Sitting of 5 July 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL (FRANKWELL FOOTBRIDGE) BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.
  WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  MERSEYSIDE PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered upon Thursday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    Officers
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans to axe officers of the three Services.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Frederick Mulley): On present plans, about 1,000 officers will be leaving the Services on redundancy between now and the end of the decade.
    Mr. Wall: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he intends to axe 182 out of 500 naval commanders? Is he aware that these continual cuts, allied with the disparity of Services pay in relation to industry—it is now some 20 per cent. below that of industry—are having a very grave effect on the morale of all three Services?
    Mr. Mulley: These redundancies arise from the defence review and are being phased to have the minimum disturbance, although, naturaily, everyone is disturbed when good officers and men leave the Services. That is why I was particularly glad to be able to continue 41 Commando, because I thought it would be in the national interest so to do. I am advised that only 50 officer redundancies are scheduled for the Royal Navy in the period between now and 1980, and, as the hon. Member knows, most of the people leaving are volunteers.

    Ship Repair Contracts
    Mr. Loydenasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many ship repair contracts his Department has let for the years 1975, 1976 and 1977 in (a) the North-West Region, (b) the North-East Region, (c) Scotland, (d) the South-East Region and (e) the South-West Region.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will arrange for this information to be published in the Official Report as it involves a lengthy table of figures.
    Mr. Loyden: I thank my hon. Friend for the information and the fact that it

    1091
    will be published. Is he aware of the plight of the Merseyside ship repairing industry? I recognise that this is not a responsibility exclusively for his Department, but does he agree that there ought to be a quota for the sharing of work in the regions? The facts and figures indicate the need for this.
    Mr. Duffy: Yes, I am aware of the position on Merseyside and of the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend, not merely on this occasion but on previous occasions when he has led a deputation to the Ministry of Defence and has corresponded with me.
    My hon. Friend will be aware of the recent Type 42 destroyer contract placed with Cammell Laird. In terms of the value of contracts placed, if not the number of contracts, over the period covered by the Question, his region—the North-West—has done better than any other, with the exception of the North-East.
    Following is the information:

    TABLE 1

    Region

    1975

    1976

    1977 (to 30th June 1977)

    North-West

    …

    4

    3

    3

    North-East

    …

    16

    21

    8

    Scotland

    …

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    South-East

    …

    4

    2

    1

    South-West

    …

    2

    5

    Nil

    The figures above exclude small contracts for the repair of minor vessels and craft which are placed in the areas where these craft operate because it would not be economical, for the amount of work required, to move them to other areas.
    The number of such contracts is as follows:—

    TABLE 2

    Region

    1975

    1976

    1977 (to 30th June 1977)

    North-West

    …

    4

    4

    2

    North-East

    …

    Nil

    2

    Nil

    Scotland

    …

    39

    35

    17

    South-East

    …

    9

    8

    10

    South-West

    …

    8

    4

    6

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the strength and operations of Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): There are 14 major units of the combat arms, or about 14,000 Regular
    1092
    troops, in Northern Ireland. The Armed Forces are continuing to operate with success in support of the civil authorities in the Province. Increased emphasis is being placed on the collection of information which will improve the effectiveness of the security forces and facilitate the prosecution of those who break the law.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: To relieve the strain on Regular units, should not the Ulster Defence Regiment be further and speedily expanded, and, therefore, must not UDR pay and allowances be overhauled? To take on example, I know a married couple, both of whom are serving with distinction in the regiment, who would be financially better off if one of them resigned. Does the Secretary of State endorse the principle stated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that no Service man or woman should be worse off because of an Ulster posting?
    Mr. Brown: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is already aware that we are expanding the UDR, particularly the full-time element, in regard to which another 700 full-timers are being recruited. At the present time we have full-time platoons already in operation. Three of them are already in full operation, two of them are partially in operation, we are in the process of recruiting another platoon, and a further five platoons will be recruited.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Minister aware of the satisfaction which attended the announcement that the Government intended to make 2,500 their immediate target for the size of the full-time UDR? May I ask him to allow nothing to defer the reorganisation of the UDR which the embodiment of this element will involve?
    With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), will the Minister continue to be available to hon. Members who bring to his notice cases of apparent hardship where a wife and husband are both serving in the UDR?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his observations. I assure him that we are giving the highest priority, within resources, to the expansion of the UDR. If right hon. and hon. Members have a case of hardship

    1093
    that they wish to bring to my attention, I shall listen and look at it with sympathy.
    Mr. Goodhart: Can the Minister say whether the special inquiry into pay and conditions for Regular soldiers in Northern Ireland, which he announced during the course of the Army debate, has finished its work and whether any further statements about improvements in pay and conditions can be expected?
    Mr. Brown: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the fact that my right hon. Friend has already announced a considerable improvement for the resident battalions. With regard to other issues, I am sure that these will be looked at in relation to the next phase of pay policy.

    Nuclear Tests
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future nuclear test explosions by Great Britain; if he intends a further test at Nevada; and if he will now discontinue research and development of a British Cruise missile.
    Mr. Mulley: It has not been the general practice of any Government to give details of nuclear test programmes or to make prior announcements. On the last part of the question, I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the type of long-range Cruise missile under development in the United States. We have no programme for such a missile.
    Mr. Allaun: While I am glad of those last few words, I am not glad about my right hon. Friend's opening words since he did not deny that there is to be such a test. Why is such a test needed if Britain carries out her election pledge that there should be no future generation of nuclear weapons? Secondly, would it not help the vital test ban talks if Britain forwent these tests and appealed to America and Russia to do likewise?
    Mr. Mulley: I neither denied nor confirmed that there may be future tests. If one uses the form of words that have been used for many years, one is open to that kind of implication. It is quite impossible to answer speculative questions one way or the other.
    As my hon. Friend will know, the Prime Minister announced that we are
    1094
    extremely glad to join the United States and the Soviet Union in trying to get a comprehensive test ban. Whether or not there may be some desire to have a test in future in order to maintain the effectiveness of our nuclear weapons, I can assure my hon. Friend that we should not want any considerations of that sort to stand in the way of a successful outcome to the comprehensive test ban negotiations.
    Mr. Pattie: Is it not true that the achievement of the Soviet Union of nuclear equivalence with the United States means that the need for Britain to maintain her independent nuclear deterrent is all the greater? Will the Secretary of State confirm his support for the maintenance of the independent nuclear deterrent and say whether he believes that the Cruise missile should be a vital future option for this country?
    Mr. Mulley: As successive Ministers have made clear, we have no intention of abandoning the existing Polaris weapons, but, equally, we do not intend to take a decision about a new generation of such nuclear weapons. With regard to the Cruise missile, we have no research and development programme but we have limited studies so that we can take an informed part in discussions on the defence and arms control aspects of the Cruise missile in NATO and at similar meetings.
    Mr. Hooson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman resent the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) in relation to developing research on the Cruise missile? Does that not add to the view that Britain's alleged independent deterrent is no longer independent? Ought we now to take steps ourselves to acquire the American Cruise missile?
    Mr. Mulley: With regard to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, we have always made clear that the nuclear weapons, both strategic and tactical, which we have are assigned to the Alliance, although their use would be subject to the approval of the Prime Minister. It would be premature to take any decisions about the Cruise missile until the development programme in the United States is rather further down the road than it now is.
    Mr. Newens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the arguments which are frequently put forward to justify nuclear tests by Britain can equally be advanced in favour of nuclear tests by every other country that is able to avail itself of nuclear weapons? Does he not regard it as desirable to argue against some of these arguments, bearing in mind the dreadful cumulative effects that would be incurred if this country went ahead with nuclear weapon tests?
    Mr. Mulley: I share completely my hon. Friend's concern about the proliferation consequences. Indeed, years ago, on behalf of the then Labour Government, I put forward a proposal at Geneva which, had it been accepted by the other Powers, would have led to a comprehensive test ban. Any tests that we have had comply in every respect with the partial test ban treaty that is in force. We should be the last country to seek to avoid any international obligations of that kind.
    Mr. Churchill: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the recent deployment by the Soviet Union of a massive new arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons, particularly Backfire and SSX20—a mobile intermediate—range ballistic missile—which are specifically directed at neighbours of the Soviet Union and at Western Europe? Will he give an assurance that paramount among our considerations in the preparation of a comprehensive test ban treaty will be the security of all the peoples of Western Europe?
    Mr. Mully: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that all relevant considerations will be in the minds not only of ourselves but of our American friends. I have no doubt that the Soviet Union will be looking after her interests as well.

    Defence Cuts
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement about the implementation of defence cuts.
    Mr. Mulley: The cuts in 1977–78 are now being implemented. For 1978–79 a wide-ranging study has been carried out, and we have now put our preliminary conclusions to NATO as a basis for consultation. We shall not take final decisions until we have heard the views of our allies.
    Mr. Goodhart: Does not the Secretary of State feel some embarrassment in submitting to NATO these plans for further massive cuts in our defence budget next year when he has just signed a ministerial communiqué calling for a 3 per cent. real increase in European NATO defence spending and when the Prime Minister has told us that we are on the threshold of unprecedented national prosperity?
    Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman is less accurate with his facts than usual. There is no question of having signed a communiqué or that the communiqué was a commitment. It was an aim for a 3 per cent. increase starting in 1979. We are now talking about the year 1978–79. I have, of course, no shame whatever in NATO councils when, as is well known, we devote a bigger proportion of our resources to defence than does any other member of NATO, apart from the United States and Greece.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend continue to resist the demand from the Conservative Party to increase defence expenditure when it is calling on the Government to reduce public expenditure as a whole? Does he not agree that an increase in defence expenditure must mean a far greater cut-back on pensions, social services, education and other things?
    Mr. Mulley: All the relevant considerations will be in the minds of Ministers when we come in the usual way to consider the public expenditure survey for future years. I take my hon. Friend's point. I find it a little nauseating to have lectures about the need for drastic cuts in public expenditure in general, not only in this area but in other areas, and opposition to any reductions in a particular area.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the Secretary of State accept congratulations on the success of the naval review last week at Spithead and also on his ingenuity in scraping together everything that would float to put into the shop window on that occasion? Does he realise that that, as a contribution to NATO's premier European Navy, indicates a clear need for expansion rather than for further cuts?
    Mr. Mulley: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a little unfair to his old Service. Not everything afloat was at Spithead. Quite a number of ships were

    1097
    on operational patrol duties. Fewer than 60 per cent. were there. While we have fewer ships than we had at the comparable review 24 years ago, I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree that the capacity and fighting power of the ships at Spithead was greatly in excess of the Fleet in older times.
    I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for what he says about the arrangements. I shall convey them to the Admiralty Board. I have had many comments of appreciation from hon. Members about the arrangements.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Have the Government accepted a 3 per cent. a year increase, or have they merely postponed it, and kicked it out of touch? Do they realise that it will cost us £7·3 billion a year at constant prices in five years' time? If the present rate of inflation continues, it will cost £16·1 billion in five years. Will he tell his NATO colleagues that we just cannot continue any longer with this nonsense?
    Mr. Mulley: As I have explained on previous occasions, I have made no commitments to my NATO colleagues on the future trends of our defence expenditure, because these decisions must be taken in the light of what is thought necessary and the resources that are available. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's arithmetic. I shall do all in my power—and I hope that he will help me—in making sure that the rate of inflation is nowhere near its present level in years ahead.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Since the right hon. Gentleman is Secretary of State for Defence, is it not rather odd that he should so much welcome cuts in public expenditure being reflected to such an extent in cuts in defence expenditure? If he believes what the Prime Minister has said about our economy—and presumably he is one of the few who does believe it—he should say to the Prime Minister that, as we are doing so well, the further damaging cuts in defence expenditure next year need not take place.
    Mr. Mulley: It would be of interest to the House—but I do not propose to do it—if I could give a dress rehearsal of what I might say on these matters. As I have made clear to the House, I accept that, when public expenditure cuts have to be made, defence should bear a pro-
    1098
    portion of those cuts—and our proportion is not massive, as has been suggested—along with other programmes. I would be very interested if the Opposition would give even an approximation of the figure that they think we should be spending.

    Far East
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had on defence problems in the Far East with the Defence Ministers of the Chinese People's Republic.
    Mr. Mulley: None, Sir.
    Mr. Hooley: Would it not be useful for the Secretary of State to have conversations with the Defence Minister of China with a view to making sensible arrangements about the defence of Hong Kong? Is it not absurd to maintain a British military garrison there? It is pointless, because such a garrison could not possibly defend the territory and could only surrender if conflict broke out.
    Mr. Mulley: I have no objections to having discussions with the Chinese Defence Minister. As my hon. Friend knows, we are very happy and willing to consider exchanges of various kinds. However, this is a matter more for the Foreign Secretary than for me. There is no great concern in any quarter to upset the existing status quo and the agreement with the Hong Kong Government.
    Mr. Blaker: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be useful for him to meet the Chinese Defence Minister and ascertain whether he agrees with the views of NATO experts that the doctrine, training and armaments of the Soviet forces have not a defensive purpose but an offensive one?
    Mr. Mulley: If—it is extremely speculative—I had discussions with the Chinese, no doubt these matters might arise.
    Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend consider the proposal that he and the Defence Ministers of NATO should have informal conversations with the Chinese Defence Minister, bearing in mind that both NATO and China have the same problem—the possibility of Soviet aggression?
    Mr. Mulley: That is a most interesting suggestion. I cannot speak for my NATO

    1099
    colleagues, but it is a point that I would bear in mind if the occasion arose.

    RAF North Cotes
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will pay an official visit to RAF North Cotes.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present.
    Mr. Brotherton: If the Secretary of State or the hon. Gentleman went to North Cotes, they would realise that a lot of married quarters there are unoccupied. Will the Minister take steps, with the Property Services Agency, to make sure that these 100 houses that are unoccupied are made available to my constituents or anyone else who wishes to live in them?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to get a factual answer, he should put down a specific Question and not a general one. However, I think that I can help him. Of the 94 married quarters being retained for RAF North Cotes, only 23 are vacant and these are mostly for work services. Where there are instances of properties remaining vacant for a long time, we are only too happy to transfer them to the PSA in order to dispose of them as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Townsend: Would it not be sensible to relax the rules of married quarters in order to allow more single Service men to take advantage of them?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: If that were done, a wage cost benefit would arise that would affect the whole pay structure of the Armed Forces. However, this suggestion could be considered at a future date.

    Aircraft Interceptions
    Mr. Cartwrightasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many interceptions of unidentified or Warsaw Pact aircraft have been made by the RAF in the last 12 months to the latest available date.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: The Royal Air Force, both in the United Kingdom and in Germany, maintains a constant watch on all aircraft which without notice approach the air space which it is committed to defend, and intercepts and identifies those
    1100
    it wishes to check. Although it is not the practice to publish detailed statistics of such interceptions, I can say that on average they have taken place two or three times a week.
    Mr. Cartwright: While I appreciate my hon. Friend's reticence about numbers, may I ask whether, on the basis of the figures he has indicated, he is satisfied with the rate of interceptions? Also, is he satisfied that the RAF has the capability to intercept any aircraft that might violate our air space?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: One must draw a distinction between the United Kingdom air defence region and our sovereign air space. There have been no Soviet or Warsaw Pact penetrations of our sovereign air space, and I am satisfied that in peace time we would be able to intercept and identify any aircraft that penetrated it.
    Mr. Kershaw: Does not the high figure of interceptions underline the importance of having manned aircraft, and also of having a high performance aircraft such as the Tornado, at our disposal?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: The high figures are a tribute to the professionalism of those who serve in the RAF and the superb quality of the aircraft they fly.

    Nimrod Aircraft (Fishery Protection)
    Mr. Torneyasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the Nimrod fishing protection rôle.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Nimrod aircraft of the Royal Air Force have carried out their fishery protection rôle most effectively during the past six months. We will continue to keep the rôle under review in the light of experience and in consultation with the other Departments involved.
    Mr. Torney: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Would he not agree that there has been a change of circumstances in the last week or so inasmuch as there has been a ban on herring fishing? In the light of the fact that some foreign Powers seem to want to disregard that ban, is he absolutely certain that all the necessary facilities are available to do the job of policing our waters and enforcing the ban, which, I believe, has a great deal of support on all sides of the House?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: My Department is satisfied that the Royal Navy and the RAF have the capacity to maintain surveillance, as in the case of the RAF. and to intercept, as in the case of the Navy.
    Mr. Marten: Would the Royal Navy fire on the ships of our EEC partners?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: The precise rules of engagement for our ships at sea are within the competence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy. I know the rules for engagement for the RAF.
    Mr. Brotherton: Is the Minister aware that normally our partners in the EEC, or indeed any others arrested in territorial waters, do not fire back but accept arrest gracefully?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure we all hope that our partners in the Common Market will act with the same common sense as will Her Majesty's Government and that this dispute will be speedily resolved, so that we may conserve our herring stocks and be able to earn a decent livelihood in future.

    NATO
    Mr. Churchillasked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to respond to SACEUR's call for improved readiness of NATO forces.
    Mr. Mulley: We are studying a number of measures and have already made one improvement: the decision not to disband No. 41 Commando Royal Marines was announced last Tuesday.
    Mr. Churchill: The whole House will welcome the decision on No. 41 Royal Marine Commando, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the damage being caused to the operational efficiency of the Royal Air Force as a result of the mass exodus from married quarters, 10,000 of which have been vacated, if we take the overall figures for the three Services in the past two years, as a direct result of the over-comparability on which the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has insisted in respect of accommodation charges?
    Mr. Mulley: I cannot, without notice, confirm or deny the hon. Gentleman's figures, but there is a tendency, in civil as
    1102
    well as in military life, for people to desire to own their own homes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is well known. I have no idea why Opposition Members should be so surprised. This has been Labour Party policy for many years. However, there is no point in flogging the horse involving comparability of charges or otherwise. They are on an analogue device which was set up by a Conservative Government. If anybody comes up with any other basis on which we can make our charges, subject to pay policy we shall be happy to consider it.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: In considering improvements to NATO, may I ask whether NATO has considered examining the possibilities of the United States neutron bomb? Has the NATO Nuclear Planning Group discussed the deployment of such a weapon in future in the European theatre?
    Mr. Mulley: The short programme for NATO to improve its readiness would not include consideration of the neutron bomb or any other weapon of that character. We have no such plans ourselves. Although it is difficult for me to go beyond the communiqué of the Nuclear Planning Group, I can tell my hon. Friend that we did not consider that matter.
    Mr. Hooson: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the greatest contribution which NATO countries could make to the readiness of the Alliance to meet attack would be to support a common communications and signalling system?
    Mr. Mulley: That is one of the priority areas of the study. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the more common and more efficient communications and signalling systems we have, the better will be our readiness at relatively low cost.
    Mr. Roper: Will the Secretary of State and his NATO colleagues review the speed of response of the NATO forces in view of the new Soviet tactical doctrine of the daring thrust put forward by General Kulikov, the new Commander-in-Chief of the Warsaw Pact forces?
    Mr. Mulley: I think that the Alliance is aware that the warning time in the event of any emergency might be shorter now than was expected in the assessments that were made some years ago. In

    1103
    common with our allies, we are reviewing and improving the time for our reinforcements. It would be counter-productive if we were to issue a list of those arrangements, because it would make such reinforcements ready targets in the event of attack.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Since the right hon. Gentleman has spoken of an analogue, may I ask whether he has seen reports in the Press, if not in his Department, on the message sent by the Northern Ireland Command to his Department, regarding the grave disquiet in our forces in Northern Ireland about pay levels and the danger to morale as a result of what has happened so far? What does he intend to do about the situation?
    Mr. Mulley: The comments to which the right hon. Gentleman refers were collected before I was able to make my announcement about putting resident battalions on field service conditions. My information is that there was considerable satisfaction among those resident battalions as a result of a tax-free increase of £5 for privates and up to £10 for lieutenant-colonels.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: The minute makes clear that the improvement in respect of resident battalions was welcomed, but what was causing concern was the question of conditions for the rest of the forces in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Mulley: As far as I had official sight of the papers, I think it is clear that the comments concerned were collected before 27th May, although I understand that the letter was dispatched thereafter. However, I cannot comment on illinformed pieces in papers such as the Daily Telegraph.
    Mr. Pattieasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next meet the other NATO Defence Ministers.
    Mr. Luceasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet the NATO Defence Ministers.
    Mr. Mulley: I look forward to meeting the other NATO Defence Ministers at the NATO ministerial meetings of the Nuclear Planning Group, Eurogroup and Defence Planning Committee which will take place towards the end of this year. No firm dates have yet been fixed.
    Mr. Pattie: At those meetings will the right hon. Gentleman raise with his NATO colleagues the subject of the growing influence of the Soviet merchant marine, which has been used as an extension of Russian influence? Does he think that in the light of these developments he should consider increasing the Royal Navy's contribution?
    Mr. Mulley: I think it is probably the case that my NATO colleagues do not fully appreciate the substantial contribution made by the Royal Navy to NATO defences, although I know that it is appreciated by the Supreme Allied Commanders, particularly by SACLANT. I cannot say until I see the agenda of the meeting whether it would be appropriate to go into detail about Soviet maritime marine forces.
    Mr. Luce: Since the Government carry a major responsibility for the weakening of NATO during the past three years, is it not the prime duty of the Secretary of State to respond to the call of the conference of NATO Ministers to increase defence budgets in 1979 and thereafter? For a start, will he announce, and inform his NATO colleagues, that he proposes to cancel the plans to cut the defence budget by £200 million in 1978–79?
    Mr. Mulley: I totally refute the suggestion that this country, which continues to share a heavy part of NATO's defence capability, is responsible for any weakening in the Alliance or that the Alliance has been weakened. That is contrary, for example, to the view of the retiring Chairman of the Military Committee, the distinguished Admiral of the Fleet Sir Peter Hill-Norton. I do not accept that NATO has been weakened or that this country has been responsible for such a weakening. The defence cuts have been decided and debated, and it would be a little irrelevant to bring what we are doing by way of cuts this year into the 1980s planning of NATO. We shall be considering further provision for defence in the normal way that Governments conduct their public expenditure surveys.
    Mr. Fernyhough: When my right hon. Friend meets his NATO defence colleagues, will he consider having a particular word with the German Defence Minister to remind him that the burden of the Army of the Rhine is ever-increasing and

    1105
    that the Germans have not made their contribution, although they said that they would? Will my right hon. Friend tell the German Minister that unless the Germans play fair by us we shall have to think in terms of reducing numbers in order to effect the necessary economies?
    Mr. Mulley: That is a bilateral matter of a sort that I am not sure would be appropriate for the deliberation of the full NATO Defence Planning Committee. I expect to have the pleasure of meeting my German colleague later this week. However, the negotiations with the Federal Republic are being conducted by the Foreign Secretary. I hope and believe that some settlement of this offset matter will be achieved before too long.
    Mr. Goodhew: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the NATO Defence Ministers and raises the subject of improved readiness, will he be able to assure them that British forces can be ready without the use of British Airways aircraft and Sealink ferries, or, if not, that these will be readily available?
    Mr. Mulley: Of course we have contingency plans of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but it would be a grave misuse of defence resources to have available all the sea and air transport that would be necessary only in the event of an emergency. The whole of NATO's policy is to prevent—and it has been successful in preventing—such an emergency. I can imagine the criticism if we had a whole fleet of aircraft and a flotilla of ships that were never used because NATO was successful in preventing war.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: At the next NATO meeting, will the right hon. Gentleman regard himself as a nearly normal Defence Minister and abide by the decitions of the Alliance, or will he, owing to the incompetence of his Government, be contracting out of any decision which has been made, saying that it does not apply to us?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not know what "nearly normal" means in the right hon. Gentleman's vocabulary, but if anyone has run away from talking in plain language it is the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. I have asked how much they think we ought to spend and I have received no response. I shall certainly
    1106
    continue to make a robust defence of what we are doing in this country. I have not run away from any commitment that I have given, and my NATO colleagues know exactly where I and the Government stand in these matters.

    Secretary of State for Defence (Engagements)
    Mr. MacFarquharasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his engagements for 5th July.
    Mr. Mulley: This morning I attended a meeting of the Admiralty Board. Also, in addition to any duties in this House, I shall be having discussions with my colleagues.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Despite my right hon. Friend's comments earlier about ill-informed reports in the Daily Telegraph, will he spend a quiet moment looking at a report by that newspaper's defence correspondent on 22nd June which suggested that Air Chief Marshal Sir Neil Cameron was studying designs for new aircraft to replace existing aircraft in 1980? Is he aware that some of the design specifications he is looking for would seem to be covered by the MRCA? Will he confirm that that aircraft will last into the 1980s for the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Mulley: The Tornado will not arrive until the 1980s. Air Chief Marshal Sir Neil Cameron flew the aircraft recently and was extremely pleased with its performance. I am distressed at the way the aircraft has been "knocked". It is very unfair to all those engaged in its production, as well as "knocking" the possibility of successful collaborative ventures. Studies are taking place in conjunction with NATO in terms of the replacement of other aircraft which are now used in the Royal Air Force. They will be replaced not by the Tornado but by the Harrier and the Jaguar. Because it takes so long to plan and agree production aircraft, there has to be a 10 to 15-year time interval.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Has the Secretary of State spent any part of his busy day thinking about the representations which have been made to him from all quarters on forces' pay? Has he spent any part of today wondering why the men whom he sends to Ulster are drawing less pay than are the people at Grunwick,

    1107
    about whom he so actively demonstrated his concern?
    Mr. Mulley: I shall answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman readily. The pay at Grunwick has risen substantially since the dispute began. I understood that the basic rate was £28 as at August last year, and the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) quoted a figure of £53 per week received by a private soldier in Ulster. That was an instance in which the soldier in question received an addition of free accommodation and free food.

    Guardsman Tom Holdsworth
    Mr. Corbettasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the terms of engagement, career and prospects of Coldstream Guardsman Tom Holdsworth.
    Mr. Mulley: Guardsman Holdsworth joined the Army as a junior soldier on 30th July 1974 and was discharged on 27th June 1977.
    Mr. Corbett: That may be, but can my right hon. Friend say whether it is the general practice for serving officers to make favourable statements in court on behalf of Service men who have pleaded guilty to serious criminal charges? Is it not necessary to give advice to commanding officers to carry out these duties with a little more caution?
    Mr. Mulley: There have been a lot of misunderstandings surrounding this matter, and my hon. Friend is guilty—no doubt unwittingly—of a yet further misunderstanding. There was no question of the officer going to make a favourable statement, and it was most unusual that there was such a requirement for an officer to be heard in the Court of Appeal at all. I am sorry if there have been misunderstandings about this, but there was no question of the officer acting in the way that my hon. Friend has suggested.
    Mr. Boscawen: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this deplorable case in no way tarnishes the reputation or professional standards of the battalion with which this soldier was serving in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Mulley: My concern throughout has been to try to prevent unfair criticism of the Army in general and of the Brigade
    1108
    of Guards in particular. I understand that this soldier was most satisfactory in the discharge of his duties.

    CBI
    Ql. Mr. Cartwrightasked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wriggles-worth) on 17th February.
    Mr. Cartwright: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the much more optimistic forecast from the CBI this week, the substantial improvement in official reserves and the prospects for a stable pound and stable interest rates mean that the prospects for production investment are better than they have been for a long time? Will he therefore press the CBI to seek to persuade firms to bring forward investment programmes so that industry can give a lead in the programme of national recovery for which my right hon. Friend called at the weekend?
    The Prime Minister: The reserve figures announced yesterday were at a record level. That is a sign of stability. The most encouraging aspect of the CBI trends is the reference to the fact that the CBI expects the rate of increase in prices to slow down towards the end of the year. That is something that I have been saying for some time, and I am glad that the CBI's views coincide with mine. [Interruption.] I hope that the Opposition are also pleased about it.
    On investment prospects, I certainly hope that the CBI will continue to encourage new investment. The forecasts for 1978 are good and the indicators generally are moving in the right direction. However, that does not mean that there are not—as I said at the weekend—a number of serious problems that we must face and overcome. Nevertheless, the indicators are pointing the right way.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the Prime Minister tell the CBI what level of pay settlements during the next 12 months is consistent with decelerating inflation?
    The Prime Minister: No. We have not discussed figures with the CBI on that matter, although discussions are now going on with the TUC.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Could my right hon. Friend arrange a meeting between the Opposition Front Bench and Lord Watkinson, so that Lord Watkinson can tell them about his prognostications for the next decade, which coincide so closely with those of the Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: Lord Watkinson is not an utter stranger to those on the Opposition Front Bench, and he will no doubt be supplying the same information to them as he does to us.
    Mr. Budgen: Does the Prime Minister agree that it ought to be no part of a politician's job to seek to encourage or discourage investment? Should not investment be decided by individual entrepreneurs according to their assessment of the profitability of each act of investment?
    The Prime Minister: No. I understand that that is the Opposition view, but I do not know what would have happened to Wales or Scotland during the past 20 years if that doctrine had been followed. In broad terms, of course, individual entrepreneurs will take their own decisions on profitability and they will also decide on what they expect to be the prospects for the economy as a whole and for reasonable expansion. It is the duty of all politicians to place in front of them the best assessment they can make about how the economy is likely to go in future.

    NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
    Mr. Mike Thomasasked the Prime Minister when he last took the chair at NEDC.
    The Prime Minister: I last took the chair at NEDC on 2nd February. In addition, on 22nd June I took the chair at a conference of representatives from the sector working parties and the economic development committees on the industrial strategy. This conference enabled the Government to hear the views of more than 100 leading trade unionists and managers. Strong support was expressed for the industrial strategy and there was discussion about such matters as overseas markets, import substitution, investment and productivity, relations between customers and users
    1110
    and communication at company level. Another similar conference will be held on 11th July.
    Mr. Thomas: In regard to the power plant sector, on which my right hon. Friend has no doubt heard the views of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions about the prospects for a GEC monopoly of the industry, is he aware that his halo over Drax B is, like all haloes, only nine inches away from becoming a noose? In view of the urgency of the situation, will he give a firm undertaking that the Government will reach a decision on this much-prevaricated matter before the impending redundancies at C. A. Parsons and Babcock and Wilcox are implemented?
    The Prime Minister: There is an important difference of opinion here. The GEC management, the National Enterprise Board, the CPRS and the Government all take the view that the industry should be restructured if it is to have a long-term future. My hon. Friend is vehemently opposed to that and is supporting the workers of Parsons and the unions involved. However, that does not alter the nature of the argument and the Government must look at the long-term interests. We cannot enforce such a restructuring. I am glad that it is going ahead on the boiler-making side, but my hon. Friend has not been able to persuade his constituents in Parsons—if he has tried—that a similar restructuring of the turbo-generator side would be in their interests. As he has not done that and the Government cannot do it, we shall have to consider the future of Parsons against the present position and announce our decision as soon as we have reached a conclusion.
    Mr. Tim Renton: What positive contribution to industrial investment is being made by the sector working parties? Are not at least some of them simply talking shops?
    The Prime Minister: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he is doing less than justice to the large numbers on both sides of industry who are giving their time voluntarily to these matters.
    Mr. Powell: They are wasting their time.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may think so but the people

    1111
    involved do not, and it is their time and not the time of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Adley: They are fiddling like Nero.
    The Prime Minister: The Opposition are barking up the wrong tree, or down the wrong alley, on this subject. I should like to encourage the Opposition to take off their party spectacles and look at the issues properly. At the conference that I held, the managers, industrialists and trade unionists involved all believed that it was worth while and should be carried down to company level. I expect to find a similar view on 11th July, and I should be happy if someone from the Opposition Front Bench would come to some of these conferences. He or she might learn one or two things.
    Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his own talking shop on industrial relations is one of the finest in the world, bringing together, as it does, employers and trade unions in a period of very grave industrial turbulence? He is to be congratulated on that because the present deadly situation can be solved only by the mixture of flexibility and firmness at which my right hon. Friend is so adept. Does he agree that if the Tories, with their dogmatic rigidity, returned to power, the country would be in an appalling industrial mess?
    The Prime Minister: I accept what my hon. Friend has said and I wish that the Opposition would do the same. Looking at the analysis of the conclusions reached at my last meeting, I see that every subject was introduced either by a leading figure in the industry on the management side or by a leading trade unionist. They put forward a number of valuable suggestions and commented on what they were doing and what the Government should be doing. All these things help to promote the better atmosphere that British industry needs in order to get higher productivity. I hope that the Opposition will realise this and will join in.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 5th July.
    The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Rifkind: Will the Prime Minister spend some time today discussing with Mr. Roy Jenkins his speech at the weekend in which he accused certain members of the Government of seeking to subvert the voice of the British people as expressed in the referendum on the Common Market? Does the Prime Minister agree with that view expressed by a former Foreign Secretary and Deputy-Leader of the Labour Party?
    The Prime Minister: Among my many duties, I do not have to take responsibility for speeches made by the President of the Commission.
    Mr. Buchan: Reverting to the Prime Minister's earlier answer, may I ask whether he will have time today to meet his ministerial colleagues in relation to the Drax B order? Is he aware that the delay is becoming unbearable and that, while we accept his concern for the long-term future of the industry, if the order is not placed quickly there will be no industry left? Can he, therefore, take the chance today to knock the heads of his ministerial colleagues together and get a decision?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot undertake to do that today.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: How about tomorrow?
    The Prime Minister: Not even tomorrow. The problem must be properly processed. I regret very much that the restructuring of the industry seems unlikely to go ahead. I do not believe that this is in the best interest of the people working in the industry, and in five years' time they may come to regret the obduracy being shown on this matter. The CEGB will have to consider the ordering programme. The Government are in touch with the Board on that matter and we shall have to reach a conclusion as soon as we can. I do not want anyone to lose his job, but I am bound to say to the handful of my hon. Friends who share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire,

    1113
    West (Mr. Buchan) that Drax B will not prove the salvation of this firm.
    Mrs. Thatcher: As one of the Prime Minister's official engagements today is answering Questions, will he take time to repudiate the view contained in a recent article written by his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), who said that his views were virtually indistinguishable from those of the Communist Party except in one particular—namely, that he did not rule out civil war as a means of keeping Socialism in power?
    The Prime Minister: If I were to spend time answering questions about every speech made by every public figure in this country, I should never do anything else. If I were asked to make a marginal comment on the speech of my hon. Friend—and I wish to say nothing unkind in his absence—I should say that I have always regarded him as a philosophical revolutionary rather than one who really understands how a machine gun works.
    Mrs. Thatcher: So the Prime Minister does not repudiate—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members expect to be heard when they are called.
    Mrs. Thatcher: So the Prime Minister does not repudiate that view but is content to rely on the support of such fellow travellers to keep him in power?
    The Prime Minister: I could, of course, give the right hon. Lady my views on these matters, but unfortunately I do not seem able to endow her with a sense of humour.
    Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister have time today to follow the deliberations of the conference of the National Union of Mineworkers? Since he referred at the weekend to one man's excessive wage demand being another man's ticket to the dole queue, will he comment on the deliberations and the decisions that the members of the NUM appear to be taking against the advice of their president?
    The Prime Minister: It would be imprudent for me to comment, in the
    1114
    middle of the conference, on decisions that are just coming over the tape. There is too much instant comment demanded of all public figures, and we might sometimes take a little time to reflect on what has been said.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend, in giving advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), take a little time to give advice to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, who apparently fails to understand that Adam Smith contributed a great deal to Marxist ideas? Is he aware that Adam Smith, together with Ricardo, was one of those who developed the Labour theory on values, which was a contribution that was taken up by Marx and developed further? Perhaps the right hon. Lady should understand a little more about Marxism before she becomes involved in something that she obviously knows little about.
    The Prime Minister: I am looking forward to studying the speech that the right hon. Lady made yesterday. I hope to cull a few quotations from it to adorn future speeches. As for the relationship between Adam Smith, Marx, Ricardo, Malthus, John Stuart Mill and all those other great figures who have contributed, I do not wish to denigrate any of them but I must remind my hon. Friend that it was Morgan Phillips who said that the Labour movement owed more to John Wesley than it did to Marx.

  NORTHERN IRELAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That the matters of the Seventh Report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules and the Northern Ireland Electricity Industry, being matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Location of Offices Bureau (Amendment) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

  HERITAGE
  3.31 p.m.
  Mr. Jasper More: I beg to move—[Interruption].
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait for a few seconds. I am afraid that his audience may be smaller than it should be.
  Mr. More: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the National Heritage.
  The artistic treasures of Britain will never be fully appreciated: we have too many of them. Within this small island of ours, our ancestors and contemporaries have accumulated such treasures that, if they were all on public view, the pedantry of a Baedeker would be submerged by them and the stamina of a Pevsner would quail before them. From such prospects we have been mercifully saved by families such as the Rothschilds and Roseberys who for many years kept their treasures hidden from public eyes. It is, nevertheless, upon our private families that we must principally rely if our heritage is to be preserved. Our taxation system must be reformed and geared to help them, and everything that I say in asking leave to introduce this Bill must be subordinate to that.
  The last words of the late Lord Rosebery have not been recorded but they might well have been, like Louis XV, "Après moi le déluge ". Certainly, after his death, the deluge burst upon us; and with the present pressures of economics and taxation upon the private owner, there is no prospect that it will abate. On the contrary, the prospect is, that unless drastic action is taken, the National Heritage is likely to suffer much greater disasters than anything that has happened hitherto. It is with the object of initiating such drastic action that I am seeking leave to introduce this Bill into the House.
  The Bill, as will appear, is related essentially to the National Land Fund, and for this reason some carefully drawn provisions will be required.
  The first essential must be to provide guidelines, and this my Bill will seek to do. Obviously many such guidelines are already operated, for example by those excellent bodies the Historic Buildings
  1116
  Council, the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and the Department of the Environment in its circulars about conservation and listing.
  But where what is in prospect is the expenditure of public money to prevent heritage items being lost to the nation or the world, the guidelines must clearly be of an altogether more stringent and restrictive character. For in a democratic assembly we cannot forget that we are representing in the main taxpayers who, so far from wishing to see public money, which is their money, being spent upon the heritage, would far rather have it spent on housing, larger and better Concordes or additional football fields. A rigid selectivity will therefore be laid down.
  The second essential must be to differentiate in favour of the native product. For example, in the sphere of pictures, while laying guidelines for the Divine Dozen—Botticelli, Mantegna, Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo, Titian, Holbein, Rubens, Velazquez, Rembrandt Poussin and Claude—there will also be gentler guidelines for our own Sacred Seven—Hogarth, Reynolds, Gainsborough, Lawrence, Stubbs, Turner and Constable.
  The third essential will be to make it clear that any acquisitions by the Land Fund will be permissible only as a last resort—after every other alternative has failed.
  The Bill will then deal with the question of trustees. Here I make acknowledgment to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, in another place and to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), who in their recent Bills have pioneered the idea of vesting of the Land Fund in trustees with wide managing powers. My own Bill will go further. The trustees, like the Muses, will be nine in number—four to represent the Arts: nominees from the British Museum, the Victoria and Albert, the National Gallery and the Historic Buildings Council; and four to represent the Philistines; nominees from the TUC, the CBI, the Board of Inland Revenue and the Treasury; and at its head a nominee from the Department which will have the ungrateful task of managing such land and buildings as accrue to the Fund—the Department of the Environment.
  My Bill will have an essential accompaniment in which I do not doubt I shall

  1117
  have the help of the Government. This will be a Bill to increase the Land Fund immediately to a figure of £100 million, for this is the scale on which we must now be thinking, with promises to supplement it in proportion to any continued inflation in the value of works of art and to disengage it from our embarrassing undertakings to the International Monetary Fund. My Bill will direct the trustees to operate within the income of perhaps £10 million per annum that the Fund will produce. They will have salaries and in any year in which they spend more than the income their salaries will be proportionately reduced and they will be reported to Mr. Speaker.
  I hope this Bill may be a first step towards saving the outstanding treasures of what remains of our national heritage.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jasper More, Mr. Paul Channon, Mr. Robert Cooke, Mr. Andrew Faulds, Mr. John Hannam, Mr. Carol Mather, Mr. John Parker, Sir David Renton and Mr. George Strauss.

