, means living without consideration for others, just a euphemism for self-interest. All is secondary to the pursuit of self-gratification—"If I want it, it must be right and it must be good." Clearly, the right to choose a way of life that infringes on the rights of others must be controlled by law. Law defines and defends the individual liberty of all, and in this process that enables us to live as individuals in a group we must accept some restriction on liberty. This compromise is something we learn to accept from childhood.
If it were possible to define clearly where pornography begins and art and literature ends, we could perhaps hope for some clear legislation. Failing that, it would be rather too hopeful at this point of time to attempt to prevent the sale of pornographic material altogether, or even to attempt to restrict the actual output of pornographic material. What we could do, and I think the country is looking to us to do something, is to introduce some legislation that will prevent those adults who choose pornography from interfering with the rights of others who choose to do without it.
If I could ask for some immediate legislation, it would be to wipe "the dirty face of England" by doing away with indecent displays, to cleanse our streets, our public places, stations and corner shops of the filthy flood of pornography. I should like to see a very heavy tax on this industry. Washed outside, taxed inside. We consider smoking harmful,

705
many would consider it proved beyond any doubt; therefore, wisely I would think, we tax it severely and control advertising. The exploitation of the desperate need of the homeless brought its Rachmans, its land sharks, its laws and its taxes. At least an attempt was made to protect the individual. Nothing is perfect. We can but try, and try we must. To go to the cinema to see an erotic film is the expression of deliberate choice. Those who are disgusted by such films can simply stay away. For my part, I disapprove of such films but accept that it is impossible to legislate against them at present.
But those with the keenest interest are not philosophers or philanthropists, they are producers who have made fortunes out of filth. They are like jackals, feasting on the dead body of the good society that we had. I should say that their heart is where their treasure is. Their god is Mammon. They are not working for the benefit of society; they are not in the game to protect freedom but for financial gain.
As Jean-Claud Davy, producer of the film "Exhibition" and other pornographic films, says in an article in Paris-Match, speaking of his triumphs:
"We have found a new star, the sexual organs, and it is free."
My Lords, it is not free. Society is paying very dearly for it. Anyone who remembers the country as it was, must agree with me that its standards of public behaviour were the admiration and envy of the world.
The strip shows that flourish in London today, the "blue" films, the provocative advertisements and the pornographic magazines, were once part of the excitement and the shock of foreign travel. As a woman I sometimes feel myself an involuntary spectator at some lewd and disgusting game, a game in which women are displayed and degraded for male pleasure and male profit. I meet so many men who say, "There are some people who go in for this sort of thing…", so many magazines, so many films, so many customers. Where are you?
Human weakness and frailty is something we share. The wise person will acknowledge his weakness. He may say, "I don't look at such things", but within himself he will say, "I daren't
706
look at such things," because he recognises the danger. The reformed alcoholic will refuse a drink, the one-time smoker will refuse a cigarette. Acknowledging his weakness and not giving way to it, is his strength. I think it would be wiser to accept pornography as a malaise we can all catch. Education and upbringing do not bring immunity. The important thing is to do away with the hypocrisy. We are the adult readers, and we must hope that our children do not become what we are. We must try to give them that freedom of choice that we had so that they can, if they choose, do without this filth and live in a better society.
6.10 p.m.
The Duke of NORFOLK: My Lords, I should like to start by saying how lucky we are to have the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, with us. It was quite clear to me that he will be able to add to our debates in the way that we all expected.
I should like to return to one or two fundamental principles in what I have to say, because we must base this debate on these things. All religions and philosophies, however diverse, consider man to be a very sophisticated being and his destiny to lie in achieving a highly civilised life. We Christians believe that this is the fulfilment of God's purpose and that it involves taming, controlling and subjecting our animal instincts with our minds to achieve a higher life. When we see how sex fits into this picture, it is clear to all who have thought about this that sex has a very important purpose, which we fulfil by using it to create the family, and indeed, to love those who we do love. Sex achieves its ultimate end in the family, and sex is misdirected when exploited for ephemeral and carnal pleasures outside family life. Let us be clear that a family has three components so far as sex is concerned—a husband, a wife and the children—and the misuse of sex, its prostitution and its waste, affects everybody within the family. If it destroys the family, it destroys a very important part of civilisation.
I see that the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, has left the Chamber, but I must say that it is very hard for me to understand the distinction he makes when he suggests you can do anything you like in private and it is only in public that it

707
matters. What we have been talking about today is the display of pornography in films and the written word. That is something which we meet in public and which has an immediate effect upon the private life of families. Does anyone seriously believe that with the pornography now being shown in this country, it is healthy for their sons to see it and indulge in it? My Lords, would you give your sons and daughters a course in what can be obtained by going into those shops concerned with these things? I have only been in and come out again and have not read the literature extensively, but I have seen them during visits to Paris, Germany and Copenhagen. We all know that if a person is subjected to those things, it has a bad effect on the family.
I would go further: I have spent a long period of my life in the Army, soldiering round the world, in command of a body of men with whose lives I was intimately connected. I am referring, for instance, to a battalion; and when I was in Germany and also in Port Said (that famous place for pornography), the temptations of the bad life were always available. But one achieved a good battalion and a successful body of men if one could direct their minds to the constructive and Christian values of life. Therefore one did one's level best to limit the incidence of the bad elements in their lives. I think it is nonsensical to suggest that this open display of filth is anything but corrupting.
I am not asking for Victorian prudery, because that kind of restraint is something that nobody could take nowadays; but where there is such an open display of pornography this results in sadism, bestiality and violence. It is an insult to man's dignity. It tempts the weak and the irresolute to debase their lives. I believe that when one talks, as the noble Viscount did, about prohibition, the point is being missed. Prohibition was an attempt to prohibit all consumption of intoxicating liquor. We are not suggesting anything like the prohibition of all sex. Prohibition in America tried to prevent the drinking of all liquor, but what is allowed now in America and in our own country is the proper consumption of liquor; and we try to discourage drunkenness. In the same way, I would
708
maintain that this free display of pornography is misconstruing sex and ending in great tragedy.
Perhaps I might give your Lordships two illustrations from my own short life which are relevant in this context. I spent two years in Africa with the King's African Rifles, and was frequently in the tribal areas of the Samburu and the Turkana. The attitudes of those tribes to sex, which had been evolved by their tribal laws, were the most moral one could imagine. Their laws and customs were to the effect that sex should be limited to a boy and girl meeting each other and then raising a family. The idea of a pornographic misuse of sex for the wrong reasons was totally alien to their tribal laws. Going to the other extreme of my experience, I spent years with the Russian armies in East Germany, with a Mission that we have there, and I can assure your Lordships that the Communist laws and customs concerning sex are more puritanical than anything we have seen in our Western civilisation, even during the most puritanical times. I am not saying we should want to have that, but I am saying that the Soviet State believe that if they restrict sex to the bare minimum they will get more output from their workers.
I will conclude by saying that it is high time this Government looked again at the Obscene Publications Act, which I think is being circumvented in every possible way and which is being used as a lucrative business to make money for firms and people. It is not being misused by people who are trying to corrupt our nation: these people are taking our nation for a ride, not for the sake of corruption but solely for the purpose of lining their own pockets. That is why it has reached the extreme point that it has.
I believe this debate has covered a very, very important sphere of activity and that we need to look very much further into the need for revised legislation.
6.20 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I am among many of your Lordships who feel very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for having initiated this debate today. It has certainly had one extremely happy effect, in that it enabled

709
us to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, which was, as we all expected, an extremely mature maiden and we all hope that we shall have many further opportunities to hear the profound knowledge of legal and moral matters which he displayed today.
This has certainly been a very necessary debate. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, is not present, because I intended to tear some strips off him, and as he is not here I shall refrain. I can only say that his speech made it very evident that there is a great gulf between his way of thinking and mine, even wider than that which lay between the rich man and Lazarus. However, he must think his way and I mine. Among other things, he said that pornography is here and we must be realistic. The phrase, "we must be realistic", always seems to mean that we must mentally shrug our shoulders and do nothing about it. I do not hold that view. I was very sorry at lunchtime to hear a noble Lord say: "It is no use opposing pornography; it is here and it is a source of money." But, my Lords, so are many other things. Burglary, armed robbery and drug trafficking are all sources of money. Are we just to allow them to exist, without doing anything about them? No, my Lords, pornography is particularly harmful in that it does so much harm to the population as a whole.
I shall deal chiefly with films today. First, there is the problem of defining obscenity, which many noble Lords have mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, made some very constructive remarks about that. One could also add that it is that which is capable of corrupting. Some have said that it may corrupt some and may not corrupt others. That, again, is a counsel of defeat. If it is capable of corrupting, if it is intended to corrupt, if it is the product of a corrupt mind or if it is something which, done in public, would be contrary to the law of common decency, then surely that comes under the heading of obscenity.
I knew that if I spoke about films somebody would get up and ask whether I had ever seen any of the films which I was condemning, so I decided that I had to go and see one. I chose one which was mentioned to me as being particularly bad, and which is known as
710
"Emmanuelle". It was an experience that I do not want to repeat, and I am very glad it is over. But I want to emphasise that there was nothing crude about that film. It was not just a piece of schoolboy dirt, or something from the other side of the Atlantic which is just nonsense—obscene, but not to be taken very seriously. It was a beautifully produced film, with excellent acting and sonic of the scenery was enchanting, the story being set in Thailand. But the expression of absolute rapture on the faces of those who were engaged in sexual union was enough to draw anybody who had no very firm principles off the rails at once. Incidentally, I was interested to look around and note the audience. They were chiefly young men of between 20 and 30, and some of them had brought their girl friends or wives with them. What they made of it I cannot think, because there were constant scenes of lovemaking, with completely nude women, and it left one with the impression that that is the only worthwhile thing in life and the only interesting way in which to spend one's time. There was one unfortunate scene where there was a bit of homosexuality between two women, which I thought was unfortunate. I was very glad when I came out.
It has been said today that one can choose to go into a cinema or stay out, but the point is that cinemas are there and those who go in are not aware of what they will see. We must all remember the characteristics of youth. When we were young, we hated to be unlike our contemporaries and if we saw them doing something, in spite of the fact that we may have thought it was slightly questionable, we wanted to do the same thing at once so as to be in the swim so to speak. Very much the same is true today. Many of these young people go to see these films largely because it is the thing to do. But when they come out they will not be quite the same as they were when they went in.
I was absolutely shocked to see the number of X films that are being displayed. As I walked around Leicester Square looking for the cinema I wanted, practically every one had an X film and every theatre had a play of an equivalent nature. That day, the Evening Standard gave a list of four U films, 18 A films, 15 AA films and 35 X films. Your

