Sitting of 27 May 1976

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

    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration read.
    To be considered upon Monday 7th June.

    METHODIST CHURCH BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 10th June.

    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Monday 7th June.

    BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)
    Read a Second time and committed.

    LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 8th June.

    COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 10th June.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Security (Working Party)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the general conclusions of the working party on security.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I will report the conclusions of the Ministerial Committee to the House in an appropriate way.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: This clearly must not be a rush job, but does not the Secretary of State think it is about time that some results came out of this working party? Is he aware of the intense dissatisfaction—indeed, it has been expressed to him—on the Opposition side of the House at what appears to us to be a lack of co-ordination between the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Regular Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment?
    Will he say whether the working party's work will result in finding an answer to the problem—we are with him on this—of laying by the heels the godfathers and not merely the small fry of thuggery and terrorism?
    Mr. Rees: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of the Working Party on Security, which I instituted at the turn of the year, was to look at the long-term problem of security in the Province. I felt it was time we looked at the long-term problem instead of living from day to day, as we have since the first time soldiers went there in an ad hoc way in 1969.
    There will be no immediate results from the working party. It might be that more money or more men will be required. It is a long-term study. I make that clear, because there is a tendency in Northern Ireland to believe that something will happen overnight.
    Anything that needs changing in the way of security, co-operation or otherwise, is a matter for the GOC, who is the director of military operations. I have

    607
    discussed with him the question of co-operation between all arms. He believes that this is good and right, and that changes of a structural nature are needed in certain fields. These are taking place at the moment. But nowhere in any of our thinking is there any thought of a return of the RUC as a para-military force, as it was in 1969.
    Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recent statements from Opposition spokesmen, describing the security policy as being one of weakness, can only encourage the Provisional IRA? Is he further aware that some of these statements, asking for special forces, can only strike horror into the minds of the minority arid encourage overall the paramilitary forces on the Protestant side, as well as weakening the morale of the security forces as a whole?.
    Mr. Rees: I think it is important that whatever we say is understood by the people of Northern Ireland. It is a place—given the emotions arising from the killings that go on—where many of the things that we say are misunderstood.
    I have made it abundantly clear, and I say again—it is worth saying—that when I talk about the primacy of the police I am not talking about a return to the past. I want to supply the resources for the police to be an efficient police force. That is what it is about. That may take time, because of the provision of money, training, and so on.
    Mr. Goodhart: When will the Secretary of State reach a decision about increasing the size of the Regular element in the Ulster Defence Regiment by about 800 men—a proposal that has received very wide support from those with great knowledge of the security situation in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Rees: The question of con rates is a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Defence Secretary, and is being looked at. What is not wanted by my security officers is a Regular battalion, or battalions. They are firmly against that. I shall work within the law with the UDR. I give it my full support. I see it at work in all parts of the Province. We have to take into account, whether we like it or not, that in certain parts of the Province, parts of our security forces are seen and are not supported. What I
    608
    have to do with the UDR is to help it to be accepted. That is far more important than changes within it.
    Mr. Farr: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in that long-term review, consider the establishment of a small, highly-trained and very well equipped light mobile force, drawn from volunteers from the Army, the police and the Ulster Defence Regiment, as a special measure to seek out and destroy those who are engaged in trying to bring about the destruction of law and order in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Rees: Certainly, in the rural areas one needs mobility, which, on the whole, is what the Army has provided, together with the police patrol groups. I would not deny that mobility is necessary. But it is sometimes forgotten that what is required is not so much a question of mobility as of knowledge. That point was brought home to me again in examining a case of murder that took place last week. Although such cases are for the police to deal with, I look at these things myself. It is a question of knowledge—of knowing who was involved. The nature of the violence has changed from the large-scale violence on the streets that was happening six years ago. If there is need for mobility with regard to crime detection, I shall do what I can to provide it.
    Mr. Fitt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, allied with the security problem, there is also the problem of making political progress in Northern Ireland, and that the one cannot be settled without the other? In that respect, is he aware of the statements now being made in Northern Ireland by the leader of the Official Unionist Party, calling upon his supporters in Northern Ireland not to co-operate with my right hon. Friend, on the spurious ground that they do not agree with his security attitude?
    Mr. Rees: I am not really worried about that. I do not attend many social functions in Northern Ireland, but I do attend daily meetings with bodies for which I am responsible to this House, and I know that they will not be sympathetic to silly statements of that kind. On the political aspect, we cannot force the politicians of Northern Ireland to agree, as my hon. Friend knows. Agreement

    609
    has to emerge there. We tried before from this House; we got agreement here and then found that it did not stand up in Northern Ireland. We must not do that again.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition will not be deterred from doing their duty and making responsible criticism where necessary by unworthy suggestions that that is helpful to the Provisional IRA? Does he agree that what is needed is to restore and improve confidence? We support him in the policy of re-establishing the primacy of the police, but while the RUC are in the front line and policemen and police women are suffering terrible casualties, is there not a case for their having the equipment and techniques to protect themselves?
    Mr. Rees: I accept that. I was not denying it. I was making the point that we have to be careful that we are not misunderstood in Northern Ireland, where it is rather easy to be misunderstood.

    Political Situation
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the political situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with political leaders in Northern Ireland on the continuation of direct rule.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Since the dissolution of the Constitutional Convention on 5th March, I have had a number of meetings with the leaders and members of political parties in Northern Ireland to discuss issues of common concern, for example direct rule and the security situation. As I told the House on 5th March, it is my firmly-held intention that the Government will continue to discharge fully their responsibility for all aspects of the affairs of Northern Ireland and provide firm, fair and resolute government.
    Mr. Watkinson: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the statement issued by two leading Northern Ireland politicians only this week, suggesting extra-parliamentary activities? Does he
    610
    agree that that only serves to undermine the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland? Does he not also agree that such activities involve a somewhat curious interpretation of the term "loyalty"?
    Mr. Rees: I agree with my hon. Friend. In Northern Ireland, among some Loyalists, there is always a curious interpretation of what the word means. We saw just that at the time of the Ulster workers' strike. Loyalty to the Queen in Parliament is what I understand by the word. But any such threatened actions taken in Northern Ireland are not for me but for the Chief Constable, who is responsible for dealing with anything that may happen.
    Mr. Gow: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how long he envisages direct rule continuing, and whether he does not think that there is at present a political vacuum in Ulster, between the locally-elected people at county council level and the Secretary of State himself?
    Mr. Rees: I do not accept that there is a political vacuum in Northern Ireland. I agree that our aim must be to get a devolved administration there, but, on the whole, people in Northern Ireland have had enough of politics in recent years. I want to get political life nurtured again, but at the right time. When the hon. Gentleman asks me "How long?", I can only reply that I do not know. But I will tell the hon. Gentleman—because there is no sign of devolved government—that if there is no direct rule there is anarchy, because there is no one to hand over to in Northern Ireland. Her Majesty's Government will keep direct rule, perhaps with some changes, for as long as is necessary.
    Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the elected political leaders of Northern Ireland sit in this House, on both sides?
    Mr. Rees: I agree that that is so, and increasingly people are putting matters that concern them through their Westminster Members.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend expand on the phrase that he used—that there is no sign of devolved government?
    Mr. Rees: I meant that the developed government set up from this House fell down. Then we set up a Convention, and

    611
    asked the politicians to agree. They did not. At the moment I do not see any chance of an agreement in Northern Ireland for a devolved administration.
    Mr. Neave: How can there be any advance if the Secretary of State, through his officials, gives political credibility to organisations like the Provisional Sinn Fein by currently holding these talks? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that they are going on? Did he read the interview, reported in the Sunday Times last week, with the President of the Provisional Sinn Fein, who said that these talks are very valuable to him? Are they very valuable to the people, and, if so, how?
    Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman should not always believe what he reads in newspapers. If what he has been saying is based on newspaper reports, it is not good enough. Over all, my staff have talked to individuals belonging to legal organisations—that is quite clear. In Northern Ireland, many people who belong to legal organisations have views which are anathema to many of us in this House. There have never been negotiations with anyone, but, as I have told the House before, it is valuable to explain Government policy, and my advisers believe that benefit is to be gained from doing so. The exchanges with the Sinn Fein have not been anything like as frequent as many people appear to think, but there was great advantage in them about a year ago.
    Mr. Neave: Is not that answer very unsatisfactory? Is not the real point that the right hon. Gentleman is giving political credibility to the Provisional Sinn Fein? Surely he will tell us that it is representative of a terrorist organisation.
    Mr. Rees: I say again that it is advantageous to me and those working for me to know what is going on in Northern Ireland. There never have been negotiations. I simply state again that these meetings have not been nearly as frequent as the newspapers and others seem to make out, but if it is considered necessary, they will happen again.
    Mr. Craig: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the political situation must get more difficult as the security situation deteriorates? The casualty list for this part of the year is greater than
    612
    in 1972. Whilst we would like to see political progress, it is important to stress that, as the security situation gets more difficult, we as politicians can do very little to get forward movement.
    Mr. Rees: I agree. When the Executive was first formed the heavy bombing campaign that took place in Belfast at the time was probably designed to make life difficult for the Executive. There is a relationship between the two. But I do not believe that political agree-men would end the violence. The two are connected, but it is not the simple connection that some people think. The nature of the violece has changed. The ability of a very small number of people in the Province to cause trouble is much greater than I thought. In the long run I am sure that it is a question not of numbers in the security forces but of their efficiency in dealing with small numbers of people who murder and maim.
    Mr. Speaker: I allowed a quarter of an hour on the first two questions because they covered a very wide range of topics, but we shall have to move quicker with the rest of Questions.

    Housing Finance
    Mr. Fittasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the inquiry into housing finance in Northern Ireland.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Concannon): Average public authority rents in Northern Ireland are lower than in Great Britain. The financial relationship between the Northern Ireland Department of Environment and the Housing Executive is under review, and I hope to make a statement shortly about new arrangements to replace the existing complicated system of grants, subsidies and deficit payments.
    My officials are also associated with the major review of all aspects of housing finance in both public and private sectors in Great Britain set on foot by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and already well advanced.
    There will be ample opportunity for informed public discussion of the issues involved when the results of these two reviews are available, and I do not consider that any further Northern Ireland inquiry would be justified.
    Mr. Fitt: Does my hon. Friend agree that while there is a need for the provision of thousands of public authority houses in Northern Ireland, because of the present state of houses there, those houses that are built must be let at a rent that the tenant can afford? In view of the unemployment and deprivation in Northern Ireland, is he satisfied that the present rent structure of local authority housing is not too high?
    Mr. Concannon: The present structure is very much in Northern Ireland's favour. In May 1975, the average rent was £2·45, while in England and Wales it was £4·16. Also, there is a rent rebate system in Northern Ireland comparable to that existing in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am disappointed by the take-up of rebates, but that is the fault not of hon. Members in this House but of the bad advice given by non-elected people who should know better.

    Man and Mourne Fishing Grounds
    Mr. Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what restrictions on fishing are expected to be in force in the Man and Mourne fishing grounds in the Irish Sea during, the remainder of 1976.
    Mr. Rees: Discussions are taking place with the industry about the restrictions on herring fishing to be applied this year in the northern part of the Irish Sea. The conservation measures for the Mourne fishery within 12 miles of the coast will not be finalised until the above discussions have been concluded.
    Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to ensure that whatever restrictions are imposed in the Irish Sea—both inside and outside the 12-mile limit and fully accepted by the Mourne fishermen—will be policed against all other parties as far as is humanly possible?
    Mr. Rees: Yes, I can give that assurance.

    Westminster Parliament (Parity of Representation)
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many United Kingdom parliamentary seats the citizens of Northern Ireland would have if there were parity of electorates between
    614
    Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Rees: If the existing 635 seats for the whole of the United Kingdom were reallocated between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland strictly in accordance with the size of the electorate in each of the several parts of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland would have 16 seats.
    Mr. Marten: As parity of representation is an essential part of democracy, should we not compare like with like, and compare Northern Ireland with Wales and Scotland rather than with the United Kingdom as a whole? That would give Northern Ireland about 20 seats.
    Mr. Rees: Taking account of any future decisions on that subject, the hon. Member must consider it in terms of the current devolution for Scotland and Wales. The devolved powers of the Northern Ireland Government over 50 years were far greater than anything we envisaged for Scotland or Wales.
    As in discussions on Home Rule before 1918, this raises questions in terms of representation, because of the extent of the powers of the devolved administration, which cover industry completely.
    Mr. Dalyell: If Northern Ireland were treated as generously as the Scots are at present, there would be 23 Members for the Province. How can the Secretary of State justify, in essence, giving Scotland an Assembly and denying one to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Rees: I am not denying anything to Northern Ireland. I deal with Northern Ireland matters and I am pleased to leave Scottish matters to other people.
    Sir Nigel Fisher: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government sets up Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, but not in Northern Ireland, the disparity in representation here will be even more marked and more inequitable? Is he content with that state of affairs?
    Mr. Rees: If we get into the position in which a decision is taken that there should be no devolved administration in Northern Ireland, unlike elsewhere—I hope that we never shall get into that position—and that the Province should

    615
    be integrated as part of the United Kingdom, the argument, in one sense, would be complete. But to imagine that the rest of the United Kingdom should have devolved administration and Northern Ireland should not, in the long run, is something that I do not want to contemplate.

    Border Co-operation
    Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on border co-operation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Rees: The Government regard co-operation with the authorities in the Irish Republic as vital in debating terrorism in Northern Ireland. Co-operation continues to improve, and both Governments have now taken steps to bring into effect the provisions of their respective legislation against fugitive offenders.
    In the economic field, I said on 24th November 1975 that the two Governments had made a joint approach to the EEC Commission for financial assistance towards a study of communications in the Londonderry-Donegal area. I am pleased to announce that consultants have now been chosen to carry out the study, and that I expect it to be completed in about six months.
    Mr. Townsend: Is the Secretary of State aware that the British Government have accepted no fewer than 69 complaints from the Irish Government in the last three years, concerning overflying by British military aircraft? This is a continuing source of friction between the North and the South. Will the right hon. Gentleman strongly press the Government of the South for proper overflying rights on both sides of the border?
    Mr. Rees: Even with overflying rights for particular purposes, this sort of overflying does happen, as do crossings of the border. There was one crossing of the border the other evening, to the extent of only 20 metres. This type of thing has to be sorted out in a better fashion, but in general the handling of these matters by the Irish authorities is first rate. I have no grumbles about it.
    Mr. Hardy: We accept that the Government of the Republic must be acutely
    616
    conscious of the fact of its territorial sovereignty, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the helpful and co-operative attitude that he just mentioned should soon have an effect on public attitudes in the North?
    Mr. Rees: One aspect of the co-operation that I should particularly like to mention is concerned with explosives. There is no doubt that the incidence of the discovery of explosives this year was much higher than last year. That stems from the close co-operation between the Governments of the North and South. This co-operation has shown considerable results.
    Mr. Farr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that another very real cause of friction between the Government of the Republic and our Government is the continuing clandestine discussions that our Government has with representatives of illegal organisations there?
    Mr. Rees: The hon. Member keeps using the word "continuing". I have not noticed this, and both Governments know what they are doing.

    Unemployed Persons
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons are currently unemployed in the Province; and what was the figure at the same time in 1975.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ire-land Office (Mr. Moyle): 51,466 in May 1976 and 37,278 in May 1975.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: The Minister will be conscious of the dismay and disappointment that we all feel at those staggeringly high figures. When will the Government's study of a new economic strategy for the Province be completed? How many new jobs will be created by the Northern Ireland Development Agency?
    Mr. Moyle: The study should be available before the Summer Recess. The Northern Ireland Development Agency scheme and other similar schemes will probably provide employment for about 1,700 people in amenity and environmental projects and work of a community nature.
    Mr. Ashton: Is my hon. Friend aware that members of my trade union who are working at the Harland and Wolff shipyard are very grateful for the aid which the Government has sent to them, and they are watching carefully the events in the House today? They are very concerned about the possible planning blight on the British shipbuilding industry which could arise out of today's decision in the House.
    Mr. Moyle: I am glad to learn from my hon. Friend that employees in Harland and Wolff are grateful for the assistance that we are giving. On a wider point, as a result of being in charge of the Department of Commerce for six weeks I have begun to feel that if there were no Government assistance to the Northern Ireland economy, Northern Ireland probably would not have an economy.
    Mr. McCusker: As a Minister in a Labour Government, is not the hon. Member ashamed of these figures, which are the worst unemployment levels since Northern Ireland was established? What does he intend to do to reduce them?
    Mr. Moyle: I am not pleased at having to announce the figures, and in that respect the hon. Gentleman is right The Government are studying the situation with a view to producing plans during the course of the summer, and of course all the assistance that is available to the creation of employment in the rest of the United Kingdom has been made available to Northern Ireland. The result of that is that about 3,500 jobs have been saved by the counter-redundancy training scheme and the temporary employment subsidy. The recruitment subsidy for school leavers has assured about 1,250 school leavers of jobs. Under the Government's most recent measures, £8 million is available to Northern Ireland, and this will be used over the next three years to provide over 1,000 new jobs and to train 1,500 people, mostly young people from school.

    Craigavon (Recreational Facilities)
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how much public finance has been provided for recreational provision in the area covered by Craigavon Council.
    Mr. Concannon: In the five-year period from 1st April 1971 to 31st March 1976, Government grants totalling about £350,000 have been paid to the Craigavon Borough Council and its predecessors in respect of recreational facilities. This, with the council's contribution, represents an outlay of public funds of approximately £525,000.
    During the same period the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Enterprise Ulster have spent about £124,000 and £340,000, respectively, on recreational facilities in the area. In addition, about £280,000 has been paid to voluntary groups and the Southern Educational and Library Board youth centres.
    Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend confirm the rough calculation that that represents about £1·25 millions? Is he satisfied that full use is being made of all the facilities created by these public funds? If not, will he make sure that a message goes to Craigavon and other places telling it that if it does not use these facilities to the full it will not receive any more public money.
    Mr. Concannon: I can confirm that my hon. Friend is about right in his figure. The provision and arrangement of recreational facilities are matters within the functions of each council. However, we should not forget that a great deal of Government finance goes towards these facilities and that the Government have a right to take an interest in their use. I therefore intend to pursue further with the council the provision of Government grants, and I have stressed to councils in Northern Ireland that they should maximise the revenue account in respect of these facilities.
    Mr. McCusker: Does the Minister accept that the administration and management of these recreational facilities are among the very few responsibilities left to councils in Northern Ireland? Does he also accept that how they use them is their responsibility, and that of the citizens of their boroughs?
    Mr. Concannon: I have stressed that, but Ministers cannot just sit back while £1·25 millions is put into local councils like these and have no say in what the money should be used for.

    Housing Executive (Sales to Tenants)
    Mr. Dunlopasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many houses the housing executive has sold to tenants in Mid-Ulster.
    Mr. Concannon: At 31st March 1976 the executive had sold 97 dwellings in this area.
    Mr. Dunlop: Is the Minister aware that huge anomalies exist in the valuation of these properties? I know of two houses, joined together, which share half an acre of land, and they have been valued at £3,000. Not very far away there is——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is seeking information, not giving it. He must ask a question.
    Mr. Dunlop: Is the Minister aware that there is an anomaly in the valuations, because not far away is a house which was built 13 years later and which has half an acre of land to itself? Its value is put at £1,000 less than the other two houses. Will the Minister try to ensure that there is more equality and standardisation in the valuation of these properties, which people have bought more than 10 times over?
    Mr. Concannon: The valuation of the properties is done by the district valuer. One of the difficulties has been that although a valuation is arrived at for sitting tenants, when the empty cottages are put on the open market our reserve price is greatly exceeded.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide an itemised breakdown of the cost to the Government of all allocations of finance, including expenditure on defence, to Northern Ireland for the years 1973–74, 1974–75 and 1975–76, respectively.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Details of Government expenditure in Northern Ireland are contained in public expenditure White Papers, to which I would refer my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Flannery: I have searched through the public expenditure White Paper and the Defence Estimates, and I have been to the Library, but I have been unable to find the overall cost to this country of what is happening in Northern Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is totally unsatisfactory, because the people on both sides of the water need to know what that cost is? Does he agree that the sum is bound to have tremendous political significance? Is it not bound to have an effect on people in Britain, who expect the two sides in Northern Ireland to come closer together in democratic efforts to make peace in view of this vast outflow of money to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Rees: I have a photostat copy from the White Paper Cmnd. 6393, pages 112 and 113, and all the information I have comes from that. About £1,500 million is spent in Northern Ireland every year, and of that 60 per cent. is raised in taxation in the Province. The rest, to use the parlance of the document, is a subvention from the United Kingdom Government. Any comparable part of the rest of the United Kingdom would throw up similar figures. I am able to produce those figures only because the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has his own accounts, because he operates a form of devolved administration. Those people who talk about independence should look at the figures very carefully, because their aims would damn Northen Ireland to a very much lower standard of living. Those people in Northern Ireland who say that they do not accept the will of the Queen in Parliament, although they call themselves Loyalists, would do well to look at the figures. It is right that we should treat Northern Ireland like the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a part of the United Kingdom, and that is the best way to proceed.

    European Community (Aid)
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the sums received or to be received from the EEC for regional purposes in Northern Ireland have been or will be offset by corresponding reductions in provision for those purposes from United Kingdom funds; and if he will make a statement.
    Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Raymond Carter): The primary instrument for implementing EEC regional policy is the European Regional Development Fund. Contributions from the fund allow the Government to go ahead with a greater total of regional commitments than could be managed otherwise. Contributions earned by infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland are used to reduce the capital borrowings of the public bodies which have substantial infrastructure responsibilities. These contributions are not offset by any corresponding reduction in the Northern Ireland grant in aid to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. Contributions earned by industrial projects are retained by the Government in partial repayment for industrial assistance already provided.
    Mr. Molyneaux: In view of the scale of United Kingdom contributions to the EEC, is it not surprising that total net regional grants to the United Kingdom should be so small?
    Mr. Carter: I do not think that that point has much relevance to the Question. The hon. Member is now talking about the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland receives a disproportionate amount of regional aid in both EEC and United Kingdom terms.

    Criminal Injuries Compensation
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the review of the working of the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) Act 1968.
    Mr. Concannon: I have nothing further to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) on 28th April.
    Mr. Goodhart: Is the Minister aware of very widespread anger in this country at the award of up to £20,000 to a convicted IRA man, when families of soldiers killed in Northern Ireland have been getting far less? For 12 months hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed that this is an urgent matter, so why has it all taken so long?
    Mr. Concannon: It would be quite improper for me to comment on that case. I do not think that it furthers the hon. Gentleman's case to make such accusa-
    622
    tions. Members of the security forces in Northern Ireland, and their dependants, have the benefit of Service pensions which specifically cover the risk of injury and death. Under the Act, these have to be taken fully into consideration. When a Service man dies in Northern Ireland as a result of criminal injury, the claim by his widow or dependants is dealt with on the same basis as are claims by widows and dependants of civilians. Any compensation award is for financial loss. I have figures that disprove some of the accusations made about this matter.
    Mr. Townsend: Will the Minister consider excluding from compensation those who have been involved in acts of terrorism?
    Mr. Concannon: That is a matter for the statute law and the courts in Northern Ireland. A review is taking place and my right hon. Friend has asked that the recommendations should be in his hands by the end of this month.
    Mr. McCusker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that compensation has been awarded to four children under the age of 2 years for nervous shock? How does one assess nervous shock in a child under the age of 2?
    Mr. Concannon: When one has been in Northern Ireland, one gets used to nervous shock. It is not for me to contemplate how the law arrives at decisions in these cases, but compensation has been given to young children in Northern Ireland on four occasions.

    North Belfast (Incident)
    Mr. Carsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the police investigation into the incident in North Belfast on 12th April 1976 when it was alleged that two young Roman Catholic boys were attacked and set on fire.
    Mr. Moyle: I understand from the Chief Constable that on 13th April two boys aged 8 and 13 years were admitted to Mater Hospital Belfast suffering from bums to the face, hands and chest. The boys alleged that they had been attacked by a gang of youths in the Oldpark district and that petrol had been thrown over them and ignited. Police inquiries into the incident are continuing.
    Mr. Carson: Does the hon. Gentleman share my hope that the news media will give at least as much prominence to the fact that it has been proved that there was no such outrage, which led to reports that created a deplorable impression throughout the country? Will he confirm that forensic reports have proved that no liquid was poured on these boys?
    Mr. Moyle: I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's second point, because this matter is in the hands of the RUC and investigations are continuing. If my hopes about the news media were borne out on ail occasions, the situation in Northern Ireland might be very different.

    Terrorist Activities
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give consideration to the setting up of a detailed research project into the psychiatric effects of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland: and if he will make a statement on such evidence as exists at present.
    Mr. Concannon: This is a subject that is closely monitored by the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services, in conjuction with specialists in this field, and I am doubtful whether a detailed research project would provide practical benefit.
    Mr. Moonman: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us appreciated the initiative by the Secretary of State in regard to the research project in the southern part of Ireland? Will he consult the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security to see whether it would be possible for some of the NHS budget to be diverted to the mental health sector? There is sufficient evidence to justify this.
    Mr. Concannon: We have our own DHSS in Northern Ireland. All the evidence is that terrorist activity has not affected the pattern of psychiatric illness. There has been a modest increase in the number of patients admitted to hospital, but the hospital population has tended to fall. There has been a significant decrease in depressive illnesses in Belfast and other riot-affected areas. The suicide rate has fallen by 50 per cent.
    Mr. Sandelson: My hon. Friend is aware of my interest in this matter. Can he say to what extent young people
    624
    in the Province have been psychologically affected and, in particular, how their educational progress has been affected by terrorism and civil disturbance?
    Mr. Concannon: I have much learned advice and opinion on this matter. The psychological effects of civil disturbance on children can be divided into short-term and long-term effects. In the former, children enjoy the excitement of the situation and relatively few become disturbed, because their anti-social behaviour is condoned within the framework of the community. In the latter, when a settlement is brought about, those with feelings of violence prejudice and bigotry will find it more difficult to adjust to society and will persist in anti-social behaviour, causing problems for police, educationists and numerous other social services. All that I have to add to that advice is "Amen".

    Anti-Terrorist Measures
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider the establishment of a specialist full-time anti-terrorist unit recruited principally from the ranks of the UDR and RUC.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The security forces, including the UDR and RUC, are already fully engaged in combating terrorism.
    Mr. McCusker: I acknowledge the success of the RUC, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are certain areas where that success has been limited? If he were to implement my suggestion, would it not divest the RUC of the paramilitary rôle that neither of us wishes it to have?
    Mr. Rees: In rural areas, there is a problem. Terrorism shows itself in different ways. I believe that the Chief Constable and the GOC who directs military operations are adopting the right approach. They will ensure that the RUC does not become a para-military force.
    Mr. Neave: We are glad to hear that the Chief Constable is looking at this matter. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the anti-terrorist unit that we envisage would be useful as a mobile force in the border zone?
    Mr. Rees: The RUC has a mobile force in the border zone at the moment. It becomes highly dependent on the Army the nearer it gets to the border. The UDR is a part-time force. I visited it in the border area recently. Changes can be made, but they are matters for the director of military operations.

    ITALY (PRIME MINISTER)
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister of Italy.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I hope to meet the Italian Prime Minister at the next European Council in Brussels on 12th and 13th July.
    Mr. Marten: Will the Prime Minister on that occasion raise with the Italian Prime Minister, and perhaps with other Common Market colleagues, the propriety of a Commissioner in the Community standing as a parliamentary candidate in the Italian elections? Now that we have evidence that a senior Commissioner, Signor Spinelli, is standing on the Communist ticket, perhaps the Prime Minister will initiate what his predecessor used to call a full, frank and searching inquiry to see whether there is any further Communist penetration of the Community by other Little Red Riding Hoods? This is very disturbing.
    The Prime Minister: I understand that Commissioner Spinelli is standing as an Independent on the Communist Party list. It is not for me to reconcile these strange doctrines. He has withdrawn from all official duties in the Community for the moment. If elected he will resign, and there is some evidence that if he is not elected he will not wish to resume his functions. There has been no secret about Commissioner Spinelli. He was a member of the Communist Party many years ago, before he became a Commissioner. There is therefore no need for an inquiry to find out about secret Communists.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend use his powers of persuasion to convince the incoming Italian Government that the best chances of technical success for the JET fusion project are at Culham, and that the Italians might do well to look for
    626
    other research projects for their understandable worries about Ispra?
    The Prime Minister: The project at Culham is one of the most advanced in Europe. It is one that I pressed for consistently when I was Foreign Secretary. I know there is a great Italian interest in the matter. It is a Community project and there are no Community projects of that character established in the United Kingdom. I think it would be a very worthwhile opportunity both for Europe and the United Kingdom, especially as we have one of the best teams in the world assembled at Culham for this very new and exciting venture.
    Mr. Watt: When the Prime Minister meets the Italian Prime Minister will he ask him to investigate the racket under which fat cattle leave this country, with a slaughter premium paid on them as they go, are transported to Italy, where they are slaughtered and subsequently shipped to Denmark, with monetary compensation amounts being paid as they cross each border? How can the common agricultural policy operate properly when such rackets are going on?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think I shall be discussing that with the Italian Prime Minister, but the point raised by the hon. Member is important. The CAP does not operate to the benefit of this country, and it involves a great deal of money being spent unnecessarily. It is our intention on all occasions—and certainly before the next agricultural price review, in the spring—to raise these matters at the highest level in order to get an agricultural system better fitted to the needs of the consumer, as well as giving producers decent returns.
    Mr. Heath: To return to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), will the Prime Minister go further than he has been asked and take an initiative at the Heads of Government meeting to secure an agreement that once a Commissioner takes up his appointment he will remain in the appointment for the full agreed term, eschew party politics and not return for electoral purposes, or give notice of a return for electoral purposes, until his term, which he has accepted, is completed?
    The Prime Minister: I think that there is something to consider here, but, as will be in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, this is not the first time that someone has given an indication that he wishes to return to politics in his own country before he finishes his term of office. I have thought of at least one recent occasion when perhaps it might have been rather convenient for that to be done, but I do not wish to particularise. On the general question, of course, we should consider what should be the position of Commissioners in these matters. On the whole, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if they are appointed for a fixed term they should see out that term. If they wish to return to their national politics, they should do so after the end of the term.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my right hon. Friend accept that at least the Italian Communists have some regard for the employment prospects of their countrymen, in sharp contrast to the callous and irresponsible attitude to the jobs and livelihoods of those employed in shipbuilding in this country, as demonstrated by the hypocritical shower on the Opposition Benches, which overshadows even the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion, in the United States, that in order to cut public expenditure she would stop issuing kidney machines?
    The Prime Minister: I think I shall have more important matters to discuss with the Italian Prime Minister than the machinations of the Opposition, but I hope it is being borne in on them that there are a great many jobs at stake today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yours".] If Conservative Members think that I care about this job, it only shows the lengths and the depths to which they have sunk. I must say that it is an interesting hors-d'oeuvre to the nature of the debate that we are going to have, if this is to be the level on which it is to be conducted.

    BINBROOK
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Binbrook.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Brotherton: is the Prime Minister aware that Binbrook lies at the heart of the Lincolnshire agricultural land and that many of Binbrook's farmers are very concerned about the present value of the green pound? Will he tell the House whether the Government intend to revalue the green pound, to bring it back into line with the pound sterling?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that Binbrook is a very salubrious and charming hamlet. I imagine that every day its inhabitants discuss nothing other than the green pound. On the whole, we feel it would be wrong to revalue the green pound at present, because with the increased price of commodities that is not within our control. It is everybody's responsibility to try to keep the rate of inflation down as far as we can.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does my right hon. Friend readily agree that whatever the sufferings of the farmers from the devaluation of the green pound, members of the farming community, especially the Lincolnshire farmers, have never had such a bonanza as they have had from the price they have been getting for their potatoes over the past nine months?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that potatoes have done exceptionally well—[Interruption.] Unfortunately, I have no quota myself. But other commodities have not done so well. For the farming community generally, the spring has enabled the work to go ahead extremely well. There is now a shortage of rain, but the dairy industry is moving ahead. On the whole, I do not think that there is a bonanza, except in some commodities.
    Mr. Blaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) that Binbrook would be a very suitable place to put out to grass Paddy the labrador, whose official career is now presumably over, and who must be surprised and disappointed, as we all are, that he has not appeared in today's Honours List?
    Mr. Mike Thomas: If my right hon. Friend cannot visit Binbrook, will he visit Newcastle upon Tyne and talk to the workers and management at Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd.? Will he explain to them how he is going to deal

    629
    with the problems that may be created this evening by the irresponsible exaggeration by Conservative Members of a genuine technical error and that may affect the livelihoods of the men and management in an industry which is now in the process of getting its fourth vesting day?
    The Prime Minister: It is true that the shipbuilding industry faces the greatest crisis it has faced since the end of the war. That is true of the world situation, as I think Conservative Members know. Therefore, it is vitally important that we should get ahead as quickly as possible with the reorganisation of the industry, so as to save a great many jobs, although it will have to be faced that a lot of rationalisation is needed if the British shipbuilding industry is to be saved. No parliamentary successes by the Opposition will prevent that from happening.
    Mr. Gorst: The Prime Minister mentioned a moment ago the revaluation of the green pound, but there is another form of revaluation that is long overdue. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the creation of an honour that honourable men can honourably accept?

    HOUNSLOW
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Hounslow.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Tebbit: As Hounslow is one of the places that would have been affected by the Prime Minister's efforts to amend the Boundary Commission report in favour of the Labour Party a few years ago, would it not be a good place for the right hon. Gentleman to visit, so that he can explain to the people whether there are any limits to his willingness to alter the rules of the game to get the result that he wants?
    The Prime Minister: The House will take a decision on the matters that are before it today. I am told that there is a majority of the House that is not composed of members of the Labour Government or of the Labour Party. There-
    630
    fore, I assume it is the House that will reach its conclusions.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Prime Minister allow a free vote this evening?
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that every one of my hon. Friends will be in the Lobby in support of the Government.
    Mr. Bidwell: If my right hon. Friend is in the Hounslow district—he can easily go through it on his way to Chequers—will he bear in mind that Southall is quite close by? Will he stop off and speak to the indigenous and Indian communities of Southall, and assure them that it will be no part of the Labour Government's policies now or in future to deny families their proper family rights, in spite of the worry about immigration and the necessity to control it?
    The Prime Minister: I have always been in favour of controlling immigration. Indeed. I introduced systems to that effect. There is a difference between controlled entry and the abuses that are taking place, to which attention has been directed. I believe it is in the interests of the communities themselves—it is certainly the desire of many of their leaders—that abuses and evasion of the law should not be practised.
    Mrs. Thatcher: To return to the previous matter, on the basis of whose rule book will the decision tonight be taken—the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, as interpreted by Mr. Speaker, or the changing instructions of the Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: It will be taken in the normal course by Members walking through the Lobbies as free Members of this House.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister therefore undertake to accept the result of tonight's vote and not have another vote the week after next?
    The Prime Minister: It will depend what the vote is about—[Interruption.] I have plenty of time. Hon. Members can shout as long as they like. It will depend what the vote is about the week after next. It will depend on the form in which it is put. As far as today is concerned, the House will reach a conclusion

    631
    and consequences will follow from that. We shall see the consequences when the vote has been declared.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to two supplementary questions this afternoon, the Prime Minister remained obstinately in his seat and refused to answer. [Interruption.] The point of order which I wish to put to you arising out of this matter is whether, if this practice were to be extended, there is any point in hon. Members putting any supplementary questions to the Prime Minister at all.
    Mr. Speaker: The attitude of Ministers to Questions is for them, not for me.
    The Prime Minister: May I add, Mr. Speaker, that I always endeavour to give courteous answers to questions, but I also reserve the right to remain in my seat if I do not think that a question is worthy of an answer.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Ordered,
    That the Anti-Dumping Duty Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 736) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]
    Ordered,
    That the Air Navigation (Overseas Territories) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 421) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]
    Ordered,
    That the Air Navigation (Fifth Amendment) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 583) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (STANDING ORDERS)
3.32 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I beg to move,
That, in view of the serious consequences to the industries concerned and for those employed in them of further delay and uncertainty, in relation to the proceedings on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, any Standing Orders relating to Private Business, and consideration of the application of any such Standing Orders, are dispensed with.
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, to leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
'this House endorses Mr. Speaker's ruling of 26th May 1976, which confirmed that the rights of private citizens might be affected by the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, and considers that the normal procedures to defend such rights as laid down in Standing Orders should be followed'.
Mr. Varley: On 31st July 1974 my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for Energy, made a statement to this House announcing the Government's intention to bring the shipbuilding industry into public ownership, and accompanying that statement he issued a discussion document. That paper, under the heading "Mobile Offshore Drilling Rigs", stated:
"The Government does not intend to take into public ownership Marathon Shipbuilding (UK) Limited, makers of offshore drilling rigs."
So, from the outset, nearly two years ago, the Government made it clear that they had no intention of nationalising Marathon.
On 30th April 1975 the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill was published. Schedule 2 was drafted to exclude Marathon and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who was a Minister in the Department at the time, made clear in the House yesterday, the drafting took full account of the need to avoid hybridity; and it appeared to have been drafted successfully from that point of view, since it was cleared with the House authorities as not being hybrid.
What is more, none of those opposed to the Bill—either hon. Members of this

633
House or the assiduous lobbyists to whose activities we have become so accustomed—brought forward a charge of hybridity. Yet they had ample time to study it, and we know from their representations and from amendments put forward that they examined it line by line and comma by comma for errors and flaws.
There was not sufficient time for the Bill's passage in that 1974–75 Session, so it was reintroduced at the beginning of the new Session on 20th November. The opportunity was taken to make a number of amendments, but the definition of a ship given in paragraph 6 of Part II of Schedule 2 remained precisely as it was. Once again it was cleared with the House authorities, once again it was found not to be hybrid, and once again nobody inside or outside the House challenged its credentials as a public Bill.
The Bill was brought up for Second Reading on 2nd December. Again, no challenge. No charge of hybridity.
The Bill began its Committee stage on 11th December. Standing Committee D considered the Bill during 58 sittings—the greatest number of sittings in the history of this House of Commons. The Bill was examined in the minutest detail so that at times Ministers in charge of the Bill had the feeling that they were even being required to explain the reasons for the spaces between the words.
The Committee sat as long as the Opposition wanted it to sit. There was no guillotine. Yet during 140 hours of debate no challenge of hybridity was made against the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "There was."] One and a half sittings, as recently as two weeks ago on Tuesday 11th May, were devoted to considering Schedule 2—the focus for the controversy that has arisen.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who was a member of the Committee for all the 58 sittings and the 140 hours, made six speeches during the debates on Schedule 2. Yet neither he nor anyone else on the Opposition side raised the question of Marathon or alleged that the Bill was a hybrid. [HON. MEMBERS: "They did."]
You yourself, Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week twice firmly rejected contentions that the Bill was a hybrid.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith rose——
Mr. Varley: I will not give way just now.
I recount this history not in order to challenge the good faith of anybody involved but to demonstrate that the many hundreds of people who had studied this Bill with such care for parliamentary, governmental, party political, industrial, financial or propaganda purposes all missed the apparent significance of the phrase which led you, Mr. Speaker, yesterday to rule that this Bill was prima facie hybrid.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make absolutely clear, that none of us on this side of the House is in any way seeking to challenge the ruling that you gave yesterday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] You were good enough to confirm to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that you did not regard anything in his statement yesterday as a challenge to your ruling and that the motion we are now to debate is in order.
Now I give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. I think that the House would like to know the exact point he is making by these lengthy references—[Interruption.]—ample references to the proceedings in Committee. Does he accept that the onus is on the Government to establish to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker the facts of the case for him to be able to arrive at a correct judgment about hybridity, or does he assert that there is some duty on the Opposition to establish the exact state of the Bill? Does he accept that the onus on the Government is not reduced or discharged by what happened in the Standing Committee?
Mr. Varley: I shall have something more to say about that point, but I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not impugn anyone's good faith and I do not challenge the ruling that you, Mr. Speaker, gave yesterday. All I am saying is that the Bill was submitted on two occasions, in the formal processes, to the authorities of the House, and was cleared as a Bill which was not a hybrid Bill. That is all I am saying. It is not that your Department, Mr. Speaker, is in commission to any Department of State. You take your own independent advice. That is the only point I am making.

635
This controversy that has arisen, in the opinion of the Government, concerns at most a hairline hybridity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and it is ludicrous that a major legislative measure should face frustration on the narrowest of technicalities which apparently no one noticed for more than 13 months. Throughout, the Bill was in the Vote Office, there for people to collect. I have already recounted for how many hours it has been considered. The Stationery Office has sold about 7,000 copies of the Bill, I think. At no point was hybridity questioned.
As my right hon. Friend the Lord President stated yesterday, if the House accepts this motion today, the Government will move at Report stage an amendment to remove the tiny area of doubt that remains.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the Secretary of State's phrase "hairline hybridity" a direct challenge to your solemn and considered ruling yesterday?
Mr. Speaker: No, it is not a direct challenge to my ruling yesterday. I do not wish to enlarge on that ruling, but I did have a statement prepared in which I was going to indicate to the House that it was the area of doubt that led me, following the ruling of Speaker Hylton-Foster some years ago, to decide that because of the doubt I must come down on that side.
Mr. Robert Adley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the motion to which the Secretary of State is now speaking is based upon your assessment that the Government may put down any motion and it is not for your judgment, but for the judgment of the House, whether the motion is suitable, is it not, therefore, quite possible for any Government at any time to put down a motion totally eliminating all the rights of the Opposition in this House?
Mr. Speaker: I am not taking part in the debate, and that is a debating point rather than a point of order for me. Speculation about motions in the future will only hold up the debate.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we expect a ruling
636
from you as a result of what you said, as reported at column 460 of Hansard for 26th May, when you were asked whether it was right to change the rules in the middle of the passage of a Bill so that those who were affected by it would be dealt with in one way in Committee and dealt with in another way on Report and Third Reading? You seemed to say that you would give a ruling today. I wonder whether this is the moment at which you would wish to do so.
Mr. Speaker: I said to the House, in reply to the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), that if I thought it necessary I would make such a statement. I have taken advice, and, as I said yesterday, the House is its own master in regard to procedures. Rules which are made by the House may be varied by the House after debate, if desired, at any time. The motion is in order.
Mr. Varley: The question is whether the Marathon shipyard builds ships, and it revolves around the structure of the "Key Victoria"—raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton—which was under construction at Marathon on 31st July 1974, the relevant date. The hon. Member for Tiverton submitted that this structure is a ship within the definition of paragraph 6 of Part II of Schedule 2. On Tuesday, in supporting his contention, the hon. Member for Tiverton quoted the American Bureau of Shopping as saying that the "Key Victoria" is a vessel having the characteristic hull form of a barge. I have to tell the House that that same American Bureau of Shipping, on 17th October 1974, issued a certificate for the "Key Victoria" classifying it as
"Maltese Cross Al mobile self-elevating drilling unit"
as a major part of the structure—namely, the drilling legs—is non-integral with the platform, which floats only when the structure is being moved from one location to another.
It is a very great pity that Hansard does not publish illustrations, because I have in my hand a photograph of the "Key Victoria"—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Order."]—in its normal operating position. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am making copies of this available in the Library and Vote Office this afternoon so that hon. Members may look at it.
Mr. Peter Tapsell: Is it not clear—whether or not it is his intention—that everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said so far in his speech is intended to challenge the authority of Mr. Speaker's ruling? Mr. Speaker ruled that this is a hybrid Bill, and nothing that the right hon. Gentleman says can alter that fact.
Mr. Varley: I am only saying that I want to put all the evidence that I can before the House of Commons, and it is quite right that the House should have it. That is the reason I am making this illustration available to hon. Members.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to put information, in this slightly irregular fashion, at the disposal of the House, will you rule that it is right that he should make full and not partial information available? In other words, if that device moves by using its legs, it may be relevant to show it standing upon them, but if it is mobile in some other way, we must be shown a picture that illustrates in which way it moves.
Mr. Varley: The only thing that I am trying to say is that in my view it is very difficult to construe that structure as a vessel within the natural meaning of that word.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has risen on a point of order.
Mr. David Crouch: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me on a point of order. My point of order is that I think that the Secretary of State is embarking on an entirely wrong approach this afternoon. My point of order to you, Mr. Speaker, is that yesterday you ruled that the House had adopted an inappropriate procedure in the matter of dealing with the Bill. I do not think that the House is suggesting that we should question you on that ruling for one moment, and I hope that the Secretary of State will not try to mislead us in this matter. Nor are the Opposition suggesting that we should have another 58 sittings on the matter. Would it not have been better for the Leader of the House to concede yesterday
638
that you were right, Mr. Speaker, and not to suggest, and even imply this afternoon through the Secretary of State for Industry, that you were wrong, as he is now so doing?
Mr. Speaker: Anything that challenges the ruling that I made yesterday would not be in order in this debate. That is quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State began by saying that he had no intention of challenging my ruling yesterday, and he will no doubt keep to that.
Mr. Varley: The American Bureau of Shipping——
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just been to the Vote Office and the Library to get a copy of the photograph to which the Secretary of State referred. It is not available. Will you please do your best, Mr. Speaker, to see that hon. Members who want a copy may get it, so that we may refer to it during the Minister's excellent speech?
Mr. Varley: I said that during the course of the afternoon I would make the photograph available. I understand that steps are being taken for that to be done.
Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Secretary of State tell the House on what date, by whom and at whose expense this photograph was taken?
Mr. Varley rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not have bogus points of order. We want to debate the matter properly and we cannot do that if there are continual interruptions.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the only purpose of producing such a photograph can be to invite the House to reach a different conclusion from that which lay behind your ruling yesterday, is it in order for the Secretary of State for Industry to refer to the photograph for the purpose of undermining your decision yesterday?
Mr. Leo Abse: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is being adumbrated is the weight of

639
evidence which we all require to enable us to determine whether your ruling, which is clear, should or should not be altered by the House. Is it not desirable that the Secretary of State should continue to give us all the information he has to enable us to reach a decision?
Mr. Speaker: The House is not considering whether my ruling is to be altered. The House is considering the motion proposed by the Minister which contains the procedure which the Government propose in view of the ruling I made yesterday. Anything else would be out of order today.
Mr. Heseltine: Would you rule on the point I put to you, Mr. Speaker, before the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) followed my point of order? I was putting to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State was seeking leave to introduce a photograph in evidence in the House so that hon. Members might be invited to question the ruling that you gave yesterday. As the Government's motion in no way questions your ruling, Mr. Speaker, what possible virtue can there be in allowing the Secretary of State to produce evidence which must have that point behind it?
Mr. Speaker: Evidence that the Government put in the Library is their concern. My concern is that my ruling yesterday is not open to debate today.
Mr. Abse: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you have indicated, it was unfortunate if I addressed myself to you in a way which suggested that the motion sought to alter your decision. The motion seeks to relieve the House from the consequences of your decision. Therefore, is it not in order, proper and correct that all the evidence should be given to enable the House to come to a decision whether it should be relieved of the consequences? I hope that you will rule that the Secretary of State may continue to give the weight of evidence which we all require.
Mr. Speaker: What the Secretary of State and everyone else must do until an amendment has been proposed is to speak to the motion, which indicates to the House the steps that the Government believe should be taken arising out of my ruling yesterday. The House has to
640
decide whether it wishes to take those steps,
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Something has happened which I have not known during the 15 years in which I have been a Member of the House. As well as the Secretary of State addressing the House, which is a verbal process, he is purporting to exhibit photographs to the House. If there are contrary photographs which the House ought to be able to see, for instance, a photograph of a ship called the "Key Victoria" at sea, as appears in the Financial Times this morning, what is the procedure whereby conflicting photographs can be circulated? Instead of confining ourselves to verbal statements, as has been the custom during my time in Parliament, we now have exhibited a photograph of visual effects. The Secretary of State held up the photograph in an endeavour to show it to hon. Members. Are hon. Members permitted to walk round the House with opposing photographs so that other hon. Members may see them?
Mr. Speaker: I hope that we can get back to the debate. Anyone who has any pictures may put them in the Library.
Mr. Varley: I have referred to the American Bureau of Shipping, which the hon. Member twice quoted——
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised with you earlier a point of order, and you subsequently expressed the hope that there will be no bogus points of order. If you feel that my point of order was bogus, of course, I withdraw it. When I went to the Library and the Vote Office, no photograph was available but it has just been delivered to me. The point of order was genuine when I raised it.
Mr. Speaker: I had no intention of treading on the hon. Gentleman's corns. I do not want to say whom I had in mind in case that provokes another point of order.
Mr. Varley: I have referred to the American Bureau of Shipping, which the hon. Member twice quoted——
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The words you uttered to the effect that anyone who had

641
photographs could place them in the Library were scarcely out of your mouth when a cascade of photographs arrived in the Chamber. That recalls the substantial point I made to you a few moments ago. If photographs are to be distributed through the House in the course of the debate they must not be confined to showing a ship when it is ashore but should also show it when it is performing the function of a ship on the water.
Mr. Speaker: I do not know how the pictures are distributed, but there is nothing disorderly about it. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to distribute some of his photographs, or if anyone else wishes to do so, let him do it. I suggest that we get on with the serious business.
Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——
Hon. Members: Name him.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but I must tell the House that it is wrong to prevent orderly debate by continually raising points of order.
Mr. Adley: I am sorry to refer to my, earlier point of order, but will you please give a ruling, Mr. Speaker, if not now, after the Whitsun Recess, whether it is in order for the Government to put down on the Order Paper anything they wish—for instance, that non-members of the Labour Party on the Opposition side of the House may not vote or speak? Would you not be able to say that such a motion was out of order?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot rule on speculative issues. I deal with the motions on the Order Paper, and this motion is in order.
Mr. Varley: I was referring to the American Bureau of Shipping, which the hon. Member twice quoted in his support. The American Bureau of Shipping is not alone. Lloyd's Register of Shipping has been quoted in the controversy. Today's Financial Times says the following about it:
"Lloyd's Register of Shipping would not be drawn into the argument yesterday, although Lloyd's regards ships and oil platforms as sufficiently different to warrant separate technical staff."
Mr. Norman Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the motion on the Order Paper reads:
"in view of the serious consequences to the industries concerned and for those employed in them of further delay and uncertainty".
It also refers to
"the application of any such Standing Orders"
which it says, should be dispensed with. Admittedly with constant interruption, the Secretary of State has been speaking for some time but so far he has said nothing which is in any way relevant to that motion.
Mr. Speaker: Order. While I am glad of assistance at any time, if I found that the Minister was out of order I would pull him up.
Mr. Varley: I want to place before the House all the information that we have. We are entitled to do that. We are informed by the Inland Revenue that it does not regard self-elevating rigs as ships for capital allowance purposes and it has informed the General Council of British Shipping of this. It was never——
Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what you have just said, the credulity of the House is being tested if the Inland Revenue view that self-propelling rigs are not ships is to be argued.
Mr. Speaker: Anything that disputes the ruling that I have given is not relevant. I have to tell the House that we are not discussing the question whether this was a ship or whether it was not a ship. [Interruption.] I am telling the House what we have to turn our minds to, and that is the steps that the Government propose to take arising out of my decision.
Mr. Varley: I can well understand——
Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are in charge and exercise your authority over order in the House. You have stated that the motion is in order. Has anything been said by the Secretary of State which is out of order?
Mr. Speaker: He is getting very near. [Interruption.] Order. I do not need support when I am making statements. It becomes near to being out of order if the issue of this vessel, ship or barge is put