HERITAGE BILL
Mr. Jasper More accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the National Heritage: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 152.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY CONVENTION) BILL [Lords]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  TORTS (INTERFERENCE WITH GOODS) BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, signified.]
  Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  REDUNDANCY REBATES BILL
  Lords amendments considered.
Clause 1

  POWER TO VARY REBATES
  Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 12, at end insert—
  (3A) No order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless the Secretary of State thinks it expedient to do so with a view to adjusting the level at which the Redundancy Fund stands for the time being and having regard to the sums which may be expected to be paid from that Fund in any future period.
  3.42 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that it is for the advantage of the House to take with this Lords Amendment No. 2, in Clause 2, page 3, line 3, at end insert—
  "(3A) No order shall be made under subsection (I) above unless the Department of Manpower Services for Northern Ireland thinks it expedient to do so with a view to adjusting

  1119
  the level at which the Northern Ireland Redundancy Fund stands for the time being and having regard to the sums which may be expected to be paid from that Fund in any future period."
  Mr. Walker: Both amendments deal essentially with the same issue.
  Perhaps I should remind the House of the purpose and background to the Bill, as that will make plain the reasons for my opposition. From the outset the Government have made their intentions quite clear. This Bill is an enabling measure which of itself does not reduce the redundancy rebate. However, we have been perfectly open about the fact that we intend to use the enabling power to reduce the rebate to 41 per cent. at the first opportunity. We have also been quite open about the reasons for this. A reduction in the level of rebate will have the direct effect of reducing the public sector borrowing requirement and contributing in a small way to the restoration of the economic health of the country.
  As the House already knows, the Opposition amendment to require the affirmative resolution procedure to be used for subsequent orders made under the Act was accepted, and, as the Bill stands, the presentation of any order to vary rebate, whether up or down, will give the opportunity of full debate in both Houses and, indeed, such an order must have the consent of both Houses before it is passed.
  However—here we come to the nub of the argument—a further amendment to allow the reduction of rebate only where the Redundancy Fund was in deficit was rejected by the House. On that occasion I reminded the House that circumstances can and do change. The present exceptionally difficult economic circumstances require equally exceptional measures to help put them right. We should not forget that this Bill is part of the Chancellor's package aimed at reducing public expenditure, and its contribution, however small, is important.
  The amendment to Clause 1 is that
  "No order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless the Secretary of State thinks it expedient to do so with a view to adjusting the level at which the Redundancy Fund stands for the time being and having regard to the sums which may be expected to be paid from that Fund in any future period".
  1120
  The amendment to Clause 2 is consequential upon the amendment to Clause 1, and its sole purpose is to maintain parity between the legislation of Great Britain and of Northern Ireland.
  These amendments may be different in form from those already rejected by the House, but there is no doubt that they are intended to achieve a similar effect. We cannot now accept from another place a principle which has already been rejected by this House. For this reason alone the Government would oppose the amendments.
  However, more important is the fact that these amendments are directly contrary in purpose to statements made by the Government about the proposed first use of the enabling powers. I have been quite frank with the House throughout both as to the intended use of the enabling powers and the reasons for such a use. Naturally we wish to be able to return to a situation where rebate could be increased and, as I said on a previous occasion, we look forward to the day when this will be possible, and we hope that it will be early.
  For the present, however, the circumstances that I have described both on this and other occasions, make it necessary to seek to cut back the rebate at an early date. I ask the House to oppose the amendment.
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. Barney Hayhoe: I hope that the House will not accept the Minister of State's advice but will agree with the Lords in this amendment. I have been disappointed with the hon. Gentleman's negative and unhelpful attitude during the course of proceedings on the Bill, with the exception of his agreement in Committee to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure for making variations in the rebate, which was the original proposal.
  Putting that on one side, the Government have adopted a negative attitude throughout. This is a reasonable and simple amendment. The Minister, when dealing with this matter in the other place, accurately described its purpose. I think that I am in order in quoting the Minister when he said that the idea and purpose of the amendment was
  "to ensure that power to vary rebates is used only as may be necessary from time to time

  1121
  for the management of the Redundancy Fund".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21st June 1977; Vol. 384, c. 548.]
  That is an eminently sensible reason for the use of the power. Indeed, the use of the power to vary the rebate for any other purpose is beginning to go away from the whole basis upon which the prime legislation was passed by this House—namely, to set up a fund financed from industry, the purpose of which was to provide help to those firms and, through those firms, to individuals who, for one reason or another, were made redundant.
  What could be more reasonable than to impose in the legislation the condition that this power to vary the rebate should be used only for the management of the Redundancy Fund, not for any other outside reason? By what convoluted distortion of the purposes of the Department of Employment does the Minister come before the House to ask for the rejection of this amendment? How can one argue that this is something to do with the purposes of the Department of Employment? Will the rejection of the amendment help in dealing with the problem of redundancy? Will it make it easier for people confronted with redundancy to meet that difficulty? Will it help the firms concerned to make proper arrangements for those who are to become redundant? Of course not. Will it provide any additional power for the government regarding redundancy? Of course not. If the amendment is rejected, the Government will be able to use the Fund perhaps for purposes which Parliament did not have in mind when the Fund was originally created. If anything, rejection of the amendment will make matters worse.
  If rebates to employers are reduced for reasons other than the management of the Redundancy Fund, what will be the result? An extra burden will be placed on industry, particularly on small businesses which have already made clear their repugnance towards the way that the Government propose to use these powers. Rejection of the amendment will impede the sensible redeployment of people within industry. That point was made with considerable eloquence by Lord George-Brown in another place.
  It will add to the barriers facing firms which are thinking of taking on new employees because any prudent employer
  1122
  now has to look at all the commitments that are being entered into if someone new is taken on. One of those commitments will be greater if the Government get their way, the Lords amendment is not accepted and, as a result, the Government produce a proposal to reduce the rebate that is accepted by both Houses of Parliament. Those circumstances would add to the future commitments of an employer when taking on extra staff.
  We should examine the purpose behind the Minister from the Department of Employment coming to the House and asking it to reject this sensible and reasonable amendment. It has nothing to do with the essential functions of those Ministers. They are doing someone else's dirty work. There is little doubt that the Ministers from the Department of Employment are coming to the House at the behest of the Treasury.
  The Lords amendment is being resisted by those Ministers for contradictory reasons. The Minister resisted the Lords amendment today because he said that it went against the ideas that the Government have about the use of this power. He also said that it would be against the principles which the House had established on earlier votes on the Bill. In other words, he thought that there was something of substance in the amendment which would frustrate what he believes to be the will of the Government and the House.
  The Minister in the House of Lords said that the amendment should be resisted because
  "it does no more than add unnecessarily to the wording of the Bill".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21st June 1977; Vol. 384, c. 549.]
  The Ministers should get together and make up their minds. In the Lords the argument was that the amendment does little and therefore does not matter. In the Commons the Minister says that it means something of importance which will cut the basis of the Government's approach to the legislation. I suppose that muddled thinking of that kind is not surprising in the circumstances.
  Although it is, as the Minister said, a relatively small and perhaps unimportant piece of legislation, the refusal to accept the amendment illustrates much that is wrong with the way in which we

  1123
  make political decisions in Government and Parliament.
  The amendment makes
  "the management of the Redundancy Fund"
  the reason for varying the rebates to employers. Ministers do not want to be so constrained. They want power—and the Minister freely admitted this—to use the Fund for purposes other than those that Parliament had in mind and that it decreed in the legislation when the Fund was established. Perhaps Ministers will face some questions in the courts of they decide to go ahead and attempt to get parliamentary authority for varying the rebate in such a way that it could be argued that it was against the purposes and intention of the original legislation.
  I am no lawyer, but when I read the speech by the Minister of State when he introduced the legislation I believe that it was never the intention to vary the rebate in order to produce some money as part of the package and terms agreed with the International Monetary Fund. There was nothing said about that in the original legislation. Indeed, if even the slightest suggestion had been made that the Government were seeking to set up a Redundancy Fund which they could use later as a method of injecting a small item into a package of economic measures which would convince the IMF that the Government were at last beginning to adopt a more sensible attitude towards public spending and the management of the economy, no hon. Members would have had anything to do with it. It was never in any one's mind that these powers would be put to that use.
  Mr. David Mitchell: My hon. Friend referred to a small item. Does he accept that if small businesses are faced with having to make redundancy payments it is no small item? It may be the difference between continuing in business and going bankrupt.
  Mr. Hayhoe: That is an important argument. Although the amount of money involved in terms of the national economy is very small indeed, the way in which this power could be used might prove to be that additional burden on a small employer that would drive him from a position of survival to one of liquidation.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), is it not the case that the absence of any arrangement whereby employers can set a sum aside to reserve to meet a contingent liability for redundancy payments, except out of already taxed profits, is a further factor which menaces a firm which is approaching the point of insolvency? Should we not have a provision in the Bill whereby sums can be set aside in reserve as a contingency for redundancy?
  Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) makes an important point. It would be helpful if some help could come through fiscal provision from the Government towards the establishment of reserves by businesses to meet the requirements placed upon them by possible future redundancy.
  It is interesting that the helpful suggestions about improving methods of dealing with redundancy are coming from this side of the House. Ministers from the Department of Employment, who should be concerned about this, are acting as errand boys for the Treasury and collecting money in a way which is improper under the Redundancy Fund legislation.
  Ministers make a nonsense of dealing with public affairs. This minor item was inserted into the Chancellor of the Exchequer's package last year. They have never produced a rebuttal of our case that the proposal was a mistake anyway. It was based on an assumption last July that the Fund was running into deficit. It was decided that to avoid an extra burden falling upon public funds some changes should be made. The figures upon which these calculations were based last July were later shown to be inaccurate. It was then established that the Fund was moving not into deficit but into increasing surplus.
  There might have been some justification for the Minister coming to the House and asking for powers to reduce the rebate when the Fund was sliding into deepening deficit. But there is no justification for Ministers seeking to reduce the rebate to employers at a time when the Fund is growing into a steady and increasing surplus. I think that it now probably

  1125
  has a surplus of over £12 million. Perhaps the Minister will give the latest figures. However, I know of no statistics that do other than indicate that if things were left as they stand, the Fund would gradually be increased in size.
  4.0 p.m.
  Therefore, the Minister's proposal that he wants these powers and wants the Lords amendment resisted so that he can use the powers to reduce the rebate in order that the Fund should move even more sharply into surplus is quite wrong. The Minister is wrong to come to the House and ask for agreement to such an outrageous proposition.
  I suppose that one of the reasons for this is that Ministers in the Department of Employment will not acknowledge the errors that they made a year ago, or the errors that were made by those scurrying around looking for some candle ends, important though it is to do that from time to time when in Government, and to look for some contribution to make to the package. Perhaps the Ministers are too frightened of the Treasury to acknowledge their error of last year and to come to the House and say "We made a mistake then. We should now like to forget the whole matter, and we shall withdraw the Bill", or at least "We shall accept the Lords amendment."
  The Bill with the Lords amendment included might well be a measure that would command wider support in the House, because to have the power by the affirmative procedure to vary rebates is not of itself wrong. To have the power in the circumstances in which the Government are asking for it and without the restraints upon the use of that power which are implicit in the Lords amendment is something that should be denied to the Government.
  Perhaps the Treasury—never renowned for its concern about parliamentary opinion—has insisted that the Department of Employment Ministers, whatever the mistakes they made earlier, must now deliver the goods that they promised, wrongly, over a year ago. I doubt whether there is one hon. Member of this House, outside the Treasury team and the doers of their dirty work, the Ministers of the Department of Employment, who would resist this sensible and reasonable amendment if it were not for the activities of the Government Whips.
  1126
  I am absolutely certain that no one in the House could deploy an argument based upon the realities of the Redundancy Fund which would be an argument against the amendment.
  It is, therefore, not parliamentary practice that we are seeing from the Ministers of the Department of Employment today but a pigheaded, puerile pedantry and—using Churchill's words—one that I hope up with which this House will not put. Let it vote accordingly later.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall be brief. I start by apologising to the House for the fact that I have to attend a Select Committee shortly and may not be able to hear the Minister's reply.
  I must confess that I found the Minister's argument unconvincing. I have had something to do with redundancy rebates, long before I became a Member of the House, because I was engaged as a member of the CBI in the discussions that we had on the original Redundancy Payments Bill.
  What saddens me perhaps more than anything else is the way in which this until now valuable and uncontroversial matter has been dragged somewhat into the party-political arena. It is a pity that that has happened, because up to now it has not been such a matter. Both sides of the House have recognised the value of the legislation, which was clearly the brainchild of Ray Gunter, to whom the House owes a debt of gratitude.
  First, the Minister had to eat his words, because on the first occasion the House wisely threw out the Bill. It was then clearly only on the insistence of the Treasury that the Bill came back. The Committee looked into the matter and decided that if there were to be any form of change, it should at least be by the affirmative resolution procedure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said.
  However, unfortunately the Minister, as is so common nowadays, could not accept amendments in Committee. Because the Government have no majority in Committee, they frequently run a risk, because the so-called minority parties cannot be bothered to turn up in Committee—nor, indeed, can they be bothered to turn up in the House today. Of those great supporters of the Socialist Party,

  1127
  the Liberals, or those great nationalists, not a one is present today when the problem of redundancy is being discussed. They nauseate me occasionally. When the Government want support, they are glad to drag them here. When the Liberals or others want Socialist support, they are happy to have it. When it is merely a House of Commons matter, they cannot bother to turn up.
  I am disturbed that what we are discussing was argued through in Committee very reasonably and argued through in another place, with some very telling arguments from some of the noble Lords who understand these matters, yet back in the House of Commons we are faced at the last moment with a starred Government motion. It may be that the Treasury had not quite realised what the other place had done. As my hon. Friend said, the Minister there used one line of argument, which was, at least, a standard line and one that is used frequently by Ministers of all Governments. That was "You do not really want to add these words. They do not mean anything, other than making it a bit longer. They are probably not drafted properly. You do not really want them."
  If a Back Bencher on either side is prepared to run the risk of moving such amendments and carrying them, he then puts the Government Department, irrespective of which Government, in a very difficult position. I have done it myself on at least two occasions. The Government either have to swallow their pride and tell their draftsmen to put the matter right, or have to summon up the big battalions, saying "Although the Back Benchers may be right, we do not want it. We want none of it. Out." I fear that that is what has happened today.
  From experience I should have thought that the Minister of State was a good House of Commons man. However, I do not think that he can reconcile the arguments that he used today and the words used by his representative in another place. They have two entirely different meanings. We are occasionally told that we are living in an Alice-in-Wonderland situation, but when two Ministers speaking for the same Department use two entirely different arguments, it is a bit difficult for mere mortals who are not in the exalted situation of Ministers with
  1128
  their Civil Service advisers to know exactly what is meant.
  The Minister would be doing a service to the House if he could at least reconcile the arguments. He might finish by saying that his noble Friend was talking rubbish or was given the wrong brief by his Department and did not really know what he was doing. They cannot both be right. One must be wrong. It would be nice if the Minister would say "I am sorry: I was wrong or my noble colleague was wrong, but the important thing is that the House of Commons is not wrong. Having heard the arguments deployed, and although the words may not be necessary, on balance we shall accept them because they are in the right spirit and are not against the intention of the Bill. They are merely adding to the safeguards that Parliament requires."
  I should have thought that unless and until the Minister is translated to Great George Street, to the Treasury, which is the coffin of most people, he would be a Department of Employment man and a House of Commons man and would stand up for the rights of his Department. My hon. Friend made the very fair point that up to now the Fund has been accepted by industry as a good thing. I must warn the Minister that if he is about to use the Fund as an instrument of Government financing policy, he will not be particularly helpful to the closer dialogue between Government and industry for which the Prime Minister is asking. Industry does not want its money used for the roulette table of other Government Departments. That is really what the Minister is seeking power to do. He wants to throw the Redundancy Fund chips on the table to back some other Government Department in its mistakes.
  Like my hon. Friend, I am no lawyer. However, it seems to me that it is at least a possibility—putting it no higher—that the courts, which, fortunately, are still above all of us, might hold that the original intention of the Act was being wronged by the Department if it tried to use its powers to spend money for another purpose.
  Cutting through all the verbiage of what the Minister said in this House and in the other place, the fact is that the money in the Fund is not the Government's money. It is not money that they

  1129
  can spend. It is wrong for the Minister to say, as he has on more than one occasion, that this is part of the public expenditure cuts campaign. That statement is rather an old record now, because it is clear that the Government are rapidly back-tracking. The Government will abolish some of the cuts that they have made to provide marvellous sweeteners to satisfy the Liberals to keep the Government in power a little longer. I hope that the Minister will reconcile the two sets of arguments and accept that there is nothing wrong with the Lords amendments.
  If the Government continue to do this sort of thing, they will make industry highly suspicious of their real intentions. Then the Government will have no case for saying that industry is not supporting them. Industry is glad to support any Government who act in the national interest, but when any Government start using special funds to support other purposes, industry has the right to say: "Enough! That is not part of the deal we have tried to make with you". I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.
  Mr. David Madel: I had hoped after all the debates we have had on the Bill that the Government would have been able to say today that they had looked at this matter again and had agreed to accept the amendment. The amendment is carefully drafted and I do not think that it affects in any way the Department's general strategy. The fourth line of the amendment states that the Secretary of State shall have
  "regard to the sums which may be expected to be paid from that Fund in any future period."
  So often when we have had these debates Ministers have referred to the Chancellor's economic measures, the general strategy and July 1976, but since then we have moved much further in general economic terms.
  It is clear from newspaper reports that the International Monetary Fund will be visiting us again in the autumn and it will find that our position has changed. If the Government continue to say that we had to take this action in July 1976 because that is what the Chancellor said, they are laying far too much stress on something
  1130
  that happened 12 months ago and are disregarding the fact that the economic position of the country has changed.
  There has been general party agreement on redundancy payments in the 12 years since the 1965 Act. I appeal to the Government that the very least they can do is to accept the amendment and look at it again in the next Session if they wish—if the Labour Party is still in office. I hope that the Minister will tell us what is the present surplus in the Fund. In the debate in the House of Lords the Minister gave the figure of £12·7 million, which represents an increase on the figure given in earlier debates in this House.
  I wish to draw attention to two points made by the Opposition Front Bench in the House of Lords on 21st June. Moving the amendment, Lady Elles referred to Section 122(4) of the Social Security Act 1975 and to Section 86(5) of the Employment Protection Act. She pointed out that before making an order varying the amounts that may be paid under those two sections, for example under the Employment Protection Act, the Secretary of State has to take account of such matters as
  "the general level of earnings, the national economic situation, and so on".
  She also pointed out that the amendment that we are discussing closely follows Section 122(4) of the Social Security Act 1975. When replying from the Government Front Bench, Lord Wallace of Coslany told Lady Files:
  "The Redundancy Payments Bill should be considered on its individual merits."—[Official Report, House of lords, 21st June 1977; Vol. 384, c. 541–50.]
  We need go no further than that statement.
  If we accept the Minister's remarks, the words of Lords Amendment No. 1 should be carried out and the amendment accepted. The amendment is merely treating the Redundancy Rebates Bill on its merits. The example given by Lady Elles of the Social Security Act 1975 is exactly the same us what we are asking for in this amendment. Given what the Minister in the Lords said about the Bill being considered on its merits, I cannot see why the Government cannot accept the argument of their own Minister in the other place and accept the amendment.

  1131
  In the last two months the Government have made many announcements about training programmes and the help that they want from industry, the money that they want industry to put into training, and the number of school leavers that they want industry to take on. I think that industry will respond to these announcements. We gave a general welcome last week to the new training measures that the Secretary of State announced, but getting support from industry is a two-way process.
  I have not heard of any industry that does not accept this amendment, especially smaller industries. Would it not improve the atmosphere of co-operation with industry which the Government are seeking if they accepted the amendment? If the Government could not accept it for all time, could they not accept it for one year? We could then see whether the figure of £12·7 million remained. Let us see what requirements there are for payments out of the Fund in 1978.
  4.15 p.m.
  I appeal to the Government to be reasonable. It does not do the Government any good to have a party quarrel on redundancy rebates. Since 1975 the Opposition have done their level best to reach agreement with the Government on these matters. We are conscious of the important contributions that small businesses must make if we are to get more young people into jobs. If the Minister looks at the number of new businesses in Telford new town, for example, he will find that the overwhelming majority of them employ only a small number. Yet Telford is supposed to be a show town. Surely the last thing that the Government want is a new town to be struck by redundancies. Small businesses are the main prop of that town. The most sensible thing that the Government could do would be to accept the amendment as a way of further improving co-operation between the Government and industry.
  Mr. David Mitchell: The Bill that the Lords amendment is designed to amend was intended to ensure that employers would contribute more if an employee was made redundant. The Lords, through this amendment, are seeking to ensure that the Government will
  1132
  increase the employers' payments to the Redundancy Fund only if the Fund is short of money, and that they should not use it as an economic regulator.
  I wish to put three points to the Minister. The use of the Redundancy Payments Act as an economic regulator is an abuse of Parliament. Parliament gave its approval to that legislation after spelling out very clearly the purposes which it was to fulfil. I am very critical of a number of these purposes and a number of the ways in which it operates. There should be a radical overhaul and amalgamation of a whole series of benefits, including redundancy payments, unemployment benefits, wage-related unemployment benefits and other things of that sort to help people in job transition.
  Let us consider the way in which Parliament was persuaded to accept the Act. A special fund enabling payments to be made to employers when they had redundancies was established so that the strain on the employer should not be too great. I believe that the Miinster is in the position of a trustee. He is the trustee of that Fund and he must see that it is available to fulfil the purposes that Parliament had in mind when it voted for the Bill. As a trustee, he is sponsoring a provision to enable the Fund to be used as an economic regulator and not solely to provide finance for the original purpose.
  I am reminded of the circumstances surrounding the Road Fund in the 1930s—when the Minister and I were very young and long before we became active in politics. There were substantial feelings of anger then when it was discovered that, rightly or wrongly, the Government of the day had raided the Fund to use the money for purposes other than those for which it was intended. The Minister is asking us today to endorse a similar approach. He wants to agree to this Fund being used for other purposes, and it is a concept which we reject. If we accept what the Minister wants and he makes an order he will, in effect, be increasing unemployment.
  I wonder when the hon. Gentleman plans to put a new name over the door of his office in St. James's Square. No longer is it the Department of Employment. It is now to be the Departmen of unemployment. That is certainly the sad rôle which the hon.

  1133
  Gentleman fills, and he is taking a further sorry step on that road this afternoon. He sits on the Front Bench, lonely. The House should be sorry for the hon. Gentleman. We know him as a kindly and genial man. More than anyone he he would like to see unemployment fall. But there he sits, accompanied only by two colleagues with him on the Front Bench, and with not one Labour Back Bencher present in the Chamber. He sits there lonely and isolated because his supporters dare not put their heads into the Chamber to listen to proposals which will increase unemployment.
  The Government will go down in history as the Government of unemployment. I had planned to challenge Labour Members, particularly those below the Gangway, on whether we should see unemployment reach 1·5 million by August. I believe that that will be the result of the Government's policies. However, there is no Labour Member here for me to challenge. I had intended to offer them evens in a wager, and if there had been no takers, to go up to 2 to 1, and then 3 to 1. But there are no Labour Members here to take it up. Perhaps Ministers are barred by token of their office from accepting bets.
  One of the ways in which the Bill will increase unemployment is by its timing. Spread across industry as a whole, it does not involve large sums of money. But for the individual employer, given the time at which he has to pay out the money, it represents a burden. No employer dismisses people frivolously. No employer likes to see idle machinery or empty workshops. An employer does not make a profit out of that. He will dismiss people only if he is in a serious financial situation. The unfortunate aspect is that just at the time that his position is at its most serious, when he has to reduce part of his labour force, he will be taking on a liability that will so reduce his cash flow that he will probably have to dismiss even more of his workers.
  More firms have gone bankrupt in the last year than at any time since records were kept. The number has risen by 110 per cent. since 1972–73. Therefore, firms are getting into financial difficulties, and it is just when things are at their worst that those firms will be hurt by this legislation.
  1134
  I see a parallel here with the Employment Protection Act. The Government seem to believe that if they make it more expensive to dismiss staff, the staff are less likely to be dismissed. There are many special disadvantages for an employer in dismissing someone, and so many advantages to the employee, that employers are wary of taking people on. That means that there is not the growth of new jobs that there should be.
  This factor operates most severely on the small business because it is the small business which is most reliant on retained profits to enable it to keep pace with inflation and to finance its expansion. At a time of inflation, every business tends to be cash hungry. Even a village store with £4,000 of stock, requires £4,800 for the same amount of stock a year later when inflation is running at 20 per cent. A medium-sized enginering works, which has £40,000 of work in progress, will require an extra £8,000 12 months later.
  Businesses constantly need more and more money to maintain the same volume of output and therefore the same number of jobs. With price control and competition artificially suppressed, they are unable to make the same profit and they are driven to borrow from the bank. The small business cannot go to the Stock Exchange for more money. Instead it relies on ploughed-back profits backed up with bank borrowing. The amount that a business can borrow from the bank depends on the value of the business. Here the Minister is warning us that he will bring in an order which will decrease the value of every business, thus decreasing the collateral which is available for bank borrowing.
  A bank manager wants to know what a company's liabilities will be if it gets into trouble—for example, if the proprietor walks under a bus and the business has to be sold. Among the liabilities is the redundancy payment. Many small businesses with older proprietors realise today that their redundancy payment liabilities for long-service employees are nearly as great as their assets. I could prove that if the Minister wished me to do so.
  Therefore, small businesses reliant upon bank borrowing will have a balance sheet to take to the bank which shows greater

  1135
  liabilities, liabilities which are being increased as a result of the Bill. The bank will refuse to lend more money and will clamp down sooner than hitherto. When the provision comes into operation, therefore, it will result in a number of firms going bankrupt and people being thrown out of work, with further demands therefore on the Redundancy Fund.
  If the Minister has not taken this point on board, the Treasury should have done so. The Minister is involved today in compounding a felony, the felony of using the Fund as an economic regulator and the felony of adding to unemployment, which is one of the worst and most sorrowful burdens that he has to bear on his shoulders.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. Esmond Buhner: One of the Minister's reasons for resisting the amendment was that it came from the other place. Had it been backed by the Duke of Dorset or the Dukes of Omnium and Gatherum, there might have been some justification for that line, but it is no bad thing to recognise that there is often more varied industrial experience in the Upper House than there is here and that the content of debate there is often much more relevant
  The amendment is absolutely unexceptionable. It requires the Secretary of State to take into account the size of the Redundancy Fund and any major changes in the number of redundancies before making an affirmative order. The work of the sector working parties has shown that there is an enormous amount of overmanning in British industry and that in some industries—notably shipbuilding, steel, telecommunications and textiles—there is every reason to fear massive reundancies over the next few years.
  We have been told that the Fund is in surplus, but we have not been told what the call on the Fund may be. It is meaningless, therefore, to talk about a surplus if an analysis of forthcoming demand is not attempted. Therefore, if the amendment concentrates the Minister's mind on what will happen as well as what is happening, it will be wholly desirable.
  However, as we have been told, the Government's purpose is to use the Fund
  1136
  for other purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) has pointed out what happened to the Road Fund. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—I am sorry that he has left—argued that the Land Fund was a fiction, although Dr. Dalton, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, had said that it was to be a perpetual memorial to those who had fallen in war. By the mid-fifties more than £140 million was set aside for that purpose and the avaricious Treasury saw it as money on which it could lay its hands. Spurious arguments were used in the House to justify the raid.
  It is increasingly difficult to see where good management ends and manipulation begins. We should do everything possible to make Ministers and the Civil Service accountable. One does not need to run even a comparatively small business to know how difficult it is to follow the movement of cash. Certainly we long ago lost control of the way in which the Treasury moves money from one Department to another.
  If the Redundancy Fund were simply to become a column in the accounts to allow the Treasury maximum flexibiilty, that would lead only to greater cynicism in industry. Those who served on the Standing Committee on the Employment Protection Bill remember how proposition after proposition flowed from the Government to make labour more of a fixed cost and more expensive. It was difficult to argue that any one of those propositions was not sensible, but taken together they could only make for more unemployment.
  What is happening with the Redundancy Fund bears that out. If the cash is increasing when unemployment is increasing, that can only mean that there is a far greater reluctance to take people on.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Can my hon. Friend persuade the Minister to tell us what estimate he has made of the additional numbers who will be made unemployed by this legislation?
  Mr. Bulmer: It would be helpful if the Minister answered that question. To be fair to him, my experience is that these things are not quantifiable and that the answer cannot be given. But we know in our guts, and those who run businesses

  1137
  know, that an enormous wet blanket has been laid on the creative spirit of industry. Some of it was done for good reasons, but Ministers refuse to accept the consequences of their actions and to realise the truth of what we said at the time. Unfortunately, a Conservative Government will probably have to clear up that mess.
  If the Government get this Bill, it is no secret that they will reduce the employer's rebate. This will be yet another burden on small business and on all business. The amendment may be a straw, but we have to consider every straw today to see which will break the back. If this one does not actually break the back, it may induce a slipped disc. Anyone who has suffered from that disability knows how immobilising it can be.
  There is increasing resentment in industry at changes in the rules and this sort of unilateral reduction. An employer taking someone on up to now could have expected that if his estimate of sales was not met and he could not continue to employ so many people, he would at least get this contribution. Now he will not. But on top of that, if the redundancy is brought about by Government action—for instance, the 25 per cent. increase in VAT—that bitterness is even greater. Not only have the Government created the situation that caused the redundancy, but they have reduced the compensation.
  Those of us who work in industry have the depressing feeling that not only the Government but the Civil Service have no understanding of how industry works and that in the Treasury and the Department of Industry there is no one of assistant secretary rank or above with even one year's experience in manufacturing industry. That is not a sensible way to run a country.
  We want the Redundancy Fund to be just what its name suggests. We want the Government to be accountable for its use and criteria established to prevent its misuse. Since the amendment goes a small way in that direction, I support it.
  Sir A. Meyer: It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We know that the intentions of the Minister of State are always good, though we are not always so confident about some of his colleagues. Much of the present unemployment and of the
  1138
  additional unemployment that, alas, can be expected is due to legislation enacted with excellent intentions. Legislation that had much more questionable motives—notably the Employment Protection Act—has been and will be responsible for much more unemployment.
  We see the same situation in housing. The present Government seem concerned solely with those who have a house, a tenancy, or a job and not at all with those who have no house, who would dearly love a tenancy, or who are desperate for a job. It is with that in the forefront of our minds that we should consider every item of legislation affecting employment, including the Lords amendment.
  None of us will maintain that this Bill, amended or unamended, will play a major rôle in increasing or diminishing unemployment, but it will make its contribution. The effect of the Bill as it left this House, after unsuccessful attempts by the Opposition to amend it, was to introduce yet another factor of uncertainty into the calculations that employers have to make in deciding whether to take the big risk now involved in taking on extra workers. Everything that the Government do increases the risk to employers contemplating increasing their work force.
  This measure made its own contribution. We on the Conservative Benches moved amendments which would have had some effect in mitigating that uncertainty, but those amendments were rejected. Now the Bill comes back to us with a very carefully drafted amendment which was made in another place and which would make a small but none the less appreciable contribution to diminishing the uncertainty. The Lords amendment is undoubtedly valuable in that connection.
  If the Government are serious in what they contend the Bill is intended to achieve in its entirety, I cannot believe that they can bring themselves to reject this amendment, other than on the grounds that it comes from another place, that it was not drafted in the Department, and therefore it is unacceptable. If they are serious in their desire to ensure that this measure does not add a further aggravation to the uncertainties facing employers and to the likelihood of increasing unemployment and decreasing

  1139
  job opportunities for those who desperately seek jobs, I cannot for the life of me see how they can fail to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The Lords amendment appears to seek power to vary the rebate only for the management of the Rdeundancy Fund. That seems to be good economics as well as good politics, but the Minister wants to increase his political power in this rather minor matter. I say that because he cannot want bigger and wider economic powers, since those economic powers would not rest with his Department. He could have those powers only if the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Cabinet as a whole allowed him to have them. Therefore, he wants wider political power.
  Why does the Minister want the power? He cannot want it to increase the rebates to employers. If that were so, he would have to ask the permission of the Chancellor if he went beyond the Fund, and in certain circumstances—in the present circumstances—he clearly would not obtain permission from the Chancellor. Therefore, the political powers that he seeks, that he thinks he might want at some time or another, are powers to reduce the rebates paid to employers.
  This is where we differ from the Minister. We are entitled to do so on a number of grounds. First, the effect on youth employment of jobs not becoming available is dramatic. The more people agree with their employers to become redundant, the more jobs there are available for young men and women to come into industry.
  4.45 p.m.
  Therefore, if the Minister used the powers that he seeks, the first effect would be that the redeployment of labour, which is so essential, would be affected to the disadvantage of youth, on whom his Department is spending a great deal of money. The Department has rightly given a great deal of attention to the problem of youth, as have the Government as a whole and both sides of the House.
  When the Government seek powers, we must assume that they might use them. The effect on employers is that they will be cautious about seeking redundancies
  1140
  and trying to provide new jobs for old. Because they will be uncertain whether it will cost them more money, they may not make redundancies necessary to bring about efficiency.
  One of the advantages of the Redundancy Fund is that employers who have people who are not pulling their weight—not always because they do not want to, but perhaps because their ability is less than was expected—can replace them in the interests of the firm's productivity, to the benefit of the other employees. The efficiency of the firm can be affected if the employer is put in the position of not initiating redundancy when it might be desirable.
  Another effect is that the very powers sought by the Minister create a certain mental attitude in the employer, who assumes that the Fund might become a tax matter—that it is no longer just an industrial matter, no longer a Fund serving industry regardless of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He must think always of the possibility of this becoming another impost upon him by the Treasury.
  What about the effects on employees? There is the general effect that if rebates are reduced, the charge on taxation is not only on the employer. We sometimes tend to think that when there are increased Treasury imposts upon business and industry generally, through the Budget or some other means, they are simply a charge to the employer. In fact, they are spread across the whole of taxation so that everybody contributes. Everybody has to pay. Therefore, it affects the employee in the works through his pay packet. His taxes either cannot be brought down or, at worst, may have to be put up.
  Secondly, some employees who want redundancy and who actually seek it will not get it. I do not think that the Minister himself would pretend that redundancy is simply a matter for the employer. Quite a lot of people ask the employer to make them redundant. This is very often a good thing. When an employee wants to leave because he will be paid out from the Redundancy Fund, there is no dispute about it. There is no difference of opinion even with the unions. That employee leaves, and then there are the opportunities for somebody else to come in.

  1141
  I have already mentioned the effect upon the recruitment of young men, which is vital. Finally, there is the effect upon the hon. Gentleman as a Minister and upon his Department. What the Minister is providing in the Bill is an opportunity for the Chancellor and someone else to interfere with a matter which concerns the Department of Employment and the Secretary of State for Employment. Once he does that he is giving up his influence down the line with employees and employers in so far as they are concerned with labour and labour relations.
  The Fund should be the concern only of the Minister and the Department. It should not be the concern of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government as a whole. It should not be a matter in which they can interfere, in not accepting the amendment, the Minister is allowing—almost inviting—interference.
  I cannot understand why on earth the hon. Gentleman should refuse to accept the Lords amendment. It is very sensible. The Minister may have certain reservations about it. They cannot be earth-shaking reservations. Surely it is not a principle for which he would go to the stake. There is no reason why he should not accept it, yet he is refusing to accept a simple, sensible, ordinary amendment that one would normally expect to go through the House without any difficulty at all.
  I begin to wonder why. Is it a part of the Lib-Lab pact? Is this the sort of little mouse that the public is to be shown as worth paying to see as part of what is available in the Lib-Lab zoo? Is this because of some agreement that has been made with the Liberal Party, whose members are not present today?
  Mr. Hayhoe: At least the Liberal Member who takes a particular interest in these matters has indicated to me that he and his party will be voting on our side when the Division comes. On this issue, certainly, the Lib-Lab pact has been well and truly broken.
  Mr. Lewis: It would be very interesting, if we won this vote today, to see whether tomorrow there was a vote of confidence on this little question. The Liberal Party would then have to switch its allegiance and vote with the Government.
  1142
  It just goes to show either that the Government were stupid to resist such a simple amendment, or that, if they are not stupid, they must have a reason for doing so. I think the Government are very misguided in not conceding, as so often happens when Bills go to another place, a proposal by the other place which is an improvement and would not be likely to cause any difficulty to the Government in the long run. They ought to accept it.
  Mr. Fred Silvester: This poor little Bill is a strange kettle of fish. By accident of the timetable of the House and the untimely demise of the devolution Bill it has had more time on the Floor of the House than was originally intended. As a result, its subject matter has been well canvassed, but we do not seem to be getting anywhere.
  Despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) has described it as a little mouse, there is at the heart of this continued debate about the amendment a very important principle which the Minister well knows, and I am a little surprised that he does not accept it.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said, there was originally an error in the accounting for the redundancy payments. Certainly there was an urgent consideration at the time of the International Monetary Fund loan. All those things have been affected by the passage of time. The Redundancy Fund is now known to be in surplus of over £12 million, and that surplus has steadily grown over the years.
  The Government tell us that the economic circumstances are about to turn a corner, and that things will get better to the extent that I should have thought they could manage to find a sum of £11 million, and yet in these circumstances a very important principle is being thrown away. I am sorry to underline it because it has been said umpteen times, but it has to be said yet again.
  The Redundancy Fund was set up as a kind of trust. It was a separate sum of money which was put by for a specific purpose. The parties to that agreement—the parties in industry and the parties in Government—undertook that the Fund would be available for that purpose. There have been examples, such as the

  1143
  Road Fund, the Land Fund and so on, of funds being set up and raided, but that is not an excuse for the Minister to follow those bad precedents.
  We are faced with a number of problems in industry and one of the most important relates to what we do when unemployment arises. This Fund is at the heart of that problem. In addition to what happens to the money, or how much money there is, we have to consider the degree of confidence that reposes within the system that we set up. The Redundancy Fund was set up with that confidence. This paltry sum is being used to break that confidence for no very good reason that the Minister has been able to put forward.
  The money is not necessary for the health of the Fund, because the Fund is in surplus. It is not crucial to the Government's economic package—if it is dependent on that, the Government may as well pack up and go home now.
  There is also an unfortunate side effect about which I am getting more and more anecdotal evidence. I refer to the employment drag. Firms that would previously have taken on small quantities of labour are now seriously concerned about their labour commitments. This situation arises not only from the Employment Protection Act, although I think it has been accelerated by it. We are concerned with the whole problem of the commitment which arises at the time of redundancy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basing-stoke (Mr. Mitchell) so eloquently put it, in the case of small businesses.
  These are the real circumstances with which we are dealing. Everyone has complimented the Minister, nice man that he may be. I do not compliment him. Nice man or not, it is he who bears the responsibility for this decision, and this is a wrong decision. I think that in his heart the Minister knows it is a wrong decision. It may be a matter on which on some previous occasion he has had to give way for some other purpose. We have pursued it through the House time and time again. It has been rejected in the House of Lords and has now come back in another form, so that we are at it yet again.
  It is a silly, squalid little measure, and I am very sorry indeed that the Minister has decided to pursue it.
  Mr. Harold Walker: With the permission of the House, I shall try to reply to some of the points raised in the debate.
  I find it extraordinary that such a straightforward measure, aimed at a modest reduction in public expenditure—that is the purpose which has been frankly and openly stated on so many occasions during the passage of the Bill—should have generated so much debate, and abuse at times, this afternoon.
  The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) described it as a "little mouse". If that is the case, why should we have been detained so long with so many speeches? I regret that some of those hon. Members are not here to listen to the reply that I hope to make to their points.
  The amendments would have the effect of frustrating completely the intentions and purposes of the Bill. What has been overlooked in so many of the speeches is that we are not debating and discussing redundancies. We are discussing public expenditure. That is what the measure deals with. It has been overlooked that this is essentially an enabling measure.
  The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford said that the only purpose of introducing an order would be to reduce the employer's rebate. When I put the Bill to the House for its Second Reading, I pointed out that the one advantage it had over the original Bill was that it would enable us to increase the rebates by order, and that we hoped to be able to do this rather more quickly than would have been the case with the previous Bill, which would have had to involve primary legislation. The Bill has the advantage of flexibility. I assure Conservative Members that it is our intention as soon as circumstances permit to introduce an order to enable employers to have bigger rebates.
  5.0 p.m.
  Another point that was made repeatedly, most strongly by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), was that it was quite wrong to use the Redundancy Fund in the way that we propose and that it was completely contrary to the stated purposes of the Fund and the arrangements for its administration at the outset in 1965. That ignores completely the fact that successive Governments since 1965, including the last Conservative

  1145
  Government, count the surpluses and deficits of the Redundancy Fund according to the circumstances at the time, against the public sector borrowing requirement. In other words, since its inception it has been consistently used as an element in the public sector borrowing requirement. I hope that the House will not ignore that fact.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) for some of his personal remarks. I hope that they were not influenced by the fact that he and I are regular pairs. I do not believe that they were.
  The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that he recognised the amendments would thwart the use of the Bill for economic purposes. He thought that the Bill should not be used for that purpose and felt that the Bill should be preserved to allow only variations in rebate to be used in connection with the management of the Fund.
  I pointed out that it is our purpose to use it for economic policy purposes. I find it rather extraordinary that, despite all the public statements by Conservative Members, particularly those on the Front Bench, about the need for reductions in public expenditure, almost invariably when the Government come forward with proposals for reduction in public expenditure they oppose and attack them. I find it extraordinary particularly in this case. Conservative Members have said that we are merely carrying out the dirty work of the Treasury—as though cutting public expenditure was dirty work. I can understand that point of view from some of my hon. Friends, but I find it hard to reconcile that attitude with some of the public statements by Conservative Members.
  Much has been made of what was said in another place by Lord Wallace.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Does the Minister intend to deal with the point that I made about the fact that, by reducing the collateral against which small businesses can borrow from the banks, the Bill will therefore create unemployment?
  Mr. Walker: I was not sure whether it was right for me to attempt that. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's point was relevant to the debate or to
  1146
  the responsibilities that I have within my Department. I should like to reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said and, if appropriate, to draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke among others mentioned the impact of the Bill on small businesses. Indeed, it was the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) who made the point about enabling firms, particularly small firms, to set aside reserves that would be tax free to enable them to meet redundancy contingencies as they arise. I promised that I would deal with this at some time or draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Perhaps I ought to try and deal with it now.
  I understand that this point has been considered on a number of occasions. It was considered neither right nor practicable to allow companies to establish tax-free reserves in order to meet unquantifiable liabilities that might never arise. It is the view of the Treasury that because the present system already takes some account of companies' tax relief in respect of employers' earnings-related contributions, from which the Fund is financed, employers themselves should contribute to redundancy payments.
  Hon. Members spoke of the difficulty that small firms might find themselves faced with in meeting the redundancy payments in view of their reduced liabilities. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen who discussed that have overlooked the provisions of Section 32 of the Redundancy Payments Act which in certain circumstances where financial difficulty arises allows the Fund to meet the whole of the employer's liability initially and for arrangements to be made afterwards that would be mutually convenient for the repayment of the employer's part that has been paid out of the Fund.
  Mr. Hayhoe: Will the Minister confirm that all the payments into the Fund, which are used either for the rebates or, in particular instances, for the total payments of the redundancy payment, come from industry and that according to the legislation that money can be paid out only by way of redundancy payments? The Opposition have always wholly rejected the suggestion that this is something to do with public expenditure. It has not. It

  1147
  has an effect on the public sector borrowing requirement, but not on public expenditure.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the total income from the Fund is derived from employers' contributions. That is certainly true. But the hon. Gentleman must recognise that public expenditure is obviously related to the public sector borrowing requirement. It has been a practice of successive Governments to use the surpluses and deficits as an offset in one way or another against the public sector borrowing requirement. That is an element of public expenditure.
  Conservative Members made much of what was said in another place by my Noble Friend Lord Wallace, speaking on behalf of the Government. For obvious reasons we have searched carefully for reasons why we might let the amendment stand. We are not opposing the amendment merely for the sake of doing so, or because it comes from another place.
  My only reference to the fact that the amendment came from another place was that it came into direct conflict with the principle that this House already established and that it came into conflict with the previous amendment of the Opposition, which we had rejected. It is not the case that we want to oppose the amendment for opposition's sake. We searched carefully to see whether we could allow it to stand, because we were anxious to see progress on the Bill. We examined the amendment's effect extremely carefully.
  The firm legal advice that is now tendered to me, in the light of the examination since Lord Wallace spoke in another place, is that the amendment would frustrate one of the main purposes of the Bill. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) mentioned the parallel provisions of the Social Security Act 1975. As my noble Friend said in the other place, it would not seem inappropriate to follow the precedent of the Social Security Act. It would be wrong to confuse the present Bill and the use to which it will be put in the first instance with the provisions of an Act related to the collection of contributions.
  Reference was also made of the fact that the Opposition Front Bench spokes-
  1148
  man, moving the amendment in the other place, referred to the provisions of Section 86(5) of the Employment Protection Act. What the amendment ignores is the criterion laid down in the Employment Protection Act—that the Secretary of State, in adjusting the level of payment, shall have regard to the national economic situation. It is right that we should have regard to the national economic situation.
  Notwithstanding what my noble Friend Lord Wallace said and what has been quoted, I would point out that on 28th June, during discussion on the consequent amendment to ensure consistency in the Northern Irish legal position with that of Great Britain, my noble Friend said
  "I am bound to make it clear that the Government remain opposed to the principle underlying these Amendments, which are directly contrary to statements made about the intended first use of the enabling power to effect a reduction in rebate."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28th June 1977; Vol. 384, c. 1042.]
  I quote those words because it was suggested that there was a contradiction between what my noble Friend said in the other place and what the Government have said in the debate today. Those words show clearly that there is no inconsistency between us.
  This Bill should be considered on its individual merits, and I have emphasised so often throughout its passage that we have been at pains to explain the reasons underlining it and the use to which it will be put.
  At no time can we foresee circumstances in which the enabling power would be used without reference to the Fund and the demands that will be made upon it. The prudent administration of public money demands that we keep a careful watch on these matters. Ultimately the final determination remains with Parliament under the affirmative procedure.
  The amendment would defeat the purpose of the Bill, if the wording is intended to mean that the power to vary the rebate may be used only as a management power, irrespective of other considerations, such as the state of the economy as a whole. My advice is that the purpose of the Bill, which was approved by both Houses on Second Reading, would be frustrated by the amendment. Therefore, I ask the house to reject the Lords amendment.
  Question put, That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 130.