711
Lordships will probably know that an AA film cannot be seen by anybody under the age of 14. My noble friend Lord May-bray-King referred earlier to the necessity for protecting children, but surely at 14 years of age one should not be allowed to see a film which has an AA certificate. The secondary film at the cinema to which I went had an AA certificate, and that was the story of a photographer who spent his entire time taking photographs of nude women. They were all there for one to see, with nothing whatsoever hidden. But that is the kind of film which a child of 14 can go to see—with what result, I do not kno.
I understand that cinema owners say the reason is that they are finding it very hard financially and that this is the only kind of production which will draw in the public. What a reflection this is upon our public at the present time! The dreadful aspect is that they react upon each other: the more these films are shown, the more people will go to them; and the more people go to them, the more they will be shown. It is a vicious circle.
I believe it was the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, who asked what harm this will do, and he tried to distinguish between what he called "sin" and "crime". But he did not realise that sexual violence often leads, as has been proved by those who have carried out research, to actual physical violence towards the public. Therefore, the two are not unconnected and it is doing harm. And even if it is not doing harm, it is leading towards a thoroughly degenerate society. When a country's society becomes morally degenerate that country can be wiped off. It happened with Rome and if we are not careful it may happen again with us.
There are a number of legal aspects which need to be looked at, about which I have received representations from the Festival of Light. There was a certain film about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Widgery, expressed the opinion that the distributor of the film—that is to say, the maker of it—was guilty of transgression of the laws of obscenity, but that charge was denied at the trial. Apparently, the situation now is that the distributor is under no charge of obscenity since the only person who will look at
712
his product is, presumably, the cinema manager himself. That seems to me to be rather unsatisfactory and it is one way in which the law needs to be strengthened.
I should like a much higher age limit to be introduced before young people can see any of these productions. It is often said that nowadays the young are much more mature. Probably that is so physically, but I do not think that is the case mentally. They are just as easily swayed either the right or the wrong way, and this kind of production very definitely is swaying them the wrong way. One sees obscenity everywhere, and unfortunately in not trying to prevent it, parents are not adopting a very responsible attitude. This is not altogether their fault because it is very difficult to prevent obscenity. Nevertheless, I should like there to be a much higher age limit which would prevent young people seeing these productions.
6.35 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, this House is now one of the few places in this country where seniority counts. Most of us belong to a generation which has been pensioned off, and we miss the young people in this debate. Would it be impertinent of me to ask how many of the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who are on the list to speak in this debate are under 50 years of age? The clouds of pornography hang over your Lordships' House, reflecting the pessimism of the older generation about the future of Britain.
Is has been a depressing experience for anyone with liberal views, a spark of vitality and the spirit of hope, to listen to the drooling pessimism to which we have been subjected this afternoon. The older generation have always had unfavourable views of the young. They are always afraid that they will he corrupted and become decadent, but when there are times of national peril where are they and what do they do? We should be ashamed of ourselves if we throw this reflection upon the young people of this country who need the cosseting and the protection of the older generation to aid their entry into adult life.
And where are the women? This is a woman's question as well. Two noble Baronesses out of 22 on the list spoke in the debate on 21st April 1971. Today

713
there are four noble Baronesses on a list of 24 speakers. Why is it that men seem to brood over pornography? Why is it that much of the pornography that we can buy is in a magazine called "Men Only"? Why are not the women protesting? Why are not they proposing that if men want to make a beginning to the suppression of indecent displays they should ban the competition for "Miss World", which is perhaps the biggest and most looked at indecent display on television? But, No. When some members of the Women's Liberation movement protest by going in to stop it physically, it is they who are treated as criminals, not the exhibitors of that programme. Is it because, as they get older, men acquire a more mature sense of responsibility, or is it a sense of guilt that leads them to study this matter so deeply, so long, so persisently?
Of course we are obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for introducing this debate. It is more timely than perhaps he realised because only yesterday a Bill, to which I shall refer later, was introduced in another place under the Ten-Minute Rule procedure, and we are on the morrow of the publication of the Law Commission's Report. We congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, on his maiden speech and, if I may respectfully do so, I thank him for sitting through the debate for so long and so patiently. I am a little sorry that his maiden speech was largely a rehash of the speech he made in moving the Second Reading of the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill in 1973; and I am the more disappointed that he did not get here in time to take part in the discussions on the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, because the noble Lord has considerable experience of unworkable legislation.
The debate has been plentiful in moral judgments and of the evil in our midst, but weak on practical, viable, acceptable and enforceable changes in the law. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, trotted out at great speed the most revolutionary set of proposals to deal with this problem that I have heard so far.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, I am so glad the noble Lord thinks them revolutionary. I might even join his Party one day when the tumbrils are rolling.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: Yes, my Lords; so revolutionary that we never make any headway with them. Goodness me! when the Government cannot compel the tobacco industry to put on cigarette packets the Government health warning but have to get it done by voluntary arrangement, what chance does the noble Earl stand of getting by law a notice on shops "Pornography shop", and other proposals that he made? I do not want to be offensive to the noble Earl because I have great affection for him, but I must say that much of what he put forward was "crackers". Study it tomorrow in the Official Report, my Lords, and see.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, as a contribution to contemporary politics even pornographers could, under my scheme, forfeit their deposit.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: Yes, I know, my Lords. Well. I am not forfeiting mine. I do not want to dwell on the substance of this matter about pollution of the mind and other things that come so easily to the lips of many people, nor do I want to suggest that if the Festival of Light had anything to offer it has been very slow coming through in this debate today, because as a matter of fact very little light has been shone either on the moral issues or on the practical way of dealing with malpractices.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has hardened a little, if I may say so, since he spoke in the debate on the 21st April 1971. I do not blame him for that. After all it is five years ago. But then he said:
"And this brings me to the conclusion, which may not be a popular one, that I am doubtful whether we shall be able to deal with this matter satisfactorily by changes in the law."
He went on to say:
"I am inclined to think that when Government, we in Parliament, are satisfied that the majority of the nation want a move made, probably the right move would be to set up a censorship authority responsible for the whole range of artistic, literary and dramatic expression."—(Official Report, 21/4/71; col. 684.)
I have referred to that again because it has cropped up in a Bill introduced in another place only yesterday.
I want to deal with the question of legislation because at the end of the day

715
there has to be a Bill. I do not claim to be a lawyer, but I do claim to have had some experience of legislation and of drafting Bills and of interpretation, and I think those who propose new or amending legislation should have something practical in mind. There are some options before us which have been given in the course of the debate, and offered in another place in two Bills introduced under the Ten-Minute Rule procedure, and that is why I am going to analyse the several proposals that are made for changing the law. I am going to begin with the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill of 1973. This is the measure which the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said should be reintroduced—or something like it. The purpose of that Bill was to extend the obscenity laws to deal separately, as he said, and specifically with a new offence called "indecent display". Clause 6 of the 1973 Bill said:
"If any indecent matter is displayed the person making the display shall be guilty of an offence".
Although in the Concise Oxford Dictionary the word "indecent" is synonymous with "obscene" it appears to be regarded by many people as being a little less dreadful than obscenity.
The 1973 Bill drew a clear distinction between "obscene" and "indecent" by omitting important lines of defence against charges of indecent display. What it proposed was that the person charged would be brought before magistrates, with no right of trial by jury. It would be no defence to plead that the display was for the public good or had literary or artistic merit. They were serious changes in the law of obscenity. This weakened the defence in a case of a charge of indecent display as compared with the position of the defence on a charge of obscenity. The word "indecent" was made the substantive word in the Bill: no definition was attempted and the prosecution was to be under no obligation to prove that the offending material would tend to deprave or corrupt those into whose hands or under whose gaze it might fall. The 1973 Bill therefore proposed harsher measures to deal with indecent displays than with obscene material.
Moreover, the alleged offender was to be open to have material summarily
716
seized by a constable and to be open also to private prosecution. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, said that his Bill in 1973 had a large measure of approval. He seems to have overlooked the keen debates and Divisions that occurred during the Committee stage of that Bill, and no liberalisation of those proposals proved possible during that Committee stage. When it appeared in its final form, ready for the Report stage which it never had owing to the intervention of the General Election in the early part of 1974, a writer, Mr. Mervyn Jones, in the New Statesman, described it as:
"A nasty, absurdly irrelevant, politically motivated, badly drafted and potentially dangerous measure with the clumsy title of the `Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill '."
I am not going to repeat those words: I quote them from a contemporary writer in the New Statesman at the time. But the Bill of course never reached its final stage. Had it done so I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Carr, that the Parliamentary Labour Party would have opposed that Bill on Third Reading; there is no doubt at all about that.
I mention in passing that the spokesman on Home Affairs was Mr. Roy Jenkins, the present Home Secretary, who has said that he does not propose to reintroduce that Bill. That decision was confirmed to your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in reply to a Question on the 12th February of this year. That decision was made by Mr. Roy Jenkins, who had much to do with the preparation and formulation and the passage of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and who knows this subject very deeply and has concern on the matter, as well as liberal views. The only speech that has been made this afternoon with which I wholly agree was that made by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, another former Home Secretary, a lawyer of great distinction, a man of liberal views and of enormous common sense. I respect his views and his experience.
My Lords, I turn now to more recent events. Under the Ten-Minute Rule procedure in another place, leave has been given to two Members to bring in amending Bills. My noble friend Lord Stow Hill referred to the one which Mr. Rees-Davies, QC is to introduce. He says he wants to revive the indecent display section of the Bill of 1973. But he wants

717
to go further, and has written to The Times to say so. My noble friend Lord Stow Hill quoted one part of his suggested formula for dealing with this matter. Mr. Rees-Davies wishes to remove from the 1959 Act the words, "tends to deprave and corrupt", and to substitute, "any material shall be obscene if (1) it grossly affronts contemporary community standards of decency, and (2) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole (a) appeals to depraved instincts or (b) portrays violence to a repulsive degree". There is a packet of ambiguity. What problems of interpretation for juries and the courts. Mr. Rees-Davies would retain the defence plea that the material complained of was in the public good, but he would not allow that plea to be entered until after the jury had decided whether or not the material was obscene, and only if the jury had said the material was obscene then, and at that point only, would the defence be allowed to enter a plea that it was for the public good.
Now I come to the events of yesterday. In another Ten-Minute Rule Bill—the reformers are busy just now; something must have turned them on—Mr. Tim Renton proposes that things should go further still. He would remove from the 1959 Act any definition or test of the meaning of the word "obscenity". He would get rid of that altogether. He would leave the plea of public good where Mr. Rees-Davies would put it; that is, after the verdict of the jury on the question of obscenity had been reached, and not before. Then he offers a special committee to advise the Home Secretary on prosecutions and to advise publishers, authors, booksellers, and the rest, on whether this committee would consider a particular article obscene. In the contemporary conditions of today. I have no doubt that that committee would be known as the Obscenity Board. Its chairman would be paid £16,250 a year; all its part-time members would receive £1,000 a year. It would pontificate from time to time in the interests of the British people upon what it considered was obscene, and what it considered was not. But who are these archangels who would be put on the Obscenity Board? Without entering any plea for myself, I would say that nothing short of a Companion of Honour would be fit to be the chair
718
man of the Obscenity Board. Mr. Tim Renton also proposes to limit the freedom of the Press. This is heresy. In your Lordships' House, this is blasphemy. He proposes to limit the reporting of judicial proceedings in cases of obscenity in the same way as the Judicial Proceedings Act 1926 restricts the publication of divorce proceedings. So we bring into this matter the freedom of the Press.
In order to bring this review up to date, I refer to the report of the Law Revision Committee, which was published yesterday. This deals mainly with films, which I am not embracing in my speech for the moment. It proposes to put films within the meaning of the Obscenity Act 1959, as I understand it, but not to give them the benefit of the depravity and corruption condition. They would be put under the provisions of the Theatres Act 1968, which gives live shows a line of defence on grounds of art and drama.
To sum up, what is proposed, with all the options so far, is a stiffer law on obscenity and a new and altogether harsher law on indecent displays. That is a recipe for the cleansing of the minds of the young of Britain—and this in the centenary year of the trial of Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant for publishing a book advertising the use of contraceptives within marriage. Reviewing a book written by Roger Manvell on the celebrated trial in the Sunday Times last Sunday, Christopher Hollis wrote:
"The problem of corrupting literature is still with us. We have not yet discovered, and probably never will, a formula for what should and should not be permitted that commands general acceptance."
It is now evident that some people want to get rid of the proviso in the 1959 Act that the prosecution must prove that the offending material would tend to deprave and corrupt persons likely to see or read it. Reference was made to the weakness of the existing law, and a plea was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield, that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General should more energetically enforce the existing law. But the number of convictions under the 1959 Act has risen from 92 in 1966 to 251 in 1973. There were 434 prosecutions in 1974.