643
in question. I have given a ruling, and we have to decide whether the House will dispense with the Standing Orders.
Mr. Varley rose——
Mrs. Judith Hart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would I be right in assuming that the Secretary of State has been trying to tell us that, on the absolutely accepted ruling that you have given, the motion on the Order Paper is to be understood and accepted in the light of the great technical problems that confront us?
Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we hear the Minister out.
Mr. Varley: If at any time——
Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked you whether you had heard anything from the Secretary of State that was out of order.
Mr. Speaker: Maybe the noise in the House prevented the right hon. Gentleman from hearing my answer, but I did answer him a moment ago.
Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have two specific points to raise. Is not the Secretary of State adducing the sort of evidence that should go to the examiners for them to assess it at a time when evidence from the other side can also be advanced and a decision made whether it is a hybrid Bill? It is not for the House to undertake that examination.
In all my years in the House I have never known photographs to be passed around by one side of the House without notice first being given. Is it now in order to use photographs as a means of debate?
Mr. Speaker: On the right hon. Lady's first question about examiners, I believe that the question of the ship is not one that can be settled here. I have given a ruling after long consideration. We have to decide what the House is to do arising out of that decision. I have not come up against the question of the circulation of photographs before, although this practice might have taken place without my knowing. I should like to consider it. The fewer changes that there are in our procedures, the better it is for orderly debate.
Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We shall be in difficulties not only in the Minister's speech but in the speech of any hon. Member speaking later in the debate about exactly the point at which you have suggested that the Minister might be straying out of order. For the purposes of the rules of the House we must accept that that thing is a ship. You have so ruled. But may I put this to you, Mr. Speaker? It may be a ship for the purposes of the rules of the House—there is no doubt about that—but some of us might want to argue that in common sense, by the rules of the Inland Revenue or for other purposes relevant to whether we pass the motion, it might not be regarded as a ship—although not for the rules of the House. That would be a legitimate distiction for us to draw and it would be wholly relevant to the motion that we are being asked to consider.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Niceties of that sort are not acceptable. Anything that challenges my ruling yesterday will not be acceptable. The Government will make their case for the motion and it is irrelevant to argue that which has been decided on the question of the ship.
Mr. Varley: The Government are entitled to put their views and all the evidence that they have before the House. The question in dispute——
Mr. Ivor Clemitson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand the situation, you have given a ruling that the Bill is prima facie a hybrid Bill. A prima facie ruling presumably means that somebody or other has finally to decide whether it is a hybrid Bill. Are you ruling that the Bill should go to the examiners for that final decision? If so, may I ask you which Standing Order is the basis for that reference?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that I have given no such ruling. The House will decide, if the debate is allowed to continue, what procedure it intends to follow. I have given no other instructions.
Mr. Varley: All I am seeking to do is to give all the evidence to the House, and the House is entitled to have that evidence. The issue in dispute is the

645
meaning of paragraph 6 of Part II of Schedule 2. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that the Government are entitled to put those views before the House.
Mr. Patrick Mayhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has now referred to the issue being in dispute. What can that be other than a challenge to your ruling?
Mr. Speaker: The issue in dispute before the House is the motion on the Order Paper, and no other.
Mr. Varley: There is other evidence that I want to give the House, and I think that I am entitled to give it. If you rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, I shall of course accept your ruling, but I am certainly not taking rulings from the Opposition. If you at any time decide, Mr. Speaker, that anything I say is out of order, I shall observe your ruling straight away, but I will not be bullied by Opposition Members.
I have already referred to the fact that the Inland Revenue takes a similar view to that of the American Bureau of Shipping. These two authorities are not alone.
Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: I shall hear this point of order, but I appeal to the House and to individual hon. Members who become anxious about whether the Minister is straying to trust my judgment in the matter, so that we may have fewer points of order and the speech may come to its conclusion.
Mr. Onslow: That was very much the point of order that I hoped to put to you, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then sit down."] I feel sure that if the Minister cited any purported authorities which disagreed with your ruling he would be instantly and properly ruled out of order. I hope that he will be able to get to the motion, that the House can hear him on that, and that some of us can speak to it.
Mr. Varley: There is another piece of important information that I need to put to the House about this matter. It concerns the good faith of the last Conservative Government and members of it. The Industry Act 1972 distinguished be-
646
tween a ship and an offshore installation for eligibility for ship construction grants. The Act has the following definition:
" 'mobile offshore installation' means any installation which is intended"—
Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not everything we have heard from the Secretary of State this afternoon not only a hairline challenge but a direct challenge to your ruling yesterday?
Mr. Abse: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the House must decide whether it will dispense with the existing Standing Orders. That is the issue. Therefore, surely we should know whether your ruling is based upon serious and weighty matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—or whether the unchallengeable ruling you have given is based on trivial matters. Surely the House is entitled to know the evidence to enable us to decide whether we should avoid the serious consequences.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. The House is not considering whether I was on good grounds.
Mr. Abse: I was not saying that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: That is how it seemed to me.
What the House is considering is whether, in view of the ruling I gave yesterday—[Interruption.] Order. The House is considering the motion on the Order Paper. I must say this, and I hope that it will be hearkened to: anything that seeks to discuss the merits of whether the ship was a ship is a challenge to what I said yesterday. What we must deal with is the motion.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order——
Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose——
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Skinner, on a point of order.
Mrs. Ewing rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on a point of order.
Mr. Skinner: You said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in that supposedly historic ruling—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that prima

647
fade the vessel was a ship. What we are doing today, I presume, is to listen to all the various comments and arguments from both sides. I have no doubt in my mind, either inside the Chamber or outside it, that my view about this matter if I had to give an opinion——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not required to give an opinion. I thought that he was raising a point of order. But for his information I can tell him that I did not mention the word "ship" in my ruling yesterday. I merely said that the Bill was prima facie a hybrid Bill. That is the ruling. The House is not discussing it now but is discussing its consequences.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: Further to that point of order——
Mr. Skinner: I was coming to my conclusion. I was saying that in my opinion——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled in the middle of somebody else's speech to give his opinions. If he is raising a point of order, I am quite willing to deal with it, but I am not willing to allow hon. Members to rise just to express opinions when the Secretary of State is addressing the House.
Mr. Fernyhough: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not clear that so far all that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done is to show that when the Government commenced with the Bill they felt that it complied with every rule of the House, although yesterday you decided that it did not? My right hon. Friend is merely trying to indicate the steps which the Government took, and the advice which they took, before they made the decision that it was a Public Bill. Surely any man in the position of my right hon. Friend today is entitled to convey to the House all the steps he took to comply with the rules of the House so that the Bill would be in order.
Mr. Speaker: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right. That is in order. I call the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing), and then I hope that we can return to the debate.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is this: is there not a lack of order in this House and would you not advise 11 of our faithful Members of this Chamber to attend a much more important occasion than this, namely the Scottish National Party annual conference at Motherwell?
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That shows the extent to which we are becoming disorderly.
Mr. Varley: I need make only one other point at this time before passing on to some other matters which the House wants to hear. That is the question of the 1972 Industry Act, which is absolutely relevant to the subject under discussion. That Act defines a mobile offshore installation as meaning:
"any installation which is intended for underwater exploitation of mineral sources or exploration with a view to such exploitation and can move by water from place to place without major dismantling or modification, whether or not it has its own motive power; 'ship' includes every description of vessel used in navigation".
I have to tell the House that under the Tory Industry Act the "Key Victoria" was not awarded a construction grant as a ship. Instead Marathon applied for and received construction grants for it as an offshore installation, and it was the Conservatives' own Act, the Act put through by those same hon. Gentlemen who have been spluttering and howling me down, and howling down my right hon. Friend the Lord President like a gang of illiterate yahoos——
Mr. Tom King rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Varley: All this would be cause for satire from the pen of a modern Swift if the consequences were not so inherently disastrous for both the aircraft and the shipbuilding industries and for hundreds of thousands of workers whose livelihoods depend upon them. Under private ownership the aircraft industry has not brought forward a single new civil project in more than two years. The HS 146 would be dead today had it not been for the holding contract placed by this Government. Increasingly in recent years shareholders of existing companies have avoided their responsibilities for the future work of these com-

649
panies and have expected the Government to provide the necessary finance.
The Department of Industry currently has before it three proposals of this kind where the companies expect the Government to provide all the funds. In anticipation of nationalisation, things are beginning to move at last. Scottish Aviation has been offered some of the RAF Jetstreams to modify at Prestwick for possible United States sales. That would give new confidence to the workers there. The Organising Committee for British Aerospace at long last brought Hawker Siddeley and the British Aircraft Corporation together, and last week held constructive talks with their French counterparts about possible collaboration on the Airbus and HS 146.
If this Bill does not proceed rapidly, the important relationships being built up between British Aerospace and potential European partners will evaporate. The nationalised French airframe industry will lose confidence in us as a partner and will turn firmly and irrevocably to the Americans. Today's diverting parliamentary ploy could mean the dole queue before long for tens of thousands of skilled British aircraft workers and could mean Britain declining into being no more than a client sub-contractor. Without speedy nationalisation the stakes are as high as that, and no hon. Member can turn his back on those facts.
But if the delay in nationalisation faces the aircraft industry with a crisis, it faces the shipbuilding industry with a catastrophe. The shipbuilders know it. That is why so many of them have begged me to get the industry into public ownership as quickly as possible. Hon. Members opposite know it, too. That is why so many hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, while opposing this Bill publicly, have privately been lobbying me to get the headquarters of British Shipbuilders into their own area. Indeed, the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), in his capacity as Chairman of the North-West Group of Conservative MPs, has written formally to me pressing Merseyside as the headquarters of British Shipbuilders.
Mr. Peter Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that my hon. Friends in the North-
650
West area and I would be deserting our constituents' interest if we did not push for the headquarters of British Shipbuilders to be on Merseyside? Does he also realise that, for the sake of our constituents and those involved in the shipbuilding industry, we are totally and utterly opposed to the nationalisation of that industry?
Mr. Varley: Of course I agree entirely that the hon. Gentleman would not be acting in the interests of his constituents if he were not asking for the headquarters of British Shipbuilders to be placed on Merseyside. But I will say to him that he will be acting against the interests of his constituents if he votes against this motion tonight. In another letter, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott), a former Vice-Chairman of the Tory Party, has eloquently stated the case for the Tyne.
Sir William Elliott (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): Would the Secretary of State accept that the reason for my writing that letter was an approach by the North-East Development Council, which body told me that it had been strongly suggested to it that, despite the facts before the House, a decision had already been taken to establish the headquarters at Merseyside? I was asked to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that the biggest concentration of shipbuilding and advisory services in the country was on Tyneside, which I told him. But I violently oppose nationalisation of the industry.
Mr. Varley: What the hon. Gentleman has said will be noted in the North-East, too. Members of the Conservative Party have written to me. I have the hon. Gentleman's letter in my hand. I will not bore the House by reading it out. But today I have had another letter from Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, Chairman of the Organising Committee for British Shipbuilders. He says:
"I am writing on behalf of the Organising Committee to assure you of our unanimous support for the Government's efforts to bring the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill quickly into law."
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Varley: I am very surprised that hon. Gentlemen on that side should scoff at that letter and scoff at someone such as Sir Anthony Griffin, who has given service to both Governments when Controller of the Navy and was in fact appointed by the then Conservative Government to that post. It is utterly disgraceful that they should laugh and jeer in that way. Conservative Members who laugh should be utterly ashamed of themselves—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This Chamber believes in the right of free speech. Even when hon. Members disagree with what they hear, they have to listen.
Mr. Varley: Admiral Griffin went on to say the following—[Interruption.] It is important that the House should have this information, and I do not know what Conservative Members are frightened of. He said:
"Our wide-ranging examination of the industry during the past five months leads us firmly to the view that nationalisation offers the best chance of creating a stable, profitable, competitive shipbuilding industry, and that any further delay in achieving this objective would be seriously damaging."
That is the considered statement of Sir Anthony Griffin.
The world recession and the oil crisis have created a famine in orders which has brought our shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries to the verge of disaster. I say frankly, as one who has to face a new crisis in the shipbuilding industry on practically every working day, that we are hard put to it to hold the line. Only a co-ordinated strategy backed by the workers in the industry can save the situation.
The Organising Committee for British Shipbuilders has made a fine start. It must be given a chance to get on with the job quickly—otherwise there will be yards that may not live through next year.
It is my duty solemnly to warn the House that after six months in Committee any further delay in the passage of this Bill could deal a death blow to the prospects of the shipbuilding and shiprepairing industries in some of the areas of most intolerable unemployment. I refer to Tyneside, Wearside, Teesside, Merseyside and Clydeside. I deliberately mention Clydeside because I understand
652
that the SNP has decided to vote against our motion.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose——
Mr. Varley: No, I cannot give way. The SNP will be fully aware of its responsibilities.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: We want an election.
Mr. Varley: Some 20 per cent. of the shipbuilding industry lies in Scotland, and some of the shipyards which face most imminent crisis lie in Scotland. Any delay in the passage of this Bill could mean the dole queue for thousands of Scottish shipbuilding workers.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of the fact that the effect of nationalisation and centralisation will mean a loss of thousands of jobs, what case can the Minister put forward for saving shipbuilding jobs in Scotland when the present Bill is intended to centralise the control of the shipbuilding industry elsewhere and to take that control outside Scotland, without any Government policy aimed at securing that shipbuilding orders are placed with industry in Scotland?
Mr. Varley: The Bill is not a centralising measure. It aims at bringing about a nationalised strategy for the shipbuilding industry. The SNP carries a heavy responsibility. Already hundreds of telegrams are pouring in. The shop stewards of the Clydebank Engineering Shop Stewards Committee urge the SNP members to take their responsibilities seriously. That is also the attitude of the Clydeside Shop Stewards Committee.
I understand that SNP Members leave for their annual conference shortly and that they intend to vote against the Bill. If they vote for the Conservative motion and against the Government motion, they will bear the responsibility of throwing thousands of ship builders out of a job. If that happens, it will be held against them for ever.
This debate is not about a jolly jape or some small parliamentary strategem. It relates to two vital industries, That is the reason why I have no hesitation in urging the House to support this motion and

653
to sustain the hopes of hard-pressed communities and tens of thousands of workers who are profoundly anxious about the future.
Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have received a sheaf of telegrams from the organised workers of Sheffield. I hope that it is in order to place those telegrams in the Bag at the back of your Chair.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.
4.37 p.m.
Mr. John Peyton: I beg to move to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"this House endorses Mr. Speaker's ruling of 26th May 1976, which confirmed that the rights of private citizens might be affected by the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, and considers that the normal procedures to defend such rights as laid down in Standing Orders should be followed."
The Secretary of State for Industry has made a remarkable speech—particularly in one respect. I think that the only attempt to explain the contents, meaning and reasoning of the Government's motion was made by you, Mr. Speaker. I hardly heard the Secretary of State for Industry refer to the motion or say anything about what will happen as a consequence of it.
At one stage the Secretary of State said that nobody was seeking to challenge your ruling. He went on to make it fairly clear that what he and his colleagues were seeking to do was to dispose of the matter tidily in the nearest wastepaper basket. He then kindly said that he was not impugning anybody's good faith. In present circumstances, nobody's good faith is in question today except that of the Government.
The Secretary of State then produced a phrase which deserves to be characterised as the phrase of the debate—namely, the concept of "hairline hybridity". My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) was heard to mutter that it was "such a small baby".
We then had a helpful intervention by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr.
654
Abse), who made it clear that the one thing he was anxious to do—and, indeed, thought he was in order in doing—was to debate your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman used words such as these: "We want to inquire whether your ruling is based on serious or weighty evidence."
Mr. Abse: Since we are debating a motion to decide whether we should take action to deal with the serious consequences which flow from Mr. Speaker's ruling, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is right for all the evidence relating to the matter to be placed, as the Secretary of State has placed it, before the House?
Mr. Peyton: I am content with the words I used, which came out of the hon. Gentleman's speech, that we were seeking to inquire whether Mr. Speaker's ruling was based upon serious or weighty evidence. Whatever else we are doing, that is precisely what we are not meant to be doing today.
In order to enliven the debate, photographs were circulated. I very much hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will follow up the serious point made subsequently by a number of my hon. Friends as to the circulation of photographs——
Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said so far has been about whether points of order were points of order and whether you were dealing with them properly. Surely he should get down to the subject.
Mr. Peyton: There are times when one is infinitely grateful to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and there are times when their advice is not quite as valuable as it may seem to them to be. On this occasion, I must say that I can get on without them.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): Get on with it.
Mr. Peyton: I have all the time in the world. I quite realise that the occupants of the Government Front Bench and others want to get their own back, and I am not in the least bothered if they wish to do that. We wish only to conduct a proper parliamentary debate. That does not worry me.

655
The point to which I was addressing myself—it is a perfectly reasonable one—is that sooner or later we must have some settled ruling as to whether it is in order for the Government, or anybody else for that matter, to circulate photographs without notice and consultation.
The right hon. Gentleman, at the height of his anger——
Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not correct to say that my right hon. Friend is prepared to how any photograph but that if a demand is made that the photographs should be laid upon the Table he will comply with that?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can clear this matter up by referring again to "the good book". It is quite clear that hon. Members have been permited to display articles—but not weapons—to illustrate an argument in a speech. Mr. Peyton.
Mr. Peyton rose——
The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): Why did you not say that before?
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the Minister that I take a very poor view of anyone who makes remarks at me when I am in the Chair. The reason why I did not say that before was that I did not know it until I looked up "Erskine May".
Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I have offended you in any way, I fully and unreservedly withdraw my remarks.
Mr. Speaker: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who represents an aircraft workers' constituency, may I say how appalled I am that thousands of jobs are at stake and that all that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) can discuss is whether——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must know that those are points which he can make if he has the advantage of being called in the debate.
Mr. Peyton: If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, these seem to be heavily camouflaged points of order.
656
The Secretary of State made much of the fact that delay in nationalisation would cost jobs and so on. He should read the Press today, particularly the article in The Guardian, which makes it quite clear that in the opinion of that newspaper at any rate—an opinion which I fully endorse—nobody would be the poorer if the Bill were to die tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman, at a loss, then criticised my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) for having said that his constituency might derive some benefit from nationalisation if the Bill were passed. I do not think anyone can seriously suggest that there was anything at all wrong in what my hon. Friend had done. We were then told about Sir Anthony Griffin—poor man; I think he will have an unhappy time in the future now that he has been dragged in to support the right hon. Gentleman's case.
The real point which characterised the Secretary of State's remarks was his total failure to deal with the motion which he himself moved on behalf of the Government. This debate could well have sunk into a competition to see who could find the best precedent. I am advised that there are no precedents whatever for the situation in which we now find ourselves. Our concern with precedent is not to find either an excuse for the Government's conduct or condemnation for it in circumstances which are more or less comparable, because in my belief there are no such circumstances. We have some concern for precedent, however, because one might well be giving a respectability to this kind of conduct which would help it in future, which we would deem reprehensible and odious.
Rules are necessary to govern all forms of human activity, otherwise one is left with the attractive statement that might is right. Rules are particularly necessary to govern the activities of the strong, and by that I mean Governments. Indeed, much of the history of the Labour Party has been concerned with the struggle to bring rich and powerful people and interests within the limitations of known rules. When that does not suit the Labour Party, however, as with yesterday's ruling, a motion is put forward without a moment's hesitation to sweep that ruling aside. No pause whatever was

657
taken by the Leader of the House to consider the reactions of Parliament, Press or public. The Government proceeded headlong in their determination to get their measure, no matter what the cost in terms of violations of the rules of this place.
Parliament, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, is not and should not be an instrument of government. It is a source of government and it is a means of checking the Government. It has, or used to have, great powers for that purpose over money and legislation. But of the two Chambers that constitute Parliament, one has been virtually filleted and the other has had its wings clipped by a series of procedural devices—devices against which none has been more vehement than the present Leader of the House.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will recognise these words:
"I say quite seriously that I think that when this House is debating as it is today, or as it claims to be debating today, the procedures of Parliamentary democracy, hon. Gentlemen, and even more right hon. Gentlemen, on both sides of the House should recognise that Parliamentary democracy is being debilitated by many of the operations which they conduct and by many of the methods by which they conduct the House of Commons."—[Official Report, 6th March 1961, Vol. 636, c 154–5.]
Those were the words of the right hon. Gentleman on 6th March 1961.
Mr. Tom King: He has come a long way since then.
Mr. Peyton: Indeed. The House of Commons has not only been greatly curtailed in its powers; it has been dwarfed by the huge growth of modern government. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), in raising with such skill the point that he did, was not making any tricky use of rules. He was discharging his duty in ensuring that a Government invested with a great panoply of power did not cut corners with a tricky and unpleasant measure.
Mr. Robert Hughes rose——
Mr. Peyton: No, I have given way quite enough.
Mr. Robert Hughes: On this point——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman giving way?
Mr. Peyton: Very well.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Go on, Bob, do the job for him.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the Northern Ireland Act of 1972, which was brought in at less than 24 hours' notice and passed through all its stages in one day to have the effect of setting aside a decision of the High Court of Northern Ireland and declaring that the law was to be regarded as it always had been regarded since 1920?
Mr. Peyton: Do I really need to tell the hon. Member that whereas that was not a contentious measure, this one is?
Mr. Robert Hughes: That is not what the Tories have been saying.
Mr. Peyton: There is no concealment about this. This measure, in our view, is a bad one. It will subject other industries, quite unnecessarily, to the thraldom of nationalisation. Those other industries will follow in the wake of the ones already in State ownership, which have proved millstones around the neck of the national economy.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Peyton: No, I have given way enough.
Mr. McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on this point?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.
Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member interrupted me at just the point when I was coming to another interruption in this matter, that of Sir Barnett Cocks. Sir Barnett Cocks, lately retired as the Clerk of this House, has seen fit to intervene in this dispute with the judgment that Mr. Speaker's first ruling was right and that his second one was therefore wrong. I should like to take this opportunity of saying that I think that the Chair in this place and the Clerks of the House have a very difficult task indeed, but I cannot

659
believe that under any Government their tasks would be made easier by the repeated intervention of people who have had great knowledge but who can no longer be informed about the necessary details.
In the view of all of us on the Opposition side, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton has done a notable service to Parliament.
Mr. Varley: What about freedom now?
Mr. Peyton: What about freedom yesterday, when, at an impressive ceremony in Westminster Hall, the Prime Minister spoke in moving terms of freedom and the great charter of our liberties? I wish that the Prime Minister would get hold of that speech and read it again now, and ask himself whether or not he is acting up to the high principles that he there enunciated.
It would be quite wrong to pick only upon the Leader of the House and say that he is solely responsible for this shabby manoeuvre. The Government as a whole are guilty; the Government as a whole must take responsibility. But it is particularly the Leader of the House who must take especial blame. He cannot have had much satisfaction from even a cursory reading of the Press this morning. The article "Guilty Man" in the Daily Telegraph—[Interruption.] It is always interesting to note the total derision with which any quotation is greeted from any journal with which Labour Members do not agree.
The article says:
"Mr. Foot has not till recently been thought of as one of these. His devotion to and respect for Parliament and its procedures has been often and fervently proclaimed. All the greater then is the shock and sense of betrayal when, in his zeal to see the aircraft and shipbuilding industries nationalised, he is prepared to 'get around' what the Speaker has ruled, to throw standing orders out of the window and. in effect, to reduce MPs of all parties to mere rubber-stamp cyphers".
The article then goes on to comment on how rickety and frail are the structures and fabrics which protect our liberties—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware of this, even if some of his more loud-mouthed colleagues are prepared to ignore it.
I am sure that any mention of The Times will also—[Laughter.]—there we
660
are, as always—elicit the same derision from the Labour Party, whose members do not like any view that is expressed against their interests. Only those who agree with them are right. There is a quotation that I still mean to make from today's leading article in The Times:
"The measure is ideologically inspired, not urgent, primitive in its ideas of State intervention in industry, unwanted by the mass of the people, a matter for private apology by some ministers and Labour MPs. By steaming on with it the Government have acted as if they had behind them a clear electoral mandate, when in fact they are a minority government, all along and very much so in terms of votes and now in a minority in the House of Commons also."
Hon. Members: Now give us the Daily Mail.
Mr. Peyton: Perhaps that would be better. I was about to quote a similar item from the Scotsman, but as I imagine that would give Labour Members equal pain, let me go to a better source, to someone who has made this place echo to the sound of his acclaimed convictions. It is the right hon. Gentleman himself:
"I have respect for the history of this House. There is nothing reprehensible in people recalling that some of the liberties of the people of this country enshrined in this House go back not merely to the conflicts of the seventeenth century, which will certainly apply to many of the matters with which we have to deal—the power over taxation which resides, or is still to reside, in this House—but to the controversies which prevailed in the House of Commons during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. If people say to me that all these are remote, old-fashioned ideas, I reply that they are as up-to-date as the ideas that brought the Labour Party into being".—[Official Report, 17th February 1972; Vol. 831, c. 741.]
Mr. Fernyhough rose——
Mr. Peyton: No.
Mr. Fernyhough rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) knows the rules of the House.
Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry gave way a score of times. I think it is very cheap of the right hon. Gentleman to be so mean when he is quoting my right hon. Friend the Leader of the

661
House, when at the time that speech was made the right hon. Gentleman denied every principle that——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has enough trouble, as has already been pointed out, without having the additional difficulty of ordering Members to give way to someone who wants to intervene.
Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) only does damage to the quite good reputation that he otherwise enjoys. It is a pity that he should be trying to make another intervention of this kind this afternoon.
This is the motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and therefore we are entitled to remind him of views that he once most strongly held. In a debate concerning the European Communities Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"What the Government and the Prime Minister, in particular, are doing is to show full-hearted contempt for the democratic processes of this country; full-hearted contempt for the normal legislative processes of this House of Commons. The stain will remain indelible on the right hon. Gentleman for ever."—[Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 235.]
I should like to end—[Interruption.] I have no intention of prolonging my remarks, so long as I am not persuaded to do so by those hobgoblins on the Government Benches. They have it in their power to do this, though not to persuade me of the reason of their case.
I should like to end, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with these words:
" 'I should like to have an honest job again.' This business of being Leader of the House does not suit him at all."—[Official Report, 25th January 1962; Vol. 652, c. 454.]
Those words were spoken by the right hon. Gentleman, who is now Leader of the House, of the then Leader of the House. They are back again alive to haunt him today.
5.4 p.m.
Mrs. Judith Hart: The primary purpose on this occasion is to discuss the parliamentary issue before us. I begin, perhaps a little unexpectedly, by congratulating the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on their very genuine and effective piece
662
of research and their very well carried through parliamentary performance. It is a real success for them, and we should not dispute that. What they have done is to prove that a mistake has been made by the Government in defining the character of a Bill, and I genuinely and sincerely congratulate them.
I certainly accept—and, as far as I know, everyone on the Government side, certainly my right hon. Friends, totally accept—Mr. Speakers' ruling. I say that at the outset in order to set the context of the rest of my remarks.
The question is, having accepted Mr. Speaker's ruling, what is now the most sensible way to deal with the problem that then arises? That is the parliamentary issue before us.
It ought not to be seen, in the strict sense of the word, as a normal political issue. It is a matter of the way in which the sensible Members of this House of Commons address themselves to a genuine problem. Whatever may be the views of many hon. Members on the Opposite Benches about the merits of the Bill on which this question has arisen, the issue before us is the House of Commons issue of how we now deal with the consequences of Mr. Speaker's ruling.
As Mr. Speaker has told us himself, we are the masters of what we do. This obviously is unchallengeable. Therefore, if the House of Commons this evening decides to take a certain course of action, as I hope it will, and accepts the motion that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has moved, that will be totally within the prerogative of the House.
We have the right to determine how we deal with the situation. There is nothing improper, no threat to freedom, no threat to democracy, involved in this House exercising its right to act upon the motion put before it today. This will represent our considered, sensible method of dealing with the essentially parliamentary problem with which we are now confronted as a result of Mr. Speaker's ruling.
The problem of hybridity is always a terrifying one. I remember that in Cabinet and in Cabinet committees, whenever it was suggested that a proposal to legislate might involve the problem of hybridity, everyone took fright. People went white and cold, and said "We cannot possibly

663
cope with it." It is a very terrifying problem when it emerges.
About 14 years ago—I am indebted for this recollection to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael)—Mr Emrys Hughes moved from these Benches, I think in a Ten-Minute Bill, a motion to nationalise The Times. He was told by the Government of the day that it would cost far too much, because it would mean having a Private Bill. He was told that it would cost about £200,000 to go through all the procedures, but that if he chose he could quite simply, without any cost, move to nationalise the whole of the newspapers.
I also remember serving on a Committee dealing with a Private Bill, the Esso Petroleum Bill. I am very familiar with the perfectly correct exercise of Private Bill procedure, under which private individuals and companies affected by legislation have their rights within this House of Commons. I am familiar with all of that.
Somewhere along the line, with this Bill—I suppose it was before its introduction—some officials responsible for giving advice made some kind of mistake. Clearly, all hon. Members appreciate that, in all fairness. We know that somewhere there was a mistake. It must have occurred before First Reading, because that is when the whole question of subjecting a Bill to the Public Examiner arises. The mistake went through that stage, before the Bill was given its First and Second Readings. We cannot really be surprised that it went thereafter through its 58 Committee Sittings without the mistake being discovered, since it had not been discovered at the earlier stages, when it should have been.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the right hon. Lady seized of the point that, however carefully the Bill is read through, by clerks or anyone else, reading through the Bill does not tell a person whether there is a new ship in the course of construction in a given shipyard on a given day, or how many thousand tons had or has not been produced in a shipyard? It is these facts, external to a Bill, which cannot be comprehended by merely reading it but which either make it a hybrid Bill or do not.
Mrs. Hart: I accept that. I am not putting any particular responsibility on any particular group of officials. All I am saying is that, somewhere along the line, full account was not taken of the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has effectively drawn attention to. He has been able to discover it. Presumably, it should have been discovered at an earlier stage but was not. That is all I am saying.
There are precedents. I was discussing with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) the Rolls-Royce (Purchase) Act 1971, which was put through this House in 24 hours. It was a hybrid Bill and it was put through by the Conservative Government. We did not object, because it was clearly necessary and urgent. One should not regard the question of hybridity and what the House does about it as totally unacceptable to the House. In certain circumstances, as Mr. Speaker has said, the House is the master of what it does.
In the case of the Rolls-Royce Bill, we decided that we were masters of what we did and that that Bill should go through, no matter that it had implications that could have been challenged by us, as the then Opposition, as the hon. Member for Tiverton has challenged this Bill. I am not arguing the merits of the Rolls-Royce Act; we supported it. I merely say that circumstances can arise in this House when it is necessary for the House to decide what is the sensible and best procedure to adopt in relation to a new problem and a new situation.
As I understood him, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry was trying, valiantly amid all the excitement, to say that, while the Government accepted Mr. Speaker's ruling, the circumstances in which the mistake had been made about the hybrid nature of the Bill were understandable. He tried to explain the complications and the complexities—indeed, had there not been complexities, had there not been a difficult question of interpretation, surely the hon. Member for Henley and the hon. Member for Tiverton would not now be receiving the congratulations of their colleagues on the cleverness that they have demonstrated in discovering the mistake. If it were a simple matter, the mistake would have been discovered long ago.

665
So what are the complications? When is a vessel a ship? When is it not a ship? One almost feels oneself in the province of idealism in philosophy—I see a table, so there is a table: I see a ship, so there is a ship. The key definitions come from the American Bureau of Shipping and the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. My right hon. Friend has made reference also to Lloyds, the Inland Revenue and the 1972 Industry Act. One also notes that the whole procedure under discussion concerning hybridity was established by Mr. Speaker's ruling in 1962.
In 1962, and certainly in 1894, this House was not familiar with the precise technological ingredients of oil rigs—that I think we can all accept. I do not believe that when the 1894 Act was going through the House there was a deep and profound discussion of when was a ship a ship and when was a vessel with a hull a ship—or, at any rate, the words that the hon. Member for Tiverton gave us on Tuesday. I cannot believe that these were matters of full consideration when the 1894 Act was going through the House.
Nor can I regard it as reasonable to assume that Mr. Speaker's ruling in 1962 bore in mind the certainty that his ruling would be applied about 14 years later to a situation of oil rigs, of which we in Great Britain then had no experience whatever.
Mr. Tom King: The right hon. Lady's submission and the Secretary of State's submission about the 1972 Act are irrelevant, because this Bill itself provides the key definition. Schedule 2, paragraph 6 specifically says
"In this Part of the Schedule …"
and then defines what a ship is. Section 12 of the 1972 Act says
"In this Part of this Act …"
and then gives a definition. There is a distinction between the categories. The Government have set their own definition in the Bill. We do not need to go back to 1894 or 1972.
Mrs. Hart: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is aware that definitions tend to move on from previous definitions into a new Bill unless there are clear reasons for doing otherwise. All T am suggesting is that the definitions which have been
666
involved in Mr. Speaker's ruling are scarcely sanctified by tradition, history or test cases. The new ruling poses a new situation which relates to the new technological character of certain vessels used in the oil rig industry. It is a new situation. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said that there is no precedent. There are no comparable circumstances. He himself agrees that it is a new situation. We are not, in what we decide to do tonight, throwing overboard traditions or precedents which have previously been set by the House in relation to a similar situation, because there has not been a similar situation in the past. The right hon. Gentleman himself said it—no precedent, no comparable circumstances.
Mr. Peyton: What I did say was that what we do tonight might set a perfectly odious precedent for the future and excuse the most unpleasant conduct in the future.
Mrs. Hart: I take the point, but I suppose that the most we would be doing tonight in accepting the motion would be saying "On the whole we had better get a rather better definition of what a ship is in the new oil age." We would also be saying "The circumstances of this Bill are such that we feel that the House in all good common sense would be ill-advised to throw the Bill back to its beginning and waste those 58 Committee Sittings and the rest."
The eccentricities involved in this situation are, first, that the definitions on which we have been resting have been obscure and unrelated to modern technological developments, and therefore it is understandable that things may have gone a little wrong and that the hon. Member for Tiverton has been able to catch the Government out. Secondly, the definition used is apparently an American phrase because the Americans are more familiar with oil rigs. Thirdly,—and this is fairly unprecedented—the Bill has already gone through 58 Committee Sittings and its hybridity was not challenged at the correct point in time, namely, before Second Reading.
The fourth eccentricity is that the situation centres around one company—Marathon. I am not sure whether the House is aware of developments at Marathon during the last two or three

667
weeks. I do not produce these arguments as being relevant to the procedural and legal question, but they are part of the background that should be considered by sensible people who are trying to find the right answer to this situation.
On 11th May the Financial Times reported that the Chairman of Marathon had told shareholders that the company would have to cut employment in the yard unless it could negotiate new orders in the next four months. This caused great concern in Scotland. The Scottish National Party is, of course, totally un-concerned about this. It is concerned only with elections, not jobs on Clyde-side. Some of us received a telegram today saying that all the Clydeside shop stewards have contacted the leader of the Scottish National Party demanding support for the nationalisation Bill. It is signed by a shop steward of Govan Shipbuilders.
On 13th May there were discussions between the shop stewards, the workers, and Marathon, and I now quote from a report in the Scotsman:
"And at Marathon in Clydebank shop stewards were given an assurance that the president of Marathon had been misinterpreted at the company's annual general meeting in Houston on Tuesday when he stated that the yard would close in January.
The stewards were told that there are no plans to close the yard and Clydebank executives are negotiating for work to keep the yard in business when their two current orders run out early next year."
It goes on to say:
"At Marathon, the management said yesterday that they were looking at not only oilrig orders but other kinds of steel fabricating to keep the yard occupied beyond January."
Today I had a telephone conversation with the shop stewards at Marathon and I now have an up-to-date picture of the position there in terms of prospects and employment. The company has not yet succeeded in negotiating any new orders. The two oil rigs under construction will be completed by the end of this year. There are active negotiations going on possibly for repair and conversion jobs, which I think are unlikely to involve a vessel or ship as defined here.
Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are having some
668
difficulty in making sure that all that is said relates closely to the matter. You will be aware that there is no proposal in the Bill—nor has the Secretary of State mentioned any proposal—to include the Marathon yards in this nationalisation measure. Therefore they cannot be among those yards which, in the opinion of the Government and in terms of the motion on the Order Paper, are gravely concerned by any uncertainty. Therefore, the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) is introducing matters that are extraneous to the terms of both the motion and the Bill—unless, of course, the Secretary of State is proposing to bring Marathon into the schedule of companies for nationalisation——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate the point. I was allowing the right hon. Lady to make just this reference and I was about to conclude that if she developed it to any great extent it would be, strictly speaking, out of order.
Mrs. Hart: Of course I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But it seemed to me that since the whole pivot of the dispute, which followed Mr. Speaker's ruling, arose from a vessel being constructed at Marathon, there was some relevance. Perhaps I can finalise the matter by saying that if no further orders are negotiated for Marathon in the next four or five weeks there will be a very difficult situation in the next two or three months. That is the point, and the outstanding eccentricity of this whole situation.
If the present Bill cannot complete its progress by the House taking the opportunity to accept the motion tonight, the very incident which has created the problem of hybridity conceivably could be a good deal less relevant or totally irrelevant in a few months' time. This matter should be considered against the background of the employment needs of the shipbuilding industry, particularly that part of the industry with which I am most familiar, more so than members of the Scottish National Party—Clydeside.
If we are concerned about employment, and the need not to insist that this Bill goes back to the beginning, if the problem that has caused our concern this evening involves a firm whose search for orders is taking them into fields other than the construction of vessels, and if there is

669
some shadow of doubt as to how far this firm might need Government assistance in future to preserve employment on Clydeside, we should be sensible about this motion now. If we are sensible—and sometimes we allow ourselves to be so—we are bound to conclude that in accepting the motion before us today we are not challenging any fundamental democratic rights of individuals or private companies. We are not seeking to change the constitutional processes of this House. What we are seeking to do is to find a rational way through an unpredicted, unprecedented situation. Therefore, I hope that we will accept the motion tonight.
5.28 p.m.
Mr. Grimond: I am glad to speak after the right hon. Lady for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), although I am advised that her description of the Rolls-Royce Bill as hybrid is not accurate.
We all agree that it is the duty of Back Benchers in all parts of the House to scrutinse, check and criticise the Government. In my view this has never been more necessary that it is now.
Also, it is generally agreed that a mistake was made in this case by the Government. No one has suggested that the Opposition brought us into this situation by unwarranted and destructive tactics.
Mr. Fernyhough rose——
Mr. Grimond: I shall give way later. The fundamental point is that the Government are changing the rules under which legislation is considered by the House, and they are doing so half-way through. There may be a case for changing the rules of the House in the light of new technological developments. Perhaps they should be looked at again. But it is totally indefensible to change them when legislation is half-way through, just for the convenience of the Government, and against bitter opposition of other parties in the House.
Further, we are changing the rules in a way that may affect the rights of individuals outside this House. That is a fundamental point. We are setting a dangerous precedent. The House should focus its attention on that.
Mr. Fernyhough: I think that the right hon. Gentleman drew a bad analogy in referring to Rolls-Royce. The whole of
670
Rolls-Royce was not nationalised. The car-making sector was left in private hands.
Mr. Grimond: I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I give way to him on the Rolls-Royce point, if he is right.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the Education Act 1973, which was put forward by the Conservatives and which sought, in the light of a defect shown up by the High Court in Scotland, to provide that the situation should revert to what it had been in 1965? That Bill affected the rights of individuals but it went through without objection because everyone agreed with it. All that the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that since he and others disagree with this Bill, it is right to devise an ingenious method of stopping it.
Mr. Grimond: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that my party disagreed with the 1973 Act. The Government are acting like the footballer who is sent off. First, he says that he thinks the referee is wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members may disagree, but it is difficult to justify circulating a picture of the oil rig except as a method of criticising the ruling of the Chair. The footballer then says that he will not leave the field, but will remain until he can convene a meeting to change the rules. That would be unacceptable in football, and it is unacceptable in more serious matters in this House.
It is wrong that a majority in this House should have the right to change rules that are designed to protect minorities, ordinary Members and members of the public. It is damaging when there is a widespread disposition throughout the country, among various groups of people, to think that the law should he bent or altered to suit their particular needs at a particular time.
We are told that the Government have a mandate. They do not have a mandate; they have 38 per cent. of the votes, and they should take note of that. We have been told also that it will be disastrous if the Bill is not passed at once. All Governments, however, tell us that all their business is vital to the nation. That is the common excuse when they want to force something through. This

671
legislation, however, could not be on the statute book for many weeks yet. There is a grave situation facing all industries, not only shipbuilding. The Government can take powers under existing legislation to help the shipyards. This nationalisation Bill is not necessary for assisting them.
I hope that it was noted at Question Time that the Prime Minister, with great honesty, said that there would be rationalisation in the shipbuilding industry. The idea that everyone in the industry will have his job guaranteed by nationalisation is untrue. We have only to study the history of the steel industry. Nationalisation of the Scottish steel industry has not meant a great increase in it there; neither has it prevented unemployment.
I do not complain that Governments behave in a doctrinaire fashion. People are perfectly entitled to say "This is what we believe in and we shall introduce legislation to give effect to it". I think that the House is sometimes not doctrinaire enough. For instance today's Honours List would be improved by some attention to doctrine. There would be greater honesty if the House were more doctrinaire. But those who do not be-live in this particular doctrine have a right to oppose the Bill.
The Bill presents a primitive form of nationalization—State Socialism, which will simply add bureaucracy on to industry. I find it difficult to believe that it will teach people like Sir Eric Yarrow to do their business any better.
The Government must know that the creation of enormous monolithic industries in steel, the Post Office, and so forth, has led to great difficulties and is a constant source of complaint, but the Government do not appear to have learned anything from them about the nature of nationalisation. If they plan to nationalise manufacturing industry they will run into this difficulty again and again. One cannot tell by looking at a Bill whether it is hybrid. It is true that no Government Department can possibly know what is being done in various parts of the country. There is, therefore, a case for looking at our procedures, but not in the middle of a Bill, and not simply for the convenience of the Government.
672
The Leader of the House said yesterday that the matter would be left to the House of Commons. The right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) said that we were masters of our own procedure. Those are very fine phrases. I do not believe that the motion is a proper one. But if, as the Leader of the House says, the matter is to be left to the House of Commons, there should be a free vote.
Mr. George Cunningham: They are all free votes.
Mr. Grimond: I am delighted to hear the hon. Member say that, because that is not the view of the Leader of the House. He once published a pamphlet called "Parliament in Danger", the whole theme of which was that we should get rid of the Whips and have free votes. He asked whether it was improper for a Minister involved to be called upon to convince the House of Commons of his case without the assurance that a heavy majority had been guaranteed to him by the Whips. He said:
"How much could such a genuine debate contribute to public understanding. Leadership is the great cement and discipline is the most shabby of substitutes."
The right hon. Gentleman is the Leader of the House and he should speak for the whole House. He would have gained great sympathy and improved the standing of Parliament if he had said yesterday that he accepted Mr. Speaker's ruling, that this is a House in which minority views are respected and in which the rule of the Speaker is paramount, and that he would take the Bill away and submit it to examiners.
Mr. George Cunningham: We know that the public's faith in this place is not too high, but the people deserve to have some faith in it. Does the right hon. Gentleman not see what damage is done to that faith when one talks about free votes. Although my remark a few moments ago caused hilarity, in a real sense every vote in this place is a free vote, and every hon. Member is answerable to his conscience for how he votes tonight at 10 o'clock.
Mr. Grimond: I wish that I could send the hon. Member a copy of the pamphlet produced by the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out the dire consequences that befall a Member of Parliament for not obeying the Whip.