  Division No. 188]

  AYES

  [5.12 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  English, Michael

  Molloy, William

  Ashton, Joe

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Bates, Alf

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Newens, Stanley

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Oakes, Gordon

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Flannery, Martin

  Ovenden, John

  Boardman, H.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Padley, Walter

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Ford, Ben

  Palmer, Arthur

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Forrester, John

  Park, George

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

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

  Parry, Robert

  Bradley, Tom

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Radice, Giles

  Bray, Or Jeremy

  Golding, John

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Gould, Bryan

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Hardy, Peter

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Buchan, Norman

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hatton, Frank

  Rooker, J. W.

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Campbell, Ian

  Hooley, Frank

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Carmichael, Nell

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Cartwright, John

  Janner, Greville

  Silverman, Julius

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cohen, Stanley

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Small, William

  Coleman, Donald

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Stoddart, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Lambie, David

  Stott, Roger

  Cowans, Harry

  Lamborn, Harry

  Strang, Gavin

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Lamond, James

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Cronin, John

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Cryer, Bob

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Davidson, Arthur

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ward, Michael

  Deakins, Eric

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Madden, Max

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Dempsey, James

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Dormand, J. D.

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Woof, Robert

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Mendelson, John

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dunn, James A.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Dunnett, Jack

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Mr. Frank R. White and

  Edge, Geoff

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Jopling, Michael

  Arnold, Tom

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Farr, John

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Banks, Robert

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh, N)

  Lamont, Norman

  Benyon, W.

  Forman, Nigel

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Biffen, John

  Freud, Clement

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gray, Hamish

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Griffiths, Eidon

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Grylls, Michael

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Hampton, Dr Keith

  Marten, Neil

  Brooke, Peter

  Hannam, John

  Mather, Carol

  Brotherton, Michael

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maude, Angus

  Buck, Antony

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mawby, Ray

  Budgen, Nick

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Churchill, W. S.

  Henderson, Douglas

  Mills, Peter

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hodgson, Robin

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hordern, Peter

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Clegg, Walter

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Moate, Roger

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Molyneaux, James

  Costain, A. P.

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Monro, Hector

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Stokes, John

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Neave, Airey

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Newton, Tony

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Nott, John

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Thompson, George

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Salisbury, Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Pardoe, John

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Viggers, Peter

  Penhaligon, David

  Shepherd, Colin

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Silvester, Fred

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Sims, Roger

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Speed, Keith

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Rhodes James, R.

  Spence, John

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Stainton, Keith

  Sir George Young.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 2 disagreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. John Golding, Mr. Barney Hayhoe, Mr. Fred Silvester, Mr.
  1152
  A. W. Stallard, and Mr. Harold Walker; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Before I call the Minister to move the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1977, I should point out to the House, as other occupiers of the Chair have had to do on similar occasions in the past, that the scope of the debate is fairly narrow. All that the order seeks to do is to continue in existence for a further period the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts. While, therefore, it will be in order to argue that one or more of those Acts ought to continue because of what is in them, the Chair would be bound to check any argument that the Acts ought to be amended or extended to cover matters that they do not at present cover.
  With the exception of a few minor provisions, the Acts relate entirely to matters of discipline. References to other detailed subjects affecting Service life or to general defence policy would be quite out of order.
  5.28 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert): I beg to move,
  That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.
  The purpose of the order is to continue in force the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts for a further year—that is to say, until 31st August next year.
  The House will recall that the Armed Forces Bill 1975, when introduced into the House, provided for the abolition of the annual continuation order. It was considered at the time that a number of alternative opportunities to debate the affairs of the Services existed and that the abolition of the continuation order would save valuable parliamentary time.
  However, during the Second Reading debate a number of right hon. and hon. Members voiced concern at the prospective loss of this opportunity to discuss Service disciplinary matters. The Committee on the Bill shared that concern and amended the Bill to provide for the retention of this annual continuation
  1154
  order debate. The order was to be considered in the summer—rather than in the autumn as in the past—so that it could be linked with a general debate on defence matters. The Bill received Royal Assent on 26th October 1976 and it included that provision. This is, therefore, the first occasion upon which a continuation order has been moved since the Armed Forces Act 1976 came into force.
  I am seized of the tightness with which the rules of order bind us on this occasion and I do not seek to make a long speech about the essence of the order or about what it implies. It might be of convenience to the House if I sought to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I could seek to reply then to any points that may have been raised by hon. Members.
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. Churchill: On this occasion the Opposition wish to join with the Minister of State in supporting the motion for the continuance of discipline in Her Majesty's Armed Forces.
  The standards of discipline that are required of Britain's Armed Forces are, rightly, second to none in the world. I know that in all quarters of the House there will be agreement that our Armed Forces fully live up to the expectations imposed upon them by Parliament and our people in circumstances that are frequently hazardous and trying. Our Armed Forces have earned for themselves a splendid reputation and it is no exaggeration to say that no army from anywhere else in the world could have acquitted itself with the honour and reputation that the British Army has achieved in its handling over some nine to 10 years of the critical situation in Northern Ireland. On behalf of the Opposition I wish to pay tribute to the courage and devotion to duty of the Armed Forces in spite of all the difficulties and hazards that have been in their way.
  We should bear in mind—and this is a matter that bears directly on military discipline—that more than any other section of the community the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland have long hours and that involves them in substantial family separation. It is not only the Army in Northern Ireland, because, of course, the Air Force is also involved there. RAF helicopter pilots are sent

  1155
  from Odiham on a six weeks in, six weeks out basis and Royal Marines are also involved. One cannot ignore that and dissociate the military discipline to which they are subjected from their pay and conditions.
  It was a basic part of the military salary concept that the Armed Forces should have full comparability with their civilian counterparts in matters of pay specifically to make up for the fact that they are subjected to military discipline while other sections of the community are not. Indeed, that was so far taken into account—and required to be taken into account—by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body when it was established that there was the addition of the so-called "X" factor which, as the Secretary of State informed us the other day, is reckoned at 10 per cent. That is notionally a 10 per cent, increase on comparable pay in civilian life. However, the Armed Forces today not only do not receive that 10 per cent, increase over and above what is comparable—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather outside the bounds of what we are discussing.
  Mr. Churchill: While I should not in any way seek to controvert your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I respectfully submit that, since a major part of the maintenance of military discipline relates to the maintenance of a high standard of morale among Her Majesty's Forces, that also means that there is a difficulty when the Armed Forces are subjected to a situation in which they have wholly lost comparability with the civilian sector and when they are required under the code of military discipline to respond to orders to work for 100 nours or more a week, particularly in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, such as on the high seas. This matter also affects personnel in the RAF.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I drew to the attention of the House the fact that we are not discussing general matters of Service life. This is purely a question of discipline.
  Mr. Churchill: I fully accept that we are here to discuss discipline, but I find it difficult to imagine that the various matters that directly impinge on discipline can in no way be touched upon. For
  1156
  example, the incidence of Armed Forces personnel having cheques bouncing or becoming involved in matters that directly involve breaches of the code of military discipline which arise specifically from the pressures put upon them by their pay and conditions—and one would have hoped that this was something—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I said a moment ago that references to other detailed subjects affecting Service life, or to general defence policy, would be quite out of order.
  Mr. Churchill: I shall certainly accept your guidance on that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. None the less, there are aspects of the military discipline code that are currently in danger of being infringed and that are, indeed, being infringed as a result of the circumstances to which we are not allowed to make reference in this debate. It has reached the point where in certain units there are privates and non-commissioned officers who are already making representations for the redress of grievances under Queen's Regulations—and that is something that they are specifically entitled to do—about matters of pay, to which I shall no longer make reference.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you saying that the House should avoid the matter of Service pay altogether? There is no way in which—and I put this to you with the utmost respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker—we can seek to impose discipline upon many thousands of men and women and to impose a disciplinary code that is unique to the Armed Forces and applies to no other part of national life unless we can also consider, perhaps in passing, their other conditions.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House of what I recently said. Reference to other detailed subjects affecting Service life or to defence policy would be quite out of order.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I entirely take your point that we do not want a free and wide-ranging debate on the general aspects of Service policy. However, there must be aspects

  1157
  of Service policy that affect disciplinary matters and surely hon. Members on both sides of the House must be allowed to refer to those matters to the extent that they impinge on Service discipline.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have with me Mr. Speaker's rulings going back for some years. This has always been a narrow debate and, in fact, on the last occasion that it came before the House the motion went through on the nod.
  Mr. F. P. Crowder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you reconsider your decision in view of what has been said? After all, these men are serving the country in extremely difficult circumstances. The separation from their families and such minor remuneration as they receive is part and parcel of their lives. Must that not affect this debate on discipline? I say this with great respect. There have been times when such matters have been reconsidered and I wonder whether, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would consider thinking about it again.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am asked to reconsider the matter. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the precedents that are well-established and appear in Hansard on many occasions. I should be quite out of order to take it upon myself to go contrary to those precedents.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned and uncertain about the position. Fortunately, we have no mutiny in the Fleet or riot in the Army, and nor are we likely to have such occurrences, but discipline in the Forces includes an obligation not to question the terms of pay and conditions. Service men are not able to hold a conference at Tynemouth or anywhere else to consider their terms of pay. This is part of the disciplinary procedures. Is it not possible to raise the broader question of discipline of the Forces in so far as it affects the fact that Service men must accept their conditions of pay unquestioningly?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are general debates on the Services and it appears that they would be the occasions on which to deal with such matters. I recall that we were dealing with exactly those points not many days ago. I ask the House to
  1158
  confine itself to what is in the order and not to matters outside it.
  Mr. Churchill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You referred to precedents and you will be aware that this debate has been going on annually in one form or another for more than 300 years. It has traditionally been regarded as an opportunity for the House to exercise control over the discipline and activities of the Armed Forces of the Crown. I am not questioning the right of the Chair to make new departures, but I submit that it is a new departure for the House not to have the opportunity of discussing matters that are directly related to military discipline.
  I do not believe that any of my colleagues seeks to go wide of what is on the Order Paper. The motion relates to military discipline and, provided that we stick to what is on the Order Paper and relate our remarks specifically to military discipline, I do not see how this could be regarded as being out of order. Looking back at debates over the past four or five years, I see that there have been frequent interventions from the Chair and injunctions not to take the debate too wide, but references have been permitted to matters that are directly related to discipline.
  I ask you to reconsider your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because otherwise it appears that this business must go through on the nod and it is of such importance to the Armed Forces and to the nation that many of us would feel that the House had done itself an injustice if that were to happen.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand the position, the narrow debate that we are having is whether the Acts should be renewed for one year.
  Mr. Churchill: That is correct. We are debating whether the Acts should continue for another year. I do not believe that there is any basic dispute between the two sides of the House on this matter. However, we are surely entitled to refer to matters directly impinging on that discipline. If not, we are wasting our time. Naturally it suits the convenience of the Minister to have business go through on the nod, but that is not what we were sent here for.
  Dr. Gilbert: There has been no change of precedent on this matter under this Government or previous Governments. My Conservative predecessor as Minister of State was under exactly the same contraints as I am. I have a binder full of information that it would be in order to discuss. If the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) has not consulted the precedents or is so incompetent that he cannot keep within the rules of order, that is his fault. If anyone is detaining the House, it is he.
  Mr. F. P. Crowder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a long time since I was in the Army, but my recollection is that stoppages of pay are regarded as a matter of discipline and on that basis my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) may be in order. I ask you to reconsider the situation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will be kind enough to look at, for example, the 1972 debate, he will find enunciated there, after a review of debates that have taken place over a number of years, precisely the principles that I am enunciating.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Precedent has no bearing on this debate because we are in an unprecedented situation for the Services, especially in regard to their pay. If we do not ventilate this matter because we have not done so in the past, it is entirely meaningless for the Government to put the order before the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am a servant of the House. All that I can do is to work within the orders that have been set out for my assistance. I can do only what the House has asked me to do, and that is what I am trying to do.
  Mr. Churchill: The Minister took me to task and explained that both his pre-decessors and mine had traditionally accepted that these motions should go through on the nod. He accused me of not doing my homework, but he cannot justify that. Perhaps he would care to refer to the 1972 debate in which his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who was the Opposition spokesman, said:
  1160
  "It has been regarded for many hundreds of years that this debate is one of the opportunities for the House to exercise its control over the Armed Forces. It is difficult to understand how that can be done unless we assume, as it has been assumed in the past, that matters concerning pay, conditions, recruitment and terms of engagement are related to discipline … I do not know how that is possible if the sort of speech which the Minister has begun to make is not in order."
  Later, he said:
  "All of us are in some difficulty on this first occasion of debating the amalgamated discipline Acts. Therefore, like the Minister of State, I shall make only part of the speech I would otherwise have made."—[Official Report, 30th November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 704–7.]
  He referred in detail to recruiting, re-engagement, morale, and the pay review body in a speech that took up eight columns of Hansard.
  If we are imposing a strict code of military discipline on the men and women of our Armed Forces, we should be able to discuss any justifiable grievances that they may have that directly impinge on the code of discipline.
  With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on previous occasions, going back at least for the past five years, we have been able to have some modicum of debate on matters relating directly to discipline in the Armed Forces. If your ruling is so narrow, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we cannot even refer to disciplinary matters, I am at a loss to understand the purpose of the debate. It is something that the Armed Forces will find difficult to understand. They will be faced with the fact that the House is passing through this piece of legislation requiring them to be subject to Queen's Regulations for another 12 months without considering the grievances that they have made clear in recent weeks. It is a matter of great regret. We owe an apology to those who serve in the Armed Forces with such distinction, those long-suffering—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is overlooking the fact that the debate has been held in the House again and again and that there is ruling after ruling on this issue. For example, in 1965 Mr. Speaker ruled:
  "This debate is very narrow. It may have been broadened … but the right hon. Gentleman is right in assuming that to raise other matters would not be in order."—[Official Report, 13th December 1965; Vol. 722, c. 973.]

  1161
  I could give the hon. Gentleman a whole series of similar rulings. There is no more apology that needs to be given to the Armed Forces this year than on any of the other occasions.
  5.52 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Consideration of the order by this honourable House should be very much more than a formality. It should not be approved in present circumstances, and I shall consider, by listening to the debate, whether I shall urge my hon. Friends to vote against it.
  The order should not be passed in present circumstances for a particular reason. We are being asked to authorise the Secretary of State and the Government to impose for a further 12 months a code of discipline that is unique in our national life. It applies to nobody except the Armed Forces. I am not saying anything against the code. It is an admirable code. It is entirely necessary for the conduct of the Forces and it is completely understood by both officers and men in the three Services. That can be said without any doubt.
  The code is justly, fairly and reasonably administered within the Forces. I do not think that there is any question about that. It is not too much to say that the code produces the pride in the Services that is the characteristic of the men and women in our Armed Forces. It produces the individual loyalty to ship, squadron or regiment. It produces an Army, Navy and Air Force that are the envy of most of our partners in NATO. As has been already said, they are admired wherever they go throughout the world.
  It is not fair to impose this discipline upon Service men unless they are properly rewarded for their service. It means that under the code that we are asked to renew, soldiers, sailors and airmen are in a completely different category from any other person employed in the United Kingdom, including any other category of public servant or Government employee.
  The plain fact is that any other employed person has a means of effectively representing any disadvantages under which he or she believes himself or herself to be suffering. It seems that just about anyone in England can resort to
  1162
  withdrawal of labour, or what is euphemistically called industrial action. Recent events have seen that state of affairs existing de facto among groups that are theoretically or legally unable to withdraw their labour. I appreciate that I should be immediately out of order if I were to refer more than just in passing to the postal workers and the Grunwick dispute. This is not the moment to discuss whether the state of affairs that 1 have mentioned is good or bad. whether it is for better or worse for the nation. The only point that I am making is that the Services are in a unique and special position.
  That being so, a particular responsibility towards them lies on the shoulders of the Secretary of State, who is not here, and on the Minister of State and other Ministers representing the three Services. Those Ministers are, so to speak, the only friends in court of Service men and Service women. It is my submission that Ministers are not fulfilling that duty towards Service men and women. I am not so worried about the conditions of service day by day within the Armed Forces. To a large extent, those conditions are within the control of the commanding officers and the officers of the Service units.
  Mr. John Cronin: There is a small correction that should be made to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks. He said that Ministers are the only friends in court of serving officers and personnel of the Armed Forces. I think that he will agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House have very much in mind the interests of those concerned.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are trying to do our duty but we are suffering a slight impediment in carrying it out. I think exactly as the hon. Gentleman in this respect. We should be here to represent our views in accordance with our duty. As you understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, some of us are at a loss to understand why we should find it so difficult.
  The training of officers involves great emphasis upon concern for the welfare of their men. That is drummed into officers from the earliest days of their training. It is always pointed out to

  1163
  them that it is the men who are the greatest single factor, not weapons or technicalities. Conditions of service are under the control of individual officers, with the exception of pay and allowances. Those matters are clearly not within the control of uniformed officers. Only the Government have control. I believe that the Government are not playing fairly at present.
  This subject was recently debated. The debate on the generalities, and especially on pay within the Forces, has not received enough attention from the Government. We have not had an adequate answer from the Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not part of the order that we are discussing.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: With the utmost respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is discipline that we are discussing. That is what I am keen to discuss. I am anxious to keep in order in doing so.
  Discipline is directly related to the attention that conditions and discipline within the Forces receive, especially from the media. You know and I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how men within a ship who are cut off from outside contact are extremely interested or thrilled when some attention is paid to their pay, disciplinary conditions and other conditions by the media or by us in this House.
  I was saying that the debate on the broader issues has not received sufficient attention from the Government, from the Secretary of State or from the Prime Minister. Not enough fuss was made by the Opposition. Only two Government Back Benchers spoke. I believe that no Liberals or nationalists spoke.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whatever the hon. and gallant Gentleman may want to say about Service life, only discipline is relevant to the debate.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The debate that we had about Service conditions, including discipline, which was the most important aspect of it, did not receive enough attention from the Opposition Benches to keep the debate going throughout the day. I very much regret that fact.
  Much more telling than anything else in this context was the remark made by the
  1164
  commanding officer of the 3rd Battalion Light Infantry in Northern Ireland faced with the difficult problem of maintaining discipline within his unit when it went to Northern Ireland and came under fire from a sniper on its first day there. He said "The Government get a better Army than they deserve". That was a much more telling remark than anything that I could say either in or out of order this afternoon.
  I understand that we must not go over the debate on Forces' pay. However, we know that it has not kept pace on a comparability basis with other workers. The Secretary of State and the Government know that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already given a ruling on that subject. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman heard it.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Yes, 1 heard it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I entirely take your point. I was concluding that part of my speech by saying that the Government are sheltering behind the skirts of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which is not doing its job properly.
  Turning to another subject and keeping strictly in order, I am not one who wants more industrial muscle within the forces by way of trade unions. Nor do the Service men themselves want that. I am sure I am right in saying, because my bamboo wires still work, that Service men do not want anything like that.
  I am not one who thinks that morale is bad in the Armed Forces. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have tended to say, when making points about pay, which we must not do now, that the morale of the Armed Forces is bad. I do not think that it is. From recent observance, I believe that it is marvellously good given all the circumstances. It is not yet bad. It is still amazingly good. It is a great tribute to the Armed Forces.
  However, any serving or retired officer knows what is in the minds of our Service men and women. The Secretary of State and his Ministers must know that the Government are not playing fair with our Armed Forces. The nation must ask itself the simple question "Are we being fair to our Service men?" The answer is "No.".

  1165
  Men and women go into the Armed Forces not for profit but to do a worthwhile job under the disciplinary conditions that we are discussing today. Even if they cannot be rewarded generously, they should be rewarded fairly, but they are not. Until they are, I do not think that this disciplinary code should be imposed upon them. Therefore, I am opposed to the order.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Banks: I listened with great care and attention to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), who deployed his points with great skill and perhaps with some difficulty in view of the confines of the discussion, which we understand. However, contrary to my hon. and gallant Friend, I support the order, which renews the provisions of the Acts governing disciplinary conduct for each of the three services.
  Discipline is the corner-stone in each of our three Services. It is very much to their credit that discipline is held so high and is so successful in the Services. We have only to look at the conduct of our Forces in Northern Ireland to realise that we are resting on the benefits of discipline properly executed and carried out. I think that we should specifically consider the officers and non-commissioned officers who enforce discipline. After all, it is important that discipline is neither too harshly nor too leniently applied. When we consider all three Services, but with particular reference to Northern Ireland, we can appreciate that the recipe is right. The leadership given by our officers and non-commissioned officers is second to none in the way that discipline is carried out.
  In referring to Northern Ireland, I think that as a by-product of discipline and conduct there we should pay tribute to our Forces for their immense patience and steadiness amid all the anxieties and difficulties with which they have to deal. It must be a difficult task for men who have suffered the loss of a companion or fellow officer who has become the victim of the cruel and vicious activities in Northern Ireland. It is the discipline within our Armed Forces that enables them to sustain those losses and to carry on with their job unaffected by them.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House who were fortunate enough to see
  1166
  Her Majesty's review of the Fleet at Spit-head will, I am sure, have come away with the distinct impression that the discipline, which was so evident, is as good as it has ever been and that the Royal Navy put on an immensely valuable and impressive show.
  Those who visited the ships at anchor in the review will have been impressed by the amazing smartness of the ships and the general well-being and good spirits of our sailors. It is some time since there have been any difficulties in the Fleet. Of course one recalls the mutiny at Spit-head, but that was many years ago. It is a source of great pride that the Fleet is so well conducted. I cannot think of any particular disciplinary problems that have arisen. That, to my mind, is one reason for wanting to ensure that the present standards of discipline are continued. Therefore, I think that the order should be approved today.
  I referred to discipline as being fundamental to the the three Services. But it is also fundamental to the conduct of civilians who are covered by the Acts in regard to secret information, which is vital to all our Services and to the security of the country. It is immensely important that our secret information is kept secret and that we take all necessary precautions to ensure proper discipline is exercised to prevent possible spy activities.
  The discipline governing the morale and actions of those serving in our Armed Forces is only one aspect of the general conduct that evolves from it. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester referred fleetingly to pay and conditions in the Services. Of course, pay and conditions are as important as discipline. It is for the Government to ensure that the areas referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend are appreciated and that we understand that a breakdown of discipline could occur if the general and reasonable demands of our Forces were not heeded.
  The general conditions governed by these Discipline Acts are another aspect of service in the Armed Forces. I propose to refer particularly to service in the Royal Navy. Conditions have got better and better. Some of the old discipline sections would not necessarily apply now. The general conditions on board ship have greatly improved. I

  1167
  speak from having served on board ship and slept in hammocks. Ships now have cabins and bunks and generally better accommodation than in the old days. I hope that these better conditions, which have contributed to the good discipline of the Forces, are not brought in at the sacrifice of the weaponry that we necessarily need in our ships.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman might develop that part of his argument on another occasion.
  Mr. Banks: Undoubtedly the general conduct which is so good in our Forces—in particular in the Royal Navy—rests not only on discipline but on the conditions for which the discipline was designed. With the change of conditions, we must be careful that we do not sacrifice any of the Navy's fighting power. That is what discipline is really about. It is about having the crew ready and willing, in a state of anticipation to fight off any aggression and to use the ship to its fullest. Our Forces are an example to others throughout the world. Undoubtedly the discipline which is the cornerstone of that high standard is something that other nations will need to study carefully if they are to reach our standards.
  I turn now to the Discipline Acts themselves. I should like to speak about courts martial. Many people believe that a court martial is a rather amateur approach to the way in which the defendant is defended. He is defended by a friend and officer, perhaps from his own ship or regiment. The system works extremely well. There is a good appeals procedure. We have a system of corrective investigation which decides what punishment is applicable and which works with fairness. I have always believed that fairness is the most essential part of discipline. It has to be applied in a straightforward and organised way. That is what courts martial achieve.
  Many crimes are committed in the Forces. The one that stands out in the Navy is that of sleeping on watch. It carries a sentence of imprisonment. Anybody who is found sleeping on watch damages his own reputation and that of the part of the ship for which he is responsible. That crime could also have a devastating effect on the ability of the
  1168
  ship to carry out its tasks. I am thinking of navigation through difficult waters, dealing with a fishing problem or with an aggressive situation involving an enemy submarine, for instance. There is no doubt that sleeping on watch is the most heinous of crimes. I can think of a number of people who might have been found guilty of that and who would never again be caught asleep wherever they were.
  Another crime is that of neglect of duty. Sleeping on watch is part of that neglect. All Service men have a duty to keep awake when on duty. The offence of neglect of duty is punishable by dismissal with disgrace. I cannot think of anything worse than being dismissed with disgrace.
  A Service man may also be charged with conduct which is to the prejudice of naval discipline. There are various scales of punishment for that. Loss of pay is the punishment which affects the soldier, sailor or airman most. His pay is vital to him and his family, and he may lose some of it for a minor offence. For instance, a Service man might return late from being on shore or on vacation. He would then be brought up before the first lieutenant. His case might be taken to the captain's table, to the adjutant and on to the commanding officer's table.
  Losing a day's pay is a real penalty these days because pay is now so important in the Forces. There is so little of it. Considering the many tasks that Servicemen have to perform, including serving in Northern Ireland, pay rates fall well below those that one might expect outside the Services. To lose one or two days' pay is a severe discipline.
  A Service man might also be disciplined by being disrated. Pay comes into this because a Service man receives less pay for the lower rate. That would have an effect on his family. The wife of a Service man might feel somewhat disgruntled because of today's conditions. The wife of a Service man has to put up with many vicissitudes. Her husband might be sent on an assignment to Northern Ireland, for instance. That puts a strain on the family.
  The Discipline Acts ensure the welfare of the Serviceman and his family. That is another reason for wanting the order to be approved. The welfare of our Service men and their families is important. The

  1169
  way in which their problems are tackled by civilians and officers who advise and look after Service men during periods of difficulty is a corner-stone of discipline.
  A Service man might conduct himself well on most occasions, but there might be a time when things go wrong. For instance, he might get into difficulties with housing. Many Servicemen have problems when they let their homes and cannot get the tenants out. A wife might not be able to cope with a child in a hotel. Under those circumstances, the other side of the coin comes into play.
  The Service man knows that he can rely on his officers to ensure that all the available assistance will be given to him. That is part of the fairness of discipline. A Service man might have been exemplary, but he knows that when things are not good for him he can rely on the discipline providing a solution by means of welfare assistance.
  We must reflect on the Discipline Acts to ensure that they move with the times. We must ensure that they are fairly and reasonably carried out. That depends on the officer and non-commissioned officer structure. They must take a sensitive and sensible approach to the Acts. I have no doubt that they will always continue to carry out these tasks fairly and properly.
  We must ensure that the training of our officers involves leadership and discipline. I am sure that it does and that it will continue to do so. It is important that we should not lose sight of the importance of ensuring that discipline is fully maintained and understood. The understanding of discipline is important. For instance, if there is difficulty on board a ship, the lower deck is cleared and the riot act is read. That is a pretty salutary experience for everyone on board, because everyone understands the consequences that his actions will bring about under the Discipline Acts. When men know that, they know the whole picture and the result that will occur if their actions are contrary to the Discipline Acts. It is the transmission of this formation, which is itself a part of the Discipline Acts, that is of such vital importance.
  We see our Forces today at a high standard of condition. I think that during this debate we can congratulate all our
  1170
  Forces on the excellent way in which they conduct themselves and on the way in which they have shown that they apply discipline in exactly the right way. This is shown whenever there is a parade or a review, and when there is a difficult task that needs to be taken care of, the Forces rise to the occasion. It is the discipline, morale and spirit that always bring them through on top.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. John Cronin: It is always useful for us to have a debate on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts. It is somewhat infrequent for us to have a debate of this nature. These Acts put a certain section of the population under very different conditions legally from those of the rest of the population. Therefore, it is always helpful to examine the Acts in the House.
  I am rather surprised, however, that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) and the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) should try to introduce the question of pay into this discussion and to indicate dissatisfaction with the pay of the Armed Forces.
  Mr. F. P. Crowder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt again, but I have looked at the Army Act 1955 rather carefully, and if you will look at Section 151 you will find that it might be of interest to the House. I have no doubt that you have it before you.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not have the 1955 Act before me, but I shall look at a copy shortly. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman could help me.
  Mr. F. P. Crowder: The order refers to the Army Act 1955. I have discovered what the "b" in brackets means. It relates to Chapter 18, Section 151—"Deductions from pay for maintenance of wife or child". I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you have had the opportunity of seeing it. It seems to me of great importance.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: What I have had the opportunity of seeing is the reports of earlier debates on similar orders. I have repeated the rulings that have been given by those occupying the Chair on previous occasions. As long as those precedents are left as they are, I do not think

  1171
  I can say anything that can alter what I have already said.
  Mr. F. P. Crowder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Precedent is always of interest and importance in these matters, but, of course, the discretion remains, as it always does, with the Chair. When one consults precedents, one should also consult the relevant section of the Act. To my mind, Section 151 of the Army Act 1955 is something that should be brought to your attention immediately.
  Mr. Churchill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may draw your attention and that of the House to the third paragraph on page 743 of "Erskine May", which states,
  "By the procedure laid down in the legislation of 1955, Parliament, in addition to their control over the number of the naval, military and air forces, and the yearly sums to be appropriated for their support, reserve to themselves the power of determining whether a standing army shall be kept in being in time of peace."
  It would appear from that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be in order to discuss whether we should have Armed Forces at all, what size they should be—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This only shows how important it is to deal with one point of order at a time. Perhaps I can deal with them in reverse order. The point raised by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) would not arise under this order. As to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder), I have already allowed those matters to be dealt with in a peripheral way, and I think that we cannot take them any further.
  Mr. F. P. Crowder: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Cronin: It was certainly interesting to have the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip.
  Mr. F. P. Crowder: And Northwood. Northwood would never forgive the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Cronin: I apologise. And Northwood—principally, if necessary. The
  1172
  hon. and learned Member's intervention rather emphasised the point I was making. That was that I was rather surprised that Opposition Members should have attempted to make this debate an opportunity for raising the whole question of the pay and conditions of service of the Armed Forces. I have taken part in these debates for over 20 years. I cannot recollect any previous occasion when anyone has attempted to raise the general question of pay in any debate on the Discipline Acts.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Casting his mind back over those 20 years, can the hon. Gentleman ever remember an occasion when it was so necessary to do so?
  Mr. Cronin: I shall address myself to that point in a few moments, but I give the hon. and gallant Member the short answer that I certainly do not think that it is necessary to do so now.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: Without in any way seeking to question your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may say that, if the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) casts his mind back, I think he will remember that up to a few years ago these debates ranged much wider, although it is true that they have not done so over the last few years.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should tell the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) that I have had the privilege of looking at the report of the debate in 1972, in which he took part. I think he will find that it was not very different then from what it has been more recently.
  Mr. Cronin: I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) also wants to raise questions of pay in this debate. I agree that on previous occasions the debate has ranged quite widely, but not in such an erratic way on a matter that is completely out of order. I am surprised that right hon. and hon. Members should take this attitude. It indicates a sort of a naivety about parliamentary affairs which is hardly consistent with an intelligent representation of the affairs of the Armed Forces.
  Mr. Churchill: Perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to what his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said on 30th November, 1972. The right hon. Member said:
  "I turn now to a subject which, though related to recruiting, is palpably related to discipline, because it is related to morale. It concerns the pay of Her Majesty's Forces. The Minister of State will recall that the Pay Review Body set up by his Government reported in April and in the last paragraph of its report both summarised the present pay position and made suggestions about the future."—[Official Report, 30th November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 711.]
  He then went on to speak, with no interruption from the Chair or the opposite side of the House, for a period that required four columns in Hansard on the question of pay.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Did the hon. Gentleman say that this was in 1972?
  Mr. Churchill: That is correct.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: At the end of those four columns, I think that the hon. Member will find a very clear ruling by the Chair, which was exactly the same as that which has been given today.
  Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect to you, at the end of those four columns the debate was interrupted by Royal Assent, and the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Spark-brook, was able to complete all his remarks in relation to the pay of the Armed Forces without being brought to order by the Chair in any way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to look at col. 704, I think he will find all the rulings set out there.
  Mr. Churchill: None the less, it was after that that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Whatever may or may not have happened after that ruling was given, that is the ruling that I have tried to give today.
  Mr. Cronin: I think that all hon. Members have a very high opinion of the integrity of the hon. Member for Stretford, but if he quotes something from Hansard of 1972 as representing a reason
  1174
  or a precedent for discussing pay and conditions, and then fails to quote from that same document that it was ruled completely out of order—
  Mr. Churchill: It was not.
  Mr. Cronin: —the hon. Gentleman will get a reputation for being disingenuous.
  Mr. Churchill: In the debate to which I referred, there was no ruling by Mr. Speaker after the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook had made that statement. Mr. Speaker's ruling came within the first five minutes of the debate. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was not interrupted or ruled out of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can hardly regard that as a precedent that I could follow today. The precedent that I follow is the one I have quoted from column 704.
  Mr. Cronin: I become more and more puzzled by the nit-picking attitude towards parliamentary procedure adopted by Opposition Members. In the Opposition, we have a group of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who seriously represent themselves as an alternative Government, but they are adopting bogus methods of trying to achieve changes in the conditions of service of the Armed Forces. I cannot imagine that this augers well for the future, if by any chance there were to be a Conservative Government in the distant future.
  What upsets me is that although those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are shedding tears about the conditions of pay in the Armed Forces, they are obviously crocodile tears, because when these matters were being discussed when the last Conservative Government were in office Conservative Ministers adopted a most obdurate attitude. I shall leave this subject because I do not want to transgress in the way that Opposition Members have done.
  One cannot help being impressed with the very effective way in which the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts have been administered. In fairness, I should say that this is true not merely under the present Government but also under Governments of long ago. There is good sense and practised leniency as well as a sense of what is right, which commands

  1175
  admiration on practically all occasions. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for Defence for the Army on the very forthright and sensible way in which he interpreted Army discipline, and the wishes of the general public, in the recent case of rape which came before the Court of Criminal Appeal recently. This was a very horrible case of rape—
  Dr. Gilbert: If I may put the record correct, I think that my hon. Friend is misadvised. If my hon. Friend was referring to the Holdsworth case, it was a case not of rape but of grievous bodily harm.
  Mr. Cronin: I may be making a technical error, but it was grievous bodily harm with an obvious sexual intention.
  Mr. David Walder: I fail to understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I thought that the case was before a civilian court.
  Mr. Cronin: I think that it will become clear to the hon. Gentleman if I pursue my point. It seemed to me and, I believe, to most people that the Court of Criminal Appeal forgot its plain duty to protect the female population of the country.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not been paying the hon. Gentleman the attention that his observations deserve, but he is well out of order now.
  Mr. Cronin: I think that my next sentence will make clear that I am completely in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One cannot help being impressed at the way in which my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State immediately used the procedures under the Army Act in a really effective way which is consistent with justice and with public opinion, even though the Court of Criminal Appeal clearly failed in its duty. I have made my point and I shall not transgress by going further into that subject.
  Mr. F. P. Crowder: I suggest, with great respect, that if the hon. Gentleman had been sitting in the Appeal Division of the Court of Criminal Appeal he would probably have come to the same decision—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Whatever may happen in the Court of Criminal
  1176
  Appeal does not happen under the order that we are now discussing.
  Mr. Cronin: I totally disagree with the intervention of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I cannot refer to his intervention because if I do so I shall be out of order. There have been so many interruptions in my speech that this is the first time I have considered that speaking in the House is a gymnastic exercise.
  One cannot help being impressed with the discipline in the three Services. I have visited the Army, Navy and Air Force on numerous occasions and, like many hon. Members on both sides, I was present at the splendid exibition at Spit-head last week when we saw sailors and marines manning ships' sides for hours at a time under wet, cold conditions that the Armed Forces of some other countries would not have found tolerable. It was an indication of the excellent discipline in the Royal Navy. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester would be particularly appreciative of that.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Worse things than that happen at sea.
  Mr. Cronin: I have never known a cliche used with such effect to lighten a debate.
  There is no doubt that discipline in the Armed Forces is of a very high order, particularly in places such as Northern Ireland, where members of the Forces are put to a very severe test. While carrying out his orders a man may be responsible for a death, serious injury or civil tumult. We must be impressed by the standard of discipline of the Army in Northern Ireland. The House can safely renew the Army, Navy and Air Force Discipline Acts. They are administered in an impeccable way, and there is no discontent about the Acts in the Armed Services. I have never heard any soldier, sailor or airman express discontent—
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Except about pay.
  Mr. Cronin: Pay is outside the scope of the order. Apart from the discontent that all of us have about our pay and incomes, there has never been any suggestion of any discontent in the Armed Services in regard to the Army, Navy and Air Force Discipline Acts. The Acts

  1177
  have been administered most sensibly and patiently, with a thorough understanding of modern social conditions by officers of the Forces concerned, and I am sure that they will continue to be administered with the same impartiality, justice and good sense, certainly as long as the present Government, remain in office.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Clark: Ritual expressions of gratitude and appreciation whenever the Armed Forces are mentioned are, of course, inseparable from any reference to them in the House. The members of those same Services, however, might be forgiven for thinking—I hope I repeat the adage correctly—that fine words butter no parsnips. It has become a habitual practice to refer to them in glowing terms, but the results of those references are very seldom seen in concrete results. It is, of course, comforting for the civilian administrators to believe that discipline is sound, just as it is disturbing for them to believe that it might be deteriorating. Frequently in the distant past expressions of appreciation for good discipline have had an element of wishful thinking about them.
  Today, however, questions of discipline have enlarged considerably even from the confines to which they were restricted in the Acts, all of them now over 20 years old. The Act covering the Army was passed in 1955, as was that covering the Royal Air Force. The Act concerned with the Navy was passed in 1957. New elements have intruded on the whole question of discipline in two separate areas. Discipline formerly embraced largely the question of total obedience to the orders of a superior officer, regardless of and perhaps without thinking of the consequences.
  However, there are two new elements, one in a combat context and the other in a civilian context. The first arises primarily from the difficulties which our Forces experience in Northern Ireland. It is well known and accepted in the House that soldiers are constrained from using the appropriate measure of force, even at an individual level, which they believe is necessary to ensure the safety and security of their comrades, the civilians with whose care they are charged, and even their own lives. They must consult a yellow card before they can
  1178
  fire a live round. I am not familiar with the precise details of how this particular discipline is imposed, but it was not embodied in the 1955 Act. It could not have been envisaged at that time. The concomitant of that is that they are not allowed to fire an automatic round.
  They are also constrained in their use of rubber bullets and in the use of their vehicles. They are even constrained in the use of their individual physical force in a man-to-man encounter. In all these situations their instinctive reactions, the reactions to which they have been trained for their careers, are restricted unnaturally by the new constraints of discipline, which are alien to the proper strain of military training and which are imposed upon the soldiers out of primarily political considerations.
  The second area in which there are new and unwelcome disciplines is in the civilian context. I have personal knowledge of this from constituents of mine who have been in the Armed Forces. There is a tendency now for individual soldiers, whether in or out of uniform, and particularly for members of the junior infantry battalions, to be subjected to abuse and sometimes physical assault by gangs of undisciplined civilian youths. They often identify the soldiers, the cadets, and the junior infantry members when they are out of uniform by the evident differences in their appearance. They have shorter hair and tidier clothing and they hold themselves differently. They have better manners. They tend in certain parts of the country to be subjected to assault by youths who resent them and resent what they clearly see as something superior which makes them feel uncomfortable, which they wish to contest and, possibly, to eliminate.
  In many cases the soldiers, being better disciplined and stronger, consider the question of retaliation. The night after an attack, a group of soldiers might seek to even the score, but then the constraints of discipline come in. It is easy to identify the soldiers and to pull them in and punish them—and they are punished very severely. However, those who assault the soldiers find it easy to disappear, and since they are mostly youths the Children and Young Persons Act makes it almost impossible to visit them with proper penalties.