719
My Lords, there seems to be no doubt as to the general line of attack on the existing law. It is to weaken the defence, to make convictions more likely when cases go to the jury. Mr. Rees-Davies would substitute a long-winded version of the test of obscenity, and Mr. Tim Renton would take it out altogether and leave it to the jury, those 12 good men and true, about whom I will have an observation to make shortly. The Conservative Government's Bill of 1973—which the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, would reintroduce—created a new code of indecency within the criminal law. We all know the charges against indecency and obscenity; we have heard them so many times—that they are offensive and disgusting. They shock, they embarrass, they arouse lustful desires and may he bad for the young. Impressionable people would be susceptible to the allurements of sexual activity. Even older men may be interesed in obscenity and in indecent displays. I do not know whether they could be corrupted by it, but even men who are past it perhaps would not mind being titillated a little by looking at indecent displays. Let us be honest; let us not pretend that we are all so pure and undefiled that we do not have the normal sexual instincts of men who indulge them in all sorts of different ways.
The question is whether we impose sanctions, including the criminal law, on the behaviour of others. As soon as we do that, there arise questions of individual freedom, of civil liberties as well as the infinite difficulties of definition and interpretation, not to mention the problems of enforcement. I know that many are disappointed with the failure of juries to convict in some notable cases that have been taken recently. So they propose to stiffen the law by loosening the test of obscenity. They say that the test of depravity and corruption is breaking down in some cases, so they want to change the rules. I think those who want to carry the war even further believe that "obscenity" is too strong a word to catch some of the mischief; so they want a lighter weapon, and they want to call it "indecent display", with no explanation, no definition. Well, why bother to define "obscenity" or "indecency"? As the noble Earl said, when you go to
720
the zoo and see a camel you cannot describe it, but you know it when you see it. The assumption is that the average British citizen recognises indecent display when he sees it. That is the underlying suggestion, and that juries are the people to say whether they see in the indecent display what the ordinary average decent citizen should see. And to make the good work still better, the idea is to keep the right of private prosecution and let that hang over the bookshops and the booksellers. A little intimidation might clean them up no end, unless, of course, they are in a protection racket.
My Lords, new crimes breed new evils and problems of enforcement. We deplore the rising tide of crime, so we propose to add to it. Burglaries go unsolved, violence unpunished, fraud and corruption go undetected, the motor car is now almost above the law along with the trade unions. We are short of police; they have new and dangerous duties connected with IRA activities. But, no matter, indecent display must be made a crime; more work for the police, the courts, and more rackets. That is what it all means, and my noble friend Lord Stow Hill said as much. I say this with a very full responsibility of what I am saying; it is not the "girlies" that corrupt the police, it is the bribes. When matters of taste are made a crime the commercial profits of evading or defying the law become so great that corruption is inevitable. My noble friend Lord Stow Hill said that we are blackmarketing this stuff at double and treble the price, and there will be all sorts of protection rackets for which people can pay large sums of money.
Those who advocate a tightening up and extension of the prohibitive law must bring enough evidence of positive harm to society, to public and private morals, to justify further incursion into the liberty of the subject. It is not enough that people may be shocked or embarrassed, or even disgusted. The public mischief must be positively more harmful than that. I personally find the whole apparatus and aura of the law in these matters of morals and taste most unacceptable and dangerous. This field of squalid preoccupation with sex, with its prudes and police and its courts and its juries, some of which are prejudiced and some of which are bent, repels me.

721
It is riddled with intimidation and corruption and is absolutely capricious in the disposition of justice. Respectable booksellers have been intimidated and some have been ruined by persecution and prosecution.
Beware of those who, full of good intentions and genuine concern, demand that something should be done about it, without demanding, straight away: What? Come clean—it may be the only clean thing in it—and say what you would do. Do not leave it till tomorrow, and do not say it is a matter for further consideration. The options are all there; the definitions have been put before us—even the numerous proposals of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. The cure can be worse than the disease. The noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, made this point very clearly. I went a long way with him. He represents a younger generation in your Lordships' House, and how refreshing was his approach to this matter. I parted from him only when he began to turn back on himself in the last few minutes of his speech. That applies almost to the noble Lord, Lord Soper. It seems as if one defines one's principles, one points out the dangers, one does everything possible to warn people against the dangers of amending legislation and all the consequences of it, and yet, in the end, the tendency is to say: "But something should be done."
My Lords, I know I am speaking for quite a long time, but this debate has been a one-sided debate and I hope your Lordships are patient enough to listen to the opposite side of the case, because mine is equivocal, and very few noble Lords who have spoken so far have been unequivocal on this matter. I am finishing. I am going to quote now from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, whom I had hoped to see here this afternoon. When he was speaking on behalf of the Home Office in the debate on 21st April 1971, he said this (col. 750):
"I incline to the view that in questions of morals we should be reluctant to have recourse more than necessary to penal sanctions. The purpose of the criminal law is to prevent positive harm, and it is undesirable to extend its ambit, particularly when problems of definition are bound to introduce very subjective considerations."
The noble Lord is not here to say whether he holds that view today, but I
722
certainly do. That is my parting word to your Lordships' House, and I thank you for listening to a long speech.
7.7 p.m.
Viscount INGLEBY: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I am under 50, just. I thought he was a little unfair to the ladies of this House. We have heard one lady who has expressed herself very strongly this afternoon, and I shall be rather surprised if the ladies who are still to speak do not also express themselves strongly.
My Lords, one sometimes hears the view that a little pornography does no harm. The difficulty is that it is apt to grow; it creates its own appetite. Another difficulty is that there is no logical stopping point. I know, from having sampled a little of this material, what a harmful capacity it has on one's relationships. It has a capacity for harming healthy relationships between husband and wife, between parents and child or between friends. And your Lordships may have noticed recently that there have been a number of divorce cases where the wife has said that it was the reading of pornographic magazines that caused the husband to behave in an unreasonable way, to make unreasonable demands on her. There is also the very sad case of a young man who, when he was a boy at school, got hooked on this material. Now he is at university, and his mother said that she believes he has gone past the point of return. It is a powerful force: it can take control and it can harm one's personality—I am quite sure of that—in just the same way as drink or drugs.
We have heard a certain amount this afternoon about freedom of choice. Of course we all like freedom, but we must exercise our own freedom in a way that does not harm others. In this country, of course, we are very fortunate; we have had freedom of speech for a very long time. But one wonders whether those people who have suffered for freedom of speech would want to be lumbered with a defence of pornography. What we are really talking about, is it not, is freedom of unscrupulous commercial interests to exploit and debase human beings? If this is not the unacceptable face of capitalism, I do not know what is.

723
I think it was Montesquieu who said that the survival of democracy depends upon virtue. "Virtue" is not a word about which we hear very much these days, but surely one of the components of it is self-control, and pornography seems to me to be just the opposite of that. In fact, I would suggest most realistically that pornography is one of the enemies of democracy. Someone said that the easiest way of destroying a country is to destroy its morals.
What is to be done about this situation? I shall not go into the various alternatives, the ways of defining obscenity, that have been mentioned this afternoon. I would only say that once we have a clearer definition of obscenity then much wider use could be made of Section 3 of the present Act, which allows for confiscation by the police. I feel that this is the only way to deal with the flood of material that is about at the present time. This in fact was the only remedy available under the old 1857 Act. The other point which warrants consideration is the right of jury challenge which exists at the present time. As there are usually three defendants in these cases this allows for 21 challenges to be made, and very effective use is made of this in order to secure a young all-male jury. I would submit to your Lordships that this pornography is an evil which can harm personality in the same way as drink or drugs.
7.12 p.m.
Lady RUTHVEN of FREELAND: My Lords, owing to the kindness of my noble friend Lord Barrington, I have been allowed to take his place and he is going to take mine later in the debate. I am not certain whether I should speak in this debate because I know very little about the subject. I dislike pornography intensely. The last pornographic film I saw was "Last Tango in Paris"—I was horrified not only by the actions but also by the language in the film. I think that I have only read two really pornographic books—one was Lady Chatterley's Lover (some people would not think so, but I thought it was terrible) and the other the famous Fanny Hill, which belonged to a friend of mine who kept it under lock and key, and I had to read it in his library and in his presence. This was
724
really a historical book, which was the reason I read it. Otherwise my experience is when, as a young married woman with a child, a young man who was engaged to one of my younger sisters gave me a paper covered book (I cannot remember whether it was written in French or English) and I was extremely shocked. I later burnt it. I am glad to say that he did not give it to my sister: he is long since dead, as is my sister, and the marriage never took place. I must admit that I have also seen a completely pornographic library, again kept under lock and key. I was horrified and did not understand very much of what I was shown.
My reason for speaking this afternoon is in the hope that certain alterations in the Act, or a new Act, could be brought in, so that the ordinary person, and our children and grandchildren, would not be offended by the display in our streets, or on the news stalls, of papers which contain horrible advertisements. I personally am worried that I cannot find a suitable film to which to take a young grandson, and I do not like letting him go out to the nearest bookstall to buy what he calls his "comics", and for him to return with a paper about which I may have to explain something, which is not only full of horrible illustrations, but if he should look at the advertisements and feel inclined to answer them he might get a reply which would be not only disgusting and altogether horrifying but could put ideas into his head. I must add how much I dislike what I have always called "dirty words". I have only once used a dirty word in public, but then I am very old. I remember long ago in the United States being taken out by a man who used the word "bloody", and I walked out on him until he was prepared to apologise to me—autre temps, autre mœurs.
I come back to the content of this debate. I agree that we learn from our thoughts, attitudes, and activities what is pornographic and what is not. To suggest that pornography may be instrumental in initiating sexual interest and orientation is far from proven. While book learning does affect us, its effect is to influence character which already exists. The learning of sexual interest in the early years of life is acquired at an unconscious and emotional level from parents and