673
Unfortunately, the pamphlet is out of print. The right hon. Gentleman has played many parts in his time and he has not always been a dedicated upholder of the freedom of the Left. He was at one time an editor for Lord Beaverbrook.
But there are in the House the so-called Social Democrats. They have been making noises lately, to the effect that the public sector is too big already. They have been expressing doubts about further nationalisation. All these matters have come to a head in this debate, but will those hon. Members troop through the Lobby in support of the motion?
The point is simple. We do not have a written constitution, but we have certain firm understandings about the conduct of democratic government. Those understandings are being broken as they have never been broken before. This may create a precedent that the Labour Party will come to regret. The reasons for doing it are insufficient and the difficulties of the shipbuilding industry could be met in other ways.
5.40 p.m.
Mr. William Small: I am grateful to be called to speak. I never take exceptionally long in addressing the House.
I am the first hon. Member to speak who sat on the Committee that considered the Bill through 58 Sittings. It is interesting to listen to all this talk of legal theory, parliamentary etiquette and what we mean by hybridity.
"Hybridity" is a great word. I have made many scholastic speeches on the Bill. Perhaps an hon. Member would like to print an anthology of my speeches. It must have been fascinating to people going to work in Tokyo this morning, wondering what was happening in Great Britain, when they read all about hybridity. The boys in Tokyo have taken over almost all the shipbuilding on the face of this planet. They will have been very interested in what has happened in this House. They will have said the Japanese equivalent of "Hallo, hallo", and then "Sayonara to the British ship-building industry". That will be their general reaction.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is an excellent scrutineer of the minutiae of parliament-
674
tary business. I saw him on television last night in a discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), telling the world about hybridity. The hon. Member for Tiverton spoke about a taxi analogy. I shall not go into details, but if that is the sort of man who wants to run Great Britain he ought to go to the nearest taxidermist and asked to he stuffed.
I speak for the people I represent—the untutored proletariat who lead crippling lives in areas of constant struggle. They need quantity and development in the British shipbuilding industry.
I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) here. I pay tribute to him, because he treated the Glasgow shop stewards with dignity when they came to the House. That is a good part of his record.
I have received a number of telegrams from people on the Clyde. They are in favour of this nationalisation measure. The proportion of hybridity in this Bill is equivalent to the proportion of the British shipbuilding industry represented by a Meccano set.
I know quite a lot about the Bill. It is a decentralising measure of nationalisation and is not in the same style as previous nationalisations. Take industrial democracy, for instance. About 54 managements will have the opportunity to produce industrial democracy, yard by yard. The Government are not laying down the terms in the section of the Bill that deals with industrial democracy. If that is not decentralisation, I do not know what decentralisation means.
Industrial democracy started with an experiment at Fairfield's, on the Clyde. To the other shipbuilders in the country it seemed like an illegal regime, but people came from Gothenburg, Hamburg and all over the world to study the experiment. People who talk about industrial democracy should study the strengths and weaknesses of that experiment.
What is the position of Marathon? It is not covered by the terms of the Bill and the minutae of the details about hybridity. My friends Dan McGarvey and Jack Service went to America and promised, as trade unionists, that the yard would not be nationalised. In order to

675
hold to that promise, I suggest that the yard should be included in the Bill. There is American and British investment in NATO. We have to make a contribution to the Alliance, and I suggest we can do it by building warships at the Marathon yard.
Mr. William Ross: Yarrow's would have a fit.
Mr. Small: This suggestion might cause some people to have a fit. I am not dealing with Yarrow; I am dealing with the necessity of job creation.
Let us consider New Clause 1 which has not yet been discussed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing New Clause 1. We do not want to know about it at the moment.
Mr. Small: It will be an urgent matter if we proceed with the Bill. It provides that we should introduce a data centre. Perhaps I should not deal with it at present. I sometimes get terribly annoyed about the use of words. For instance, if we follow current fashions, we would be calling all the Chairmen in the House "Chairpersons".
There is no stronger supporter of this Government measure than I. We must make progress with it, and it must be supported tonight.
5.58 p.m.
Mr. Edward Heath: The issue before the House is a simple one but certainly not a mean one. It is an issue of principle and one which the House should consider most carefully before the vote tonight.
The right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) said that the House could do whatever it liked whenever it liked. Technically that may be true, but it is also true that we have built up rules of conduct and conventions and we have established a situation in which they are not changed unless there is discussion first and general consent about the changes.
Reference has been made to the legislation we had to introduce to suspend Stormont in Northern Ireland. There was a precedent for that at the beginning of the Second World War in 1939, but it was such an exceptional precedent that it
676
caused my right hon. Friends and me many hours of thought and worry before we approached the House and said we believed that the situation in Northern Ireland was of such severity that we had to ask the House to follow those procedures.
As has already been pointed out, there was common agreement and the House as a whole said "We are prepared to accept this exceptional procedure because of the seriousness of the present situation." Nevertheless, there was very full time, I remember, going almost right through the night when right hon. and hon. Members had the opportunity of discussing the legislation which was put forward, of tabling amendments and of discussing the whole matter very fully.
This is not just another parliamentary row, of which the public have heard all too many and are now all too tired. Nor is this just a procedural wrangle. Yesterday Mr. Speaker gave the lie to that when he gave his ruling. Nor is it simply a continuation of the debate on nationalisation on the Floor of the House. It is much more than that. I believe that it is even more than what the Leader of the Liberal Party has described as changing the rules in the middle of the game. No, it is a question of principle which concerns respect for the rights of the minority—first, the minority outside the House, and, secondly, the minority inside the House.
We have established our rules for hybrid Bills specifically to protect the rights of a minority. A hybrid Bill, by its very nature, makes an unequal arrangement. Therefore, the Standing Orders governing hybrid Bills set out a procedure which allows those who consider that they are being treated unequally as minorities to petition against that fact. The arrangement is made whereby their petition can be fully considered and taken into account. The effect of the motion of the Leader of the House in regard to the Bill, which concerns two great industries and many companies, is to sweep away the whole of the provision for safeguarding the rights of minorities. That is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is doing.
Therefore, the House has to ask itself "Is this justified by the particular circumstances?". Moreover, is it justifiable

677
to set a precedent for sweeping away rules which have so long been established to look after the rights of a minority? That seems to me to be the real point to which the House should address itself.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned minorities. Will he say which minorities outside the House would be affected by the Bill being classed as a hybrid?
Mr. Heath: What I can say is that there are many firms outside the general provisions of the Bill which may consider that they are affected. It is not for me to try to anticipate the minorities that will be concerned. If people do not consider that they are dealt with unequally, they will not petition. It is not for us beforehand to say that no one is affected or that no one will petition. The decision rests with others provided that we set up the procedure.
Nor is the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State for Industry—who has just returned to the Chamber—entitled to say that so far no one has petitioned, written to him or raised the matter until it was raised so skilfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). That is not the argument when there was no declaration of a hybrid Bill and no indication was given that it was the sort of Bill that gave people a right to say that they were being treated unequally.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Not only is there a petition in existence, which was placed before the House and put in the Bag, which means that this is not a hypothetical question, but at this moment there are workers and shop stewards in the Lobby from the Bristol Channel Ship Repair Company who want to petition against the Bill. This is an actuality and not a hypothetical question.
Mr. Heath: Yes, I am aware of that. I said that until this matter was raised yesterday by my hon. Friend there was no indication that it was the sort of Bill that gave firms or individuals the right to petition. That is the matter which the House has to consider as the real issue of principle.
The Secretary of State for Industry devoted a considerable part of his speech to providing various pieces of informa-
678
tion. I ask him in passing whether any of the information he gave to the House was not placed before Mr. Speaker before he made his decision. If it was all placed before Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State cannot have any justification for trying to indicate that there are other reasons than those placed before Mr. Speaker and that Mr. Speaker ought, perhaps, to reach another decision.
The plain fact is that Mr. Speaker and his counsel can reach a decision only on information placed before them by a Department. They have no resources of their own. Therefore, the Department must take responsibility for not providing information on which Mr. Speaker reaches his final decision. I hope that the Secretary of State will not in any way try to disown that responsibility.
I now turn to the protection of the rights of minorities—
Mr. Abse: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the independent advice which he receives, provided as he is with public officials and his own counsel, is a cipher of a Department and does not have an independent rôle in certifying a Bill?
Mr. Heath: I was saying nothing of the sort, neither has the hon. Gentleman justification for so saying. I said that when Mr. Speaker and his legal advisers have to reach a decision on a question of facts, the only people who can provide those facts for them, should they ask for them or should they be volunteered, are the members of the Department. That is well known as part of the machinery of government. The Secretary of State and his Department, or the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, are responsible for the information that was provided or the lack of it. However, Mr. Speaker having reached his decision on the information placed before him, I should have thought and hoped that everyone, including the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State, would accept the decision as being quite clear—namely, that there is prima facie a hybrid Bill before us.
I now move to the second aspect of minorities, which is that it is the responsibility of the Leader of the House to safeguard their position in the House. He knows that technically he is in a minority,

679
but it is his job to safeguard the position of minorities. Mr. Speaker has already done so by his decision on the Bill. I suggest to the Leader of the House that it is his responsibility to safeguard the position of minorities by accepting the ruling of Mr. Speaker and carrying through the existing rules, procedures and conventions of the House. if the right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that the rules should be changed, as did the right hon. Member for Lanark, very well, let them be examined and let us consider whether they are up to date, but let us not say that because of the situation before us the rules should be changed now.
The last part of the Secretary of State's speech emphasised the necessity of carrying on with the Bill. I recognise full well all the pressures which are upon the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House. Of course, there are pressures from the Patronage Secretary. After all, I exercised those pressures myself for four years to get business through the House. There are also the pressures of the Department. I was once head of the Secretary of State's Department. I know full well the pressures from the Department, it having had to handle the Bill through 58 sittings in Committee, to get the Bill through. But I say to the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State that the thing which really matters is the principle of safeguarding the position of the minority outside and inside the House.
It is easy for the Department to say "We must get on. It is only a hairline hybrid. You should be able to get away with this, Secretary of State." It is all very well for the Chief Whip to say "Think of the horror of asking people to sit later in July and earlier in September if we are still to try to get the Bill through." What matters, however—I suggest that it matters just as much to everyone on the Government Benches as on the Opposition Benches—is that the rights of the minority should be protected.
There is an argument about jobs. I have every sympathy with those concerned. Anyone who is in the shipbuilding industry—and perhaps this applies to many in the aircraft industry—has every right to be anxious about his job at this time in particular but certainly for the
680
future. There is uncertainty. The curse is that there has been uncertainty for a decade because of the threat of nationalisation hanging over the shipbuilding industry and, later, the aircraft industry. That uncertainty, that anxiety, is there. We ought to do everything possible to remove it as soon and as much as possible—it will not be entirely possible—or to allay it. I do not believe that at this moment that ought to override the issue of principle.
Moreover, as the Leader of the Liberal Party said, if the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House had said "This is the situation. We accept Mr. Speaker's ruling. We will now follow an alternative procedure of either referring the Bill as it is after Committee to the examiners or of withdrawing it." I think that the latter procedure is open to the technical objection that it was a hybrid Bill from the start; if the Government accept that, having got so far, having already violated the principle, they should withdraw the Bill and re-present it in its present form as it has been through Committee, I am sure that the House would be willing to take Second Reading quickly. I am sure that my tight hon. and hon. Friends would see no reason for delaying Second Reading when the Bill had already had a Second Reading and been through Committee. After that, however, the procedure can ensure that the rights of minorities both inside and outside this House are protected.
I hope that on such a vital question of procedure as that the Leader of the House willl consider the wishes of the whole House, not only the Government side—I know how strongly they feel about nationalisation—in getting the business through.
The Secretary of State spoke of necessity. No doubt we shall hear it again from the Leader of the House tonight. But I remind him of the words of William Pitt:
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
Not very long ago the right hon. Gentleman would have been standing here below the Gangway producing even more eloquent words of his own to that effect. I ask him to remember those words, to see the truth in them, to realise that he would like to be in a positon to say them

681
himself, and then to take the action which follows those words—to withdraw the Bill and go through the proper procedure.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1976

2. Land Drainage (Amendment) Act 1976

3. Licensing (Amendment) Act 1976

4. Seychelles Act 1976

5. Australian Estates Companies Act 1976

6. Standard Life Assurance Company Act 1976

7. Railway Clearing Systems Superannuation Fund Act 1976

8. Samuel Montagu and Company Limited Act 1976

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (STANDING ORDERS)
Question again proposed,That the amendment be made.
6.4 p.m.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I think that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has made an ingenuous speech. Obviously it needs the closest examination.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government would be creating a new precedent if they carried out the proposal contained in the motion. He suggested that the rules were being swept away. For his benefit and that of other Members, I should point out that today I did some examination of precedent on this argument. I discovered, looking back over the past, that this situation has never arisen before in the House. We have never had a Bill reach this stage—I am not arguing with Mr. Speaker's decision—and then be declared a hybrid Bill at this juncture. In that sense, this is a precedent.
682
The right hon. Gentleman talked about necessity. There is another quotation about necessity:
"Necessity is the mother of invention".
It seems to me that we have to deal with a precedent. If we look back we discover that, for example, the Electricity Supply Bill 1934 was challenged in the House before Second Reading. In fact, I can go further back. On 24th May 1921, Sir F. Banbury raised the question of the Railways Bill being a hybrid Bill before Second Reading. If we want to come more up to date, the Iron and Steel Bill was challenged by Sir John Hobson in the House before Second Reading. On each of those occasions a ruling was given by the Chair before Second Reading. In other words—this is the precedent I am arguing in reply to the right hon. Gentleman—a decision was made before Second Reading. If at that stage a Bill had been declared to be a hybrid Bill, it would have gone to the Select Committee for examination and so on. That is the precedent.
This House is based on precedent. We have Standing Orders—incidentally, I was on the Committee—which from time to time are brought up to date and presented to the House. Constant changes are taking place the whole time. This House, like the trade union movement, has something called custom and practice. It is most remarkable. Usually we have to legislate later to catch up with custom and practice.
The custom and practice in this House has been to challenge hybridity before Second Reading. After all, the history of this House shows that every Bill has gone through as a Public Bill, a hybrid Bill or a semi-Private Bill.
Sir David Renton: Surely the hon. Gentleman has not overlooked the fact that this Bill could have been declared a hybrid Bill before Second Reading if all the facts eventually brought to light this week by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) had been made known by the Government to those concerned.
Mr. Heffer: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that the facts were known.
Sir David Renton: No.
Mr. Heffer: They were known. In his submission the hon. Member for Tiverton

683
(Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who raised this matter, talked about Marathon producing the oil rig which has now been classified as a ship—[Interruption.]—or a barge-ship or ship-barge; I do not want to get involved in that kind of argument—on 21st July 1974. I have a feeling that people in the industry, particularly those in all the other yards concerned who were watching closely what was happening and knew what was likely to happen today, must have been watching the situation in the closest possible way. If they were not, it is most remarkable that this question should be raised at this particular time. Was it raised at this particular time only in order to let the Government get into the muddle into which they have got at present? I am not accusing anyone. I am making the point that it is not quite as simple as is being suggested.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is certainly true that there were people who knew that this vessel was being constructed, and it is certainly true that there were people who knew about hybridity; but they did not happen to be the same people. The people who knew about what was going on at the yard did not include Mr. Speaker, and the people who knew about hybridity did not know what was going on at the yard. That was why the matter could not be raised until the point in time when those two came together.
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman in no way contradicts what I have said. In fact, he has underlined the point I have been making.
I want to return to a point made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). He referred to the statement made by Sir Barnett Cocks this morning. I felt that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on radio about Sir Barnett Cocks—a transcript of which I have in my hand—were absolutely disgraceful. They only underline the rudeness of the right hon. Gentleman's character. He is renowned for his rudeness to other hon. Members and for his very funny, slick jokes, at times.
However, what did the previous Clerk say? I am only a simple, ordinary Back Bencher, and I get into a great morass of difficulties in trying to understand things. The former Clerk of the House said:
"I would say that the ruling on Tuesday when the Speaker said the Bill had been
684
examined in the usual way and was found not to be hybrid would seem to me to be an admirable ruling. The ruling last night would be, to my mind, a somewhat astonishing one."
If the former Clerk of the House felt that it was astonishing, surely hon. Members and people in the country, particularly workers in the industry——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not criticise my ruling. [Interruption.] Order. To apply adjectives to my ruling is very questionable. It is getting very near to criticism.
Mr. Heffer: Mr. Speaker, you really should have been listening to what I said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] With due respect, I merely quoted something from a transcript of a BBC programme. I have not criticised your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I went out of my way earlier, when you were in conversation with someone, to make it absolutely clear that I did not in any way question your ruling. I am not questioning the ruling but am merely pointing out that if there can be confusion—because that is what it means—in the mind of a former Clerk of the House, who undoubtedly helped to advise the previous Speaker, hon. Members and working people outside the House have a right to be confused as well and not to understand precisely what is happening as regards this matter.
Mr. Heseltine: This point is absolutely germane. As the hon. Member will understand, you, Mr. Speaker, ruled on Tuesday and Wednesday, and the hon. Member is discussing the reasons why there was a change of ruling. The principal reason why the situation changed is that the information which was being provided to you by Department of Industry officials was found to be inaccurate.
Mr. Heffer: All that I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, as I said in the House yesterday, is that people who work in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries understand very well what a ship is. Those who work in the oil rig business understand what an oil rig is. They understand that very well, but they do not understand the niceties of the lawyers' arguments on this question.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heffer: No, I shall not give way. I have given way about seven times. If

685
hon. Members do not like my speech or the points I am making, they should extend to me the same courtesy as I extended to the right hon. Member for Sidcup. They should try to get in later in the debate and make their own points in a speech. If they are incapable of doing that, perhaps they had better not be Members of this House.
I have also received a great number of telegrams from the workers on Merseyside—for example, from the General Secretary of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions of Merseyside, covering the shipbuilding and engineering unions. I have received a telegram from all the employees of the CBS Engineering Company, of ship repairers, in Liverpool—I assume that they called a meeting this morning—saying:
"Situation in industry is serious. The only hope for the future is to take the industry into public ownership."
I have received another telegram from the confederation stewards of Western Shiprepairers. They say:
"Urgent that shipbuilding and ship repairing are nationalised to avoid final elimination of the industry on Merseyside. Unemployment now at 80,000."
They demand that the industry be nationalised. I have received similar telegrams from Cammell Laird shop stewards and the Merseyside Joint Construction Unions.
That is the voice of the organised working people in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries. The telegrams that I have read out can be multiplied by my hon. Friends from Scotland, Bristol, Sheffield, the North-East Coast, and elsewhere. [An HON. MEMBER: "Glasgow."] I said Scotland. Working people want to see the Bill implemented at the earliest possible moment because they know that its their only hope of safeguarding their livelihoods in the future. In fact, there would now be no shipbuilding industry were it not for the Government pouring in money. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) should bear in mind what was said last night by Mr. Baylis, the director of the Shipbuilders' and Repairers' National Association. He said:
"If these proposals are not to proceed, then action must be taken without further delay to assist British shipbuilders to meet the present intensely difficult market situation."
686
In other words, even if we do not take the industry into public ownership, companies will have to line up at the Department of Industry for more finance in order to keep themselves going. The principle of my party is that, if we are to put public money into an industry, we want public accountability and public control of that industry. That is what this issue is all about.
I noted with great interest Mr. David Wood's front-page spread in The Times of today, in which he said that all this arose because someone who was a shareholder in Yarrow's had drawn it to the attention of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). The hon. Member obviously did not want to raise the matter himself, because had the Bill been ruled to be not a hybrid Bill he would have looked silly; so he got his hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton to raise the matter. I understand that the hon. Gentleman gave a name, but I also understand that certain Opposition Members are involved very much with the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry.
The truth of the whole matter is that it is a ploy to stop the Government carrying out their declared election pledges. That is what it is intended to do. It has nothing to do with what was said by the right hon. Member for Sidcup and nothing to do with the protection of minorities or principles—except the principle of the acceptance of the private enterprise system, which over the last few years has been dragging this country down.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I have no interest to declare save that of Parliament. The kindest comment I can make on the observations of Sir Barnett Cocks is that confusion is not a new inhabitant of his mind, and it would have been more seemly and consistent with his past if he had left the task of advising Mr. Speaker to those who have been able to examine the evidence, a class of persons which does not include Sir Barnett Cocks.
The issue before us is not the merit of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but whether the House should take totally unprecedented steps to obviate the procedures which its Standing Orders lay down.

687
Hon. Members have asked the interesting, though in no way germane, question of why the hybridity of the Bill was identified after the Committee stage rather than before it. The answer is that, although there were undoubtely some people outside the House who were aware of some of the relevant facts which make the Bill a hybrid Bill, and there were undoubtedly many hon. Members on both sides of the House who were fully familiar with the rules which make the Bill a hybrid Bill rather than a Public General Bill, these two groups did not coincide. It was not until 10 minutes to three o'clock last Tuesday afternoon that both sets of knowledge were coexistent in my possession. That was the moment at which I was able to make a submission to Mr. Speaker concerning the nature of a vessel which was undeniably being constructed on the crucial date, 31st July 1974, in the shipyard owned by Marathon.
The definition which is applied is not from some obscure Act, nor is it a definition trivially imported into the argument. It is a definition chosen by the Government for their specific purpose. It is not a definition general for all purposes, and it is not a definition to govern subsequent Bills or Acts. It specifically states that it is a definition which is to be used for the relevant part of the schedule to the Bill, namely, Part II of Schedule 2 to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.
That definition is entirely of the Government's choice, not of Parliament's choice, not of Mr. Speaker's choice, not the choice of the Officers of the House, not the choice of Yarrow, not the choice either of those parts of the industry to be nationalised or those to be excluded from nationalisation. It is the Government's choice.
If it was an incompetent choice, the incompetence is the Government's incompetence, and it does no credit to the Leader of the House that he should try to cast the allegation of incompetence and the responsibility for it on to shoulders other than those he knows perfectly well are responsible for it, namely, the Department of Industry as the sponsoring Department of the Bill. No one else in heaven or earth bears the responsibility for that.
688
Incidentally, those who bear the constitutional responsibility for it are those who chose to have their names endorsed on the Bill when it was presented to Parliament. That procedure is adopted so that the House shall know whom to hold accountable to Parliament for the shortcomings of a Bill. Names are endorsed on a Bill for no other reason than that. The Leader of the House need not speculate on where responsibility lies. He need not even share his thoughts with us. He need only read the face of the Bill and he will find where it lies.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Why did not the hon. Gentleman raise this matter in the Standing Committee of which he was a member? Does he deny the story on the front page of The Times today that this is a Tory plot which the Tories have been hatching for a long time?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I do not believe that The Times said that. I presume that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has just come into the Chamber. Had he come in earlier he would have known the answer, which his hon. Friends doubtless will tell him. It would not be fair to other hon. Members who wish to address the House for me to repeat the answer for his benefit.
What else is there to be pleaded? There is no dispute on your ruling, Mr. Speaker. There is no dispute on the rules which the House has adopted and which are still extant to govern cases of this kind. There is no Standing Order which says that hybridity must be claimed after Second Reading or we must for ever hold our peace. There is no precedent for claiming that unless hybridity is alleged after Second Reading it cannot be alleged.
I would guess—it can only be a guess—that there has not been a previous occasion when the two aspects of knowledge—knowledge of our procedure and what is in the Bill on the one hand and knowledge of perceptible fact, localised in some shipyard in this case, on the other hand—have not become coincident until a later stage. That may well be without precedent. There is no reason for saying that, because this is the first occasion on which these two aspects of knowledge have apparently become coincident, the Standing Order should be suspended unless a point of order is raised

689
after Second Reading and before Committee stage.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I also declare an interest in the procedures of the House. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason for this unprecedented motion is the point which he has just made? It is unprecedented not only in the manner he described but also on a relatively narrow matter. Does not that justify the action taken by the Leader of the House?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No. The Standing Order is not affected by whether the hybridity of the Bill is identified earlier or later. The essence of the Standing Order is that, once hybridity has been identified, those who are affected in a way in which others who fall in the same category are not affected shall have the opportunity of petitioning a Select Committee of the House for equal treatment before the law. That essence is not lost even at this moment in time.
If the normal procedure of the House is followed and if the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is carried, I presume that the House will order the Bill to be sent to the examiners in the normal way. After a lapse of time for the examiners to receive petitions and to examine them for locus standi, the matter will be referred to a Select Committee of the House, not so that it can duplicate the 58 sittings of the Standing Committee but so that it can examine the petitions against the Bill. That is an entirely different function. It is a function which a Standing Committee cannot, and which this particular Standing Committee has not, performed.
If the Select Committee reports to the House that the petitions are without merit and that the Bill does not require any amendment in consequence, we shall be in the same position as now. We shall have a Bill which has completed all its Committee processes and now awaits further consideration by the whole House on Report.
I mention that because there are some hon. Members who erroneously believe that, unless the motion is passed, the 58 sittings of the Standing Committee will be lost, all that time will be wasted
690
and we shall have to go through it all again. They believe that that would be a wretched waste of parliamentary time—and so it would be if that were the case, but it is not.
Mr. Clemitson: Who will refer the Bill to the examiners, and under which Standing Order will it be referred since Standing Order No. 38 applies only to Second Reading?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In order to get the Bill to the examiners, there would be a motion by the Government on the Order Paper. I have never known such a motion to be disputed. It is a simple thing.
Mr. Clemitson: New rules will have to be made.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It does not involve new rules or Standing Orders. Under the Standing Order, the Leader of the House places a motion on the Order Paper. If he looks up the Journals of the House, the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) will find them peppered with such motions. Special procedures are not required, nor need the 58 sittings of the Standing Committee be abandoned. What we have to do now need not take any longer than if the Bill had been declared hybrid after Second Reading. There is no reason why the Select Committee stage of the Bill should take longer now than it would have taken had that stage come before Second Reading. It is therefore untrue to say that, by identifying the hybridity of the Bill at this stage, in some way its passage through the House is delayed compared with what would have happened had it been identified at the Second Reading stage.
The argument that this is a device to delay the passage of the Bill is totally without foundation. The argument which has now become precious is the relevance of the hybridity being identified earlier. We would have found ourselves in severe difficulty had we not identified the hybridity until after the Report stage had been entered upon or completed. Since that is not the case, we do not have to deal with it. We must deal with the present situation in which hybridity has been identified, and ruled as such by Mr. Speaker, at a time when the

691
rights of minority and the due process of Parliament can still be honoured.
The duty which all hon. Members owe to themselves, to the House which they serve and the community outside is to let the Bill take its normal course as a hybrid Bill by giving it to the examiners and——
Mr. Varley: A prima facie hybrid Bill.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: A prima facie hybrid Bill goes to the examiners of the House and thence to the Select Committee if they are satisfied that the Bill has hybridity and the petitioners have locus standi.
If the Secretary of State believes that although it is prima facie a hybrid Bill it is not in fact a hybrid Bill, he can let it go to the examiners and he will win his point within a few days. He is determined that it shall not go to the examiners because he does not believe that it is a Public General Bill. He knows that Mr. Speaker's ruling that it is prima facie a hybrid Bill will be confirmed by the examiners. That is why the right hon. Gentleman wants the House to pass a special motion denying the examiners the Bill—that is what his motion says. It states:
"That, in view of the serious consequences to the industries concerned and for those employed in them for further delay and uncertainty, in relation to the proceedings on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, any Standing Orders relating to Private Business, and consideration of the application of any such Standing Orders, are dispensed with."
The final words are "dispensed with." Those are words used by anyone who wishes to get rid of parliamentary processes.
Let the Leader of the House be true to his past, and what may even now be left of himself, and let the House of Commons show that it is still a Parliament and not a processing machine.
6.38 p.m.
Mr. Leo Abse: I am no less jealous of the rights of individual hon. Members and of the House itself against the Executive than any hon. Member on the Opposition Benches. I am certainly no less concerned than the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) or the hon. Member for Tiverton
692
(Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). Therefore, as an hon. Member of the House and, I hope a parliamentarian, I would be deeply concerned if I believed that a blunder of considerable proportions had been made by the Government who, while legislation was going through, belatedly endeavoured, by manoeuvre and manipulation, to change the rules of the House to establish a permanent and dubious precedent. That would be usurping the rights of the House.
The gravamen of the charge, as I understand it from what has been said by hon. Members of the Conservative Opposition and by the Leader of the Liberal Party, is that the Government have blundered and that they must take the consequences and accept that. I do not, however, accept that the difficulties have arisen from the conduct of the Government or any Department of Government.
We would place ourselves in a dangerous position if we attempted to assert that Mr. Speaker, his officers and those who serve him were creatures of any Department of State. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has rightly stressed that there is no question of Mr. Speaker or his officers being in commission to any Department of State.
We therefore have to accept that there were in existence as has become clearer all the time, ascertainable facts which would have led to the conclusion that this is prima facie a hybrid Bill. Those facts were available. Proper investigation would have brought them out. Questions could have been asked and answered, but the wrong questions, or no questions, were asked by the people upon whom the responsibility must finally fall to certify one way or the other whether a Bill is hybrid.
It is not a Bill that could easily have had imported into it perhaps some slight aspect of a hybrid nature. The schedule should have put anybody and everybody upon inquiry. No one looking at the definition mentioned by the hon. Member for Tiverton could doubt that attention was being drawn to the complexities involved in the Bill. Nobody could look at the list and category of firms involved without realising that the Bill was one which should have put Mr. Speaker and his office upon inquiry. The duty is an independent duty, and the blunder, if

693
there has been one, is an omission or mistake which is not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the Government. The responsibility must fall upon those who, performing a difficult task—they are public servants who rarely make mistakes, people to whom we are deeply indebted—on this occasion have shown that they are fallible, as we all are.
I have to decide, as a Member of the House, not as a member of the Labour Party, whether I can agree that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is suggesting a proper course. I must balance the irreparable harm that can clearly be done if we revert to the normal procedures on a hybrid Bill against encroaching upon our Standing Orders, an encroachment which the motion specifically says is confined to the Bill. There is no suggestion of broadening it into a matter of principle, as the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) suggested. There is no question of trying to create a precedent. The terms of the motion identify it with this Bill and this Bill alone. As every rational man must, I must balance the harm against a very slight, and very particular, erosion of our Standing Orders.
I have heard today and yesterday the most extraordinary accusations against my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. One would imagine from the papers this morning and what has been said on the Opposition Benches that we have a new authoritarian dictator, taking on powers comparable with those taken behind the Iron Curtain or even by the Prime Minister of India. It does the House no good to lapse into institutionalised paranoia. Party politics are the essence of democracy, but when paranoic attitudes begin to be so reinforced that we have a fiasco such as we have witnessed in the past few days we are devaluing the House and our parliamentary democracy rather than enhancing them.
I know my right hon. Friend very well. He is an old friend and neighbour of mine. I have plenty of complaints against him, all grievous complaints. The trouble with him is that, far from being a destroyer of democracy, he is trying to enforce democracy upon the Principality. The trouble is that, far from being an
694
authoritarian Socialist, he is an old-fashioned English romantic. That is why I did not vote for him to be leader of my party. But my right hon. Friend has many merits and attributes. It does no good to the House or to us as individuals to represent one another in a distorted fashion which brings us into contempt outside, because it looks as if we are scavenging and mud slinging rather than showing proper respect for one another's views, which is what we should be doing instead of denigrating one another's personalities.
Mr. Crouch: As the hon. Gentleman refers to what the Leader of the House did yesterday, and to the motion, may I remind him that the right hon. Gentleman did not dispute Mr. Speaker's ruling. He merely suggested that we should dispense with it. Does not the hon. Gentleman think, on reflection, that the Leader of the House would have done better to tell the House "All right. We made a mistake. I am sorry.", and let the House consider how we should deal with the matter? As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said, perhaps it will not mean another 58 sittings in a Select Committee or even a Standing Committee. The usual channels might produce the answer. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that for once the Leader of the House nodded yesterday?
Mr. Abse: My right hon. Friend has never disputed Mr. Speaker's ruling. He has accepted it, and then put proposals before the House in an endeavour to remedy the consequences of Mr. Speaker's undisputed ruling. It does not become us to strike an attitude as though obliquely, elliptically, or in any other way we are challenging the ruling. Pershaps unlike other hon. Members, I am saying that the prime responsibility is not the Government's. The matter should and could have been ascertained before. It is wrong to try to make a scapegoat out of the Government, out of my right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State. I know the difficulties and complexities in dealing with such a matter, and I know that people are fallible. I do not wish to make a scapegoat out of any individual who may be in Mr. Speaker's office. The truth is that the matter was are discussing is not——
Mr. Mayhew: Does not the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that blame lies upon an official in Mr. Speaker's office depend upon the proposition that those in Mr. Speaker's office must satisfy themselves that the statement of facts put before them by the Government is truthful? That must be nonsense.
Mr. Abse: In the last analysis, the duty lies nominally upon Mr. Speaker himself. The decision was taken by a distinguished Conservative Speaker, who fully deserved all the praise so recently bestowed upon him. It lies upon any official who may, unfortunately, in a very difficult matter not have probed sufficiently. If they failed to do that task with the rigour which it demands, if I were pressed to say where the responsibility lay, I should say that it lay not on the Government but on a former Speaker. I say that with no disrespect to him.
There can be an air of unreality about our proceedings. Here we are engaged upon a discussion about hybridity, a term lacking any meaning to the wider community outside and to most hon. Members. It is very easy to become so locked up in our own monastery that we forget what is going on in the outside world. The outside world looking at us would say that we seem to be playing a parliamentary game which really does not in any way elevate our reputation.
In The Times today we have had not only the criticisms which have been echoed here today against the Leader of the House but also a very insidious incitement to another place, suggesting that, if this House decides to adopt the course taken by the Leader of the House, it would be the constitutional duty of those in another place to make certain, if the action recommended is taken, that the Bill does not take its normal course. We have already had today certain announcements which, in my opinion, do not add to the glamour of the other place, but its reputation would certainly suffer very severely if it attempted to take such ill-advised advice from the Editor of The Times. Those in another place need to understand that if this House takes a decision we do so having taken full account of our position as parliamentarians.
The brutal fact is that this debate is a piece of camouflage. In my judgment,
696
sections of the House are attempting to camouflage their hostility towards the objectives of the Bill itself. In doing so they are attempting to elevate a small matter to a matter of profound principle. I do not believe that a matter of profound principle is involved. When we are snarled up in our proceedings, as we here become, we require to forget that we are ourselves party men; and we should be able to devise methods which would show to the outside world that our Parliament has elasticity and the ability in a particular situation to display an innovatory capacity which enables it to be the Mother of Parliaments.
It has been said that in this House we can make men into women by passing Acts. We have great power, which can be used on major matters, but it can be abused. This power is not being abused today. What is happening today is that rationality is being applied to a complex difficulty, and a robust common sense has come into action. It is my hope that we shall not show ourselves to be nit-picking, legalistic legislators, who are subjugating our general desire to maintain a principle to mere party politics; for if we behave in that wretched manner we shall receive praise in editorials from people who live in their own world in Fleet Street, but deserved blame from workers right throughout the country.
6.55 p.m.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I regret to say that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has, uncharacteristically in his case, fallen into error in his analysis of the responsibility for the error which has been made in this matter. I hope to deal as fully and faithfully as time allows with the underlying fallacy of his argument in that respect in the first of three propositions with which I wish to canvass with the House this evening. My first proposition is that the error that has here arisen derives from the fault of the Executive and not from any misjudgment on the part of the Officers of the House; and therefore, according to our constitutional doctrine, the error is the responsibility of Ministers and Ministers alone.
My second proposition is that though the House is master of its own procedure, the exercise of that power is subject to the inherent constraint that it must not be

697
used in violation of the fundamental rights of the individual citizen, and that for Ministers to invite the House to act in that way is a breach of the principles of our unwritten constitution. My third proposition is that the importance of the matter before us is to be weighed in the scales not of quantum but of principle, and that the principle here involved is basic to the operation of our British form of parliamentary government, which is not subject to the safeguards of protective provisions for individual rights entrenched in the provisions of a written constitution.
On the first of those matters—the responsibility for the error that has arisen—the position is clear, thanks largely to the devoted and successful labours of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I would like to pay my respectful tribute to the work that he has done with his conscientious zeal, skill and diligence in this matter. He has proved himself a good servant of the House and a good servant of the democratic institutions of this place. The salient points, shortly, are these: if a Public Bill has the characteristics of a hybrid Bill it attracts special procedures designed to protect the private and property rights of the individual citizen. The criterion for inclusion in the category of hybrid Bill is that it is:
"a Public Bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies of the same category or class".
The judgment as to whether the criterion as to the existence of a hybrid Bill is satisfied in any particular Bill, turns, of course, on the provisions of that Bill, which are the responsibility of Ministers in relation to matters of fact, which are or ought to be known to Ministers and which they are under a clear duty to ascertain before putting to the Officers of the House the case for Mr. Speaker's decision on the question whether it is or may be—because that is enough—a hybrid Bill; that is to say, in the idiom of these matters, that it is prima facie a hybrid Bill. It is for Ministers and their Departments to assemble the facts sufficiently and accurately to enable Mr. Speaker to interpret the position in the light of those facts.
In this case the provisions of the Bill and the relevant facts upon which turn the determination of this matter are within
698
a narrow compass, within paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2. There, as we know, are two qualifying conditions. We are not concerned with the second, because there is no issue as to this, and presumably Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd was satisfied on the second condition when the matter was originally submitted to him. So the matter turns solely and simply on the condition in paragraph 2(1)(a). It is not a matter of a three-year history but simply a question whether on a single specific date a company owned a shipyard being used for the construction of ships. This is a simple question of fact and definition. Clearly, the fact is that the "Key Victoria" was under construction at Clydebank on the material date, 31st July 1974.
Equally clearly, that vessel was, or might have been—because again that is enough—a ship within the proposed statutory definition in the Bill.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: If the matter were as clear as the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes out, why is it that recourse had to be made to the technical experts of the marine division of Lloyd's to find out the answer? Obviously the matter was not as clear as the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to imply.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: When the facts were known, the interpretation was clear. The reason why the interpretation was wrong in the first instance was not that the interpreters were unskilled, but because they were not given the facts—in other words, they were not given the straw with which to make the bricks. The issue was whether, on the facts as known, or as they should have been known, it came within the proposed statutory definition in the Bill. It was not a question, as the Secretary of State seemed to think in his somewhat idiosyncratic contribution to these proceedings, of this ship looking like all other ships, or of how the Inland Revenue viewed the matter in the esoteric exercise of its inscrutable wisdom, or of how it fitted in with the definition of another statute. For that to be so, the Bill would have to have included a provision by which the two measures were to be read together—and it does not contain such a provision. None of those matters was comprised in the criteria. The criteria

699
related to the definition in the Bill, written for this particular purpose and for this particular part of the Bill.
There can be no doubt that if the facts as we now know them had been brought to the attention of the Officers of the House in the context of the qualifying conditions of the definition clause, Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd would have been able to decide that prima facie this was a hybrid Bill, with the same speed and unequivocal precision as the present Speaker did when the full facts were made known to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton. It is clear, therefore, that the fault lies with Ministers.
Mr. Speaker is in the position of a judge, who can deal with matters only on the facts and evidence put before him. It is not his function, any more than it is the function of a judge, to undertake a roving commission to ascertain the facts. That is not his function, and he has not the resources to do so. If the known facts show a prima facie case—and that is enough—the assistance of the examiners can be invoked under Standing Order No. 38, but the matter can go to the examiners only if there is a prima facie case. If the mechanism is not got right at the start, it is not possible for it to proceed.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Pontypool, but it will be the last time I shall give way.
Mr. Abse: I apologise for interrupting the rotund paragraphs of the right hon. and learned Member, but is he seriously putting forward the proposition that Mr. Speaker and his advisers have no inquisitorial capacities? In other words, is he saying that their rôle is totally passive and that they do not have a duty to ask questions brought to their attention by the nature and character of a Bill?
Sir D. Walker-Smith: They have a duty of interpretation, and also a duty to consider the facts that are brought to their attention. They do not have a duty of instituting a roving commission to inquire whether further facts are tucked away. It is the duty of Ministers to bring to their attention all relevant facts.
700
I have made an analogy with a court of law and the position of a judge, but a judge is in the fortunate position of having the assistance of two parties and the salutary processes of cross-examination. Mr. Speaker is dependent on the unilateral representations of Ministers.
Mr. Robert Hug rose——
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I made clear a little earlier that although I would give way to the hon. Member for Pontypool, he would be the last hon. Member to whom I would give way.
Because there is a unilateral representation, Mr. Speaker is dependent solely on the production of facts from Ministers. Therefore, that imposes a special duty on them just as, in a court of law, there is a duty on counsel, if he is the only counsel in the case, to bring everything before the judge.
I regret to say—and I say this in no vindictive way, because this is a matter of great principle, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said—that I believe that Ministers have failed in this duty. Their presentation of the facts has been defective and they have thereby caused a misdirection, which has led to the proceedings on the Bill being misconceived and wrongly cast in a form that is prejudicial to the fundamental rights of the citizen.
That brings me to my second proposition. Although this error has been committed and lies at the door of ministerial responsibility, is it proper for the House now to dispense with the Standing Orders? Of course, the House is master of its own procedure. But there is a clear distinction between a variation, and a retrospective variation at that, which affects only internal procedures of the House and a variation which prejudices the rights of third parties—the rights of citizens in regard to their own property and interest.
Devil's advocates may say that there is no such distinction. They say that it is all part of the sovereignty of Parliasment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Some hon. Members shout "Hear, hear", proving that devil's advocacy is the one form of advocacy with which the Labour Benches are richly endowed.
Such a proposition is at best an oversimplification and certainly a dangerous

701
doctrine. Though Parliament is constitutionally sovereign as a law making body, its supremacy in our unwritten constitution does not stand alone. Dicey, in his monumental work, defined the two elements in our constitution that he referred to as its pillars—namely, the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law. Strike away one, and the other cannot maintain unaided the fabric of a democratic constitution.
The, protection of the fundamental rights of the citizen is an important part of the rule of law. The exercise of the sovereignty of Parliament is dependent on a respect for the fundamental rights. To act in defiance of the rule of the law and for Parliament to legislate at the behest of the Executive in breach of the fundamental rights of the citizen, is to emulate the example of the Roman Senate in Imperial days—an example condemned over 2,000 years of history—and to degrade the concept of the sovereignty of Parliament to the servile rôle of an instrument of autocratic government.
Again, the devil's advocates may say that the doctrine of sovereignty of Parliament knows no such limitations. They take the view that for just ends we can employ any means and that the end justifies the means. That is a fallacious and dangerous doctrine, for many reasons. If the rule of law is to be subverted and fundamental rights are to be invaded on such a pretext, they cannot and will not survive. That doctrine is a means of ensuring that there is only one criterion of conduct—the will of the Executive—with such support as it temporarily commands in this House.
In most countries the protection of the fundamental rights of the citizen—the right not to be discriminated against, and the right of equality before the law—figure as entrenched provisions in a written constitution Such rights in these countries are enforceable at law, and any Government or legislature seeking to invade them is subject to restraint by the courts. Such is the position in most countries today which seek to exercise constitutional democratic Government.
Why, then, is Britain an exception to the general rule? Why are the fundamental rights of the citizen not entrenched and safeguarded here in the customary way? It is not because we are unaware of their importance. Indeed, in legislat-
702
ing for newly independent countries, we have established such Constitutions, prefaced with entrenched provisions guaranteeing fundamental rights. Why have we not thought it necessary to apply to ourselves the treatment that we have prescribed for others? The reason is as important as it is clear. We have thought it unnecessary to fetter the sovereignty of Parliament with the constraints of a written constitution because it has been assumed throughout the generations that Parliament will always respect fundamental rights and will voluntarily act in accordance with the rule of law, and that, therefore, there is no need to impose a compulsory mechanism.
Voluntary acceptance of such constraints has been the practice and principle underlying the evolution of our parliamentary system and has been the condition that has enabled us to dispense with the safeguards of a written constitution.
Mr. George Cunningham: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I would like to, especially to the hon. Gentleman, but when I gave way to the hon. Member for Pontypool I said that it must be the last occasion, because of the passage of time. I am genuinely sorry.
So firmly embedded is the principle of the acceptance of the rule of law and the protection of individual rights, that Montesquieu actually thought he was deriving the principle of the separation of powers aimed at safeguarding the citizen against abuses of power from the British system. He was mistaken, of course, but only as to the form of the British constitution and not as to its spirit and purpose, which he accurately identified as aiming to protect the citizen and society by the rule of law. If, therefore, exceptionally among the nations of the world, we are to continue to operate the rule of law without having the safeguarding of fundamental rights in a written constitution, we must accept that in essence that means the constraints on the Executive and the parliamentary conduct that those rights require.
If, unhappily, such acceptance, long practised, is allowed to fall into desuetude, we have either to contemplate the formulation of safeguards entrenched

703
in a written Constitution or face the inevitability of a progressive decline in our free and democratic institutions.
That brings me to my third proposition, because what I have said establishes that it is no technicality with which we are here concerned, but something basic to our form of parliamentary Government, which is not subject to the safeguards of the protective provisions of a written constitution. What is involved here is the principle of non-discrimination among citizens. The law must apply impartially to all and must treat alike every citizen in similar circumstances. This principle lies much at the heart of the matter. It is the principle of equality before the law which is itself one of the great bastions of a free and fair society. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I have served in 10 Parliaments over more than three decades and I never thought I would hear those great principles challenged on the Floor of the House of Commons.
This great principle is directly in point here, and it is fundamental. It was recognised, as the Leader of the House well knows, by our forefathers. Indeed, the great constitutional crime laid at the door of King James II was his attempt to exercise dispensing and suspending powers—to say, in other words, as the Government seek to say, that the law shall apply to some and not to others, in some circumstances but not in all. For this constitutional crime he was properly sentenced to exile, and it will indeed be appropriate if that example is followed soon and these transgressors are equally sent into political exile.
This, then, is no technicality, still less a trivial point. Again, the devil's advocates are hard at work. All this fuss, they say, about one vessel, about the "Key Victoria" such a small thing when the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry is such a great affair. The point on which the principle arises may be small but the principle is great and it is in the scales of principle that these things must be weighed.
I find it appropriate that this issue should arise in the context of ships. It was in a similar context that voice was first given to the great principles with which we are here concerned. It was in the context of ship money that Hampden made his great stand for the rule of law,
704
and it was in the same context that Burke disposed of the fallacy that the smallness of the item involved can reduce matters of principle to a mere technicality or trivia. Burke said:
"Would twenty shillings have ruined Mr. Hampden's fortune? No! but the payment of half twenty shillings, on the principle it was demanded, would have made him a slave."
Those words have become part of the imperishable literature of freedom. On us in this House today falls the same duty, and to us is entrusted the same tradition. I therefore ask the House to resist this encroachment on the rule of law and to condemn the motion that which seeks to give effect to it.
7.17 p.m.
Mr. Stan Thorne: I must declare an interest on two counts. First, I have many aircraft workers in my constituency, and, secondly, I spent a lot of time in Standing Committee D which considered the Bill. It seems from the comments of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who replied to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which have been confirmed by other Conservative Members, that the Government stand accused of ignoring, or in some way subverting, the Standing Orders of the House. At the same time, reference is constantly made by Opposition Members to the fact that there is no precedent for the situation in which the House finds itself at the present time.
I suggest that if there is no Standing Order—clearly there cannot be if no similar situation has been covered by a Standing Order before—logically no Standing Orders can have been ignored or subverted by the Government in this situation. In fact, the Government are faced with a problem created by the decision of Mr. Speaker which forces the Government, or the Lord President of the Council, to produce an answer that will permit Parliament to decide how it will proceed following the decision of Mr. Speaker after the Committee stage of the Bill and prior to Report stage, which Parliament was about to consider.
The advice that we are given is now in the form of a motion before the House, upon which Parliament will decide. All the words uttered by Conservative Members about democracy are not relevant—indeed, they have seldom been relevant—to determining the answer to the problem posed. Parliament today will give

705
its "Yea" or "Nay" to the motion that the Government have submitted.
If we wish to hear the real voice of democracy, we should turn to a telegram which was sent yesterday to the Speaker of the House of Commons. It said:
"We have viewed with despair the performance of certain members who have turned the activities of Standing Committee D into marathon of irresponsible legalistic filibustering. It appears from last evening's fiasco that we are about to suffer"——
Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to read to the House contents of a telegram which have been sent to him which clearly are in contempt of the House? The hon. Member is reading a telegram in which it is alleged that Members of the House had indulged in filibustering and irresponsible behaviour.
Mr. Heffer: It is true.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): That is not a point of order.
Mr. Thorne: I am tempted to start all over again, because the gist of this message is important. I ended at the phrase "irresponsible legalistic filibustering". I continue:
"It appears from last evening's fiasco that we are about to suffer some unwholesome performance on the floor of the House."
Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that those words came to your attention. They are the clearest possible challenge to Mr. Speaker's ruling, and I believe that in those circumstances they ought to be ruled out of order.
Mr. Thorne: They can hardly be a challenge to Mr. Speaker's ruling, because at the time the telegram was sent to Mr. Speaker he had not ruled.
The telegram goes on to say:
"As Worker Representatives, we demand that Parliament gives full weight to the consequences of its failure to take decisions upon the workpeople in Country and in particular upon workpeople in Shipbuilding and Aerospace industries. We will not tolerate any more uncertainty"——
Mr. Kenneth Warren: On a point of order——
Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I submit to you that what the hon. Member is doing is a clear breach of the privileges of the House
706
of Commons. This is a clear challenge to Mr. Speaker's ruling, and I put it to you that it is intolerable that the hon. Member should be allowed to proceed in this way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Preston. South (Mr. Thorne) had better develop his argument, and the Chair will decide in what way it is going.
Mr. Thorne: I ought to make it plain that, although this telegram was sent to Mr. Speaker, it was also sent to a number of Ministers and Members of Parliament. As one of the Members of Parliament who received it, I feel perfectly free to deal with it in order to develop the argument which arises from it. It goes on:
"We will not tolerate any more uncertainty and demand that Parliament be allowed to pass or reject Bill. It has already set a record of more Committee Meetings than any previous Bill. This delay has already had an adverse effect on our employment. We demand a decision."
The telegram is signed by Mr. John Wareing, on behalf of all staff and all works unions at the British Aircraft Corporation, Preston, Warton and Samlesbury. It is in regard to the essence of that telegram that I wish to make a few points. Unlike previous speakers, I hope to make them briefly so that other hon. Members can get into the debate.
The Bill is about the public ownership of the industries—regrettably, two industries which are not booming and are not as prosperous as some of us would like, but industries which are vital to our economic life. Public ownership is vital if we are to plan and expand those industries in the interests of the British people as a whole. Should that aim be achieved, the workpeople in both industries will face for the first time the prospect of being involved in the decision-making processes within both industries.
The forward planning, the manpower requirements, the capital to be invested, the marketing of the products and the demands of our economy, which may require diversification within those industries—particularly in aerospace—will all provide the workers, whether blue or white collar, with the opportunity to come to grips for the first time with the task of running a major industry. It is

707
this which is the basis of the concern expressed by Opposition Members about the Bill.
It is not new, of course, to see the vigour with which Conservative Members act on behalf of private enterprise, on behalf of private profit and on behalf of the shareholders of both these industries—but not, of course, on behalf of the workers in those industries, whom they regard purely as commodities which form part of the production processes which produce the private profits to dear to Conservative Members.
At no time in Standing Committee did Conservative Members conceal their concern about the amount of compensation to be paid to shareholders, while behaving in such a manner as to threaten the workers' prospects in those industries by the completely irresponsible way in which they filibustered and delayed the passage of the Bill.
Several interventions when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened this debate revealed yet again the level of class consciousness which exists among Conservative Party Members when their private economic interests are being threatened. The Bill threatens their economic interests and the interests of the class they represent in this House. The passage of the Bill is in accord with the class interests of the working people in the industries concerned.
Mr. Roger Sims: Now who is talking about class?
Mr. Thorne: It is on that basis that we on this side urge the passing of the motion. The workers in both industries have waited a long time for the passing of the Bill.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: So did the steel workers, and look what happened to them.
Mr. Thorne: They have waited a long time in the belief that ultimately this Government would carry out their manifesto commitment in 1974 to take these two industries into public ownership. One thing which can be said about the Government in this regard is that they intend to do precisely that. It is because they intend to do precisely that that they have the overwhelming support of hon. Members on this side.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The end justifies the means.
Mr. Thorne: What we are talking about is workers' jobs and the livelihood of their families. The Government have the support of the electorate over this measure. All that remains for us to do is to pass the motion and get on with the job.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Donald Stewart: I trust that the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) will forgive me if, in the interests of time, I do not comment on his speech, otherwise I should have to continue long enough to annoy other hon. Members who may wish to speak.
I make this brief intervention in the debate as I consider that it is necessary for the record, as well as possibly making a contribution to the democratic process, that all parties and as many interests as possible in the House should declare their attitude to the motion.
The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said that this should not be regarded as a precedent and that it could be a "one off" operation. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here at the moment, but I do not think he can believe that suggestion himself. If the motion is passed, a future Conservative Government will be entitled to use this procedure against the Opposition of the day, and the then Opposition will not like it.
This is a centralising Bill. No Scottish corporation is proposed. No Scottish divisions were proposed—and this at a time when devolution is in the air. The aims of the Bill will of necessity betray the principles of decentralisation. This is the very opposite of what the situation demands.
Mr. David Lambie: Is it not correct to say that Scottish Aviation, which is included within the Bill, is now controlled by an English financial holding company based in London? Would it not be better for the workers in Scottish Aviation to be part of a Scottish unit within British Aerospace? That would give us Scottish control under British Aerospace and not English control by means of the financial holding company.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member should have remembered that during the discussion of the Bill. Although he indicated that he would support an amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) in favour of a separate Scottish division, when it came to the push he voted with the Government.
The reference in the motion to employment being at risk has no real application. There has recently been an increase in the orders on the order books of the shipyards. If capital needs to be injected, development money should be made available under Section 8 of the Industry Act.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) to be asked to keep silent so that we may listen to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart)?
Mr. Heffer rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a matter for the Chair. If the Chair deems it necessary to do so, the Chair will intervene.
Mr. Stewart: I was referring to the number of orders on the order books of the shipyards. If money is available, it can be provided under Section 8 of the Industry Act and the Scottish Development Agency should take an equity interest in the yards.
We have heard a lot about the urgency of the Bill. Although the Bill was mentioned in the Labour Party manifesto, as has been pointed out, it took 18 months for it to come before the House, so where is all the great urgency?
The Secretary of State for Industry made a reference earlier to rationalisation. We know what this means in relation to jobs in Scotland. The Scottish steel industry was nationalised and put under the British Steel Corporation, and jobs have been disappearing ever since. That is what will happen in the shipyards and to Scottish Aviation if the Bill goes through. What guarantee will the Government give that no workers will lose their jobs in Scotland?
It was disingenuous of the Lord President to talk yesterday of getting the
710
House to decide the matter. He knows that he will have his regiment of Lobby fodder to ensure that the motion is carried. If he really meant that a decision should be taken by the House, there should obviously be a free vote, as many hon. Members have said. That would still leave the question of pushing through a hybrid Bill, but at least it would give some credibility to the pretence of having a decision of the House.
This is the second occasion in recent weeks when the Government have resorted to bending the rules. One wonders whether there is a department of dirty tricks starting to operate—[Interruption.] I heard the response to the comment of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) when he talked about the defence of the rights of the citizen. The strong and the powerful can look after themselves. It is the weak who need the law to protect them more than anybody else.
Mr. Robert Hughes rose——
Mr. Stewart: I shall not give way. The Secretary of State for Industry was talking of the responsibility of the Scottish National Party Members. We need no lectures from the Secretary of State or his colleagues on that point. It is because we are aware of our responsibility that we are here, with the support of the people, and there will be more of us here—[Interruption.] Needless to say, my hon. Friends and I would prefer to be working in a Scottish——
Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As to the documents which have come to the House, when one of those documents—a telegram—was referred to, the Scottish National Party spokesman deliberately—[Interruption.]
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are being deluged with bogus telegrams— [Interruption.]
Mr. Buchan: Show us the telegrams.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has no knowledge of these telegrams. It is not a matter for the Chair.
Mrs. Ewing rose——
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Members of the Scottish National Party to pull the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) back into her seat when she has already made such a calamitous error as to describe genuine telegrams as bogus? Is it right that her hon. Friends should pull her back in order to prevent her from making any further and more serious errors?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter of order.
Mr. Stewart: We would much prefer to be working in a Scottish Parliament——
Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire): Traitor.
Mr. Stewart: —but while we are here let us try to have some concern that the democratic processes and procedures of the House should not be diminished in any way. That is why my hon. Friends and I will vote against the motion tonight.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Mendelson.
7.38 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: Before——
Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to use the word "traitors"?
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is in some difficulty here. The word was not heard by the Chair. I think that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) should be allowed to continue his speech, and then we may find out what is the position.
Mr. Mendelson: I know that——
Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose——
Mr. Mendelson: Come on. Let me proceed.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder.
Mr. Keith Stainton: On a point of order, Mr.
712
Deputy Speaker. Apparently some word was not heard by you, but I understand that the hon. Member who used it has volunteered to repeat it for your benefit.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not the impression of the Chair. I think that the hon. Member for Penistone must be allowed to continue his speech.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Must there not be some protection when the House clearly hears a word that we think is unparliamentary, but we are not sure? We are asking for your ruling.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is unsure also, because it did not hear the word.
Mr. Canavan: I used the word "traitors" figuratively because, in effect, the members of the Scottish National Party are betraying the working class in Scotland.
Mr. Mendelson: I know that——
Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have a ruling on this word?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it was used, it was unparliamentary and must be withdrawn.
Mr. Canavan: I would like to change my words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by saying that the members of the Scottish National Party are anti-Scottish and anti-working class.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take that as a withdrawal.
Mr. Mendelson: I know that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), judging by my past experience of hearing him in debates on the economic affairs of Great Britain, is interested in the subject of today's debate, as is any other hon. Member. I shall therefore address myself to the subject of the decision to which we have to come and will try to persuade him, before he makes up his mind, of the decisive issue in the debate, despite all the disagreements that have arisen on other points.
I begin by making reference to a statement by the Leader of the Opposition both in the House and on television yesterday. She made an appeal to the House and to the people at large in