  1179
  Under the Army Act any form of violence against a civilian is scrutinised carefully, and any question of combination by soldiers to protect themselves can lead to serious consequences, even of the kind to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) referred.
  Today, therefore, we have these two new constraints on members of the Forces. In the first the dictates of fundamental training have to be ignored. In the second the old civilian respect and admiration for the soldiers, which have been their lot for many decades and even centuries, are now inverted and they are subjected to physical assault and abuse while being restrained from properly protecting themselves.
  Is it not all the more admirable, therefore, that in both these contexts discipline is almost entirely unaffected? The Services have adapted to these new contexts and they comport themselves correctly. They endure these constraints and they have submitted to these extended disciplines, which are contained nowhere in the Acts, with the proper bearing and comportment of which we are rightly proud.
  This is so because they are still conscious that they are an elite and that they are superior to those who are attacking them in one way or another. They are superior physically, and in terms of intelligence, training, and motivation. It is this which allows them to remain disciplined under all kinds of provocations. It is this element which is itself an ingredient of discipline and which helps to maintain the conduct of our Forces in these difficult circumstances. It is this element for which the House should be genuinely grateful and for which we should express our thanks.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. David Walder: I start from my experience of serving on the Committee which examined the new proposals for courts martial and gave more power to commanding officers of units. When those proposals came before the House, some Labour Members suggested that giving commanding officers more power was a retrograde step which would enforce tougher discipline, and there were peripheral suggestions that the Armed Forces might be served by some sort of trade union.
  1180
  The young man or woman who enters the Forces accepts from the beginning that it is a disciplined Service, subject to rules and regulations not applicable to the civilian population. Practically everyone I know in the Services would take the view that a court martial is preferable to a civilian court, which so often acts in ignorance of the conditions of service. Hon. Members who do not take my view need only refer to The Times. We have an example in all our minds at the moment.
  The average Service man would prefer a court martial, which knows about him and his conditions of service and is far more likely to deal fairly with him. I say this to answer the peripheral suggestion that a court martial automatically imposes stiffer penalties than a civilian court. In my experience, quite the reverse is true.
  Those who suggest a union are in fact suggesting that the Armed Forces should have a better opportunity of expressing their grievances to the public, the feeling being that they are constrained by the military code in a way which does not happen to civilians, who can say almost anything they please. If, in conformity with the views of some Labour Members below the Gangway, there were a union for the Forces, might not that union, like other unions, complain about pay and conditions of service and about the cuts imposed in the work force over the last few years?
  6.54 p.m.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: I apologise for having left the Chamber to make a quick telephone call. I shall do my best not to skate on thin ice. I pay my tribute to the discipline in the Armed Services, a subject on which we are all agreed.
  I spent many hours on the Committee which considered the Armed Forces Act 1975, which increased the sentencing powers of commanding officers and set up a civilian court in Germany for certain offences. How are those matters progressing, and what effect have the changes had? After all, the Committee examined those matters for some time before they were finally agreed.
  6.55 p.m.
  Dr. Gilbert: The House has been in some difficulty tonight. In fact, I can

  1181
  think of no other debate which has gone on for so long on which I have so few notes for my reply. The rules governing debates on these orders are very tight. However, I would say to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) that I did not say that these debates should go through "on the nod". That phrase came from the Chair. I was prepared with a whole raft of questions which might have been raised.
  The sense of the House has been unanimous, that the code of discipline imposed on members of the Armed Forces is fair and necessary. As the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) said, it is understood by officers and men and women and is fairly and justly administered. In my visits around the Services in the short time that I have been in this position, like my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) I have never heard a word of complaint about the code or the way in which it is administered.
  It is also the sense of the House that great strains are being imposed on the discipline of the Forces at the moment, not least as a result of difficulties in Northern Ireland, but that as a country we are lucky in the devotion to duty of members of the Forces of all ranks and performing all types of function.
  It is too early to answer the question raised by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew). Some of the provisions to which he referred—perhaps all of them, but I am not sure of that—came into effect only this week. If I can give more information 1 shall write to the hon. Gentleman, and if he puts a Question on the Order Paper I shall be happy to make it a matter of public record.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) commented on the court-martial procedure, but I did not detect in what he said any criticisms or suggestions for improvement. If he has any such suggestions, we always stand ready to investigate them.
  I thank hon. Members for their expression of appreciation to members of the Armed Forces and of the standards of discipline which they are maintaining.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.

  BLIND PERSONS (BENEFITS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ashton.]
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Robin Hodgson: From what we have just been discussing to the subject that I wish to raise—that is, from military discipline to benefits for the blind—may seem a big step, but the two topics coincide in one particularly tragic area. That is those people who have given their sight in the service of the Crown while in the Armed Forces. I pay a particular tribute to that gallant and courageous band who gave their sight in this way—whether most recently in Northern Ireland, in the Second World War, or as long ago as the Frst World War.
  I am glad of this opportunity to raise the subject of inequalities in benefits payable to the blind. I want to draw attention to important defects in the present situation. I have already raised the matter with the Minister, both by letter and in Questions. I thank him for his full and courteous replies to my queries, but I hope that he will not mind my adding that those replies have not exactly answered my point. I hope that we may explore it more fully now.
  I am not concerned with commenting on the adequacy of benefits generally. That is not the point that I wish to make. Nor am I commenting on the relative benefits payable to different classes of handicapped people, whether blind, deaf, physically handicapped, or whatever. That, again, falls outside the point that I wish to make. The specific area to which I wish to address my remarks is the gross discrepancies in the benefits payable to people who are blind and therefore suffer exactly the same handicap.
  At 31st December 1976 there were approximately 118,000 registered blind people in the United Kingdom—101,000 in England, 7,000 in Wales and 10,000 in Scotland. About 60,000, or just over

  1183
  50 per cent., were aged 75 or over and about 86,000, or nearly three-quarters, were aged 65 or over. That makes it clear that increasing blindness is primarily attributable to old age.
  But that does not tell the whole story. An analysis of the causes of blindness reveals a much wider disparity. There are statistics available for the period from 1963 to 1968. I apologise to the House for the fact that they are out of date, but there do not seem to be any available for later periods. Those statistics reveal that during that five-year period some 13,000 people became blind, and that 43 per cent., 5,700 suffered from myopic degeneration, that is, loss of eyesight primarily due to old age.
  There were two other significant causes. Twenty five per cent.—just over 3,000—were born blind as a result of some form of pre-natal influence, and about 25 per cent.—nearly 4,000—went blind as a result of some systemic disease, diabetes or neuralgic disorders of one kind or another. During the same period 49 people were blinded as a result of industrial accidents and 17 people were blinded as a result of service in the Armed Forces. I draw the attention of the House to those two categories, because I wish to return to them in a minute.
  Against this background I was surprised to learn from a constituent of mine, Mr. Charles Deakes, who lives at Willenhall in my constituency, that the amount of benefits received by a blind person is dependent not only on his personal financial circumstances, but on the manner in which he becomes blind. I could not believe this when I first heard it. I considered, in my innocence, that blind people had broadly the same needs, and that payments made to them were linked to those needs and not to the pure accident of how they were blinded. My view was confirmed when I saw that the Inland Revenue made an allowance of £180 against income tax for all blind people irrespective of how they were blinded.
  But my questioning of the Minister, both in the House and by letter, has revealed that my constituent was completely right. It has revealed the following extraordinary state of affairs. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are blinded at work or in the Armed Forces, you will receive
  1184
  a pension of £25 a week. You will receive it as of right, automatically. In November that sum will be raised to £28·60. Moreover, it will not be subject to any claw-back if you are employed. That is to say, if you can go out and supplement your earnings by getting a job, you will not lose any of that £25. It is payable as a lump sum on a weekly basis irrespective of the level of earnings.
  On the other hand, if you are blinded at home, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or there is a medical cause of your blindness you receive nothing—I repeat, nothing—except your right to supplementary benefit, which every citizen has a right to, in any case. As a blind person you will receive one small increase amounting to £1·25 per week as an addition to the supplementary benefit which will be paid to you because you are blind. It is interesting, though not strictly in the context of the remarks that I wish to make, that that allowance, which is now £1·25, was 75p as long ago as 1948. It is difficult to believe that 75p in 1948 did not buy a great deal more than £1·25 does today.
  I return to my main point. If a person draws supplementary benefit and becomes a long-term claimant under the supplementary benefits scheme, he will receive £16·95 per week, which is going up to £1915 in November. But he will receive that £16·95 only if he is not working. If one has other sources of income, whether capital or income, one will suffer withdrawal. One will start to lose that benefit and not even receive the £1695, which is a maximum and subject to claw-back. That means that through chance John Citizen can be up to £8 per week worse off because he happens to have been blinded in an accident at home instead of in an accident at work. Can this be right? Can it be fair? I think not.
  Perhaps I may anticipate some of the remarks that the Minister may wish to make in reply. I am sure that he will say that the second category, the person who was blinded at home and who has to apply for supplementary benefit, will receive a rent rebate. He is probably right. But the levels of rebate, certainly in my constituency, are never more than £5 a week, and are often as little as £2 or £3. Therefore, the £8 differential, though it is minimised, still exists. There is still a difference resulting from the means by which one is blinded.

  1185
  Secondly, I think that the Minister will say that there are additional benefits payable to the blind. He is right. But, of course, they are payable to all the blind, and therefore the differential between the two classes of blind people still exists. Indeed, I might also point out to the Minister that the benefits that he may refer to are not always as broad in their application as he might like to think. The much-vaunted postal concession is available only for dispatches of Braille material and certain incoming material from approved and registered sources. Concessionary travel fares, which are often mentioned in connection with blind people and which are given by British Rail or by some of the bus companies, similarly usually apply only to travel to and from work and for medical treatment or to and from further training. As such, their application is not as wide as is sometimes thought from a mere superficial study of the benefits available.
  Thirdly, the Minister is likely to say that the £25 per week automatic pension is a contributory benefit whereas the supplementary benefit is non-contributory—that is, the £25 automatic pension arises because people have made contributions to the graduated pension scheme and as such are merely drawing some of the contributions that they have made. In part that is right, but many people who will be blinded at home will not qualify for the pension even though they may have worked for a period and made contributions to the graduated pension scheme. Certain people struck blind at 40 by natural causes will find that although they have paid 20 or 25 years' contributions to the graduated pension scheme they cannot draw the same pension as that of the person blinded at work.
  On the other hand there are other examples which I am sure the Minister will not mention, for if he did they would only serve further to underline the idiosyncrasies of the present distinction. What he will not say is that people who are blinded at work nearly always find it easier to get a job, because an employer who has an accident on his premises, as a result of which an employee is blinded, not surprisingly, and quite rightly, feels a moral duty to that person and will do his level best to ensure that some alternative form of employment is found, albeit not in the same job. It may have to be
  1186
  a telephonist's job or some other job in which sight is not so important. For those who are tragically blinded in the service of the Crown, the Earl Haig Fund and some of the funds run by that organisation are able to do a great deal of work.
  Equally, I do not think that the Minister will want to admit that supplementary benefit is not available to many blind people. There are blind workers who are on low rates of pay and who do not qualify and there are non-working blind housewives whose husbands are at work.
  I do not think that the Minister will say that the £8 gap could be just a minimum, because there are many other allowances that those in receipt of invalidity pensions are allowed to draw on top of their pension and that are not available to those who are on supplementary benefit. There is the constant attendance allowance of £10 a week. There is the unemployability allowance, which is available to the very severely handicapped, of £15·30 a week. There is the invalidity allowance on a sliding scale, with a maximum of £3·20. Added together, they total £53·50 a week, including the £25 a week pension. If we compare that with £16·95 plus a rent allowance, we see that the discrepancy has increased rather than decreased.
  I have not mentioned the £10 special hardship allowance, which brings it up to £63·50, or the extra £5 a week which is available to blinded members of the Armed Forces. That is made up of a comforts allowance of £4 a week, and £1 extra on the unemployed benefit allowance. These are very substantial discrepancies, indeed, which could range as high as £40, £45 and £50 a week, covering two classes of people who, quite by chance, are blinded 20 minutes apart, one at home and one at work. I submit that this differential is quite inequitable and also quite indefensible.
  I do not wish to be accused of lèse majesté, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if this evening you were to tumble from your Chair and to catch your forehead on the chair in front of you, as a result of which your optic nerves were damaged and you were blinded, you would qualify for a £25 week pension automatically as a result of an industrial injury incurred in the course of your work. If, however, you were to go home and tumble down the

  1187
  stairs and receive similar injuries with a similar result, you would qualify for nothing other than your right to apply for supplementary benefit.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his indication of how one can get money, but I do not think I am prepared to accept either method.
  Mr. Hodgson: I am not suggesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that either method should be followed. I was merely wishing to draw attention to the anomalies and to the quite indefensible way in which a person can be penalised as a result.
  I believe that this cannot be right. I think that the enormous discrepancies, between £50 a week as a maximum and £5, £6, or £7 as a minimum, existing between two categories of blind people, are morally indefensible. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to draw the Government's attention to this point this evening.
  7.14 p.m.
  Mr. James Dempsey: I think we should appreciate the very fine speech made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) about that section of the community who suffer from the unfortunate tragedy of being either partially sighted or blind. There are persons who are partially sighted but who can still be registered as blind persons and who are as a consequence entitled to some of the proposed concessions which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
  The nature of this subject is such that I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to look into the many aspects of how blind people are treated. I always believed that any person who was totally incapacitated from work, simply because of the fact that he was blind, would be entitled to the full benefits as long as the necessary obligation had been fulfilled under the National Insurance Act. But there is an opinion abroad that a person who, while fully qualified for benefits, suddenly becomes blind but it not being treated by the insurance officer as totally incapacitated.
  For the life of me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot understand this attitude. Here we have an individual who, due to some
  1188
  accident or some act of God, if one may call it that, finds himself without eyesight and, therefore, has to leave his work immediately. I should have thought that that person was totally incapacitated from working due to the fact that he had lost his eyesight, and that as such, being totally incapacitated, he should qualify for the ordinary sickness rate, followed by the invalidity rate of benefit after six months, as long as he had fulfilled the obligation of paying the statutory insurance contributions. But I am told that this is not so, and I should therefore be most grateful if the Minister would look into it.
  If insurance officers are interpreting the National Insurance Act as meanly and as harshly as that, it is time that something was done about it, because the individuals I am thinking about will never work again, due to no fault of their own. As the hon. Gentleman said, it can be due to an accident at work, to failing health or to many other causes.
  For instance, myopics usually inherit that particular trouble from birth. Medical science has proved that usually it is hereditary. There is no need for me to tell hon. Members that anyone reaching the mid-50s finds his eyesight beginning to trouble him. Many persons who have never had any bother with their eyesight find that they require to get reading spectacles at that age because age is affecting their sight. If age affects a person who previously enjoyed perfect eyesight until his mid-50s, you will realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how badly it affects those who have had this trouble from birth. I was a myopic at birth, and when I reached the mid-50s worsening eyesight due to age affected me much more severely that it affects persons who previously had very good eyesight.
  A person who left school at 15 and who has been working and paying insurance contributions may find, on reaching 55, that he has become totally incapacitated because age has caught up with his hereditary myopia. Such a person is no longer able to work. I believe it is extremely unfair that any insurance officer should interpret the regulations to mean that in these circumstances such a person is unable to give a reasonable answer for not being able to work. That interpretation deprives any such person of his total incapacity benefit, and in my view that is

  1189
  extremely unfair. I do not think much of any statutory bodies which back such opinions from any insurance officer. 1 shall be most grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will be good enough to look into it.
  There are also persons who, although blind, can get about with the aid of a stick, although they cannot see an inch in front of them. Such persons, because they are regarded as mobile, are not entitled, it has been ruled, to the immobility allowance. This is extremely unfair.
  One could have a housewife who is blind but who has a good physique, so that she is able to go out of the front door or the back door but cannot get beyond it unless she is accompanied and has the security of some person before she ventures to cross streets. There is nothing more worrying or upsetting than the lack of security which is felt by a blind person who, when walking the streets, has to pass by shops which have dustbins at the door, and has to cross streets and overcome various other hazards on the journey to a particular destination.
  That is why these people require someone with them. Yet, because they are able to walk, it has been ruled that they do not qualify for mobility allowance. That is an unfortunate occurrence, especially from a Government and a party which have built themselves on compassion. I say that sincerely. At the same time, however, I appreciate the difficulties of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who has responsibility for the disabled. I know that he has finite resources and I know that there are infinite claims on those resources. I am the first person to concede that. However, I hope that some further compassion can be given in such cases. These are genuine cases.
  All that one has to do to recognise what it is like to be a myopic is to walk along the street for 10 yards and to close one's eyes. Imagine what it would be like to be unable to watch a good football match on television or that wonderful tennis competition which took place last week. Yet such people can see absolutely nothing of that sort.
  Of course these people have sought to overcome their difficulties, but I think that they should be given some extra consideration. I have never understood why the income tax authorities allow only £180
  1190
  for a person who is blind. A person who is blind needs someone to read and write and to escort him everywhere. I would have thought that £180 a year—about £3 a week—is an infinitesimal sum to allocate to any blind person who cannot possibly survive—that is the important point—without assistance both inside and outside the home. I went along to see an old soul who suffered from blindness and found him lying on the kitchenette floor. He was trying to make a cup of tea and could not see the Same of the fire.
  A lot of these unfortunate citizens in our society are trying to overcome their difficulties and to live as normal a life as possible. I feel that the powers-that-be do not really appreciate just what these unfortunate persons have to try to overcome. I believe that we might have more consideration, not only with regard to the benefits referred to by the hon. Member for Walsall, North but with regard to other benefits.
  I would give one illustration to show the lack of compassion which exists at present. I know of a blind person who is self-employed. He is an excellent chap who works as a chiropodist. Someone drives him to work. When he is driven to Glasgow, the driver cannot park where the boss's car is parked or where staff cars are parked. He has to park about half a mile away, and then that blind person has to walk all the distance in order to get to the house where he will do this valuable work. What we have is a case of real thoughtlessness on the part of the powers-that-be.
  Surely some arrangement could be made whereby that person could be dropped off right at the place of work and picked up again after completing his work. This person wants to work for his own livelihood. His lifelong aim is never to be unemployed. He wants to reach the age of 65 without having drawn a halfpenny of dole money. That is the ideal of a blind man.
  If we had some aspirations from our Ministers, and some other powers-that-be, I am sure that we would have a much greater recognition of the plight of the blind person. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has done a great deal of work for all sections of the disabled and handicapped in our society. I do not know of any Minister who has exceeded the contribution of my hon.

  1191
  Friend, both as a Back Bencher and as a Minister. I am not suggesting that he is inconsiderate or that he does not understand the problem of the blind person. What I am suggesting is that there is a greater need for my hon. Friend to prevail upon the powers-that-be to give greater recognition to the nature of this handicap and for them to help these people much better than is being done at present.
  7.26 p.m.
  Mr. Tony Newton: Since we have a little time tonight, I should like to take a moment of the time of the House to support my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson), who has performed an important service by raising this subject.
  In the few years that I have been a Member of this House I have taken a considerable interest in issues both of taxation and of social services affecting disabled people, including the blind. The first thing that strikes one is the apparent absurdity of the situation which affects blind people. But, of course, as my hon. Friend will acknowledge, it covers far larger categories than the blind and includes the disabled and widows.
  A vastly different range of benefits is applied to such people. It would be wrong, and out of order, for me to attempt to discuss the broader problems. It should be made clear, however, that in essence they are exactly the same as the specific group on which my hon. Friend has concentrated, namely, the blind. I have no doubt that the Minister can find an explanation for the differences that exist. I am sure that he will talk about the Industrial Injuries Scheme and all the various other special schemes that have grown up and been introduced.
  Rather than hear from the Minister why this situation exists, I should like to know whether he thinks that it ought to exist. Even if we agree, as I hope we shall, that it ought not to exist, I accept that it will take time to get away from it. If one were to raise all the benefits, not only for the blind but for all the other categories I have mentioned, to the most generous level currently paid, it would be a costly business and it would have to be done over a period of years.
  1192
  The key point is whether the Minister acknowledges what to me is the most important single fact, which is that we have an absurd situation in which we are currently dealing with people according to circumstances in which a particular form of hardship arose rather than dealing with the hardship and tackling it according to the nature of the hardship and the needs of the person.
  In the long run, whatever the explanation tonight, that cannot make sense. 1 for one shall be much encouraged if we have some recognition from the Minister that he accepts that position.
  7.29 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I would say at the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that as one who holds you in the highest possible regard, and with very much affection, I pray that you will be saved from the rather violent fate that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) mentioned towards the end of the speech.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has spoken with obviously genuine feeling and concern for raising this important topic for debate tonight. It is only through expressions of concern in this House and elsewhere that we can hope to improve conditions for disabled people and speed their full integration into society.
  May I say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) for having intervened in the debate? As he said, he was myopic from birth and he is: quite severely handicapped now. I much admire all the work that he does in the service of blind people. He was kind enough to recall a statement that I made to the effect that we have finite resources to try to keep pace with infinite claims.
  As the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) indicated, there are many things yet to be done for disabled people generally. I know of his personal interest in the problems of the disabled—it is not just an interest, he has also worked on problems of taxation that affect disabled people.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to what he regards as inequality of treatment for blind persons in relation

  1193
  to social security benefits. Before replying to the specific points that he raised, I emphasise that social security provision is, of course, only one aspect of the help that is available for blind persons as it is for people suffering from other kinds of impairment.
  As the House will recognise, it is quite wrong to assume that all disabled people are incapable of self-support and must rely on social security benefits for their basic incomes. For young blind people in particular training and rehabilitation are most important aims. It may help to put my later remarks into context if I remind the House of the number of people afflicted by blindness and also say something about the different considerations that affect benefits and services and their relationship to individual circumstances, such as the age of the blind person concerned and the age at which blindness occurred. The hon. Gentleman referred particularly to the incidence of blindness among the elderly.
  In Britain we have a statutory definition of blindness. It is to be found in the National Assistance Act 1948, which says that a blind person is a person
  "so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential."
  At 31st March 1976, the latest date for which figures are available, more than 100,000 people were registered as blind by local authorities in England. Of these, about 74,000 were over 65 and about 55,000 were over 75. In other words, nearly three-quarters of the registered blind people are past normal retirement age. Moreover, the hon. Member and the House will readily appreciate that the services and the benefits needed by the great majority of elderly blind people may be entirely different from those needed by children who are born blind and people who become blind during their working lives.
  Another point that is sometimes overlooked in general discusion of the problems is that individual blind people, like other people, have individual qualities and needs. They include people who have so succeeded in overcoming their handicap that they lead fully independent lives, financially as well as socially. Yet they also include people who have the misfortune to suffer additional physical or mental handicaps as well as blindness and who are, therefore, completely dependent
  1194
  upon others for their welfare. Again, some blind people are members of a strong family group that offers great comfort and support, while others are helped by neighbours or friends.
  Sadly, however, there are those also who have to rely exclusively on help from statutory or voluntary organisations. I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the voluntary organisations in this field, I feel that I do so on behalf of both sides of the House and on behalf of people generally throughout the country. But, as I have said, there are those blind people who must rely exclusively on help from statutory or voluntary bodies and this is the difficulty about standardised services and benefits for all blind people. The first consideration is to assess each blind person's needs for training, rehabilitation and other services, taking into account all relevant factors, including those of environment.
  For those who are born blind we have a range of support services to the family provided by the health and local authorities and by voluntary organisations. Here I must mention the Royal National Institute for the Blind, whose contribution to the welfare of blind people in relation to almost every aspect of their needs is unrivalled throughout the world.
  For our part, the Government are constantly seeking methods to improve services. For example, we are seeking reactions to the possible introduction of a new form which will, we hope, lead to improved arrangements for notification of visual handicap in children, so that more information can be made available about their visual defects without premature attempts to classify them as being "blind" or "partially sighted". This should help with the planning of suitable services at the most appropriate time for these children, including consideration of a young person's employment potential and training needs.
  For people who become blind during their working lives the first essential is to try to help them to accept their grievous loss, to come to terms with blindness and thus face life with new and realistic expectations. The next essential is to help them with social rehabilitation. By this I mean learning such things as how to move about unaided in the house, how to find things, how to cook and do

  1195
  housework, how to move about safely out of doors by public transport and in the streets, and how to shop.
  Communication skills such as Braille are also extremely valuable. A range of special aids is available—from the long cane, which is the most generally useful aid to mobility, to hand-held sonic or laser obstacle detectors and electronic devices that enable blind people to read ink prints. One of these latter devices, the Optacon, is being supplied in increasing numbers from funds provided by the Employment Service Agency to enable blind people to work as computer programmers. As part of its specialist resettlement service for all disabled people the Employment Service Agency provides assistance for blind people interested in industrial employment through its 35 blind persons resettlement officers and 32 blind persons training officers.
  Mr. Hodgson: I am grateful to the Minister for going through the long list of aids and benefits, but the question is whether it is right that differential benefits should apply to different classes of blind people. The Minister can answer that "Yes" or "No".
  Mr. Morris: I shall be coming to the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman sought to anticipate my reply by saying what it would and would not include. I am afraid that my reply will disappoint him, because he did not accurately anticipate my speech. If he likes to examine my notes afterwards, he will see that I am not reading from some text that was typed out without any kind of contribution from my own pen. I am sorry that I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because he clearly has a genuine concern for blind people, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie and the hon. Member for Braintree.
  I was referring to the Employment Service Agency and the assistance that it provides for blind people interested in industrial employment. This is undertaken through the agency's 35 blind persons resettlement officers and 32 blind persons training officers. In addition, the agency is making a grant to the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which
  1196
  has responsibility for the resettlement of blind people in professional and commercial employment and of school leavers. The RNIB runs a residential employment rehabilitation centre at Torquay, and the Society for Welfare and Training of the Blind has a centre at Ceres in Fife. Both centres are given financial support by the Employment Service Agency. They both accept people, whatever the cause of their blindness, who can be expected to benefit from the service available.
  The people who attend these centres receive rehabilitation allowances on the same scale as those attending the Employment Service Agency's own rehabilitation centres. The courses are intended primarily for newly blind people, but they are also open to people who have been blind for some time and who are considered to be in need of rehabilitation to enable them to take up employment again. In addition to the rehabilitative and assessment aspects, the courses include facilities to assist social adjustment, restoration of independence, and, at Torquay, mobility training. After receiving this help, the blind persons resettlement officer will, of course, come into the picture again to help place the person in a suitable job.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to employment opportunities for blind people. I should like to take the opportunity to emphasise the abilities of blind and other disabled people. It is easy to spot the disabilities of disabled people. One of my tasks is to point to the abilities even of people who are very severely disabled. I think that we can take pride in the achievements at work and in other activities of many severely disabled people in Britain.
  Earlier today I was with Richard O'Brien, the Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission. He carries out great work in seeking to emphasise the claims of disabled people in the matter of employment opportunities. My ministerial colleagues at the Department of Employment, particularly the Undersecretary of State for Employment, have been extremely active recently in seeking further to emphasise the need to increase the employment opportunities for disabled people. The House will know of the "Positive Policies" document recently launched by my hon. Friend. I have

  1197
  the greatest possible pleasure in working with him to try to advance the claim made by the hon. Member for Walsall North on behalf of blind people in seeking to improve their employment opportunities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie referred to the craving of blind people and other disabled people for employment. He rightly emphasised that in most cases even the most severely disabled people would rather be taxpayers than supplementary pensioners. That point is well taken. I know that that view is shared by Opposition Members.
  For my part, I shall go on emphasising the abilities of disabled people. There is no room for condescension of disabled people by able-bodied people. We can take some pride in the achievements of disabled people, both in terms of employment and in other respects. There are a number of services and concessions available for blind people further details of which are contained in a leaflet entitled "Help for Handicapped People". The hon. Gentleman might like to examine pages 22 and 23 of that important publication. The hon. Gentleman did not anticipate that I would draw attention to those two pages in that important official publication.
  I would also ask the hon. Gentleman to consider more directly the financial assistance available to blind people. The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred mainly to benefits for which my Department is responsible, but we must not overlook the special tax treatment accorded to blind people. The hon. Member for Braintree will be familiar with that concession. As he knows, there is a blind person's tax allowance, which provides exemption from tax at the recipient's marginal rate of tax, on £180 a year, or twice this sum if both spouses are blind, less any tax-free disability payments received. There are many who do not believe that relief from income tax is the best or necessarily the most appropriate way to help disabled members of our society, but this quite exceptional measure for all blind people has now been with us for 15 years, and I am sure that it plays a significant and useful part in meeting the extra expenses resulting from blindness.
  1198
  I turn to the subject of social security benefits. The hon. Member for Walsall, North illustrated his argument in part by referring to a constituent. If he feels that in that case, or in any other case, the law is being inappropriately or unfairly applied, I or the manager of the appropriate local office, with which I know the hon. Gentleman has been in contact, will be pleased to reconsider the case in detail.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie referred to cases in his constituency. Again, I shall be pleased to examine any individual case or any case that affects a group of individuals which he may like me to study in detail after this debate.
  Mr. David Hunt: The Minister referred to certain allowances aimed at overcoming the additional costs of blindness. Perhaps one of the greatest complaints made by those who are blind is that these allowances—tax allowances and supplementary benefit level—have not kept pace with inflation. In 1948, when the allowance was first introduced, it amounted to 15s. and the average weekly earnings were £5. 17. 4d. Average weekly earnings have now increased to £68 a week, which is 12 times as much, yet the special benefit of 15 shillings has increased to only £1·25 a week.
  That is the sort of problem that hits blind people as a result of inflation and they are not given enough to help to overcome the problems of blindness. They do not need any help except financial assistance—that was thought of originally in 1948—to help them to overcome those particular problems. Is the Minister considering the constructive proposal of the Royal National Institute for the Blind for a blindness allowance which would be fixed at a proper rate and index-linked to ensure that it would keep up with inflation?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no objection to the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) taking part in the debate. I know that he is a comparative newcomer to the House, but an intervention is not supposed to be a substitute for a speech. If the hon. Member wishes to take part he may do so after the Minister has spoken.
  Mr. Morris: I was happy to give way to the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt). The hon. Gentleman has been

  1199
  in close touch with me on many matters affecting the disabled and I know that he takes a special interest in these matters. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the effect that inflation has had upon long-standing benefits that have not been uprated. This is an extremely difficult matter of policy. I shall come later to some of the particular points that the hon. Member raised, but his main point was much the same as that made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North.
  When the hon. Member for Walsall, North raised the subject tonight, and on a previous occasion, he drew attention particularly to the industrial injuries scheme and to the supplementary benefits scheme. In their different ways both schemes make special provision for blind people. As the hon. Member for Walsall, North will understand, however, in considering improvements in social security provision for any one group of the disabled the Government have also to consider their overall priorities in improving provisions for the disabled. Some important progress has been made since we came to office in improving existing social security benefits to help the disabled and in adding new ones where there were gaps.
  I acknowledge that there is still much to be done and the Government welcome the wide-ranging debate on priorities, as evidenced by the seminar on social security that took place in London today. I had the pleasure of addressing that seminar on the problems and claims of disabled people. I strongly made the point that there is still much more to do. I am sure that most hon. Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Coatbridge and Airdrie and Bradford, South (Mr. Torney)—who are here tonight—would agree that, while there has been substantial progress recently, there is still much to do in redressing the wrongs of centuries against the disabled.
  In accord with the practice of most other countries, special and preferential provision is made in Britain for people who have been disabled at work or in war. The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to the schemes that particularly help those who have been disabled in that way. The schemes through
  1200
  which provision is made for those disabled through war or industrial injury have an honourable place in our wider system of social security which elsewhere provides benefits irrespective of the cause of disablement. Naturally, as the Minister with special responsibility for war pensions, I endorse the warm tribute that was paid by the hon. Member for Walsall, North to the men and women who have become disabled through service to our country. Within these schemes there are no preferential provisions for blind people as such, although loss of vision as a result of, for instance, an industrial accident gives entitlement to a specified rate of disablement pension in the same way as does, to take a further example, the amputation of the hand.
  I must now turn to the supplementary benefits system. As the hon. Member for Walsall, North will know, this system can provide help to people not in full-time employment if their resources are less than their requirements as laid down in legislation. The important thing to note in the present context is that when their requirements are being calculated, all blind people, whatever the cause of their blindness, have a preferential margin of £1·25 a week above other claimants in similar circumstances. The preferential scale rate is, however, largely historical in origin and now represents something of an anomaly within the supplementary benefits scheme.
  Within that scheme the Supplementary Benefits Commission thinks it appropriate to provide for any extra expenses of disablement on an individual basis through its discretionary powers. Where in an individual case the extra needs of blindness exceed the margin, the excess may be provided for in that way. As its name suggests, the supplementary benefits scheme is not intended to provide a system of income maintenance for general classes of the population. It acts rather as a safety net for those who for various reasons find themselves without sufficient income from all other sources. Some do not require that assistance, but some require the preferential scale rate, and their incomes are rather different from the incomes of those who do not.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie raised the possibility of providing a mobility allowance for the blind. There is no doubt that the blind

  1201
  have mobility problems. They are more severe for some of the blind than for others, but the mobility problems of the blind are real enough. However, the mobility allowance was designed for those disabled who are unable, or virtually unable, to walk. The allowance will help some of the blind, but it will help them because of a combination of handicaps and not because of blindness alone.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie appreciates, the mobility problems of the blind are not related to an inability to walk, but to their inability to cope with unfamiliar areas and difficulties associated with their use of public transport. It would not be possible to make the mobility allowance generally available to the blind without altering the nature of the allowance by widening the medical criteria, by abandoning the upper age limit—and, as my hon. Friend knows, about three-quarters of registered blind people are over pensionable age—and possibly by easing the condition as to duration of mobility problems.
  Questions of principle apart, the cost of any such concession would be considerable. It is estimated that an extra 100,000 blind beneficiaries would double the cost of the mobility allowance, when all new beneficiaries were fully phased in. A cost of £182 million is estimated for abandoning the upper age limit for sighted beneficiaries and a further unspecified sum would be required to meet the claims of other diagnostic groups who might come within the scope of any wider criteria. In our present circumstances this is, unfortunately, impossible. The hon. Member for Braintree will appreciate how many claims there are on resources for helping the disadvantaged.
  Mr. Newton: This is a key point. Do the Minister's figures take account of the fact that the mobility allowance is taxable and that for a very large number of people the cost to the Government would be 35 per cent. lower since these people would be paying standard rate income tax?
  Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the Government's financial arrangements. The figures represent the financial cost to my Department. The hon. Gentleman may argue at another
  1202
  time in another part of the House that there may be savings in giving certain kinds of extra help, but the figures that I have quoted represent the cost to my Department.
  We have all heard it said that the sum is greater than the parts. However, those who want higher public expenditure in one area after another sometimes seem to argue that the sum is less than the parts. They want to reduce the totality of public expenditure while increasing all its elements. The hon. Member for Walsall, North will appreciate that we have a very difficult resource problem. There has been remarkable progress in helping disabled people considering the economic background against which we are working. If extra cash for the disabled becomes available, which group or groups of people are to be assisted and how must be decided on priorities. In view of the many competing claims, this will not be an easy decision.
  I have already referred to the seminar on priorities in social security. This is one example of our continuing examination of financial help from which disabled people, among others, may benefit. Another example is the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury under the chairmanship of Lord Pearson. Naturally, we shall be giving careful consideration to that report when it becomes available.
  I am sure that from what I have said the House will acknowledge the wide range of help available to blind people irrespective of the cause of their blindness. The House will know that there is much more that I should like to do for blind people as for other disabled people. Occasions such as this debate are extremely valuable in encouraging us all to examine our scale of priorities for improvements and I thank the hon. Member for Walsall, North for giving us an opportunity to consider the problems faced by blind people. He has my assurance that I shall keep very much in mind all that he has said in my efforts to help blind and other disabled people. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie and the hon. Member for Braintree have the same assurance.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. David Hunt: I intervened during the Minister's speech because I felt that he was not responding

  1203
  to the major point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson), namely, the inequalities in the allowances paid to blind people. I take a great deal of what the Minister said as signifying his deep concern about the problems of the blind, but one of the major points in this debate is the need for a blindness allowance. It is not necessarily a question of funding it now but is more a question of principle. Is the Minister prepared to accept here and now that one of the major priorities when funds are available must be to tackle fairly and squarely the problems faced by blind people?
  I understood that the Minister was not prepared to commit himself on the general question of a blindness allowance. It has long been recognised—and the Minister himself recognised—that the problems of blind people are special problems with special financial significance. This has been stressed many times in this House. The introduction of the allowance in 1948 was a recognition of these serious problems. They cannot be tackled by small weekly sums. Often they entail heavy items of additional expenditure by a blind person.
  Examples have already been given by hon. Members and I should like to give some more from the Royal National Institute for the Blind. For travel of all types, it is often necessary for a blind person to be accompaned by a guide and it is frequently necessary for him to pay two fares. In some areas the lack of public transport makes the increased use of taxis necessary. A blind person needs to use the telephone more often and needs a typewriter and Braille writing equipment and a scribe to write his leters and deal with his personal correspondence and bills.
  There is additional wear and tear on a blind person's clothing. Spillage causing stains means additional laundering or dry cleaning bills. Bumping into objects and rubbing against walls lead to a shorter life for garments. There are also likely to be more accidents with scorching, cigarette burns and so on. Blind people also suffer additional wear and tear on their shoes.
  In the household, there is additional heating expense for elderly blind people
  1204
  because of lack of exercise and movement in the home. More expensive appliances have to be purchased for the home because of the safety factor and ease of use. Additional storage space and kitchen fitments are needed and there is also the expense of hiring professional labour for household tasks such as heavy gardening, window cleaning and electrical repairs.
  The blind person has to try to meet all these expenses out of a not very special allowance. I have already explained how the supplementary allowance of 15s. which was introduced in 1948 was moderately significant at the time but that it has been eroded over the years, particularly by recent inflation, so that the present level of £1·25 should, if account were taken of average earnings, be £8·70 a week.
  There is surely a case for having a special blindness allowance to meet the special problems of the blind. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North pointed out that a high proportion of the blind people at work are in low-paid jobs and are therefore unable to benefit from income tax allowances. It seems most unfair that these blind workers receive no allowance at all from any source in respect of additional living costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North also referred to the many unemployed blind housewives who, if their husbands are in low-paid employment, do not benefit from any tax relief or supplementary benefit.
  Will the Minister turn his mind to considering in principle the acceptance that there is an established case for the provision of a blindness allowance payable as a right to all blind people over the age of 16 years, whether in work or unemployed, in addition to wages, salary or statutory benefits?
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply briefly to the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt). I am well aware of the problems facing those who are disabled at war or at work and those who are disabled at neither war nor work. I referred to the social security seminar that I addressed in London early today. That shows that we are considering all the priorities.
  The hon. Gentleman will readily appreciate that there are many competing

  1205
  priorities. There are those of the elderly, one-parent families, widows and battered wives. I spoke at the seminar about the claims of the disabled, including those who are blind. We must not raise false hopes.
  The 1948 scale rate was referred to by the hon. Gentleman just as it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson). It is an issue which has been considered by successive Governments since 1948. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that his party—
  Mr. David Hunt: It is not a party matter.
  Mr. Morris: If he is saying that his party, if given the opportunity, would remove the differences between the war pension scheme and the schemes that help the civilian disabled, that would cause considerable debate outside the House. I appreciate that he is not saying that his party would, given the opportunity, immediately iron out the differences between existing schemes.
  Mr. Hodgson: This is a matter not of eradicating differentials but of accepting that payment should be related to need, not to the accidental circumstances in which a person is blinded. There cannot be any logic in doing that.
  Mr. Morris: I pointed out that the Supplementary Benefits Commission has the discretion and uses the discretion to consider the needs of the disabled person, whether he or she is blind or suffering from some other disability.
  The hon. Member for Wirral referred to the proposals made by the Royal Institute for the Blind. I am in fairly frequent contact with the institute and other organisations representing blind persons. We are constantly considering priorities. That which is put to me by the institute will be carefully considered. I have said that it provides a service for the blind that is unrivalled in the world. I am the person least likely not to give due weight to anything that is put to me by that organisation. At the same time, I cannot promise to do the impossible. I shall try to do everything that is possible in the service of the blind and other disabled persons.