725
siblings. I suspect that the most that sexual material can do is to minimise, creatively develop, or overemphasise what already exists in the human character. People are drawn to what they like already, though it may not be consciously thought out.
Therefore, I should like to see a radically different approach, thus: for the moment leave out the word "pornography" and talk of sexual material. Recognise that the need for sexual material by the general public is perennial; the demand has always existed and will go on existing. The main issue of contention at the present time is "public nuisance", not a dispute on the right of individuals to read what they want. To meet this question of "public nuisance" a parallel case can be drawn with the Street Offences Act introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, when he was Home Secretary. Such an Act in the area of sexual material would forbid the public display of sexual material and would require that it be sold in recognised shops or areas of shops, with restrictions on age of entry, et cetera. They would be forbidden to display material in windows, et cetera. The Act could incorporate a charter for advertising of all kinds, including cinema hoardings, which is one of the most awful illustrations. I do not travel on the Underground very much and I do not see that advertising, but I do see it in the West End outside cinemas. If required, the Act could give the Home Secretary power to designate sexual material as obscene, et cetera, if it fell in certain categories which he would specify, and to restrict their sale to such shops. It would be at this point, and not before, that the more restricted area of pornography and obscenity within sexual material would be defined.
If this approach were taken it could control pornography while not making it illegal. We would take pornography off the streets, while accepting that, like prostitution, it is part of our society. Within this framework, sexual matter can fulfil a variety of functions from the therapeutic through to the salacious, but would all be held within the framework of the law. One practical consequence would be to reduce the amount of soft porn available to children from bookstalls all over the country. I am sure
726
that there are some snags which I have not foreseen, but these thoughts on the subject, your Lordships may find worthy of your consideration.
7.19 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, at the beginning of this debate I was greatly influenced by the excellent opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Soper. I found myself almost entirely in agreement with their views and feelings. On the other hand, I am also influenced on the other side by the noble Lords, Lord Stow Hill and Lord Houghton of Sowerby, above all because they brought in the question of the corruption of the police, which I think could be one of the great dangers of legislation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will, when replying to the debate, refer to this danger. In other words, my position is that although I share the views of the noble Lords whom I have quoted about the undesirability of the present state of affairs and, above all, public displays, I am nevertheless a little worried about the question of legislation, what form it should take, and whether it could possibly do more harm than good. I hope that before any such legislation is enacted there will be opportunities for very full discussion.
Coming nearer the material which I wish to present, I suppose that we would all agree in defining "obscenity" that it includes the degrading of the sexual act, which should really be one of love, by putting it on a line with lust, sadism, cruelty—especially cruelty to and degrading of women—and, of course, promiscuity. When the noble Earl, Lord Longford, raised this question in the debate on pornography on 21st April 1971, I was bold enough to quote certain passages from the Old Testament and although I shall not detain your Lordships tonight by repeating everything I said on that occasion, I want to go into this question a little further because it is something that any Select Committee or legislative body trying to devise legislation must take into consideration. I am the first to agree that the Old Testament is a work of art and literature and is an absolutely unique and invaluable work of history worthy to be in every library, to be read

727
there by serious-minded people and especially scholars. My question is: Is it fit to be in every child's bookshop? My answer is in the negative. I will not repeat all the quotations, but the examples which I gave on 21st April 1971 included almost everything that I have included in the possible definitions of "obscenity"—degrading of the sexual act, lust, sadism, cruelty and cruelty to women, and promiscuity. As an example of cruelty I quoted from the passage after the defeat of the Midians. Moses rebuked the armed men who had killed all the Midians and said:
"Have you spared all the women?… Now kill every woman who has had intercourse with a man, but spare for yourselves every woman who has not had intercourse…".
I quote from the New English Bible. That does not seem to be a very good thing for young people to be reading, but perhaps I am a prude. I regret that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has walked out of the Chamber. He did that when I last spoke and I was not surprised, therefore, when I saw him leave the Chamber tonight. I wish to tell your Lordships the sequel and, if he were here, I am sure that the noble Earl would have been interested to hear it. I asked the noble Earl if I could give evidence before the committee which he set up to examine the question of pornography and, after the greatest difficulty, he said that I could meet some of them; obviously they could not meet everybody who wanted just to give some oral evidence, and I was satisfied with that. I met seven or eight people, nearly all dressed in clerical raiment of one kind or another, and I put it to them that some of these passages were definitely obscene. I quoted especially the one from the Book of Judges, Chapter XIX, which I think is particularly revolting. The men of the town knock at the door of an old man and demand that he sends out his guest to them so that they can have intercourse with him, so perversions come into it as well.
"No, my friends,"
says the old man,
"do nothing so wicked. Here is my daughter, a virgin; let me bring her out to you. Rape her and do to her what you please: but you shall not commit such an outrage against this man. But the men were not satisfied so the guest took hold of his concubine and thrust her outside for them. They assaulted her
728
and abused her and finally killed her, and her master cut up her body limb by limb into six pieces."
I do not think I need comment as to whether that is suitable literature for young people. But the sequel has not quite finished. One of the eminent gentlemen I met said to me, "But there are, of course, all sorts of good things in the Old Testament"—and, of course, there are. He said, "All the stories in the Old Testament have a moral and a lesson" and I asked, "What moral and lesson do you derive from that?" and he replied, "It teaches hospitality". This shocked me so much that I was almost sick on the spot, and when I told the noble Earl what had been said to me, he replied, "He could not possibly have been serious". If he was not serious, it makes it the sickest of sick jokes I have heard in all my life.
I am simply trying to point out to your Lordships the absolutely conflicting standards which we have over this whole subject and to beg that if the matter is seriously considered, if legislation is contemplated, and if definitions of "pornography" or "obscenity" are attempted, the question of the Old Testament should be very seriously considered and not brushed aside. Above all, the question whether it is suitable reading for young children is the one to consider because of course nobody will ban it from the serious adult reader, the historian and the literary person.
7.28 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for initiating this debate, which has come at a most opportune moment with the publication of the Law Commission's Report. I also thank my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley on his maiden speech in this House. I appreciate that he has spoken before in the building, but not in the House of Lords. We could not have had anyone better to speak on this subject, my noble friend being a former Home Secretary.
I rise to speak on this issue because, like many others, I have become really tired of the obscene filth with which the British public has been bombarded for the last 12 or 15 years. I am convinced that if it goes on—and the amount of

729
pornography appears to be increasing—it will, if it has not already, affect not only the morals but the morale of the nation. When we ally that with perhaps a too indulgent Welfare State which is inclined to take the responsibility of decisions out of the individual's hands, it does not require a great deal of imagination to visualise one day the destruction of our society. For example, only three days ago I was speaking to a young soldier in Scotland who told me that he had been married twice, that he was only 23 years of age and that he had six children. I said that that appeared a most irresponsible act and he replied, "It's quite all right. The State will take care of us." I agree that that has nothing to do with pornography, but I thought that I would tell the story.
We have plenty of lessons in history to warn us against a surfeit of pornography. I was interested to hear my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk say that his experience in Communist countries was that pornography and obscenity were kept very much under control. I should like also to point out that, after the Bolshevik revolution and during the early years of the Soviet regime, the teaching of Karl Marx and Lenin allowed free love and complete freedom in sexual matters. For quite a period, the Soviet regime encouraged free love and freedom in all such matters. However, the Government had to reverse that trend and to come down on the other foot because they found that the fabric of society was being rotted and that the whole country was becoming over-run by hordes of homeless children who had no parentage. That became a great problem.
We have heard much in this debate about the definition of obscenity. Of course, the apologists for pornography always make the excuse that we have the 1959 Act. But the Act is not strong enough in its definition. However, I cannot believe that it is beyond the ingenuity of human beings to work out a definition that will be strong enough and that will stick. The other day, I was reading John Stuart Mill's essay on liberty. In that essay he says that, in his opinion, it is not Parliament's duty to interfere to stop the individual from harming himself. I cannot agree with that. After all, we prevent the individual from harming himself with drugs. Drugs
730
of course affect the body and the mind. We also stop the individual from harming himself in various other ways. However, the really important thing is to see that he does not harm others. Therefore, I really cannot agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, who, I see, has now left the Chamber. The noble Viscount made many excuses for the continuation of pornography. One was that many people who are abnormal have to have pornography. I wonder whether the noble Viscount has ever thought that the reason why these people are abnormal and have to have pornography may be that they were influenced and initiated into the desire for it as a result of the fact that we do not have strong enough laws to prevent individuals from harming others by introducing them to pornography. I am thinking in particular of unsophisticated people. By that, I do not mean only children, though children are of course extremely important. By the unsophisticated, I mean that there are a great many people who may not have had a very good education or who may not be very mentally alert. Such people can be far more harmed by uncontrolled pornography than can better educated and wiser people. I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, quoting Professor McClintock on the connection between violence and pornography. We all know that they go together in many cases. I have known one or two instances of young people's lives being utterly ruined by the avalanche of pornography which we now have in this country. It debilitates them mentally and makes them lose all sense of what are the real, valuable issues in life. They often end up with no values at all. I believe that it is the greatest evil of our time.
Another point which the apologists always make is that the restriction of pornography infringes our liberty. On the other hand, one could also say that it is an infringement of the public's liberty when, if they go to a public place or a cinema—though of course they do not have to go into the cinema, so that is not a good argument—they have to see extremely unpleasant posters. I have just been handed an account of one but I do not feel that I can read it out in your Lordships' House because it is so foul. I feel that that is an

731
infringement of the liberty of the subject. It is true that one finds quite a few such posters torn and mutilated by members of the public who object to them.
Section 3 of the Television Act lays down that there must be nothing in programmes, which offends good taste or decency or is likely to be offensive to public feeling. I have seen plenty of programmes on television and they have not adhered to that obligation. It is surprising that there is not greater control over this. We have just had the Law Commission's Report and I am extremely pleased to see that they have said in particular that films and cinemas are to be brought within the Obscene Publications Act, though of course the Act needs strengthening.
Regarding restrictions which are supposed to be for the public good, it has been put forward by many people—indeed by nearly every speaker—that the public good should be limited to art. I used to draw a lot as a young man and, though I do not want to boast, I drew quite well. However, limiting it to art could open the way to matters which may have nothing to do with art at all. One has only to go round the Tate Gallery and see some people's idea of art. It is quite amazing. The Press is also at fault. Though I do not want to increase its circulation, page 3 of the Sun carries a photograph every day which I would call obscene. It has one or two other such pages also but not so regularly, but page 3 always appears to have this type of picture which I would call an obscene photograph.
I recall something which a journalist friend of mine, who worked for the Daily Mirror, told me. I am not saying that the Daily Mirror publish obscene photographs. The friend told me, quite a few years ago, that the Daily Mirror ran an experiment to cut out photographs of near nude girls, and the circulation of the paper dropped by almost half a million in two weeks. Therefore the pictures of the nude girls had to be resumed. I can quite appreciate the difficulties of the Press in this matter, but I have always understood that it is the duty of the Press to uplift the public, not to play down to them.
I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, is not here at the moment.
732
I do not want to attack him, but he said that if we legislate against pornography we will drive it underground. There is a certain amount of truth in that, but not a great deal. For example, it is not possible to drive advertising posters underground. No one would nay a large sum of money to have a poster hidden away underground because nobody would see it. So the noble Viscount is not quite right there. This is not like prostitution, much of which can be driven underground. I recall the Act dealing with street offences, on which I spoke several times, which was put forward by the then Mr. Butler, now the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. That Act was very successful. Indeed, it was far more successful than anyone had imagined, because it cleared the prostitution off the streets. It removed a great feeling of aggravation from people who might be out for a stroll with their children.
I hope that we shall reverse the trend in the United Kingdom of what one can only say is becoming moral enfeeblement. I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will lose no time in acting upon the advice of the Law Commissioners, and will produce a Bill to eradicate this evil and undiluted pornography from our society. We have heard talk about the corruption of police. In fact very few of the police are corruptive. But surely it would be better to have a few police corrupted than to have thousands, or even tens of thousands of young people corrupted. I end on this note. It is our young people who are the future of our nation, and I have seen instances where I think they are beyond recall.
7.42 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and all those noble Lords who have spoken in his support. Of course it is very difficult to define obscenity, to say in precise terms of what it consists. But in your Lordships' House we have a Standing Order which forbids asperity of speech, and I have never heard a noble Lord venture to define what that is. We simply know instinctively what it is, in the same way that we recognise obscenity when we see or hear it. Indeed, so much is this so that, although we have a Standing Order that forbids asperity of speech, we have none