713
which she tried to persuade the electorate that the Government are doing something that is undermining the constitution—not the rules of procedure, and not the established Standing Orders. She consciously and deliberately made the charge that what is being done now in the names of the Government and their supporters amounts to an attack on the constitution. That is the case we have to meet.
That theme has been echoed in a speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). He started to quote the heroes of the English Revolution to us in a speech that reached the peak of absurdity when he appealed to us to imitate the leaders of the English Revolution when discussing the definition of a ship. Listening to him, I concluded that if I were still teaching students of any kind, I would see to it that, with his version of history, he was kept as far away from them as possible. To produce a comparison with the causes of the leaders of the English Revolution and suggest that those causes were on all fours with or exactly the same as the issue that we are debating was so absurd that I could hardly believe my ears. What we are debating is none the less not un-imporant.
I turn now to the reticence of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). Unfortunately, he is not here at the moment. I am not complaining about that, because he has been here for most of the time. He has been most assiduous in his attendance. I am sorry that he is not here, because I want to refer to him.
The hon. Gentleman was questioned, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), about the timing of the raising of this case. One answer was never given, and I find it curious that it was not. The hon. Gentleman said several times that the matter had been raised so late because, although it had been known for a long time that this was a hybrid Bill—I find this a singular circumstance—unfortunately, the people outside the House and those who knew that it was a hybrid Bill were not identical with the people who knew about the rules of the House, and never the twain got together. Somehow, they remained completely separate. One lot of people knew about hybrid
714
Bills; the other lot knew about a particular shipyard. The two never got together. How is it that, throughout a Committee stage of 58 Sittings, that knowledge was available to two sets of people but the two were never brought together? It is passing strange.
Mr. Patrick Cormack rose——
Mr. Mendelson: No. How does it come about——
Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that it was unintentional, but the hon. Gentleman has misrepresented what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said. My hon. Friend has never——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is, by an ingenious method, attempting to make an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Penistone. If the hon. Member for Penistone does not wish to give way, that is a matter for him.
Mr. Mendelson: That was not a point of order, and I shall not give way. One of the great defenders of our freedom is the editorial writer in The Times, who is so critical of other people for not having found out all the facts about the nature of this Bill, but who has himself not taken the trouble to find out this peculiar coincidence, or to underline the fact that it occurred. In face of this coincidence, we are justified in looking more closely at the history of the matter.
I know that the hon. Member for Western Isles would not lightly wish, on doctrinaire grounds, to vote a certain way this evening. There is in the procedure that the Government propose an important right of Parliament—and it does not in any way involve the peak of absurdity reached by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East. Nor does it involve the alleged right of minorities outside this House. Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman reached his remarks about the English Revolution and its leaders, he talked about the important consideration relevant to our debate. If there were minorities in the country whose rights might be harmed, and the House had deliberately adopted a special procedure, he would have a case. But the singular fact about his piece

715
of legislation is that no harm is being done to any minority outside. If there were any question of minorities being harmed, or a precedent being created to harm minorities, one could disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but one would have to admit that there was substance in his attempt. However, there is no substance at all, because this question does not even arise.
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) also has got it wrong when he says that this is a matter of high principle. The principle that he is concerned about is not involved. He says that the Government cannot suggest a departure from the procedure when there is actually a case under debate in the House of Commons. He is wrong, because that is precisely when the House acts—when there is a case under consideration.
The House of Commons and the British constitution are not known for calling great constitutional conventions—as is the case in France—and having the advice of great lawyers who sit together when there is no great case to be debated, and years later put forward grandiose theoretical ideas and then go to Jean Jacques Rousseau and say "This is our written Constitution". The House of Commons has always acted by advancing empirically from case to case and from experience to experience. Therefore, the right hon. Member for Sidcup is wrong on this occasion when he charges us with trying to find a solution by not proceeding in the traditional way. That is why I do not say "Hear, hear" when a right hon. Member asks whether there are hon. Members who might be devil's advocates. He is talking nonsense. There are no devil's advocates. The real tradition of this House is to advance empirically from experience to experience and from practical case to practical case, and this is one such case in point.
A lot of nonsense has been talked about my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but when examined this nonsense immediately falls to the ground. One might ask why my right hon. Friends have put forward this proposal. They did not sit down in their spare time, or even in official time, to think up a new rule by which they could change the standing Orders of the House. When they do
716
not have official business to see to it is not their pastime to tamper with the Standing Orders. They have better things to do and better things to think about.
The House of Commons procedure has developed not over the years but over the centuries, in a traditional way, when there is a particular situation that must be dealt with.
The Government had two choices in this case. They could have accepted the situation, and realised that they were facing an attempt by people who were determined to destroy the legislation and were using this difficulty as a pretext to advance their own particular philosophy. They could have seen it as part of a struggle for power, and therefore abandoned all petitions and made the work done by the House of Commons over many months null and void. On the other hand, the Government could and have thought it was better to try to reach an agreement with the House in finding a solution. That is all they have done. It is nonsense to say that they are doing this without debate. They are doing it in the way that it always has been done. It is nonsense to say that our procedure is advanced by common consent, with every Member of the House agreeing to it. Anyone who reads the history of our procedures will know that many of our Standing Orders, which are now spoken of by after-dinner speakers as reflecting great glory and credit on the British Government, caused great controversy when they were first introduced. Many people felt very strongly about them, but a few years later, when it was seen that they presented no danger to democracy and had practical value, every after-dinner speaker began to say how good they were. There is no attempt to go beyond the established traditions today.
To those hon. Members who are not particularly committed to the main Opposition party and are not particularly committed on grounds of their own political tactics, or tied to particular owners in the industries concerned, but who are deliberately using this occasion to destroy the legislation that has been put to the electorate by the party in office, I say "Think carefully before making a decision." This is a question of general responsibility. Those hon. Members should ask themselves whether they are joining

717
in merely because they want to join a cause that is popular for a day. I am quite certain that once the stiuation is examined carefully and the facts are explained calmly, in the light of history and common sense, many people will wonder why this attempt by the Government to find a practical solution, which in no way moves from the traditional path and does not endanger any established procedures, was not supported strongly in all parts of the House.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said that there was no precedent, and that he feared that if we agreed to the Government's motion we would be establishing a precedent. The important point that he overlooks is that people will want to know why the procedure was not called for at a much earlier stage. They will want to know more facts. It could be that in passing the motion we might be establishing a precedent for preventing such behaviour in the future. If people want to call on the procedure they will have to do it at the right time. It will be no use their saying "We have the knowledge but we shall keep it dark until we think fit". That might be a precedent that will be healthy for public life. Let the people know more about our procedure, and how it can be abused rather than used.
There is everything to be said for the practical solution being proposed tonight by the Government. There is nothing to be afraid of in supporting it. All those who oppose it may well have a case to answer later.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. David Mudd (Falmouth and Camborne): The Government motion is founded upon two basic assumptions, both of which are extremely unsound. The first is that only nationalisation can somehow, miraculously, save the aircraft and shipbuilding and ship repair industries from dire consequences. The second is that a case has been made out by the Government for recognising the proceedings so far in the Committee stage of the Bill.
Let me deal first with what is almost a guarantee from the Government that only they can create and save jobs in the shipbuilding industry. I refer to one of the Government's former shipping Mini-
718
sters, Lord Beswick, who said, in a letter to me, that the future of the ship repair industry was largely beyond Government control. That was his plain admission. He wrote to me on 9th October 1975, replying to a letter from me dealing with the specific fears of the work force as to the future of jobs at the Silley Cox ship repair yard at Falmouth. He said:
"Silley Cox, like other British and some European repair yards, are finding difficulty in attracting sufficient orders in the present highly competitive world market, and there is little the Government can do to remedy this."
The Government cannot, therefore, claim that somehow, miraculously, the passage of six months, during which the Bill had a Second Reading and 58 Committee Sittings, has done anything to nullify or lessen those difficulties. On the analysis of one of its own former Ministers the Government must admit that they are unable to offer the remedy put forward in the spirit of this motion.
The assumption is that a case has been made out for the nationalisation of the independent ship repair sector of the industry, but the whole reason for this debate stems from one basic error in the Government's home-work, and we cannot now accept at face value their claims for a guaranteed future for that sector. Had the Government been caught out conniving, concealing or conspiring something suspect, perhaps, ironically, I would have been inclined to support them in trying to put the record straight, because then I would respect their honesty and professionalism. But now their entire presumption is basically suspect on the grounds of haphazard research, and they must forfeit their right to proceed with the bill.
Tonight it is the Government who are the left-winged, limping lame ducks of Britain. I shall do nothing whatever to bail them out of the squalor into which they have either muddled or attempted to conspire their way.
Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Member explain why the work force in the Merseyside ship repair industry in 1947 was between 200,000 and 25,000, but has now fallen to about 4,000? There has been no public ownership since that time. How, therefore, has private enterprise in the industry proved so wonderful?
Mr. Mudd: If the hon. Member will look at Hansard when it appears tomorrow at a point roughly equivalent to 6.14 p.m. in today's debate, he will find my reply to his intervention in his own words.
Tonight we shall be voting on the Government's motion, which, including the names of the sponsors, is 57 words long. There is something most appropriate and ironic in that. Those words represent one for each day since 31st March 1976. What is so magic about that date? It was then that the Government closed their first nationalised ship repair yard—it was in Sunderland—with a loss of 400 jobs. That was an action of total arrogance and inefficiency against which I shall be voting tonight.
8.7 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Clemitson: I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) say that my right hon. Friends were bending the rules. I am no expert in the procedures of the House. They constantly baffle me, and in that respect I am probably among the great majority. Since, however, we are accused of bending the rules, we should give an answer.
The first question which comes to mind is "What rules?". As far as I can discover, there is only one Standing Order which deals with prima facie hybrid Bills, and that is Standing Order No. 38. That rule deals specifically and only with the situation obtaining before a Second Reading takes place. As I understand it, every Bill is examined for hybridity before it reaches Second Reading. If there is any doubt on that score, it is referred to the examiners. I presume that this procedure took place with this Bill as with every other.
We are told that we have not only rules and Standing Orders but precedents. Various precedents have been quoted, principally that of 1948 concerning what happened before the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill. But none of them fits the present situation because they are all concerned with what happens before a Bill reaches Second Reading. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) admitted that there was no precedent for the situation. Certainly, that applies to the much-quoted action in 1948 of Sir David Maxwell Fyfe
720
when he raised his point of order and specifically tried to relate the situation to the Standing Order.
This week we have had an attempt to raise the question of hybridity after Second Reading and after a lengthy Committee stage. Since the situation is not covered by any Standing Order and since there are no precedents for this situation, we must ask why. Have our predecessors in this place shown a singular lack of foresight? Could they have failed to foresee that this situation might occur, or did they have more sense than we give them credit for? I think that the last explanation is the correct one. The Standing Order by implication says that there is a limit on the time during which a question of hybridity can be reasonably raised—that is, up to the point of Second Reading. If it were not implicit, there would be a Standing Order to deal with the specific situation which arises when the question of hybridity is taken up after Second Reading.
The fact that there is a limit is sensible because the question of whether a Bill is hybrid is fundamentally a question of fact. The facts in question are the facts of the situation at or before publication of the Bill. In this case, the facts are about what was happening in the three years up to and including 31st July 1974—well before the Bill was published. These facts were known before the Bill reached Second Reading. It might be argued that their significance was not realised, but there was time for the facts to be brought to light.
It is necessary to have some kind of time limit. There are time limits on thousands of types of appeals, applications and procedures. For example, social security and national insurance benefits are extremely complicated and it is often very difficult for people to know their entitlement. They do not normally have access to professional and expert advice, but if they do not apply for the benefit within a prescribed period they do not get it.
We are not talking tonight about individuals without expert advice facing very complex legislative provisions. We are talking about a large company with expert advice facing legislation the complexity of which is as nothing compared with social security legislation. If they did not raise the matter before Second Reading, it is out of time.

721
By implication, the Standing Order says that a matter must be raised before Second Reading. In this case, that was not done. If that were not implied by the Standing Order, separate and specific provision would have been made.
I emphasise that I am not challenging Mr. Speaker's ruling. He said:
"After long and anxious thought, I now rule that the Bill under discussion is prima facie hybrid."—[Official Report, 26th May 1976; Vol. 912, c. 445.]
I raised a point of order earlier today about who was to make the final decision. I asked whether Mr. Speaker was ruling that the Bill should go to the examiners. He replied that he had given no such ruling and that it was for the House to decide.
I submit that there is no provision in the Standing Orders for the reference of the Bill to the examiners, because Standing Order No. 38 deals only with the position before Second Reading. Therefore, as Mr. Speaker rightly said, it is for the House to decide what to do. In this casts we have no rules or precedents, so how can we be bending the rules? It is perfectly proper for us to decide to proceed with the Bill to its remaining stages.
Interested parties had proper time, within the rules, to make their objections. They did not do so. We are not trying to bend the rules. The interested parties and opponents of the Bill are trying to make new rules because they missed the bus under the existing rules.
Let us say for the sake of argument that the condition about total tonnage had been fufilled in the yard we are discussing. The question therefore hinges on the satisfaction of the condition regarding whether a ship was being built in the yard on 31st July 1974.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) argues that a vessel of 3,000 tons-plus was being built there at that time. If I may misquote Oscar Wilde, the tonnage is immaterial. Suppose that a 10-ft boat or even a paddling boat for the lake at the local park had been under construction at that time. As far as I can see, either of them would have qualified as a ship under all the definitions. But if a 10-ft sailing dinghy or a paddling boat had been under construction, would this whole matter have arisen and, if so, would it not have been laughed out of court?
Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is putting up an Aunt Sally.
Mr. Clemitson: I am now going to knock it down. It is not an Aunt Sally because a very important point is involved.
An element of judgment on the size of the vessel has crept in with consideration of what is big or important enough for the matter to be raised in the House. Once this is acknowledged, some of us on this side might start asking that our criteria about what is important and our standards of proportion should be applied.
Is it not right and proper for us to decide and say that the future of two great industries and the livelihood of many thousands of our fellow citizens should be put in the balance against whether a ship, of whatever tonnage, was being built in a particular yard on a particular day in 1974? We are not bending the rules. If anybody had a grievance, he had a proper opportunity within the rules to make it known before Second Reading.
The House must make up its own mind on how to proceed. Are we to be like the Scribes and Pharisees who paid tithes of mint and anise and cummin and omitted weightier matters of the law? The question answers itself.
8.18 p.m.
Sir David Renton: I hope that the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) will allow me to congratulate him on making a much more constructive and thoughtful speech than the other contributions we have heard from his side of the House. The hon. Member was right when he said that the question whether a Bill is hybrid is a question of fact. I shall seek to show that the facts have been available to the Government from the beginning and that the Government were the only people who had all the facts at the outset.
We say that it is the Government's fault and nobody else's that the Bill was not declared a hybrid Bill before Second Reading. We also say the Government should not now be taking advantage of their failure to draw the facts to the attention of the authorities of the House so that the Bill could be treated as hybrid from the start. But that did not happen.

723
The hon. Member for Luton, East, if I may have his attention, was entitled to refer to Standing Order No. 38, against which is the note:
"Bills which are prima facie hybrid."
He drew attention to the fact that the Standing Order appears to assume that the decision as to whether a Bill is a hybrid Bill will be taken before Second Reading. I should disclose to the House that I was the Chairman of the Committee for the Revision of Standing Orders in 1963 and again in 1970. I am happy to say that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was a helpful member of the Committee on the second occasion. He was not on the first occasion because I do not think he was a Member of the House at that time.
The duty of the Standing Orders Committee is to carry into Standing Orders any changes made by the House by amending Standing Orders since they were previously revised and to reconsider all the Standing Orders in the light of the rulings given by Mr. Speaker and for the purpose of removing ambiguities. It is not the duty of the Committee to rewrite the whole of Standing Orders afresh and, so to speak, make them up afresh, as many of us would like to do. The Committee has to be bound by what the House has decided and by what Mr. Speaker has ruled in the past.
The hon. Member for Luton, East argues that on this Bill the opportunity was missed. I say that it was missed by the Government and by no one else, because the Government have a duty to draw the facts to the attention of the authorities of the House. I bear in mind that we had an ordinary Second Reading and the completion of a fairly long Committee stage, but should we now be depriving those who would benefit from the opportunity of the Bill being treated as a hybrid Bill? Should we be depriving them of the rights which the House gives in that way? We say that they should not be so deprived, whereas Labour Members say that they should be deprived. As I see it, that is the main difference between the two sides of the House.
Mr. Clemitson: I was making the point that there must be a time limit. The
724
time implicit in the Standing Orders is Second Reading.
Sir D. Renton: So far as the House is concerned, no time limit is laid down. There is no stage laid down at which, so to speak, the curtain falls. Surely it is in order for the House to refer a ruling of Mr. Speaker to the examiners at any stage before a Bill leaves the House. I am open to challenge on that, but that is the view I take.
Before I leave the remarks of the hon. Member for Luton, East, I take up his point about the use of the words "prima facie". Mr. Speaker, when ruling whether a Bill is or is not a hybrid Bill, has to rule that it is prima facie one way or the other. If he were merely to say "This is a hybrid Bill", that would prejudge the decision which has to be made by the examiners to whom we refer these matters. That is why, as a matter of form or of technicality, Mr. Speaker always rules on these occasions that it is prima facie a hybrid Bill. I could spend much more time answering the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman in his interesting speech, but I hope he will forgive me if I now pass on to my own remarks.
The Leader of the House may care to bear in mind the irony that today is the anniversary of the passing by Parliament of the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, which after Magna Carta was the greatest guarantee of personal fredom ever introduced by a parliamentary democracy.
Mr. Robert Hughes rose——
Sir D. Renton: No, I am not giving way as I am taking too much time. How are the Government celebrating the glorious anniversary of habeas corpus? They are celebrating it in a most inglorious way by tabling the motion and asking the House to press it.
The rights given to our people under the hybrid Bill procedure have origins a few years older than even the Habeas Corpus Act. The rights of petitioners and the power of the House to deal with them were laid down in two resolutions of the Commons in 1669. If the House will bear with me, I shall read them as they are short and relevant to the debate. The first resolution states
"That it is an inherent right of every commoner in England to prepare and present petitions to the House of Commons in case of

725
grievance, and the House of Commons to receive the same."
The second resolution states
"That it is an undoubted right and privilege of the Commons to judge and determine "—
I emphasise "judge and determine"—
"touching the nature and matter of such petitions, how far they are fit and unfit to be received."
Flowing from that, the House decided in addition to its ordinary legislative process, which was internal to the House itself and in which only Members of both Houses of Parliament could take part, that there should be the further judicial process for the hearing of petitions. That became the foundation for our Private Bill procedure and in that way for our hybrid Bill procedure.
I am afraid that the latest edition of "Erskine May" is in such short supply owing to today's demand that I have had to use my own old copy, which was published when Sir Barnett Cocks was editor. I understand that the sentence I am about to read has been written into "Erskine May" for some years. and I expect it still to be there. The sentence is of great constitutional importance and the quotation is very short. [Interruption.] Perhaps I may have the attention of the hon. Member for Walton to whose speech I listened with great interest.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked for my attention. I was not speaking to anyone. I was listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as carefully as I could.
Sir D. Renton: I apologise most sincerely to the hon. Gentleman. I should have looked five degrees to his left or to his right. I am most grateful to him for his intervention.
"Erskine May" states:
"The separation of legislative and judicial functions is a refinement in the principles of political government and jurisprudence which can only be the result of an advanced civilisation."
I say to the Leader of the House that it is a sad fact that the Government seem to have such a pride in pursuing the many proposals in their manifesto—and they make Parliament the instrument of their proposals—that for party political reasons of their own they are flouting the hard
726
won principles of parliametary democracy which I have described and which have been described more eloquently today by others. They do not seem to want to retain the "advanced civilisation" to which I have referred. State ownership and control, more and more of it all the time at any price—I note that Labour Members nod in agreement—are what matter to them, not parliamentary democracy.
Mr. Flannery: The shareholders matter to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Sir D. Renton: There is a petition behind Mr. Speaker's chair from Mr. Mann. I do not know whether he is an ex-shipyard worker, but he might well be. I should not have thought it beyond the bounds of possibility that even the widows of shipyard or aircraft workers might wish to present petitions. Are we to take it that if they were to do so the rights that Parliament has given them must be flouted in order that Socialism may take its course?
The Government have obviously got their priorities wrong. They put the interests of socialistic nationalisation higher than the principles of parliamentary democracy. They want their Bill so much that they are prepared to cast aside the rights of minorities outside and the rules of Parliament, and although they have to accept Mr. Speaker's ruling they are prepared to table a motion to nullify it. So much for the principles!
I come back to the facts. I turn again to the speech made by the hon. Member for Luton, East. The facts were known or could or should have been known to the Government before the Bill was drafted. The Government persuaded American investors, in order to retain or to create employment on Clydeside, to come to the rescue of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. But the Americans as we all know and as the Government have freely admitted, made it a condition that Marathon Shipbuilders (UK) Limited, in which the money was invested, would not be nationalised. That was why Marathon could not be included in Schedule 2. That was one of the reasons that made the Bill a hybrid Bill.
But it was not until Mr. Mann's petition was put into the Bag behind Mr. Speaker's Chair this week by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr.

727
Maxwell-Hyslop, to whom great credit is due for having explored this admittedly complex situation and dragged the truth of the matter to the attention of the House, that the House and, indeed, Mr. Speaker were seized of the position. But the Government knew or could or should have known from the very beginning. They are the last people who should now be asking us to act in collusion with them to alter the situation which they created. They are asking us to join them in changing the rules at half-time.
I am sure that the Leader of the House will not mind my saying that it is his duty to apply Standing Orders and to get them changed if there is a general consensus in favour of change. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), who is not in his place—I do not complain of that; he has listened to a great deal of the debate—said that changes were often made by majorities. But that is not my experience. The changes that have been made in Standing Orders have followed either formerly a Speaker's Conference or more recently a decision of the Procedure Committee, and when they have been made they have generally been made without Divisions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not always."] Not always, I agree. But most important changes have been made without Divisions. I am sure that the hon. Member for Walton will bear me out that when he and I served on the Committee for the Revision of Standing Orders there was never a Division. Admittedly, we were dealing with detail to a great extent.
It is also the duty of the Leader of the House, as he knows, to uphold the traditions and dignity of the House and the rulings given by Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman can perform his duty as Leader of the House only if he is conciliatory to all parties in the House, tries to understand them, tries to meet their wishes as far as possible and remains conciliatory and calm. But I must in all candour say—I deeply regret it, because I regard him, not in the parliamentary sense but in another sense, as an old friend—that he displayed his annoyance unreasonably yesterday in, for him, an uncharacteristic way, and certainly contrary to the traditions of the Leadership of the House. Therefore, I hope that when he replies to the debate tonight he
728
will try to re-establish himself in the minds of all those who cherish our parliamentary democracy.
8.34 p.m.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I have to rub my eyes to make sure that I am in a real world, after listening to some of the speeches from Opposition Members, particularly that of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). What we are talking about is a real world, in which people live and want to be employed—not about the technicalities of a minor matter of whether a word refers to a ship or a rig. That is what all this fuss is about.
What has happened in the House today is really a charade. It is the kind of thing that brings this House into disrespect on the part of the public. They are not bothered about this matter. What they are concerned about is why many of us have had 58 Sittings of a Committee—the largest number of Sittings ever—and taken all that time to consider the nationalisation of the shipbuilding and aerospace industries, only to say at the end that it comes to naught because of a minor point such as that which was raised yesterday.
Mr. Tebbit: Minor?
Mr. Hoyle: Very minor, indeed. Of course it is minor. The real objective of the Opposition is to hold up the Bill. They want to prevent it from going forward in the hope that in another 12 months' time they can prevent these two vital industries passing into public ownership. The Opposition believe that there might be a change of Government. They are very hopeful. We were warned that they might try to prevent these industries passing into the hands of the public. That is what the whole argument is about.
We know that the Opposition are not in touch with the workers in these industries. They are in touch with the directors, the shareholders, those people who have put all the advertisements in the national Press, and those who have had dinners in this House, and they have done all that they possibly can to prevent the progress of the Bill. But the Opposition are certainly not in touch with the workers. I speak as the vice-president

729
of one of the unions involved. Union representatives have been to see me on this matter. Even those of them who do not support the Labour Party politically, those of them who would regard themselves as Tory trade unionists, perhaps, are condemning the actions taking place on the Opposition Benches. The Opposition will not win any votes in this way, because while this is going on——
Sir David Renton rose——
Mr. Hoyle: No. I shall not give way. You have spoken for far too long, and there are other hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate. You said that you would not speak for long, but you were on your feet for 20 minutes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Godman Irvine): Order. I have not even been in the Chair for 20 minutes.
Mr. Hoyle: I was saying that to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire, with due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because he took quite a time in addressing the House and we all listened to him most carefully, so we are fully aware of what he said.
I am speaking for the people in the shipbuilding industry itself, and that is the important thing. While the Opposition are continuing to hold up progress on the Bill, in the shipbuilding industry there is a danger of more unemployment and of yards going out of business because of the uncertainty that surrounds the industry.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: What about Greenwells?
Mr. Hoyle: We know that private investment in this industry is being withdrawn into more profitable sections, at the expense of the yards being taken into public ownership. That is the position. While that uncertainty remains the people know—they talk to us—that their jobs are at stake.
In the aerospace industry a similar position of uncertainty remains. What are the projects that will go ahead? While these discussions are taking place in the House this evening, the French are trying to make hay with the Americans at the expense of the British aerospace industry. That is not the fault of the committee that has been set up to run
730
that industry. Indeed, a large part of the blame for the situation rests with the two airframe manufacturers themselves, for not seizing the opportunity that exists.
Mr. Tebbit: I think that in fairness the hon. Gentleman would want to remind the House that there had been no instance of the French and the Americans collaborating on any project at all. In fact, it was the British and the French who collaborated all the time—until nationalisation was brought forward in this House. From then onwards the French, knowing that the industry would be wrecked by nationalisation, went to do business with the private enterprise manufacturers in the United States. The sooner the hon. Gentleman drops this ridiculous nonsense, the sooner we shall get back to being able to do a decent deal with our American partners.
Mr. Hoyle: I do not accept one word of what the hon. Gentleman said. It is the publicly-owned side of the French aircraft industry that is going across to America. While that has been going on, what have the airframe manufacturers been doing? My concern is not with the directors and the shareholders in those industries, but with the workers, and I fear for their jobs unless we get the Bill on the statute book.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Would my hon. Friend be surprised to learn that I have a copy of a telegram sent by a well-known active Tory trade unionist in Bristol, who is Secretary of the Joint Staff Unions Committee of BAC? The telegram was sent to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition this morning. and, in essence it said: "Show statesmanship and get the Bill on the statute book without further delay".
Mr. Hoyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for producing that evidence, which backs up the representations that have been made to us by the trade unions.
Mr. Tebbit: He is the chap to whom the hon. Gentleman will sell his council house.
Mr. Hoyle: That is a cheap remark. Is that the best that can be offered from the Opposition Benches when the jobs of the people are at stake? The people who work in these industries should be

731
here. They would know who their friends are.
At the end of the day, all the credit will go to my right hon. Friend the Lord President for putting the interests of the workers in the shipbuilding and aerospace industries before a minor procedural matter that threatens to hold up a Bill designed to safeguard their livelihood.
8.42 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: In opening the debate the Secretary of State made great play with the words "hairline hybridity" and referred to the "narrowest of technicalities". That is where the division lies between the Government and the Opposition. The Government are saying that they must put right the technicalities, whereas the Opposition are saying that the technicalities underlie the principle of parliamentary democracy.
The Secretary of State said that no new civil aircraft project had been put forward in the past two years, and that one reason why the Government were moving the motion was their great concern for the jobs of employees. Both the lack of new civil aircraft projects and the threat to the jobs of employees stem directly from the threat of nationalisation.
The Secretary of State also spoke about the lengthening dole queues. The Prime Minister said today that even if the Bill were passed into law there would be much rationalisation. That, perhaps, is a phrase to bemuse the Left wing, because much rationalisation means fewer jobs. Perhaps he thought he could kid the Left wing on that. The Secretary of State adduced in evidence a paid servant of the organising committee, who said that this was the right sort of thing to do. What else would a creature of the Minister who appointed him say? Then we heard that the Inland Revenue thought that it was right. To adduce such evidence is rather like saying that the KGB is in favour of package tours to Siberia.
I shall sum up all that lay behind the speech of the Secretary of State for Industry. It was his opening shot in the battle to succeed as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. The House will recognise that.
732
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) based his case on the argument that so far all the challenges on the question of hybridity have come before Second Reading. The hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) said the same thing. I submit that that is rather like a patient, visiting the doctor for some sort of diagnosis, who is then operated upon and opened up. That is the same as the Committee stage. The surgeon finds something wrong and tells the patient that nothing can be done, since it should have been discussed before he was opened up. That is the basis of the case of the hon. Member for Walton.
The correct argument is that which was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). It is a matter of the supremacy of Parliament and the rule of law. I have always voted against the televising of Parliament, but it is a pity that the public could not see the crypto-Communists on the Government Benches laughing when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East spoke of the rule of law.
The Bill has been declared hybrid, but the Government are now attempting to change the rules half-way through. Some unfair remarks and attacks were made about the Leader of the House yesterday. He was called a Fascist and leader of the Reichstag. That was most unfair. He is a distinguished constituent of mine, and living in a place like Hampstead he should know of the vast number of people who came there as refugees from Hitler, from the take-over of Poland and Hungary, after seeing their democratic Parliaments killed by changing the rules half-way through. It is therefore unfair that he should have been attacked yesterday and called a Fascist or leader of the Reichstag.
I have respected the right hon. Gentleman for many years. He used to appear on television as a proponent of parliamentary liberty and democracy, thundering forth in its defence. Next week he will go to Washington to be present at the presentation of a copy of the Magna Carta, which is to be on loan for one year. He will bask in the glory of this document.

733
The Secretary of State has listened to the references to the rule of law. But today and yesterday he acted in a worse manner than either King John or the barons over the signing of the Magna Carta. I do not want to be unfair to the Lord President, because tonight he will be supported in the Lobbies by other great democrats—the Home Secretary, the Paymaster-General, the Minister for Overseas Development and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. All are moderates and members of the Cabinet and they are supporting this attempt to put down the ruling of the House of Commons. Perhaps this is yet another step forward in the line that the moderates in the Cabinet are having to take.
In the case of Clay Cross the former Leader of the House changed the rules after the event. There is no difference between them. I am tired of those who talk of moderates. I said earlier that I looked upon the right hon. Gentleman as a champion of parliamentary rights. I did not think that he would go along with the sort of terminology used by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) yesterday, when he spoke about mumbo-jumbo. I was taught at school a phrase that I remember:
"His honour rooted in dishonour stood,
And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true."
If the Lord President has any conscience, if he has any sense of duty to the House—not to his party—or in general to the minorities in the House, he will try even at this late moment to act as was suggested earlier and ask leave to withdraw the motion. If he does not—if he goes on acting as a biased Leader of the House—he will forfeit the confidence of all hon. Members, and will be acting as a commissar of a Socialist manifesto.
8.51 p.m.
Mr. John P. Mackintosh: It was not a very helpful speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). In fact, it was a rather squalid, simple speech which did not advance the argument. I hope that I shall succeed in convincing the hon. Gentleman and one or two other Opposition Members who have been shouting through the speeches that there are those of us on the Labour Benches who are as deeply concerned for parliamentary liberties as they are.
734
Some of us have made it our major business for many years—in my case for the decade that I have been a Member of the House—to do what we can to improve and enhance the power of the House over the Executive. It is in that light that I wish to look at this case.
The most helpful explanation I have heard of the origins of the whole problem came from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), who said that he knew, as a former Minister in the Department of Industry, that people in the Department had studied the Bill with great care to see whether it was hybrid. They had gone over it in detail. We all know the principles. They framed the Bill as any Government Department tries to frame a Bill to avoid its being hybrid—that is to say, it dealt with the rights of general categories. If the whole matter—the nationalisation of two industries—could have been dealt with on general principles and, the issue of private rights would not have arisen, because we should have accepted in the House that it was a fundamental political issue to be decided between the two parties at a General Election in the normal way and then put through the House.
Had there been no special exemptions, the question of private rights would not have arisen. No doubt people's private rights would have been affected, as happened with every nationalisation measure, but there would have been no special question of hybrid rights if this had been an across-the-board measure of nationalisation.
What happened at that point? The Government desired to exempt a particular yard. This matter has not been adequately brought out. Marathon was exempted because, I understand, a promise had been given to the American investor that if that company took over the yard on the Clyde there would be no question of nationalising the yard. I understand that it was a clear commitment by the Government.
Therefore, when the Government framed this nationalisation measure, instead of their framing it in general terms which would have avoided any question of the kind we are debating, a special method had to be found to exempt Marathon. The technique used, because Marathon was going to build oil rigs,

735
was to say that the Bill covered shipbuilding but not oil rigs. We are now having the debate about when an oil rig is a ship and when it is not. If anyone had told the drafters of the Bill that Marathon would build an oil rig which had a continuous hull, which could float along on its own and which might be described in Lloyd's Register as a ship, they would have rephrased the Bill to exclude that kind of oil rig.
The sole object was to deal not with ships or oil rigs but with Marathon. This problem has cropped up at a late stage because it has been discovered that an oil rig was built in such a fashion that it was defined as a ship. At this late stage Mr. Speaker gave a perfectly proper ruling that the Bill was then a hybrid Bill.
I am as concerned as any hon. Member in the House with the protection of the private rights of individuals and companies under Acts of Parliament or the procedures of the House. I felt that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made a good point in saying that we must protect the rights of minorities and special groups. If the Bill had been declared a hybrid Bill because of the Marathon situation at the very beginning and petitions had been heard, Marathon would not have petitioned because that company did not want to be included in the Bill. The procedure is arranged to allow for this, so that those who are discriminated against should be able to petition and to get the same treatment as others. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
Mr. Mackintosh: There would have been no petition from Marathon, which did not want it. All other shipbuilding firms would have been covered by the general proposition that the whole industry was to be nationalised and taken into public ownership. The procedure for hybrid Bills was not designed for them because they came within the general category. They were to be nationalised as a result of strong political conflict and a political decision. The hybrid procedure was designed to safeguard those, like Marathon, which were isolated for separate treatment, but in this case Marathon did not want to be separately treated.
736
The suggestion that other shipbuilding companies could have petitioned to get out of nationalisation is part of the political argument. They are entitled to act against proposals for nationalisation. It was a defence of private rights, the private rights of one particular company, but it applied only to the company which was excluded. At the time that company wanted to be excluded, although I do not know whether it still wants to be excluded.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop rose——
Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Gentleman has spoken in the debate and has intervened on points that were raised. I respect his great contribution, but I should like to terminate as quickly as possible.
If the Bill had been a callous disregard of private rights, Marathon would have had a right to petition, but Marathon did not object to the Bill. We want to protect private rights, but we have to recognise the reality of what we are asked to protect. That is the extent of the infringement of private rights proposed by the late decision that this is a hybrid Bill, not because of the nature of the Bill but because of a failure to appreciate the kind of work that Marathon was doing at the time. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House says that if given a chance he would rephrase the Bill, as he would have done at the beginning, had he known the circumstances, to include this particular area of activity.
Having tried to isolate the area of private right that is being damaged by the withdrawal or the failure to apply the hybrid Bill procedure in this House, I come to the second question. We all recognise that a mistake was made. Advice was given, or when the Bill was being drafted somebody did not know what Marathon was likely to do, otherwise it could have been excluded. Whoever was at fault, the Minister must take responsibility. Clearly, someone in the Department of Industry did not know that Marathon was to build a rig with a continuous hull and that the provision, which was carefully phrased to exclude Marathon did not do so. That undoubtedly remains a matter of ministerial responsibility.

737
We come to the third, most fundamental problem. I recognise that, because of the failure in drafting the Bill, Mr Speaker has been asked at this late stage to redefine the Bill, and he has said it is prima facie a hybrid Bill.
I respect Mr. Speaker's decision and think that it should deeply affect the conduct of the House. But the problem we must decide at this point is what we do with the procedures of the House in an unprecented situation. It is a situation in which, four-fifths of the way through a Bill, the Bill is redefined due to an early failure of drafting. I have pointed out that the issue does not deeply infringe private rights but creates a genuine problem of principle for Members of the House who are concerned about the House and whether this procedure could be followed again in respect of other Bills in other situations.
What do we do about this situation? I repeat that I am concerned about the rights of the House. Let me tell my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House why I was deeply concerned when I heard his announcement yesterday. Again, I emphasise that this is not the deep Magna Carta-type issue which many Opposition Members assert it to be. I am deeply disturbed because in recent years I have become worried about the erosion of powers in this House. I was deeply disturbed about the referendum, which I voted against.
I have been deeply disturbed at decisions arrived at between the Executive and powerful outside groups, because those decisions are reported to this House and we have to enforce them—[Interruption.] I was deeply concerned about the referendum because, although there had been a huge majority in the House on the Common Market issue, it was said that that was not good enough. Let us remember that the majority on the Floor of the House was 226 in favour of British membership. Although so many of us voted that way, we were told that it was not good enough.
I am also disturbed at the packing of Standing Committees of the House by subservient or uninterested Members, as a result of which people with an independence of mind are deliberately excluded in case they want to vote against the Government. This has happened on
738
many occasions. If a Standing Committee is appointed on a subject in which I am interested and on which I have undertaken some work, I know that I shall not be on it.
I was also disturbed when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in a previous incarnation, on the matter of Press freedom, said "Don't say anything in this House because you might upset the NUJ." He did not go to the NUJ and say to its members "Don't say anything that might upset some Members of Parliament." That is the kind of situation we face.
Therefore, I was disturbed yesterday when my right hon. Friend came to the House, slapped his notes on the Dispatch Box and said "This is prima facie a case involving a hybrid Bill. Therefore, we must overrule it, change the rules and get round it." I would rather my right hon. Friend had come to the House and said "This presents a major problem for the House." He could have said that, despite the fact that we hear a great deal of humbug expressed by Opposition Members on these topics, especially because in this case it involves the rights of one yard that did not mind being excluded. Although we have heard a lot of humbug from the Opposition, my right hon. Friend could have come to the House and said "A problem has occurred. Let us take it away to a Select Committee, withdraw the Bill, change it and come back with an agreed timetable so that the matter may proceed quickly through the House."
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend came to the Dispatch Box and virtually said "In these circumstances, the majority must win." That principle frightens me. There is one thing that has tempted me not to vote for my party tonight, although I shall do so—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall vote on the arguments I have made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Humbug."] The one thing that worries me is that some Labour Members say that, because these things are demanded by certain blocks of the electorate, they must go through whatever the procedure might be. The procedure of this House exists to defend the shipyard workers and aircraft industry workers. The procedure of this House exists to defend the freedom of our country.

739
Therefore, I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate he will be able to say that he will look at this matter and proceed in a manner that will safeguard progress and take account of the time and energy already put into the Bill, but also that he will recognise the procedural problems and do nothing to flout them.
9.5 p.m.
Sir John Eden: The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) stands the argument about hybridity on its head. He certainly stood on its head the principle that he enunciated about the erosion of the rights of this House in terms of parliamentary democracy. The Government base their case on three assumptions. First, for the purposes of this Bill they do not accept that a "rig" is to be defined as a "ship". They claim that they do not challenge the ruling of Mr. Speaker but, nonetheless, they have been at pains to demonstrate that for the purposes of this Bill a rig is not to be regarded as a ship.
The second point they make is that employment prospects in this industry will be damaged unless the Bill is speedily assisted on to the statute book. Their third assumption is that whatever the precedents, procedures or practices of this House may be, the House tonight, if it so wishes, can decide to rescue the Government from their embarrassment.
In the few moments available to me I would briefly comment on those three assumptions. I read earlier today that the "Key Victoria" is now drilling off the coast of Zaire. How did it get there? Was it carried there? Did it walk? No, The answer is that it floated there. It was towed there and it floated there—and, for the purposes of this Bill, a "ship" means a floating or submersible vessel.
It was his realisation of the significance of this point, combined with his intimate knowledge of the Standing Orders of this House, which led my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) so brilliantly to make his submission to Mr. Speaker. It is true that there had been an undertaking to exclude Marathon from the Bill, but the purpose of the hybrid procedure was not just to protect those who wished to be excluded
740
from the Bill; it was to give an opportunity to those who might have been included within the terms of the Bill to make their representations before a Select Committee.
Secondly, whatever the arguments or doubts about the rig may be, in any case Marathon is shortly to be building ships, if it is not already doing so.
In respect of employment there is no urgency for this Bill. Nationalisation as such is not what is wanted. That has been made clear not least by all the employees of the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Ltd. They said that
"Nationalisation would drastically affect employment prospects in Welsh ports and endanger millions of pounds worth of exports."
What is wanted is not nationalisation, but an end to uncertainty. That can be brought about under existing legislation—a point that has already been made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the Leader of the Liberal Party, and by others. By working with the companies concerned to prepare a nation-wide plan for the industry, and by determining the degree of Government support necessary to achieve it, the Government could end uncertainty in this industry tomorrow—an uncertainty largely precipitated and sustained by the proposal for nationalisation itself.
The third point on which the Government's case seems to rest is the one that causes me, and I am sure all hon. Members on the Opposition side, most anxiety. Ian Aitken, in his article in today's Guardian, opened with these words:
"The future and perhaps the survival of the British shipbuilding industry hung in the balance last night".
What hangs in the balance today is the maintenance of free parliamentary democracy under this Government, not just for this one decision alone, important though that may be, but for the very reasons that the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian so eloquently suggested—that there has been an accumulation of matters, small in themselves but amounting, when taken as a whole, to a serious erosion of the rights of this House.
As The Times put it:
"This is no mere procedural technicality. It is a matter of the denial of a right conferred by constitutional convention."

741
The right in a hybrid Bill situation is the right of any interest affected by proposals in such a Bill to have those views represented before a Select Committee of this House. The Standing Orders of this House have been designed as protection in just such a situation.
Of all the words spoken yesterday by the Leader of the House I found the most worrying those words that are often used these days by Ministers:
"It is for the House to decide."—[Official Report, 26th May 1976; Vol. 912, c. 446.]
Those words worry me in the context in which the right hon. Gentleman used them. Those words worry me, too, in the context of the speech of the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), who, like so many of her kind—I say this with respect; I mean, like so many who hold views of her kind—advanced the case for the erosion of the rights of individuals by calling in aid the practices of a free institution.
Mrs. Hart: Is there anything in the speech that I made which in any way devalues the respect that I hold for the freedom of the individual? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the remark that he just made?
Sir J. Eden: The whole tenor of the right hon. Lady's speech was that all that was necessary was for this House to decide tonight to get the Government out of their embarrassment.
Mrs. Hart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the fact that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) gave me some notice that he would be speaking about my remarks, but he has now made certain imputations. He must either withdraw them or sustain them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The imputations that I have heard seem to me to be merely matters of debate.
Sir J. Eden: When freedom is everywhere under attack, how necessary it is that we—long and rightly regarded in this House as its champions—should be assiduous in the observance of the rule of law, in both its spirit and its letter—the rule of law which is itself the only sure foundation of that freedom. We should not connive in a parliamentary stratagem that
742
seeks, in the words of the motion, to "dispense with" the Standing Orders of the House to suit ministerial and administrative convenience. That way lies the end of parliamentary democracy itself, and it is that end that, the country will note, so many hon. Members on the Government Benches seek to achieve.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Michael Heseltine: I pay tribute first to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for what is without doubt one of the most remarkable Back Bench contributions since I have been in the House.
What is not in dispute tonight is your ruling, Mr. Speaker. You have quite clearly ruled in the case of the hybridity, or the prima facie hybridity, of the Bill that we are considering. The Bill is now prima facie a hybrid Bill. That means quite simply that the private rights of individual citizens might be affected by it. That is what it means.
The precise issue upon which it was raised with you, Mr. Speaker, was the exclusion of Marathon Shipbuilding (UK) Limited. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) was perfectly correct in drawing to our attention that it was the Government's decision—maybe following a decision of an earlier Government—that this particular company should be excluded which has led to the problem and to the drafting difficulties that the Minister and his Department face.
That is the source of the difficulty faced by the House—in other words, whether a company could and should be left out of a Public General Bill. That is the underlying issue. It does not matter why the company has been left out. It does not matter that only one has been left out. The fundamental issue is that by design one company, falling within the definition of all the other companies which are included in the Bill, has been left out.
It is not enough to say "We know that this company would not mind. It does not want to be included." By what arbitrary right has that one company been excluded when all the other companies listed in the schedule has been included? How, unless this issue is put before a Select Committee of the House, is that issue to be resolved?
Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well why the company has been excluded. It came to this country only on the agreement that it would be excluded. There has been no argument about that.
Mr. Heseltine: I understand precisely the hon. Gentleman's point. It came to this country only on condition that it would not be nationalised. By what right did that one company do a deal which has excluded it from this Bill—a Bill which includes virtually every other company, each of which would have liked to be excluded if it had the chance?
The House must clearly understand that the purpose of hybridity, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) put it so clearly in his speech, is to recognise that there is no limit to the power of this House. We have no written constitution, and, because we therefore understand that we might do things in the generality of public policy which could have adverse effects upon individual private rights, we have traditionally over a long period had an established rule within this House to protect individuals who believe that they are adversely affected.
We have not said that they can refuse to obey the law. We have not said that they can remain outside the power of this House. What we have said is that, if we are to affect their private lives, we will limit our own power to this one extent and entitle them to come before a Select Committee of Members of this House so that their case may be heard. That is the issue we are discussing tonight.
Why should the companies listed in the Bill not have the right to have their case heard by a Select Committee of this House before we proceed? You have decided, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill entitles the companies listed in it to have their case put before examiners in order to decide whether such procedures should be adopted. That is your decision, Mr. Speaker, and it is the Government who have decided that the procedures should be set on one side.
Mr. Stainton: They are proposing it. It has not yet been decided.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. They are proposing that these procedures should be set aside.
All the speeches on this side of the House, though regrettably very few from the Government Benches, have centred on the high issue of principle which is fundamental to this case. It is in no way relevant for hon. Members opposite, including the Secretary of State for Industry, who started them down this road, to say that this is only a little exception, that it is relatively unimportant, that it will not do anyone much harm or that the company which is being excluded does not mind. These are issues not of principle but only of degree of the effect of the legislation.
What the House is being asked to do is to establish a precedent in a situation which all hon. Members know to be unprecedented. There is no precedent for this circumstance. Therefore, we say that in the event of a similar circumstance arising in which there is not, as in this case, according to hon. Members opposite but not to us, a small infringement, a relatively unimportant prejudice of interest, but a large degree of infringement, the principle will nevertheless be identical to what we are dealing with now. Hon. Members on the Government side are prepared to see this precedent stand for all time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian made the point that the Government do not accept the spirit of your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The Government do not admit that there was a difficult circumstance which, from respect for this place, should have brought them through one channel or another to a dialogue with hon. Members on both sides of the House, which is what a Leader of the House in all normal circumstances would have done. Instead, within seconds of your ruling having been given, the Leader of the House, on behalf of the Government, said that they were going to set it aside. They did that on the very day when the overwhelming majority of us, not 50 yards away from this place, listened to the Prime Minister echoing the great traditions which have made this nation's Parliament into the unique democratic institution that it is.

745
They ignored the possibility of even trying to find a solution with honour along the lines which have been suggested from both sides of the House.
This is, therefore, a matter of fundamental principle. We are dealing with the democratic rights and traditions of the House, and there is no escape from that clear situation. If the Government had wanted to challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as you rightly pointed out on Tuesday there is a vehicle by which they could have done so. The Secretary of State today tried to suggest that he had got a lot of extra evidence or that more facts should be put before the House. That was an issue about the ruling itself. If that is what we are here to discuss, we should be discussing the ruling, but the Government have decided to accept the ruling while simply overturning it at the first convenient opportunity. That is a different matter from challenging the ruling itself.
The issue is therefore one of convenience, because the Government have found your ruling inconvenient, Mr. Speaker. The ruling would, of course, have made it difficult for them to proceed with the Bill at the speed they wished—that would suit me, and I make no apology for saying so. But we are not here dealing with the narrow convenience of the Government. We are dealing with the individual rights of citizens, and the Government's convenience should not put those rights in jeopardy.
It is on a matter of expediency rather than principle that hon. Members on the Government side are asked to vote tonight. I only hope that before they vote those who are parliamentarians before politicians will remember that the day could come when they will be sitting in circumstances with no majority in this House, and the precedent which the Leader of the House is asking them to establish tonight will be used to override rights which they think are important. That is the position in which they are putting themselves and all future Parliaments if they vote for this motion tonight.
There is a case about which we do not hear a great deal from the Secretary of State for Industry, and it is the only case he could have pleaded with honour. He could have said that the circumstances were now so overwhelmingly urgent in
746
the two industries which he is seeking to nationalise that, despite the issue of principle, the overriding interests of the nation and the industries concerned demanded that the legislation be proceeded with. I would never accept that argument for one moment, but it is the one which the Secretary of State should have spelt out in order to justify what he intends to do tonight.
How is it that the Government tell us now that the need for this legislation is a matter of national urgency when only a few months ago they introduced identical legislation and then withdrew it because it was inconvenient for them to proceed with it in the last Session? What has so deteriorated in that period? What new facts are there and what evidence has come to light which makes them prepared to elevate above principle the progress of this legislation, which a few months ago they withdrew to suit their own convenience?
We have now reached a situation in which the Secretary of State for Industry, like his predecessor, time and again is prepared to come to the House, with all the existing legislation at his power, and explain that he has to bail out this company, take over that company or nationalise another. He has done that with many companies from Ferranti to Court Line and to British Leyland one after another. He has the power to help companies where necessary, and yet we are now being asked to elevate expediency above principle in order to facilitate legislation designed to nationalise no less than 43 companies at an expense of £300 million, and all for the sake of helping a couple of ailing shipbuilding companies. There is no need for any additional legislation at all, except the narrow need of dogma of the Labour Party.
This is all the more extraordinary because only last Christmas the Secretary of State for Industry was prepared to hawk his conscience around the nation in order to prevent his colleagues from spending £162 million on bailing out Chrysler under existing legislation. Today, however, he is saying that he has not got the power to bail out any companies of any sort in these particular industries.
It is beyond credibility that the Government are now seriously claiming that they need to nationalise the aerospace industry in order to protect jobs and in

747
order to keep our position in the European airbus project. Only eight years ago they led this country out of the European airbus project, and the only reason why we are still in the project is because one company, which they are now proposing to nationalise, risked its own money to preserve workers' jobs and stay in. All it is getting for its trouble is that it is to be nationalised.
The Marathon company, which had the farsigntedness to say that it would not risk a penny piece unless it was left out of the Bill, is excluded, yet Hawker is not. Should not that situation be examined by the hybridity procedures of this House?
It is not just a question of the Secretary of State for Industry, because in reality the motion we are dealing with tonight is one which properly should have come from the Leader of the House. It is very curious that he has chosen to wind up the debate rather than introduce the motion, which appeared in his own name. I have never heard a speech from the Leader of the House with which I have agreed. But when he was a Back Bencher I never heard him make a speech which did not add to his reputation as a parliamentarian above that of a party politician. He is a man of great conviction. What he did not know was the extent to which that conviction could be moderated by tolerance for others' views. It is that tolerance, measured with the conviction, which is the hallmark of people who seek to lead this House. Tonight the right hon. Gentleman is about to throw away his lifetime's reputation.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) began his speech with a reference to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), and I find it in my Back Bench heart to echo what he said. Many hon. Members have quoted remarks that I made in this House in previous incarnations—if that is the right word—and I dare say that I had better recall, before someone else does, that I said on one occasion that all was fair in love, war and parliamentary procedure. I say that to the hon. Member for Tiverton. It would be churlish of any of us not to pay a tribute to his
748
ingenuity and his assiduity in spite of all the inconvenience that he has caused to so many people. I pay tribute to him because all sections of the House must watch with the greatest care the pro. cedures of this House—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will allow me to present my case. I certainly do not accept the view that the procedures of this House are unimportant, in any sense. I believe that many of our most essential freedoms are intimately linked with the procedures of the House.
In one sense it may be said that where-ever we sit, when it comes to the procedures of the House we are all in the same boat—or perhaps in the same mobile offshore drilling rig. We must seek to protect those freedoms in the best ways that we can. That is what I have said today, as I hope the House will permit me to explain.
I wish to underline a fact that I am sure that you will be ready to confirm, Mr. Speaker, which is that I have not in any way challenged your ruling. It would have been quite wrong of me to do so. Perhaps I can describe to the House exactly what happened in the discussions that I had with you and your advisers just before the debate yesterday. I went to see you to make representations, as others were making, and you indicated to me not a final decision, but the likely decision that you would make to the House. I then asked you whether you would give me your view about what would happen if we were to put down the kind of motion that is on the Order Paper now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Has Mr. Speaker given you permission?"] Yes, Mr. Speaker has given me his permission, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me his. I wish to explain what happened, because it will dispose entirely of any accusation that I or the Government have challenged your ruling, Mr. Speaker, or been, in any sense, disrespectful to it.
I asked you, Mr. Speaker, whether, if we put on the Order Paper a motion of this character to deal with the situation that arose following your ruling, it could be regarded as a challenge to your ruling or disrespectful to you. Your answer was an immediate and unhesitating assurance that it would be nothing of the sort. You put that view in the presence of your advisers, with plenty of witnesses.