  SUZANNE CORNWELL
  8.14 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise a subject that I intended to raise last Wednesday. I am especially grateful to the Minister for agreeing so willingly to deal with the case that I wish to put to the House after he has already had to deal with a particular probing Adjournment debate.
  This is another case in which public funds are badly needed. I can understand the problems that the Department and the Government generally are facing when dealing with areas of special social need. I wish to refer to the distressing case of one of my constituents, Suzanne Cornwell, whose case, regrettably, is not an isolated one, although thankfully, I can say that it is pretty rare. It raises disturbing problems which to date we seem to be unable to cope with adequately.
  Suzanne is now aged 19 years. She has been described as having a mental age of no more than 10 years although she can cope adequately with everyday situations such as dressing herself, going to work, going to college, where she was attending, and getting herself through the public transport system.
  Suzanne's father first contacted me in September 1976 when his daughter was on remand in Holloway, having absconded from the Medina Training Centre at Newport, Isle of Wight. She had travelled to London under her own steam on stolen money. During the time that she was in Holloway it was alleged that she had been abused. I think that she had been tattooed by other inmates. She was quite rightly removed to the hospital wing.
  Strenuous efforts were made by the social services department of the Isle of Wight County Council and by the area health authority to find a suitable placing for Suzanne, regrettably without success. On 6th October 1976 she was fined £10 and released back to her parents although still under the guardianship of the Isle of Wight County Council.
  The judge's remarks were fully reported in the Press. I shall read some extracts because I think they illustrate the problem

  1207
  that faced the judge and the social services agencies. The judge said that he was
  "horrified that a mountain of civil servants and administrators could not find her a hospital bed."
  In a subsequent report in the Daily Express on Thursday 7th October, a very good description was given by Jack Hill of the problems that faced not only the judge but a family with a girl of this age for which there seemed to be no suitable home. The article stated:
  "It was with heavy hearts that Shirley and Howard Cornwell took their daughter home last night. 'I am disgusted at the situation we are placed in', said 41-year-old Mr. Cornwell. He and his wife have little doubt that before long their daughter Suzanne will again be in the hands of the police.
  Suzanne, aged 18 but with a mental age of eight, is a compulsive thief. And the only hope for her is to be cared for and treated in a psychiatric home.
  But when Suzanne appeared at Newport Crown Court, Isle of Wight … Judge Ian Starforth Hill set her free with a £10 fine for a petty theft. He was powerless to do anything else—because he was told that nowhere in Britain can a secure bed in a psychiatric home be found for Suzanne … 'If we want to face the truth, there are no such hospitals available. The fault, I suggest lies fairly and squarely with the Department of Health and Social Security'."
  The judge was told that if Suzanne was freed she was likely to be back in the courts before very long, or would run away to London to become involved in prostitution.
  He replied:
  "'It's all very well pointing this out and nobody, but nobody, comes forward with any solution. It is a mockery, an absolute mockery to sentence this girl to imprisonment'."
  The Press report continues:
  "At the Cornwell's home in Avenue Road, Sandown, Suzanne played last night with the family's tortoiseshell kitten and said: 'It's lovely to be here … I didn't like it in prison at all.'
  But her father said: 'She will get into trouble again. She needs a proper place to go to.
  I don't blame the judge in any way for what he has done now, or for sending her to Holloway in the first place. Probably he is as disgusted as I am.
  The type of halfway house needed for people like Suzanne, who are not violent or completely retarded, has been wanted for years but the problem has just been shoved into a corner out of sight …'
  Mr. Cornwell described what life would be like for the family—another girl aged 11, and
  1208
  two boys aged 15 and 13—with Suzanne back home.
  He said: 'You cannot plan a life around yourself or the other children—it has to be planned around Suzanne.
  When she comes in from a training centre she will have to stay in with us. When we go out she will have to come out with us.
  When she goes to bed the door has to be locked so she cannot go out at night'."
  Unfortunately, those prophecies proved only too true.
  Suzanne then attended a modern hostel for people with mental disorders known as Glamis Court at East Cowes, Isle of Wight, where strenuous efforts were made to help her, particularly by one individual. I pay tribute to the time and work that he put in trying to help her. Others were also involved in trying to give her the training that she desperately needs. But it was not a secure institution.
  Unfortunately, despite having made some progress, Suzanne again absconded and went on a further spree of stealing, finally committing arson which seemed to be completely out of character. She was not previously associated with anything like that.
  Suzanne appeared at Clerkenwell Court on 10th January last and was committed for trial, again being remanded in custody at Holloway. I suppose that it was the only place where she could be kept. However, it seems most unsuitable for someone with her mentality. Whilst in Holloway, Suzanne tried to start another fire within the hospital wing on 16th March. Again, I and others tried to ensure that the right kind of establishment was found for her.
  At her trial at the Old Bailey, according to the Isle of Wight County Press, her counsel was reported as saying:
  "This is a young woman for whom society can find no place, and who has committed offences she should never have been able to commit."
  Judge Karmel said:
  "Society can always find a place for everybody. It may not be the most suitable, but society can find a place."
  Counsel said that
  "a judge's order was needed to get the Department of Health and Social Security to take whatever steps were necessary to waive the regulations and allow the Hertfordshire hospitals"—

  1209
  —it was suggested that there were places for her in Hertfordshire—
  "to take a patient from another catchment area."
  Judge Karmel said that he could not express such a view until he had heard medical evidence to support it.
  Counsel said that
  "many young people in need of psychiatric help were victims of bureaucracy."
  He added:
  "I venture to think and express the view that your Lordship stands as the means of the public obtaining from the state these facilities which ought to exist in the interests of the community."
  Judge Karmel replied:
  "This would sound good at the hustings but it does not sound so good in a court of law. I can only do what the law allows me to do. I am not a politician any more than you are.
  I do not propose to make an order telling the Department of Health and Social Security what they should do. I can understand that they would regard it as gross impertinence on my part. They have their regulations and must abide by them.
  And if the regulations are wrong it is for Parliament to say they should be altered, not for the courts."
  The judge adjourned the case to 22nd April. In the interim, efforts were made to find a more suitable establishment to take Suzanne. Apparently, no place within the Wessex Region could be found. There were suggestions, as I indicated, of places for her at two homes in Hertfordshire. For some reason or other—there is some regulation which the Minister may be able to explain—it is not easy to arrange for a girl who should be in one region to be transferred to another. Anyway, the places that had been suggested in Hertfordshire did not materialise. Therefore, on 13th May an order was made for Suzanne to be admitted to Rampton.
  I accept that, following the sentence at the Old Bailey that Suzanne be detained at Rampton for the foreseeable future, the Secretary of State went to the trouble of writing a fairly long letter of explanation to her father. In that letter of 25th May he set out clearly that he thought that the decision was right and he explained the facilities available at Rampton, which he had visited.
  I make it clear that I have nothing against Rampton. I have never been there, although I have visited Broadmoor
  1210
  twice. I know what good work is done in that establishment, because another of my constituents, a girl of 15, is at Broadmoor. I have grave doubts whether she should have gone there, and the case has been taken up by MIND. However, I took the trouble to follow that case through and I saw that girl in Broadmoor. I have seen the facilities there. I have no doubt that everything that can be done will be done for Suzanne at Rampton. But Rampton is about as big as Broadmoor. It has about 1,000 patients, 750 male and 250 female.
  We know that some drastic patients are taken at both Rampton and Boradmoor. Murderers, people with suicidal tendencies and all kinds of patients with varying mental disorders have to be catered for. Therefore, I question whether these establishments provide the right kind of environment for girls of a similar mental disposition to Suzanne.
  Rampton, being Nottinghamshire, is a long way from the Isle of Wight. I should have thought that it was important that the parents should have fairly close contact with her and at as frequent intervals as possible. I understand that her father and mother can claim up to 50 per cent. of the cost of travel by public transport, but if they go by car, which can be cheaper, no allowance is made. There are difficulties for the parents, who obviously want to see their daughter as often as possible. That is another reason why it should be possible to find a suitable place for Suzanne within the Wessex Region.
  Is it true that there is nowhere in this country for teenagers like Suzanne and others of whom I have knowledge—there are at least two cases in my constituency—and that they must serve sentences at Broadmoor or Rampton?
  I repeat, I am grateful to the Minister for taking this Adjournment debate at short notice. What is being done to rectify the situation? I understand that there was a report about a year ago drawing attention to the deficiencies in the facilities available for cases such as that of Suzanne Cornwell. I also believe that if there is a suitable establishment within the Wessex Region it should be possible for the Minister's Department to insist that a particular case be accepted in that hospital and not leave the decision entirely to the local director.

  1211
  At present, if he does not wish to take a case, he can refuse it. One therefore has cases such as that of Suzanne Cornwell in which local social services departments can apply to no less than 28 homes within the area which might be suitable and no fewer than 28 refuse to accept her case.
  The situation is getting worse. What are the possibilities for the future? What hope can the Minister hold out for parents of children like Suzanne?
  8.29 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I should like to thank the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for raising this important matter in the House. He is to be congratulated on his enterprise in securing the debate and on his humanity and concern to help. I shall do my best to reply as constructively as possible.
  The case of Suzanne Cornwell, which has attracted wide public interest, highlights the problems which we are facing concerning mentally disordered offenders. As we have heard, Suzanne Cornwell is an 18-year-old mentally subnormal girl with a long history of anti-social behaviour, of absconding and of compulsive theft. She had been attending the Isle of Wight County Council's Medina Adult Training Centre when she committed the several offences of theft which led to her first appearance before the courts. She was made the subject of a guardianship order to the Isle of Wight County Council under the Mental Health Act 1959 on 27th May 1976. Following further appearances in court, she was charged with theft on 10th August and 6th October 1976. On both occasions she was discharged back to the local authority's care.
  The Isle of Wight County Council, the Isle of Wight Area Health Authority and the Wessex Regional Health Authority made every possible effort to find a suitable placement for Suzanne. The county council was unable to find a suitable hostel because of her habitual absconding and theft. The area and regional health authorities were unsuccessful in finding hospital accommodation, since medical opinion was that Suzanne required training in secure conditions and that no hos-
  1212
  pital facilities within the Wessex Region were suitable for her. Attempts to place her outside the region also failed. Health authorities must, of course, rely upon the judgment of hospital consultants as to the suitability of their units for a particular patient.
  After her discharge from court on 6th October 1976, the county council arranged for Suzanne to attend one of its hostels, Glamis Court, for a period of assessment, and the county council and area health authority staff made strenuous efforts to help and support her. Unfortunately this did not prevent her absconding to London, where she committed the offences of arson, theft and forgery which resulted in her admission to Rampton Hospital following her court appearance on 13th May 1977.
  The circumstances under which Suzanne was admitted to Rampton Hospital were as follows. On 25th April 1977, Dr. Sherry of Holloway Prison wrote to my Department requesting a place in a special hospital for Suzanne, who was before the court on a charge of arson. In his letter he made it clear that a place in a special hospital was required because no other suitable alternative hospital place could be found within the Wessex Regional Health Authority area. Dr. Sherry stated that the judge concerned with the case had made it clear that he considered Miss Cornwell to be a serious danger to others and that, if treatment in conditions of security were not available, he would send her to prison for an indetermined period.
  As the House knows, the special hospitals were established under Section 40 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973 for persons who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, require treatment under conditions of special security on account of their dangerous, violent or criminal propensities. The security provided by the special hospitals is of such a kind and degree as to deter a determined absconder or to prevent the escape of a patient who would, if at large, present a grave and immediate danger to the public.
  The application from Dr. Sherry placed the officials in my Department who deal with applications for places in special hospitals in a difficult position. From the papers at their disposal it did not

  1213
  appear that Miss Cornwell met the criteria laid down in Section 40 for admission into a special hospital. At the same time, however, they were aware that there was no place available for her in an NHS psychiatric hospital within the Wessex RHA area and that, in the event of a place not being made available at a special hospital, the court would probably pass a sentence of life imprisonment.
  In view of this, it was arranged that one of the consultant psychiatrists at Rampton Special Hospital should examine Miss Cornwell. The consultant's report was that Miss Cornwell was, in his opinion, impusively dangerous—as evidenced by her fire-raising activities—and that she should be admitted into Rampton Hospital. In the light of this opinion, the court was notified that a place would be made available at Rampton Hospital. The court made an order under Section 60 of the Mental Health Act 1959 and it also imposed restrictions under Section 65 of the Act. The effect of the restrictions under Section 65 is that Miss Corn-well cannot be discharged, transferred or sent on leave from Rampton Hospital without the consent of the Home Secretary. Miss Cornwell was admitted to Rampton Hospital on 25th May.
  As the House knows, Rampton Hospital is one of the four special hospitals provided for persons subject to detention under the Mental Health Act 1959 who are considered to require treatment in conditions of special security, and it is directly administered by officials of my Department acting in the name of the Secretary of State. It caters mainly for patients who are mentally handicapped, although all forms of mental disorder are treated there.
  The hospital, which has about 700 male and 250 female patients, differs from ordinary psychiatric hospitals only in so far as treatment is carried out under conditions of special security. In practice, the perimeter security makes it possible to provide many patients with a much fuller life than would be possible in a hospital where this does not exist.
  The Secretary of State has recently visited the hospital and has said that he is very impressed with the high quality of treatment, care and rehabilitation. All the usual forms of psychiatric treatment are available, the medical staff include a number of consultants and there are a
  1214
  visiting dentist, chiropodist, speech therapist and dietician. There are also occupation staff, psychologists and social workers and a high ratio of nurses to patients. The occupational, educational and recreational facilities for patients are at least of the standard to be found in ordinary psychiatric hospitals. There is an indoor swimming pool for patients and a well-equipped gymnasium. Leisure activities include concerts and dances as well as various sporting activities. Patients' relatives are encouraged to visit the patients regularly, and there is financial and other assistance available to relatives who have to make long journeys.
  Shortly after Suzanne Cornwell was admitted to Rampton, the Secretary of State wrote to her parents in an effort to alleviate their concern about the decision to admit Suzanne to Rampton. The hon. Member referred in particular to the problems of Suzanne's parents as their home is so far removed from the hospital. That is a point that I shall be looking into with a view to corresponding with the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.
  I am, of course, distressed at the need to detain a young woman such as Miss Cornwell in a special security hospital, but I am quite sure that the court's decision to send her to Rampton Hospital was taken in her own interests.
  Since the inception of the National Health Service it has been part of its responsibility to provide facilities to treat all types of patients with mental disorder, the only exception being those who require to be treated in conditions of special security. The Mental Health Act 1959 did not change this fundamental responsibility. The changes of attitude which the Act helped to promote have brought about a vast reduction in the number of patients formally detained and in restrictions on the liberty of patients.
  The danger is that this change of attitude could be carried too far. Staff may be reluctant to provide the necessary supervision for the few patients who require it, or they may come to regard these patients as not being their responsibility at all. In fact, some hospitals have become entirely "open" without making any alternative provision for the patients who need treatment in conditions of security short of that provided in the special hospitals.

  1215
  In the 1960s there was mounting criticism—as the hon. Gentleman will recall—over the refusal of hospitals to admit patients who presented difficulties and a lot of pressure on the special hospitals to take patients not needing the maximum security provided in them. My Department therefore set up a working party in 1971 to consider the present and future needs for security in psychiatric hospitals and units. Its report recommended the establisment of regional secure units, and this was endorsed by the interim report of the Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders.
  A circular was sent to regional health authorities in July 1974 asking them to take urgent action to establish regional security units. Since then they have been investigating the position in their regions and preparing plans for submission to my Department. For our part, we have promised to meet the capital costs of approved schemes as well as providing special revenue resources. All regions are actively planning secure psychiatric units, and seven of the 14 have submitted preliminary planning proposals. The Government's aim was for all regions to have secure units by 1980.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: That is very important and useful information, but can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Wessex Region is one that has those plans? If he does not have the information with him, a letter later will suffice.
  The offence for which Suzanne was finally sentenced, which is obviously worrying, was arson. People connected with crime are more worried about arson than any other crime except perhaps murder. However, the offence was completely out of keeping with her character. One cannot help thinking that, had a secure establishment been available for her at a younger age, the offence would not have happened. This is a very important point to remember for the future.
  Mr. Morris: I shall be seeking to make as clear as I can to the hon. Gentleman the position in regard to Wessex.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of the plans which are now being submitted by the regions. I take his point, and I will see that everything
  1216
  that he has said tonight is very sympathetically considered. As I was saying, the Government's aim is for all regions to have secure units by 1980. Unfortunately there has been some delay, but we hope that regions will press on urgently with their planning. The recently-established working group should be a real source of help to those regional health authorities which are encountering overcoming local difficulties and misunderstandings.
  In the interim, until such time as units are in operation, authorities have been asked to make provision for these difficult patients. The designation of certain wards or hospitals as interim secure units is envisaged. Special revenue allocations have already been made available, and the nursing staff working in them permanently and exclusively will qualify for a special lead payment of £201 per annum in addition to the psychiatric lead.
  It is not intended that these units should take all patients who cause difficulties in local hospitals, either by their behaviour or by occasional absconding, but should take only those who so consistently present such problems as to make their local management impracticable with the facilities available. In addition, it is hoped that the units will help the courts by assessing mentally disordered offenders, and also provide places for offenders whose treatment needs require greater security than that available in the "open" wards of ordinary psychiatric hospitals but less than the very high security of the special hospitals.
  In Wessex Region the regional health authority has provided an interim secure unit, the Lyndhurst unit, at Knowle Hospital, Fareham, Hampshire. The unit is intended for the mentally ill, and not the mentally subnormal, and its object is to give short-term care and assessment. A gradual intake of patients began in February 1977, and it is expected that the full complement of 14 patients will be reached by the end of July. The unit also has accommodation for 14-day patients, of which there are presently 10. Male patients only are to be admitted for the first year. The reason for this policy is that there are more of these difficult cases amongst men than women, and restricting the unit to one sex will ease the management during the initial period while

  1217
  experience in the running of this type of unit is gained.
  The RHA is planning to provide a permanent secure unit of about 53 places, but the siting of the unit has still to be decided. Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching) is presently working on a strategic plan for mental illness services in Hampshire which is not expected to be completed until early next year. Once the plan has been accepted, a decision on the siting of the permanent unit will be taken and planning can proceed. I shall be very conscious of the hon. Gentleman's close personal and constituency interest in these developments, and I shall seek to make arrangements for him to be kept informed of the developments as they occur.
  In addition, the RHA has established a multi-disciplinary working group to examine the needs of mentally handicapped persons who are profoundly disturbed or psychotic and others who cannot be satisfactorily accommodated in the open wards of a mental handicap hospital or in hostels. This group, whose
  1218
  first meeting is now being convened, will consider the establishment of a regional unit if this becomes the obvious solution to the problems identified.
  Regional secure units will form part of the psychiatric services for a region, and we hope that they will fill a gap in the services for the mentally disordered who require treatment in conditions of security. By relieving ordinary psychiatric hospitals of some of their most difficult patients, they should ease the burden on the staff. I feel that the present unsatisfactory situation cannot be allowed to continue and that we must press ahead urgently with the establishment of the secure units. The hon. Member's representations on this matter will certainly be taken very much into account in our further consideration of this very difficult and sensitive area of policy affecting mentally disordered young persons.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Nine o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  Cigarettes
  Cigarettes
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Reception and Re-establishment Centres
  Reception and Re-establishment Centres
  Orthodontic Appliances, Dental Care and Spectacles
  Orthodontic Appliances, Dental Care and Spectacles
  Radiologists
  Radiologists
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Prescription Costs
  Prescription Costs
  Family Practitioner Committee, Stockport
  Family Practitioner Committee, Stockport
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Lincolnshire Area Health Authority
  Lincolnshire Area Health Authority
  Health Centres (Leicestershire)
  Health Centres (Leicestershire)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  District Nurses
  District Nurses
  Inner Cities (Health Services)
  Inner Cities (Health Services)
  Health Services (Finance)
  Health Services (Finance)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Refreshment Department
  Refreshment Department
  Chairs (Westminster Hall Rooms)
  Chairs (Westminster Hall Rooms)
  Welsh Affairs
  Welsh Affairs
TRADE
  Companies (Winding-up Notices)
  Companies (Winding-up Notices)
  Airports Policy
  Airports Policy
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Whisky
  Whisky
  Kina Holdings Ltd.
  Kina Holdings Ltd.
  Companies (Annual Returns)
  Companies (Annual Returns)
INDUSTRY
  Regional Development
  Regional Development
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Machine Tools
  Machine Tools
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Steel Works (Closures)
  Steel Works (Closures)
  Steel Works
  Steel Works
  Engineering
  Engineering
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Call-out Charges (Report)
  Call-out Charges (Report)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  TUC
  TUC
  EDUCATION
  EDUCATION
  SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY
  SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY
  CBI
  CBI
  BRENT, EAST
  BRENT, EAST
  TAMWORTH
  TAMWORTH
  CITY OF LONDON
  CITY OF LONDON
  PICKETING
  PICKETING
  BIRMINGHAM, LADYWOOD
  BIRMINGHAM, LADYWOOD
  EALING
  EALING
  PONTERWYD, CEREDIGION
  PONTERWYD, CEREDIGION
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Cereals and Sugar Beet
  Cereals and Sugar Beet
ENVIRONMENT
  Countryside Development
  Countryside Development
  Employment Policies
  Employment Policies
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Sewage Treatment (Rural Homes)
  Sewage Treatment (Rural Homes)
  Buildings (Type Approval)
  Buildings (Type Approval)
  Footpaths
  Footpaths
  Self-build Societies
  Self-build Societies
  North-West Economic Planning Council
  North-West Economic Planning Council
  House Building
  House Building
  Dover Eastern Bypass
  Dover Eastern Bypass
TRANSPORT
  Dangerous Substances
  Dangerous Substances
  Kirkhamgate-Dishforth Road
  Kirkhamgate-Dishforth Road
  Neasden Lane Underpass (Noise)
  Neasden Lane Underpass (Noise)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Poisons (Bottling)
  Poisons (Bottling)
  Sub Judice Cases
  Sub Judice Cases
  Borstal Governors
  Borstal Governors
  Borstal Officers (Clothing Allowance)
  Borstal Officers (Clothing Allowance)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd.
  Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd.
  Hackney Carriages and Private Hire Cars
  Hackney Carriages and Private Hire Cars
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Tarlock Singh Mittu Case
  Tarlock Singh Mittu Case
  Maintenance Orders
  Maintenance Orders
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Refunds (Sickness)
  Tax Refunds (Sickness)
  The Friends of the National Libraries
  The Friends of the National Libraries
  Whale Meal
  Whale Meal
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
  Industrial Workers (Pay and Deductions)
  Industrial Workers (Pay and Deductions)
  Scottish Clearing Banks
  Scottish Clearing Banks
DEFENCE Empty
  Quarters
  Quarters
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Lynx Helicopter
  Lynx Helicopter
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
  Anti-submarine Capacity
  Anti-submarine Capacity
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  United States Air Force
  United States Air Force
  Missiles
  Missiles
  Redundancies (RAF Trades)
  Redundancies (RAF Trades)
  Jaguar Aircraft
  Jaguar Aircraft
  Secretary of State (Engagements)
  Secretary of State (Engagements)
  Army (Welfare Inquiry)
  Army (Welfare Inquiry)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Guardsman Tom Holdsworth
  Guardsman Tom Holdsworth
  Battle of Britain Museum
  Battle of Britain Museum
  Pay
  Pay
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Geriatrics
  Geriatrics
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Truancy
  Truancy
  Comprehensive Schools
  Comprehensive Schools
  Thomas Huxley College
  Thomas Huxley College
EMPLOYMENT
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Subsidies
  Subsidies
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Job Search Scheme
  Job Search Scheme
  Employment Transfer Scheme
  Employment Transfer Scheme
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community
  European Community
  Gwynedd
  Gwynedd
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Accidents (Brighton)
  Industrial Accidents (Brighton)
WALES
  Retired Persons
  Retired Persons
  Lorries
  Lorries
  Pig Industry
  Pig Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Traffic Commissioners
  Traffic Commissioners
  Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel
  Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  British Army of the Rhine
  British Army of the Rhine
  Helsinki Final Act
  Helsinki Final Act
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Ivory Trade
  Ivory Trade
ENERGY
  Research Expenditure
  Research Expenditure
  Reserves
  Reserves
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Bailed Persons
  Bailed Persons
  Government Offices (Refreshment Facilities)
  Government Offices (Refreshment Facilities)
  Otters
  Otters
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Drugs (Costs)
  Drugs (Costs)
  National Health Service (Administration)
  National Health Service (Administration)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
SCOTLAND
  Education
  Education
  Water Supply (Perthshire)
  Water Supply (Perthshire)
  Herring Fishing (North Sea Ban)
  Herring Fishing (North Sea Ban)
  Criminal Courts
  Criminal Courts

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

HUMANITARIAN LAW IN ARMED CONFLICT
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached at the Conference on Development of International Humanitarian Law in War held in Geneva in June 1977.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the fourth and final session of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict began in Geneva on 17th March, and concluded on 10th June, with the adoption by consensus of two protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. These will be open for signature from 11th December. Copies of the texts adopted have been placed in the Library of the House. They raise many complex issues, not only legal, but also political and military. In conjunction with our allies, Her Majesty's Government will be giving the texts careful study with a view to deciding the question of signature and eventual ratification.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, having had the advantage of reading these decisions, I should like to put this matter to the Minister. I welcome particularly the two proposals for the prohibition of saturation bombing of civilians and their deliberate starvation, as well as the fact that the defaulters shall go to a Nuremburg trial for war crimes. Are not all these
156
prohibitions absolutely irrelevant in nuclear war? If Her Majesty's Government sign the protocols, will they not have to admit this by a reservation excluding nuclear wars?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's welcome to the very useful and helpful provisions of these two additional protocols. As to his second point, of course anything that we do in regard to what might be called conventional arms control and restriction can be nullified by the enormity of nuclear conflict. I do not think that that is a reason why we should not continue to do our best in these directions. If we succeed on the ground, we may eventually succeed in the sky.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, does the Minister agree that these additional protocols very much widen the scope of international law in armed conflict, particularly in relation to national liberation movements? Can the Minister give any indication of the Government's position with regard to this additional protection to national liberation movements in armed conflict?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, I entirely agree that the introduction of what are called national liberation movements brings forward a new concept. However, we have taken particular note of the fact that the intentions of Article 44, to which I think the noble Baroness referred in particular, extend POW status to guerrilla or resistance fighters who are members of organised armed forces taking part in armed conflicts of an international character. I think that there is a double condition here which will prove reassuring to those who may prima facie feel a little apprehensive of certain developments from these protocols.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, does this provide further protection for air hijackers so long as they wear the appropriate resistance button in their lapel?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords; as I think we made clear on 13th May, when we previously had exchanges on this matter as a result of a Question put by, I think, the noble

157
Lord, Lord Monson, there is nothing here to make it easier for hijackers or similar operators to pursue their activities.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, the noble Lord has said—and it is to be welcomed—that copies of these draft protocols will be available in the Library. As not every subject of the Queen is a Member of this House, or of another place, will these protocols not be on sale in any printed form as well?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I should like to look at the question of the more public dissemination of these two protocols. They are very lengthy and embody about 150 articles. I will look into the point raised by the noble and learned Lord. I would point out that we are at a very early stage in all this. The protocols will not he open for signature until 11th December. Thereafter, if we decide to sign, it will be necessary for us to decide whether to ratify, and, as noble Lords know, on these matters the processes in this country, and in this bicameral Parliament, are properly lengthy.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to ask a question in support of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has said. Surely these decisions, applying to the danger of war, after four years' discussion are of enormous importance to every citizen in this country. Ought not our public to be aware of them? Is it not possible to print these protocols, so that they may be available to all those who are interested?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly I take full note of what the noble Lord has said, particularly in support of the point made so clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts please comment or give his views on this matter in relation to international liberation movements? If this arose in relation to the IRA, which would claim to be international—in other words, between the Republic of Ireland and the
158
United Kingdom—how would that conflict be settled as between what the United Kingdom would say and what the IRA might say? I am groping a little in the dark, my Lords, and I realise that I am not making myself completely clear, but I hope the noble Lord will appreciate what I mean.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, perhaps I can help. It is an important point. As I said, it extends this status to guerrilla or resistance fighters who are members of organised armed forces taking part in armed conflicts of an international character. As I said on the 13th May, having looked at this very carefully with my colleagues, in no way now or in the foreseeable future could the IRA fit in with those conditions.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, would the Minister agree that there is something of a paradox in the fact that the majority of the countries participating in the conference appear to favour relatively tender treatment for terrorists and guerrillas, relatively harsh treatment for those who find themselves on the losing side in a civil war and positively draconian treatment for those categorised as mercenaries?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would not care to generalise in quite that way about the participants in this very useful and necessary conference. On the other hand, I find it rather encouraging that countries which possibly have not in the past approached these matters in quite the way we and our allies have, are now joining with us in an international conference to create a code of humanitarian conduct, even in the conduct of war.

NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY FIGURES
2.45 p.m.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the percentage increase in national productivity, defined as output per person employed over the economy as a whole, between 1973 and 1976, and between 1970 and 1973.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, over the three-year period from 1973 to 1976, the annual output per person employed in the United Kingdom fell by 1 per cent. Over the previous three-year period from 1970 to 1973, there was a rise of 9·3 per cent. in annual output per person employed.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, this is extremely serious and depressing news which the Government have given. Do the Government accept that, even discounting this fall, our low productivity as compared with other countries is one of the major causes of the industrial and economic problems in this country? How do the Government account for the fact that during their period of office there has been this decline in overall productivity given the fact that, in spite of world difficulties, countries like Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and the Republic of Ireland have all managed to go on increasing their overall productivity during the same period? Lastly, what are the Government going to do to reverse this very serious trend?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I am extremely reluctant to engage in anything resembling political jousting with the noble Lord, who has had a distinguished career, both in politics and in Government, but he tempts me beyond my capacity to resist. He referred to the period of office of this Government, and the implication was that the fall in productivity was somehow the fault of the Government. My Lords, the Question which the noble Lord has asked is but a pale shadow of a Question that was asked in the other place by Mr. Nigel Lawson on 13th June, and had the noble Lord asked here the Question which was asked there (to which a full reply was given) we should have seen that, under the Labour Government from 1967 to 1970, productivity rose by 9·2 per cent.—almost the same amount by which it rose during the Conservative three-year period for which we have been given figures.
The noble Lord will know as well as I do that that was a good base on which the Conservatives could build when they came into office in 1970. When the present
160
Government came into office, the Conservatives handed over a three-day week, falling productivity, deeply disappointing investment, a monetary explosion and deep and bitter poisoning of industrial relations. From that base, the Government had to face the worst world recession since the 1930s. I need not describe that recession to noble Lords, but, when the noble Lord asks me, "Is not the Government's performance the cause of our problems?", I answer that the disappointing productivity figures to which I have made reference are the result of the world recession which we have had to face, and of the considerable inflation and unemployment resulting from the enormous surpluses of the OPEC countries.
I turn now to the latter part of the noble Lord's supplementary question—the matter of remedies. What the Government are doing and will continue to do is, first of all, to pursue good industrial relations. They will do this not, as the noble Lord did when his Government were in office, by trying to dictate to the workforce, but by trying to discuss with them, to identify and to solve common problems. Secondly, they will do it by continuing to make such changes as were made in the Budget, changes designed to make hard work more remunerative in terms of take-home pay.
Several noble Lords: Order! Speech!
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I was asked a five-part question, and I am answering the fifth part. The Government will continue to provide a wide variety of incentives for industrial investment, and to provide support for tripartite "Neddy" meetings to work out ways of improving industrial performance.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I seem to have touched the noble Lord on a sensitive point, and I shall not make a speech at him. But, seriously, I did not ask him any of the questions to which he replied in the first part of his speech. What I hoped we could treat seriously in a nonpartisan way—
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord CARR of HADLEY: Yes, my Lords, because our poor productivity record is of great national concern. Even

161
when it was rising during the last three years of the last Labour Government, and in the period when there was a Conservative Government, it was still rising from an uncomfortably low level. The very serious point is that it has now fallen from that low level. A serious aspect is that, in spite of the world recession, which has of course made things difficult, most other competitive countries have managed to continue a rising productivity. The only question I asked the noble and learned Lord was: what are the Government going to do to change our trend? We suggest that until they change their taxation and public expenditure policies, this terrible trend will continue.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, you will be happy to know I have very little to add to what I have already said. A direct comparison with countries like Germany—and others have done the same —which can export a number of their workforce, is invalid. Output on this basis is a relationship between a gross domestic product on the one hand, and the number of persons employed on the other hand. These comparisons are not valid in the way that the noble Lord suggests.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears now to be accepting, that one of the causes of the falling off in industrial productivity is levels of taxation upon earnings unequalled throughout the world?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I have mentioned the Government's view on taxation, but the main cause is that in a recession productivity is bound to suffer.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, without going into the lengthy Party political arguments contained in the Minister's reply, may I ask him simply whether he would be prepared to publish comparable figures for the countries mentioned by my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley together with any explanatory notes which he thinks are necessary?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, if asked to do so, I will certainly endeavour to publish such figures.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that for one who was tempted—so he claims—beyond endurance, he was remarkably well prepared for yielding?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, a compliment from the noble and learned Lord—rare as it is—is gratefully received.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, will the Minister state what was the balance-of-payments situation when we left Government to the Tories in 1970, and the position when we came back to Government in 1974?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I will give my noble friend the same answer as I gave earlier: if asked to do so, I will be delighted to state the situation to the House.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord really asking the House to believe that all the successes of the Government are the Government's own doing, and that all the faults of the Government—which are legion—are the faults of the previous Tory Administrations going back to Disraeli?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I am saying only this: a straight comparison of productivity figures during the period of Administration by the Conservatives and the subsequent period is not helpful.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend whether I may bring a little joy to his heart? Is it not a fact that within the past 12 months, from April last year to April this year, industrial production in this country rose by 2·3 per cent?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I have figures only in relation to the three years period and I cannot confirm what my noble friend says.

SPECIAL CONSTABULARY BADGES
2.54 p.m.
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 can confirm that it will cost approximately £85,000 to implement Recommendation No. 6 of the report of the recent Working Party on the Special Constabulary, which proposes to change the traditional badges of rank worn by all members above the rank of special constable in a way that will have no operational advantage; and whether they will advise such chief constables as have not already so decided to defer this expenditure and instead to spend this money on the regular force.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, the changes in the uniform of special constables recommended by the Working Party of the Police Advisory Board, on which special constables were represented, underline both the full constabulary status of the special constable and the administrative rather than operational role of the supervisory grades. My right honourable friend has asked all chief officers of police and police authorities to implement the recommendations as soon as possible.
The cost of providing the supervisory grades with new grade badges is estimated to be less than £1,000. The rest of Recommendation No. 6 covers diced cap-bands and shoulder flashes. Calculations I have made, based on quotations obtained by the Metropolitan Police, suggest that the total cost of implementing all the Working Party's recommendations might approach the figure quoted by the noble Lord, but only on the assumption that all forces decided to have the insignia attached to uniforms professionally.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I take it from the noble Lord's reply that my figure is approximately correct. While accepting that Recommendation No. 6 was a package intended to avoid a breakdown of the Working Party, and while no special constable would want to be shielded from any hazard which is part of normal police duties, may I ask whether the Minister thinks it right to label part-time volunteers with obvious shoulder badges advertising that they are less experienced and less well trained,
164
thereby inviting a villain in case of any affray to hit them first? That is, in fact, what the Government are asking the police to do.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I do not quite share the views of the noble Lord on the last point that he has made. The situation was that special constabulary shoulder flashes were worn in rather more than half the police force areas of this country before this recommendation was implemented by the Home Secretary.