733
that forbids obscenity, although I cannot imagine that any noble Lord would indulge in it in your Lordships' House, nor, indeed, would Members in the other place. In short, my Lords, we have what might be described as an unwritten code of conduct, but we cannot say that we do not quite often see it transgressed outside. I was very struck when listening to Radio 4 on Sunday night, to the programme "Desert. Island Discs", in which a former lady's maid said in reply to the interviewer, with regard to the help she was having with her autobiography from a ghost writer, that she would have no reference to sex or scandal. She was quite right.
In London today it is impossible to go down certain streets, especially near Piccadilly Circus, without having one's eyes assailed by flashing lights intended to call one's attention to suggestive films, which show men and women in various stages of meretricious nakedness. Prostitutes may no longer be a public pest in Piccadilly, but in the advertisements for certain cinema films and theatres, in certain shops, and on certain bookstalls, there is what is no less than a deliberate attempt to prostitute the mind, which the late Stuart Cloete, who died last Saturday, describes so well in his novel The Abducters, which discusses white slavery in Victorian society.
It describes how a decently brought up young girl had her mind deliberately corrupted by pornographic books and pictures, while shut in a room alone. Might I suggest that your Lordships might care to read pages 137-8 for yourselves. The quotation is far too long to read here. In case your Lordships should think that I am out of date, and that such views went out with Queen Victoria. I might say that the book was brought to our notice by our own children, who are perfectly well alive to these things, and are horrified and disgusted by them. For myself, I can only say that I agree with a statement made by one American to another in the spring of 1972 at Heathrow Airport. The statement, which I overheard, was to the effect that London was far worse than 42nd Street, New York, which I have seen for myself. I felt ashamed.
My Lords, I have just returned from Jerusalem, from which I was able to tour
734
all around Israel. Knowing that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, was about to be debated, I looked around carefully, from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, and from Galilee, via Haifa, to Askalan, for any signs of public obscenity. There are absolutely none. I asked some Jewish friends there, and I was told that someone had tried once and had been stopped, and it is now completely forbidden. In supporting the Motion of the noble Lord to strengthen our law, I suggest that that is an example we would do well to follow. But, my Lords, I did not need to go so far afield. My friend, my butcher, said to me on Monday, "From all that I have seen and heard, I do not think that I would really care to take my children to London." I think he speaks with the true voice of decent British people.
7.48 p.m.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, those who in similar debates have spoken previously on this subject may have a feeling that we have been here before. At the moment we may also have the feeling that we are going to be here all night. In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for introducing this subject, and for doing it so admirably, I will relieve him by saying that I intend to say nothing new at all, except to stand up, rather as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, did, to assure anyone in the House who is interested that I still take the view that I took previously. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said.
There have been only two unpredictable events tonight. One was the admirable maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. I call it a maiden speech. It would be a little ungallant to call it an "Elderly Maiden" speech. Perhaps I should call it an "Elder 'Statesmaiden'" speech. I hope that we shall hear the noble Lord frequently in future. The other event was the speech by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, whom I have heard speak on scientific subjects much above my head, and whom I used to hear in my school days: who said so well and vigorously all the things I should have liked to say myself. He even succeeded in putting over to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby (who has just resumed his

735
place) a point of a revolutionary kind. I was extremely interested by this speech. However, I do not know how far one would regard as practical the revolutionary suggestion of a Worshipful, or Unworshipful, Company of Pornographers, which should be confined to pornography, and who should have to admit that they were such, but I think these things are well worth thinking over in addition to other suggestions.
The only other speech to which I want to refer is that of my noble friend Lord Norwich, who I am sorry is not here. This is not a Party question, but, nevertheless, I tried very hard to find anything in his speech with which I agreed, having heard him on this subject before. One thing with which I did agree was that we ought to be very careful not to confuse crime with sin. "Sin" is an unfashionable word, and when I think of it I sometimes remember the young man in Bernard Shaw's play who said. "Don't talk to me about sin; I don't believe in it", to which the elderly Irish doctor answered, "No, and perhaps you do not believe in disease, but both exist; and they are both facts one has to take into account". Sins, of course, vary, like other things, being in fashion or out of fashion. I think every generation has its own favourite sin. I think that, with the Victorians, avarice may possibly have been carried to such a considerable extent as to make it respectable. There is no doubt that the sin which we like to think of as the most respectable is lust in its different forms, including some very odd ones.
I think the great danger that we are in now—and this is a point which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, made—is in allowing entirely well-meaning writers on this subject to gloss over some of the facts about it and really make us believe that it is the only thing in life that is worth living for. Once any sin comes to be regarded as something to worship, I think it becomes dangerous. The criminal law comes in when it is a question of inciting somebody to commit a sin. Anger and hatred, I think, are deadly sins, but they are not sins punishable by law. On the other hand, inciting somebody to anger or hatred was made a criminal offence, and I think rightly so, though
736
people said it would not work, by the Race Relations Act. It is for this reason that I believe that it is wrong to think that it is unnecessary now to introduce legislation of some kind; wrong to think, or to think without a lot of further thought, that it is impossible; and quite wrong to think that it is undesirable.
As to the necessity, I think almost every noble Lord who has spoken has emphasised the point that pornography has increased on such an amazing scale in the last few years that we must take it more seriously than we have previously taken it. Just as, in my childhood, bombs in peace time were things that happened only in Bucharest or Budapest, then one heard of them in Belfast and now one has them in Bayswater, the thing is getting nearer and the time to deal with it is before it becomes impossible. As to the impossibility on the question of definition, I remember, in a previous debate, quoting the late Professor Housman, who was asked to define poetry and said that he could no more define it than a dog could define a rat, but he thought that they could both recognise it by the symptoms it produced. I still think that that comes as near as anything else that I have heard to an understanding of it; but it is, of course, as many noble Lords have pointed out, the matter of what people think is obscene which the law has to take into account.
I would give one example of the fact that we are not really such an extraordinarily "fuddy-duddy" and out-of-date generation, even the oldest of us in this House, in thinking that lust in its different forms, some less attractive than others, is an extremely dangerous thing which needs to be kept under control. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, in an admirable speech putting the opposite point of view, quoted as an example of something which might be thought obscene a delightful speech by the nurse in Romeo and Juliet. Of course, if that is taken as good advice to a young girl, one would not agree, any more than one would take Lady Macbeth's advice to her husband as good advice on court manners when royalty comes to stay. But I do not think that that speech, which was a character speech, is one which could incite anyone to any obscene act. I would find it difficult to believe that

737
As Shakespeare has been quoted, I should like to quote a few lines which are not put into a character's mouth but which occur in one of his sonnets. They express his point of view very strongly, I think. Some of the actual words have been used, for instance, by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, in talking about obscenity. Shakespeare begins by talking about "lust in action", which he calls:
"The expense of spirit in a waste of shame
I think "expense" is an important word, because I have heard the argument put up that we should not waste our time legislating about pornography when inflation has to be dealt with. But I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, that there is a sort of spiritual expense, even in privately-conducted lust, which is a thing of which everybody has to be very careful.
Shakespeare goes on to make some much more caustic remarks about what I shall call incitement to lust. He says, after speaking of "lust in action", that,
"Till action, lust
Is perjured,
Murderous, bloody, full of blame,
Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust;
Enjoyed no sooner but despised strait;
Past reason hunted, and no sooner had
Past reason hated, like a swallowed bait
On purpose laid to make the taker mad".
Why "On purpose"? What purpose could anyone have in putting this bait before people? I think it has been brought out that there is a certain financial gain from putting these kind of temptations in front of people. To put it baldly, it is possible to make money out of selling pornography; it is much more difficult to make money out of simply not selling pornography. So I think that is relevant.
Shakespeare goes on finally, after some more accusations of a very outspoken kind, to say:
"All this the world well knows; but none knows well
To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell".
My Lords, none of us knows how to shun this particular evil. I do not think anybody in this House—certainly, I am sure, not the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, or the noble Lord, Lord Soper—would claim that we could
738
abolish unpleasantness of this kind altogether. What we are trying to do is to discourage it, or at any rate not actively encourage it. My final feeling, having heard I think most of the speeches tonight, is that unless we actively discourage it we shall be encouraging it, because it is one of the fashionable vices which otherwise, like the omnibus to which the Archbishop of Canterbury referred the other day, is likely to run away with us.
7.59 p.m.
Viscount HANWCRTH: My Lords, noble Lords will no doubt be relieved to know that I do not think I shall speak more than 10 minutes, but from what I have heard of the debate I do not see any reason to depart from what I was originally going to say on the subject. So first let me say that it is not a subject on which I am anxious to speak, but as I did so on a previous debate I feel I ought to do so again today. I hope that my record in this House has been one of trying to express a common sense point of view. Nevertheless, on nearly all important issues—and this perhaps more than most—opinions must in the ultimate be influenced by a philosophy of life. In today's debate I will exclude any religious bias from my remarks; my thesis will rest on the admittedly rather broad concept of the dignity of the human race and what most people feel is right or, alternatively, undesirable. Before leaving the philosophical approach, I would say that sex can be divided into two levels. First, the pure love between men and women in which sex finds its highest approach; secondly, what I would conveniently refer to as purely animal instincts—although I think this description could be criticised as being unfair to animals.
Most of us I am sure will agree that the second level of sex is undesirable although individually, of course, we combine some proportions of the two extremes. There are nowadays a few people who openly advocate sex as a plaything to be encouraged in its widest context, even in the very young. They have no regard for the dignity of the human being and they fail to realise that, just as with drink, there is no stopping point to desire unless some control is exercised. Many of them, in fact, seek a moral justification for what they want to do to quieten their

739
own consciences. The time-honoured way of doing this is to convince others and to get them to follow you. There is also another school of thought which believes in the complete freedom of individuals to do as they choose. Strangely enough, they are usually the people who are most against freedom in other areas. They overlook such facts as the commercialisation of sex, the effect of example, the curiosity and other side effects of the very strong sexual urge such as sex jealousy and the missing out on something.
Having said all this, I believe that the question of preventing, or at least limiting, the desirability of offensive and obscene material can be conveniently considered under four categories. I think that in the debate today very few people have clearly realised that there are at least a number of categories in dealing with this problem.
My first one is the visual which those who do not want to see cannot avoid. This includes posters, advertisements, displays on bookstalls and, to a lesser extent, television, because it is not always easy to turn off the set with others watching or even to leave the room. Secondly, the visual, which is easily available on request. The cinema, the theatre and magazines on bookstalls are the most obvious examples of this category. Thirdly, the harder visual porn which is now usually under sealed covers and includes full visual presentation of copulation and oral sex, sex parties, bestiality and other perversions. Under this category may be included the cine clubs. Their repertoire varies depending on what escapes the Customs. The fourth is various reading material. This is the most difficult to deal with and possibly the most pernicious. It is readily available and encourages the belief that sex in any form is the norm and consequently saps any innate desire to resist. It should not he necessary to prove that this is true. The burden of proof is on the other side. They would have to show why normal methods used in education are effective while this sort of presentation has no effect.
My Lords, the question is, what should be done? Few, I think, would disagree that those who do not want to be confronted by obscene visual material should
740
be protected. That is the first category that I mentioned. Another obvious measure would be to increase the time necessary to become a member of a tine club showing "blue" films which is now, I think, two hours, to at least a day or preferably a week. This would tend to confine those seeing such films to people who really wish to do so.
I am, however, greatly concerned with the spread throughout the country and the increasing obscenity and numbers of magazines available on almost every bookstall. These now show fully opened leg positions from every angle, obviously inferred copulation or oral sex and female masturbation. Unless something is done, this will undoubtedly continue on a downward course. I think it is a pity that more Members of this House do not apprise themselves of what exactly is now so readily available and who only speak in terms of principle. If they wish, I will give to the Librarian a copy of a representative magazine which is readily available.
With this we should also have to tackle the theatres and cinemas. I see no reason why we should not bar complete nudity and simulated sex of any kind. Perhaps a list of what would not be permitted would be the easiest approach. I believe that the police advocate this course. There might be some overriding clause under which those who wriggle round the specific bans could be brought to book if it was considered necessary.
I realise that my recommendation does not include written material which, in many ways, I think is more salacious. Whatever the Government may say, there are ways of doing this which might be reasonably successful. Nevertheless, if they are timorous I suggest that they start with my categories one and two dealing with visual presentation and test public reaction and not that of the extremist and theorist. We must remember in this that we cannot go further than the majority of the public would wish. I do not think that enforcement is difficult for the visual presentation but there is, let me freely admit, one problem and that is that of the porn shops. Why do we not close them?
If you think that the now sealed material should still be available to those