749
Several of those who report the affairs of the House have suggested that I was seeking in some way to challenge your ruling or to be disrespectful. That is now disposed of for ever by your statement.
Mr. Stainton: It was a private discussion.
Mr. Foot: I have Mr. Speaker's permission to announce it to the House. There is no question of there being a private discussion.
If your answer had been different, Mr. Speaker, I would not have made the same recommendations to my colleagues on how we should proceed.
We were left with the question of how to deal with the position left by your ruling. It was open to us to make a whole series of suggestions about the way in which the House should proceed.
Mr. Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that many people will think that he is behaving in a disrespectful and cowardly manner when he seeks to take shelter behind a private conversation?
Mr. Foot: I do not think that it is necessary to answer such an interruption.
The Government and I had to decide—I do not wish to shuffle off any responsibility, because it was my recommendation that this motion should be put on the Order Paper—how to deal with the situation left by your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
As hon. Members in all parts of the House have acknowledged, we were dealing with an unprecedented situation. We had to decide how to weigh up the factors. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) presented the focus of the debate in his criticism of our judgment following Mr. Speaker's ruling. The right hon. Member argued that we should have taken into account the rights of the petitioners, who would be excluded if the hybridity procedures were overridden and the rights of the minorities in the House.
I acknowledge that these are some of the factors that ought to be taken into account, but there are other factors, according to the procedures of this
750
House, and I ask hon. Members to note this carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) expounded this aspect of the case in a way to which the House must apply its mind. We are accused of bending or breaking the rules, but there is no rule to break or bend in this respect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East correctly said, Standing Orders do not refer to the unprecedented situation of the House having to deal with a ruling such as that given by Mr. Speaker at such a late stage in the progress of the Bill.
Mr. Heseltine rose——
Mr. Foot: I shall give way in a moment, but I must first make this point. The fact of the matter is that Standing Order No. 38 deals with the situation exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East described. It does not envisage this unprecedented situation or what would be the course proper to be taken if such a ruling were to be made in the circumstances of the case now before us. Why? Because the Standing Orders assume that if a Bill reached that stage it would be a very different state of affairs if it ever had to be referred to a Committee for hybridity. Why? Because the House at that stage would have voted on Second Reading in favour of the principle of the Bill. In response to the case of the right hon. Member for Sidcup, I say directly that the Government had to take into account the rights of minorities in the House, but we also had to take into account the rights of the majority of the House, as shown on Second Reading.
Mr. Heseltine: If for one moment we accept that there are no precedents and, therefore, the need to create a new rule for the House, will the Leader of the House give one precedent whereby such a new rule has been imposed on the House without any discussion with anyone in the House other than the majority party?
Mr. Foot: We are not seeking to impose a new rule; we are seeking to deal with an unprecedented situation. We are making a proposal to deal with it that does not set a precedent for future occasions. We are making a proposal that is specifically directed to this case,

751
as our words on the Order Paper describe. It is specifically directed to the consequences that would follow in the two industries concerned, and specifically arising from Mr. Speaker's ruling. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that we took into account the considerations to which he referred. It is perfectly right that those considerations should be taken into account, but I believe it also to be the case that having looked at the Standing Orders, having looked at the rules, and having looked at the unprecedented situation, we had to tell the House how we were to proceed.
I give another reason that led me to think that we had to take this course. If the matter had been referred to the examiners, and if it had gone to the Standing Committee or the Select Committee—it is more of a Standing Committee than a Select Committee, but whichever Committee hon. Members like to describe it as being—and through the whole of the procedure that has been described, it would have taken a very long time. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Sidcup suggested that the Bill should be withdrawn as a whole That, too, would have taken quite a long time. If we had withdrawn the Bill, or gone to the Procedure Committee, I do not say that those procedures would have meant an interminable delay, but there would have been a very great delay.
Any Government, or anyone responsible to the House of Commons. who voted for the Bill's Second Reading, had to take into account the fact that, there having been a Second Reading, and 58 Sittings in Committee, this House had urged that we should proceed with this business. There is talk of our overriding the rights of the House of Commons, but it is the Opposition who have done so.
Mr. Michael Brother rose——
Mr. Foot: What they would have sought to do——
Mr. Brotherton rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Mr. Brotherton: Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore say that the Com-
752
mittee is more important than the Floor of the House of Commons?
Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman had been following what I was saying as closely as I flatteringly assumed that he had been, he would have heard me say that one of the considerations that had to be taken into account was that the Bill had been through not only the Sittings upstairs, but Second Reading in this House, and that was an important relevant factor.
Mr. James Prior: As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is now saying that one of the factors that the Government had to take into consideration was that the Bill had had a Second Reading. I seem to remember that other Bills had Second Readings on the Floor of the House and the right hon. Gentleman had quite an affair in dealing with them and seeing that they did not get any further. The Parliament (No. 2) Bill was one. How can the right hon. Gentleman justify saying it for this Bill, but not for the others?
Mr. Foot: I am not seeking to supersede any procedure of this House. I am saying that this Bill, which started out as a Public Bill and which, in our genuine belief, was a Public Bill, had been accepted as a Public Bill by the House of Commons and by everyone concerned, right up to a point in the procedure that goes far beyond anything covered by Standing Order No. 38. It is precisely because of those circumstances that this is an unprecedented situation. Therefore, we had to discover a remedy that would properly suit the situation and would not deny to the majority in this House the right to get on the statute book a measure that had passed so many parts of its procedure in this House.
Not a single example could be quoted by either the right hon. Member for Sidcup or the Leader of the Liberal Party to substantiate their claim that in any sense at all we have interfered with the rules in the middle of this game. [Interruption.] This Bill started out as a Public Bill. It was accepted by all the authorities in the House as a Public Bill. It is still, in our opinion—[Interruption]. It is still, in our opinion and in the opinion of the majority of this House on Second Reading, a Bill that should

753
proceed as a Public Bill, but in view of Mr. Speaker's ruling it was necessary that we should take steps to put it in order.
We shall also take steps, as I indicated to the House yesterday—although I gather that there was a little noise going on at the time—to ensure the introduction of an amendment on Report which we believe will remove any element of doubt on the question of hybridity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Doubt?"] I understand that Mr. Speaker has ruled that there is doubt, and I accept that. If the House had listened a little more carefully to Mr. Speaker today it would have heard exactly what he said. Mr. Speaker did not say that this is a hybrid Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he did."] I am afraid that hon. Members have not followed the debate as closely as they should have done. What Mr. Speaker said again today was that the reason why he had ruled that this was a prima facie case of hybridity was that there was doubt. I say, as I said yesterday, that on Report we shall be able to remove that doubt by an amendment, if the House so wishes, and the House will be able to decide the matter.
I have no doubt that when again we proceed and allow the House to decide the matter, we shall have all the charges of dictation at the same time. What we are saying is that the House of Commons, at each stage, has the right to settle this matter. It is no good Opposition Members saying that we must abide by rules that do not exist in "Erskine May "or in any of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman said just now that the Government had felt obliged to devise a remedy. They did so in a very precipitate manner. What I want to know is what kind of precedent the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is setting for the future, and whether he thinks that it will be generally acceptable.
Mr. Foot: One of the reasons why we have put the motion down in this form is that it does not set any precedent for the future. It sets a precedent only if one has exactly similar conditions relating to the two industries concerned, and we specifically refer to them in the motion. So the idea that this changes
754
the whole rule about hybrid Bills, or anything of that sort, is completely invalid.
Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman says that there are no Standing Orders governing the business that we have before us in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, and that Standing Order No. 38 does not apply. Will he, therefore, say which are the Standing Orders relating to Private Business and the other such Standing Orders that the motion would dispense with?
Mr. Foot: The motion says
"consideration of the application of any such Standing Orders"
to this measure. What we say is perfectly clear. [HON. MEMBERS:" Answer."] Anyone who reads the Standing Orders for himself—and there must be very few hon. Members who have done that—will see that Standing Order No. 38——
Mr. Tebbit: Is that suspended?
Mr. Foot: Under the motion, if it is carried by the House, we say that "consideration of the application" of Standing Order No. 38 to this position will be dispensed with. We think that that is right, for the very reasons that I have described—that Standing Order No. 38, which has been invoked as the Standing Order to deal with this situation, does not deal with it at all.
Mr. Heseltine: If Standing Order No. 38 does not apply, why suspend it?
Mr. Foot: In order to be able to make quite clear to the House of Commons—[Interruption.] In order to be able to proceed with the Bill, which is necessary—[Interruption.] In order that the House of Commons should be able to proceed with this Bill and to introduce the amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheating."] The hon. Gentlemen who hurled that charge at me yesterday know perfectly well that it is false on every ground. They were called upon to withdraw it yesterday, and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) withdrew it. But I suppose that Opposition Members think that they will get a few more cheap headlines in the Tory Press by yelling it again.

755
People talk about the reputation of this House of Commons, but some Opposition Members ought to have a little more regard for what will be the reputation of the House of Commons—[Interruption.] Nothing could do more injury to the House of Commons than for people outside to hear that the jobs of workers in the shipbuilding and aerospace industries are put in jeopardy by a semi-drunken Tory brawl. What the House of Commons should do—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In the few remaining minutes, I hope that the House will come to order.
Mr. Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you heard the remark made by the Leader of the House—[interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening to a point of order.
Mr. Peyton: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you heard the audible remark made by the Leader of the House just now. I hope that you will order him to withdraw it, although it is typical of the kind of argument that we expect from him.
Hon Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to deal with the point of order. I know that the House will want to come to a decision on this matter in a few minutes. It is not in order to accuse anyone in this
place of being drunk. To a man in my position, to be semi-drunk is as bad as being drunk.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Foot: If you, Mr. Speaker, rule that being semi-drunk is as bad as being drunk, I suppose I have to withdraw. Yesterday, many Opposition Members tried to stop me speaking in the House when they were sober and tonight some have tried to stop me speaking when they are in a different condition, and that is perfectly parliamentary behaviour.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil tried to mislead the House as to what I said. He quoted some remarks that I made in the House on earlier occasions and tried to say that I was interfering with the rights of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman quoted what he thought I said on 17th February 1972 about the procedures of the House. I believe that the procedures of the House are here to protect not only Members of Parliament but the people outside, to look after their jobs and make sure that when we present to the country measures for dealing with these problems we should be able to get them on to the statute book, and not be thwarted by the Conservative Party.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 303.

Division No. 156.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Bryan, Sir Paul

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Aitken, Jonathan

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Alison, Michael

Budgen, Nick

Drayson, Burnaby

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Bulmer, Esmond

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Arnold, Tom

Burden, F. A.

Dunlop, John

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Durant, Tony

Awdry, Daniel

Carlisle, Mark

Dykes, Hugh

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Carson, John

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Baker, Kenneth

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Banks, Robert

Channon, Paul

Elliott, Sir William

Beith, A. J.

Churchill, W. S.

Emery, Peter

Bell, Ronald

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Benyon, W.

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Eyre, Reginald

Berry, Hon Anthony

Clegg, Walter

Fairgrieve, Russell

Biffen, John

Cockcroft, John

Farr, John

Biggs-Davison, John

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Fell, Anthony

Blaker, Peter

Cope,John

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Body, Richard

Cordle, John H.

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Cormack, Patrick

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Bottomley, Peter

Corrie, John

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Costain, A. P.

Forman, Nigel

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Bradford, Rev Robert

Crawford, Douglas

Fox, Marcus

Braine, Sir Bernard

Critchley, Julian

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Brittan, Leon

Crouch, David

Freud, Clement

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Crowder, F. P.

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Brotherton, Michael

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Gardner. Edward (S Fylde)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

MacCormick, Iain

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

McCrindle, Robert

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Glyn, Dr Alan

McCusker, H.

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Macfarlane, Neil

Royle, Sir Anthony

Goodhart, Philip

MacGregor, John

Sainsbury, Tim

Goodhew, Victor

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Goodlad, Alastair

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Scott, Nicholas

Gorst, John

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Madel, David

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Marten, Neil

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Gray, Hamish

Mates, Michael

Shepherd, Colin

Grieve, Percy

Mather, Carol

Shersby, Michael

Griffiths, Eldon

Maude, Angus

Silvester, Fred

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Sims, Roger

Grist, Ian

Mawby, Ray

Sinclair, Sir George

Grylls, Michael

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Skeet, T. H. H.

Hall, Sir John

Mayhew, Patrick

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Speed, Keith

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mills, Peter

Spence, John

Hannam, John

Miscampbell, Norman

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Moate, Roger

Sproat, Iain

Hastings, Stephen

Molyneaux, James

Stainton, Keith

Havers, Sir Michael

Monro, Hector

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hawkins, Paul

Montgomery, Fergus

Stanley, John

Hayhoe, Barney

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Henderson, Douglas

Morgan, Geraint

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Heseltine, Michael

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Hicks, Robert

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Stokes, John

Higgins, Terence L.

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

Holland, Philip

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Hooson, Emlyn

Mudd, David

Tapsell, Peter

Hordern, Peter

Neave, Airey

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Nelson, Anthony

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Neubert, Michael

Tebbit, Norman

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Newton, Tony

Temple-Morris, Peter

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Nott, John

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Onslow, Cranley

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Hunt, John

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Hurd, Douglas

Osborn, John

Thompson, George

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Page, John (Harrow West)

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Townsend, Cyril D.

James, David

Paisley, Rev Ian

Trotter, Neville

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

Pardoe, John

Tugendhat, Christopher

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Parkinson, Cecil

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Penhaligon, David

Viggers, Peter

Jopling, Michael

Percival, Ian

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Wakeham, John

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Pink, R. Bonner

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Kershaw, Anthony

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Kilfedder, James

Prior, Rt Hon James

Wall, Patrick

Kilfeddcr, James

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Walters, Dennis

Kimball, Marcus

Raison, Timothy

Warren, Kenneth

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Rathbone, Tim

Watt, Hamish

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Weatherill, Bernard

Kirk, Sir Peter

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Wells, John

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Welsh, Andrew

Knox, David

Reid, George

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Lamont, Norman

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Wiggin, Jerry

Lane, David

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Wigley, Dafydd

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Winterton, Nicholas

Lawrence, Ivan

Ridsdale, Julian

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Lawson, Nigel

Rifkind, Malcolm

Younger, Hon George

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Lloyd, Ian

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Loveridge, John

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Mr. Spencer le Marchant and Mr. Jim Lester.

Luce, Richard

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

NOES

Abse, Leo

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Bishop, E. S.

Allaun, Frank

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Anderson, Donald

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Archer, Peter

Bates. Alf

Boardman, H.

Armstrong, Ernest

Bean, R. E.

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Ashley, Jack

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Ashton, Joe

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Bidwell, Sydney

Bradley, Tom

758

759

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Grant, John (Islington C)

Molloy, William

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Grocott, Bruce

Moonman, Eric

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Hardy, Peter

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Buchan, Norman

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Buchanan, Richard

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Moyle, Roland

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Hatton, Frank

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Newens, Stanley

Campbell, Ian

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Noble, Mike

Canavan, Dennis

Heffer, Eric S.

Oakes, Gordon

Cant, R. B.

Hooley, Frank

Ogden, Eric

Carmichael, Neil

Horam, John

O'Halloran, Michael

Carter, Ray

Howell, Rt Hon Denis

Orbach, Maurice

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Cartwright, John

Huckfield, Les

Ovenden, John

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Owen, Dr David

Clemitson, Ivor

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Padley, Walter

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Palmer, Arthur

Cohen, Stanley

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Park, George

Coleman, Donald

Hunter, Adam

Parker, John

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Parry, Robert

Concannon, J. D.

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Pavitt, Laurie

Conlan, Bernard

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Perry, Ernest

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Phipps, Dr Colin

Corbett, Robin

Janner, Greville

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Prescott, John

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Crawshaw, Richard

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Price, William (Rugby)

Cronin, John

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Radice, Giles

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

John, Brynmor

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Cryer, Bob

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Davidson, Arthur

Kaufman, Gerald

Robinson, Geoffrey

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Kelley, Richard

Roderick, Caerwyn

Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)

Kerr, Russell

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Rooker, J. W.

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Kinnock, Neil

Roper, John

Deakins, Eric

Lambie, David

Rose, Paul B.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Lamborn, Harry

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Lamond, James

Rowlands Ted

Dempsey, James

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Sandelson, Neville

Doig, Peter

Leadbitter, Ted

Sedgemore, Brian

Dormand, J. D.

Lee,John

Selby, Harry

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Seldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Dunn, James A.

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Dunnett, Jack

Lipton, Marcus

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Litterick, Tom

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Eadie, Alex

Lomas, Kenneth

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Edge, Geoff

Loyden, Eddie

Sillars, James

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Luard, Evan

Silverman, Julius

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Skinner, Dennis

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Small, William

English, Michael

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Ennals, David

McCartney, Hugh

Snape, Peter

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

McElhone, Frank

Spearing, Nigel

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Spriggs, Leslie

Evans, John (Newton)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Stallard, A. W.

Ewing Harry (Stirling)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Faulds, Andrew

Mackintosh, John P.

Stoddart, David

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Maclennan, Robert

Stott, Roger

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Strang, Gavin

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

McNamara, Kevin

Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.

Flannery, Martin

Madden, Max

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Magee, Bryan

Swain, Thomas

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mahon, Simon

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Ford, Ben

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Forrester, John

Marks, Kenneth

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Marquand, David

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

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

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Tierney, Sydney

Freeson, Reginald

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Tinn, James

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Tomlinson, John

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Tomney, Frank

George, Bruce

Meacher, Michael

Torney, Tom

Gilbert, Dr John

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Tuck, Raphael

Ginsburg, David

Mendelson, John

Urwin, T. W.

Golding, John

Mikardo, Ian

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Gould, Bryan

Millan, Bruce

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Gourlay, Harry

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

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

Graham, Ted

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

760

761

Ward, Michael

Whitlock, William

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Watkins, David

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Woodall, Alec

Watkinson, John

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Woof, Robert

Weetch, Ken

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Weitzman, David

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Wellbeloved, James

Williams, Sir Thomas

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

White, James (Pollok)

Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. James Hamilton.

Whitehead, Phillip

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Mr. Speaker: I am following the precedent laid down by Mr. Speaker Denison, a precedent which has been followed to this time. He said that the principle of the Question upon which he was called upon to give his casting vote was one of great importance, and, if affirmed by a majority of the House, it would have much force. It should, however, be affirmed by a majority of the
House, and not merely by the casting vote of its presiding officer. For these reasons, my vote has to go with the Noes and I declare that the Noes have it.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 303.

Division No. 157.]

AYES

[10.17 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Allaun, Frank

Dalyell, Tam

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Anderson, Donald

Davidson, Arthur

Hatton, Frank

Archer, Peter

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Armstrong, Ernest

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Ashley, Jack

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Heffer, Eric S.

Ashton, Joe

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Hooley, Frank

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Deakins, Eric

Horam, John

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Howell, Rt Hon Denis

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Dempsey, James

Huckfield, Les

Bates, Alf

Doig, Peter

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Bean, R. E.

Dormand, J. D.

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Bidwell, Sydney

Dunn, James A.

Hunter, Adam

Bishop, E. S.

Dunnett, Jack

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Blenkinsop. Arthur

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Boardman, H.

Eadie, Alex

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Edge, Geoff

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Janner, Greville

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Bradley, Tom

English, Michael

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ennals, David

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

John, Brynmor

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Evans, John (Newton)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Buchan, Norman

Ewing Harry (Stirling)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Buchanan, Richard

Faulds, Andrew

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Kaufman, Gerald

Casllaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Kelley, Richard

Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton & P)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Kerr, Russell

Campbell, Ian

Flannery, Martin

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Canavan, Dennis

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Kinnock, Neil

Cant, R. B.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lambie, David

Carmichael, Neil

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Lamborn, Harry

Carter, Ray

Ford, Ben

Lamond, James

Carter-Jonas, Lewis

Forrester, John

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Cartwright, John

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin

Leadbitter, Ted

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

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

Lee, John

Clemitson, Ivor

Freeson, Reginald

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Cohen, Stanley

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Coleman, Donald

George, Bruce

Lipton, Marcus

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Gilbert, Dr John

Litterick, Tom

Concannon, J. D.

Ginsburg, David

Lomas, Kenneth

Conlan, Bernard

Golding, John

Loyden, Eddie

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Gould, Bryan

Luard, Evan

Corbett, Robin

Gourlay, Harry

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Graham, Ted

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Crawshaw, Richard

Grant, John (Islington C)

McCartney, Hugh

Cronin, John

Grocott, Bruce

McElhone, Frank

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Cryer, Bob

Hardy, Peter

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Mackintosh, John P.

Pendry, Tom

Swain, Thomas

Maclennan, Robert

Perry, Ernest

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Phipps, Dr Colin

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

McNamara, Kevin

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Madden, Max

Prescott, John

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Magee, Bryan

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Price, William (Rugby)

Tierney, Sydney

Mahon, Simon

Radice, Giles

Tinn, James

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Tomlinson, John

Marks, Kenneth

Richardson, Miss Jo

Tomney, Frank

Marquand, David

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Torney, Tom

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Tuck, Raphael

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Urwin, T. W.

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Robinson, Geoffrey

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Maynard, Miss Joan

Roderick, Caerwyn

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Meacher, Michael

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

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

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Mendelson, John

Rooker, J. W.

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Mikardo, Ian

Roper, John

Ward, Michael

Millan, Bruce

Rose, Paul B.

Watkins, David

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Watkinson, John

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Rowlands, Ted

Weetch, Ken

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Sandelson, Neville

Weitzman, David

Molloy, William

Sedgemore, Brian

Wellbeloved, James

Moonman, Eric

Selby, Harry

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

White, James (Pollok)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Whitehead, Phillip

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Whitlock, William

Moyle, Roland

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Newens, Stanley

Sillars, James

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Noble, Mike

Silverman, Julius

Williams, Sir Thomas

Oakes, Gordon

Skinner, Dennis

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Ogden, Eric

Small, William

Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

O'Halloran, Michael

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Orbach, Maurice

Snape, Peter

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Spearing, Nigel

Woodall, Alec

Ovenden, John

Spriggs, Leslie

Woof, Robert

Owen, Dr David

Stallard, A. W.

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Padley, Walter

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Palmer, Arthur

Stoddart, David

Park, George

Stott, Roger

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Parker, John

Strang, Gavin

Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Harper.

Parry, Robert

Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.

Pavitt, Laurie

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

NOES

Adley, Robert

Carson, John

Fairgrieve, Russell

Aitken, Jonathan

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Farr, John

Alison, Michael

Channon, Paul

Fell, Anthony

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Churchill, W. S.

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Arnold, Tom

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sulton)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Awdry, Daniel

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Clegg, Walter

Forman, Nigel

Baker, Kenneth

Cockcroft, John

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Banks, Robert

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Fox, Marcus

Beith, A. J.

Cope, John

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Bell, Ronald

Cordle, John H.

Freud, Clement

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Cormack, Patrick

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Benyon, W.

Corrie, John

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Costain, A. P.

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Biffen, John

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Biggs-Davison, John

Crawford, Douglas

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Blaker, Peter

Critchley, Julian

Glyn, Dr Alan

Body, Richard

Crouch, David

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Crowder, F. P.

Goodhart, Philip

Bottomley, Peter

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Goodhew, Victor

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Goodlad, Alastair

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Gorst, John

Bradford, Rev Robert

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Drayson, Burnaby

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Brittan, Leon

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Dunlop, John

Gray, Hamish

Brotherton, Michael

Durant, Tony

Grieve, Percy

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Dykes, Hugh

Griffiths, Eldon

Bryan, Sir Paul

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Grist, Ian

Budgen, Nick

Elliott, Sir William

Grylls, Michael

Bulmer, Esmond

Emery, Peter

Hall, Sir John

Burden, F. A.

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Carlisle, Mark

Eyre, Reginald

Hampson, Dr Keith

764

765

Hannam, John

Maude, Angus

Scott-Hopkins, James

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Mawby, Ray

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Hastings, Stephen

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Havers, Sir Michael

Mayhew, Patrick

Shepherd, Colin

Hawkins, Paul

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Shersby, Michael

Hayhoe, Barney

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Silvester, Fred

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Mills, Peter

Sims, Roger

Henderson, Douglas

Miscampbell, Norman

Sinclair, Sir George

Heseltine, Michael

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Hicks, Robert

Moate, Roger

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Higgins, Terence L.

Molyneaux, James

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Holland, Philip

Monro, Hector

Speed, Keith

Hooson, Emlyn

Montgomery, Fergus

Spence, John

Hordern, Peter

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Morgan, Geraint

Sproat, Iain

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Stainton, Keith

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Stanley, John

Hunt, John

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Hurd, Douglas

Mudd, David

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Neave, Airey

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Nelson, Anthony

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

James, David

Neubert, Michael

Stokes, John

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

Newton, Tony

Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Nott, John

Stradling Thomas, J

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Onslow Cranley

Tapsell, Peter

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Oppenheim Mrs Sally

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Osborn, John

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Jopling, Michael

Page, John (Harrow West)

Tebbit, Norman

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Paisley, Rev Ian

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Pardoe, John

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Kershaw, Anthony

Pattie, Geoffrey

Thomas,Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Kilfedder, James

Penhaligon, David

Thompson, George

Kimball, Marcus

Percival, Ian

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Townsend, Cyril D.

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Pink, R. Bonner

Trotter, Neville

Kirk, Sir Peter

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Tugendhat, Christopher

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Price, David (Eastleigh)

van Straubenzee, W.R.

Knox, David

Prior Rt Hon James

Vaughan Dr Gerard

Lamont, Norman

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Viggers, Peter

Lane, David

Raison, Timothy

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rathbone, Tim

Wakeham, John

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Rawlinson Rt Hon Sir Peter

Walder David (Clitheroe)

Lawrence, Ivan

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Lawson, Nigel

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Reid, George

Wall, Patrick

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Ronton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Walters, Dennis

Lloyd, Ian

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Warren, Kenneth

Loveridge, John

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Watt, Hamish

Luce, Richard

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Weatherill, Bernard

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Ridsdale, Julian

Wells, John

MacCormick, Iain

Rifkind, Malcolm

Welsh, Andrew

McCrindle, Robert

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

McCusker, H.

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Wiggin, Jerry

Macfarlane, Neil

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Wigley, Dafydd

MacGregor, John

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Winterton, Nicholas

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Younger, Hon George

Madel, David

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Royle, Sir Anthony

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Marten, Neil

Sainsbury, Tim

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

Mates, Michael

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Mather, Carol

Scott, Nicholas

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That, in view of the serious consequences to the industries concerned and for those
766
employed in them of further delay and uncertainty, in relation to the proceedings on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, any Standing Orders relating to Private Business, and consideration of the application of any such Standing Orders, are dispensed with.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (STANDING ORDERS)

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Ellis.]
  Grave disorder having arisen in the House, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 26 (Power of Mr, Speaker to adjourn House or suspend sitting), suspended the sitting for 20 minutes.
  Sitting suspended at 10.34 p.m.
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There have been scenes of grave disorder here tonight. I adjourn the House, without Question put, until tomorrow.
  Adjourned at six minutes to Eleven o'clock without Question put.

  IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE (PROCEDURES)
  IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE (PROCEDURES)
  CRIMINAL APPEAL OFFICE
  CRIMINAL APPEAL OFFICE
  MR. FREDERICK CHEESEMAN AND MR. ANDRÉ THORNE
  MR. FREDERICK CHEESEMAN AND MR. ANDRÉ THORNE
  WASHINGTON NEW TOWN
  WASHINGTON NEW TOWN
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  STIRLING
  STIRLING
  SOHO
  SOHO
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  NEW COMMONWEALTH
  NEW COMMONWEALTH
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
  UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  LEGAL PROFESSION (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  LEGAL PROFESSION (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  ROME
  ROME
  RAMSGATE
  RAMSGATE
  CABINET (COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY)
  CABINET (COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  EAST COAST OF SCOTLAND
  EAST COAST OF SCOTLAND
  OVERSEAS STUDENTS' FEES
  OVERSEAS STUDENTS' FEES
  SOUTH AFRICAN DIPLOMAT
  SOUTH AFRICAN DIPLOMAT
  HONOURS LIST
  HONOURS LIST
PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  Television Receivers
  Television Receivers
  Royal Gallery
  Royal Gallery
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Refreshment Department
  Refreshment Department
  Dining Rooms
  Dining Rooms
  Food Prices and Sources
  Food Prices and Sources
  Strawberry Teas
  Strawberry Teas
ENERGY
  Electricity Supply
  Electricity Supply
  North Sea Gas
  North Sea Gas
  Power Stations (Fuel Consumption)
  Power Stations (Fuel Consumption)
  State Corporations (Fair Trading)
  State Corporations (Fair Trading)
  ICI (Gas Supply Contract)
  ICI (Gas Supply Contract)
  Oil Royalties
  Oil Royalties
  Gas Prices
  Gas Prices
  Electricity and Gas Showrooms (Mergers)
  Electricity and Gas Showrooms (Mergers)
  North Sea Oil (Licensing)
  North Sea Oil (Licensing)
  Oil Industry (Government Participation)
  Oil Industry (Government Participation)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions
  Pensions
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Handicapped Persons (Postal Votes)
  Handicapped Persons (Postal Votes)
  Immigrants' Dependants
  Immigrants' Dependants
  Members of Parliament (Security)
  Members of Parliament (Security)
  Television (Advertising)
  Television (Advertising)
  Television (Films)
  Television (Films)
  Film Censorship
  Film Censorship
  Immigration
  Immigration
  European Community
  European Community
  Italians
  Italians
ENVIRONMENT
  Rubbish Disposal (Surrey Docks)
  Rubbish Disposal (Surrey Docks)
  Ridgebacks Cricket Club
  Ridgebacks Cricket Club
  Roads and Waterways (Expenditure)
  Roads and Waterways (Expenditure)
  Dangerous Substances (Storage)
  Dangerous Substances (Storage)
  Railways (Industrial Disputes)
  Railways (Industrial Disputes)
  Football Grounds (Safety)
  Football Grounds (Safety)
  A59 (Burscough Bridge)
  A59 (Burscough Bridge)
  Petroleum (Lead Content)
  Petroleum (Lead Content)
  House Building
  House Building
  A57 (Accidents)
  A57 (Accidents)
  Transport Policy (Consultative Document)
  Transport Policy (Consultative Document)
  Commonwealth Games 1982
  Commonwealth Games 1982
  Calcium Chloride
  Calcium Chloride
  Local Government Finance (Layfield Report)
  Local Government Finance (Layfield Report)
  Schools (Rating)
  Schools (Rating)
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Aerosols
  Aerosols
  Road Planning (Inquiry Procedure)
  Road Planning (Inquiry Procedure)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Fat Cattle Certification (Northern Ireland)
  Fat Cattle Certification (Northern Ireland)
  Milk
  Milk
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Pigs ("Mad Itch")
  Pigs ("Mad Itch")
  Whales
  Whales
  Poultry Meat (European Community Directives)
  Poultry Meat (European Community Directives)
  Beef (Imports)
  Beef (Imports)
  Cattle (Export to Italy)
  Cattle (Export to Italy)
  Butter (Intervention Prices)
  Butter (Intervention Prices)
  Sugar Industry
  Sugar Industry
  Lime
  Lime
  Beef (Intervention Stocks and Prices)
  Beef (Intervention Stocks and Prices)
  Animals (Smuggling)
  Animals (Smuggling)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Invisible Exports and Overseas Borrowings
  Invisible Exports and Overseas Borrowings
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Rating Valuations (Yorkshire)
  Rating Valuations (Yorkshire)
  Tax Inspection (Information)
  Tax Inspection (Information)
  Married Man's Tax Allowance
  Married Man's Tax Allowance
  War Widows
  War Widows
  Cigarettes
  Cigarettes
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Alcoholic Drink Companies
  Alcoholic Drink Companies
  Tobacco Companies
  Tobacco Companies
  Farms (Taxation)
  Farms (Taxation)
  Social Wage
  Social Wage
  Wages (Tax Yields)
  Wages (Tax Yields)
  Farm Tenancies
  Farm Tenancies
  Invisible Earnings and £ Sterling
  Invisible Earnings and £ Sterling
  Overseas Investment
  Overseas Investment
  Foreign Exchange Market
  Foreign Exchange Market
  Bank of England Officials
  Bank of England Officials
  Living Standards
  Living Standards
  Government Debt
  Government Debt
  Industrial Wages
  Industrial Wages
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
  Commodity Markets (Speculation)
  Commodity Markets (Speculation)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Insured Workers (Scotland)
  Insured Workers (Scotland)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Invalid Care Allowances
  Invalid Care Allowances
  Pharmaceutical Companies
  Pharmaceutical Companies
  Pharmaceutical Products
  Pharmaceutical Products
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Economic Community
  Economic Community
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Departmental Staff (Pay)
  Departmental Staff (Pay)
  Unemployment Benefit (Fraudulent Claim)
  Unemployment Benefit (Fraudulent Claim)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Day Nurseries (Meal Charges)
  Day Nurseries (Meal Charges)
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Training Centres (Meals Charges)
  Training Centres (Meals Charges)
  Chief Medical Officer's Report
  Chief Medical Officer's Report
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Hospitals (Visiting Forces)
  Hospitals (Visiting Forces)
  Invalidity Pension
  Invalidity Pension
  War Pensioners (House Adaptation Grants)
  War Pensioners (House Adaptation Grants)
  Regional Health Authorities
  Regional Health Authorities
INDUSTRY
  Govan Shipbuilders Ltd. (Kuwait Order)
  Govan Shipbuilders Ltd. (Kuwait Order)
  Woollen Textiles
  Woollen Textiles
  HS146
  HS146
  Microelectronics
  Microelectronics
  Capital, Dividends and Investments
  Capital, Dividends and Investments
  Press Releases
  Press Releases
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
TRADE
  Film Industry (Working Party's Report)
  Film Industry (Working Party's Report)
  Imports
  Imports
  Exports
  Exports
  Commodity Prices
  Commodity Prices
  Copper Prices
  Copper Prices
  Brazil
  Brazil
  European Community Directives
  European Community Directives
  Steel Sinks
  Steel Sinks
  Pilotage (Steering Committee's Report)
  Pilotage (Steering Committee's Report)
  Cattle (Export to Italy)
  Cattle (Export to Italy)
  Multinational Companies
  Multinational Companies
  Deficit
  Deficit
  Canning Town Glass Works Ltd.
  Canning Town Glass Works Ltd.
  Industrial Democracy (Report)
  Industrial Democracy (Report)
  State Corporations (Fair Trading)
  State Corporations (Fair Trading)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  "Crucifixion" and "Madonna and Child"
  "Crucifixion" and "Madonna and Child"
  Community Centres
  Community Centres
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Surrealist Paintings
  Surrealist Paintings
  Martime Museum Project (Liverpool)
  Martime Museum Project (Liverpool)
  Bournemouth (Schools)
  Bournemouth (Schools)
EMPLOYMENT
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Knowsley
  Knowsley
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  Earnings
  Earnings
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Wiltshire Army Cadet Force
  Wiltshire Army Cadet Force
  Departmental Staff (Cars)
  Departmental Staff (Cars)
  Departmental Staff (Flights)
  Departmental Staff (Flights)
  Low Flying
  Low Flying
  Aircraft Losses
  Aircraft Losses
  Barry Budden Range
  Barry Budden Range
  BAOR Personnel
  BAOR Personnel
  Officers' Pay
  Officers' Pay
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Namibia
  Namibia
  National Treasures
  National Treasures
  Radio Broadcasts (Jamming)
  Radio Broadcasts (Jamming)
  British Citizens Abroad (Repatriation Expenses)
  British Citizens Abroad (Repatriation Expenses)
  Passports (Non-Patrial British Holders)
  Passports (Non-Patrial British Holders)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Profits
  Profits
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Multinational Companies
  Multinational Companies
  Fuel Tariffs
  Fuel Tariffs
  Metrication
  Metrication
WALES
  Owner-occupation
  Owner-occupation
  Welsh Language Society
  Welsh Language Society
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
SCOTLAND
  Schools (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)
  Schools (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Terrorism (Statistics)
  Terrorism (Statistics)
  Security (Working Party)
  Security (Working Party)
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Direct Rule and Parliamentary Representation
  Direct Rule and Parliamentary Representation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Terrorist Activities
  Terrorist Activities
  European Community Grants
  European Community Grants
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  Security Operations
  Security Operations
  Economic Situation
  Economic Situation
  Employment
  Employment
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
  Community Associations
  Community Associations

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

POST OFFICE: MAIL COLLECTIONS
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give a direction to the Post Office to ensure that where there is no Sunday collection of mail, Saturday collections will be timed to take place not earlier than 2.30 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE. DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): No. my Lords. I will, however, draw this suggestion to the attention of the Post Office which will be reviewing the effect of this service change after a year.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for half of that reply, may I ask him to impress on the Post Office that a collection from local letter boxes at 9 a.m. is next best to useless if the delivery of letters does not happen until later in the morning? In many rural areas I think it is the opinion of most of us that people deserve a rather better service than this. even in difficult times.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords. I am sure that the Post Office will take note of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, can the Minister say at what point administration of the Post Office for which the Post Office are responsible ceases and public interest for which the Government are responsible commences? This seems to me to be a matter of public interest in which the Government should take some part.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, regarding the Government's power to give a general direction, to which this Question refers, the words in the Act, at any rate. are not, " public interest " but, " national interest ". I think that the noble Lord would agree that the question of what time collections are made from rural post offices is probably not a matter which is in the national interest, although I accept. and I am sure that the Post Office accept, that it is of considerable importance to people living in those areas.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, arising also from the Question and answers on this subject the other day. may I ask whether this is not a matter which is of great interest to everybody in the country, both private individuals and businesses? Can the noble Lord ask the Post Office whether they will consider the proposal that at least there should be some central collecting points where post can be delivered, can actually be posted. by the public, during the weekend?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, his noble friend Lady Young asked a similar Question last week, to which I replied last week. I said that I would ask the Post Office to write to the noble Baroness.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, does not the great barrage of Questions about the Post Office show that it was a great mistake to disturb the existing arrangement whereby the Post Office was part of the Civil Service and had a great and proud tradition?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, that may be a point of view and it is not for me to argue one way or another. The fact is that the Act has passed through both Houses of Parliament, and we must live with the position as it is today.

OVERSEAS REPRESENTATION: CPRS REPORT
11.10 a.m.
Lord MERRIVALE: 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 when it is expected that the Central

347
Policy Review Staff will complete their review of the priorities and requirements of our overseas representation; and

(a)whether they will carefully look into the question of over-staffing in some of our larger posts with a view to opening or re-opening smaller posts; and

(b)whether they will pay particular attention to the opening or reopening of smaller posts in the light of any existing economic potential or political desirability.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, we hope that the review will be completed early next year. In considering the most suitable, effective and economic means of representing and promoting our interests overseas the CPRS will have regard to all relevant factors, including those mentioned by the noble Lord in his Question.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Could the review body look very carefully into the desirability, particularly on political grounds, of reopening our Embassy in Madagascar? For in spite of a politique d'ouverture tous azimuts on the part of the Government there, there has been an increase in Russian influence and less Chinese influence, and a very recent anti-Western Powers and anticapitalist States campaign throughout the Press, the television, and radio. Furthermore, would the noble Lord not agree that due to a switch from an Embassy to an honorary consulate we have lost influence there, and possibly status too?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, as with a number of Questions that have been asked of this House in recent weeks, this concerns public expenditure. Savings have to be made, and therefore we have to look very seriously at our representation overseas, but we have clearly too to bear in mind the disadvantages of any particular saving. The noble Lord has expressed his view on many occasions. He may be aware that Sir Kenneth Berrill, the head of CPRS, invited members of the public to make representations to this inquiry, and I understand that over 100 companies and individuals have already done so. I suggest to the noble Lord that he might
348
like to make his own submissions direct to Sir Kenneth Berrill.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, the conclusions of the Duncan and Plowden inquiries into our overseas representation were published. Will the report of the Central Policy Review Staff be published?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, when he was Foreign Secretary, said that this was under consideration, but that a report would be given to Parliament. As I say, whether the full report is published is still subject to consideration, and I suppose must depend on the way in which the report is written and what can be disclosed and what should not be disclosed.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the sooner we abandon this folie de grandeur of our great imperial past and realise the limitations of our power in the world today, the sooner we would solve our home economic problems?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the purpose of overseas representation is not only to show the flag, it is also to provide political and economic information, and to be of service particularly to those who are exporters. That is why I believe that we should look very carefully not only at our representation but at the type and class of it.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the help that business finds from our various representatives in Government service has improved so much over recent years that it would be a pity to give any sort of impression that we are dissatisfied with it on any great scale?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend was in any way suggesting that. I am glad that the noble Lord has paid tribute to what our Embassies and High Commissions do, often under very difficult circumstances.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord—I wonder whether this is a matter for the Government or for the Review Body—if there are not implications for this country of not having an

349
Embassy in, for example, Gabon, despite the fact that the Government of Gabon have one here? Are there not certain repercussions from the fact that we do not have one? I feel that this is a matter which should be considered by the Government because it has political implications.
Lord SHEPHERD: This is clearly a matter for the Government, my Lords, but at the moment we are awaiting the report of the CPRS and, on the basis of that report, we shall make a judgment. I hope the noble Lord and his noble friends will remember the pleas that they are making about public expenditure; there is not a day when we do not get pleas from the other side of the House for increased public expenditure, which flies contrary to their public posture.

DISABLED PERSONS: LOCAL AUTHORITY SURVEYS
11.15 a.m.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the surveys undertaken by local authorities under Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, and whether they consider the information gained from those surveys to be of sufficient quality to enable local authorities to plan the provision of their services for disabled people.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the purpose of the surveys was to enable local authorities to estimate the extent and scope of services required in their area; they have been a useful planning tool but do not of course obviate the need for continuing action to identify individual people needing particular services.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether it is a fact that, without the full implementation of Section 1, the benefits outlined in Section 2, and in some cases social service benefits, will never reach those for whom they are intended, and because of their disabilities
350
the disabled and especially the mentally handicapped have been unable to claim their due share of the resources?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not accept that there has not been a full implementation of Section 1. The very nature of Section 1 lays a duty on the local authority to ascertain in its area the needs of people, and, first, to find out whether they are disabled in one form or another. It must of course be a continuing process, and in the year 1974–75 local authorities in England were able to add the names of 135,700 disabled people to their general class registers. This is a considerably higher number than was added in the previous year. At present there are about 580,000 people on the general class registers of local authorities, and this compares with 234,000 five years ago; so considerable progress is being made.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a number of authorities are not exercising the powers which they could exercise under the Act? What steps are being taken to ensure that councils appreciate that this is a very important matter for them to attend to?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, officials of my Department are constantly in contact with local authorities. if my noble friend has any concrete example of a local authority which is not facing up to its responsibilities, we should be glad to have it.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that all the local authorities have submitted surveys the completion of which is required of them under the Act, which was passed six years ago? If not, may I ask him to say which local authorities have so far failed to do so?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, since I do not happen to have it, I cannot give any information of the individual local authorities which may be behind with their surveys. However, if we do not get surveys at regular intervals from local authorities, we are in touch with them to ensure that we get them within a reasonable time.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, if local authorities do not co-operate—and I gather that there

351
are some local authorities which have not taken action which they should have taken —would it be a good idea to name them in this House?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: That is a matter of opinion, my Lords. One would first have to find out why the local authorities which are not meeting the requirements are unable to meet them. I think that all noble Lords are aware of the continued and continuous pressure which is today on local authorities, particularly the social services, and there is a limit to how far we can push them at the present time.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, now that Dr. Brown's report has been received and the Government have some idea of what has been done to date, may I ask the noble Lord to say what plans the Government have for implementing the report?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, on the survey by Dr. Malcolm Brown into the methods adopted by the former local authorities implementing Section 1, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has recently reviewed the first draft of the report of the Social Services Unit at Birmingham University which surveyed the action taken in 1971–72 by the former local authorities to inform themselves as to the extent of the disablement problem. At the present time we are considering the report and I hope that it will be possible to lay a copy of it in the Library of your Lordships' House as soon as any points of doubt on the draft have been resolved.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, does the Minister believe that some local voluntary groups which want to help the disabled people get as much assistance as they might from social services departments in finding out who are the people who need help? If the noble Lord does not think that that is happening, will he encourage social services departments to give more help to voluntary groups?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with great respect, it sounds as if that is a supposition. Many of your Lordships know that local authorities have used a number of voluntary organisations which are in touch with the people at all levels
352
in order to compile these surveys. I have no reason to believe that any local authority has rejected any help that voluntary organisations can give in this matter.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in view of the fact that local authorities are under very great pressure to cut their expenditure, will my noble friend consider sending a circular to local authorities saying that any cuts they make should not be at the expense of the services for the disabled?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the programme for personal social services, which is highlighted in the public expenditure White Paper (Cmnd. 6393), allows for a continuing implementation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Those of your Lordships who have read the Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England will know that the rate at which expansion is suggested for certain key services provided for under Section 2 of the Act has been increased for the forthcoming year by 9 per cent.