SUZANNE SOUTHEY: PASSPORT REGISTRATION
2.56 p.m.
The Earl of CLANCARTY: 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 why an 11-year-old schoolgirl, Suzanne Southey, of Tring, Hertfordshire, upon returning with her school from a four days holiday in France, as reported in the Sunday Express of 26th June, had her passport stamped by the immigration officer to the effect that she must leave the country within two months, because she was born in Bulawayo, Rhodesia.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, Miss Southey is a citizen of Rhodesia and held a concessionary passport issued under the terms of Lord Thomson of Monifieth's Statement in another place on 17th June 1968. The immigration officer who saw her with her teacher, on the evening of 14th June, was not able to establish there and then whether her family was subject to any conditions of stay, and decided to admit her for two months so that the matter could be resolved. He advised the girl's teacher to ask her parents to send her passport to the Home Office. However, from information available to the Home Office there is nothing to indicate that her parents' stay here is subject to conditions, and as soon as the girl's passport is received the conditions of stay stamped in it will be cancelled.
The Earl of CLANCARTY: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that

165
Answer. May I ask the noble Lord whether the girl had what is known as a concessionary passport? Before she went on the four day holiday to France—I believe she came back to Dover—should she or her parents have had the passport stamped at the Passport Office? Alternatively, is there some other document that the girl should have had? Could the noble Lord give an assurance that the girl will now be able to stay in this country?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have dealt with the last point in answer to the original Question. This girl had a concessionary passport and there was no need for her parents to have taken any action. Immigration officers have an exceptionally difficult job to perform on behalf of the entire community. As soon as this matter came to our attention, we were anxious to rectify it.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while the passport registration officials have a very difficult task in dealing in a rather rigid way with the regulations, may I ask whether it is not possible, as I have suggested before, for them to communicate with the Home Office on these matters? Thereby, embarrassment and delays—which are often remedied when Members of this House and another place raise the matter with the Minister—would not be caused.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the Immigration Service acts on the basis of the immigration rules. If an immigration officer behaves unreasonable, there is a right of appeal, and it is important to preserve that. I think that it is only right to emphasise that, once this matter came to our attention and we looked into it, we decided to withdraw the particular condition which had been stamped on the passport.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is not an unusual case? Is he further aware that I am Australian-born, and have an Australian passport, and that 10 years ago when I was coming into the second-class citizens' entrance at Heathrow I was to have stamped on my passport a limited length of stay in this
166
country? It was only after asking the official for his name, rank and number, with the inference that I might bring the matter up in this House, that I was allowed to enter the country.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, it would be difficult to inquire too closely into what happened 10 years ago. I have said that there are rights of appeal against decisions by immigration officers, and those rights are exercised.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain provisions relating to the Health Service for England and Wales; and to repeal certain enactments relating to the Health Service which have ceased to have any effect. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
3.2 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships' House takes note of the First Report from the Select Committee on the Practice and Procedure of the House; and I do so as chairman of that Select Committee.
I would, therefore, at the outset express appreciation to my colleagues on a very notable Select Committee. How we persuaded four ex-Leaders of this House to sit on what many will consider a mundane and dry exercise of procedure, I do not know; but, undoubtedly, the Committee received notable advice from them and, of course, too, from other Members of that Committee who have very many years of experience in Parliament in both Houses and in public life. I would also wish to express appreciation to the Clerk of the Parliaments and other officials of your Lordships' House who did a great deal of work which made it possible for your Committee to produce

167
this report today. I should like, too, to express appreciation to the witnesses who came before the Committee. If I were to single out the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, I do so because she, on behalf of the House of Lords' Scrutiny Committee of the European Communities, explained the Paper. She would have liked to be present here today and I know it would be the wish of all noble Lords that she should be returned to our midst at a very early date.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the gracious Speech which opened the 1975–76 Parliament gave an undertaking on behalf of the Government that there should be a full review of the practice and procedure of Parliament. The announcement was received with some degree of suspicion and scepticism in both Houses. There were many in this House and in another place who thought that what the Government had in mind was some revision of our procedures by which an ever-increasing flow of legislation could pass through Parliament.
In our debate in March of last year, I, on behalf of the Government, sought to allay that fear and to say that what the Government had in mind was that there should be a full examination to find ways and means by which Parliament could be more efficient in the performance of its constitutional role. I, personally, regret that it was not possible to have a joint Committee of both Houses; because many of the problems we have discussed in terms of this House have their counterpart in another place, and the more that one examines the problems, the more one appreciates that if there is to be a resolution of those difficulties it can only come about through joint action by both Houses. But it was not so and, therefore, we had to proceed on our own.
My Lords, I know that there are some of my noble friends who believe that you cannot consider functions, practice and procedure without taking an examination of composition, of powers and, perhaps, of the relationship of the two Houses. That was an issue that was deliberately precluded from the considerations of your Select Committee and, therefore, your
168
Select Committee has had to consider possible reforms within the present House as it is now constitituted.
I think that the report can be divided into two: Parts I and II which deal with the problem particularly of the last Session, the problem of congestion— although that has happened before—and Part III which is a new concept for the scrutiny of domestic legislation. I think it was natural that your Select Committee —certainly before I became its chairman—felt that we ought to consider the situation that arose in the last Session, the congestion which we can remember. I suspect, however, that with the general tranquility of this Session, it is easy to forget the appalling situation that confronted my noble friend Lord Peart when he became Leader of the House. Ten major, controversial, complex Bills were still in this House with their Committee stages uncompleted; six Bills had not even received their Second Reading. Some of those Bills had been guillotined in another place and therefore it was reasonable to believe that some areas of them had not been properly scrutinised.
As Leader of the House I was particularly concerned about the strain that was going to be placed on Ministers, and particularly those Ministers responsible for Bills emanating from a Department to which they were not attached. I am sure that the whole House watched with admiration the way in which they handled very complex matters. In many ways, I suppose, those on the Opposition Front Bench were under a greater strain because they had not the resources of a Departmental brief or of officials who could quickly find the answer to a particular point. I was conscious, too, of the appalling, if not intolerable, strain placed on the staff of this House. But I think that our main concern must have been whether, under those circumstances, this House could perform its constitutional role or even the more limited role (as I have already seen it) of a revising Chamber. I do not believe it was possible; nor did it, in fact, occur. But the congestion was at both ends. The House of Commons was suffering in the same way. I would not use the word "contempt", but I believe that it is very close to contempt of Parliament that when Amendments have been moved in this House—and I would not wish to go into the merits of those

169
Amendments—many of them were disposed of in another place without any form of debate because of the guillotine procedure there.
My Lords, what are the reasons, and what are the causes? Many noble Lords say that there is too much legislation. That may be so; but I think one needs to be realistic. I believe that if you look at the figures contained in the Clerk of the Parliaments' Paper, which is in this report, there is reason to anticipate that during the next decade the amount of legislation—not necessarily Bills but the number of pages to legislate—will increase by the order of about 20 per cent. over the last decade. So, unless Parliament in some way changes its procedures, we must face the possibility of improperly considered legislation being passed. I do not believe that Parliament should stand idly by in these circumstances. Secondly, on top of the legislation, there is the question of Community legislation which, even today, despite what the noble Baroness the Chief Whip does for this House, I do not believe is adequately considered.
Having said this and having used the rather harsh word "contempt", I should like to mention one point concerning Lord Presidents. I can say from practical experience, as no doubt can the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in connection with his own Government, that Lord Presidents have always sought to restrict the amount of legislation contained in the gracious Speech but have always been overcome by their colleagues within the Cabinet. I do not myself see any change in this respect. I believe Departments will continue to press for legislation because they have a great deal of legislation which is not necessarily Party political and which they believe strongly ought to be on the Statute Book. But I believe that some amelioration could be found if the Lord President and the Government of the day were to insist that legislation which is contained in the gracious Speech is introduced into either House at an early stage. I believe it is quite wrong that when references to major legislation are contained in the gracious Speech the legislation is introduced about Easter. I believe that Departments, if they believe so strongly in their legislation, should ensure that such legislation is prepared and ready for introduction.
170
However, I see great difficulties here and I believe that Ministers should be more willing to introduce major Bills into your Lordships' House. I believe we could get a better balance between the two Houses. I have said before that this would mean a very firm undertaking by this House that there would be no mutilation of the legislation and no question of a Bill being thrown out. That is always a factor in the mind of a Secretary of State or a Minister in introducing a Bill into the second Chamber, because then it is not subject to the Parliament Act. But I believe this is a step that Governments ought to take.
I think that my noble friend the Chief Whip will appreciate this point. One of the great difficulties of the last Session was that the Opposition in another place used what I believe Mr. Prior has said to be the only weapon of Oppositions: that is, the power of delay. A logical answer to the problems of the free movement of legislation would be to have an agreed programme in another place, with an agreed period between Second and Third Readings. I personally do not see the other place adopting that practice, but I believe that the Government, if they are prepared to leave things much as they are, are under a very firm obligation to this Chamber to ensure that legislation comes at such a stage of our Session that we can adequately fulfil our constitutional role.
We looked with very great care at the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, contained in his Paper, to the effect that there should be a fixed period between the various stages of Bills, once introduced into your Lordships' House, and also that there should be an agreed ratio between the time taken in your Lordships' House and the time taken in another place. Various calculations would be made: for example, if a Bill were to take seven weeks in another place it should be allowed about three weeks in your Lordships' House. These are interesting and, on the face of it, sensible provisions, but your Committee felt it would be wrong to place them in the Companion to the Standing Orders because of their rigidity.
Your Committee felt that we might give the Chief Whip and, for that matter, the Leader of the House a little added muscle so that if we were to put in our Standing Orders that there should be

171
"an agreed norm" (if I may use that phrase) within your Lordships' House between, for example, Second Reading and Committee stage, between Committee and Report stages and between Report and Third Reading, and if there were deviation from that norm, it would be arrived at by means of negotiations through the usual channels and an explanation would be given in your Lordships' House. I believe this is a matter which the Procedure Committee could well look at to see whether it could be contained in the Companion to the Standing Orders.
I do not want to spend a great deal of time on the various recommendations and conclusions which are to be found in Part II for dealing with the question of congestion. I would commend Recommendations Nos. 2–7 which go under the heading "Conventions of the House". If I were to be perhaps a little mischievous, I could suggest at Question Time that certain noble Lords could well read those recommendations with profit. Those recommendations I should like to see going to the Procedure Committee to ascertain whether they should be adopted.
There are two proposals and recommendations in Part II to which I should like to speak quite briefly. I believe that if we could move to what we might call the "calendar year" for our Sessions, with Parliament opening in January and proroguing in December, we could over-come a great deal of the present indecision and general ill planning of legislation. It would certainly give both Houses at least three months at the end of the Session for a more orderly progress of Business, There are problems, such as the Finance Act, which would have to be resolved, but I would hope the matter could be looked at by the Government and also by another place.
The second proposal I put forward because I am aware, as many of your Lordships will be, that there is a great deal of legislation lying in the various cubby-holes of Whitehall which would be of great value to the country and which ought to be on the Statute Book—for example, Bills dealing with company law. Such Bills are not able to be proceeded with because of the restrictions of the present Session. If these Bills are not referred to in the gracious Speech, and
172
therefore there is no political commitment to them, I wonder whether, by agreement with all Parties concerned, they could be introduced and allowed to be carried forward from one Session to another. I know there are problems and that such a procedure might create certain precedents which all Governments would wish to avoid, but in view of the quality of some legislation that we ought to see passed, I think the suggestion is worthy of consideration by the Government.
I will say a few words later about Public Bill Committees. I am giving an indication as to how I see the volume of legislation increasing and, with it, the general complexity. I have long felt—and indeed I am becoming more and more convinced of this as I sit on these Benches —that a great deal of time taken up by Business on the Floor of your Lordships' House is occupied by consideration of varying stages of Bills which could, with merit, be taken elsewhere. That would allow the Floor of the House to be used for the bigger debates, particularly those concerned with the European Economic Community. Therefore, whatever may have been the difficulties of the past in terms of the Public Bill Committee, I believe that this procedure will one day have to be adopted.
I should now like, if I may, to turn to Part III of the report. As I said, the terms of reference of your Lordships' Select Committee were to find ways and means by which this House could be more effective in its functions. Therefore, one had to look at what was wrong with Parliament. I suppose that we could have a debate on many subjects but, since this Committee was solely concerned with functions, we had to look at the way in which your Lordships' House, in particular, dealt with legislation and other related matters.
I cannot believe that any in your Lordships' House can feel, particularly in the case of complex Bills such as the Patents Bill, or even the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, yesterday, that the Floor of the House is an adequate place for examining legislation. The power of Government grows greater and greater and the area of responsibility expands, but the ability of Parliament to understand what Government are doing and proposing in no way matches this growth.

173
Therefore, your Committee felt that we ought to see whether it was possible for Parliament to have a greater understanding not only of the legislation proposed but also of the problems which that legislation is meant to solve.
We were very much attracted to the European Communities Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships' House. The reports are absolutely first-class, and they are not read solely in your Lordships' House. They are now necessary reading if one is a member of the European Assembly, and I believe that they are read with great interest by the Commission in Brussels. So we have a great deal of expertise and, if that procedure works, is it not right to see whether it could be adapted for domestic legislation?
This would be a major change of Parliamentary procedure, and change is something of which Parliament and Government are always highly suspicious. I suppose that Members are suspicious of procedural changes, because of the way in which they will affect other Members; Parliament is suspicious, because changes may take away responsibility and accountability; and Governments are suspicious that stones may be turned and certain things exposed. But I believe that we are now moving into an era when, if Parliament is to retain and develop its credibility in a democracy of the people, we must be seen to be not a rubber stamp for legislation, but a body which examines fully what is being proposed and passed in the name of Parliament. These were matters which were very much in the minds of your Committee.
I have no doubt that when my noble friend Lord Peart, the Leader of the House, speaks, he will naturally say that there must be some doubts in the minds of the Government and the Executive. May I say to my noble friend that the suspicions which are no doubt in the minds of the Government and the Executive were in their minds when the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was Leader of your Lordships' House, and that when the Maybray-King proposals were introduced there was great disagreement, alarm and uncertainty about the terms of reference. As a House, we insisted on those terms of reference and I have never yet heard one word from the Government or the Executive about any of our Committees
174
abusing its position because of those loose terms of reference. I speak with sufficient confidence in your Lordships' House to know that, if these Committees were set up to scrutinise domestic legislation, the same impartial, penetrating procedure would be adopted. Certainly, it is worthy of a trial.
May I now describe, very briefly, what the Committee have in mind. It is that there should be some seven or eight Sessional Committees of about 12 members, each covering a policy area. Why a policy area and not a Department? My noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies, when giving evidence, referred to a watch-dog. The last thing we want of these Committees is to be watch-dogs of Departments. Secondly, if you have a policy area, you can cover a wide area but, if it is a Department, there is the problem that much of our legislation covers more than one or two Departments. But, above everything else, I believe that there should be a relationship to the policy areas of the European Communities Scrutiny Committee, so that, when these Sessional Committees are set up, there can be a greater understanding of what is happening within the Community and of what is happening within the field of domestic legislation.
So let us imagine that we have the Committees set up. When a Bill is introduced in another place and has its Second Reading, then, by order of your Lordships' House, the appropriate Scrutiny Committee will start to take evidence. It could take evidence from Ministers, from civil servants and from other interested bodies. I know that there is concern about relations with another place should this House be examining legislation while it is before the House of Commons. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, coined the phrase "Shepherd's Pie", by which, in a House of Lords Paper, we had a House of Commons Bill. We considered it on Second Reading and we passed Amendments. We have had No. 2 Bills—which, again, are in every respect identical to a Bill in another place. I believe we can overcome that suspicion and that, at the end, this House could well provide a service to the House of Commons by a more careful scrutiny through this procedure, which, as the House knows, is not available in another place.

175
When the Bill came to your Lordships' House we should then have our Second Reading, but before that happened the Committee would have produced to your Lordships' House a report in terms similar to that under the European Communities Scrutiny Committee procedure. There could be a genuine and real understanding of what the Government propose, and of the issues involved. We propose that after a Bill has had its Second Reading, and in order to use the knowledge accumulated by the Scrutiny Committee—if we use that phrase—that that Committee, added to by Members from other parts of the House, including Ministers and Members of the Front Bench, should then turn itself into a Standing Committee which would proceed to go through the Bill in the conventional way, clause by clause, line by line, and amending it. May I assure any noble Lord who thinks that this procedure would exclude him, that under our present procedures, as the House knows, any noble Lord can attend any of our present Standing Committees and can speak and move Amendments. The only preclusion is in regard to voting, which is for Members of the Committee alone.
My Lords, the Bill will then come to your Lordships' House for its first review on the Floor. It may well be that, during the Committee stage, certain clauses of the Bill will need much wider debate. [Interruption.] The House will know that in such a circumstance it is open to your Lordships' House to recommit a Bill for that part of the Bill to be considered under the Committee procedure. Therefore, I do not believe that this procedure would in any way limit the control and scrutiny now exercised.
My Lords, the Third Reading would proceed normally. It may be that some noble Lords will say that this procedure is apparently cumbersome and not very workable. However, your Committee looked at the matter. We have taken advice and there is considerable experience in continental Parliaments of a similar procedure and practice. We are aware that the procedure is workable.
I wish to make one other point, because I know that other noble Lords have been concerned about previous experiences in another place in which Select Committees have gone off at long and wide tangents.
176
That is not the concept that the Select Committee had in mind. At all stages this Committee would be under the charge of the House. The terms of reference, of course, would have to be agreed by your Lordships' House. However, we believe that these Committees initially should be restricted to both primary and secondary legislation—particularly secondary legislation, because hundreds of statutory orders are passed every year with only a cursory review. Therefore, my Lords, we believe that it should be restricted there. Undoubtedly there is a case for saying that there should be a Select Committee procedure on many important subjects, and one can certainly think of many such subjects. However, I believe that it would be wrong to embark on that area until we have proved this more limited experiment. Therefore, I would assure noble Lords who may think that, once we set this up, that Committee is free to range widely into any area of policy, that that is not so. What we have in mind is solely within the area of legislation.
I have tried to explain the procedures and what has been in the mind of your Select Committee. I ask the House to think about one matter in the course of the debate. Legislation is becoming more and more complex: it is becoming more and more difficult to understand. It has far-reaching consequences upon ourselves, the general members of the country. Therefore, people have a right to look to Parliament to ensure that that legislation is properly scrutinised. I do not believe that the present procedures provide for that. Therefore, there is a need to find ways and means by which this can be achieved.
I do not say that the present proposals are the end of the road. However, I believe that, if they were adopted and we had an initial experiment in the next Session by one or two of the policy committees, we would learn from our experiences. I believe that they would be successful and would have a profound effect upon the way that your Lordships' House performs its constitutional role—the rôle of a revising Chamber. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the First Report from the Select Committee on the Practice and Procedure of the House (HL 141)—Lord Shepherd.
3.34 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to speak to the Motion of my noble friend Lord Windlesham as well as that which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. Those of your Lordships who may perhaps from time to time have done me the honour of reading or listening to any speeches that I may have made about your Lordships' House will be familiar with my views. Indeed, my views are a good deal more radical than those of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and his colleagues, if your Lordships can imagine such a thing. Perhaps those of you who went far enough to read the evidence which I gave to the Select Committee will also be aware that, in my judgment, the fundamental reform of this House—its composition and its powers—is the only effective answer to the problems that face us.
Indeed, though I would not claim that the procedures of this House are perfect, I suspect that it is those of us who operate those procedures and in particular the actions of the Government of the day—whatever Government—that are more at fault than the procedures themselves. Nevertheless, your Lordships have every reason to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and his Committee for the work that they have done and for the detailed examination which they have made of various suggestions which were put to them. Not least, we should be grateful to them for reminding the House as well as the Government of certain matters, for example, the length of speeches. I thought that perhaps in his enthusiasm for his Committee the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was a little unkind to ignore his own recommendations. I thought at one moment that the interruption which he so stoically endured was from the secretary for the "Campaign for Shorter Speeches"! I shall long remember the last defence debate in this House when in under four hours over 20 of your Lordships spoke in a debate which was that much better because those taking part consciously tried to avoid repetition and to concentrate on a particular point which they wanted to put over.
I shall look at today's performance of the 25 speakers in this debate as a test of whether your Lordships are serious or
178
not in following the recommendations of this Committee. If we all speak for 33 minutes we shall, as somebody once said, exhaust time and encroach upon eternity. More particularly, we should be grateful to the Committee for the reminder that they have given the Government that the Government—any Govern-ment—have a duty to allow this House sufficient opportunity to scrutinise Bills, particularly at the end of a Session. I am sure that they are right to reject the suggestion that this House should sit at different times from the House of Commons, just as I am sure they are right that the proposal that Public Bills should be carried over from one Session to another would greatly disadvantage an Opposition.
Nevertheless, with the exception of the proposal to create a number of Select Committees matching policy areas, the Committee has not come up with anything substantially new. Nor will the suggestion of the new Committees remedy the situation which occurs regularly at the end of each Session of Parliament when the House has no time to carry out its function of revision. We are all agreed that one of the main roles of a second Chamber is that of revision. That it should be put in the type of situation which we faced here last year—and it was only just that much worse last year than some other years—is really intolerable. I do not blame the Committee for not finding a solution, for I do not think that there is a solution if one takes into account the present relationship between the two Houses.
My Lords, it depends upon the Government of the day. The solution, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, himself said, is less legislation. Anyway, we are grossly overgoverned, and perhaps the only advantage of the Lib-Lab Pact, other than the immense benefit that we have all derived from the appointment of a Liberal Shadow Cabinet, is that it has been almost impossible for the Government to get any legislation through Parliament at all.
Nevertheless, no Government should repeat the horrors of 1976 when we had under six weeks to discuss five Bills which, in some cases, had individually taken the House of Commons nearly six months. I really do not think that the Government—and I exclude the noble Lords on the

179
Front Bench opposite—who spent much of their time grumbling about the way in which your Lordships behaved last autumn, know how lucky they are that we are such patient and reasonable people. If we had been unionised, I can assure noble Lords that it would have been very different.
I come now to the specific proposals made by the Committee. All of us should welcome any attempt to improve the function of this House in its revisory role. I, for one, certainly approve of an experiment on the lines that my noble friend Lord Windlesham is suggesting, but I should like to make just one or two cautionary observations.
I believe that these proposals will be of only comparatively limited use in speeding up the procedures of this House. For instance, it would not be possible to allow a committee of this kind to deal with a controversial Bill. The Committee stage on the Floor of the House is the only occasion on which your Lordships can, without restriction of debate, discuss in detail the issues raised on every clause of a Bill. In the case of a controversial Bill, that opportunity should not be denied to the House as a whole. Nor would there be much purpose in recommitting the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House—a device which would only prolong the time scale of our procedures.
Furthermore, I do not know on what Party basis the committee would be chosen in the case of a politically controversial Bill. If it were on the basis that the Government of the day had a majority, then, at a time of Labour Government, this would be totally unrepresentative of the composition of the House and would lead to endless trouble at the Report stage. If the Cross-Benchers were allowed the final say, that would be equally controversial. If the committee were formed on the basis of the proportions of Conservatives to Labour, as now represented in the House, the committee would look, and be, totally top heavy and unbalanced. It follows from this that such a procedure is not possible for political and controversial Bills which take a long time passing through this House—as, indeed, all political and controversial Bills do—and I do not believe that it will speed up our proceedings.
I am also a little concerned about the suggestion that the committee should be
180
entitled to question Ministers and civil servants during the passage of a Bill through the House of Commons. I do not believe that to be at all a good idea. It would be greatly resented by the House of Commons for, after all, the purpose of the revising Chamber is to revise what we get, not what we might get or what might subsequently be altered before we get it. Nor would it be right at a time when Ministers and civil servants are hard pressed in another place for this House to summon them to its committee. There are, no doubt, other delicate areas which might be considered an intrusion on the powers of the House of Commons and which, in my judgment, ought to be looked at very carefully.
Having said that, I think that there may well be something to be said for the idea. Certainly, to have a committee which is charged with an area of policy will give the House much more expertise than it has at present and may, indeed, lead to a better examination of some Bills than is possible now. Therefore, speaking for myself, I should be in favour of a single experiment in a policy area. However, I believe that the Procedure Committee should be asked to look at what guidelines should be laid down for such an experiment. For example, if might be that there should be a Steering Committee composed of the Lord Chairman of Committees and certain others who, during this experiment, might well give some guidance to the committee.
I should like to suggest another case where there might be difficulty. It would surely be quite improper for a Select Committee to listen to representations from the constituents of Members of another place. There are other issues which would no doubt emerge in the future which could be considered by such a committee.
I hope, therefore, that we shall go ahead with this one experiment but that my noble friend Lord Windlesham will be prepared to withdraw his Motion—I think that the Leader of the House might find it a little difficult to accept it in the terms in which my noble friend has tabled it, because it goes very wide—on the understanding that the House agrees that an experiment should take place, not just on a Bill but on an area of policy, and that the Procedure Committee should be asked to consider

181
guidelines. Having said that, I reiterate that I believe that your Lordships should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and his committee for the work they have done.
3.45 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, one of the reasons I welcomed very much the First Report of the Select Committee on the Practice and Procedure of the House was because it endorsed once again the need for short speeches. I looked up the Companion while the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was speaking. The Companion says that speeches should be shorter, but it does not add: "Shorter than what?" All I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is that if the shepherd does not obey the conventions, what is going to happen to the flock? But just because the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, does not practise what he preaches we should not deny him our deep gratitude for his work, and that of the Committee, in tackling the very important matter of our practice and procedure which is going to guide us over the next few years.
I shall not repeat what the noble Lord said. I agree with a great deal of it, in particular with what he said on congestion, the need for the early introduction of major Bills and the establishment of a better balance of legislation in both Houses. We are all agreed on this, and I am sure it is right; but we should keep on reiterating it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for recognising one of the effects of the Liberal-Labour agreement—not pact. I can only say that it makes a very useful quotation for Saffron Walden and I thank the noble Lord very much for it. When the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, protested—as I have done on numerous occasions—that we suffer from too much legislation, how right he was. As I understand it, though, the next Conservative Government are committed to repealing practically the whole of the legislation which has been put on to the Statute Book by the Party on the other side of the House. Perhaps that is a good idea, but you cannot go in for massive repeals and at the same time say that you do not want any more legislation.
I am very much in favour of the prior scrutiny of Bills and legislative proposals.
182
In giving evidence to the Committee I expressed a preference for experimenting with one Parliamentary Bill affecting a limited number of Government Departments. On that occasion I instanced the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, which was very controversial, but I think that it would have amply repaid prior scrutiny by a Select Committee of this House. The reason that I recommended in my evidence a very restricted experiment, limited to one Bill to begin with, was, first, because I want this experiment in some form to succeed. If we were to appoint a number of Select Committees matching policy areas, which is a very wide term, to scrutinise Bills and other proposals, I think we should be in danger of taking on far more than we can deal with successfully.
Secondly, if we extend ourselves over too great a field to begin with, we risk adding too large a burden to that already undertaken by the Civil Service, Ministers and advisers to Government Departments. Thirdly, we risk antagonising another place. This is a very delicate field. I am very much in favour of the two Houses working very closely together, with the minimum of antagonism between them. If we set up a number of different Committees, we shall inevitably be accused of meddling with legislation which is before the Commons. If, on the other hand, we delay our scrutiny until measures have left the Commons, we may well impose delay, should a large number of Committees of this House be operating at the same time.
I come back to the idea that the experiment should be limited. I have a different concept from that of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, but I think it shows how indebted we are to the noble Lord and his Committee for throwing up this idea. We shall need to hold many more discussions before we get it right. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, deployed his case I realised that although in some respects we were together, in others we were quite opposed in concept. As I have said, I believe that the right answer is to undertake a restricted experiment in a limited field, confined to scrutinising perhaps one measure, or one limited area of policy at a time. If that proves to be fruitful, as I believe it will, then we shall have a secure foundation upon which to move forward and extend the system.

183
If, on the other hand, the experiment fails—and I do not think that it will—very little damage will have been done.
Where I depart from the concept put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is that one of the things I believe a scrutiny committee of the sort we have in mind might be able to do, is to achieve a greater measure of consensus in what otherwise might be very controversial legislation. I am not suggesting that total consensus can be obtained, but we have now demonstrated in the field in which I am particularly interested, of pensions, how it was possible, with good will on the part of the major Parties and the co-operation of all the different interests concerned, to lay the foundations of a pensions scheme in the Social Security Act 1975 which we believe to be capable of standing the test of time, with just a few adjustments from time to time.
For instance, it is possible that a Bill dealing with industrial democracy might be introduced in the next Session, judging by various pronouncements made by Ministers, and even by the Prime Minister, at the weekend. This would be something against which one would have to judge the ill-fated result of the Industrial Relations Act, the ill-fated reception of the Bullock Report, both majority and minority, and yet in this country there is a tremendous demand for some development in the field of industrial democracy, employee participation and greater worker involvement. There is tremendous support for developing something along these lines but on a practical basis. We know the terms of reference given to the Bullock Committee, with its acceptance of monopoly power in the hands of the unions, cannot possibly obtain anything like the widespread support which employee participation must have if it is to become an effective tool in a mixed economy. I am giving this merely as an illustration of what I believe might be achieved.
What I think is required is an opportunity for a Select Committee of this House to examine either the subject, or even a measure, on something like employee participation; to examine it with a minimum of prejudice and with a real desire to identify the common central ground on which a solid foundation could be laid.
184
I have been going a long time before anyone wanted to interrupt me!
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, could we not begin by scrutinising the Defence Estimates?
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I would not demur from that at all. I am trying to extend this concept. I believe the Defence Estimates could well be scrutinised, but I am trying to give an illustration of where we have a great deal of good will to get a solution and yet we have not got anything like a Select Committee of this House on which to work. We have the Bullock Committee which had its terms of reference dictated to it, and there may be subjects other than defence, but I come back to my point that I would not take on more than one at a time to begin with. Eventually this system might well be developed as it was developed in Canada, as I understand it, in the Australian Senate and in the United States of America. This sort of subject on industrial democracy I believe is far too important to be a football in the arena of politics. I believe that this House, in a series of limited experiments could, by the approach I have outlined, reduce the amount of adversary politics on this type of subject because we have here a wealth of experience from which to draw the membership of a Select Committee which could deal with this type of subject.
My plea is that we should not overload the machinery at the beginning. Let us talk about the subjects that we think we could adequately tackle; let us have a lot more debate, public and private. And, whatever we do, I think we should set up a small monitoring committee under the Chairman of Committees to see how the experiment is working against what we hoped to achieve when we started. I believe that is very important, whatever experiment we decide upon. My Lords, I welcome this debate. I hope we shall not commit ourselves to too ambitious an objective. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, may see fit to withdraw his Motion because I believe we have not yet quite got it right. We will get it right; this House is very good at doing so.
3.55 p.m.
Lord WINDLESHAM: My Lords, in opening the debate on his Motion the

185
noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, reminded us of the origin of this report. It was an initiative taken by the Government of which he was then a Member, in the gracious Speech in November 1975:
"Proposals will be put forward for a major review of the practice and procedure of Parliament".—[Official Report, 19/11/75; col. 5.]
That was said; it is on the record, and the undertaking was honoured by the establishment of your Lordships' Select Committee. The terms of reference of the Committee bear repetition. They were precise and they expressed what was in the minds of your Lordships at the time:
"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the practice and procedure of the House and to make recommendations for the more effective performance of its functions".
Therefore, we have had an opportunity to stand back over a period of more than a year and consider what we are doing as the second Chamber, and how we could do it better. I had the privilege of being appointed as a member of the Committee from the start, and in November of last year the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, joined us and was invited to take the Chair. We appreciated his willingness to do so. It is unusual for a Leader of the House who has set up a Committee to join it subsequently as an active working member. But he did so and as our chairman he made a very great contribution. Lord Shepherd has made many contributions to the work of this House over a long period of years. We do not always say what is in our minds to people whom we see regularly, but I believe this report will be valued and will be associated with his name in years to come.
In my own remarks I will confine myself to what is contained in Part III of the report, that is the part outlining a new committee structure for the consideration of Public Bills. It occupies only four pages, from page xv to page xviii inclusive, of the report. On this part of the report, as throughout, there was unanimity in the Committee. Indeed a sense of like-mindedness emerged early on and continued throughout. This made serving on the Committee a pleasure as well as a very interesting experience for all its members.
If we accept that everything is not perfect in the way in which legislation is handled by Parliament, and in particular in this House, which is our own responsibility, we then need to go on and analyse the situation and identify the weak spots.
186
In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, remarked that sometimes it is the people who operate a system, rather than the system itself, which is at fault. Of course that is true, but an institution and the individuals who are contained within it interact with each other. One can try to influence and move individuals by exhortation and persuasion, but human nature being what it is, my Lords, and original sin having continued over the period of time that it has in the history of mankind, it is often more profitable to alter the institutions.
The main weakness in our procedures at the moment lies in the handling of Public Bills in Committee. Let us just think about this for a moment, because the report's proposals need to be seen against this background. What are we doing at the Committee stage on Public Bills? We are doing again, and in much the same form, what the House of Commons has already done on all Bills except the small number which start in this House. There is a Minister at the Dispatch Box who is defending the Government, defending every clause, often every line. Sometimes he is a Minister from the Department concerned. The Leader of the House naturally tries to arrange this wherever he can, but, life being what it is, often the Minister is not attached to the sponsoring Department. He answers for the Government as a whole, but he is not a Departmental Minister. Consequently his ability to agree to any changes proposed across the Floor is greatly reduced. Next, we are often debating exactly the same Amendments as the Commons have debated. Sometimes they originate from the same special interest groups; or from Members of Parliament who are not satisfied with the outcome in the Commons and want to have another go here.
That is the general picture, and I would refer to one more weakness; that is, in my experience over the last 12 or 15 years, the Committee stage and the Report stage are getting more and more similar to each other. On Report we are tending to have a second Committee stage—the same speakers; usually the same Amendments; and often, I fear, the same replies. Consequently what we have is a procedure which is weak, which is not satisfactory, and which, in my opinion, does not reflect to the full the credit that the House can bring to the consideration of legislation.

187
Now, contrast this with what happens regarding the scrutiny of European Instruments. The European Communities Committee, a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, with its Sub-Committees, is performing a valuable service. It is recognised increasingly outside Parliament as an effective form of machinery for studying, and for taking evidence on, proposals originating from the European Communities. But it is more than that. What I have referred to is the external function. If we look at it from our own point of view, it has been an effective way of harnessing the specialist skills which exist in this House, and it provides a route by which, on behalf of the British Parliament, influence can be brought to bear on the framing of policy in Brussels.
There was a good example last week, of which the noble Baroness, Lady White, will be aware. The noble Lord, Lord Ashby, initiated a fascinating and authoritative debate on EEC environment policy as regards water standards for fish and for shellfish. This had been the subject of two reports published by our European Communities Committee. There are, of course, many other examples, and I think it is unnecessary to pursue the argument any further. We all know that the scrutiny of European Instruments has been a most successful development in the history of the House, and indeed in the history of the British Parliament.
In considering changes in the practice of any institution, it is wise to build on success. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, after careful thought, and after taking evidence from the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, we came to the conclusion that it should be possible to harness this same approach and adapt it to the scrutiny of domestic legislation. It goes without saying that nobody on the Committee expected that the procedures which have been worked out over the last three years for the scrutiny of European Instruments could be applied without modification to the handling of domestic legislation. There would need to be careful consideration and study given to how best to initiate new, tentative, as I see it, experimental procedures which could be brought to bear on Public Bills.
We have not spelt out a scheme in detail in the report. It seemed to us that
188
a development on the lines I have briefly outlined, and which is more fully described in Part III of the report, would be a sensible and logical development. If approved in principle by the House, the way in which such a new approach to the handling of the Committee stages of Public Bills might be developed should be referred to the Procedure Committee so that it can then work out in detail how such a scheme could be brought into operation, on an experimental basis in the first instance.
In discussing this report in your Lordships' House in the last week or two, outside the Chamber but in the Lobbies and in the corridors, a number of questions have been raised as to how a Select Committee would operate in this circumstance or in that circumstance. These are not really questions for today. We should look at the issue of principle. Do we believe that we have an opportunity here to improve and strengthen our legislative procedures, or do we think that what we are now doing is perfectly satisfactory? If we conclude that there is an opportunity to improve our procedure; if we believe that the way to do it is to look at what is happening already as regards the scrutiny of European procedures; then it would be sensible to ask the Procedure Committee to take up the proposal and see how a more detailed working scheme can be established. That, my Lords, is a summary of the thinking behind the proposals contained in Part III of the report.
What are the objections? First, there is the question of administrative costs and staff. Second, would there be enough Peers to sit on such specialist Committees? Third, what would be the effect on Government Departments and the preparation of legislation? Finally, what would be the effect on relations between this House and another place, as aspect touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in his own speech.
The first and second of these considerations are practical. They would need careful study by the Clerk and by the Administration Committee. But they have been overcome before; they were overcome when we set up the European Communities Committee. If the House wishes to move on an experimental basis

189
in the direction indicated in the report, nothing that as a Select Committee we heard in evidence, or in the inquiries that we made, suggested it would be impossible to meet these practical implications.
Then there are the interests of Government Departments, never keen to see an extension of Parliamentary activity. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to a debate—which I looked up, too—in 1973, when I spoke for the Government. That was the debate on Lord Maybray-King's report in which proposals were made, which have now been implemented, to set up the European Scrutiny Committees. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, led for the Opposition; Lord Maybray-King spoke, and so did others of your Lordships. I had been made aware, as no doubt the Leader of the House is today, of the views of Government Departments. I was told the proposals would place them in a situation of some embarrassment. They could be hauled up before a Committee of your Lordships, who would be poking their noses into all manner of Government business, and this was something which would not be welcomed. It has not happened like that. I accept it could have happened; it is a natural fear. But in practice it did not. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has already stressed, your Lordships are sensible people. We have had much experience in the handling of relations with Government Departments and the handling of witnesses, and in knowing how far we can go. Nobody now makes that particular criticism, and I have a hunch that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regard the European scrutiny procedures in this House as of considerable benefit to them in furthering the interests of Britain in the European Communities.
So what about relations with another place? They ebb and flow; they get hotter or cooler. They change. What we are talking about today is a reform that may last for many years ahead. To decide it on the basis of what may, or may not, be the relationship with the other place at one particular point in time would be short-sighted. The Commons have their job to do; we have ours. These jobs are different; much more different than many people believe. And the procedures too are different when you get down to study how each place works. I should like to see a House of Lords that complements
190
another place, and I believe that a reform in procedure on the lines advocated would help us in that direction.
My Lords, the second Motion which is on the Order Paper today is in my name. It is the Motion to which Lord Carrington referred, and it reads as follows:
"To move to resolve, That:
(1) In the next session of Parliament there shall be established one or more Select Committees matching policy areas in order to scrutinise Bills and other proposals within those areas as proposed in Part III of the First Report from the Select Committee of this House on Practice and Procedure…; and
(2) The implementation of this resolution be referred to the Procedure Committee".
It has been agreed through the usual channels that we should have one debate this afternoon, and not two. Other business follows, and in any event it seems more appropriate that we should consider the principles of the report in a single debate. The Motion has therefore been put down on the Order Paper today as a test of opinion. It stands in my name, but it is a Motion on behalf of the Committee as a whole. Nobody is trying to ram it down your Lordships' throats. We felt that the best thing to do was to put a Motion down on the Order Paper and then to listen to the debate.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and other Members of the Committee who are to speak, plus several noble Lords who are present but who have denied themselves the opportunity to take part, are keenly anticipating hearing reactions to the proposals contained in the report. At the conclusion of this debate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and I, and other Members of the Committee, will decide in the light of the comments made by noble Lords in the debate whether or not to move the Motion. If it is moved, it will be moved formally and without debate.
In conclusion, as I said at the outset, the proporals contained in the report of the Select Committee are designed to make the House more effective in its functions. I believe that we have an opportunity today to adapt our procedures, as has happened so often down the years. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to the suspicion of change, but your Lordships' House has not normally been reluctant to consider experiment. Nor has any noble Lord who has spoken

191
in the debate so far shown reluctance to envisage an experiment. I hope that your Lordships will feel able to take a step forward today. It could have a profound effect upon the role of the second Chamber in the future.
4.12 p.m.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I welcome the report, as I am sure everyone who has taken part or will take part in the debate will do. It contains many constructive proposals which are mostly to be found in Parts I and II. As I want to devote the short amount of time at my disposal to Part III we shall have to take the first Parts as read. However, I should like to make one comment about the general view that there should be less legislation. Certainly from the way things are going there is likely to be less controversial legislation of a large and wide-ranging character, but I think that something like Parkinson's Law will operate here: as we drop the bigger Bills, little Bills will fill the time.
If noble Lords who wish to continue to press the view that there should be less legislation would like to undertake a little exercise of looking through the requests for legislation that are made in this House at Question Time and during debates and add them up at the end of a Session, they will find that they have given the Government—that is, any Government—a programme of legislation that will last for the lifetime of a Parliament. Of course, requests for legislation of that kind are very much greater in the other place. Therefore, the problems that we face will not be solved by having less legislation—that would be impossible.
I quite agree that the procedures of the House could be greatly improved, so that we could take on board a great deal of legislation and deal with it more quickly than we can at present. To that end we must make more use of standing or legislative committees and take more of the committee work away from the Floor of this Chamber. But the proposal in Part III of the report, to set up a series of, in effect, wide-ranging legislative committees which also have powers of investigation, would delay legislation and in my view would lead to a great deal of confusion. The mix-up of functions would
192
lead to difficulties about the composition of committees, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has pointed out. It would be a wrong approach to have the same people investigating and then dealing in Committee with the legislation.
We must remember that the Scrutiny Committees dealing with EEC legislation—which is usually in draft form—in effect are advisory committees to this House, the wider public and the European Parliament, and do extremely useful work. But they do not take on the function of legislation; they are advisory committees. I should like to see the model that has been so successfully established in regard to the EEC Scrutiny Committees extended to domestic legislation, but not in this form. I do not have time to go into all the difficulties that I can envisage but I shall try to mention one or two.
I do not know whether the assumption was made that, because the committee Members in another place may not be properly informed about the subjects which they have under discussion, legislation from the other place should be examined in this investigatory fashion by a Select Committee of this House while the Bill continues its passage through the other place. But I am sure that that was not the assumption. It would be entirely wrong. I can speak only from my own experience. Several noble Lords know that in the 1950s I gained a completely spurious reputation, in dealing with what is now called consumer legislation, for being extremely knowledgeable. I was supposed to know everything that could be known about weights and measures, consumer credit and—as my noble friend the Leader of the House will remember—about abattoirs and meat marketing. The reason for that was that we were so well supplied with information. All Members of the Committee carried out their own investigations on the basis of the information they received. The idea that Commons Committees are not well informed—if that idea is current—should be washed away completely because it is quite untrue.
But a danger arises here. The interests who supply Members of a Commons Select Committee with information and who have made themselves available to be questioned will not at the same time want to go through the same process in this House. That is a conflict which is