741
who want it, then, no doubt, advertisement and the post would still provide an outlet. Alternatively, if you hold this view, why not license existing shops and prevent what is becoming a proliferation? Enforcement against porn shops in London has been discretionary—an intolerable temptation to bribery of the enforcement authorities. This point has been made already; unfortunately it has been made in the sense that we should not produce further legislation. In fact, the situation today is worse than would be possible under any legislation that we might produce. We cannot stand still as we are today. Even thinking as I do, it would be better if we refused to legislate, to authorise all porn regardless—which I think would be utter misfortune. We must face up to the difficulty today.
Regarding written material, I think we should wait and put this matter before a special committee. Finally, I must add that I am very tired of hearing the argument about art being an excuse for anything. We have heard this about science, and it simply will not go. I seem to remember that Petronius made an art of all the vices.
8.11 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I, too, should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for giving us the opportunity to debate this very important subject. I should also like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, for giving us one of the most distinguished maiden speeches I ever remember in this House. We are indeed very grateful to him. As I now go in as last man in this marathon debate, may I presume to remind the House of the ineffectiveness of the law in a certain area of social activity. I trust that we shall not allow ourselves to be diverted from the facts with which the law is here intended to deal. Whatever may be the reasons why the Obscene Publications Acts have proved to be powerless, the fact is that during the last few years this country has been flooded with a spate of pornographic material in the form of publications, films and stage performances and, for the most part, the law has proved incapable of stemming the flood or controlling the activities of its promoters.
Clearly there are a great number of people who appreciate the opportunity
742
of buying this kind of material or watching such displays, for the porn trade is big business. There is big money to be made presumably the promoters would not go to such lengths to provide this stuff or to take the risks involved in doing so unless it was highly profitable. We know that there are also many who may themselves have no desire to indulge in what is offered, but who have a rooted objection to any form of censorship and control and who say that the only form of sanction should be what public opinion is prepared to tolerate and impose. But there are many others—and I believe them to be the majority of the people in this country—who regard the proliferation of, pornographic material as an outrage, who believe that its ready availability is deeply wounding to the well-being of society, who are revolted by the activities of the traffickers in this foul trade, and who are in despair at the apparent powerlessness of the law to control what the law admits to be illegal.
We who work in London, as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, stressed, are particularly sensitive to these issues because it is here that the major part of the porn trade is initiated and carried on. Your Lordships will need no reminder from me that within a few hundred yards of this House one may walk down some of the main streets and find them placarded with advertisements for "blue" films or plays designed to excite sexual reactions. In Soho, street after street is full of striptease clubs or shops offering obscene literature and articles for sale; and this traffic is of course not confined to the centre of London. To most people it is a shameful business that this great city should be demeaned in this way and that its citizens should be humiliated and shamed by this blatant display of nastiness.
One does not wish to approach the problem in a spirit of prudery, but there are many who still retain a sense of decency and believe that the right approach to the human body and the processes of procreation should be one of reverence. They find the dishonouring and cheapening of the female sex highly distasteful and they believe, with the leading article in The limes after the Inside Linda Lovelace case, that this

743
wallowing in sexual aberrations and unnatural practices inevitably leads to violence, to sadism, to hatred and to fear. We believe that we are entitled to the protection of the law to remove these harmful things, and we look in vain.
One of the most distressing features of the whole business is that the effects of these displays obviously cannot be confined to adults. They are there for young people and children to look at and assimilate. Whatever view your Lordships may take about the desirability of preventing by law access by adults to certain material, I think it is unlikely that this House would abrogate its responsibility for protecting the young from influences which may be harmful. In this area, the law is woefully failing in its responsibility. Clearly, the Obscene Publications Acts have misfired. The Preamble to the 1959 Act states that its purpose was:
"To provide for the protection of literature and to strengthen the law against pornography."
The 1964 Act similarly stated that its purpose was:
"To strengthen the law for preventing the publication for gain of obscene matter."
Neither Act has achieved its purpose. Why have they failed? The Master of the Rolls stated in the Court of Appeal, in the case of the Queen v. Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis when they made known their views on the verdict in the case of the Queen v. Gold why the Acts had failed. He said this:
"I regret to say that it is in the wording of the Statute and in the way the courts have applied it. In the first place, the test of obscenity is much too restricted, or it has been interpreted too narrowly…. In the second place, the 'defence of public good' has opened a door through which many a pornographer can escape…. Finally… the major reason for their ineffectiveness in this matter lies in the framework in which the police have to operate. The Obscene Publications Act, 1959, does not provide a sound foundation. It fails to provide a satisfactory test of obscenity: and it allows a defence of public good which has got out of hand…. If the people of this country want pornography to be stamped out, the Legislature must amend the Obscene Publications Act, 1959, so as to make it strike unmistakably at pornography: and it must define the powers and duties of the police so as to enable them to take effective measures for the purpose. The police may well say to Parliament: 'Give us the tools, and we will finish the job'."
744
Thus spoke the Master of the Rolls, and we should be saying today that Parliament should provide the tools whereby this scandalous state of affairs may be minimised and controlled.
How is this to be done? I believe that, as a first step, the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, with his immense experience in Home Affairs, is right in pressing for legislation that will remove displays of indecent material from public view. Such displays are deeply offensive to the majority of people, and harmful to those who do not possess the moral fibre to withstand their corrupting suggestiveness. Such legislation would not, of course, remove the root causes of obscenity, any more than getting prostitutes off the streets eliminated prostitution. But it would, so I believe, do much to elevate the moral sense of society, it would remove a scandal and it would bring to an end the process of gnawing at moral sensibility until we come to accept these displays as the norm, and to equate our own behaviour and toleration to the standards of what we see day by day all around us. I hope that such legislation would deal not only with placards and posters but also with books, magazines and newspapers which are displayed on bookstalls and in shops; and that the penalties for breaking the law would be sufficiently severe as to make the traffickers in this trade think twice before they offend.
But, my Lords, I do not think that driving the display of obscene material out of public view is enough. It cannot be right that there should continue to be on the Statute Book enactments that clearly are incapable of achieving their objectives. The Master of the Rolls has remarked that, whatever some may say, Parliament had no doubt that pornography was evil for,
"it has enacted laws with the express intention of stopping it."
Having so far failed in its purpose, Parliament must have another shot. It surely cannot be beyond the wit of our legal advisers to find some definition of "obscenity" which is generally acceptable and easy to understand. That definition must avoid the pitfall of the present legislation in assuming the existence of evidence concerning the effect of an article which it is difficult to establish and about which evidence is very difficult

745
to obtain. The reference to a tendency to deprave and corrupt presumes that people have been depraved and corrupted. How can you prove this, and who is going into the witness box to say that it has happened to him or to her? Whereas it is not difficult to produce witnesses prepared to swear that they have not been depraved and corrupted, and how can it be proved that they are wrong?
The new legislation must look very carefully at the safeguards provided by the enactment, lest they stifle the effectiveness of the law. That there must be safeguards, all would agree. But the defence in the present Act, that an article is for the public good because it is in the interest not only of science, literature, art and learning, but also "of other objects of general concern", has meant that what an eminent jurist has described as "a positive menagerie of so-called witnesses" have gone into the witness box to assert the value to other objects of general concern of the publication in question. That is not what Parliament meant in its desire to strengthen the law against pornography. But, above all, any new enactment must be such that issues can be placed clearly and unequivocally before a jury. Obviously, as the law stands now, the possibility of clouding the issues is so strong that juries are bemused and confused. The law should be such that a case can be presented in clear-cut and defined terms, and a jury be enabled to know what it is about which they have to decide. That is not so at the present time.
I am aware that what we are discussing is superficial to the basic issues. It will be pointed out that some people will always want to wallow in pornographic indulgence, that they always have done and that you will not stop them by controlling pornographic literature and displays. In other words, you cannot make people good by legislation. I take the point. But, equally, society has always claimed the right to control certain areas of human behaviour which it believed can be harmful to the common wellbeing. It controls some sexual behaviour such as incest, bigamy, homosexual behaviour in public and offences against children; it controls the consumption of drugs and of alcohol, and it has a right to control the publication and display of
746
obscene material if, as many of us believe it to be, it is harmful to society. The difficulty is that in the present state of society there are no commonly accepted norms of moral behaviour to back up and to enforce the law. For centuries, the people of this country accepted the standards of behaviour inherited from the teaching of Judaism and Christianity and enshrined in the teachings in the Bible. There was a great deal of hypocrisy, a good deal of falling short of the standards, but they were there and they were generally honoured.
Now society has, for the most part, rejected the moral guidelines which controlled its forefathers. The crust of what we regarded as civilisation has been fractured, and we have discovered how thin, in fact, it was, and what ugly things lie beneath and how ready they are to well up and to break out. It is all the more difficult, therefore, to control them, because we cannot appeal to a generally accepted and honoured code of moral behaviour. But we must not be deterred from trying to do so. It may be that we have come to accept pornography because of its presence, and to minimise its seriousness. If so, we should do well to note some words of Lord Justice Phillimore:
"In my judgment it is high time its gravity was appreciated by the public. It cannot fail, especially in the light of the great volume of such material which is being put in circulation, to affect the morals and the moral outlook of many people, and in particular of the young and the impressionable."
I believe that that warning is valid, and that the duty of Parliament to take action is obvious and urgent.
8.28 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I would join with other noble Lords in welcoming this debate which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. Whatever the views of Members of this House on the issues of principle involved, it is right that these matters should be fully debated as they certainly have been today. There has been another cause for some gratification, and that is that this has been the occasion of the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carr. I think all of those on both sides of the House who hold the noble Lord in high esteem as a distinguished former Home Secretary were particularly