THE QUEEN'S VISIT TO NORTH AMERICA
11.22 a.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: 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 can confirm that Her Majesty the Queen has decided to travel in Concorde on her visit to North America, now that the aircraft has been granted a certificate of air worthiness.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, the Queen will be finishing Her tour of the United States in Boston, and the most convenient and obvious way of starting Her visit to Canada will be to travel by Britannia.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but I asked about the Queen's visit to North America, not to Canada. Is the noble Lord aware that I have received a

353
multitude of letters from BAC employees expressing their unhappiness and dissatisfaction at this decision? Is it too late for the Government to reconsider the decision? If they cannot reconsider it completely, perhaps there can be a compromise; for example, Her Majesty might fly at least as far as Bermuda?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that until the very last moment there have been legal doubts as to whether Concorde could fly to the United States. Fortunately this is now possible and we wish great success to both airlines which operate this aircraft. But when one is arranging a programme of this kind, one must make certain conjectures, and it was felt that in all the circumstances governing the visit to the United States and to Canada the Queen should arrive in the United States and in Canada on board Britannia. That was the reason the decision was taken. I understand the feelings of those, particularly in British Airways, who feel passionately about the success of this aircraft. But the decision was taken solely on the question of convenience.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. In view of the fact that Concorde is a joint venture. and bearing in mind that President Giscard d'Estaing has used the Concorde to fly to Zaire and for his recent visit to Washington, does the noble Lord agree that every opportunity should be sought so that in the not too distant future Her Majesty the Queen does fly in Concorde?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is not for me to suggest to Her Majesty what mode of aircraft she should use. But I have no doubt at all that one day Her Majesty will fly in Concorde.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Her Majesty is going to the United States as part of the Bicentenary celebrations and that she has decided, to the great satisfaction of the Americans, to go by boat along the historic route of the boats that travelled to Massachusetts 200 years ago? Is the noble Lord also aware that all this is part of the ceremony? Will he formally deprecate the use of the name of Her Majesty with regard to an invitation to advertise Colman's mustard,
354
Senior Service cigarettes, or even a British aeroplane?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Earl had that in mind. Those who seek to use the name of the Queen for any particular commercial advantage would, I think, be condemned by all in this House. My noble friend is quite right. The Queen is travelling on Britannia along the old route, and this is being very much appreciated in the United States.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, as an author of peace and a lover of Concorde, might I suggest that those who are seeking in this debate to promote it might inadvertently he doing the opposite by suggesting that Her Majesty would not want to travel on Concorde? We should conclude by agreeing that this magnificent plane is one in which we should all love to travel, and that everyone else in the world would probably like that opportunity, too.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Concorde is an aircraft in which almost everyone—at least those who enjoy flying would love to fly.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES &(No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
11.27 a.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend certain enactments relating to weights and measures; and to make provision for the alleviation of shortages of food and other goods. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill now be read la.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Baroness Birk to advance the Committee

355
stage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill from Thursday the 17th to Thursday the 10th of June next. —(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I must say that I regret that a misunderstanding has arisen. Unfortunately, it was not appreciated last night that it would not be satisfactory to advance the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill by a week, because it was not then realised that the Amendments would in all probability have to be put down today. I hope that the Government will appreciate the exigencies of the circumstances.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, there is, I think, a genuine misunderstanding on the part of noble Lords opposite. The Amendments can be put down during the Recess perfectly easily. The re-arrangement of Business was agreed through the usual channels after very careful consideration. The arrangement still leaves a whole month between Second Reading and the Committee stage of the Bill, and I think that that is quite sufficient.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I must point out that some noble Lords in this House wish to take their holidays and I believe that there is a genuine problem here. The arrival of the Whitsun Recess is normally a signal for the advancement of the Parliamentary programme into a different rhythm. We regret that the Government wish to take this step, and it would not be satisfactory to my noble friend Lady Young.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think that this is most unreasonable. It has all been agreed through the usual channels where the Business always is settled. If the noble Baroness wishes to take a 10-day Recess she still has a fortnight left in all. I happen to know that she was to be in the House on that day, in any case, and I think that the Motion should not be challenged.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does not my noble friend think that the easy way out of the difficulty would be
356
for the Opposition not to put down any Amendments?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONGENITAL DISABILITIES(CIVIL LIABILITY) BILL
11.30 a.m.
Lord STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill comes from another place where it was introduced as a Private Member's Bill by Mr. Ray Carter, whom I am sure we should all like to congratulate on recently becoming a member of the Government. If I may say so. Mr. Carter introduced, in a speech of most admirable clarity, what is a very complicated Bill; and, what is important, made it very clear that the Bill is one of limited scope and objective. It comes to this House from another place, where it had all-Party support as well as Government approval, and the Solicitor General was present to deal with the many legal difficulties that arose. After it had received its Second Reading, it was most exhaustively probed in Committee, when all proposed Amendments were withdrawn after discussion except for one Division, in which a proposed Amendment was defeated. It was again carefully considered on Report, when no Amendments were made except one to Clause 2, which was moved by the Solicitor General and accepted without a Division.
My Lords, public conscience was alerted and public anxiety directed to the situation of children born with deformities by the appalling tragedy of the thalidomide children, born with dreadful deformities because their mothers had taken the thalidomide drug, sold in this country by Distillers. Perhaps at the outset I ought to declare a financial interest, having for many years held shares in the Distillers Company. Possibly also it is relevant that, although I retired from active practice at the Bar in January 1964, 12 years ago, I had been acting professionally as counsel for the Distillers Company, or their underwriters, in relation to the thalidomide case.
A difficulty that arose in the thalidomide case was that there seemed to be some uncertainty as to what was the law with regard to a claim by a child born with a

357
deformity for damages where it could be proved on the child's behalf that the deformity was caused by some wrongful act affecting the parents' capability of bringing to birth a healthy child without that deformity. There was doubt whether in law the deformed child had any right to damages for the deformity from which it suffered as a result of that wrongful act committed before its birth. It was felt that it was absolutely essential that it should be clearly stated in a Statute what exactly the law is in this respect so far as births in the future are concerned. It is in order to achieve this, by clearly laying down what is the law, that the present Bill has been prepared.
It was with this end in view that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, then Lord Chancellor, on 20th November 1972, invited the Law Commission, under the provisions of Section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commission Act 1965, to advise him what the nature and extent of civil liability for ante-natal injury should be. In response to that invitation the Law Commission produced a most valuable report dated 14th June 1974, published as Command Paper 5709 in August 1974. In this report they examined with great thoroughness the legal and other problems that would be involved in creating a legal right in a child born with a disability to sue for damages a person whose wrongful act, committed before the child's birth, could be proved to have adversely affected the child's parents so as to give rise to the child's disability.
To give effect to their findings they annexed, in a schedule to their report, a draft Bill, upon which the Bill at present before your Lordships is based, although there are some departures in the present Bill from that prepared by the Law Commission. Before they prepared their report, they, in January 1973, circulated a working paper inviting an expression of opinion by distinguished lawyers, including the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Family Division, and a very wide range of medical opinion and of other organisations. Consultations and discussions took place orally between the Commission and many of those to whom the working paper was circulated, and extremely valuable advice was tendered to the Commission, none of it hostile to the general purpose underlying the preparation of legislation.
358
On the question of whether existing law provided a remedy, the Commission in paragraph 8 of their report (if I may quote their words) expressed it as their opinion,
" that it is highly probably that the Common Law would in appropriate circumstances provide a remedy for a plaintiff suffering from a pre-natal injury caused by another's fault ".
The Bill does not apply to Scotland, because the Scottish Law Commission was of the opinion that existing Scottish law clearly does, as it now stands, provide an appropriate remedy; so there is no need to seek to alter or clarify the existing law of Scotland by Statute.
It is not easy to form a view as to the scale of the problem. In paragraph 19 of their report the Law Commission say:
" We were told by the Medical Defence Union that there were 1,000 handicapped children born in the United Kingdom every week."
But this figure has been criticised as being too large; and whatever the figure should be, it is only in a comparatively small percentage of cases that the necessary connection between the child's disability and the ante-natal injury could be proved. But in paragraph 21 of the report of the Commission the Commission state that there are known to be about 1,500 drugs capable of injuring the foetus, the use of which in the treatment of pregnant women involves varying though usually slight degrees of risk. But apart from thalidomide, with its terrible effects, the drug stilboestrol if taken by pregnant women has been followed by the development of vaginal cancer in their adolescent daughters, and there are other dangerous drugs.
This Bill thus has a limited objective. It is to ensure that children born with a disability are to have a remedy in damages in cases when it can be affirmatively proved that their disability is attributable to a wrongful act committed before their birth, and to declare and adapt the existing general framework of our law so as certainly to produce that result. But before I invite attention to the actual provisions of the Bill designed to achieve this result I must refer to one other matter.
On December 19th, 1972, the then Prime Minister announced that a Royal Commission, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson,

359
was to be established to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into the question of civil liability for personal injury, including ante-natal injury. In a letter to The Times dated January 21st, 1976, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, acting in his capacity as chairman, raised objection to the introduction of the Bill then about to be introduced in another place on Second Reading. I confess to not having found it easy to understand exactly what is the basis of the objection. In his letter, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, pointed out—as I accept—that the Bill has a limited objective and probably will be of temporary application if the Royal Commission recommends changes in this branch of the law.
All this, the Promoters of the Bill accept, and, indeed, assert. The Bill in no sense pre-empts the scope of any recommendations that may be made by the Royal Commission. It is only intended to clarify and to make certain what the law is until changes, if any, are made as the result of the Royal Commission's findings. The Royal Commission's report, I understand, may be expected some time after the end of this year. Legislative changes to implement any of its recommendations may not be possible for months or even years after the report is completed. In particular, there is a general expectation that the Royal Commission will address itself to the question of whether in order to recover damages a person who suffers personal injury should have to establish that the injury was caused by somebody else's fault, or whether the injured person should be entitled to receive damages to compensate him for his personal injuries whether or not their infliction was occasioned by somebody else's fault. In other words, all that he would have to establish would be that he in fact had suffered the injuries, proof of which automatically entitled him to damages.
Personally I very greatly hope that the Royal Commission will come down in favour of a " no fault " right to compensation for injury, as it is called. I have always thought it utterly absurd that if, for example, an elderly person steps from the pavement in the path of an oncoming motor car and is run over, the question whether that person should recover substantial damages or nothing
360
should depend on whether or not, before stepping off the curb, he looked in the direction from which the car was coming; and that hours of the time of the court, judges, witnesses, counsel, solicitors and others should, day in, day out, be wasted in minute inquiries into questions of that sort, with the large expenditure involved which could much more sensibly be used for compensating the injured person.
I remember that at one time, it was, I should have thought, almost an even bet that if you entered a county court or a court of the Queen's Bench Division you would find that the court was trying this kind of fault issue in a personal injuries case or in a " running down " case, as cases involving injuries in which a motor car was involved were called. Perhaps I exaggerate, but, at any rate, much too much of the court's time was occupied in this way.
But if the Royal Commission, as I hope, recommends the " no fault " principle, how is it to be financed? Will some State insurance scheme have to be set up, or will it be operated through private insurance companies? It may take years before there gets on to the Statute Book legislation bringing any such scheme into operation. If there ever was any ground for the pre-emption argument raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, before the Bill received its unopposed Second Reading in another place, the argument is no longer maintainable now that the Bill is before your Lordships having, as I have described, passed through all its stages and having been most fully probed and examined in another place.
In a word, the Bill may be described as of temporary duration, and as limited in scope and designed to make sure that should, unhappily, there ever be another tragedy like the thalidomide case, the law clearly provides that the children who are the victims of that tragedy can obtain compensation for the disabilities they sustain. That was a major tragedy; but minor tragedies of that kind equally poignant can take place. Purely as an example, the case has been envisaged of a child born with disabilities because, long before birth, a hospital when giving a necessary and proper blood transfusion to the child's mother may have negligently used blood supplied by a syphilitic blood

361
donor. The child who in consequence suffers disabilities is given by the Bill the right to recover compensation.
That being its objective, the Bill's framework is as follows. It applies only in the case of children who are born alive after the Bill becomes law. Such children are given a right to compensation if they suffer from a disability caused by an occurrence which happens before their birth if the following characteristics apply to that occurrence. It must be an occurrence which constitutes a wrongful or tortious act committed by some person other than the child's mother, and which affects the capacity of either of the child's parents to have a normal healthy child, and which occurrence can be proved to have caused the child to suffer from a disability. The word " tort " is widely used to describe the wrongful invasion of another person's civil rights. For example, trespass, assault, negligent conduct causing damage to another person constitutes tort. There may also be breaches of a Statute designed to protect persons who would, or might, be injured by breach of a statutory provision which it creates. Whatever its form, in a given case there must be some occurrence constituting tortious behaviour on the part of some person towards one or both of the parents, affecting their capacity to produce normal healthy children.
In the case of the tort of negligence, the existing law provides that no tort is committed unless the negligent act results in damage caused to the person against whom the tort of negligence is committed. The Bill provides that in the case of negligence no such damage need have been caused and that all that needs to be shown is that the parents' capacity to produce a healthy child has been affected.
Ordinarily, the wrongdoer will be somebody outside the family circle—for example, the negligent hospital in the blood transfusion case which I envisaged —but, as the Bill is drawn, it could be anyone except the child's mother. It could be a brutal husband who assaults or injures the mother or a stranger who rapes the mother. These would be the rarer cases; but I hope the House will agree that it is right to exclude the mother. Theoretically, she could, by a wrongful act, affect the father's capacity to produce a healthy child. The Bill produced by
362
the Law Commission also excluded the mother from the category of potential wrongdoers. It was thought by those who prepared the Bill that the distress which would be occasioned if a child grew up believing that its disability was due to some wrongful ante-natal act committed by the mother against the child's father would greatly outweigh the advantage achieved by giving the child the right in law to recover compensation for its disability from the child's own mother. That is the basic framework on which the Bill is constructed, and it is contained in Clauses 1(1), (2) and (3).
I shall refer later to the question of the time within which, under our Statutes of Limitation, a child must bring its action; but this is somewhat complicated, although dealt with in Clause 1(3). It would be broadly true to state that the remaining provisions of the Bill deal with questions which arise as the result of the application of existing law to the basic framework which I have just described; and I shall shortly state how these provisions deal with those questions.
Clause 1(4) provides that an occurrence may be one which occurred either before or after the actual time of conception, but this, in the case of an occurrence taking place before conception, will not qualify as an occurrence giving the disabled child subsequently born a right to compensation if it could be established by those against whom the child makes its claim that, after that occurrence, the parents were aware that a risk was involved in the event of the child being conceived, except that the defence shall not be available when the father is the defendant and was aware of the risk but the mother was unaware of the risk.
This somewhat technical provision is in reality only an attempt to apply the well-known principle that damages cannot be obtained if it can be shown that the chain of causation between the act complained of and the damage in respect of which compensation is claimed has been broken by the intervention of some new happening—a "novus actus interveniens ", to use the Latin tag which is often employed—which can be pointed to as interrupting the flow of effect from cause, in the present context if, after the relevant occurrence, or tortious act, the parent or, if he is the defendant, the

363
father, were aware of the risk that would be involved if conception took place that would break the chain of causation. Apart from this, in so far as the child's right to compensation is concerned, it makes no difference whether the ante-natal occurrence is pre-conceptual or post-conceptual. It would be a mistaken view of the Bill to think that the child's right to compensation depends on the existence of, or damage to, a living foetus.
Clause 1(5) is designed to protect doctors from the risk of a multiplicity of actions by children, and provides that it will be an adequate defence if they have acted in accordance with the accepted medical opinion in treating or advising the child's parent. Clause 1(6) deals with the case where the parent has accepted some limitation of liability by a contract made by him or her of any liability to pay damages for injury caused to him or her, for example, in tickets issued for travel, admission to sports grounds and so on. As the child claims by virtue of the tort committed against the parent, the child will be bound by any exclusion clause in such a contract. This, again, is a branch of the law which in a sense may be said to be subject to review, as the Law Commission have recently published a report on so-called exemption clauses, recommending a number of changes. But in this temporary Bill it has been thought best to apply the existing law.
Clause 1(7) again deals with a practical question arising from the adaptation of existing law. Cases may arise in which the parent affected by the relevant antenatal occurrence may himself or herself have been in part responsible for the child being born disabled, because he or she was guilty of behaviour which was a contributory cause. In such a case subsection (7) provides that the damages recoverable by the child are to be reduced to such an extent as the court thinks just and equitable, having regard to the extent of the parent's responsibility.
Clause 2 deals with a special case in which a pregnant woman who knows, or ought reasonably to know, she is pregnant is driving a motor car. As T indicated, she can be under no liability under Clause 1, but Clause 2 contains an
364
exception to this general principle. She will in general be insured, and if she is not it may well be that the Motor Insurers Bureau would feel it right to treat her as insured. It was felt, as the Law Commission recommended, that she should be treated as being under the same duty to take care for the safety of her unborn child as she is to take care for the safety of other people. The Bill. as originally drafted, did not include the requirement that the mother should have been aware of her pregnancy, but on Report stage in another place the Solicitor-General moved an Amendment, which was accepted, that the mother should know, or ought reasonably to know, herself to be pregnant. Indeed, this was the only Amendment made to the Bill in all its stages through another place.
Without trespassing on the indelicate, it may not always be easy for a respectable lady to answer the question: " Did she on such a date know she was pregnant? " But it is to be hoped that in practice very rarely indeed will such a question be an issue to he decided before the courts and common sense will intervene. But on the general question whether, in these motor accident cases, a child affected by them should have a cause of action for damages even against its mother —which in effect means the insurers—there is, it is submitted, as a matter of humanity, a very strong case. It is submitted that any contrary argument should give way to the overriding consideration that the child who, through no fault of its own, suffers disability ought to be entitled to receive compensation.
Clause 3 provides that exposure, contrary to the prohibitions imposed by the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, of the child's parents to the effects of nuclear matter or ionising radiation, which affects the parents' capacity to produce a normal healthy child will give rise to a claim for compensation for disabilities sustained by the child of those parents as a result of that exposure. The 1965 Act imposes absolute liability not to cause such exposure, and a claim may be brought for breach of the prohibition within a period of 30 years from the exposure.
Clause 3 contains some other necessary adaptations to bring the provision in the 1965 Act within the general scheme of the Bill, and it is submitted that in order to

365
achieve the general objective of the Bill the extension of its provisions to disabilities suffered by children as the result of exposure of their parents to nuclear matter is clearly desirable. Clause 4 contains definitions which deal with some specific topics and I should refer to some of them. First, I think I should quote the definition contained in subsection (1), in wide terms, of the disability with which a child may be born. The definition is as follows:
" Any deformity disease or abnormality, including predisposition (whether or not susceptible of immediate prognosis) to physical or mental defect in the future ".
It is submitted that clearly the definition must be in very wide terms because it is in the nature of things impossible to foresee what form the disability may take.
Subsection (3) provides that the child is to be treated as having sustained its disability and loss immediately after its birth. This is for rather technical reasons, but it produces the result that, under our existing Statute of Limitation 1975, the child may bring its claim up to the time when he or she reaches the age of 21 or when he or she first knew, or could reasonably have known, that he or she had suffered injury and by whose fault, whichever is the later. It may seem hard that a potential defendant may have a claim hanging over him for very many years. But in this respect the Bill merely follows our existing law, although where a pre-conceptual ante-natal injury is involved, the time may be considerably longer. As against this however the longer the time goes by before a claim is actually brought, the more difficult it will be to prove, as evidence will probably have disappeared.
In practice a claim by a child is conducted by its " next friend " or person appointed by the court to have charge of the conduct of the proceedings on the child's behalf. Ordinarily the next friend would be the child's father or mother, although somebody else is chosen if the father or mother, as the case may be, are defendants in the action. Any decision to settle the action by way of accepting a compromise has to be approved by the court under Order 80, Rule 10, of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
There are only two more topics that I think I should mention. One is that
366
dealt with in subsection (4); namely, compensation for loss of expectation of life. It is in our law a well-recognised head of damage that if A, by his wrongful act, either brings about B's instantaneous death or causes him injuries which will result in his expectation of life being shortened, A is in the case of B's instant death liable to pay damages to B's estate and, in other cases, to B himself. This may not seem easy to fit logically into the scheme of the present Bill where the ante-natal injury causes the child, though born alive, to die almost at once, though not so difficult when the injury complained of by the child is a shortening of its expectation of life.
The draftsmen of the Bill have in these circumstances adopted what is in effect a compromise solution. The Bill provides that damages for loss of expectation of life owing to ante-natal injury may be recoverable by the child, but only if he survives for a period of not less than 48 hours after the birth.
The Royal Commission may well wish to reconsider the whole topic of damages for loss of expectation of life. In the meantime, the Law Commission in their Report on Assessment of Damages (No. 56) have proposed the abolition of the right to recover damages for loss of expectation of life, and in its place have proposed the creation of a specific right to recover damages for bereavement. This again must await any amending legislation based on the findings of the Royal Commission. In the meantime, it is submitted that the solution contained in subsection (4) of Clause 4 of this Bill is most practical and sensible for this temporary measure.
The final topic I would mention is that dealt with in subsection (5): it is that the operation of the Bill is limited to one generation. It is submitted that this also is a sensible and necessary limitation of the scope of the Bill. I commend the Bill as a measure of justice to children who, through no fault of their own, have suffered injury—sometimes, as in the thalidomide case, very serious injury indeed. Whatever its failings, it, as it were, holds the legal position for them until the law is more exhaustively revised and improved. As such, I ask your Lordships' House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him to clarify one point. This may be obvious to a lawyer but I am not a lawyer. The child can sue after the passage of the Bill: but has the occurrence got to occur after the passage of the Bill?
Lord STOW HILL: No, my Lords. The occurrence need not occur after the passage of the Bill. That was a problem which was discussed exhaustively in another place and objections were taken on the ground that retrospectivity is undesirable in itself. The answer which I would respectfully offer to the House is this. I agree that retrospectivity is undesirable in circumstances in which it properly applies. If I adjust my tax affairs in accordance with the existing law as I know it and I produce a certain result on my tax liability, it is obviously unfair after I have done that in accordance with the existing law if perhaps years afterwards there is a retrospective change made in the law relating to that aspect of tax affairs which produces an entirely different result from that which I achieved by applying the existing law. That consideration does not apply in this case. If one considers the provisions of the Nuclear Installation Act 1965, and the long period of exposure, it will be practically unworkable if there is not some measure of retrospectivity. I am grateful to the noble Lord for making the point. It is one which has caused anxiety. But I submit that this is a question of balance and, on balance, the answer I have given should come down in favour of that degree of retrospectivity which the Bill includes. I beg to move this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a —(Lord Stow Hill.)
12.8 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill for the characteristically lucid and thorough way in which he has explained the provisions of this Bill. I am pleased to welcome the Bill both personally and on behalf of the Government. The law governing liability for ante-natal injury has long been obscure, and the necessity for clarifying it has in recent years become all too sadly apparent.
368
The courts in this country have never had an opportunity to dispel the uncertainty. There has never been a case which has really made that possible. Indeed, the very uncertainty in the state of the law may itself have been, and in the future may continue to be unless we clarify it, a factor in preventing suitable and worthy cases from coming before the courts.
Following the public attention which was, not surprisingly, given to the thalidomide tragedy in 1972, as my noble and learned friend said, my predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, requested the Law Commission to undertake an urgent study of the difficult problems involved in this branch of the law. The Commission proceeded, as has been explained, to carry out very wide consultations with medical, insurance and legal experts of all kinds and only 18 months later, in June 1974, were able to produce their Report on Injuries to Unborn Children. I should like to pay tribute to the Law Commission for producing, in so short a time, so thorough and authoritative a Report, and also for annexing to it a draft Bill which is always one of the most valuable services that the Law Commission, in their reports, provide to Parliament.
The Bill now before the House, which very largely represents the proposals contained in the Law Commission's report, is, I believe, right both in its approach and in its scope. As my noble and learned friend has explained, it would enable a child who suffered a congenital injury as a result of another's fault to recover damages from the wrongdoer, subject to the usual defences available to a defendant in a tort action.
There is, plainly, a close relationship between this measure of law reform and the matters which are at present being considered by the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury. I have given consideration to this earlier, as has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, who is the Chairman of that Royal Commission. I am very pleased to see that he now appears in the list of speakers today, and we look forward to hearing his views. The possible overlap between the work of the Commission and this Bill was fully discussed in another place. The Royal Commission has undertaken a

369
wide-ranging review of the whole area of personal injury compensation, of which congenital injury forms but a small, though an important, part. I look forward as I am sure does the whole House, to the Royal Commission's proposals in relation to this and other branches of the law, and would always advise the House to look with disapproval on any measure which would adversely or unjustifiably impede or pre-empt the Royal Commission's work. In my view, this Bill does not present any such problem. It is a limited proposal based on the principles of tort liability, whose purpose is not to create new rights and duties or a novel regime of liability, but simply to clarify the present obscurity of the law.
It may well prove to be only an interim measure, and may be overtaken when the Royal Commission's Report is implemented. None the less, in my view, we ought not to postpone carrying and giving effect to this Bill. We do not yet know what the Royal Commission will propose, nor do we know when it will report. In any event, art appreciable time is hound to elapse before full implementation of its report will be possible. In the meantime, it is highly probable that children will suffer congenital disabilities, some of them as a result of another's fault. It would be wrong that they should face the present uncertainty in the law, given the opportunity which this Bill now provides to make clear, as a matter of law, what their rights are.
I must add that this Bill is limited in its scope, as my noble and learned friend has explained. Unhappily, many thousands of children are born deformed or defective each year, and it would only add to the burden which those children and their parents and others responsible for them already bear, if we were to give the impression that this Bill provides an easy answer to all their problems; obviously, it does not. In only a limited number of cases will it be possible to establish liability and recover damages. As has been explained, in all tort actions causation and fault must he proved in the state of the law as it exists at present, and the origin of many types of congenital disabilities cannot readily be established. Many children are born disabled as a result not of anyone's fault, but of circumstances beyond human control. Such children will not benefit directly
370
in any way from this Bill, and false hopes should not be raised. The most we can say is that, in making clear what the law is, a few children may benefit directly and others may be benefited indirectly, in that the clarity which the Bill will bring in place of the present uncertainty will at least enable those who cannot claim under it to know where they stand and to make plans for the future. But even to benefit a few children, disabled by the tortious fault of another, is a wholly and worthy legislative object.
It is indeed a modest claim that we make for the Bill, but its very modesty serves to show that we need not wait for the Royal Commission. It may be that in the future there will be a regime of compensation for personal injury which Will benefit children w hose disabilities cannot be shown to arise from the fault of another. But such a scheme is far beyond the limited scope of this Bill which. as I have said, is intended to clarify the law in this area of personal injury liability. More wide-ranging and fundamental reforms—for example, the imposition of" nu fault liability "—arc relevant to all forms of personal injury compensation, and resolution of the problems to which that proposal gives rise must await the conclusion of the Royal Commission's deliberations and be decided upon in that wider context.
Finally—and I wish to address the House only briefly on the Second Reading of this Bill—I am sure that the House would wish me to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill for taking up what I regard as this very useful law reform measure. I am very pleased that the primary responsibility for it rests in the hands of one whose widely reputed learning, thoroughness and expertise—and, not least, his humanity—has shone through his speech this morning. Those gifts will, I am sure, be of great benefit when we reach the Committee stage of the Bill. I accordingly have great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.
12.18 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I shall have to ask your Lordships to wait for a moment before we listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, whose views we are all very anxious to hear, because despite the

371
two admirable speeches to which we have listened I still have a few things to say about this Bill, though perhaps not as many as in some circumstances might be necessary. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has done such a thorough job in explaining it to us that none of that need be repeated, and I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving his views about the relationship of this legislation to the Report of the Royal Commission, when it comes.
Any of your Lordships who happened to be listening to the radio this morning may have heard a rather remarkable boy. He was one of the victims of thalidomide, but he certainly was not complaining about it. When one listened to the enormous—indeed, staggering—range of activities that he appeared to enjoy, one was at once very heartened. But, upon reflection, it occurred to me, at any rate, that the adaptation of the equipment and everything that he uses in the course of his life must he very expensive, and I do not suppose that the family of the boy has a great deal of money. There is, therefore, a practical purpose behind this legislation and for that reason, if for none other, I find it very easy to welcome.
Both noble and learned Lords who preceded me have said that, as it stands now, the law on this subject is uncertain. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor went on to say that it has been long obscure. It has always been obscure—except, apparently, in Scotland. Certainly South of the Border there has never been any decided case which deals with this matter. It is this fact more than anything else which persuades me that legislation is at this stage needed. In other countries there have been attempts by the courts in the course of litigation to specify what are people's rights. In Southern Ireland there has been legislation on the matter but in this country there has been no decided case. Perhaps of all the reasons which the Law Commission put forward in paragraph 110 of their report in support of the need to legislate now, this is the most important.
Not only is the law uncertain—and it would no doubt be very risky and expensive for any individual litigant to try to discover what his Common Law rights are
372
—but there is the corollary that upon the facts of any given case it is unlikely that one would get the answer to all the questions, because the facts simply would not cause all the questions to be asked, let alone answered. Those two points, very forcibly made by the Law Commission, seem to me most certainly to justify the introduction of legislation at this stage. In so recommending, the Law Commission have been very careful, so far as they can, to avoid conflicts.
There are a number of Law Commission reports with which provisions in this Bill potentially might conflict. There is a report by the Law Reform Committee and there is, of course, the forthcoming report of the Royal Commission. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, this Bill has been very carefully considered in another place and certainly the Law Commission themselves have taken full account of the possibility of a conflict with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, and his Committee. Paragraph 3 of their report deals with this possibility, and we know that the Government, when setting up both matters for consideration, had this in mind as well. I should very much like to hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say in a moment about this matter, because we should all be very concerned if he thought that there was some undesirable by-product from this legislation which would in some way curb what he and his committee might wish to report. Certainly, I should like to reserve judgment about anything that he says, because who better than the noble and learned Lord to tell us about these matters? At the moment, however, I am convinced by what is said by the Law Commission themselves, by what has been said in another place and by what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has told us this morning.
There is one point about this. Bill which is very evident. I do not wish again to go into all the details, but my noble friend Lord Hawke found that there was no easy answer to a question which, as a layman, he validly wanted to put. The reason for this is that the Law Commission have produced an incredibly dense piece of drafting—and by " dense " I do not mean stupid; on the contrary, the drafting is immensely acute. The Law Corn-mission have had to stitch this provision

373
into the Common Law so that it will knit together with other parts which in themselves are not static but flexible.
They have also had to fit this provision into the law of contract, in such cases as the exemptions clauses, and they have had to deal with a number of different questions of policy which are very finely balanced. For myself, I find it difficult to decide about the merits of Clause 2, the sole exception to the case which is general in the Bill that the tort committed by a mother will not give rise to liability that can be enforced by the child. It may be that we are trading upon the good nature of the Motor Insurance Bureau but fortunately we are lucky in having that institution to back up the compulsory third party insurance under the Road Traffic Acts, and I suspect that on balance the answer is right.
There is also the point of retrospectivity that my noble friend Lord Hawke raised. While I agree with the answer given to him by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, I would suggest to the House that there may be a further point in this respect. Whenever the event which turns out to have caused the injury may have occurred, if the Bill is merely clarificatory of the existing law then we are not creating a new right: we are merely explaining what in future may be the details of the enforcement of an existing right. And if the injury has already occurred before the Bill comes on to the Statute Book it would not follow that without the Bill it would not have been a case where the child could have sued. Therefore I find that this is a good deal less reprehensible than almost all other retrospective legislation.
There is only one other point I want to mention, and it is perhaps both general and also rather technical. One of the enormous advantages for everybody of the Law Commission's procedure is that not only do they produce a draft Bill at the back of their report but that they also put beside it explanatory notes. For those who are going to have to interpret the law—and, as I say, this Bill is very closely and cunningly constructed—those explanatory notes will be of immense value to text writers, but there is one practical problem. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has told us, there have been minor amendments to the Law Commission's text. I do not
374
think that any of them are of great substance but some of them are sufficient to change the nuances in the legislation from what it was that was explained by way of the notes on the Law Commission's report. I know of no device whereby amended explanatory notes can be produced so that an up-to-date version will be available to those who wish to use this Bill—as it will be when it has passed through Parliament.
Without having considered the matter too carefully, I would simply make one suggestion. I would not for a moment wish to incur the wrath of the noble Lord. Lord Shepherd, by suggesting that there should be extra public expenditure, but when, for instance. the Bill comes to be printed in the loose-leaf Statutes it might be that on that occasion loose leaf amended notes could go with it. I simply put it to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as a possible suggestion whereby we could get the maximum benefit from the work put in by the Law Commission. But that may not he possible.
With those comments, I would recommend from this side of the House that this Bill should indeed be given a Second Reading. We shall have to see whether there is anything left to deal with in Committee, because the Bill has already been very thoroughly discussed in another place.
12.29 p.m.
Lord PEARSON: My Lords, as your Lordships have been informed, I have to declare an interest or a special position as the Chairman of the Royal Commission to which reference has been made: the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury. I have to explain why the Royal Commission have had, and still have, some misgivings about this Bill in its effect on their work. Let me say at once that the explanations which have been given by my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill and by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor as to the limited scope and possibly merely temporary duration of the Bill when it has become an Act, are of great assistance to the Royal Commission. I appreciate the great value to us of what has been said and I shall come back to that later.

375
I have to begin by explaining the reasons for the misgivings which we have felt and still feel. I am in rather a difficult position, having to steer between Scylla and Charybdis and various other dangerous rocks and whirlpools. On the one hand, I must not try to anticipate or to forecast what will be the ultimate findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission. Any attempt to present any kind of controversial argument on any point would lack the necessary foundations and therefore must be completely ruled out. On the other hand, I have to explain the attitude of the Royal Commission and why they have not welcomed this Bill. It is because this Bill, on the face of it, pre-empts and pre-judges an important issue which is expressly within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission and is intimately associated with a number of other questions which we have to consider. Eventually we have to consider them altogether.
The principle of this Bill is to recognise and affirm and regulate the application of the action of tort to congenital disabilities caused by pre-natal injuries. There is considerable doubt whether congenital disabilities are a suitable field for the operation of the law of tort. I am not seeking to anticipate any conclusion of the Royal Commission. We may say that they are suitable, or we may not. If we come to the conclusion that they are a suitable field for the action of tort, then of course no major difficulty will arise, although there might still be some questions of minor detail to be considered. But if we come to the conclusion that the action of tort is not a suitable means for providing compensation in such cases, and that something wider and radically different is required, then we shall be in the awkward situation of having to recommend either the total repeal or drastic modification of an Act of Parliament only recently passed.
Therefore I would suggest to your Lordships that plainly this Bill could be an obstacle to the work of the Royal Commission. In order to show that this is not merely an academic point, and in order to make plain what the attitude of the Royal Commission is, and has been, I will read a passage from a letter which I wrote to The Times in January last after careful consideration and full approval
376
by the Commission as a whole. I said this:
" Parliament should also be made aware of the special objections which can be and have been urged against relying on the operation of the tort action in the field of ante-natal injuries:
First, according to the expert evidence which we have received it is only in the rarest of cases that even the physical cause of a congenital deformity can he ascertained, and even if that is ascertainable the plaintiff in an action of tort would still have to prove that the deformity was caused by fault, usually negligence, on the part of the defendant.
Secondly, thus the Bill, so far from dealing comprehensively with a widespread and highly distressing social problem, could result in compensation for no more than a minute proportion of the children concerned. The Bill therefore would raise many false hopes, not least by its very title.
Thirdly, there would still be delay and expense, especially in difficult and complicated actions.
Fourthly, the accusations and counter-accusations in such cases could have an adverse effect on family relations and on relations between doctors and patients. For example, in an action against a drug company or a doctor, the defence might allege that the damage to the unborn child was caused by the mother's own action such as smoking or drug addiction.
I hope it will be accepted that this Bill falls far short of providing a comprehensive solution to these problems. If it is passed, it will come into effect probably less than a year before the Royal Commission's report is presented, and that report may recommend a different system of compensation.
The Royal Commission understand why this Bill is being introduced but feel it right to draw attention to the complexities of the problem."
That is what was said in the letter. I do not wish to add anything to it, but I do wish to acknowledge now with warm appreciation that important assurances have been given. In short, they have been given first in another place and now in your Lordships' House. I understand the assurances to be to this effect, that the passing of this Bill will not be allowed to pre-judge or prejudice the consideration of the Commission's conclusions and recommendations when their report is made. I should refer also to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Law Commission's report, on which this Bill is based. I will read one sentence. They say this:
" It is our view that any legislation based on our proposals neither can nor should pre-judge the much wider issues which the Royal Commission is considering."
So my Lords, while we—the Royal Commission—do not like this Bill, we take comfort from the assurances that

377
have been given and we shall of course rely upon those assurances in forming our conclusions and making our eventual recommendation.
Lord BRADWELL: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I should like to ask one question. Would he consider that what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor called. " circumstances beyond human control ", would include the testing of nuclear devices, since a subject can now sue the Crown and the most expert geneticists have given it as their considered opinion that a calculable and definable number of babies are born blind or deformed as a result of these tests?
Lord PEARSON: My Lords, I can only assure the noble Lord that these very difficult problems are occupying the earliest attention of the Royal Commission, and we will certainly do our best to provide some more adequate and comprehensive remedy for what we fully appreciate are infinitely distressing cases—more comprehensive than would be provided by this Bill.
12.38 p.m.
The COUNTESS of LOUDOUN: My Lords. I must confess to having had grave misgivings when I first read this Bill, hut having carefully gone through all the stages of its progress through another place I find that now many of my fears have been allayed.
This Bill will confer clear legal rights on children who are injured before birth; those whose disabilities can be shown to result from a pre-natal event caused by the fault of another. It will not assist those whose disabilities result from inherited characteristics or natural illness or pure accident. It will not assist those whose disabilities result from unidentifiable causes. So it is a modest Bill, and certainly it will have a limited scope. Only a small number of children will benefit from it directly, but the very fact that damages will be awarded to them will draw attention to the severity of the problems of all disabled children.
What are some of the arguments against this Bill? Some people object to it on the ground that litigation by families will cause distress. but the Bill compels no
378
one to sue; it merely gives the opportunity to those who wish to do so. It has also been claimed that the Bill, which will help a small minority of handicapped children, will jeopardise the long-term interests of the majority.
Here. I should like your Lordships to consider the thalidomide campaign and the financial benefits that stemmed from it. It was as a direct result of this campaign and the pressure it generated that the Rowntree Trust was set up, and £3 million was allocated to help all disabled children throughout Britain. This is still continuing, with more money being allocated all the time to help these children. In the three years since it was launched, this Trust has helped some 22,000 families at a cost of over £6 million: so many more than the original thalidomide victims have benefited.
My Lords, we are all waiting anxiously the report of the Pearson Royal Commission on Civil Liabilities. It may be some time before we receive this report and for the subsequent legislation to be enacted. Meanwhile, some children will have no legal redress for injuries. Surely, anything that extends the rights of disabled children is to be welcomed, however limited it may be. The system of no-fault liability, a very firm and more equitable system, is one which I favour, as did many of my friends interested in the question of disabled children. This system has been working very well for some time in New Zealand, and I very much hope that eventually we will be in a position to adopt it here; but this is very much in the future. In the meantime, the Bill before us, despite its limitations and drawbacks, may help a number of disabled children, small though that number may be. I do hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading today.
12.42 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, it may seem very rash of me to rise to speak on a subject which so far has been discussed, with the exception of the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, who has just sat down, entirely by distinguished and learned lawyers, but in a way it is particularly for that reason that I felt that as a doctor perhaps I should get up and say something. To me, this Bill presents enormous

379
difficulties. It presents difficulties of proof as to whether the disability was or was not done by the supposed tort, and difficulties as to what is a tort in these circumstances. I was pleased to hear the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, who carefully did not come to any final conclusion but begged to doubt whether adjustments to the law of tort were a relevant way of dealing with the question of congenital deformities and disabilities.
My Lords, one difficulty which I think can be rapidly got out of the way, although it cannot be answered, is the question of the Statute of Limitations. Do I understand that a doctor who took a certain action, perhaps X-raying a pregnant woman at a very early stage of the pregnancy, must keep his records for 21 years in case some deformity or congenital disease develops in the child? Is he under possible threat of litigation for the whole of that time? I agree with anyone who says that this is a very difficult Bill to read. It seems to me that Clause 1(3) leaves this matter very obscure, but I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, referred to a period of 21 years. However, that is just one of the difficulties.
As to what is tort and what is not, I am not a lawyer, and am not arguing this from the legal point of view, but I should like to give your Lordships one or two examples. An example which I know only too well is that of a woman who developed rubella, or German measles, at a very early stage of the pregnancy. She consulted a very distinguished obstetrician who advised that the chances of any disability were small, that the pregnancy should go on and should not be terminated. The child was in fact born deaf, with all the disabilities and sadnesses that follow such an incident. Was that doctor committing what I understand is called a tortious act when he gave that advice? Your Lordships may say that the answer is simple, but I do not think it is simple at all. I think it is a case which might well be fought in court. Having been fought, is it then going to have the repercussion of possibly influencing a doctor's advice because behind him he knows there is this Bill which may lead him into trouble if he does not give advice in accordance with what seems to be the recognised view? There is no end to this, because in bio-
380
logical matters, there is no beginning and there is no end. The consultation might have taken place a little further on in the pregnancy, and then the doctor's advice might have to be different in order that he could not be sued for giving wrong advice. What happens if a child is invited to a party, and the person giving the party fails to disclose that one of the children in the party is in quarantine for rubella, and the mother of the other child develops it, with the possible consequences? Is that a tortious act, or is it not?
Then there are all kinds of modern ways, really remarkable ways, of finding out from examination of the fluid which surrounds the unborn child, and by other means (X-rays and so on), the state of the unborn child—whether, for instance, it is a carrier of a known hereditary disease which occurs in that particular family. Perhaps it might be haemophilia. The sex of the child can be determined. All these are actions which in certain cases could be deleterious to the mother and which might be in occasional cases disastrous. None of the modern methods of investigation in medicine is entirely free from risk. Here again is a case that I can see being argued in the courts for a very long time and at very great expense.
My Lords, there is then the question of whether the disabilities were attributable to the supposed tort. I think all noble Lords have referred to the difficulties of proof in most of these cases. It seems to me that those who drafted the Bill and those who support the Bill—and, of course, I support the humane aspects which led to its drafting—have been over-influenced by the rather obvious and very tragic case of the thalidomide babies. But there are far more congenital disorders and disabilities which are due to chromosome mutations which can be induced by radiation, or may occur through what we call natural causes; in other words, causes which we do not know or understand. The chance of a certain mutation occurring in a chromosome may be X in 100,000 births. If radiation is being used, or something of that kind, it may be X + 10 in 100,000 births, but no one can possibly tell whether this particular case is one of the naturally occurring ones or one of the extra ones which occur when radiation is used in certain circumstances.

381
For all those reasons it seems to me that this Bill. with the best of intentions, is going to give rise to a very large number of difficulties.
There is one matter to which I should have referred, which is Clause 1(5), which is a sort of let-out clause for doctors, if I may put it in that way. The actual wording of it is:
" The defendant is not answerable … if in a professional capacity he took reasonable care having due regard to then received professional opinion applicable to the particular class of case."
So. far from letting the doctors out of a difficult situation, I think that is adding to their difficulties enormously. Experimental medicine must go on. If unjustifiable experiments are being done on human persons. there is a remedy at law for anybody who is injured thereby. But I would remind your Lordships that every operation that is ever done has been done for a first time. It seems to me that these new developments of finding out about the unborn child would not have taken place if doctors looked at the Bill and read Clause 1(5):
"…having due regard to then received professional opinion applicable to the particular class of case."
If you read it literally, no further advances in medicine can take place. I know that is not the intention and it would not be interpreted in that way, but nevertheless it does not seem to me to add clarification in this very difficult subject.
12.52 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene, but may I just make two or three very short comments. First, I think that the noble Lord who has just spoken has perhaps overlooked the fact that the burden of proof in all these cases will be on the plaintiff. The difficulty of ascertaining liability and causation is one which inures to the advantage of a potential defendant, among others the medical attendant, and not to his disadvantage. The more difficult it is the less likely it is that the plaintiff should succeed. With the solitary exception of the application of the Statute of Limitations, which is a Committee point, I think he can reassure himself on most of the individual cases he has mentioned. In particular I am quite clear in my own mind that in the second
382
of the two cases he mentioned—namely, the case of a doctor who advises against a termination of pregnancy—there could be no possible liability, because the child who is born deaf as a result of an infection by the mother of rubella cannot under this Bill claim for not having been aborted before he was born. This, I think, is absolutely plain on the construction of the Bill.
But I intervened simply to clarify my own rather limited part in what I might call the conception of the Bill. f originally came across the thalidomide problem long before most other people; it occurred either in 1957 or 1958, when I was in touch with the Medical Research Council, and it was then I first heard of the thalidomide problems. I was then very much concerned about the legal possibilities in the case. I was persuaded by the then Secretary of the Medical Research Council that the children could probably not have recovered, partly because of the absence of any clear legal liability for ante-natal injuries, and partly because he persuaded me that in the then state of the medical art the injuries could not have been foreseen. However, it was apparent to me, from then onwards, that serious legal problems either could or most likely would occur from time to time. When the thalidomide actions began, and I found myself halfway through them as Lord Chancellor, I felt it was absolutely essential that the Law Commission should recommend legislation to deal with the whole problem of ante-natal injuries, due to the vast complexity of the problems involved. This was accentuated by the fact that there was current litigation in Scotland which resulted in a Scottish case deciding that under the law of Scotland there was a liability for ante-natal injury. It seemed to me to be intolerable that there should be one law in this respect for Scotland and one for England and Northern Ireland. This is what led me to refer the matter to the Law Commission.
At a somewhat later stage I became persuaded that this was not enough, partly because the thalidomide case developed in its various complexities, but partly also because an increasing amount of evidence began to emerge that certainly in Massachusetts and certainly in New Zealand a case existed for non-fault liability in personal injury cases

383
in general. It was even argued that it may well be the case—I am not seeking to pre-empt what the noble and learned Lord may ultimately decide—that without increasing expense to the insurance companies and without loss to the potential plaintiffs a more efficient system could be arrived at whereby those who suffer from accidents of one kind or another, if I may use the word in a generic sense, could get compensation almost as generous as that which they now get under the far more doubtful chances of litigation.
I therefore persuaded, or helped to persuade, my then right honourable friend the Prime Minister to set up the Pearson Commission, and I was, I think, the author of that idea. I made it very clear at the time, I think, in this House but certainly through my right honourable friend in another place, that, although there was a potential conflict between the two bodies, the Pearson Commission report was not to prejudice anything which might emerge from the Law Commission recommendations under the earlier reference. It seemed to me that this was necessary because the Law Commission recommendations were an interim step to take in the light of the existing law, whereas the Pearson Commission recommendations would be a far more widely ranging change in the law on liability for injuries over a much wider field and certainly not confined to antenatal injuries. It is not for me to judge between the two points of view which have been put forward, but certainly from the very start it has been made clear that Parliament would be free to legislate on the more limited field and on the interim measures without prejudice to the ultimate results of the Pearson Commission. I thought it right to lay that down as my own understanding of the matter, simply as a matter of history.
12.59 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL: My Lords, it is customary for the mover of a Bill to reply shortly to the debate. I should like to begin my remarks by thanking your Lordships very sincerely for the way in which your Lordships have received this Bill. May I also associate myself with what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in reference to the work of the Commission. Their work
384
was extremely thorough, really very brilliant, and undertaken in a very short time. I feel that 1 am at fault in not having said that with regard to their work when I was making my opening speech.
May I refer shortly to some of the things that have been said in the course of the debate. May I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. that I should have thought that he deserved very well indeed of us in having done what he has just described in having engineered the setting up of the Royal Commission, for reasons which I think I indicated in broad outline in my opening remarks.
May I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, that I certainly would think it quite out of the question that anything which is done as a result of this Bill, anything enacted by this temporary Bill, could conceivably preempt or prevent Parliament giving such effect as it thought appropriate to the recommendations which the Royal Commission may make. The noble and learned Lord asked, could I give, I think he put it, a personal assurance that Parliament would not do that. Of course I cannot do that, because I cannot govern the view of Parliament. It is for Parliament to decide what it does. No doubt in the ordinary way, when the Royal Commission has made its recommendations, they will be considered and carefully pondered on, and in due course it will be for the two Houses of Parliament to decide what. if any, action they decide to take to implement those recommendations. As I have said, I greatly hope that they will implement any recommendation that may be made in favour of no-fault liability. I will give to the noble and learned Lord the assurance that, so far as in me lies, so far as I can influence it, I certainly will do my best to see that any recommendation of the Royal Commission which it seems ought to be accepted will be in fact accepted and substituted for anything which is contained in the Bill which the House is at present considering. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel that that is, in the first place, all that I can assure him, and, secondly, that he will think that I have correctly stated the position, and that the work of the Royal Commission is adequately safeguarded in being left at the discretion and to the decision of Parliament as a whole.

385
May I turn to the noble Countess and to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, both of whom—neither of them lawyers—contributed observations of the greatest value to this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, apologised for taking part in the debate. I hope that he will withdraw that apology. I am sure that we all welcome him as a participant in the debate because he could add a great deal which lawyers very often are not in a position to add. May I make some observations with regard to what he said. He said, " How are you going to prove fault'? " If it cannot be proved, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, just said, then the case will not he established on behalf of the infant: that is that. I hope that it will not he as difficult as all that to prove a case. I accept that opinion changes, arid that various features are present in different sets of circumstances which may make it difficult to prove. All I can say is, so much the worse for the plaintiff. But that applies in every case which comes by way of litigation before the courts.
The noble Lord said, " Isn't it very hard on a potential defendant, a doctor, that he might have to wait years under our existing Statute of Limitations before he knows whether he is going to he held liable in respect of some deformity'? " That is the case with regard to every other defendant who has to conform to our existing scheme of limitation of actions. When you are concerned with an infant you may have, under our existing legislation, doctor or no doctor, to submit to having a claim hanging over you for years and years and years: the period until the infant reaches the age of 21, or could first know that he had a cause of action against sonic particular defendant, whichever is the longer. So in that respect the doctors are in no worse a position than other citizens, although I can see that they are in perhaps a rather worse position in regard to some pre-conceptual injuries. The difference is not so very much. This was again carefully considered, and one had to come down to a decision one way or the other.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, perhaps I could intervene to say, in view of what the noble Lord has said and in view of what t he noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said, that I was not trying to make matters easier for the medical
386
profession. I pointed out certain ways in which I thought it could he made difficult. What I was concerned about was to point out the difficulties it was going to make for everybody: the plaintiff, the defendant, and the rest of us.
Lord STOW HILL: My Lords, I am sorry if the language I used conveyed a misleading impression. I simply meant that everybody has to put up with this, or nearly this; people are not always quite in the same position. I feel really that he is much better protected than he indicated in his view by the provisions of Clause 1(5). Suppose you take a doctor who has treated a particular patient, a mother or anybody else, and in applying the treatment he has used professional knowledge as existent at the time. The noble Lord read out the language:
" The defendant is not answerable to the child, for anything he did or omitted to do when responsible in a professional capacity for treating or advising the parent, if he took reasonable care having due regard to then received professional opinion applicable to the particular class of case …"
If the doctor treating the parent uses the accepted canons of treatment as understood at that time, then provided always that he does not act negligently and provided he uses " reasonable care ", as the subsection says, he is under no liability at all. I submit that that is a considerable guarantee, and that it adds greatly to the protection of the professional man, and not only the doctor.
The noble Countess was concerned with the possibility of this sort of thing causing distress to families. The Law Commission in particular had consultations and invited the opinions of judges, the President of the Family Court, and there were oral discussions. As a result of the discussions and deliberations which took place on the circular that they sent round, and of the meetings, they left out the mother as a possible defendant for that sort of reason. As I said in my opening speech, it was thought better that the child should not have compensation where the mother was to blame, rather than that the child should grow up thinking, " My disability is due to some fault of my mother. " That might have been the right or the wrong solution, but it was a solution which was reached, may I say, as a matter of a practical

387
approach to a desperately difficult problem, as I accept. I think that that is all I can usefully add in reply. and having said that—and I apologise for having inflicted on your Lordships such a long speech in opening the debate—may I hope that your Lordships will agree to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question. Bill read 2a. and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EXPLOSIVES (AGE OF PURCHASE. &c.) BILL
1.10 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill came to us from another place having been introduced there by Mr. Gwilym Roberts. the Member for Cannock. as a Private Member's Bill. I wish at the outset to pay tribute to Mr. Roberts. who has persistently and with sustained interest over the years worked hard to improve the safety of, and achieve a reduction in the number of injuries from the use of. fireworks. Indeed. in 1969 he introduced a 10-Minute Rule Bill. Noble Lords who know the other place will realise that for success with a 10-Minute Rule Bill one has to be really lucky. and Mr. Roberts was not: it went the way of all flesh and was lost. Finally, however, his Private Member's Bill went through all its stages in another place with very little difficulty and I hope that this House will be equally generous and that we can add something to legislation on the sale and use of fireworks which may in the long-term prevent injuries.
Although the title of this measure is the Explosives (Age of Purchase) Bill, its real concern is only with fireworks because most other explosives require a special licence issued by the Chief of Police to purchase them, apart from any desire to use them, so the Bill deals only with a few aspects of the sale and use of fireworks with a view to greater safety. It is that and nothing else. The Government and the fireworks trade, if I may so describe it—wholesalers, retailers and manufacturers—have reached agreement on a number of additional safety measures which
388
should still further prevent fireworks injuries at that period of the year, on and about 5th November. which has been regarded as the fireworks period. I hope the House will forgive me if I mention some of the points of agreement between the trade and the Government and other organisations. I might add that it was not complete agreement in every case because there are people who feel that fireworks should he banned altogether. and no improvement in the law or in the regulations controlling them quite meets their view.
The Governmental responsibility for fireworks was transferred in 1974 from the Home Office to the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, and shortly after that transfer the then Minister of State decided to conduct a full review of the manufacture, sale and use of fireworks. In doing so he decided that the best way was to issue a Consultative Document to all interested organisations. to hold meetings with them, to hear their views, to see what would he necessary in the non-legislative field—-that is. by agreement—and what would be necessary on the legislative side, of which this Bill is part. The Consultative Document was issued to 96 organisations including manufacturers, wholesalers. retailers. Government Departments, local authorities, fire departments, police. women's organisations, organisations of aged people and of course the medical profession, and numerous meetings and discussions took place.
I have said that there was fairly general agreement between the trade and the Government. In this respect we should pay tribute to the fireworks industry. whose sales were already falling rapidly, in that they not only made contributions to the discussions but suggested methods by which safety in the use of fireworks could be improved. I will quickly go through some of the main decisions and points of agreement.
The first was the phasing out of what are known as flying fireworks—flying saucers, helicopters and so on—fireworks which move through the air in, it is hoped. a particular direction and away from the viewers of the display. something which does not always happen because, 1 am told, they are controlled by fins, made of either cardboard or tin, which can

389
become bent in packaging or in being handled by boys and girls using them. They can therefore go in the wrong direction and he a danger. They are to be phased out. The industry also decided to cease the production of what are known as jumping crackers. Noble Lords will know what they are; having been ignited and thrown on the floor, they jump in all directions and never in the direction one expects. The decision, volunteered by the industry. was to cease their production.
The next point of agreement was to reduce by 50 per cent. over the next two years the number of bangers produced. Perhaps I should explain that bangers are fireworks which have nothing to do with that edible delicacy which one can obtain in the Bishops' Bar. They make a noise and that is why they are called hangers: they are miniature bombs. The agreement was to reduce the number of bangers produced by November 1977—that is, over a period of two years—by 50 per cent., and the industry voluntarily offered to reduce the explosive content of hangers. It is the flying type of firework plus hangers which cause most injuries. Perhaps I should mention the danger of igniting a hanger and pushing it through someone's, particularly an aged person's, letter box where, in an enclosed space such as the hallway of a small house, it can he very frightening indeed. It makes a terrific noise and many elderly people have been frightened in that way. The next point of agreement was to limit the sale of fireworks to a period of about four weeks, three weeks before 5th November and a few days afterwards.
Another point of agreement was by November 1977—that is. over a two-year period—to restrict the sale of all fireworks, other than bangers and sparklers and large individual pieces, to boxed selections; selection boxes of fireworks not containing bangers but containing those fireworks which are not regarded as quite so dangerous as bangers or the flying type. This again was agreed by the industry. It may be that boxed selections will be beyond the pockets of some of the young boys who are concerned only in buying bangers and things that make a noise. For that reason it was felt that boxes should not contain hangers. As for sparklers, noble Lords will know that in their use one holds a piece of wire—I do not know the content
390
of the explosive; it may he magnesium—and, when lit. stars move in every possible direction. There is not much real harm or danger from their use and they can be held in the hand, preferably a gloved hand. but there is danger if the sparks should fall into a nearby box of fireworks which have not yet been used.
The next point of agreement was an increase in the maximum fee for registering premises in which fireworks are kept. The current maximum fee is 63p—or 12s. 6d., as it used to be—and that has been the fee for well over 100 years. The Government have no intention. in arriving at a new maximum fee, of doing anything punitive, and it will he up to the local authorities who administer this side of the licensing or regularising of fireworks to decide within the new figure what fee should he paid. provided it does not exceed the maximum. 63p. This will require legislation and a Government order.
I turn to the Bill before us. which is the legislative requirement of what might describe as the package deal. Clause 1(1) refers to Section 31 of the Explosive Substances Act 1875, which makes it an offence to sell fireworks to a child apparently under the age of 13. The word " apparently " makes it difficult to enforce this 100-year-old law. It is difficult when a boy of 12 approaches the counter of a newsagent's shop to buy fireworks. The retailer has to try to decide whether or not the boy is over 13. It is not difficult with a child aged only 9 or 10 years, but it is very difficult with a 12-year-old, particularly if he is a big boy. Looking at the record one sees that there has been little evidence of the evasion, willingly, knowingly, or purposely of this section of the 1875 Act. But in the Bill now before us the apparent age goes up from 13 years to 16, which would rule out, without much difficulty, the 13 or 14-year-old boy. The record of injuries arising from the use of fireworks shows that most injuries have occurred to children under 13.
In 1875 the penalty for selling fireworks to a child under 13 was £5. In 1967, under the Criminal Justice Act, the penalty was increased to £20, and under this Bill a penalty of £200 is proposed. I have endeavoured to discover what figure would today be equivalent to a penalty of £5 101 years ago, but that is

391
beyond me. It is certainly an astronomical figure, and £200 may or may not be enough.
Clause 1(2) deals with another section of the 1875 Act, Section 80, which makes it absolutely clear that fireworks must not be thrown in a public place and the penalty for so doing was, 101 years ago, £5. We are told that there was considerable hooliganism even in those days and that fireworks were thrown into passing coaches. Consequently many people were frightened and so action was then taken. It was felt that £5 was an adequate penalty, but in this Bill it is proposed that the penalty should be £200.
Under Clause 2 it is provided that if the Bill becomes an Act it shall come into force one month from the date of its passing, and so it would then cover " fireworks day " this year. The Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. The reason for this is quite simple. In 1970 the then Northern Ireland Government decided that, with two exceptions, no fireworks should be sold to anyone without his first having obtained a licence. I have seen one of the application forms relating to this and I can understand why, after 1971, very few people in Northern Ireland bought many fireworks for legitimate and genuine fireworks display purposes. The prohibition on the sale of fireworks in Northern Ireland applies, with two exceptions, to all fireworks, unless one has made an application and has a licence. One exception is caps for toy pistols, with which noble Lords (and perhaps noble Baronesses) are familiar. The other is snaps used in Christmas crackers. Neither of these items is particularly dangerous. They are the only items of that type which, in Northern Ireland, can be bought without a licence.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about fireworks injuries because it is important to get this point on the record. Since 1962 hospitals have been required to provide information on all injuries which they have treated in the four weeks period around 5th November—Guy Fawkes day, which we continue to celebrate 370 years after the event. The record of injuries during the fireworks period shows that between 1962 and 1975 there was a considerable drop in the number of injuries each year. But it must
392
also be borne in mind that sales of fireworks have dropped in the same period from 300 million individual items to 150 million.
It is heartening that the number of injuries has continued to drop, but unhappily the injuries are still, in the main, to children under 13 years. In 1975 the total injuries were a little more than a quarter of what they were in 1962. Nevertheless, last year, 1975, 400 children were treated in hospital, but the number of children who had to spend one or more nights in hospital as a result of injuries from fireworks was approximately one-seventh of what it was in 1962, when records were started. So the trend is heartening and encouraging. Unhappily, the number of eye injuries has not dropped proportionately, and injuries to children's eyes arising from fireworks are still much too high.
One has heard occasional criticism of the advertising of fireworks in newspapers and on television. As a former chairman of the IBA, I am particularly interested in the television advertising of fireworks. At the time that I held that post the Minister responsible, the Home Secretary, could always have stopped the IBA from allowing fireworks advertisements by issuing an order, as he did for cigarette advertising. He elected not to do that; he left it to the Independent Broadcasting Authority to deal with the problem. In its code of advertising standards and practices the IBA decided on a special appendix to deal with advertising of fireworks on the screen during the fireworks period. The decision was, first, that no advertisement in which children were shown to be handling fireworks would be accepted for transmission on the screen, and, secondly, the picture must always show an adult present and, presumably, in control of the situation.
Apart from the question of advertising, I should mention that the IBA and the BBC provide free air time for the COI, or any other Government Department, to indicate to viewers the importance of taking every possible precaution when using fireworks, whether it be at a family party in the garden of one's home or in the street; and I think some credit is due to both the BBC and the IBA for the reduction in the number of injuries over the last 13 years.