193
likely to arise. I remember it arising in the case of a submission that was made to the Prices and Incomes Board—which was unfortunately and rather stupidly abolished—over an inquiry into detergents. At the same time the two leading firms, Unilever and Proctor and Gamble, were put under investigation by the Monopolies Commission. The top managements of both firms came along and explained how difficult things had been made for them in that they had to provide information to two bodies at the same time and submit to the investigatory procedure of the Monopolies Commission when they were giving evidence to the Prices and Incomes Board. I am sure that that kind of confusion should not arise from the proposals now being advanced.
Therefore, I suggest that it is quite wrong to propose that the specialist Select Committee should deal with Commons Bills while they are going through the Commons. Of course, there is a conflict of interests of Ministers and civil servants—as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has pointed out—being called upon to give evidence to a Select Committee of the Lords at the same time as they are supposed to he dealing with a Bill in the Commons. It just would not work. It is far too big a burden to place on them. It is an impossible arrangement even within the restricted range of policies that has been proposed for this Select Committee.
It is easy to advocate, as I have done in the past, that we should have a larger number of Select Committees in both Houses (possibly working together where-ever possible) to cover subject matters, policy matters, as is now proposed; but difficulties arise about staffing, about terms of reference, and so on. Again, as my noble friend the Leader of the House can, if he wishes, point out, he too was a great advocate of Select Committees when he was Leader of the other House, but he had a difficult job on when he became Minister of Agriculture and a proposal was put forward that we should have a subject committee on agriculture. He turned it down, for very good reasons.
To have a wide-ranging investigating committee over a wide-ranging subject like agriculture, with most of the material, the information, that the Committee is going to be working on provided by the
194
Ministry, would place too great a burden both on Ministers and on their civil servants. I think that we can get over these difficulties. I am in favour of the Select Committee idea. It has to be refined. It has to be restricted in a rather narrower way than has so far been proposed.
On the question of staffing, as I think your Lordships will know, I was chairman of a little informal committee that was looking into the provision, or the development, of computerised information services for both Houses. Quite out of the blue we received a document of evidence, really a cry from the heart—in fact you could almost see on the paper the teardrops of the author of the document—from an expert adviser brought in to help the clerks deal with the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, and pointing out how impossible the task had become to provide the Committee with the kind of information they wanted in the way they wanted it presented. It could not be solved by adding more staff. They had got the staff they wanted, but what they wanted were the tools. They wanted a bigger data bank of information that a computer could use, and then they wanted the computer services, so that not only in the Libraries of both Houses but also in Committees the information would be provided by computer services.
I think as we extend our Committee system we shall have to work in this way. But we are years away from the kind of service that must be provided if these Committees are going to work successfully. Therefore, I should like to support the view expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, that this Motion should be withdrawn so that we can look at it again. Let us not turn it down completely; let us look at it again. In its present form, any Select Committee set up like this would be unworkable, and it is important indeed that before we proceed further on these lines we should wait for the report of the Commons Committee on Procedure so that we can fit our proposals into whatever comes forward from the other place.
4.24 p.m.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, speaking as an Independent from these Benches I would not presume to follow on what the noble Lord, Lord Darling,

195
has been saying with his great experience as a politician and in the other place. But it strikes me, coming here, relatively speaking, as a new boy, that there are some things that the House does extraordinarily well and other things it does a little less well. I was struck by the efficiency of your Lordships' procedures through Select Committees in the European sector, which has already been referred to; in the opposed Private Bill sector, where I have had the privilege of serving, and where it seems to me admirable that that particular technique of the Select Committee should be used where what you want to get at is the facts, where there is a desire for agreement among the Members, and something of a judicial aspect in the way you go about your work. The Select Committee on the Bill of Rights is in too early days to say whether that is going to be a success or not, but at any rate it has meant that we have had the pleasure of hearing from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and the noble and learned Lord of another kind.
The Select Committee on Sport and Leisure, which was set up in the time of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is worth referring to because there you had an all-Party committee that was established in an area that was not Party political controversial but was thought to be important, and the more we worked at it the more important we came to think it was. It led to a rather memorable debate here in which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, made his maiden speech, and, perhaps still more surprising, it brought from the Government a promise of a White Paper which was, in due course, produced. In other words, it was an example of something at the pre-legislative stage which had great value, and in which their Lordships showed part of their characteristic skill in providing experts of many different kinds.
However, it is in the realm of Public Bill legislation that, as a newcomer, I am not as impressed as I am with those examples I have given. It seems to me that at the outset one should accept the fact that, except for the ritual dances and variations thereon, the Government of the day are not going to start many of their important Bills in this place. There is, therefore, going to be the congestion from that source, and from various
196
others, and there is not much that we can do by our procedure except to insist, so far as we can, on Her Majesty's Government, of whatever Party, being reasonable.
There is this other difficulty, that when a controversial Bill comes to this House from the other place it seems to me wholly right that, whichever Party in office has produced it, those who think it a bad Bill should do their best, frankly through the guise of improving it, to destroy as much of it as possible. Those political fisticuffs I do not think we ought to try to limit; and even if we did try, I do not think we should be successful—certainly not through the sort of techniques which are produced by this Select Committee report we are discussing this afternoon.
But there is everything to be said for taking seriously the unsatisfactory state of play in our present procedures. Leaving aside that legislation which we cannot improve very much, and which will have to be voted down after a great deal of time has been spent here trying to amend it, there are areas, both in controversial Bills and certainly in a large number of Bills which are to some extent controversial but in other respects not, of the kind that I was referring to earlier, which the Opposition again seek to destroy, but where we could do much better if we adopted the technique of the Select Committee and used that as a supplement to our regular procedures.
As I see it, what the Committee is so wisely suggesting to us is that we should have much better Second Reading debates if, despite the difficulties of getting entangled with the other House, or civil servants, or Ministers—which I did not read the Committee as suggesting we should do at the pre-legislative stage while the Bill is still in the House of Commons; I did not think that it was suggested that our new type Select Committee would call for witnesses, certainly not for Ministers or civil servants—a Committee mainly watched the proceedings in the other place, spotted where there were matters that the Government had promised that they would try to meet, and perhaps might deal with in the House of Lords, and in general produce a report. It is suggested that that should happen before our Second Reading debates here on controversial important Bills; that it

197
would guide us as to the areas which had not been discussed in the other place (because of the guillotine or for any other reason), areas to which we should particularly pay attention, and in general illuminate our discussions on Second Reading.
That same Committee, strengthened in the way suggested in the report, and added to by other members, would then proceed to do its job in a way which would enlighten our Report stage procedure on the Bill by exploiting the technique of our Select Committee, which has been so successful already, in hearing witnesses and in focussing attention on important points which have not been dealt with in the other place; in my view not trying to resolve highly controversial matters which, in the course of the discussion in the Committee, revealed themselves as such, for those would much better be left, with the illumination of the Committee on the facts, for debate here and for the proper political fisticuffs at the Report stage.
For these reasons I think we should concentrate on improving our procedure in the legislative field. We should, as far as possible, confine ourselves to that and make as certain as possible that that experiment is successful. That leads me to my difficulty in relation to Lord Windlesham's suggestion. That we should have one experiment with one such Select Committee on one Bill seems to me wholly admirable. I feel that it would be better not even at the outset to ask that Select Committee to do more than examine the Bill. However, it has been suggested, and it might well be possible, that they might, soon after the experiment had started, be allowed to go further and look at things in the policy area of the Bill.
Let us make this as simple an experiment as possible; let us make it an experiment of little ambition and concentrate on one suitable Bill. I think the usual channels would have an unusually difficult task in selecting one, but good luck to them! But let there be an experiment made with one Bill in the hope that the experiment is greeted on all sides with applause. The next stage would be to extend the remit of that Committee, if it was asked to do another Bill, to cover the
198
policy area concerned; and a second Committee might be added until one had perhaps obtained the whole apparatus of six, seven or eight, which seems to me a very ambitious programme to embark on at this stage.
When the experiment—as I say, limited if possible—has been proved a success, I should welcome the extension of this technique of the Committee to cover matters both of delegated legislation and, still more, of matters which are not yet legislative or pre-legislative but which are matters of important policy. The Sport and Leisure Select Committee is in some sense a prototype of the kind of thing I see these Committees doing when the experiment has been proved successful. To mention the arts, that seems to me an excellent area in which such a Select Committee would be able to do the valuable work which your Lordships are well qualified to do; to carry on, as it were, the debate we had the other afternoon and keep the matter under consideration.
In all this, the calling of witnesses and evidence seems to me particularly important. Here I echo what Lord Windlesham said; I do not think we need have any fear that civil servants will find themselves embarrassed to death by this kind of procedure. On the contrary, I think they will welcome it. Of course it depends on common sense on the part of the Examiners. I have myself enjoyed no more "in my past bad life" than I have my experiences with the Public Accounts Committee in another place, where the greatest consideration was always shown one. The temptation was that one might show off because one happened to know what was the result of the income and expenditure on, say, postcards sold at the Victoria and Albert Museum. That was a question I remember being asked when the total Vote was some £3,000 million and I happened to know the answer and got it nearly right; nobody on the Committee was able to correct one, and one was able to correct it in the report before it was published. Seriously, however, I think civil servants would very much welcome the opportunity of explaining why a particular point was before us, and they could always explain, if necessary, why it was a question they could not mention because it was a straight political matter and they must ask the Minister.
4.36 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I am only too conscious of my lack of experience of the procedure of this House and the only reason I intervene in this debate is because I can claim a certain experience of procedure in another place, particularly in the context of Select Committees. I was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—to which the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, just referred; I am fascinated to hear now from him the way in which he succeeded in fudging his evidence—and I was also, when the late Richard Crossman was engaged in reforming the Select Committee procedure, asked by him to be chairman of the Committee of Chairmen of Select Committees. It is in the light of that experience that I venture to offer a suggestion to the House.
My suggestion is that we should put rather less emphasis than the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and his Committee have put on using the Select Committee in connection with legislation and much more in using the Select Committee procedure in connection with the scrutiny of administration and policy. It is certainly there, in the Select Committees of the House of Commons—as the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal knows in one respect; it has already been referred to almost too well—that the strength of the House of the Commons over the Executive lies.
In this House we have the advantage of including in our membership noble Lords expert in almost every subject connected with Government, technical matters, the sciences or the arts. We could, in fact, man on any conceivable subject a powerful Select Committee which would be a very effective weapon in scrutinising and controlling Government. At a time when all commentators agree that it is necessary to restore the strength of Parliament vis-à-vis the Executive, I believe that Select Committees of this House could play a very effective part.
That is subject to one condition: if the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons is as successful as I believe it to be, and as its public reputation suggests it is, this is very largely due not to successive members, still less to successive chairmen, but to the fact that it is supported by a very powerful staff, in this case by the staff of the Exchequer and
200
Audit Department. I suggest that if your Lordships' House decides to go along the road of setting up effective Select Committees to scrutinise particular areas of Government, administration and policy, it is essential that that Select Committee should be supported by an effective staff able to get into the Departments, look at the files and deal with civil servants on even terms.
I am bound to say that I thought Lord Redcliffe-Maud took a rather idealistic view of the attitude of senior civil servants appearing before Parliamentary Select Committees. I can only recall that when I was a Minister my Permanent Secretary always showed considerable caution in doing anything which might arouse the attention of the Public Accounts Committee, while he was always singularly robust in respect of matters which I would have to brazen out on the Floor of the House of Commons; that is an experience which differs a little from that of the noble Lord. However, I do not want to waste the time of the House. The point I want to leave with noble Lords is that the area of scrutiny of Government activity and administration is one which is both appropriate to a revising Chamber and one which, by our function and composition—and here I differ a little, as he knows, from my noble friend Lord Carrington—this House is singularly well-fitted to achieve.
Mention has been made of the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of European Affairs. I had the experience of being a witness in front of that body and it was a very humbling experience; I came from it realising that I knew a great deal less on the subject on which I had been giving evidence than I thought when I went in. But there was a compensation, in that the Select Committee produced a most powerful report which had a singular effect in squashing a rather insiduous attempt being made by the Commission in Brussels to assert control over British civil aviation. It was with a certain macabre satisfaction that I observed that the official of the Commission, whom our own Select Committee succeeded in thwarting, almost immediately afterwards left the Commission, returned to his native Italy, and was returned to the Italian Chamber on the Communist ticket.
I have only one other point that I want to make. It touches once again

201
on the matter to which I referred in connection with my noble friend, regarding the composition of this House. I believe that it is our procedure that prevents the composition of this House asserting the control and demonstrating the effectiveness which the personal quality, calibre, and experience of noble Lords otherwise qualifies them to do. That is why I have stressed very strongly this point about the increasing use of the Select Committee procedure.
But there is one area into which I go with my noble friend; that is a matter which no one can deal with except, of course, the Prime Minister of the day. My noble friend Lord Windlesham referred to the fact that on legislation we so often have to face a representative of the Government who is not a Minister in the Department concerned. I have an immense admiration for the Lords in Waiting, who dash from seeing off the President of the Seychelles in order to attend a couple of memorial services on behalf of Her Majesty, and then arrive here to take part in a debate on a controversial Bill, dealing with a subject of which they have no Departmental experience at all. I think that their flexibility and adroitness are quite extraordinary; but it means that they have not the authority to make a concession or to accept an Amendment, which is inherent in a Minister actually in the Department and working very closely with its chief.
If there is any suggestion that our legislative procedure needs improving—and I think it does—I would suggest that it should be not through an extension of the Select Committee procedure into this area but by asking successive Prime Ministers to realise that this, also, is a House of Parliament, and that legislation would be better conducted here, in the interests not only of Parliament but of the Government themselves, if perhaps a larger number of Ministers directly from Departments are seated on the Bench alongside the Lord Privy Seal.
I will close with an example of what can happen—and I do not know whether noble Lords recall it. It affects no present Lord in Waiting. Some years ago a Lord in Waiting was plunged into the situation which I have described. He read the Departmental brief through, and was glad
202
to see that he had got to the last paragraph, which he read out. It read:
"The argument here is a bit thin, but it should suffice for their Lordships".
4.44 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, having listened to the speeches since the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, spoke, I cannot help thinking that we are perhaps debating this matter at a period when, around the corner, considerable constitutional changes may be taking place. I have in mind the fact that in a year or two, I suppose, that we shall have a type of Government in Scotland, in Wales and, maybe, in Northern Ireland. I am sure that that could result in changes having to take place here and in another place. However, we are dealing with the position as it is, rather than as it may be, though I do not think that, constitutionally, matters today are precisely as they were perhaps four or five years ago. The changes are there; and they will come rather rapidly.
Whatever the result of the next General Election, I think that both of the two main political Parties will wish to do something in the way of reform of this House. It could vary from the "Off with their heads" school, to the "Leave them alone, they are harmless" school. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has indicated on a number of occasions—and reference to this has also been made by my noble friend Lord Champion—there are other ideas which fall between those two schools of thought. Over the years, we have been used in this Chamber and in the other place to thinking in terms of two main Parties. But those two main Parties, while still existing in considerable strength, perhaps have divisions within themselves. In addition, there are three or four—maybe even five—other Parties, each of which could get a fair amount of support when we go to the polls.
I am speaking here for myself, and for no one else, and if we mean anything by democracy—and, after all, every country in the world considers itself to be democratic—then I believe that we must think beyond the procedure of Elections; that is, beyond the first-past-the-post idea. I know that this is not very popular, but I believe that it will have to come. It is much more likely to come quickly in a devolved assembly in Scotland or in Wales,

203
and, when it does come, the composition of Parliament will be different, and the composition and procedure of both Houses of Parliament are equally likely also to be different.
However, I digress from the report which is in front of us, and perhaps I should now concentrate on things as they are, and not as they may be. From my experience Leaders of the House of Commons, present and past, would all wish —and have all tried very hard—to start more legislation in this Chamber, and they would like to start it quite early in the Parliamentary Session. But, as the Report itself points out, the difficulties are considerable. Apart from the financial restrictions—money resolutions, with which we are all familiar—there is the other difficult problem that all Ministers like to introduce their own Bills in another place, and that, too, is understandable; and of course the other place is the elected Chamber.
I do not know what can be done to get legislation to this Chamber more quickly at the beginning of a Session. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made reference to the Gracious Speech. He could not see any reason why major Bills mentioned in the Gracious Speech should not come to this Chamber at once. I can tell him the answer so far as I was concerned in 1964: they were thoughts, they were not legislation, at that time. Very often, proposals in the Gracious Speech are not much more than a twinkle in the eye of a Minister or anyone within the Party prior to the Election. Here again, there is a problem regarding Parliamentary draftsmen. Anyone who, like myself, has been chairman of a legislation committee knows of the pressures from every Government Department to get a Bill through—and through quickly. Such a job is not only unpopular, but almost impossible.
I do not feel that it is fair that we should be landed with major Bills towards the end of a Session in July, as we all know happened so recently, but I honestly do not know the solution to that situation. The suggestion made to the Select Committee—which is covered in its report—for a carry-over of legislation fills me with dismay. If one imagines a Government with a small majority, as this one has at the present moment, being forced to take
204
a controversial Bill from Session to Session, if necessary, the carry-over idea would simply result in the Government of the day not getting their legislation through. It has been suggested, too, that it might apply, perhaps, to Private Bills and not to Public Bills. It is easy enough to introduce a Private Bill in the other House or in this House, but it is very much harder to get it through the subsequent stages; and if they were allowed to carry on from Session to Session, the accumulation of Private Bills from any one Session would simply clog up the next Session.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him and to point to the difference between Private Bills and Private Members' Bills? Private Bills can carry over; Private Members' Bills are subject to the Parliament Act and cannot carry over.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I was referring, of course, to Private Members' Bills, and I thank the noble Earl for that correction. Private Members' Bills are quite simple to introduce, and are introduced time and time again, but they could very easily clog up a legislative Session. I think perhaps a solution to that—and it would not be unpopular—would be to have a sabbatical year when we had no legislation at all except, perhaps, some consolidation; but I cannot see any Government agreeing to that. I have often felt, while disagreeing with Governments when I have been in Opposition and sometimes with my colleagues when in Government, that a blockage of legislation is a bad thing for the country. People outside never understand it, and if we had a system to carry over from Session to Session it would not be understood and would be disastrous.
However, I think time could be saved in another place—really, it is not our business to tell them what to do, but this is a view I have held for a long time—if their Bills were timetabled from the beginning, and not when they run into trouble. There is nothing wrong with a timetable Motion, or a guillotine as it is usually called. Such Motions have been with us for over 80 years. But the timetabling of a Bill, controversial or not, by a balanced Committee of the House in another place before the Second Reading of that Bill—looking at the Bill and deciding how many

205
days should be spent in Committee, on Report stage, Third Reading and so on—is, I believe, workable, and would prevent a guillotine at the worst possible moment, when the Bill is at its most controversial and one has got into the greatest possible difficulty. It would help us, too, hopefully, I think, in getting major Bills a little earlier in the Session. The idea of time-tabling Bills from the beginning is an idea of mine that I have been putting forward for years, and until I had a "Hear! hear!" on my left I did not think I had one supporter.
There are actions we could take, I think, to help at the moment here. I think life would be a little easier for Ministers and for the House generally if Amendments to be moved at Committee stage and Report stage were tabled a little earlier than they are now. It is not unknown or unusual for Amendments to be tabled on the eve of a Committee stage or Report stage, and—we have had a recent example of that, of course. It would be much better if it were done with a reasonable amount of time—a long weekend perhaps, so that Members of the House could have an opportunity to look at the Amendments. I have never really understood why Amendments are considered subsequent to the Report stage. It does not happen in another place. I have had it explained to me a number of times here. I must be dull in this respect, because I still do not understand it. I still feel that if one completed amending a Bill on Report stage that is all that would be necessary. But there we are: the House thinks differently. In the absence of any form of selection of Amendments—and, again, I know the House is horrified at the idea of selecting Amendments for debate—I would favour what is suggested in the report, which is a more extensive grouping of Amendments.
I come now to Part III, about which I am not at all happy, and that concerns the setting up of policy Select Committees. I know that they are called Select Committees in the area of policy, but they are policy Select Committees. These, I understand—and it has been pointed out once or twice—could mean that a Bill could be considered by the proposed Select Committee in this House immediately following its Second Reading in another place. It has been suggested that it would not happen to controversial
206
Bills. Who can decide what Bill is controversial or not until it starts on its journey? I would agree that a report from the Select Committee on policy in regard to a particular Bill would add to greater knowledge of the subject-matter, and, having taken evidence from outside bodies, it would be of value to the people who read the report from the Select Committee and the people taking part in it. But it does nothing, in my view, to help the more rapid consideration of Bills when they finally come before this House, because I understand that after Second Reading here a Bill could be sent back to the Select Committee again instead of being taken on the Floor of the House at Committee stage. But, surely, to enable all Members of the House to consider the Bill fully, you must have a much longer Report stage; so there is no time saved at all.
My main point, of course, is that we are a revisionary Chamber, and not a policy-making body. Just imagine for one moment a Bill which, having had a difficult Second Reading in another place, then goes to a Committee in that House, either on the Floor of the House or upstairs. We here, in the House of Lords, operating this proposed scheme, would at the same time have that Bill before a Select Committee, considering its policy aspects and listening to evidence from national organisations, from Ministers, from civil servants, et cetera, while the Commons are themselves taking that Bill through Committee. I cannot conceive of anything calculated to create more trouble between the two Houses than that. It could do nothing other than create dissension.
Paragraph 40 of the report says that the new proposal would provide an opportunity to influence policy. I believe that policy is for the political Parties and for the elected Chamber, but not for us. We are told in evidence given to the Committee that it is difficult for members of the European Communities to discuss legislation in ways different from our own. That may be so, but we do not have to fall into line with everything that is done in Europe. I have no personal knowledge at all of how the European Parliament works. Many years ago, for something like three years, I was a member of the Council of Europe, and my main memory

207
of it is one of a proliferation of committees and an overwhelming mass of paper work.
Finally, my Lords, I hope that if the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is taken to a vote the House will reject it, and will reject any idea of Select Committees on policy, because I think they would be extremely harmful to the relationship between the two Houses. Nevertheless, I thank the chairman and members of the Committee which produced this report, which has given us the opportunity for an excellent debate.
4.58 p.m.
Lord FULTON: My Lords, as the first member of the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure to speak after Lord Windlesham, I should like to associate myself very warmly with the tribute that the noble Lord paid to the chairman. Speaking from these Benches, I was apprehensive about the perils of navigation near Scylla and Charybdis, but I was rescued from these fears by, I think, a wonderful display of robust, creative judgment and a constructive lead to the Committee from the chairman, and I am very grateful to him. As the first member of the Scrutiny Committee to speak, I should like warmly to associate myself and, I am sure, the other members with the good wishes that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, conveyed to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, in her present illness.
I have already indicated some grounds on which I thought it was right for me to intervene in this debate. I should like to say a few words about the experience of sitting on the EEC Scrutiny Committee. I am a believer that the concrete example sometimes tends to clear away some areas of otherwise controversial fog. I should also like to do what has not been done, to say a few words, very briefly, about some aspects of the nature of bicameral legislation. May I recapitulate the European experience? The Scrutiny Committee reports directly to your Lordships' House. It has seven Sub-Committees and the total membership at a recent count stood at some 80 noble Lords. The Lord Chairman of the parent Committee carries out a preliminary scrutiny
208
of legislative proposals and other documents emanating from the EEC, eliminating the trivial and ephemeral; and, from there, the surviving proposals go to the appropriate Sub-Committee or Committees, each of which has its own areas of policy: one or more from agriculture, finance, industry, trade, energy, transport, conservation, social affairs, employment and education. Some Sub-Committees, reflecting the primary economic character of the EEC, have very much heavier burdens than others.
However, perhaps an example from one of the less-burdened Sub-Committees on which I have served throughout would give some concreteness to the conception that is under consideration as a model or possible model. The Sub-Committee on Social Affairs, Employment and Education, following the issue of a Consulatative Document from Brussels, is currently studying the problem of youth unemployment in the light of the disproportionately high incidence of joblessness among the under 25s throughout all Member States. Our report on that sombre and, perhaps, persistent cloud over-hanging the whole of the industrial West will soon be with Members of this House for debate in the autumn.
The Sub-Committee has among its members those who have ripened their judgment through distinguished service in the other place, in most aspects of the social services, in local government, in industry and in the professions, including education at every stage and level. I believe that they would support my own view that the experience we have gained from all our investigations has been a singularly rich one. There has been something for each of us to take; for example, from the study of the problem I have already referred to. The underemployment and unemployment of the under 25s is, in part, cyclical and, to that extent, short to medium term in duration; in part, structural and, to that extent, long-term; in part, social in that it hits most savagely the unsuccessful, the unskilled, the already disadvantaged from whatever cause; and, in part, too, social through the threat it directs at the fabric of our society. In part, it is demographical, the product of the birth rate prevalent 15 or 16 years ago, and ineluctable until some years have passed; in part, educational because of our persistent weakness in this country in failing

209
to contrive a satisfactory transition from school to work. So, for all of us, there were adjustments to be made in views formed from our partial experience.
My Lords, I must add that the Committee and the Committees are served by the devoted ability and skill we have come to take for granted from the Clerk of the Parliaments and his colleagues. We enjoy, too, advice and help from outside assessors of high standing in their professional circles. We take evidence from Government Departments, sometimes from Ministers; past and present high officials of the EEC; from outside bodies with interests in our field of study; voluntary bodies and charities; from young and old; from the victims as well as those who run the remedial services, and from individuals and groups.
My Lords, I have one or two further brief remarks to make. First, again to draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that the Scrutiny Committee, although given most generous terms of reference by your Lordships, has only limited initiative depending, as it does, from the proposals that emerge from the EEC; and that the EEC, so far at any rate, interpreted fairly strictly the limited area of its jurisdiction laid down in the Treaty of Rome. Secondly, it is the view of the Scrutiny Committee expressed in the Memorandum of Evidence printed in the report we are discussing today that the procedure which treats the study of problems arising from EEC initiatives as separate and distinct from those arising from domestic legislation will, sooner rather than later, prove untenable.
My last comment on this topic is to reaffirm not only the value of the experience for those who have served on these Committees, but also to venture the opinion that the House has added to its traditional inheritance of the highest legal talent in the land, a new instrument for harnessing other great resources of expertise of the House, combining, as they do, the widest range of experience of the national life with a formidable range of knowledge and insights most needed to illuminate the problems that lie ahead.
If I may trespass for a few minutes more on your Lordships' time, I should like to end what I have to say with a reference to the working elsewhere of bicameral legislation. In the great debate at the start of
210
the American democracy which we have celebrated within the last two years, the survival of the Union was seen to depend upon the reconciliation between the claims, on the one hand, of the States (particularly the small States) and, on the other, the claims of universal, equal suffrage, a principal which favoured the influence and power of the populous States.
In the legislative arrangements finally arrived at the Senate was composed of two Members of each State in the Union, irrespective of population; the Members of the House of Representatives were chosen by equal suffrage. So it has been since. But other important arrangements were also made, the consequences of which were less clear at the time. Senators were elected for six years, one-third to be elected every two years. The whole of the House of Representatives was to come up for election every two years. Thus, from the start, the Senator was endowed with, as it were, a longer range of vision than his Congressional colleague, the Member of the House, longer even in theory than the President who had no assurance of a longer period of Office than four years. From this beginning—and no doubt for other reasons which may well have included a system of investigative committees—the Senate built for itself not only a special kind of influence but offered a particular service to American Government and politics without which the United States would have been the poorer, as would our own continent and country at critical moments in history.
My Lords, my point now is not, however, the large constitutional one, but simply to underline the connection between the length of tenure and, particularly, the time scale that goes with it, what I have called the length of vision, and the kind of service that a Legislature can contribute to the common good. It has no doubt often occurred to many of your Lordships, as it has to me, that immunity from the need to seek election or re-election, which we in this House enjoy, should perhaps be balanced by a self-imposed obligation to look at our national problems in a context that stretches beyond the normal lifetime of a Parliament.
This is not to speak critically of the habit of all democratic Governments to concentrate on the tasks that can be

211
effectively dealt with in a Government's expectation of life. Democratic accountability insists upon it. But there is ample evidence of new issues arising: the diminishing supply of natural resources; the problems of energy; conservation of the environment; the relationship between the rich and the poor countries of the world. These and many others have to be recognised from afar. They need a steady and concerted attention, more sustained and lasting than most problems that have beset us in the past.
Of course we are a political House with only two Lobbies, not a research institute, a super Brookings; nor are we required alone to shoulder the responsibility for building the new Jerusalem. But is there not a strong case for us to recognise the need in the management of our own business to do what we are specially well qualified to do, to give some of our minds to the more distant horizons of our times and to provide ourselves with appropriate instruments to help in laying the foundations on which those who have to take decisions can more safely build?
It is in this context that I see the proposal we are discussing today. I expect that most of us will confess that we are perhaps a trifle elderly for the tasks that are being prescribed for us; that too many of us are looking back on all or most of our careers. It is not easy to see a practical remedy for that because I suppose it is a fact of nature. For those who are bearing responsibility now that has been borne in the past by so many of your Lordships' House with the greatest distinction, who will be bearing that responsibility in the future, and who are pre-occupied in doing things that we have to think about, the experience of the Scrutiny Committee offers encouragement in this respect. Those who are working in the heat of the day seem gladly to have found time to explain their difficulties and consulted us in the cause of it. In doing so, they are contributing their sense of urgency and their acceptance of present and coming responsibility to the qualities with which, in full measure, your Lordships can enrich the national debate. I commend the report to your Lordships' sympathetic attention.
5.14 p.m.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, as a rather recently joined member of the
212
Select Committee on Practice and Procedure, I should like to confirm my agreement with this, its first report, and with the new breed of Committee which has aroused most interest this afternoon. When it was first suggested, my immediate reaction was to be utterly against it. But I gradually came to see the immense possibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and my noble friend Lord Windlesham have dealt with it so thoroughly that it is not necessary for me to say any more except perhaps this. When this strange new animal becomes more familiar, I do not believe that it will be seen as a threat to another place. To monitor the progress of a Bill, while it is still down the corridor, is not some rather suspect form of interference, or even spying, but a genuine attempt to familiarise this House, in advance, with the views and opinions expressed there. What better compliment could be paid by the revising, to the Executive, Chamber?
I hope, my Lords, that with the preoccupation shown over this one aspect, your Lordships will not lose sight of the rest of the report. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has spoken very strongly on the paragraphs of the report which stress the paramount importance of this House having enough time and, perhaps more important, enough time between stages, to give proper consideration to Government Bills. I submitted a paper on this to my colleagues on the Committee which appears as an appendix to the report, and I am not going to commit the solecism of quoting myself. But I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lord Carrington emphasise that, during the closing stages of last Session, your Lordships were asked to work under a pressure that was quite intolerable and that must not occur again.
But I should like to concentrate on the parts of the report that stress the importance of your Lordships observing the conventions of this House. However exciting new ideas to increase the efficiency of the House may be, they are as nothing compared to the remedies that are available to your Lordships for the taking. Last year, the Procedure Committee brought out a booklet called Brief Guide to the Procedure and Practice of the House of Lords. For some months I have had an Unstarred Question down, under

213
"No Day Named" on the Order Paper, seeking to draw attention to it, but this seems to be a convenient opportunity for me to raise the matter, without taking up the time of the House for a separate debate.
Some of your Lordships may have noticed this little booklet in the Printed Paper Office. It is of a convenient size and shape. Its outside cover is in House of Lords red with the title in lettering of a pleasing style. But it also has an inside, and my observations over the past few months lead me to the conclusion that some of your Lordships have not penetrated this far.
I should particularly like to draw your Lordships' attention to Section 9 which deals with conduct in the Chamber and rules of debate. This was designed as a sort of Highway Code for learner Peers, but, like the Highway Code, it could, with advantage, be studied by the more experienced each time they apply for renewal of their licence. Section 9 of this booklet opens with general remarks. The first of these I must admit is inaccurate. It says: "On entering the Chamber, Lords should bow to the Throne". Your Lordships do not bow to the Throne, but rather to the Cloth of Estate, which lies somewhere above and behind the Throne. Nobody quite knows where it is; nobody quite knows what it is; nobody knows who put it there. But your Lordships bow to it on entering the Chamber and refrain from doing so on leaving it. But the rest of Section 9 is unexceptionable and I should like to commend it to your Lordships.
Later, under "General Remarks", the booklet says:
"If two Lords rise simultaneously and one does not promptly give way, Lords should indicate their preference by naming the Lord they wish to hear".
If I may say so, manners have become noticeably worse in this respect in recent years. It has become a common, but not very edifying sight, particularly al Question Time, to see two noble Lords on their feet at the same time, glaring at each other, neither prepared to give way.
The next reference is to the duplicated list of speakers, an admirable device exclusive to this House which, if properly used can be extremely convenient to your
214
Lordships. In particular, it mentions the gap towards the end of each list, in which,
"those Lords who have not put their names down but feel impelled to speak may rise in their places after the last back bench speaker on the list has had his turn".
This gap is becoming something of a free-for-all and if, as too often happens, several Lords use it to make long, prepared speeches, it negates the whole purpose of the list system. I would remind your Lordships of the two important qualifications that should govern the use of the gap.
"Whenever possible such Lords should inform one of the Whips on duty in the Chamber of their intention. Their speeches are expected to be short and confined to the point or points which they feel have been omitted from the debate".
There is a useful paragraph on appellations. Your Lordships should start their interjections with the words, "My Lords". It is only in recent months that this custom has started to be broken. This, too, is particularly noticeable at Question Time, where, when two Peers try and ask supplementary questions at the same time, the one who breaks the rule is often well into the first sentence of his question by the time his more conventional rival has got through his opening "My Lords".
The methods of referring to other Peers should also be studied carefully, even by many of your Lordships who have been in the House for some time. Viscounts and above should be given their rank and referred to as "the noble Viscount, Lord So-and-So" and never as "the noble Lord, Viscount So-and-So". This, of course, applies to Baronesses, too, with the exception (which the brief code omits to mention) of certain Scottish Peeresses who are not Peeresses but Ladies. Even a humble Baron is entitled to his proper form as "The noble Lord, Lord So-and So" and not, as one hears all too often, "The noble Lord So-and-So". This has always been a courtesy in this House and I think it is a pity if it falls into misuse or even disuse.
But the most important two rules are those headed "Attendance at debate" and "Length of speeches". The first of those paragraphs starts:
"Lords taking part in a debate are expected to attend as much as possible of it".

215
It goes on to define the very minimum that this should entail. My Lords, this is not only good manners: it is also good sense. If a debate is to be a debate and not a random anthology of loosely-collected monologues, those of your Lordships who take part in it must sit through it, and an apology tacked on to the end of a 25-minute speech is no substitute for adherence to this rule. The second paragraph begins: "Long speeches are discouraged". Your Lordships have heard something about that this afternoon, but this little booklet goes on to lay down standards for this, both for those who open and close debates and for those who speak in between. If I may say so to noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite and to my noble friends beside me, an example might well come from them; but I would emphasise that I mean nothing personal to the present occupants of either Front Bench.
Some twelve years ago, my noble friend the late Lord Egremont moved a resolution that speeches in this House should be shorter. Your Lordships listened to my noble friend's opening speech with acclamation, debated his Motion with quite exceptional brevity, carried it nemine dissentiente, embodied its sense in the Companion to Standing Orders, and thereafter totally ignored it—which is a pity, because if this and all the other precepts in this admirable booklet were rigidly adhered to, this House would be a more efficient and, indeed, a happier place. I do not think there is a single Member of your Lordships' House who would dissent from this—as it applies to other Peers. The point I want to make is that these rules do not only apply to the noble Lord, Lord X, opposite, to the noble Lord, Lord Y, on the Cross-Benches, to the noble Lord, Lord Z, who sits with the Liberal Peers, or even to my noble friend behind for whom I have no letter of the alphabet left: my Lords, this means you.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I, with the little red book to which he has referred in my hand, ask him whether, in the light of what he has said, he would consider it worthwhile having some formal arrangement for the instruction on a regular basis of new Members coming into your Lordships' House?
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I think in the light of what I have said it might well extend to experienced Members of your Lordships' House, as well.
5.24 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for his reference to the little red book. I am going to behave well in that I shall be very brief, and I am going to behave badly in that I must apologise to your Lordships for the fact that I shall have to leave in half an hour. I have already warned the noble Baroness, Lady White, of my difficulties. Other people, If I may say so, have spoken for too long —and here I am not referring to the last speaker but thinking about certain of the others.
I want to be very brief. I do not think we should fool ourselves with the belief that in some magic way we can make easier the legislative programmes which go through your Lordships' House. The fact of the matters is that it is a proper political weapon for the Opposition to be difficult about legislative programmes, and to offer them hindrance and difficulties. So I do not think that the devices put forward today will achieve very much in easing the passage of legislation, and indeed I am not sure that they should do so. On the other hand, what I think is possible is that the work of reviewing, and so on, which we have to do in relation to legislation can be more thorough and can be improved by a certain degree of pre-examination, as is suggested in the report of the Procedure Committee.
Quite clearly, the experience of the European Community Committee is something which is enormously worth while, but it covers a field where legislation is already in train or virtually in train. To that extent, it is different from what we are talking about in our House. However, let us try.
I would say, with many others of your Lordships, that we are right to ask the Procedure Committee to do two things: one is to consider very carefully the composition of any Committee that we may set up. That composition should not simply be Party-based but must essentially have in it a Cross-Bench element and hould, so far as possible,

217
take into account those who have special expertise in whatever may be the subject. The second thing is to pay special attention to the subject that they may choose. If this is to be a first trial of something which may develop and grow, the one or two committees or the one or two Bills which are selected to be first are of enormous importance. My Lords, I have finished.
5.27 p.m.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, I would wish to return to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, which attracts me in many ways but about which I must confess I have very considerable reservations. I wholeheartedly support two propositions contained in the Report of the Select Committee. The first is suggested by the Clerk of the Parliaments in paragraph 41 of his memorandum, to the effect that it is not necessarily desirable that both Houses of Parliament should always and inevitably scrutinise Bills in identical ways or according to similar procedures. Some differentiation of method may well be advantageous and may better exploit the particular talents of the respective Houses.
But the basic political problem here is the suspicions of another place. We have to recognise that many Members there neither understand nor wish to understand the ways in which this House contributes, and could contribute much more, to the overall processes of legislation. Many Members—I think more particularly in the other place—also appear to remain blind to the prospect that with our own laws being increasingly subject to over-riding European legislation and possibly, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone mentioned, to our legislation being split between Westminster and Edinburgh, and possibly even Cardiff, there will be an increasing need for the oversight which the House of Lords is particularly well fitted to provide, to ensure that as few anomalies and discrepancies as possible creep into legislation, which inevitably will cover the same, or overlapping, fields.
This task of surveillance would, in my view, be a waste of time to the Members of another place. It is work for which
218
most of them are not temperamentally suited and they should not bother with it, nor seek to burden themselves with it through misplaced feelings of general disapproval of your Lordships' House.
It is something which I think we in this House could do extremely well, and ought to take on in the future as one of our particular duties. We must somehow find ways of establishing some kind of rational dialogue with Members of the other place. I am sure that my noble friend the Leader of the House will readily acknowledge that even he, with all his experience, did not fully appreciate what the House of Lords is capable of doing before he came here to see for himself. I certainly did not, even after 20 years as a constituency Member at the other end of the building. So I think that we should find for ourselves a special role in this respect, which will be increasingly important as time goes on.
The second proposition which appeals to me strongly, and is contained in this report, is that it is high time that Parliamentarians should be brought into the pre-legislation consultative process in our domestic affairs. The current exclusion applies equally to Members of both Houses. But, again, this is an area in which I believe this House can make an especially valuable contribution. We all know that legislation is prepared in the Department concerned. Notes and memoranda pass busily to and fro, between it and related Departments which may have interests. Every major outside interest, commercial and otherwise, is conscientiously consulted. Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all know what is afoot. The only people left in the dark as to prospective legislation are the Members of the two Houses of Parliament.
I was very much interested in a quotation from the recently published Hansard study on the voice of Britain in Europe, under the direction of Professor Coombes, in which he emphasises that,
"Private interests usually prefer to apply pressure directly on government departments, believing rightly that civil servants advising ministers have more influence on government policy and legislation than individual Members of Parliament".
That, I am sure, is the present state of affairs and it seems to me an unsatisfactory one.