747
pleased to hear what he said, even though, on one or two aspects of his speech which I shall come to later, I am afraid that I did not wholly agree with him.
The subject of this debate takes us to the centre of the dilemma about the role of censorship—because censorship it is—in a free society. It is a dilemma. In a democracy, censorship cannot be a desirable end in itself. One noble Lord spoke with some emotion about arrangements in an East European country where they have no problem of any kind, because of the total power of the State to control what is published in book form or newspaper form; but I am bound to say that I would far prefer to live in our society, with all its problems, than have the State exercising authority of that kind. The question which concerns us relates to the circumstances in which censorship ought to be regarded as a necessary evil.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord has used the word "censorship" several times in his opening remarks, so suppose that he lays a lot of stress upon it. Apart from films, however, we have no censorship in this country.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am going to deal with this point, and as I develop the argument I hope to carry the noble Earl with me. The question which we are discussing is the circumstances in which censorship—I fear that is the term which I wish to apply—ought to be regarded as a necessary evil. What we are debating is the balance between freedom of expression and the protection of society and individual members of society, a balance which each society has to define for itself and then redefine as social mores change.
There are, of course, many ways in which the law in this country seeks to interfere with freedom of expression. There are, for example, the law of defamation and the laws requiring information to be given to the Government which also protect the citizen from the disclosure of his confidences. But there is a fundamental difference between these controls and the control on pornography. In the case of pornography, the law seeks to protect man from himself. The issue before us is clear: how far should a free society use the sanctions
748
of the law to interfere with the choice of the individual?
I will turn first to the legal test of obscenity. The legal test of obscenity was laid down not, if I may say so, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London seemed to suggest, in the 1959 Act but in 1868 by Chief Justice Cockburn. In delivering his judgment in the Hicklin case he said that the test of obscenity was whether the tendency of the matter,
"is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort might fall".
That test was modified by Parliament in 1959, but the essential element of the tendency to deprave and corrupt persists. For over a hundred years, therefore, it has been recognised that the law ought to apply only where there was a likelihood of harmful influences, not where there was merely shock or disgust at the material concerned.
The present Statute stems from the pressure of 20 years ago to reform the law, still then based on the old common law of obscene libel. Let us be quite clear about this. The law at that time was in a profoundly unsatisfactory state. In some of the speeches made today there has been the implication that before 1959 we were living in some form of "Golden Age" where the pornographer and his activities were nowhere to be evidenced. Well, the situation was a little different from that.
As I am aware that many Members of your Lordships' House are dissatisfied with the state of the present law, it is, I think, right to spend just a few moments explaining the circumstances which led to a change in the previous law. That law had placed many hazards in the way of serious authors and reputable publishers. It had brought works of literary and artistic merit before the courts and had introduced a number of uncertainties which created an atmosphere damaging to the publication of a great deal of serious work. In 1954 alone there were five prosecutions of reputable publishers. Of these, two led to convictions, two to acquittals and one to two indecisive trials and a formal acquittal. In addition—I think many of us will recall the circumstances of this particular case—the

749
Swindon magistrates ordered the Decameron to be forfeited, although that decision was overturned on appeal. Concern in the literary world about the way in which reputable publishers and serious authors could in this way be placed in the dock in a criminal court led the Society of Authors to set up a Committee, chaired by Sir Alan Herbert, to consider the law. The Committee produced a Report, together with a draft Bill, which was then introduced into Parliament by my right honourable friend the present Home Secretary. The central proposal made by the Committee, and that which remained the prime objective of those who wished to reform the law, was a strengthening of the protection given to genuine works of literature by allowing a publisher to bring evidence of literary or artistic merit before the court.
The Private Member's Bill was reintroduced in 1957 and committed to a Select Committee which took evidence from authors, publishers, the prosecuting authorities, the Home Office and others. The Select Committee produced a unanimous report recommending that the law should be reformed and the outcome was another Private Member's Bill, again introduced by my right honourable friend, which was subsequently introduced to give effect to the Select Committee's recommendations.
The Select Committee recommended that the test of a tendency to deprave and corrupt should be enacted in a new Statute. They reported that it was the general view of witnesses that although the meaning of the expression might be difficult to define with academic precision, it would be preferable to retain it in default of a better alternative. Despite what has been said today, I remain rather sceptical as to whether we shall easily find another definition which will obtain more general support.
As I have said, although the central test of the tendency to deprave and corrupt was re-enacted in the 1959 Act, the law made certain changes to protect works of literature as well as other changes to facilitate action against pornography. The new Act made clear that the work had to be read as a whole, instead of attention being directed to isolated passages. The issue before the court became the effect on the likely
750
readership, as opposed to the effect on anyone into whose hands it might have fallen. And the defence of public good, with the right to call evidence from expert witnesses, was written into the law. At the same time and I must emphasise this in the light of what has been said in the debate today—it was made easier to obtain search warrants and the police were given wider powers in the execution of warrants. A further strengthening of the law against pornography was provided by the Obscene Publications Act 1964 which remedied some defects in the 1959 Act, which had by then become apparent, and widened the scope of the 1959 Act in certain respects.
Many noble Lords have argued that there are significant weaknesses in the law dealing with obsence publications as it now stands. The gist of the criticism is that the law is failing to deal with material which it is thought ought not to be made available. This criticism inevitably follows from the fact that prosecutions of some publications have been unsuccessful—as, of course, they were before the passage of the 1959 Act. Let me make it clear at once that I recognise the genuine concern that lies behind this criticism, but I think the House must recognise one difficulty which was touched upon by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield. The assumption behind criticism of a court's decision to acquit is that the book concerned was in fact obscene, as defined by the present law, and that the jury was wrong. But the jury would have reached their decision in the light of contemporary standards of acceptability.
The decisions of juries undoubtedly reflect shifts in public opinion generally, and that would have been true however obscenity may have been defined in the law. We have to accept that in the last two decades there has been a significant movement in public attitudes. The sexually explicit is no longer regarded as objectionable as it was 20 years ago. One indication of this (this was a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard) is the content of our popular newspapers—and, while I make that point, the content of some of our quality newspapers as well. If one were to put the two side by side, I suspect that one would be extremely surprised at

751
the change there has been in the character of the British Press during that period.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, he mentioned the fact that decency has to be judged by contemporary standards. May I point out to him that contemporary standards are of a wider description today than they have ever been. They stretch from one extreme to the other.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: That may be so, my Lords, but it is a matter for the jury, in the light of the evidence given in a case, to determine whether a particular book is or is not obscene, and I am endeavouring to say to the House that the standards they apply are very different today from what they were 20 years ago, and that would have been true whether or not the law had changed. In my view that it one of the most important issues put forward in this debate. That change, which is reflected in the Press, can also be seen so far as the content of cinema programmes and television programmes is concerned. I am well aware that to many people this is a profoundly distressing trend, but it has to be recognised that there has been this major change in public attitudes which I believe recent decisions by juries reflect, and in this situation we would be most unwise to assume that by simply changing the definition of obscenity we can ensure that people who are today acquitted would automatically be convicted.
It has been argued today that the laws of obscenity are wholly ineffectual. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London went so far as to say that we were powerless. But the statistics of convictions do not bear this out. In 1973, the last year for which figures are available, 251 persons were found guilty of offences under the 1959 Act. In the Metropolitan Police District last year the police seized a total of more than 200,000 articles when executing warrants under the Act. Moreover, there are of course separate controls—and substantial controls, I may add—on the importation of obscene articles. This point was raised in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley. These controls are particularly important because hard-core
752
pornography is material which generally comes into this country from overseas rather than being home produced, and last year the Customs seized a total of about 189,000 articles regarded as contravening the prohibition on the import of obscene and indecent matter.
But having said all this, the Government of course recognise that there is public disquiet. We also recognise the misgivings which have been expressed about the manner in which it is possible for pornography to be defended not on account of its artistic or literary merit but on the argument that any, or almost any, pornography is positively beneficial. All I would say on that is that there has been a decision by the Court of Appeal today which in my view is highly significant in this particular regard, and when noble Lords examine it tomorrow I think that at least some of their anxieties will be stilled.
More generally, I understand the difficulty in which publishers, wholesalers and retailers are placed because of the uncertain nature of the operation of the law. I understand their view, as a general principle of law, that a person should be able to establish in advance of a particular course of action, or the sale of a particular book or magazine, whether or not his action will bring him into conflict with the law. In a field where subjective judgment inevitably plays a large part this is a real difficulty, and as my right honourable friend has said in another place he is not convinced that there is any simple, workable and acceptable change in the law which could resolve this problem. However, he has made it clear that the Government will keep the matter under review, and we shall seek to establish whether there are ways in which the law might be improved.
I turn now to the second issue raised by the noble Lord, that of indecent public displays. This point in particular formed a significant part of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Carr. This issue raises considerations of a different kind. Whatever a person may be free to read if he wishes, there is no reason why the same material should be thrust upon the public in the street. This is primarily a matter of public nuisance. The Government are therefore not without sympathy

753
for the view that there should be a limitation on public displays which are likely to cause offence to reasonable people. But to say that is not to solve the problem of translating the principle into effective legislative action.
I am ready to admit that the existing law in this field is far from satisfactory. It is based on an assortment of 19th century Statutes, going back to the Vagrancy Act of 1824, where the various provisions, are so confused, uncertain and antiquated that a revision seems overdue. These provisions are still used by prosecutors, although not on a particularly substantial scale. In 1973, 69 people were proscuted for the indecent display offences of the Vagrancy Act and the Indecent Advertisements Act of 1889.
The motives of the previous Administration in introducing the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill were therefore wholly understandable, and my honourable friends in another place allowed the measure an unopposed Second Reading on the ground that there was virtually unanimous support for the central purpose of the Bill in preventing the gratuitous affront to the general public caused by the display of indecent material. However—and my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby referred to this—the detailed examination of the Bill demonstrated the severe difficulties of devising a protection for the public which did not at the same time cause absurd anomalies and an unreasonable extension of censorship.
The noble Lord, Lord Carr—and this is the only point on which I took, certainly not deep exception but some exception to his speech—pointed out, quite rightly, that there had been an unopposed Second Reading, but I think he slightly understated the criticism to which the Bill was subjected in Standing Committee in another place. Criticisms made were of a very substantial character indeed. The Bill made no attempt to define indecency, and it became clear that there were many views about the extent of the meaning of the word, and also whether the earlier interpretations of the courts were what was required for the future. There was also considerable uncertainty about what was meant by a display, and the extent to which the offence would be confined to those who sought to gain by the commercial exploi
754
tation of indecent displays. Moreover, the Bill exempted from its scope art galleries and museums, but included public libraries; and it sought to cover advertisements for indecent articles even though the advertisement itself could not be regarded as indecent.
In short, my Lords, a harsh critic—and certainly one would not be a harsh critic on the occasion of the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carr—would say that the Bill very nearly fell into pieces when it was considered in Committee, and it is undoubtedly true, as my noble friend Lord Houghton said, that the then Opposition would have taken a very different attitude to the Bill when it came before the House at Report stage. I have made it clear, as far as our attitude in principle is concerned, that in these circumstances the Government do not rule out the possibility of reforming the law, and indeed we shall look carefully at the question in the light of the final conclusions, which we hope to receive shortly, of the Working Party on Vagrancy and Street Offences, which has been reviewing all the offences in the old Vagrancy Acts.
There are three other issues that I should like to touch on briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, my noble friend Lord Longford and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, raised the question of the Law Commission's Report on Conspiracy. As the House is aware, that Report was published yesterday. The Government are considering it carefully, and before we reach our conclusions we would welcome the views of all interested parties on the Report. My right honourable friend hopes to be able to indicate the Government's intentions as soon as possible.
The second point I want to touch on is that made by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. This concerned various television programmes which the noble Lords had seen on either BBC or IBA programmes. As noble Lords will recall, there were Questions in this House on this issue, and they will be aware that the position is that the Boards of Governors of the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority have the responsibility in this matter. If Members of the House feel that a particular programme is