393
My Lords, we all rejoice at the reduction in the number of injuries. We are all glad that they are falling, as they are, each year. We should like that reduction to be greater: 400 injuries are still far too many. We applaud the agreed measures reached with the trade, whose public-spirited attitude is greatly appreciated; and we hope that this Bill will make its own contribution to still greater fireworks safety. There is room for improvement and we must move in that direction. Fireworks can be great fun, they can be very enjoyable, but they can also be very deadly. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 23. —(Lord Aylestone.)
1.31 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I rise to express the gratitude of these Benches to the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, for having moved this Bill in a constructive and convincing manner. I should also like to pay tribute to the honourable gentleman the Member for Cannock, who initiated the Bill in the other place. I have an interest to declare, although strictly a non-financial one, as a vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which I am quite sure will give ready support to this Bill. Also, for some years after I first entered your Lordships' House I was chairman of the all-Party Parliamentary Committee on Home Safety. A very good friend of mine, the then Member for Belfast West, the honourable lady Mrs Patricia McLaughlin, was the Secretary of this group, and at that time we had several meetings with the firework manufacturers. I am talking now of possibly ten years ago. The manufacturers at first showed a somewhat frigid approach to our deliberations then, but eventually, when they realised that this was not a snooping exercise but was an exercise in generally trying to promote safety, they became particularly co-operative; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has brought out in the course of his most interesting speech, discussions with the fireworks manufacturers have been very much more satisfactory. As I understand it, there are now very stringent rules regarding labelling and about instructions on the fireworks, as to how they should be used, being clearly legible.
394
As was pointed out in the other place, much responsibility lies on the parents, of course. I do not think anyone can doubt this. By far the safest way, and indeed the most enjoyable way, of having firework displays—we have done it in our own family and in the families of friends of ours—is to form a kind of syndicate of families so that these displays can be properly supervised by a cadre of adults, with proper sand buckets, water buckets and all the precautions necessary. In that way, at least some of the terrible accidents about which we read can be prevented, even if they cannot all be completely eradicated.
So far as concerns the penalties laid down in the Bill, I think the penalties in relation to retailers are adequate. Of course, with the height to which young people grow these days it is not always easy to tell whether a lad, or even a girl, is 16. They can always claim to be 16 when they are probably 13½. Short of issuing some kind of identity card, or something like that, it is not easy for a retailer to know beyond peradventure how old these people are, and so this provision is not easily enforceable. But the thinking behind this particular provision is rational, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has said, I think it will deter some of these youngsters from going into the shops, and will keep some of the retailers very much on their toes.
Of course, there is another problem here. Many of these fireworks are sold by small shopkeepers who deal, not only in fireworks for a few days of the year but also in sweets, tobacco, aspirins—you mention it, they sell it. With all the additional burdens which they now have of filing returns of various sales and things, it is not always easy, particularly in the case of a one-man or two-man shop, for the shopkeeper, on the spur of the moment, to determine a youngster's age before making a sale. But where the penalties really need to be heavy is in the case of these hooligans who throw fireworks in the street. In the village in which I live, in Surrey, some years ago, some hooligan threw a firework into a pram in which a baby was lying. Mercifully, the firework did not explode. I really think that people like these ought to have the book, metaphorically and in every way, thrown at them. These are the sort of people who should be punished

395
really heavily. Of course, at football matches, too, and at other organised games, where the vast majority of people behave perfectly well, one gets the odd cadre of hooligans who tend to throw fireworks and other missiles, and I hope that this Bill can perhaps be further strengthened to deal with them. I rather wonder whether these penalties are tough enough. For the purposes of getting this vital Bill through, I think they will do for the time being, but perhaps the Government, who may well have to bring in more composite legislation on this, will think of higher penalties.
When, some years ago, I initiated a debate on home safety in your Lordships' House, I paid a visit to Mount Vernon Hospital at Northwood, which deals with many cases of burns and other horrible injuries. As I pointed out in your Lordships' House all those years ago, I saw there some horrible sights, including some coloured slides; but one particularly dreadful sight which has always remained in my mind was of a small baby who had lost two arms and one leg through a firework accident—and that baby was about six months old. Bearing in mind the debate we had before this one. the future of that baby does not make for very happy thought. But it would be wrong to he entirely depressing on this subject. The number of accidents has decreased over the past few years, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has rightly said, the number of accidents to the eyes, which are always the most vulnerable part of the body in these firework mishaps, is, unhappily, not decreasing.
The magistrates courts have a duty to perform here. My wife is herself a magistrate and I know that in our court anybody throwing fireworks has a rather stiff penalty thrown at them. Magistrates really do need in these instances to impose the maximum penalties because it is not only the person throwing the firework who is likely to be injured, it is not only the person at whom the firework is thrown, deliberately or otherwise, but there is the possibility of injury to a lot of people around, quite apart from the fright given—as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, mentioned— to elderly people, and to animals and the damage which can be done to property.
396
As far as the banning of fireworks is concerned a lot has been said about this over the years. Banning things like fireworks can lead to even more ghastly implications. You will get youngsters getting hold of whatever acid it is—I am not a scientist—sulphuric acid or sodium chlorate, and making their own. It does not leave much to the imagination to ascertain what could happen, and what has happened, when these home-made fireworks go off. They can do very much more damage than even what used to be called the " penny bangers " which small boys could carry in their pockets and to whom when they exploded the most unthinkable damage could be done. It is reassuring to know that these particularly abnoxious fireworks are being, as it were, phased out.
It is the packaging and labelling of fireworks and the instructions on the box which make so much difference. The organised firework display held traditionally in places like Lewes in Sussex and in hospitals have given pleasure to many people. In one hospital in which I have had an interest for some years, one of our mental hospitals, in Epsom, we always have a firework display each 5th November for the patients who are ambulant and able to enjoy it. It is very good therapeutic treatment. It is a treat for them because the displays are properly surpervised by adults and there are proper rules organised. If we can get some kind of organisation into firework displays and, as this Bill seeks to do, cut out all the mavericks who are causing these horrible accidents, then, I think, this Bill will be very valuable: and the sooner it is on the Statute Book the better.
1.45 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to be associated with the kind remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, about the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, and the Member for Cannock who is producing this Bill on explosives. But we must, I think, remember that fireworks have been with us from time immemorial and one of their original beginnings was from pagan and religious festivals and, later in this country, in commemoration of the late Mr. G. Fawkes. But there is no doubt that if, as other noble Lords

397
have already said, they are properly controlled, they can give a great deal of pleasure and much joy to multitudes of people—and not only on 5th November.
My Lords, I think this is a good, sound and sensible Bill. I must admit that perhaps the only thing 1 might possibly have against it is the age limit: that is, whether 16 years of age is not still too young. I am not sure. Perhaps the age should be 17, the age at which youngsters consider themselves grown up by their being allowed to drive a motor car on the public highway. However, 1 do not wish, and would not wish, to make an issue of this point. I am happy to see that this piece of legislation has been voluntarily agreed by such consumer groups as the National Campaign for Firework Reform, the firework manufacturers, including Brock. Astra, Standard and, last but not least, by Her Majesty's Government.
As the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has said this voluntary package contains a lot or very good clauses and in particular the registration of premises where fireworks may be kept. The noble Lord talked about the phasing out of certain types of firework such as " Flyabouts " and the " Helicopters ". And I think he is probably right. He also pointed out that the hangers are going to be phased out over the next two years; although 1, for one, will be a little sorry to see these go. Another point raised is that there should be a limitation of time when fireworks are on sale for around four weeks about 5th November. This I shall refer to shortly but a little later. I should like to say that the fireworks industry appears to have been very co-operative over these measures, which is remarkable considering that the market for fireworks has been diminishing very largely and substantially since 1960.
The voluntary measures which have been undertaken by the manufacturers rightly include a very significant trend towards the sale of boxed fireworks only—for that will prevent children from going to buy one or two rather nasty squibs and so on, for they will not be able to buy any at all if they cannot afford to buy a box. It may be that this is a slightly kill-joy approach but I feel that it is the right one.
398
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said that everybody seems to be agreed that there is no need to phase out fireworks completely. He mentioned the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—and it is good to know that they agree with this; and, rightly so, for if' fireworks become unobtainable then young people will invent and endeavour to build their own and things may well become much worse. I believe that there are also fears that such a Bill would force some of the manufacturers to close down—for instance, in Dumfries where I believe Brocks have a factory and where there is a fairly high percentage of unemployment. Happily, I have been informed and led to believe from both sides, consumers and producers, that everybody has come to an agreement on this.

One of the things that the industry faces is competition from cheap. foreign imports, mostly Chinese; and it appears that if this agreement and this Bill is to work it must be basically on a voluntary basis, with a voluntary code. In this way the public will be protected and the consumer given safety. I would not mind seeing some form of ban on Chinese or other foreign imported fireworks, particularly if those do not conform to an adequate safety margin which would satisfy the British Standards Institution. I saw some fireworks not very long ago which were made in China. On them was printed: " Light and run away ". I do not believe these can be very good for us.
The problem that always seems to be associated with a Bill like this is that somehow, as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said, we have to ensure that we achieve the correct climate within the family and within our society. As the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, said, it is most unlikely that children of II and 12 will try and buy fireworks if the age limit is raised to 16. If fireworks are sold during term time, this will help shopkeepers, because with the school-leaving age at 16, obviously children in school uniform would not be allowed to buy fireworks. The noble Lord.. Lord Auckland, said that if a person is prosecuted no doubt it will be the parent who will probably pay the fine. So I think it will be seen that it is the parent who is the one who should educate because he will suffer the financial penalty in the end.

399
The Bill seems a very sensible one; a means of protecting the Community from itself. It would be a great pity after 370 years if that well-known occasion on 5th November were killed off by such a Bill. I am led to believe that the firework producers do not seem to think that this will happen. The logical conclusion is that large-scale firework displays should be held in different places throughout the year so they may be established as a pleasant and safe form of entertainment in many years to come. Could we not have a special municipal firework display, such as on the occasion of Her Majesty's Silver Jubilee next year? The Bill, preventing the sale of fireworks outside the four weeks, could benefit the manufacturers from the point of view that it might be possible to export fireworks. If we had firework displays throughout the year. that would get over this four-week period.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Oram, if he could tell us if there is a register of firework sellers in each town, and whether that would be beneficial? At the risk of being censored for repetition, I should dearly love to see the Department of the Environment hold a mammoth firework display every year in Hyde Park where literally many hundreds of thousands of people could enjoy the spectacle. Should the Department feel unhappy about this, perhaps they could send some representatives to France to see what they do there on the quartorze juillet.
1.54 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, on the whole I dislike restrictive legislation, particularly where it might be in the form of kill-joy nature. I accept in many activities one must have or allow for a certain amount of casualties of one sort or another. Nevertheless, in this case I believe that the injuries sustained and the nuisance caused by the indiscriminate use of fireworks justify control measures. This is particularly so as most of the injuries occur to young people who do not realise the risks they run or how to avoid them. What worries me about this Bill is that it is almost wholly ineffective and will not help the situation at all. Sixteen is not a responsible age, and big brother will almost certainly buy and distribute the fireworks to the younger
400
ones. Moreover, I am not convinced that we can be guided by the accident statistics. I think it at least arguable that most of the troubles and injuries are directly or indirectly caused by the older boys.
I believe that we should go one stage further. I am all in favour of putting fireworks in boxes, but I would have thought that if we could arrange so that they were sold only to householders that would put the responsibility back on the parents and it would not prevent a certain amount of family firework displays. In the longer term, I think we must watch the situation and see whether stronger measures are called for. I do not believe that it would necessarily spoil Guy Fawkes' night or people's fun if there was a prohibition—I am not suggesting it now—if necessary in the future. Then fireworks could be sold only to recognised clubs or societies.
Some of the village or town societies could arrange displays on Guy Fawkes' night. That would give far better value for money. There are certainly bonfires on 5th November in the country, and so the celebrations could be combined. Though I hate to say so, I believe this will not accomplish anything that has not already been accomplished, or is going to be accomplished by the agreement with the manufacturers. For that reason, I rather regret that the Bill was brought forward.
1.57 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive my speaking at this point; it was not that I had not tried to put my name down on the list of speakers but I was inadvertently left off. Consequently, despite being defused, I hope you will at least permit me to go off in a small and controlled way. This Bill may do something, I hope, to reduce the number of accidents. What worries us on these Benches is the fact that there are two aspects of it which cause concern; first, the confusion of age. I will come to this point later. Secondly, the unenforceability of some of these measures.
Looking at the situation as a whole, sales for 1974–75 were down 5 per cent. and accidents were down 18 per cent. That is most encouraging. Due to the efforts of those who have been concerned with

401
this Bill—and we must give credit to the gentleman in the other place who brought forward this Bill and to the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, who has so ably explained it today—the effect of reducing accidents will come not so much from legislation but more from the co-operative action with the manufacturers and a greater awareness of the dangers of fireworks. Other speakers have mentioned the question of responsibility and, as a parent with a lot of children, I know only too well how easy it is for children to get hold of fireworks and misuse them. It is vital that parents accept this responsibility. When children go wrong, inevitably it is the responsibility of the parents and the parents must be aware of the dangers of fireworks. I am very glad to see the trade has cooperated as fully as it has on boxing fireworks. I shall not go into all the details of this. I am also glad to see that this year a poster is being produced which talks about the Code, using the rather nice term " Freddy Firework ". I hope this will create further awareness regarding the proper handling of fireworks.
Who gets hurt in these accidents? I have been looking at the figures of accidents and they are frightening. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I refer to the figures for the past year. 1 shall not trouble your Lordships with other figures. In the over 21s there were 114 accidents; in the 16 to 20 age group, 50 accidents; in the 13 to 15 bracket, 152 accidents: and in the under 13s—and this is really worrying—the number of accidents was 412. It is the actual figures which matter at the end of the day.
This brings me to the question of age, of who gets hurt and how. The Consultative Document pointed out that the under 13s were most at risk, but it did not say how they got injured; for example, whether it was as a result of their own action or the action of somebody else. They state quite positively that little research has been done into the cause of the accidents. Assuming it is the 13-yearolds who let off the firework and hurt themselves, obviously the age limit should be put up and then one would deal with the 13 to 15 group, which was the next highest group of accidents.
We have so many different ages as to when one is allowed to be at risk. For instance, one is not allowed to drink
402
under 18 in a pub, but one can drive a car at 17, and a moped—which is exceptionally dangerous—at 16. On the other hand, cigarettes are allowed to be sold at 16. On this point we seem to be putting up the age, and I am a little concerned over the actions of certain groups, notably the National Council for Civil Liberties, who were anxious to reduce the age of consent. This seems a bit of a nonsense. I should like to see all ages brought more into line and, as regards fireworks, I think it is adults who should be allowed to purchase them, and not children. I consider this would be much more sensible.
All pyrotechnic displays are boring if they are allowed to go on for too long. Consequently, I will not detain your Lordships for much longer, but I should like to talk finally about enforceability. I know the police are very worried about enforcement, not only of the purchase of fireworks because the word " apparent" gives a total let-out, but also about the use of fireworks in a public place or in a street. The police find enforcement very difficult in such cases. It may be a deterrent to put up the fines, but only in so far as offences are detected and punished.
I said earlier that our concern was to reduce accidents, and although this Bill may not in itself do very much it is part of the package, I agree. But we must make it clear to parents that it is the parents' responsibility to ensure that their children know about fireworks and how to handle them. I welcome this Bill in terms of its scope, and I hope that it will have a quick passage.
2.3 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Aylestone for the very interesting way in which he has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I found his speech not only interesting but clear and comprehensive, and I feel therefore I need add very little to what he has already said in respect of the Bill itself. However, I should like to make it quite clear that the aims of this Bill have the wholehearted support of the Government.
The problem of firework safety has been with us for a long time, and Governments of all complexions have sought to minimise the suffering which can be

403
caused by the misuse and abuse of the Guy Fawkes tradition. Some of the examples given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, would have made us think very deeply about this, if we had not already done so. Injuries caused by fireworks particularly affect the young, and therefore this is a matter which merits close scrutiny. The Government are anxious that all steps should be taken to reduce the toll of these injuries.
The problem inevitably boils down to a balance of freedoms. On the one hand, we have the perfectly legitimate desire of millions of ordinary families who want to celebrate the 5th November in a safe and sensible manner in the privacy of their own gardens. On the other hand, there is the question of the welfare of many other people, and in particular I am thinking of the elderly, the handicapped, the very young and those concerned with the welfare of their domestic animals, and their wish not to be molested by the abuse of fireworks and, in particular, by hooliganism.
I would wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Aylestone and my honourable friend in another place Mr. Gwilym Roberts on the initiatives they have taken in this matter; also I should like to pay a tribute to my honourable friend the former Minister of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, Mr. Alan Williams, for it was he who decided to carry out a full review of the need for extending the existing controls. The main provisions under which these controls are applied are contained in legislation which is now over 100 years old, and it is clearly right that these questions should be looked at from time to time in the light of new developments. This review, instituted by Mr. Williams, was, in my view, timely and very comprehensive. My noble friend Lord Aylestone referred to it and gave an indication that the range of organisations consulted was a wide one, and he indicated the scope of those organisations.
These consultations inevitably produced a wide range of opinion. On the one hand, there were those who thought that all fireworks should be banned and, at the other extreme, there were some who felt that no changes at all should be made. All these views were given very careful
404
consideration, and a series of meetings with the principal organisations was held by the Minister at the time. My noble friend Lord Aylestone avid other noble Lords have made the point that this Bill, which has two fairly straightforward provisions, should be seen not just in itself but as part of a substantial package of measures which were agreed with the manufacturers', retailers' and wholesalers' associations. This package, taken together with the statutory proposals, will result in a substantial change in the fireworks situation. My noble friend spelt out what the five provisions are under the agreement, and I need not repeat what he said. It is clear that, taken together, they will have a substantial impact in curbing the wilful misuse of fireworks, which can so easily cause distress, as I have said, among the weaker elements of our society, whom I am sure we are all anxious to protect.
Firework injuries in the 1975 Guy Fawkes season were, I am happy to say, the lowest since records were first kept in 1962. The number of persons requiring hospital treatment for firework injuries in England and Wales showed a welcome reduction of 18 per cent. from the 1974 figure, and a fall of 40 per cent. compared with 1973. The number of serious injuries has declined even more sharply and these trends arc very encouraging. With the elimination of the flyabout firework—to which a number of noble Lords have referred and which has a relatively bad injury record in relation to the number sold—and the substantial reduction in the number of bangers available, we can reasonably anticipate that injuries and a good deal of the nuisance caused by deliberate misuse will be further reduced. Many people will, I know, be very glad to see a shorter period during which fireworks are on sale. This is particularly welcomed by the elderly who live in areas where there is a good deal of hooliganism, and by many of those who have domestic pets. But it would be wrong to be complacent about the recent encouraging trends in the injury statistics and the Government must, and will, continue to keep the matter under regular review and to assess the impact of the new measures to which we have referred.
This is a heartening example of what can be achieved by voluntary co-operation between the Government and the industry.

405
The firework manufacturers and retail and wholesale interests are all agreed that every reasonable step should be taken to improve the situation. The welfare of the young is close to all our hearts, and there must be no slackening of the effort made in terms of publicity and persuasion by the Government, by the manufacturers and by safety organisations—such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to which the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, referred—in publicising the need for care in the use of fireworks. I very much hope that the media will continue to give good coverage to this message at the relevant period of the year, and that we shall continue to see warning posters in our shops and schools. Firework safety is an important aspect of home safety, and all whocontribute to its improvement are to he commended.
The noble Earl. Lord Kimberley, addressed one or two questions to me and I think I can help him. He referred to imported fireworks and, despite his example of a particularly horrid-sounding Chinese firework, I can assure him that no fireworks may he imported without a licence under Section 40 of the Explosives Act 1875. Her Majesty's inspectors of explosives apply stringent controls to ensure that these are safe in the hands of users. and the standard is the same as for fireworks made in this country. He asked whether there is a register of firework sellers. and I can assure him that there is. All premises in which fireworks are stored must he registered with the local authority under Section 21 of the Explosives Act 1875. So I think the noble Earl will take comfort from those two assurances which I am glad to give.
We look forward to the reply from my noble friend Lord Aylestone, but perhaps I may make one comment on the question of age, to which the noble Lord. Lord Redesdale. referred. He quite rightly pointed out that there are a number of ages for various hazardous occupations. There is one to which he did not refer: namely, getting married. It is not for me to put these various hazardous occupations in order of merit. However, it shows the difficulty of choosing the right age and, probably, there is no universally accepted age. One point that appeals to me in thinking about this subject is that an age of 16 for buying fireworks coincides with the school-leaving age. and that will to
406
sonic extent help a number of retailers who are near school premises to decide whether or not a person is of the right age.
It was not my intention to delay your Lordships unnecessarily, but I thought it would be helpful to set this Bill, which we very much welcome, in the general context of the problem of fireworks. The Bill is simple and straightforward and its objects are clearly beneficial. The Bill has the wholehearted support of the Government. and I have every confidence in urging your Lordships to give it a Second Reading this afternoon.
2.17 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords. in thanking noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, there are only two points which I wish to mention. First, home-made fireworks, to which I did not refer earlier. are a real danger, because they can he made very easily. I made them myself as a child. I remember the ingredients—but 1 shall not quote them. in case they become general knowledge and putting the material so made between two stones, throwing another stone at it and, with a hit of luck, getting a terrific explosion. We know from our records that home-made fireworks are used in what may be regarded as perfectly safe, organised displays. to which young boys, and possibly girls as well. take them and join in the fun. hut they can he extremely dangerous.
The other point which I wish to make has been made on so many occasions during this debate: that is. the difficulty of fixing the right age below which fireworks ought not to be sold by retailers. When I first read the Bill, my immediate reaction was that the age should have been 18 and not 16. But, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, things happen below the age of 18 which should be regarded as much more serious than buying fireworks. One can also buy a gun at the age of 17, so it is not an easy matter to resolve. But I am convinced in my own mind—and I hope I am right—that fixing the age at 16 will help retailers, who are always anxious and willing to obey the law, to decide whether a boy who buys fireworks over the counter of a newsagent's shop is only 13. 14 or 15: and as most injuries are caused up to the age of 13 it should be a help. Nothing is perfect in this most

407
imperfect of worlds, but I think that this Bill is a contribution.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY(SPECIAL CONSTABLES) BILL
2.19 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Extension of property in respect of which special constables may exercise their powers]:
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 32, at end insert—
" (4) The manner in which an Authority constable may exercise the powers and privileges conferred on him by this Act outside any nuclear installations belonging to the Authority, shall be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and any such regulations shall be made by statutory instrument and be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which stands in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. By giving to the Secretary of State the power to make regulations as to the manner in which the Authority Constables may exercise the powers and privileges—" privileges ", by the way, is the wording of the Bill, not mine—conferred on him by the Bill, we are making sure that the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary is fully accountable to Parliament—as I am sure all noble Lords would wish. As we have seen in the course of the debates on the Bill, the chain of responsibility is from the constables to the chief constable of the
408
Authority, from the Authority to the Secretary of State and from the Secretary of State to another place.
Considering that here we are dealing with a major innovation—what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on Second Reading called a departure from British traditions in respect of police forces—if another place had a fresh opportunity to consider this aspect of the Bill more fully, being properly seized of the discussion that we are now about to have, they would prefer to arm themselves, if I may use that phrase, with the right to put questions directly to the Secretary of State in another place about the manner in which an Authority constable exercises these powers and privileges. Of course, another place could not do that at the moment because the Secretary of State has no direct responsibility but only the indirect one, through the channels I have described, for the way in which they carry out their functions.
The Linder-Secretary of State gave what I thought was a most remarkable assurance to my honourable friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed in a letter which he wrote to him on 20th April. After saying that the Authority's standing orders relating to the use of firearms would be agreed between the Authority and the Secretary of State, he went on to say:
" The Secretary of State would be ready to answer in the House in relation to any incident in which weapons were fired by the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary other than for training purposes
Mr. Eadie then went on to repeat the substance of that assurance at the Report stage of the Bill on 4th May, at col. 1235 of Hansard.
Two major questions arise from that undertaking. First, what possible force can an assurance have which is given by a junior Minister to an honourable Member, even though it may have been repeated in the columns of Hansard? As we all know, Ministerial statements have no legislative force whatsoever. Certainly there is nothing in the Bill itself which would oblige the Secretary of State to answer a question about the use of firearms by a constable. I have always been under the impression that it was entirely a matter for the Table Office in another place to decide, quite independently of Ministers, whether or not any

409
particular question is valid according to this test of Ministerial responsibility: can one find some phraseology in the Statutes which would allow that Question to be put and to be fully attached to the responsibility of a particular Minister? In this case I would say, from fairly considerable experience of dealing with the Table Office in another place and, I hope, a clear understanding of the principles that they follow, that the Clerks would have to tell the Member, with the greatest possible courtesy, which they always employ, that they did not regard any promises made by an Under-Secretary of State in private correspondence, or assurances given in the course of debates at Committee or Report stage of a Bill, as requiring them to accept that particular question.
The second point that arises is that even if this undertaking could be made to stick on the Government, it would not take into account all the circumstances in which an honourable Member might reasonably wish to put down a question concerning the conduct of a constable. First of all, the Under-Secretary specifically excluded from the assurance any incidents in which the weapon had been fired for training purposes. If, therefore, a member of the public was accidentally killed or injured by a weapon fired by a constable during training, that could not be raised in another place, nor could any incident which involved the presentation of firearms by one of the constables if the weapon was not actually fired. If I may take an extreme and, I hope, theoretical example, if one of these constables were stationed at the Atomic Energy Authority's head office in Charles II Street and he went berserk and threatened members of the public in the centre of London, that would not be a matter about which the honourable Member for the Cities of London and Westminster could table a Private Notice Question to the Secretary of State.
On several occasions during the proceedings upon this Bill the Government have maintained that all that we are doing is to return to the situation which existed before the creation of the Atomic Energy Authority when these constables were employed by the Ministry of Defence. Therefore it is important to look at whether the Bill restores that situation and whether the Atomic Energy Authority
410
constabulary is treated in the same way as the Ministry of Defence constabulary so far as the tabling of questions in the House is concerned. As I see it, they are not treated in the same way. On 21st May my honourable friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked a question in general terms about the rules governing the carrying of firearms by Ministry of Defence police and he had no difficulty in getting it past the Table Office.
Since then I have been investigating the matter a little further and find that the Standing Orders which determine the conduct of the constables employed by the Ministry of Defence are laid down by the Defence Council and that this Council is a body which is constituted by Letters Patent and is, therefore, a matter of Royal Prerogative. However, the important point is that under the Letters Patent the Secretary of State for Defence is automatically the Chairman of the Defence Council. lf, therefore, an honourable Member were to put down a question to the Secretary of State concerning the application of these Standing Orders—in particular about the use that was made by a Ministry of Defence constable of a firearm—certainly it would be accepted by the Table Office. Therefore I say there is a difference between the Ministry of Defence constables and those who are employed by the Atomic Energy Authority and that this Amendment would restore the position, which the Government say they are trying to do, which operated prior to the creation of that Authority.
In conclusion, it seems to me that this Amendment would be a very good example of the way in which co-operation between the two Houses of Parliament ought ideally to work. This Bill passed through another place so fast that it was hardly possible for any of the important issues adequately to be considered. It is true that my honourable friend put down an Amendment in similar although not identical terms to this one, but it was discussed after midnight on an occasion when only 131 Members were present. If the matter were to be considered at a more reasonable hour of the day, with a full House to go into the points that I have raised, it is quite possible that a different conclusion would be reached. Therefore it is only right that by passing

411
this Amendment your Lordships should give that opportunity to another place. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: It may be helpful if 1 make my few remarks now because the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal can then, with one bite at the cherry, give a compendious answer to both the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. and myself. I added my name to the noble Lord's Amendment because in many ways I agreed—and. indeed, do agree—with the spirit in which he tabled it. I shall not follow him in all his remarks, mostly because I agree with what he says and to repeat them would he tedious to your Lordships, hut also because I want to touch on one or two aspects which mieht he considered a little different.
So far as accountability is concerned. I agree with the noble Lord that there may he room for the Government to have some further thoughts about this matter. We are discussing a situation which, as I understand it, is wholly new in our history. For the first time we are giving citizens who are not members of the Armed Forces the right to bear arms. Unlike the police, who do so only in certain very unusual circumstances, as I understand it many of these special constables, either guarding installations or fissile materials on their way from one installation to another, will, in the ordinary course of events, hear arms with ammunition in public and will, if the need arises, be in a position to fire them.
Let us just consider that these people will—so one can glean from the Official Report in another place —have received a period of training in Dorset, I think, and I have no doubt that that training will he as complete as can he devised. Nobody has yet said what " refreshers they are going to have and to my mind that is an important matter in the public interest. Neither has it been said who will see that the standard remains as high as it obviously should be.
Here I think it is less than satisfactory if Members of Parliament cannot inquire, if they so wish, as to what is going on. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in regard to tabling Questions in the other place, but I confine myself to your Lordships' House, which
412
his the only one I know. To my mind it would be intolerable if a situation of an unsatisfactory nature were to arise and noble Lords wished to put Questions (as for instance, they have recently on the subject of the Post Office) and some unfortunate—and I say that in a spirit of charity—Minister was supposed to answer the Questions in the manner, according to the circumstances and with the briefing material that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, answered such Questions.
I know it will he rightly said that this is not likely to happen, but of course, nothing is likely to happen until it does happen. If there is an occurrence and it then transpires that it has happened through inadequate training, under-preparation, muddle or confusion, and above all a sense of complacency on the part of the Atomic Energy Authority, it would he quite intolerable if in either House of Parliament the proper Questions could not be addressed to the proper Minister.
I complained on Second Reading that in the other place many Members' points of anxieties had been answered by letter. I think this is one such point. When it came to Report stage, the Minister enlarged somewhat on what he had said in a letter to a private Member, but suggest that this is hardly a satisfactory way of going about seeing legislation through two Houses of Parliament. There is the wider point that in this Bill the powers and privileges are set out, but there is no way in which we can see from the Bill how they are to be carried out by the constables. Various assertions were made in the other place. For instance, it was said that there would be some sort of standing orders. I suppose there will; but who is to draw them up and who is to see to it that they are properly drawn up and are comprehensive and envisage everything that should be envisaged? Who will lay down the manner in which these arms will be carried and used and is it satisfactory that in this very special case Parliament should not keep an eye on that process?
I am aware it will be said that tactically it is wrong for all the plans which may be made to deal with this situation to be revealed for all to read. I quite agree that they do not have to be, but I think some noble Lords would feel happier if the Government had thought through this

413
whole process and were in a position to say precisely what is to happen over this new and rather unwelcome power which has been given to these special constables.
2.36 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: I have given this matter most careful consideration over a period of some months and it was only with the greatest reluctance that I came to the conclusion that we should provide arms for the constabulary at those stations where fissile material was either being processed or stored. I think the Committee will remember that certainly at this stage we only intend to arm the constabulary at four sites, although I believe the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, thought that perhaps we ought to he doing more in regard to some of the atomic power stations: but as I explained on Second Reading, in my view that is not required at the present moment.
I am quite sure, too, that the House should spare a little time to see whether we have got it right, whether we should make amendments to the Bill, particularly in regard to what one might call the accountability of the Secretary of State to Parliament. I should like to make it clear at the outset that this is a highly disciplined force. The position is that the AEA constabulary is a force of civil police. sworn in by two justices of the peace under the Special Constables Act 1923. They are sworn in on the nomination of the Authority and are then, in accordance with Section 3 of the 1923 Act, under the exclusive control of the department on whose nomination they are appointed: namely, the AEA.
But, on the other hand, the Secretary of State has the ultimate responsibility to Parliament for that authority. He also has powers under the Atomic Energy Authority Act to give directions to the authority, subject to his being satisfied that there are overriding national interests requiring him to intervene. I should have thought that, in the setting up of this new force, all those requirements are present and he not only has the powers but he intends to exercise those powers in giving directions to the Authority in the manner in which this force will be armed and the manner in which it will act.
Clearly standing orders will be necessary not only for the carrying or the weapons
414
but above all else—and nearly as important—the storage of the weapons. This is a matter to which I attach particular importance. I should also make it clear that it is not our intention that the whole force shall he armed: it is really only those officers who are in positions where they are providing safeguards for that particular fissile material, whether it is in store or in transit. The standing orders will he made by the Authority, but the Secretary of State will see them and will approve them. I have no doubt at all that those standing orders will be no different from the standing orders which already exist for other services, particularly the police.
In regard to training, this is important. I am grateful to the chief constable of Dorset and his officers who have cooperated very well indeed in training the constabulary. The training is up to a very high standard, and it is certainly our intention that the officers will attend retraining or re-testing approximately every three or four months. I should have thought that would he a reasonable time, bearing in mind that most of these officers were in the Armed Forces before they came to the constabulary—not all. but quite a number of them. So they have received a high standard of training, and they will receive retraining.
It seemed to me that the maw problem or worry of both the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, was not so much about the standing orders, but the accountability of the Secretary of State. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that since our conversation earlier I have gone into this matter with the greatest care and I am satisfied, and I can assure the House, that there is no reason for any Question put to the Secretary of State for Energy on matters relating to this constabulary not to be accepted by the Table and answered by the Secretary of State.
If the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has any doubts, I would refer him to the Notice of Question). and Motions for 26th May 1976:
"The honourable Member for South-West Hertfordshire to ask the Secretary of State for Energy how often nuclear material is transported along the MI motorway to Windscale and and other nuclear establishments".
There are another five Questions, all of the same sort, all seeking information

415
with regard to the movement of this material. These Questions are clearly matters which I would have regarded, and I should have thought most people would have regarded, as coming within the everyday responsibility of the Atomic Energy Authority; but clearly this is information which a Member of the House wanted and the Table has accepted the Question. So with that sort of Question on the Order Paper, I am reinforced in my belief, to which I have come as a consequence of advice received, that if any Member of another place and certainly of this House wished to inquire of a Minister about the position of these policemen, their methods of arming, and so on, their Questions would be accepted and answered by the Minister.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: While accepting the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I must say that the Question he gave as an example is one that I do not think ought to have been asked publicly. It could well have been dealt with privately, and I hope that people will show some restraint in getting information, because otherwise they cause more trouble than they are trying to prevent.
Lord SHEPHERD: That may be. I was merely using this as an indication that the matter that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, have in mind does not arise. I am not opposing the Amendment by saying it is undesirable, or in that particular sense unnecessary. I am going to ask the noble Lord and the noble Earl to appreciate that this is a new force—at least, it is an old force but is being given a new task—which is operating in a particular period of anxiety and threat. That is the only reason why it is being set up. There are a number of other forces in similar positions. None of these forces has ever been asked to disclose to the public what the standing orders are in relation to their duty, and what actions they can and cannot take. I would not imagine any noble Lord opposite would say that the public should know what are the standing orders of the police in Northern Ireland, because that is information which could only be of assistance to the troublemaker.
416
So I say to the noble Lord and the noble Earl that if this Amendment were passed and it was required that regulations ought to be made and approved by Parliament, then the standing orders of this force would be known. Your Lordships may say that that is not all that important, but we have kept other standing orders secure in the interests of those forces. If we were to publish these standing orders, the standing orders of the various other forces would be quickly and easily construed. At this of all times I should have thought that that was not desirable.
I have sought to ease the feeling of the Committee that the Secretary of State will be responsible for the standing orders, will be responsible through the Authority and through the chief constable for the discipline and the training, of this force, and will be answerable to Parliament. I should have thought that sufficient, but I hope that here the Committee would not put in a measure which may disclose information that could only be of use to the troublemaker, and of very little use, I think, to the general public.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he could help me over one matter. What other civilian forces are there, the members of which will be expected to bear arms in the ordinary course of their duties, who are liable on suspicion under Clause 3 of this Bill to pursue suspected malefactors, for want of a better phrase, in public places, and presumably, if necessary, use all reasonable means to arrest them or place them in the custody of the police?
Lord SHEPHERD: Certainly there is no other force other than the ordinary constabulary, if they were involved in a particular incident. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, is really exaggerating the dangers and the risks. This material is moved under very strict precautions. One seeks to move it in such a way that it would be very difficult indeed to break in and obtain the material. That does not mean that one should not take these extra precautions of having armed constables present, if only to delay, in order that the regular police and the Regular Army could come to their assistance.
There is no question, in my view, of constables chasing all over the country looking for somebody who may have

417
broken in and collected this material. Clearly you have got to have it in the legislation that if one of these vehicles had been broken into and people were escaping with material the constables should under the law be permitted to go after it and bring it hack into safe custody. But it would be quite wrong to imagine that these constables, under their standing orders, would be moving around places like Manchester or Birmingham on the off-chance of finding these chaps who may have broken in and stolen some of this material.
I can understand the noble Lord's anxiety, but I hope he will appreciate, first, that the force is a responsible force and, secondly, that the responsibility is clearly that of the Secretary of State, that he is answerable to Parliament. Whatever fears we may have, we have the choice of either arming the force, providing this protection. or having standing orders which we immediately disclose to the general public, which puts those forces at a great disadvantage, and, as I said earlier, will create an even greater threat for some of our forces who may be acting and working under similar standing orders but in much more dangerous circumstances than any of these constables are ever likely to face.
Lord AVEBURY: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his comprehensive and courteous reply, but I am afraid I shall have to try to convince your Lordships that it does not satisfy the case which I put forward. First, I must emphasise that nothing I have said—and I am sure this goes for the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield—should be taken as criticism of the way in which the Atomic Energy Authority have carried out their responsibilities in the past, or of the high standards of training and efficiency which they have achieved, with the assistance, as the noble Lord mentioned, of the chief constable of Dorset, to whom we all must be extremely grateful. But even in a highly disciplined force, as the noble Lord will be aware, things can go wrong. We have a highly disciplined Army serving in Northern Ireland, and yet complaints are from time to time, rightly or wrongly, made against that force, and the Secretary of State is fully responsible for answering questions in Parliament which may be addressed to him on that subject. So while ac-
418
cepting everything the noble Lord has said about the efficiency and discipline of the force, that of itself is not a sufficient argument for undermining the accountability of the Secretary of State to the House for their activities.
The noble Lord mentioned—I do not think this is terribly important, but I deal with it in passing—that we are confining our attention to those stations where fissile material is processed or stored. It has been said on several occasions that there -are four named sites where these constables will he stationed. But there is nothing in the Bill to prevent constables being stationed on any premises owned either by the Authority or British Nuclear Fuels Limited. That was why I picked Charles II Street as one of the examples that I gave.
The noble Lord said that the Secretary of State may give directions to the Atomic Energy Authority, and among other things it was quite probable that he would give directions not only as to the manner in which the force is to be armed but how it will act. If that is so, I cannot see why these powers of the Secretary of State to give the directions which he is thinking of exercising, which the noble Lord says he is likely to exercise, should not be formally placed on him by the regulation, making machinery which I am asking for in this Amendment. He said that the standing orders would be no different from other services and particularly the police, but, as I tried to show in moving the Amendment, there will be a difference between the way in which these standing orders are promulgated and the way in which those for the Ministry of Defence have been made by the Defence Council under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for Defence. That was one part of the case that I myself felt to be of some considerable importance, if only because of the emphasis laid by the Government all through the proceedings of the Bill that we were merely returning to the status quo when these constables were employed by the Ministry of Defence. I felt that that argument was not properly covered by the Minister in his reply.
In order to show that questions have in fact been answered by the Secretary of State for Energy and were in fact being answered by the Secretary of State, the noble Lord referred to a particular

419
Question which was tabled on 24th May about nuclear material being transported along the M.1 motorway. This, if I may say so, is a different matter entirely, because at the moment these nuclear materials are transported along the M.1 motorway, accompanied, no doubt, by the constables, but the constables are not armed. The honourable Member was only seeking to Lind out how often this occurred, and not what rules had been made for the conduct of the constables who might be accompanying these loads. But, in any case, that would be a different set of rules from those which presumably will apply once these constables are armed. I hope that it is not an everyday occurrence that nuclear materials are transported along the M.1 motorway; it certainly is not an everyday occurrence in the sense of commonplace, even if it is happening at such frequent intervals of time.
The noble Lord said that if my Amendment were accepted the Secretary of State would be obliged to publish the standing orders. With great respect, I do not think that is so. I also enquired of the Ministry of Defence whether the standing orders that the Defence Council make for the regulation and conduct of the MOD constables have to be published, and I am told they are not. An individual member of the public has no access to a copy of those standing orders, although, as I have explained, because of the power of the Secretary of State as chairman of the Defence Council, it would be possible for a Member of Parliament to put a particular question to the Secretary of State in the House.
Lord SHEPHERD: Could I ask the noble Lord how is it possible for Parliament to approve, as is required in his Amendment, without those regulations being laid in the House and available to the general public? The regulations he is talking about in the MOD may not be regulations requiring Parliamentary approval. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the moment you have a provision that they are to be approved, or are open to be annulled, by Parliament, that requires these regulations to be laid on the Table.
Lord AVEBURY: Then they would, but what I was going on to suggest to the
420
noble Lord was that if that was the only objection to the Amendment then the right way to approach it would be to use the letters patent procedure, as is done in the Ministry of Defence, if the Minister was prepared to accept that. But the only way it could be done would be for the Amendment first of all to be passed through this House; otherwise, the other place will have no further opportunity of looking into the matter. If it was decided that the letters patent procedure used by the Ministry of Defence was appropriate because of the security problems involved in publishing the standing orders, then I would be quite happy to accept that.
Finally, the noble Lord said that any question whatsoever would be answered by the Secretary of State; he was prepared to give this undertaking on behalf of his right honourable friend. That goes very much further than what was said by the Under-Secretary, Mr. Eadie, in another place, who only gave the undertaking that where the firearms were actually fired other than during training exercises questions would be answered. But my point still remains that no assurance, even given by such a distinguished figure as the noble Lord himself, can be taken as binding on the Table Office, and the assurance also would not be capable of being pinned on any future Secretary of State who did not feel inclined to follow the practice set by the present Government.
I conclude with this thought. Principally, the matters which I have raised are ones for a democratic assembly to decide, and what we are doing in seeking to put this Amendment into the Bill is, as I have explained, to give another place a fresh opportunity of looking at the arguments rehearsed this afternoon. If we do not pass this Amendment, then that opportunity will be missed, and it may be many years before a return can be made to it and fresh thought be given to it.
3 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: If one of the noble Lord's arguments is that we should put this Amendment in to allow another place to consider it, the noble Lord must be aware that, first, there was a good deal of discussion behind the Chair, one might say, in regard to the Bill; there was a general recognition that it ought to be placed on the Statute Book

421
as quickly as possible, and that it did have a Committee stage; secondly, there was a Liberal Amendment on the Marshalled List, but the noble Lord will know that it was not moved. Why it was not moved, I do not know, but certainly the opportunity was there for this matter to be considered. It then had its remaining processes. I cannot believe that another place, if it had so wished to take this matter up, did not have the opportunity of considering it.
I could not ask the Committee to accept the Amendment for the reasons I have already given. I think it would he quite wrong to put sonic of our forces at risk as a consequence of standing orders relating to this force being made available, and therefore easily to he construed as to what the standing orders are of those other forces. Therefore I could not accept that. However, I see that there is a feeling that there is an element of doubt, shall I say, about whether the Secretary of State is accountable in another place and whether the Table will accept it. My great difficulty of course is that we are in this House; we have no real cognisance of what the rules are of another place. I have given my best assurances as a consequence of my own inquiries in the matter. The noble Lord said that maybe there is the question of Letters Patent. I shall look at that. I shall certainly have another look at it to see whether there is a way in which, if there is doubt, we can secure the accountability of the Secretary of State. I am willing to do that, but I would beg the Committee not to prejudice the position of all our security forces by insisting in this Amendment that the details of those standing orders should be made public.
Lord AVEBURY: Could the noble Lord confirm that he will have an opportunity of looking at this before Third Reading? I know that we are in a cosiderable rush to get the Bill through, and I understand that Third Reading is to be taken next week. It does not give the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, very much of an opportunity of having a look at the points which have been raised. If he thinks that that time would allow him fully to consider the points discussed this afternoon, perhaps we could have his comment on that.
Lord SHEPHERD: We shall not be here next week: we shall be in Parliamentary Recess. The Report stage is to be taken the week after next. That gives me at least ten days, if not longer. to examine this matter, and to decide what to do. I have the time. if the noble Lord will give me the opportunity, to look at it again.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: While considering this I think that the noble Lord ought to have in mind that I do not think that the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, has made out a strong enough case to go to too much trouble. Some of us are getting a little tired of the word " democracy " being used in order to do what they call " put all the cards on the table face upwards ", when, in a quite unnecessary way, you are giving information to people who want to injure you. I should have thought that if we have passed the stage where we have rot enough confidence in the interchange on matters of security between an elected Government and all the procedures that are possible in Parliament, quite apart from putting it on the Order Paper in public. then it is time that we ought to look at the whole of our Parliamentary procedures. There is an element of common sense in matters of this sort in the view that in giving information in the supposed democratic way you are also giving ammunition to people who are doing all they can to injure you on every possible occasion.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: It seems to me that there are two. parts to this matter. First of all there is the part to which my noble friend has referred. I do not think that any noble Lord on these Benches would expect any Secretary of State of whatever Government to do anything which might prejudice either the safety or the efficient working of the system we are now trying to set up, or of those who are engaged in it. That is one side of it. I think what some of my noble friends (and indeed perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Avebury) would welcome is a re-examination of the system by the Government so that if something goes wrong—and I do not wish particularly to speculate at this moment on the various things that can go wrong, and the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal did not quite answer the situation that I postulated to him—we can be certain