755
objectionable, then they have an absolute right to draw the particular details of this matter to the attention of chairmen of those two organisations. That is in fact the way to proceed. The Government have no locus in this matter, and it would seem to me wholly inappropriate for them to intervene in day-to-day matters affecting the two broadcasting organisations. However, if noble Lords feel that either the Act or the BBC Charter has been infringed, they have the right and, indeed, I would say, the duty to draw this matter to the attention of the two organisations concerned.
A third point was raised by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby; that is, the question of the police and the possible danger of corruption in terms of the enforcement of pornography legislation, or any change in the law. I am sure my noble friend Lord Houghton will appreciate the point that in the light of certain prosecutions now taking place, in my view this matter is clearly sub judice, and it is not appropriate for a member of the Government to make any comment on it, even though I understand the importance my noble friend attaches to it.
My Lords, the area we have been discussing today cannot be defined with any precision. There is no firm line between what is indecent and what is not, between what is obscene and what is not. Different people will always react in different ways. All judgments are necessarily subjective. In considering the extent to which material should be suppressed on grounds of its harmful effects, it is obviously desirable that we should have firm evidence about the possible effects pornography may have on the personality. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, raised this question. Unhappily, very little evidence of this character exists. However, I should like to say something on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Houghton.
As there is a clear assumption, an assumption of the present law, that pornography can corrupt the reader, I am bound to say that I am rather worried about the proposal my noble friend raised, which is apparently appearing in a Private Member's Bill in another place, that some new statutory agency should
756
be created. I do not know whether that will be called the Pornography Board, or some similar name. My noble friend said it was proposed that this board was to have, apparently, wide powers, and its members presumably would spend most of their lives reading novels which were pornographic. It would be an interesting laboratory experiment, it seems to me, as to what were the corrupting effects. Here would be a group of men, undoubtedly headed by a Companion of Honour at least, as my noble friend pointed out, who are to spend the whole of their lives, if Parliament were to enact this—which is a rather far-fetched conclusion—reading pornographic literature generally accepted by everybody as having a corrupting effect on the person who reads it. It seems to me a novel proposal but one for which, I am bound to say at an early stage, the Government do not have a great deal of initial enthusiasm.
On the general question of how much research has been done on this problem—and this is an important point—some has been done. But it is not entirely surprising that both its design and the question of what conclusions can properly be drawn from the results have given rise inevitably to sharp controversy. It would be a mistake to think that this is a field in which meaningful research could readily tell us what we should like to know. In the meantime, the law exists on the assumption that there can be harmful effects, and on the basis that it is for the jury, or the courts generally, to use their common sense to identify that material which may give rise to positive harm. Certainly the police and the Customs authorities will continue with determination to enforce the present law on obscenity. For their part, the Government will examine with care any proposals for change put before us.
So far as indecent displays are concerned, I hope that we will receive the report of the Working Party on Vagrancy and Street Offences within a few weeks. We will then consider what measures are required to deal with the problem. The Government are in no way complacent about these issues. We recognise that there is public concern, and that is why my right honourable friend will study with care the proposals made in today's debate, together with those he will be

757
receiving from others, in order to determine whether, and if so in what form, fresh legislative action is required.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, sits down, may I put two questions to him? First, I do not think his speech covered directly or indirectly any of the points made in my own speech. This is understandable, but may I ask him, therefore, to study carefully the constructive suggestions I made.
Secondly, would not the noble Lord agree that his view that the jury's findings represent the average feeling of the country on some of these questions is rather simplistic, bearing in mind on what they have to base their decision, which is that it has to be both obscene and corrupt; bearing in mind also the fact that there is an ability to challenge the jury, and that those who come for the defence form a bandwagon of very experienced people in defending these cases? Does he not therefore agree that it is a little simplistic to assume that a jury's findings represent the feeling of the country?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, it is quite impossible to say that a decision of a jury in any case, whatever form of criminal offence they are considering, represents a cross-section of the country. Of course it does not. It represents only the opinions of that particular jury.
On the other point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, I will gladly look into the suggestions he made. As I am sure he will realise, there were 24 speakers in today's debate, and my speech would have been very much more lengthy if I had dealt with all the points raised in all the speeches.
8.58 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I quite accept that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, could not pick up every point that we have made in our debate today, but may I thank him for answering so fully. There is one point in his speech which I think I should take up, because it is absolutely crucial in assisting the noble Lord to understand what so many of us have been saying today. What he said—and he will see this when he looks at Hansard and reads his speech is that the law
758
with regard to pornography seeks to protect man from himself. I think that when the noble Lord considers what was said today, and, when he reads the speeches, he will see that the main burden of them was our concern about the young. We feel that for children and young people to see and be exposed to all this pornographic material, especially much of the extreme material, is most dangerous to them. This is the absolute crux of our concern. Particularly I would commend to him the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, which was most cogent in this regard. Many other speakers made the same point.
Here perhaps I might turn to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. May I say that I appreciated that on his broad shoulders a considerable burden rested; that he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and indeed the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, who has gone, were the principal protagonists on the other side, and therefore they had a very weighty task to discharge. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, laid about all of us I do not think we can really complain, because he had had to hear a lot of speeches in the opposite direction. But I think he was attacking the wrong target when he censured us because we were running down the youth of the country. We were doing exactly the reverse. Several of us roundly declared our faith in the strength and morality of the country. We are concerned about the moral tone of the country, the way we are moving, and the dangers we believe face especially the very young, who are too young to defend themselves.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—obviously he is a very cogent reader of Hansard; I was flattered that he read my speech of 1971—when he comes to look at these speeches will see we were not running down the youth of the country. There was hardly a single attack on the youth. Maybe the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, laid about himself a little on the moral deterioration. I do not think, however, that he was attacking youth; I think the burden of my comment is right.
May I thank very much all noble Lords, and noble Baronesses especially, who have so splendidly taken part in this debate. It is not a subject that any of

759
us much enjoy discussing, especially in public. I am grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven, and, of course, my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith. They all made most notable contributions to the debate, and I think they got the stick laid about them rather more gently by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and redeemed our side somewhat from his general strictures. My noble friend Lord Ingleby was the only one who escaped because he is under 50, and I congratulate him on that. He made the shortest speech and quite one of the most cogent ones. It was a most valuable contribution.
I would congratulate most warmly my noble friend Lord Carr. I thought his speech was most cogent and most helpful to us, and the deep humanity of it must have appealed to the whole House. Coming back to the point that my noble friend was dealing with, the matter of public display of films, here we found ourselves on slightly more sympathetic ground with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. He said that the law was far from satisfactory in this field, and I was encouraged to hear that. It is, of course, this aspect of it which is most offensive. I have a horrible feeling that in order to get this right it is going to be necessary to get a definition in somewhere.
Indeed, he complained himself that indecency was not defined in this Act. The burden of our attack on the 1959 Act is that definition has been unsatisfactory, and the fact that it rested on the judgment of a learned Lord in the middle of the 19th century does not make it any better. It nevertheless has been used by defence counsel very effectively to confuse the minds of juries, and put together with the defence of public good it has most certainly allowed extreme pornographic material to escape. I am perfectly certain the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would not wish to stand up and say that the Linda Lovelace book is not pornography. If that is not pornographic, nothing is. This is really why we are so anxious. We feel that this situation is slipping. The reference to the 1973 figures is not much consolation three years later.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with respect, they are, unfortunately, the last figures available.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: I quite realise that, my Lords; but I suspect that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police authorities in the metropolis are feeling far less certain today of their prospects for securing convictions than they did a year or two ago. The situation really is deteriorating. So, difficult though it is to find a better definition, difficult though it is to get a better balance in the 1959 Act, I do feel we should attempt to do it.
Here I should like to thank very much the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for his superb winding-up. He may have been the tenth man at the wicket, but if he had not spent his life rowing backwards in a boat he would undoubtedly have made a century even when he batted tenth. He wound up superbly and made the case which many of us feel—not everybody is a Christian today, but many are and are influenced by it—that the moral fibre and the moral life of the nation really do matter, perhaps to everybody, not just to those who profess themselves to be Christians. I thank the right reverend Prelate most warmly for making out the case with such eloquence and cogency.
My Lords, we have gone on long enough. I again thank all noble Lords on all sides who have taken part in this debate. I think it has been a helpful, informative, and fairly representative expression of responsible opinion in this country about the dangers we face. Here I conclude with a word of praise, if I may, to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who is the leader in this field. Just how much he has done all of us know. It is a field where there are no rewards except ridicule. You have to be a bit of a hero to do what he has done. I should like to put on the Record my very warm admiration of what he has done. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATED E.13 FUND (No. 2) BILL
Read 2a: Committee negatived.
LEGAL AID (EXTENSION OF PROCEEDINGS) REGULATIONS 1976
9.5 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones) rose to move, That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 10th March, be approved. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to extend legal aid to the Employment Appeal Tribunal which was established by the Employment Protection Act 1975 and which will come into operation on 30th March this year. Regulations which extend legal aid require Affirmative Resolutions of each House before they can come into operation, and these are the Resolutions which we are now considering.
Perhaps I should say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, expressed his regret that he would not be able to be with us in the consideration of these regulations. I apprehend that he was not opposed to them, although I also apprehend that had he been here he would have made some observations about the parallelism, as he would put it, between the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the unlamented National Industrial Relations Court. But as I shall be spared the burden of dealing with observations in that direction, it will no doubt facilitate and hasten the speed of the consideration of the regulations which are presently before us.
My Lords, the Appeal Tribunal will be a superior court of record whose main function will be to hear appeals on points of law from Industrial Tribunals and from the Certification Officer. Most of the jurisdiction of the Appeal Tribunal is at present being exercised by the High Court and by the Court of Session, where legal aid is already and presently available, and before that it was exercised by the National Industrial Relations Court, as I have said, where legal aid was also available.
It is, therefore, plainly desirable in this important class or category of litigation for legal aid to be available for proceedings in the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
762
I accordingly commend these regulations to the House. Their effect will be to continue to make legal aid available in cases where it is already available, and they will therefore add little or nothing to the financial burden on the Legal Aid Fund. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 10th March, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Viscount LONG: My Lords, may I just thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his kind words about my noble and learned friend, who apologises for not being present. We know that he cannot be here tonight. I shall extend those kind words to him. All is quiet in the House while he is away, and peace reigns.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) (EXTENSION OF PROCEEDINGS) REGULATIONS 1976
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kirkhill, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 10th March, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WIMBLEDON AND PUTNEY COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee (on recommitment) with Amendments.
SAMUEL MONTAGU & CO. LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with an Amendment.
WATER CHARGES BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  TREATMENT FOR HUMAN INFERTILITY
  TREATMENT FOR HUMAN INFERTILITY
  CLOMIPHENE PRESCRIPTIONS
  CLOMIPHENE PRESCRIPTIONS
  LACTATION SUPPRESSANTS
  LACTATION SUPPRESSANTS
  ARTIFICIAL INFANT FEEDS
  ARTIFICIAL INFANT FEEDS
  HEALTH AND PERSONAL SOCIAL SERVICES
  HEALTH AND PERSONAL SOCIAL SERVICES
  BACAT SYSTEM DISCUSSIONS
  BACAT SYSTEM DISCUSSIONS