423
that this new force is going to have a Minister who will answer, so that we do not have the absurd situation that we presently have in the Post Office.
Lord SHEPHERD: I thought I had explained to the noble Earl that the Secretary of State for Energy is the Minister directly responsible for the Atomic Energy Authority, for all the duties it is required to perform, and the way in which they are done. It is the Secretary of State for Energy who will be responsible, completely and entirely, for the AEA staff. There is no question of doubt at all about that. I have suggested by the examples that I have here that the Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament. I should have thought that that is as watertight a position for Parliament, and for the general public, as one is likely to be able to legislate for.
The way in which you ensure that things do not go wrong is by the quality of the officers you recruit, the discipline of the force, and its training. I have given indications of training. I know the force myself, and I gave on Second Reading my own assessment of it. I have complete confidence in this matter, but clearly Parliament ought to exercise caution here. I say that the Secretary of State is directly responsible, and is accountable to Parliament.
Lord AVEBURY: We are in a difficulty here because we do not see at this moment how the Secretary of State could give any binding force to the undertakings which he has given to your Lordships' House that these questions would be answered in another place.
Lord SHEPHERD: This is nonsense.
Lord AVEBURY: Wait a minute. Nor do we see how he would be able to do that within the space of a few days. Certainly in view of the assurances that the noble Lord has given, I should like to help to find a way out of the problem and to leave it until we come to Report when the noble Lord has kindly undertaken to come back to the House and see what can be arranged. I beg him to remember that while the matter was looked at, as he reminded us, on Report in another place, that was done an hour after midnight
424
when only 131 Members were there. Several other Members in another place have since told me that they did not think that adequate consideration had been given to it by the House as a whole, and it is possible that another conclusion would have been reached if there had been a better opportunity to examine the matter at that time.
However, the noble Lord has done his best to give assurances and we are grateful to him for the undertaking he has provided. If he can see a way of attaching binding force to what he has said and can perhaps come forward with a solution on Report, we shall be very grateful. In view of the assurances he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Extension of places where special constables may exercise their powers]:
3.9 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No 2:
Page 2, line 35, after (" place ") insert (" in Great Britain ").
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading I intervened in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to ask whether the constables would cross St. George's Channel if it was suspected that criminals or terrorists in possession of stolen nuclear material had taken it to Northern Ireland, and he replied that it was not the intention of the Government that they should do so. He went on to say that under the circumstances envisaged other authorities would take charge, and I suppose they would be the military forces stationed in that Province. However, Clause 3 (1) says:
" An Authority constable may exercise the powers and privileges … in any place where it appears to him expedient to go ".
Thus, he is not even limited to the United Kingdom, let alone to Great Britain, as I am proposing. If we are considering simply the Northern Ireland point, then the Amendment merely gives statutory force to the statement made by Lord Shepherd. There is however another matter which the Amendment allows us

425
to consider, and that is who is to guard the shipments of special nuclear materials in transit between the United Kingdom and places overseas where the customers for our re-processing facilities are located.
It is our policy to expand the reprocessing facilities at Windscale, which means that in future substantially increased quantities of these materials will be passing over the oceans, perhaps even being transported by aircraft; I do not know whether that is under consideration. The operations of terrorists are international and it is possible they might turn their attention to the hijacking of vessels and aircraft outside our territorial jurisdiction. I understand that we already send back plutonium on a small scale which arises from reprocessing undertaken at Windscale, and this is likely to he a much larger volume of traffic if the contracts which we have been negotiating with the Japanese come into effect. As your Lordships, know, much of the criticism of the Japanese 'contract has focused on the problem of the disposal of waste from Windscale, and so far as I am aware no attention has been given to the question of guarding plutonium shipments in transit between the United Kingdom and Japan or between the United Kingdom and any of the other overseas customers we have, such as the Italians. If it is the Government's intention that Clause 3(1) should permit armed constables to travel overseas accompanying these shipments we should be clear about that at this stage, otherwise we should he told how these shipments are to be protected.
Perhaps the noble Lord will deal at the same time with the question of what will happen if the vessels or aircraft concerned are not under the British flag. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, which simply clarifies what he said at an earlier stage, and I hope that it will he possible for him to deal with the important question of how we are to protect shipments overseas. I beg to move.
Lord SHEPHERD: I am happy to assure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that his Amendment is unnecessary. The Bill as drafted provides these privileges—I think that was the word that was used—only within Great Britain. Northern Ireland has been excluded. Therefore the area within which they can operate is solely within Great Britain. The noble Lord
426
also spoke about the movement of this material overseas and I suppose one must anticipate that it will grow in scale. These constables will not be able to operate outside Great Britain. Therefore, if they were to go on a boat they would cease to be constables: they would become ordinary civilians, and so they would not be covered by this legislation. They would not have an authority to carry a weapon. It may be that if one were using them, authority could perhaps be given by the captain of the ship, but the authority for carrying weapons would not come from under this legislation.
Certainly, at present we do not anticipate the use of this force for this particular task. Their responsibility will be for the sites themselves and for the transit of material within Great Britain. I hope the noble Lord will feel that what I have said meets the point he was making, certainly in regard to the limitation of the area in which this force can operate.
Lord AVEBURY: Obviously, notwithstanding the apparently broad terms of Clause 3(1) which allows a constable to go anywhere
" where it appears to him expedient to go ",
if the noble Lord assures me that technically that is modified by the operation of Clause 4(5), limiting the Bill to Great Britain, then I accept that. But I think I have uncovered a point of some substance: that is, if constables are not to be with the shipments of plutonium returning to Japan, Italy or other overseas customers of reprocessing facilities, then it appears that we have made no arrangements whatsoever for the protection of these shipments, unless the captain of the vessel, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, gave authority for somebody to carry weapons on board.
This is an extremely important matter, because as the noble Lord agreed with me in his reply there would be a growing volume of these shipments. Obviously we have to be satisfied—perhaps not during the course of proceedings on this Bill, but on sonic other occasion —that proper steps have been taken not only by our own Government but, I suggest, also in co-operation with other owners of reprocessing facilities to make sure that international agreement has been made to safeguard these shipments against hijacking. I do not know

427
whether the noble Lord wanted to add anything—
Lord SHEPHERD: I do not want to be offensive, but I think that the noble Lord is not acting in the best interests of the country in the kind of statement he has just made. It is quite wrong of him, because of the mere fact that I did not go into what arrangements are made for the movement of this material, to let it he known that it is his opinion (which could have wide circulation) these materials w ere being moved around without any form of guard or protection. If they allowed that, any Government, any authority, would have been acting with complete irresponsibility hut I do not intend to match that irresponsibility by disclosing to the Committee what steps are taken to protect this material, except to tell the Committee that it is protected.
Lord AVEBURY: I can only say that we are in a dilemma which clearly is not going to he resolved this afternoon. But if we are not told about the measures that are taken to protect special nuclear material when, after all, the Government agree that we are entitled to know something about them as far as the internal affairs of the United Kingdom are concerned, then there is always the possibility (I put it no higher) that the public will have some anxiety as to whether these arrangements are adequate. We shall have to return to this matter on some other occasion and discuss what arrangements the United Kingdom has made with our allies overseas who operate reprocessing facilities to see that shipments of this nature are properly protected against the activities of international terrorists. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
3.19 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 3 insert the following new clause:
Complaints against Authority constables.
. Any complaints by members of the public against Authority constables in respect of the powers conferred on them under this Act shall he subject to the same complaints procedure as is for the time being in force for police forces maintained by police authorities.
The noble Lord said: I preface my remarks by saying that nothing that I am about to say should be construed as any criticism of the Atomic Energy Constabulary as it is at present or the way it has been operating, and I am fully aware that there have been practically no complaints made against the constabulary whatsoever during the past 10 years. I return to this subject not because of any anxiety about how the constables have carried out their responsibilities in the past, or how they might do so in the near future, but simply as a matter of legislative necessity we must take into consideration a much longer period of time than even the lifetime of office of a particular Parliament or Government.
This matter has been dealt with rather more thoroughly than others arising from the Bill, but I have to say that after very thorough consideration of what has been said by Ministers we are still not entirely satisfied. For instance, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said in another place on the 4th May, at col. 1213 of the Official Report, that the Government were, if anything, even more anxious than certain Members of the Opposition to ensure that the complaints procedures which apply to civilian police forces should also apply to the AEA constabulary. That is what my honourable friend the Member for Berwick was trying to achieve on Report stage in another place, yet it is not what is accomplished in the Bill as it stands at the moment. Nor would it he if the undertakings which have been given by Ministers were implemented.
The position we have today is that a Police Bill containing an improved complaints machinery and applying to England and Wales is slowly grinding its way through another place; and, of course, we can have no absolute guarantee that it will complete all its remaining stages by the end of this Session, particularly now that the whole of the business programme in another place appears to have been thrown into confusion by other events. But if the Bill does get on to the Statute Book then, as I understand it, the Atomic Energy Authority constables in England and Wales will be subject to exactly the same complaints procedure as that which applies to civilian police forces. and I think my honourable friend

429
the Member for Berwick is to be congratulated on having achieved that much during Report stage in another place.
However, as I say, this Police Bill applies only to England and Wales, and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said—and this is in col. 1213, on 4th May —that it was the Government's intention to introduce an independent clement into the machinery for complaints against the police in Scotland at some future date, although it would not necessarily be identical with that in England and Wales. But this is not a Bill which is coming forward in this Session. For all we know it may not appear even in the Queen's Speech this autumn, and therefore it might be not until 1978 that anything is done about it. In the meanwhile—I hope I have this correctly—the AEA constables in Scotland will he dealt with only under the existing internal AEA procedures, which I do not understand to be the same as those which apply to the civilian police in Scotland.
There are two possible solutions to this problem. One is to extend the England and Wales Police Bill to Scotland for this particular purpose alone, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has proposed in another Amendment. On that, I would say that, while it would certainly be a very much tidier arrangement so far as the AEA itself is concerned, I very much doubt whether it would be an acceptable solution for Scottish opinion bearing in mind the very different legal situation under which police forces in Scotland have always operated. It would also mean that every time an Amendment was made to the Police Bill complaints procedure there would have to be a corresponding change in this legislation.
The alternative, which I am putting forward in this Amendment, is the same as that which was advocated by my honourable friend the Member for Berwick and which was argued by him in another place with his usual force and cogency. It is that, whatever the complaints procedure may be applying to civilian police forces either in England and Wales or in Scotland, respectively, for the time being, then those same arrangements will apply automatically to the AEA constabulary. That was always the situation so far as Scotland is concerned, and it avoids the need for any further altera-
430
tion in this Bill when changes are made in the machinery for complaints against civilian police forces. I beg to move.
Lord SHEPHERD: As a general principle, there is nothing between the noble Lord and the noble Earl who is to move the next Amendment. which is for a similar purpose although it is drafted differently. Therefore, with the permission of the Committee I should like to speak, if I may, to both Amendments, although that will not in any way prevent the noble Earl from speaking to his Amendment either separately or alongside the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avehury. This is an important issue and I am glad that the noble Lord has acknowledged the discipline of this force which I have spoken about earlier and that there has only been one complaint during the last 10 years.
Clause 6 of the Bill provides that forces like the AEA police, usually known as employers' forces, may opt voluntarily to be covered by the hoards. So far as the AEA police are concerned, the Authority are ready to have their force covered by the provisions of the Police Bill when and if it becomes law. However, since the Police Bill will not apply to England and Wales, the AEA police when in Scotland may be subject to different procedures.
Lord AVEBURY: It may have been a slip of the tongue, but the noble Lord said that the Bill will not apply to England and Wales.
Lord SHEPHERD: The Police Bill will apply to England and Wales. In Scotland, there is a different situation. It is intended to introduce legislation to establish a Police Complaints Panel for Scotland and it is intended that this should be available for the officers of the AEA constabulary. I appreciate that no one can anticipate when that legislation will come forward, but in the interim period before legislation for Scotland can be brought into force, the Authority's constables serving in Scotland will be subject to an adequate complaints procedure as close as possible to what will be provided for England and Wales.
Noble Lords will appreciate that complaints involving a criminal allegation would he dealt with by t he procurator

431
fiscal as with officers serving in the regular Scottish police forces. Other complaints would be handled by procedure certainly no less rigorous than that applied to officers serving in the regular police force. We intend to find a way to ensure that any complaints arising in Scotland will be treated in a manner similar in spirit and form to that provided by the Police Bill. What I have said, I hope will convince noble Lords that we are dealing with the substance of the issues raised and that the interim period before Scottish legislation could be in force will certainly be adequately covered.
Turning to the terms of the Amendments, I have grave doubt whether they will achieve the effect desired.The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would force the constabulary to remain subject to the existing complaints procedure in Scotland until legislation to establish a police complaints panel for all regular police is enacted. As I have said, we intend to go one better and to find a way to make the AEA police subject to similar procedures to those contained in the Police Bill for England and Wales in advance of the enactment of similar legislation for Scotland. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would wish to frustrate that intention.
The Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, refers to a Police Bill which has not yet been enacted. I think that we ought to give careful thought to whether it is right to put into (shall we say?) current legislation a requirement to act and comply with other legislation which has not yet been seen in your Lordships' House. I conclude by saying that there is nothing between us at all; that it is our firm intention to see that the spirit and form of Clause 6 of the Police Bill shall be operated for the AEA constabulary throughout Great Britain.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I should also like to emphasise that these Amendments deal with a hypothetical situation in the sense that, as has been said, complaints against the Atomic Energy Authority as an employer have, mercifully, been almost unique. One hopes that that happy situation will be continued. But we are dealing with a situation which the
432
Government regard as grave. There is apparently to be an increasing use of fissile materials. There will be an increasing traffic in fissile materials and therefore it would be idle to say that because there has only been one complaint in the past 10 years that does not force us to consider what may happen in the future.
So far as my Amendment is concerned, I was aware that the Police Bill is still a Bill and in a somewhat unsatisfactory state in the other place, if the Government do not mind me saying so. So far as the Public Bill Office were concerned, they were perfectly happy for that situation regarding my Amendment. Naturally, the Lord Privy Seal will know this was merely a device to get the Government thinking and, hopefully, produce those thoughts to your Lordships for discussion.
So far as complaints against police officers of all kinds are concerned, we are approaching what I regard as a somewhat unsatisfactory situation. We are going to have one system of complaints for regular police officers in England; we are going to have a residuary complaint system for police officers in Scotland. Then we are going to have what I might call " Mr. Benn's irregulars ". They are going to have one system of complaints in England and there will be a second—or perhaps I should say a fourth—type of complaint for Scotland. It should be noted that the Dorset-trained " irregular " stationed in England will find an entirely different procedure when he is on duty in Scotland. As Clause 6(4) of the Police Bill says, it does not extend to Scotland. If we are unionists—and most of us are in this small island—it is absurd to set up a new framework for an armed police force and not have the same system of complaints from one end of the United Kingdom to the other. I think that in this day and age we ought to do better than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, says that the Police Complaints Board can apparently take on the AEA Constabulary voluntarily. That was the word he used. I should like to ask: what does the word " voluntarily " mean? It means somebody has to be willing, but who? Is it the Police Board, the constabulary, or both?
Lord SHEPHERD: The Police Board.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: The noble Lord says that it is the Police Board. Supposing the constabulary are not willing, can they be directed? If so, by whom and under what power? To be voluntary it has to be willing. So far as Scotland is concerned, we understand that the Scottish Office intend to introduce similar legislation to establish a police complaints panel for Scotland. May I say in parenthesis that denotes to me at any rate that the Government acknowledge the present system in relation to regular police forces is less than satisfactory. Until that happens, it is said that there will he some interim measure for the AEA police in Scotland. Again I ask: who is going to lay down this measure? Is it a matter for the Department of Energy? If so, can they dictate in this way? How does it become voluntary and who has to consent?
There is some confusion over the duty and scope of the procurator fiscal. As I understand the position, the procurator fiscal is an officer of court and he comes in at a fairly late stage to consider first of all whether he thinks an offence against the criminal law has been committed. If—and only if—he thinks it has, and he thinks that is should be ventilated before a criminal court, he then brings the matter before the Sheriff. Before some legislation is introduced which would cover Scotland, one asks: what is going to take the place of this system? Is there to he a chief constable's inquiry? I am not now distinguishing between a complaint which may be in relation to a criminal offence, or may not, according to how the inquiry turns out.
I hope from what I have said it will be seen that the situation is less than happy. I should have thought that, though there seems to be what I might call a rush to get this Bill on the Statute Book, surely there would be time to get the complaints procedure right. I should have thought that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal could take this matter away and look at it again.
I know my Amendment does not meet the bill, if only because of the fact that if the Atomic Energy Authority (Special Constables) Bill goes on the Statute Book before the Police Bill—which at the present rate of progress appears to be extremely probable—my Amendment falls to the ground. Nevertheless, I would ask the
434
noble Lord to look at this again and see whether he cannot come up with something a little more logical and rather more comprehensive.
Lord BROWN: May I intervene over the logical fault I noticed in the noble Earl's comment. He said that if the appeals body he mentioned (I have forgotten the word) agreed voluntarily to take on the business of dealing with complaints about the AEA constabulary then you could not regret that the AEA constabulary should be forced to use it. That is a logical fault because if one body says that they are prepared to deal with these matters then you can direct the extent to which the constabulary should use it. The noble Earl seemed to think there was some inconsistency there. I do not think there is any inconsistency at all.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I always like to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, especially when he gives me advice, which is frequently. I did not make any point. I merely asked for elucidation and I asked who was going to give the orders. If it is voluntary, that is one thing. If it is less than voluntary, that is another.
Lord BROWN: If the noble Earl reads Hansard tomorrow, he will find my comments are correct.
Lord SHEPHERD: Who would dare to stand between two Scots? The Police Bill says in Clause 6 that:
" The Police Complaints Board may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, make arrangements for any authority maintaining a body of constables, not being a police authority … for the discharge by the Board in relation to those constables of functions corresponding to any of those conferred on the Board by the foregoing provisions of this Part of the Act; and any such arrangement may, with the like approval, be varied and terminated."
I have already indicated to the Committee and to the House on Second Reading that it is the intention of the AEA and the chief constable concerned that this force should be subject to the provisions of Section 6. Once it has entered into this arrangement with the Police Complaints Board, it is not possible for any force, voluntary or otherwise, to withdraw from these procedures without the consent of the Secretary of State.

435
I recognise that on the face of it there is this difference between England and Scotland, with their different structures: but so far as the AEA police are concerned. they will be covered by exactly the same procedures in the interim, until the Scottish Bill comes into force, as the force is in England, which will be subject to the procedures laid down in the Police Bill.
The procedure if there is a complaint will not he that of a Chief Constable's inquiry, as I think the noble Earl suggested. What we have in mind is that when it has been created the Board will look into any of these complaints. But since the Bill which will set it up Will not apply to Scotland, it is expected that it will operate on an ad hoc basis so far as the AEA police are concerned. It is certainly desirable that the Scottish legislation should he introduced as quickly as possible. I suspect that it w ill be broadly similar to the Police Bill that is now in another place. When that is done. many of the difficulties to which the noble Earl. Lord Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have referred will clearly disappear.
I can give this very firm assurance that the AEA constabulary are only too anxious to participate in Clause 6 of the Police Bill. that we will set up the administrative arrangements and that the Secretary of State w ill ensure that the spirit of Clause 6, and of the Police Bill as a whole, is complied with by the AEA constabulary throughout Great Britain.
Lord AVEBURY: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has certainly gone further. if I understood him correctly, than Members of the Commons managed to go, in clarifying the complaints machinery which will operate in Scotland between the passing of this Bill and the coming into force of any future legislation which may set up new machinery for civilian police there. I must say that the noble Lord astonished me, not for the first time this afternoon, in saying that under a Bill which applies only to England and Wales it is possible to have what he called ad hoc procedures to deal with the situation in Scotland. I should have thought that was yet another innovation among many which are being introduced under this Bill, hut I am perfectly happy to accept the
436
noble Lord's assurances that that is so. Also, I do not want to become involved in a technical argument between two Scotsmen on the exactitudes of the work of the procurator fiscal.
I want to make only one point. In the first of his interventions. the noble Lord. Lord Shepherd, said that the machinery which applied in Scotland would he similar in spirit and form to that in England and Wales. I thought he had chosen his words rather carefully, so as to take into account the differences which exist because of the judicial background, particularly the role of the procurator fiscal. As I have understood it. in the case of any complaint against civilian police in England and Wales. if there is evidence showing that a criminal offence has been committed the complaint must go straight to the Director of Public Prosecutions: whereas in Scotland the investigation can he pursued further down the line by the police themselves before the procurator fiscal cones into it. Therefore, I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the machinery which is to be introduced as a temporary measure in Scotland will have to he similar and not identical to that in England and Wales. I do not know whether or not it was a slip of the tongue, hut in his last speech he used the term " exactly the same I see that the noble Lord is nodding his head to indicate that he meant " similar ".
This is probably the best solution that we can devise. As I said, if we exactly applied to Scotland the Police Bill procedure in England and Wales. we should not only step on Scottish susceptibilities but we might run into some legal difficulties there. We merely have to accept the fact that this rather unsatisfactory interim procedure is necessary, by reason of the fact that the Scotland and the England and Wales Police Bills are not absolutely in parallel, which would have been a much better solution. But in the light of the assurances that have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT (DETERMINATION OF REQUIRE- MENTS) REGULATIONS 1976
3.46 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1976. laid before the House on 13th May, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if, subject to the consent of the noble Lord who will he speaking for the Opposition and of your Lordships, we discussed the draft Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1976 together with the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1976, which also was laid before your Lordships on 13th May.
The two Instruments together provide for most of the increases in benefits announced by my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State in her Statement in another place on 7th April. I will deal first with the National Insurance and industrial injuries benefits which are covered by the Order and then turn to the supplementary benefit increases provided by the regulations.
I do not propose to enumerate all the various increases, because a list of the main rates is to be found in Appendix I to the Government Actuary's Report (Cmnd. 6478) which accompanies the Order. It might help your Lordships if I refer to the standard rates of retirement pension, which will be increased from £13.30 to £15.30 for a single person, and from £21.20 to £24.50 for a married couple, increases of about 15 per cent. Other long-term benefits will rise by corresponding amounts. It might also be helpful if mention the standard rate of sickness and unemployment benefit which will go up by about 16 per cent. from £11.10 to £12.90 for a single person, and from £18 to £20.90 for a married couple. Other short-term benefits will rise by corresponding amounts.
Your Lordships will realise that on this occasion the Government have departed from usual practice and have given a higher percentage increase to the short term benefits—benefits which, however, are not, for some people, all that short-term. The Government have been concerned about the widening gap between
438
these benefits and the long-term pension rates and considered that there should be some closing of the gap.
If I may refer briefly to the structure of the Order, Article 1 is formal. The increased rates are provided for by Article 2, together with the Schedule, and Article 3 provides for the dates from which the various increases in benefit are to take effect in the week beginning 15th November. Articles 4 and 5 are technical: the one up-dating the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 and the other formally revoking last year's Up-rating Order.
This will be, as your Lordships will recall, the fourth uprating since this Government entered Office, and this is the second occasion on which National Insurance and industrial injuries benefits have been increased by an Order rather than by an Up-rating Bill. This method is provided for in the Social Security Act 1975 and was first used for the up-rating of benefits implemented in November 1975. It is proposed that the new rates of benefit in the present order will come into force in the week beginning 15th November, one year after the last increases. Although in the last two years up-ratings have been more frequent than once a year, the Government now feel that the falling rate of inflation means that such emergency measures are no longer necessary. It has always been our intention to return to the system of annual reviews of benefit levels, which the law obliges my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to carry out.
From April 1975 the Social Security Act placed upon the Secretary of State the duty at least to maintain the value of the pension in line with the movement of earnings or of prices, whichever is more favourable to the pensioner. In April 1975 the standard rate of retirement pension for a single person was £11.60, and £18.50 for a married couple. These rates were in fact introduced from that month by the Social Security Benefits Act 1975, and this was the last occasion on which the Secretary of State needed to use major legislation to increase pensions. By the first order made under the Social Security Act, pensions were subsequently increased to £13.30 for a single person and £21.20 for a married couple. These rates came into effect in November 1975. Between April and

439
November 1975, prices rose by 11.7 per cent., and earnings rose by 12.1 per cent. To maintain the value of the April 1975 pension rates it would have been necessary, therefore, to increase them by the higher of these percentages to give rates of £13 for a single person and £20.80 for a married couple. Therefore the rates introduced in our last up-rating order—£13.30 and £21.20, as I have said—were more than sufficient to maintain the pension levels, and we are confident that the 15 per cent. increase proposed for November 1976 will be more than sufficient to protect and maintain pensions against prices and earnings increases between November 1975 and November 1976.
My Lords, I will turn now to the Supplementary Benefit Regulations. These regulations provide for increases in the supplementary benefit scale rates laid down by the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966. As your Lordships will know, the scale rates, together with an addition for rent, represent the levels to which the incomes of retired and other people not in full-time work can be brought up by means of supplementary benefit. It is proposed this year, as in previous up-ratings, to increase the main supplementary benefit scale rates by the same cash amounts as the corresponding National Insurance pensions and benefits.
The main supplementary benefit increases are provided for in Article 2. It is proposed that the long-term rates which are payable to supplementary pensioners and to people, except the unemployed, who have received a supplementary allowance continuously for two years, shall be increased by £2 to £15.70 for a person living alone, and by £3.30p to £24.85p for a married couple. The rates for those aged over 80 remain 25p higher. The ordinary scale rates which apply to the unemployed and to people who have received a supplementary allowance for fewer than two years are to be increased by £1.80p to £12.70p for a single person, and by £2.90p to £20.65p for a married couple. Increases in the rates for children are in roughly the same proportion. The blind are to continue to receive their existing preferential margin on top of the improved rates.
Article 2 also provides for increases in the amounts allowed for attendance
440
requirements in the Supplementary Benefits scheme. They apply to supplementary beneficiaries who are in receipt of the National Insurance attendance allowance. The increases in attendance requirements are the same as those being made in the attendance allowance itself, with the higher rate becoming £12.20 and the lower rate £8.15. A standard weekly addition for rent is given to a beneficiary who is not a householder, and it is proposed that this shall be increased by 20p to £1.20 a week. This increase, together with the raising of the scale rate, will give the non-householder an increase of £1.80 if he is on the long-term scale, or £1.65 if he is not.
That concludes my account of the specific increases contained in the order and regulations before us. Your Lordships will, however, be pleased to learn that the Supplementary Benefits Commission have decided to raise their discretionary additions for extra heating from 55p, £1.10 and £1.65 a week, to 70p, £1.40 and £2.10 respectively. The standard additions for special diets are also to be increased from 60p and £1.35 to 75p and £1.75 a week respectively. These increases in discretionary additions will also take effect from November.
About l2½ million people will benefit from the increases proposed in the draft order and the draft regulations. The annual cost of the proposals before your Lordships' House today is no less than £1,340 million. It is probably not generally recognised that all our pension schemes cost £160 million per week; in other words, £23 million per day. I think my figures are correct. There will at the same time be an additional cost of £37 million for war pensions and of something in the region of £14 million for the increases in supplementary benefit discretionary additions. Of the total cost nearly £1,160 million will fall on the National Insurance Fund, the rest being provided by Exchequer grant. The new contribution rates which came into force in April will be sufficient to finance in the current year the rates of benefits which I have been able to announce. For 1977 to 1978 there will be a review of contributions later this year. With your Lordships' permission, that is all I feel 1 need say at this stage, and I hope that there will be no hesitation on the part of your Lordships in accepting these Instruments. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 13th May, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell,)
4 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for giving details of the schemes which we have heard. He can rest assured that we on this side of the House warmly welcome the proposals made and the terms in which they have been carried out_ There are a number of queries which must inevitably arise. Taking the datum of April 1974 as the period when the Government took Office, up to May 1976, a two-year period, I think the Government should be congratulated that this is the fourth uprating since they took Office. But one must remember that set against that there is the very unwelcome piece of news which was announced in another place on Monday, that during that same period the cost of living, variously worked out, rose by approximately 51 per cent. However, we must be pleased to hear what the noble Lord has said in regard to the fact that the arrangements made for the increases in November more than cover the rise in the cost of living.
The question which I should like to ask the noble Lord is this. I wonder whether he can give us any direct evidence of the purchasing power of the pension during these last three upratings, because that is perhaps the most significant piece of information your Lordships would wish to have. In regard to the information over the discretionary allowances for both heating and additional feeding, it must be a matter of grave concern for both statutory and voluntary organisations concerned with old people suffering from hypothermia, especially bearing in mind the expected rise in the cost of electricity. Therefore, the Government's proposals will be particularly welcome. Whether they meet the requirement is a different matter; nevertheless, in the circumstances, it is probably something which may be adjusted in due course.
I would like most warmly to welcome the additional expenditure of £37 million for war widows, which bears out the concern the noble Lord expressed in a debate a few weeks ago on this subject. So far as the regulations are concerned,
442
the noble Lord gave us full details. I have no observations in that regard, except to welcome the terms in which he did so.
4.4 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I also would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his very thorough explanation of these two Instruments. Of course, we all in this House welcome increases in social security benefits, even while we realise that their main purpose is to keep pace with inflation. I understand there will be no improvement in the relation of benefits to net average earnings as a result of these increases.
The noble Lord mentioned the cost of the increases, which, of course, is a large sum; but he went on to say—and it is stressed in the Government Actuary's report on these instruments—that this would be met by the contribution rate which was fixed last year. The Government Actuary stresses the fact that where you have contributions related to earnings they should provide a buoyant revenue which will automatically meet the increase in benefits. Therefore, we must not be too alarmed by the size of the figures that are mentioned by the noble Lord as to the cost of these proposals.
Some credit was taken in another place when these changes were announced by the then Secretary of State, Mrs. Castle, for the fact that there had been an increase in the real value of pensions under the present Government. But if you set up a scheme under which pensions and longterm benefits generally are to rise in line with whichever is the higher—the increase in prices or the increase in earnings—then inevitably the pension will either increase in real value or become a higher percentage of national average earnings. It must do one or the other. An increase in real value then underlines the original virtue of the scheme rather. than any subsequent Government generosity.
When we discussed the last up-rating order on 30th June 1975 the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said at column 49:
" … the interval between the April and the proposed November upratings is, as I have said, just over seven months, so that the movements of 1 prices and earnings were measured over a seven-month period, starting from August 1974—the point where the calculation of the last uprating ended. Thus the period of measurement was for

443
the seven months up to March 1975. Later information is now available, but changes in earnings and prices after March 1975 will be reflected in the next uprating."
But we see now that that is not going to happen. The Government have decided to jump ahead to the date of the last uprating of November 1975 and estimate a year ahead from there.
Since the rate of inflation has been reduced, it is true that this will mean, if the Government prediction is correct for the current year, that there will be no fall in the real value of benefits when next November rate is compared with last November rate. But recipients will have been denied compensation for the higher rate of inflation which took place in the period from March 1975 to November 1975, and which has been left out of the calculations. That increase has nevertheless been built into the current levels of earnings and prices. After all, earnings and prices continue to increase, even if more slowly. They are certainly not falling. So there has been no offset for the higher increase in that period. In conclusion, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether, should the rate of inflation increase again, the Government intend to move the reference period back again wholly into the past, so that one way or the other the recipient loses out?
4.8 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for their understanding of what the Government are endeavouring to do. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, expressed some concern about the heating. This is a matter of considerable moment so far as my Department is concerned, and I was at some pains to endeavour to find out what the situation really is. The position is that I was surprised to learn what personal attention was given to each individual person who needs some kind of heating allowance. If, of course, the cost of heating goes up, then it will be the concern of the Department to see that the real needs of people, particularly those who are in receipt already of a heating allowance, will in fact be met.
As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, we are at some pains to try to keep
444
pensions in line with inflation. The only thing that the Government can do in matters of this kind is to try, using the best means possible when introducing an up-rating, to see what the situation will be when the pensions in fact come in. This is not easy but there are ways and means of assessing trends and that is what we have sought to do. I was asked how much real improvement the Government had achieved in the level of retirement pensions. The rates of £13.30 for a single person and £21.20 for a married couple introduced last November are worth about 8.1 per cent., in other words 99p, for single persons and 6.8 per cent. for married couples more than the equivalent of the October 1973 rates after allowing for price increases up to April 1976, the latest date for which figures are available.
Reference to the missing period, which Lord Banks put his finger on, as I thought he would, serves only to obscure the real issues. They are, first, whether this Government have maintained the value of the pension and, secondly, whether the present proposals will continue to do so. On the first, as I tried to say earlier, the last up-rating established levels of pensions which were worth more— on a comparison either with earnings or prices —than any previous rate. On the second, the Government are confident that the present proposals will maintain the pension value with something to spare. This must be a matter not of conjecture but of what will happen between now and November.
As noble Lords will know, Government Departments have an opportunity to assess fairly accurately what will happen even if they do not always say what will happen, and this is what has been done. Further, the pension in November will be worth substantially more than the rates introduced by the previous Government in the autumn of 1973. I do not say that in any way unkindly; I was asked to give some sort of comparison. We shall have increased it by over 97 per cent., whereas up to last month prices had increased by only 59 per cent. So this is a real step forward and shows that the amounts which we have fixed really are giving a plus and not a minus.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS UP-RATING ORDER 1976
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I spoke to this order when moving the previous one and, with the permission of the House, I move it formally.
Moved, that the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1976, laid before the House on 13th May, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT
4.14 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1976,
Land Drainage (Amendment) Act 1976, Licensing (Amendment) Act 1976,
Seychelles Act 1976,
Australian Estates Companies Act 1976,
Standard Life Assurance Company Act 1976,
Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund Act 1976,
Samuel Montagu & Co. Limited Act 1976.

THEATRES TRUST BILL
4. I 5 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Experience has taught me that the necessary ingredients for piloting a Private Member's Bill on to the Statute Book come under three headings. First, the result, or the anticipated result, must be seen to be for general good. Secondly, the Bill must be modest in what it wants to do. Thirdly, perhaps most importantly, it must have a strong element of support from the Government of the day. I can say with complete confidence that this Bill, guided through the other place by my honourable friend the Member for Canterbury, Mr. David Crouch, passes all three tests. I think that we can accept the requirement of the
446
first test easily; whether it be on cultural grounds or on material grounds, assisting the national balance of trade, this Bill is clearly eminently desirable. With regard to the second test—that the Bill should be modest—I believe that it is modest even to the point of being too modest as regards asking Parliament for more legislation to attain desirable ends. On the third test—the important one—the Government have shown very clearly up to now that they are sympathetic, and I know that no one is more sympathetic than the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, who is to speak for the Government in this debate.
Briefly, the Bill is designed to make it more difficult for anyone to add to the demise of existing live theatres by demolishing them or by radically changing their nature and making them unusable as live theatres. Under the Bill such a change would have to be examined by a theatre trust, set up by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, before any planning authority could sanction such a change that would mean the end of a theatre. I believe that anyone who has even a passing knowledge of the history of theatre in this country would recognise that such delaying powers have been long overdue. If note is taken of the many British theatres which have been allowed to perish over recent years, it will be seen that time ought not to be allowed to go without trying to rectify what has been an omission. We have seen the inevitably disastrous effects that losing so many theatres have had on those employed in the theatrical profession. We have seen, too, the danger it presents to our being able to maintain our world leadership in the quality and the standing of the British theatre.
We can also look at the matter in money terms. The income which the theatre brings to our tourism, the royalties from new plays which are presented and are sent on tour, and the income from the actors' salaries, all added together, form a very important part of the Exchequer income, and we cannot disregard that. Your Lordships will know that for many years certain theatres have been protected from premature demolition because the structure of the buildings brought them within the ambit of being of either special architectural or historic significance. This

447
power has been exercised under the Department of the Environment for a long time and has been used to some purpose.
This protection operated at the planning stage under the auspices of the other Ministry, the Ministry of Environment. That will remain, and it is in no way affected by what is proposed in this Bill. It is quite separate from it. They are both doing the same thing, but they are doing it under different auspices and for different reasons. What we are now endeavouring to do by means of this Bill is to protect from ill-considered demolition bona fide theatre buildings which have no special architectural or historic significance but which are good working theatres, meeting a public need and providing a venue for preserving the art of acting in Britain. That is the purpose of the Bill.
My Lords, having described it in those general terms I can say with confidence that this is a realistic Bill. There is no question of trying to establish by Statute that a certain site must carry a theatre in perpetuity, in spite of other considerations. It is recognised that other considerations, such as a radical change in population in any area, may make a situation different. It is recognised that clear proof that a theatre could never come anywhere near paying for itself is a matter that would have to be taken into account; and this Bill is an indication of the awareness of those realistic considerations. The Bill merely lays down that before a change of user under existing planning permission is made, a Theatre Trust set up by the Minister of Education and Science shall be consulted, not with any powers to stop it at that stage but in order that it may be made certain that all of the considerations for preserving the theatre have been taken into account.
My Lords, this is also a realistic Bill in what is intended from this point of view. There is no question at all of the Trust comprising what I would call " stage-struck bigots ". It will consist of men of commerce and business, professional people and the consuming public, as well as those who are of the theatre and who understand the nuts and bolts of theatre management. It will cover the whole range, and the considerations to be taken into account will be taken into account by people of experience, not overborne with
448
emotionalism such as I have described as being " stage-struck ", or anything of that sort. When consulted, the members of this Trust would apply themselves to seeing whether there was a case for protecting a theatre. If they decided there was no case—and there will be instances where that will happen—they will report, and the Trust would then withdraw, leaving any planning decision to the normal planning authorities.
Alternatively, if the Trust were to report that the theatre should be maintained and the owners of the theatre and the site were to find difficulty in maintaining it, then the planning authority would ask the Trust what it would do about it, having recommended that a theatre should he preserved but that there are practical reasons which make that difficult. If the Trust, recognising those dangers, still recommend that planning permission for demolition or alteration should not be given, then the planning authority asks the Trust. " What do you do about it? ", and the Trust would then have to take such steps as are set out in the Bill, using their own funds, to see that the theatre was maintained.
Let me emphasise at once that there is no question of public money being made available to the Trust. If they make a decision which necessitates their stepping in at any time in a way which involves the spending of money, then they have to raise the money in order to give effect to what they are recommending. There is no question of Government money being involved. I emphasise that in view of the comments made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House when he warned your Lordships about asking for all sorts of extra facilities which cost money and, at the same time, complaining about the high level of Government spending. In this instance, if the Trust makes itself responsible for giving a recommendation which will maintain a theatre and it is going to cost money to go on maintaining it, they must find that money in order to see that it can be done. It is at this stage that I think it right to ask the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, the Minister responsible in this House, to reinforce here the undertaking given by his colleague in another place.
I have suggested already that under the Bill the Theatres Trust must be consulted

449
before any planning decision is given. In fact, such mandatory powers will be given, not under this Bill; the mandatory powers will be given by adding the words set out in Clause 5 of the Bill to the appropriate section of the existing Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The words in Clause 5 were:
" 5.—(a) Before a local planning authority grants a planning permission for the development of any land on which is situated any theatre as defined in the Theatre Trust Act 1976 they shall consult with the Theatre Trust incorporated by this Act."
This requires an authority other than the Ministry of Education and Science to include in their instruments this necessary mandatory power.
The colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has given a clear undertaking in another place that this will be brought in this year in order to make the Bill effective; and I should be grateful, while accepting a categorical assurance given in another place, if the noble Lord, for the Record here, could give a similar undertaking in this House. Having got that, I think one can then recommend this Bill to your Lordships as being something worth while and which in the future will be valuable.
I think that the timing of this Bill is about right. We have to keep in mind the often-mooted redevelopment of the centre of London, especially in the Covent Garden area, where no fewer than 16 theatres are affected by the Greater London Council's plan for redevelopment-16 London theatres. We cannot overlook the fact that many theatres have leases with only a few years to run, with the owners being more interested in property development than in the social balance. I do not abuse them for that. It is not their responsibility or duty, but it is the responsibility and duty of Parliament, of which this House forms a part, to see that the social balance is maintained.
The owners to whom I have referred have their rights, rights which must be treated fairly; and this is a Bill which allows for them to be treated fairly. If they are robbed of their full development rights they can call upon the Trust that is forming some obstacle to their having full freedom of action in that field to justify their opposition to it by finding money of their own. There is much more to all this in my view—and this is
450
the reason why I undertook the piloting of this Bill through your Lordships' House—than merely rescuing a theatre or two from bankruptcy. The one field in which we truly lead the world is the British theatre and British acting. There is no argument about that. It is universally acknowledged. Having achieved that very satisfactory situation, it increases our influence in the world—for the theatre is the most articulate of all lobbies.
Furthermore, if we remain supreme in that field, it will not only maintain our leadership; it will add to our coffers, for the theatre overspills into films and into television and television, in particular, is only in its infancy. We think that because we have three or four channels of television in this country there is a lot of television about. The effect of television and the extension of it throughout the world is only beginning; only a fraction of the world is using this medium in the way it is being used in this country and in America. That will grow. If we can remain the centre, the power house for providing the material for this great industry which is going to grow, we can become the Hollywood of the world just like that part of America was when films were at the beginning.
I believe this is a true vision. We should be stupid in a very material sense if we did anything which took away from us the leadership which we have in the world of the theatre and acting generally. This Bill may be of only miniscule proportions in aiming to maintain this supremacy. But though tiny, its influence can be important and I believe the timing of its entrance on to the Statute Book is just about right. Because I feel that your Lordships will feel the same way, I am encouraged to believe that before the end of the Session it will form part of the legislation of this country. With that hope in mind, I am happy to move its Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
4.31 p.m.
Viscount NORWICH: My Lords, the afternoon is already rather far advanced and I am perfectly sure that your Lordships will not want to spend a great deal

451
more time listening to me. Fortunately, I do not think your Lordships are going to have to do so, because the Bill we are considering is first of all a model of clarity and conciseness. Secondly, it has been most admirably summed up by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Thirdly, I have a clear feeling that, in any case, if I did go on " rabbiting " about it for too long, I should only be preaching to the converted. If there is any better argument for a short sermon then I should like to know it.
The basic purpose of the Bill—and there can be no disagreement of any kind on this—is admirably summed up in the Preamble. It is simply for the better protection of the theatre. As the noble Lord said, it goes farther than that because through protecting the theatre we also protect the hard-pressed, overcrowded, struggling, underpaid theatrical profession. We also give a superb cultural feast to foreign and particularly Commonwealth and American visitors, and improve our balance of payments.
I know that the following is not the purpose of the Bill, but it is a useful spinoff of it: we shall protect a great many theatres of very considerable architectural merit, because although not all theatres are of any considerable architectural merit, a great many are and the architectural conservation side, although not an integral part, is something which, none the less, is not to be dismissed. Far more important is the fact that in bringing this Bill on to the Statute Book, we are striking another blow for the greatness and glory of the English theatre. It has been the brightest jewel in our cultural crown in the past 400 years, and it is the duty of us all to keep it bright and burnished.
The protection that we shall give if' the Bill is passed is of vital importance and necessity—let nobody be in any doubt about that. We can all draw up a fairly long list of theatres of which we have had personal knowledge in the past twenty years or so which have disappeared. Scores and scores of them, literally without exaggeration, have gone since the end of the last war. At this very moment there are fifteen London theatres whose leases are due to expire before the end of the century. Five of those are in respect of freeholds
452
held by property development companies. They include the Royal Opera House and the Royal Court, which are two of the subsidised theatres.
On top of that there is the unfortunate but undeniable fact that even the theatres that make money are at risk, because they do not make as much money as an office block would do on the same site. It is totally unrealistic to expect a theatre, which operates for three or four hours a day at most, to make as much money as an office block in which every room would be occupied for about eight hours per day. Therefore, the great enemy of the survival of the theatre—I do not think there is any point in whitewashing it—is greed.
To some extent, also, it may be said to be due to insensitivity on the part of local authorities. There is no more dangerous doctrine than that which holds that it is the inhabitants of a locality or the local authority which should he responsible for the architecture, atmosphere or amenities of that locality. We have seen what has happened in so many of the historic medieval cities in this country, such as Gloucester, Worcester and, in part, even Bath. We have seen the appalling threat hanging over Petworth Park, due to the incredible insensitivity on the part of the Sussex County Council, and we have to assume that a great many local authorities have been simply unwilling to bother about what seems to them a matter of relatively minor interest in these days of television, and have been only too ready to grant planning permission.
At the same time, we should not be too hard on all local authorities, some of whom are models of enlightenment and who have simply had to give in because they have known there was no good legitimate reason why planning permission should be withheld. By continuing to withhold it, they might have laid themselves open to the risk of being sued for enormous sums of money: and they have had to give in. In particular, it is those enlightened local authorities who should be particularly grateful for the protection offered by this Bill. I do not think there is any reason for me to repeat the terms and the form this protection will take. That has been admirably described already by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls.

453
When I looked at this Bill in its present form, I shall not conceal from your Lordships that I was very concerned to see that, however admirable its basic principles seemed to be, it did also seem to be totally devoid of teeth. There seemed to be absolutely no reason why the Theatres Trust, having been formed, need be consulted; but 'this is a matter which has been hammered out at very considerable length in another place. I understand it has been agreed that the best way of achieving its purpose is not to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 hut to achieve the same end through an amendment to the General Development Order under that Act. This is a technical question which I shall not pursue, because I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, is just about to do that, with far more authority and clarity than I can boast.
However, before leaving the point, I should like to join my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, in asking the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, whether he will—and I am certain he will be delighted to do that—repeat the assurances already given in another place. The first is that the General Development Order will be amended when, as I understand the position, it comes up for revision in any case during the course of the present year. The second assurance, which I am sure your Lordships will agree is equally important, is that by achieving the aim in this way we are giving the point every bit as much of the force of law as if we had decided to keep the original Clause 5 in the Bill and amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
When I looked at this Bill for the first time, it seemed to me that this Theatres Trust would be the same kind of animal as the National Trust in which, as some of your Lordships may know, I have an interest and I serve on the Committee. I now see that in several important respects it will not be at all similar to the National Trust. First, it will not he a private charity, as the National Trust basically is, despite the fact that it boasts over 500,000 members; and, secondly, the members of the Theatres Trust will be appointed by the Government. These are very important differences. But there is one overridingly important respect in which the two are
454
similar, which is that the Theatres Trust, like the National Trust, will serve a tremendously important purpose. It will achieve something which, if the Government themselves set out to achieve it with their own money, would prove enormously expensive. As it is, this very important task will be achieved without the expenditure of a single penny of public money, and for this alone it seems to me that this Bill is of most vital importance.
Finally, it only remains for me to add another word to the points already made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Our theatre is, and always has been, the best in the world. In the present grim period through which we are passing, it is rather marvellous to think that at least the theatre, despite all the appalling financial difficulties with which it is surrounded and which occasionally threaten to crush it, has in the last few years gone from strength to strength. During the years in which I have had the honour to be a Member of your Lordships' House, we have seen the abolition of theatre censorship, we have seen the establishment of a National Museum of the Theatre, and of course we have seen the great buildings going up on the South Bank, with the final realisation of the long-awaited dream of a National Theatre in this country. I believe that this measure will he another step forward in the same splendid progress, and for that reason I hope very much that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, in this brief intervention I want only to say, firstly and lastly, how much I support this Bill. I believe profoundly, as the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, has just said, that our theatre is one of our biggest credits abroad, apart from the edification of our people, and I feel that this Bill is something which your Lordships' House should support.
4.43 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, when one is going to say, No, to something, it is as well to take one's time about it. But if one is going to say, Yes, there is no reason why one should not do so quickly. This afternoon, I am

455
in affirmative mood. Our position on the Bill is quite clear and we welcome it. We agree with its aim, as described in detail and extremely clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and, as we understand it, its purpose, which is not simply to preserve buildings as architectural monuments, which is already covered by other legislation, but also to protect theatres for the performance of drama. I shall add nothing to what has been said about the common ground between us, that for financial reasons theatres have been eroded in the last 10 or 15 years and need protection.
I do not mind saying that the Bill is particularly welcome to the Government, because it does not involve any finance and it is very much to the credit of the movers and the people behind this Bill that they have quite firmly said that they will shoulder the cost. I do not think it need be a very heavy expense when it works out, hut, at any rate, it is theirs and not ours and we are wholly behind the objective.
Both noble Lords who spoke first asked me to renew the assurance which was given in another place. The position is that subsection (5)(a) to which the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, referred has been removed from the Bill as it now stands and will appear in the same, or similar provision, in the General Development Order, under Article 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as something to which planners have to refer before they can give planning permission. The Government, and particularly my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, took the view that this was a much safer way of making certain that this was looked at than having it in the Bill.
The assurance that noble Lords are asking for from me is that that will be incorporated within the year. This assurance was given by my honourable friend in another place and we are in the very strong position of having a charming colleague of his in this place. If there is any delay we can all make certain, through my noble friend Lady Birk, that that delay is immediately halted. Therefore I think that I can give this assurance with absolute conviction.
I shall say no more on that point. I shall not go into the detail any further
456
than this because I think that we all understand it. I hope that this will turn out to be one more weapon in the armoury with which to defend the theatre in this country. I agree with everything that has been said about the predominance of the British theatre today not only in Europe but throughout the world. I was rather surprised to hear the noble Viscount suggest that this has always been the case. I could find some periods in the nineteenth century when it certainly was not the case, but this has nothing to do with the argument. Today we lead the world. The Government are as anxious as everybody else to see that we continue to do so. This is one method, combined with the £3 million that we are spending on the two national companies and twice as much again on the companies outside them. It is no mean sum. Combined with that, this should be one further weapon towards maintaining the predominance of the British theatre. I hope that nobody will doubt that the Bill will have a fair passage through this House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, on behalf of all of us on these Benches may I wish noble Lords in all parts of the House a very happy, relaxing and, for some of us, rehabilitating Recess.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, may I thank the Chief Whip very much for her kind wishes. We reciprocate them fully.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches may I also thank the Chief Whip. We trust that she shall come back greatly restored. I cannot see that the Chief Whip needs a great deal of restoration now, but I take it that she probably feels she does!

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, together with a Special
Report; Bill recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee, and the Special Report to be printed.

YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY (RIVER DERWENT) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with Amendments.
  POST OFFICE: COMMEMORATIVE STAMPS
  POST OFFICE: COMMEMORATIVE STAMPS
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS IN SCOTLAND: LETTINGS
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS IN SCOTLAND: LETTINGS
  OVERSEAS STUDENTS' FEES
  OVERSEAS STUDENTS' FEES
  APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS
  APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS
  DOG BREEDING LICENCES
  DOG BREEDING LICENCES
  COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS
  COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS
  TELEX FACILITIES IN THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  TELEX FACILITIES IN THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  SCOTTISH AND WELSH ASSEMBLIES AND EEC COURT OF JUSTICE
  SCOTTISH AND WELSH ASSEMBLIES AND EEC COURT OF JUSTICE
  EEC SOCIAL FUND
  EEC SOCIAL FUND
  EEC FUNDS AND UK APPLICATIONS
  EEC FUNDS AND UK APPLICATIONS
  NORTH SEA OIL:SERVICE VESSELS
  NORTH SEA OIL:SERVICE VESSELS
  EEC AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
  EEC AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
  EEC AND LORDS " HANSARD "
  EEC AND LORDS " HANSARD "
  THE LAYFIELD REPORT
  THE LAYFIELD REPORT
  MOTOR CAR ACCIDENTS IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA
  MOTOR CAR ACCIDENTS IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA
  CONCORDE GROUNDING
  CONCORDE GROUNDING