219
It is quite true that the relatively recent innovation of publishing Green Papers gives one an opportunity to put in one's oar, but no one, I think, would pretend that a brief debate on the Floor of either House is any substitute for the kind of close examination of the issues which those of us who work on the European Communities Select Committee are able to achieve. I speak as a Member of that Committee, and as the Chairman of one of its Sub-Committees. I believe that there is a real job to be done in this pre-legislative sense, and it is emphasised in the memorandum to the Select Committee from the European Committee that our work on that Committee and its Sub-Committees is pre-legislative.
I must say that I share some, at least, of the apprehensions of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. If you try to apply this procedure to the Committee stage of a Bill that has been introduced, particularly a controversial Bill—a Bill where the credit of the Government is at stake—then the climate will change. It seems to me that this is inevitable. I should be happy to think that it were not so and I am open to conviction, but I must say that I am not by any means yet convinced. Party conflict—overt in the other House; more politely masked in this one, but nevertheless sometimes to be felt—will undoubtedly raise its head.
I think it will be very difficult, once one has reached that stage, to carry on in the way that we do extraordinarily successfully in the European Committee, where we virtually never emphasise our Party or ideological views. There are we genuinely earnest seekers after truth. Once you introduce an overtly political element, which you are bound to do in many Bills, in what is political examination of actual legislation, I think you will find it much more difficult. I am not against trying, but I am not optimistic.
I admit that it depends partly on the nature of the Bill concerned. Certainly, it might work on a number of Bills which are not controversial in a Party sense, and I should very much like to see in your Lordships' House the possibility of an equivalent of Second Reading Committee Bills somewhat extended so that it covers not only Bills which are of minor consequence but also more substantial Bills.
220
The Patents Bill has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Shepherd. It seems to me that that was an instance where it was really an abuse of the time of the House that that Bill should have been examined in the way that it was—admirably examined by the half-dozen people who professed to understand it, but occupying the time of the Chamber in a way which does not seem to me to make good sense.
It is quite possible that a Bill of that nature might lend itself to the type of procedure suggested in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and I am quite sure that we could find in the departmental legislation of a number of Departments extremely useful measures which could be dealt with in that way. But let us not delude ourselves into supposing that that method would be appropriate to a great deal of the more controversial legislation which is bound to come to us from another place.
I admit that I was very much attracted by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that a Bill like the Industrial Relations Bill, or a Bill based on the Bullock Committee Report, might be dealt with in such a manner. But I believe that the time to do that is now, before a Bill is placed before Parliament; not when it is a matter of substantive legislation. It is true that, in the circumstances of the day, some people would be willing to lay aside their Party allegiance, because a matter of that kind is of such importance for our national wellbeing, but it is only very occasionally that that would occur with something as contentious as industrial relations. I believe, therefore, that we should start with an extension of the pre-legislative work, genuinely comparable with the work done by the European Communities Committee but in our own domestic sphere, and see how we get on. I hope very much, therefore, that we may make some experiments. I am not entirely convinced by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I am concerned lest, by being over-ambitious and trying to advance too rapidly, we might endanger an experiment which otherwise could be of great benefit to the legislation of this country.
5.38 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, I am assured by the Whips' Office that I

221
am not usurping the place in this debate of my noble friend Lord Helsby, but that his name appears on the Speakers' List as a misprint of mine. I should like to refer to three small points, before I come to my main point arising out of the debate. First, there was the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, when he referred to the problems of Governments with bare majorities or notional majorities in carrying through controversial legislation. It is my belief that Governments with bare majorities ought not to embark on controversial legislation. It is a very old-established principle of good fellowship among collective bodies, fellowships of colleges, committees of clubs and so on that where the membership is evenly divided over an innovative matter the status quo should have it, and I should have thought the task of Governments with bare majorities should be to cope with day-to-day exigencies and circumstances as they arise, and use Parliamentary time to run down the enormous waiting lists of departmental Bills which are far longer than can normally be disposed of in a Parliamentary Session, having regard to the more political business.
How I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, on the need to try to come to terms with long-term trends and do one's forward thinking properly. I only wish that I could find the means of doing it. Clearly, thinking forward only for the terms of one legislative programme is quite insufficient as a basis for planning, say, five years ahead. But if you try to go more than 10 years ahead there are so many unknowns that you cannot legislate for them, and if you try to think 20 years ahead the biggest unknown of all is the climate of opinion, among people who are only just about being born now, as to the valuation they place on the targets at which society should try to aim. So that you have a constantly moving stream of political flotsam floating down the stream of time, without any ability to see towards the horizon which is the line that recedes as fast as you approach it.
As a contribution to the thoughts raised by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, I cannot think why noble Lords do not note the time of their speeches in Hansard and then look at the number of words in the columns, because then you would know, as your personal variable, how long it will take you to say so many words.
222
In that way you can plan what you wish to say accordingly. I just do not understand that aspect of the matter.
I do not want to repeat too much of what the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, have said about the Patents Bill, but I should like to make a few comments. First, there were 10 voices involved; a European initiative; a patent office response; Government sponsorship; the opinions of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents; and the opinions of the Institute of Patentees and Inventors. To raise these voices we had the benefit of a trinity on the Government Front Bench represented by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. We had the heavenly twins on the Opposition Front Bench represented by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who took it in turns to speak on the matter. We had two experts: the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, who at one time was at the Patents Bar. We had about three experienced businessmen and exploiters of patents—the noble Lord, Lord Brown, on the Government side; the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, on the Opposition side; and myself as the ex-managing director of the National Research and Development Corporation.
My Lords, we took up hours and hours of Parliamentary time when no other Member of the House was really interested in the matter at all. We would have done our work better in Committee. We could have sat round and discussed it. We could have had Parliamentary draftsmen sitting in with us to try to look at some of the puzzling little details of wording and so on. We could have had representatives of these various institutes talking to us direct instead of having to brief spokesmen to talk for them. I think that we could have gone through the matter quicker and better, because for all we put into that Bill I am told that it still has a whole mass of Government Amendments waiting to be discussed in the other place. I believe that we could have made less heavy weather of it and more use of Parliamentary time.
I think that it is pathetic, when one looks at the green paper that is circulated every day—Minutes of Proceedings—to see the

223
enormous number of topics that people have put their names to as matters that they wish to see discussed. Noble Lords know that, with lists that long, these topics will never be raised in the current Session. Surely we have a duty to try to give noble Lords an opportunity to do that?
I turn to Divisions in Committee and on Report. As regards this matter, I divided the House on a number of occasions on points that I thought of importance. However, of course, I was, as a Cross-Bencher and an Independent, dividing the House against the Government because the Government were sponsoring the Bill. I did this not for political reasons, but because I thought that the points on which I should press for a Division had the sympathy of the House. However, the Opposition supported my Amendments because they involved a Division against the Government.
Therefore, I had the experience of carrying most of these Amendments, because the Opposition—if it is a Conservative Opposition—can, as a rule, impose its will upon the Government, if it is a Labour Government. I can only say that I did not get very much satisfaction from feeling that that was why I had carried my points. I would have much sooner had the two sides evenly balanced and felt that I had won my points on their merits and not because they became confused with the traditional opposition between Government and Opposition in your Lordships' House.
For all these reasons I believe that we ought to go for something on the lines of the Committee's report. We should all be very grateful to the Committee for the hard work it did on the report. I believe that if we adopt some of the Report cautiously and experimentally and gather experience as we go along, we shall conduct the affairs of our House better than we have done hitherto.
5.47 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, for the first time since I came to this House nine and a half years ago I must crave the indulgence of your Lordships and apologise for a requirement to leave before the end of the debate. It is not my habit to do so; I have always sat through debates till the very end, but it so happens that tonight I have a domestic
224
obligation which I could ignore only at my peril.
My Lords, I discern four aspects of the public context of this debate to which no reference has yet been made. First, power in our society is now less amenable to the enforcement of legislation issuing from Parliament. Secondly, procedures for voting or withholding supply in another place are largely outdated by the sophistry of the borrowing requirement and deficit financing. Thirdly, the stresses between a collectivist and an individualist approach to politics horribly match the conflicts of the reformation period and are arousing horribly similar passions. Fourthly, the multinational state of the past two and a half centuries in Western Europe is now under attack from Catalonia and Provence to Scotland and the Shetland Isles.
In that context, Parliament's power over events is in such decline that the other place can only check the Executive a little, and that, for the most part, provided it has the support of the media and perhaps the public opinion polls. Your Lordships' House is at its best confronting the Executive with facts so arranged as to constitute a new idea. Here, my Lords, is your Lordships' best role—doing good by stealth.
My Lords, it is indeed a sadness to us all that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, though happily recovering from the surgeon's knife, cannot be here and may not be here for some considerable time. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when opening the debate referred to the noble Baroness and sent the good wishes of the House, as it were as the opener of the debate. However, I am sure that others of your Lordships, particularly those who have served under her on the Scrutiny Committee, would wish to confirm that message and wish her fair person an early and full-hearted return. Much has been said of a laudatory character about the Scrutiny Committee's performance. I believe, and I am sure that other members of the Committee would support me in this view, that our joint achievement is very largely due to the enterprise and leadership of the noble Baroness. It was her evidence which showed to the Select Committee, whose report we are discussing, what a Select Committee can do once it has the bit between its teeth in a pre-legislative and preparatory form of scrutiny

225
My Lords, "All good things which exist are the fruits of originality". The noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, has certainly brought that gift along with her own personal grace and ability to the work of our Committee. As a member of it and as one of her little cohort of sub-committee chairmen, I have watched the production of papers on such abstruse and to me unlikely, even indigestible, subjects as company law or sea-water for bathing in, which was mastered by the noble Baroness, Lady White.
I have seen these reports produced. One has seen personally in contacts with Brussels, and also in feedback from contacts with Departments, what a real impact they have had. In the areas in which I have been personally concerned there certainly has been some feedback on the subject of energy in Europe and in particular on the JET fusion project. A noble Lord—I regret that his name excapes me—referred to another report that we had issued, on civil aviation. These Committees assemble persons of high experience and monumental talent. I am referring to the members of Sub-Committee F, of which I am chairman. It is worth mentioning in parenthesis, since there has been talk of the reform of this House, that these are persons who would be most unlikely to demean themselves in order to seek any kind of popular election. These committees do a serious job of investigation, and there is benefit to all in this respect: that amid the common habit of contemporary polemics—of standing facts on their head—they show that facts can be arranged in order and can be firmly stood on their feet again.
Many policy areas suggest themselves as candidates for attention. I was glad to hear a number of earlier speakers agree that we should not try to confine them to departmental areas. One area is crime and penal reform, together with the perhaps related inner city problems of vandalism and housing. Reference has already been made by the noble Baroness, Lady White, to the Bullock Report. I believe it was the noble Baroness who said that now is the time to look at the problems of copartnership in industry, not when a Bill has been tabled in Parliament. Labour relations are surely an obvious area that lends itself to Select Committee treatment on the consensus basis which we
226
have learned to establish. Constitutional reform, foreign policy by areas, transport, energy, the disabled and the arts are other areas. It is at the Green and White Paper stages that a Select Committee is best able, and perhaps only able, to do its job. If it were to look at legislation passing through another place, the most it could do would be to identify the issues, not just the clauses which might not have been debated in the other Chamber. I am in full agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady White, that once areas of controversy are presented to a Select Committee the whole aspect changes. In areas of controversy, at the best a committee could not go beyond eliciting the philsophical and policy issues without attempting their resolution. To try to convert a Select Committee into a Public Bill Committee, complete with Front Bench spokesmen, is to change a place of inquiry into a forum for debate. This is to confuse that committee's spirit of cohesion—perhaps to kill it altogether.
The question has been raised as to how these committees, if set up, are to be manned. Perhaps noble Lords are unaware that no fewer than 80 Members of your Lordships' House serve on the European Scrutiny Committee—either on the main Committee, or on one or other or more than one of its Sub-Committees. Much time and attention is required of those who serve. There is a volume of reading to be done; it is no good pretending that it is not there. And there is even more work for the Sub-Committee chairmen to do.
Noble Lords should not make the mistake of trying to get this on the cheap. That was tried, damagingly in my view, during the earlier stages of the European Committee. We have now an excellent body of clerks. Also, we have excellent secretarial and clerical help. But noble Lords may care to know that even when there is a crisis and something has to be retyped overnight we are not allowed to involve our secretarial staff in working overtime, nor are we allowed to bring in outside help. So there is a warning here about trying to do things on the cheap. I believe that the figures in the report regarding the cost of extra Select Committees grossly underestimate the problem before us.
Can one really speed up the work of Parliament without delivering a bonus to

227
the Executive? Sir Peter Henderson said in his evidence that there was an air of unreality about proposals for improving the flow of business without reference to Party politics. And, my Lords, there is no crueller tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice. The slow-moving conventions of Parliamentary procedure and adversary politics, devised to meet this very danger, have more than once been menaced in quite recent days. To tamper lightly with those conventions may be to play with fire. To nurture and adapt them, moving warily by cautious experiment, is a worthier way. By and large, the experiment with the Scrutiny Committees has gone well but it has gone quietly and with prudence. Those two qualities are the ones which I commend to your Lordships in advancing this matter a little further, though rather slowly.
5.56 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, this report is quite unusual and notable. Much of the oral evidence that was given was remarkably uninhibited and full of ripe experience and common sense; the two memoranda from the Clerk of the Parliaments are of outstanding distinction as pieces of relevant history; and, lastly and most important, the report itself is not afraid of opening up really difficult areas and proposing bold solutions with which one may or may not agree. At any rate, it is no kind of a glossing-over or fluffing job, unlike too many of the reports which are written in our present diffuse democracy. If I suggest that certain things might be done which are not recommended in the report or that certain things might not be done which are recommended, it is against the background of emphatic approval of the main outlines of the report and a real conviction that it is extremely distinguished.
First, on the question of avoiding the July rush of legislation, the Committee examined the possibility of allowing certain classes of Bill to survive into the next Session and rejected it for very much the same reason as it was rejected in Balfour's day. The Committee quoted Balfour saying that nausea would certainly supervene and that it would give infinite possibilities of delay to an Opposition, which was objectionable.
It occurred to me to ask why should it not be possible, while retaining the
228
sessional system—keeping the Sessions as they are, with the Queen's Speech announcing every autumn the Government's programme of Bills to be introduced during the next year—to say that all Bills introduced would fall unless they were completed within a year of their introduction. So that a Bill could he introduced in either House in July and could be picked up again in October, and could finish its course, so long as it was through, by the next July. The point about that is that it would not be necessary to upset the Queen's Speech and the rhythm of Sessions; that could go on just as usual. We should simply change the law to the extent of saying that a Bill need not be out by the end of the Session but must be out within a year of its introduction.
Turning now to Part III, the essence of this report on Committees, I am delighted that the Committee has chosen to use the phrase "policy areas" rather than a one to one arrangement for Departments of State. It seems to me that one of the main benefits of such a Committee system, which has not been mentioned yet in the debate and is not actually mentioned in the report either, is that it could enable Government Departments themselves, to say nothing of Ministers, to get more easily an integrated overall conspective view of their own policy.
We have a problem about that in Whitehall. The Ministries go forward—so many self-controlled, self-dependent ships of State signalling to each other at a rather long distance. If they had to bounce their policy back off the reflecting mirror of a Select Committee or a structure such as we are talking about at an early stage, it would help them to be in touch with each other. They would know it in advance and it could have an integrating effect, but of course that effect would not come about if one Committee marked one Department. As the report says, it must be a policy area, and for that reason I doubt whether seven or eight may not be too many Committees to start with and, without going so far as to suggest only one, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington's guinea-pig, it might be possible to think of having three or four covering very wide areas until they prove to be too wide and the areas have to be broken up.
I share the reservations expressed by many noble Lords about taking evidence

229
on Bills which are not yet even before the House. I think this would be difficult, if only for the practical reason that it will be the same people rushing from the House of Commons, where their briefing for their political masters is going to have an operational effect that night, and yet trying at the same time to find time to come here and to say something useful to our Committees which will have no effect on the Bill for, say, four or six months from that time. Also, how far can one properly go in taking evidence about a Bill which may be changed? God knows! Bills are changed in the Commons before they ever come to us. Whole sections are knocked out and it may be that hours of evidence-taking could be completely wasted if the Commons decided to cut out a section of a Bill.
This does not mean that the Committees we have in mind should not—to use another phrase used in the report—follow the progress of a Bill through the Commons by reading Hansard and by talking about Hansard and thereby being prepared for the Bill when it comes; having some knowledge of what it is all about, and not having to start from scratch on the awful rush which is so familiar to all of us. As for taking evidence when the Bill is before this House, I am strongly in favour of that and I believe that the more of that we have, the better will be the working of a bicameral system.
I have one last question. I understand why the Committee decided to limit itself to legislation in its recommendations about setting up Committees. It suggests that there should be Select Committees on legislation, on Bills only. I wonder whether, when the horrors of last summer have receded from our memories, we may not come to think that it would be just as valuable to have Committees considering policy areas, whether or not there is legislation immediately pending—and that was a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, only a few minutes ago; and not only that, but whether the Government might consider having Select Committees on policy areas where there is never, or hardly ever, legislation. Here I have in mind particularly foreign affairs. Is it conceivable that we should develop a whole structure of Select Committees on policy
230
areas and leave the House without the benefit of a Select Specialist Committee on Foreign Affairs, knowing that all other areas would be covered in that way, and knowing also that all Parliaments like our own—the American, the German and the Scandinavian—have Foreign Affairs Committees, and have had for years and are extremely glad of it?
I should like to give the House a trailer. The Committee on Practice and Procedure were courteous enough to allow me to propose to it in the form of evidence that it might consider recommending to the House that there should also be a Sessional Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The reason for it in my mind is simply the vastness of the field. There are so many foreign affairs in progress at any moment and we get so few opportunities to debate them in this House that, compared with the debates of some other countries, our debates tend to resemble the traditional shopping basket—speeches dominated by the phrase, "My Lords, I now turn", and then we turn to another country 4,000 miles away. The poor Foreign Office Ministers or Defence Ministers who have to open and wind up, say, "My Lords, I am now turning", at a rate which must leave them giddy, from one side of the world to the other, from one aspect of policy to another. If the House had the benefit of a body of people who were sifting and considering precisely what might be debated and what it would be in the interests of the country, the public and the Parliament to have debated, that would be another sort of justification for having a Committee, not opposed in any way to the justification for the legislation-linked Committees which are in the report, but a variant of the same.
I commend the Motion to the House, as I have already commended it to the Committee and I dare to hope the Committee has not yet gone so far as to decide to report against it. It would be within their terms of reference to report in favour of it. That brings me to the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I can see a certain advantage in its not being pressed. It would enable the Select Committee, if it thought fit, to have "another think" about the number of Select Committees which ought to be set up, whether so many as seven or eight, whether so few as the one

231
suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, or whether, as I have just suggested, something like three or four. It would enable it to reconsider taking evidence on Bills which are before the Commons; and perhaps (who knows?) it might also enable it to think again—I do not know whether I am right—about the possible desirability of a Foreign Affairs Committee.
In conclusion, if I am sometimes tempted to think that we in this House of Lords are less important than we think we are, I am quite sure that we are a good deal more important than anybody else thinks we are. Therefore it is our duty to get as smooth and as efficient a system as we can, and this debate is taking us large strides towards the fulfilment of that duty.
6.8 p.m.
Lord WADE: My Lords, as one who was a member of the Select Committee, I should like to join with others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on the skill and efficiency which he displayed in chairing this Committee. It was undoubtedly due to his ability that we were able to produce a report such as this within a comparatively short space of time. Like other noble Lords who have spoken in the latter part of this debate I shall endeavour to impose a strict limit on what I have to say. I think it is obvious that there are some major reforms which we could not deal with in depth without consultation with the Commons. Examples are the changes in the financial year, the dates when a Session should start and end and the question whether Bills should be carried on from one Session to another. There are of course practical difficulties but I hope that there will be further study of these subjects in co-operation with the Commons.
As your Lordships are aware 16 proposals are put forward in this report. I believe that most of us would agree that the most controversial is number 16, which deals with the setting up of Select Committees matching policy areas. I wish to deal with one specific point; namely, whether committees should deal with a matching policy area or one Bill only.
232
Before embarking on that, may I make it clear that I take a very much more radical view as to what is required. I believe that it is essential that there should be Select Committees for pre-legislative examination of proposed measures. I put that very high on the list of essential reforms. It is preferable that these pre-legislative Select Committees should be joint committees of both Houses. It may be that we shall have to wait for reform of this Chamber. I hope that is not so. But I would emphasise that pre-legislative study of particular subjects is one of the major ways ahead. I think that it is important for two reasons: firstly, because it would lessen the burden of the examination of complicated Bills when they come before us and when we are working under pressure; and, secondly, because I hope that it would lead to more continuity of policy. We must remember that a lot of time is taken up in dealing with complex Bills the object of which is to repeal other complex Bills introduced by the previous Parliament. There is not nearly enough continuity of policy. It is very difficult to assess the amount of damage that has been done by the constant changes that have taken place over the last 25 years.
Now, as to proposal No. 16 and the subject of policy areas, if politically controversial subjects are to be ruled out, then the illustration that I propose to mention is inappropriate, but I think that that would he taking too cautious a view. My noble Leader, Lord Byers, referred to pensions. I would take, merely by way of example, the very thorny subject of land. That falls into two parts—the compulsory acquisition of land for various purposes, and the acquisition of land values for the benefit of the community. They are separate but related issues. If a broadly agreed policy had been achieved in 1947, what a difference it would have made to local authorities, to those concerned with the environment, to industry and to a great many other people. I should certainly run into difficulties if I started talking about the late lamented Land Commission.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Not lamented, my Lords.
Lord WADE: My Lords, there are many who take the view that there should have been two Bills, whatever one's views about the subject. If there had been two

233
Bills, dealing with separate but interrelated subjects, and a Select Committee of the nature suggested in this report, I think it would have been a mistake to have two separate Select Committees just because there were two separate Bills. This is simply the point I am making. I think it would have been better to have one Committee matching that policy area. So my conclusion is this: we are not asked now for a final decision. We are, I hope, going to refer this to the Procedure Committee. But I would urge that we are not too restrictive in the wording that we propose as to the nature and size and area to be covered by these proposed Committees.
The only other comment I have to make is this. I still believe in a second Chamber; I think that there is a need for a second Chamber. I feel that there is some unnecessary repetition of arguments, particularly on Committee stages. I hope the proposals in this report will help to reduce unnecessary repetition. In any event, I hope that the report will commend itself to this House.
6.14 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, so far as the debate has gone it is quite clear to me, as I imagine to all your Lordships, that it has been a very useful debate. I cite, for instance, the suggestion that Lord Kennet has just made about Bills being left on the Paper for a year, and so on. Like him, I am inclined to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, that perhaps it would be wiser if the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, did not press his Motion, so that we can all have another look at it. Having said that, I would say that until my noble friend Lord Denham spoke I had intended to confine my remarks to one section of the report only, namely Recommendation No. 3, which refers to length of speeches. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Denham, on his delicate touch in reading us all a little "pep talk", a "pep talk", what is more, well within what is apposite —to use the little red book's description—to the debate before your Lordships' House. I will be brief, as indeed I must be if I am going to talk about brevity.
This matter has been referred to by other speakers, but I propose to refer to it a little more firmly. It was touched on by
234
my noble friend Lord Carrington, who referred to that excellent debate which, with a number of short speeches and so many speakers, went through before seven o'clock. We have had the recent experience of the debate on the Annan Report, where the need for a reasonable measure of brevity was well illustrated. The first nine speakers occupied 3¾ hours, averaging 25 minutes each; with half an hour added for Statements, it was 7.35 before the tenth speaker arose, out of a total, I believe, of 27. He was my noble friend Lord Plowden, who made an important contribution which took only 14 minutes; that, I think, was the length of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, among the first nine, and was just about the average for the last 14 speakers; that took us to 11.47. As a matter of fact the debate did not end until just before 12.
I make the point that if noble Lords who speak early were stricter with themselves and tried to concentrate their contributions, it would make it easier for Back-Benchers not only to get a fair hearing but perhaps to get a reply from the Minister when at the end he has more time to devote to replying to speeches, rather than saying: "At this late hour there is not much more I can say, but I will write to noble Lords who have spoken". I take this opportunity to apologise for not having stayed to the end of that debate. My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder and I both had a sleeper train to catch, and nowadays in the holiday season you cannot miss a sleeper or you do not get home at all.
To return to what Lord Denham said, I would only take issue with him on one matter concerning our procedure. The little red book does hint at some criticism of the people who some call "jumpers", the people who speak in the blank. I think it was Lord Strange who invented the term. I am sure the little red book is right in saying that you should try to send in your name. But I feel that it is proper—and here again I quote Lord Denham—that whereas our debates here are sometimes—I forget his word—not "dreary", but a series of monologues, the gap enables particularly Back-Benchers, within the rules of the little red book, to make it more of a debate by answering earlier points or raising fresh points. I should like to repeat that my feeling is that when

235
we reach the end of this debate it may be wise for us to take another look at it, and so I look forward to hearing the final speeches.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, today's debate has a good track record for the length of the speeches and I do not intend to spoil the record with mine. We have had only one long speech and that was from the chairman of the Committee whose report we are discussing today. We all feel that he was entitled to make it; he did a wonderful job in chairing the Committee and we do not begrudge him his 33 minutes.
It is hardly necessary to remind the House of the unhappy phase that we had at the end of last Session. It was graphically described by my noble friend Lord Kennet as the "horrors of last summer". That expresses it all. This was not only a strain on us all, but a sad reflection on the working of our Parliamentary system—one which brought discredit on Parliament as a whole. Certainly this House—and I hope the other place as well—felt that it was a procedure which should not be repeated. The guillotining of five major Bills in the other place and the consequent need for particularly careful scrutiny of them in this House became more and more important. I was very glad that, at the beginning of his speech my noble friend Lord Shepherd referred to that aspect of what has been placed before us.
It was not only this careful scrutiny that descended on us but a considerable and persistent stream of abuse. In the end this went too far, as abuse usually does. I believe that, as a result, both Lords and Commons realised that together we must find a means of improving our procedure. I believe that most knowledgeable people would agree that for years it has been impossible for the other place to give adequate consideration to the mass of legislation that is brought forward, and many speakers this afternoon have referred to that. Equally obviously, some lessening of the burden would result from reducing the amount of legislation. But, from the evidence given to our Committee by people who really know, it seems unlikely that any lessening of the
236
burden of legislation is likely to arise in the future. Even if there were a slight lessening of legislation, such is the burden of work along the corridor that they would still be unable to give adequate consideration to that which did arise. I believe that everyone who has been a Member of another place accepts that.
That brings me to something in which I believe most strongly—namely, that in this House we should have influence rather than power. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, gave me a very dusty answer at page 62 of the report. I have much respect for the noble Lord. He drew my attention to an article in the March issue of the Illustrated London News. Having that respect for him, I went straight away and read it; I even have a copy here and have marked the place. In spite of that respect and in spite of having studied the article, I am sorry but I am still of the same opinion.
I repeat that I beleve that in this House we should have influence rather than power. I would agree, of course, that it depends on what one means by the word "power". I am sure that we shall have an opportunity of discussing this in the future. If I am not taking their names in vain, I believe that my noble friend Lord Aylestone does not dissent from what I have just said about influence rather than power and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, might be of the same opinion.
But what I want to emphasise and what I know so many past Members of another place who are now Members here feel is that it would not be desirable for this House—even if we could do so—to make this Chamber a pale copy of the one along the corridor. I would not want that and I do not think that it would be acceptable to the other place.
I was very glad when the Government and Opposition Chief Whips plus the noble Lord, Lord Byers, affirmed that they would not be in favour of our two Houses having different Sessions. I recall, as will other Members, how much the other place resented us sitting last year when they were not sitting. The fact that it was their fault that we were sitting made no difference at all, but it meant that any official Statements and any Ministerial announcements had to be

237
made from here. We did obtain much more publicity as a result, but the two Houses make up one Parliament; I remember the Opposition Chief Whip making that same statement when he came to see us.
There is just one other point that I should like to mention. I was sorry that it did not find favour with the majority of my colleagues on the Committee. At page 31 of the report a proposal was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to the effect that Peers might be asked for how long they intended to speak and that this estimate might be put alongside their names on the list. It was not an attempt to dictate time or to shorten contributions. But if people prepare their speeches they must have some idea how long they will take. I appreciate that, from time to time, circumstances will fault any estimate, but I think the idea worth trying and I should like to know, although it is late on in the day, what the House thinks of this so far as main debates are concerned.
In spite of the particular and pessimistic realism of our witnesses on this point—and I think we all might read their comments and feel at least some sympathy for Chief Whips, for the comments were very realistic and it would probably do us all good to read what they said—I still believe that public opinion in the House would be effective. Certainly, those with their names on a lengthy list of speakers waiting to speak would feel justified in indicating displeasure if someone said that they would take 10 minutes and then proceeded to take 30.
This is a tolerant, understanding and progressive place. I have always thought it far more progressive than the place along the corridor. I have been here since 1962 and others have been here much longer. But I always feel strongly that I would not wish to offend against the wishes of the House. That does not mean that one expects agreement or that one is not a nuisance at times, but real offence, no. I am sure that that goes for most of us here. So I hope that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, may win some further consideration for a trial run anyway.
In conclusion, I hope that four points will be included in what emerges from today's debate. The first is that this House
238
makes a contribution to the work of Parliament without which business could not be carried through. The second is that a second Chamber is essential to our system of government. The third point is that we provide a forum for full and free debate on matters of public interest for which the other place just does not have the time. The fourth and last point relates to what has come out of this debate: that, for example, our Select Committee on the European Communities is more effective and I think generally admitted to be much better than its counterpart along the corridor. I should like to add my tributes to those paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, and regret that she is not here today.
This House stands well in the country. There is considerable respect for its courage, its integrity and for what it does. In the horrors of last summer the country had a great deal of respect for what this House tried to do. Obviously, changes are necessary but we shall have further opportunities to debate these another time. Finally, I hope that this report will make clear some of the work that we do and that some, if not all, of the recommendations made by the Committee will be acceptable. We have tried to improve our practice and procedure to cope with the stresses and strains imposed on both Houses of Parliament in these modern times. My Lords, I have beaten the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, by two minutes!
6.30 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, the report that we are debating clearly justifies itself because it seems obvious to me that arising out of it something will be done. Whether or not my noble friend Lord Windlesham pushes his Motion to a vote or whether he takes the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and, having made the point, leaves it to be sorted out in a more tranquil fashion, I do not know. I suppose that it will depend upon whether, arising out of the whole debate, the noble Lord the Leader of the House accepts the mood of the House. If he produces the same mood, I would have thought it best not to push it to a vote but to allow it to follow the line suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. It is clear that the

239
report has justified itself in so far as something is going to be done.
I should like to come down secondly on another side. The argument in support of brief speeches has been overdone. We are all for brief speeches, and everybody knows that a certain way to get a cheer at any dinner, or in either House, is to say that you are in favour of short speeches. But I hope we are not going to get to the time when Parliamentarians pay more attention to how long they will speak rather than what they are going to say when they do speak, which I should have thought was the right priority. That is not to say that one wants lengthy speeches.
Although it was said in a jocular and friendly way, I think that the 33 minutes that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, took as chairman of the Committee was justified. It is an important report; such a speech had to be made; and that is very good. The other justification for the report was the memo submitted by the Clerk of the Parliaments. That historical memo is very valuable indeed, and it ought to be read in the other place, when particularly it ought to be noted that from 1943 to 1952 there were added to the Statute Book 15,600 extra pages, and that over the last three years, 1973, 1974, 1975, the number of extra pages have been about 2,000, 2,000, and almost 3,000. These are the sorts of overburdening problems that interfere with procedure, and filch freedom from us all.
I agree absolutely with my noble friend Lord Carrington. There is not a great deal wrong with the procedures of your Lordships' House, as I have seen them operating in the short time I have been here. If you really want to get greater efficiency and improved procedures, it is something much bigger than that which is contained in the report which has to be dealt with, and that is why it is a pity that this was only a Committee of your Lordships' House. It ought to have been a joint Committee where the problem could be looked at.
The advice I would give from my experience in the other place is that it would be better, if you are going to extend the Select Committee idea, for it to be done slowly and to let it grow. Do not try to graft a new system on to the old one,
240
which I think works very well indeed. I remember when somebody in the other place had the bright idea of having morning sittings in order to speed up and make more efficient the work there. Because it was such a completely new idea and new graft on an existing system, it did not work. The reaction was against it; the atmosphere was against it; it did not fit into the other procedures and it was dropped. Therefore, the thing to do is to let it grow, and that is why I should have thought that to start slowly and in a very small number of Select Committees is the right thing to do.
What I wanted to emphasise in my short contribution is that the present procedures work in this House. It is the procedures in the other House that do not work very well, and I am more used to them than to your Lordships' procedures. When, after I had been here a short time, I came to contemplate the difference between the other place and this House, I came to the conclusion that nine-tenths of what goes on in the other place is moonshine, and only one-tenth is careful consideration of legislation. It is not their fault; electors too often prefer the gimmicky, the offshoot things, that are used in order to get a vote which MPs have to do to remain MPs. One good point is made, and 50 MPs have to make it in the hope that it will be reported in their local paper as their idea in the first place. These are the sort of things that are nine-tenths moonshine. I have discovered in your Lordships' House that only one-tenth is moonshine and nine-tenths has been concentrated on what I think is doing your job as a revising Chamber, and looking at and clearing up and bringing about reasonably good Parliamentary legislation. Therefore, the message of the report has to go somewhere else.
I do not know whether your Lordships have examined it, but our Parliament sits twice as long as that in America, three times as long as the French Parliament, and five times as long as the West German Parliament. In Germany they sit 313 hours a year; in France they sit 510 hours a year; in America they sit 766 hours a year, and in Britain they sit 1,528 hours. So if you want dynamism, efficiency and getting results at the end of the day as a nation, the German system, short term, is the one that seems to produce the results. So it could be that the message we ought to be

241
sending is that they really ought to get together with us to see whether or not we can have a framework in which the procedures we have will be allowed to give the full results that I think they are capable of giving.
As I have said, the best answer to all of this is less legislation. On this I thought the report was rather half-hearted. It says that the Committee recognise that any attempt to persuade Governments that less legislation should be introduced is likely to prove futile. Why should it be futile, if it is right? We want to make the Parliamentary system work, and I should have thought that the report need not just shove it off as being futile but could have said that it is highly desirable that this should be faced up to.
The report then said that it would be more even-handed to introduce more and substantial Bills in the House of Lords. That seems common sense, rather than having the horrible summer that the noble Baroness has just referred to. Why could not some of those Bills have started in this place? The answer they give is rather a weak one. They say:
"Almost all departmental Ministers sit in the House of Commons"—
that is right—
"and they naturally wish to have the responsibility of launching the Bills themselves".
They are not their Bills. That is rather a petty reason for not doing what is right. Of course it is nice if you can have the headlines, if it is headlines that you are after—and that is the great problem. If I may say so while my noble Leader Lord Carrington is here, I cannot agree with him on the views he has expressed about the general reform of your Lordships' House. I would not introduce anything which involves being elected. The minute you are elected anywhere you cease to be objective. If you are the Archangel Gabriel and you are elected you tend to do things which will influence those who are likely to elect you—such as writing brief speeches when they ought to be long speeches in order to get some sort of result. Election is not always good. The importance of your Lordships' House is its objectivity; the fact that it can be impartial.
The other thing I would not do is to pay. By all means cover the expenses; but the minute you pay, people feel that they have
242
to earn the money. When I was first elected to Parliament I think the salary was £1,000 a year. Now, with allowances, it is £8,000 or £9,000 a year. I am certain that the reason so much legislation is being churned out from another place is because they feel they have to earn the extra money. If you introduce election first, and pay secondly, you are absolutely pushing out of the window the objectivity and impartiality which is certainly wanted in this place if not wanted anywhere else. Therefore, why cannot we have some of the Bills started in this place, if it is only because Ministers want the joy of introducing them themselves? It is not their Bill. At the end of the day it is the nation's Bill. In the beginning it is the Government's Bill, and since the Government are elected it is the people's Bill at any stage of its proceedings.
The report then gives the other and stronger reason that the Parliament Act does not apply to Bills initiated in your Lordships' House. Why not make it that the Parliament Act does apply to Government sponsored Bills? Why not make it that the effect of the Parliament Act can apply if it is a Government sponsored Bill, which is a way of getting efficiency and the thing on the move? That is what I should like to see done. I would commend the report. Its existence is valuable. The memo from the Clerk of the Parliaments should be made absolutely compulsory reading to anybody who sits in either House. I would urge that speeches ought to be as brief as possible, but not at the expense of good content.
6.40 p.m.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I have spent half a lifetime in the other place, but I think with rather different results. What impresses me is how different things look here than they look down the passage. For example, the objectivity of the judgment of this House, so clear to the noble Lord, is less obvious to members of the Government sitting on the Benches in another place. Indeed, when we hear of the horrors of last summer we are impressed—we think how aggrieved we were, how we suffered, how nobly we laboured—but it did not look like that down the corridor; it looked down there as if we were a partisan nuisance and should be abolished

243
as soon as possible. Indeed, the results of our herculean efforts was a majority in the Government Party pledged to the abolition of the House of Lords. We are in fact on probation, and if we are to exist in order to be able to have any effect at all we would be wise to bear that in mind.
The Earl of HALSBURY: Would the noble Lord care to nominate a probation officer, my Lords?
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: I am afraid that may not be necessary, my Lords. It may happen too soon and we would, when we are considering our procedure, be well advised to refrain as much as we can from aggravation, and seek, in so far as we can, to assist the Government of the day in making their legislation efficient. We are ill-armed to take part in political warfare and we will certainly get a bloody nose if we do.
I have a suggestion which is shocking in its simplicity. It is that we should refrain from voting. What does our vote mean? It means no more than that there are more Conservatives in this House than there are Labour supporters. That is all it means and it is a lesson which those who desire well for this House should probably refrain from rubbing in too often.
In an admirable speech—I hope he will forgive an old friend for saying so—Lord Halsbury observed that many of his Amendments to the Patents Bill were carried simply because they were mistaken for Conservative Amendments and not on any merits he had persuaded the House they possessed. That is what our voting means. A majority vote in this House really adds no weight to any opinion of any sort; it is merely, when there is a Labour Government, a repetitive irritation which passes down the corridor, and I fail to see very much point in it.
How would we do without voting? We do without a chairman, and that is a vastly more difficult task. Nobody who has not been a Member of this noble House would believe it possible for a great debating Chamber dealing with vastly controversial matters to do without a chairman. It involves enormous restraints, such as refraining from the partisan, and it particularly involves mutual
244
courtesy. To add to those courtesies refraining from voting other people down would not be a big addition, and would be one which I believe we could manage perfectly well.
As for Bills that come to us from another place, the convention is almost there already; we do not on Second Reading throw out Bills which we receive in that way. As for Bills which originate here, I could well see the Leader of the House on occasions, after a Bill had been debated, congratulating the proposer and all concerned on how splendidly they had done and saying that in the light of the feeling of the House they should, before it went any further, take it back and reconsider it. That sort of thing works in this Chamber. Again, in relation to Bills in Committee, sending Amendments down the corridor, particularly when those Amendments mean no more than an Opposition majority, is not the best way to tender advice. If we had a Committee that did not vote but searched for a consensus, trying to get agreement, it could send suggestions and advice, and that would be far more effective than Amendments imposed by an Opposition majority.
With Committees working like that, Party majorities would cease to be important. One could collect on to those Committees noble Lords best qualified to advise. After all, the noble Lord whose speech we so enjoyed was concerned with the hare hunting Bill. On that Bill a Select Committee drawn from people who knew something about the subject consulted together, examined the evidence, looked into it thoroughly and produced unanimous advice; they found a consensus. How immensely more effective that advice was than the Opposition majority which threw the Bill out. That is the way we should, in my view, perform our office.
On Motions in this House, the value is of the speeches that are made. Why should a Motion carry any more weight because more people walk down one Lobby than walk down another? Maybe that by introducing a rapporteur system—because not many people nowadays are able to read every copy of Hansard—which conveyed the general consensus we had reached on a Motion, we would make our advice and opinion much more effective.

245
I do not want to make a long speech. We are an Assembly which is rooted in tradition rather than reason. The importance of our opinions rests on the notable individuals who are of our number. It does not rest on our collective wisdom. We really have no business in a democracy to take decisions; we are not a decision-making body. We are fit and well qualified to advise but not to decide. In my view, our effectiveness must be measured by our success in presenting our advice in a form which Governments sometimes find acceptable.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can elucidate what actually happened over my Amendment to the Patents Bill in the light of what he has been saying. The position is simply that I put down an Amendment removing the food and drugs industry from its status as a second-class citizen. The Government's view was that, if that Amendment were passed, it would prejudice the negotiations that were going forward with them for supplies of food and drugs to the National Health Service. I took exactly the opposite view; I thought that it would facilitate those negotiations. In fact, the Amendment did facilitate the situation, and the Government have accepted my Amendment, which is not being contested in the other place. I do not want to say that I did not get that vote as a result of—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: I should like to add a few words to that. I am delighted to hear that the noble Earl's Amendment was accepted. But I feel that the basis was not that the votes were reversed, because on second sight, for very good reasons, lie provided for it. I would still say that the vote was an irrelevance.
6.51 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships' House for only a short period. I have come to this House off and on since 1928, and as a result I have seen certain changes. In my view the procedure report which we are considering this evening is merely one further step to something which has been
246
going on for many years; this is the fact that no one outside this House can make any attempt to reform it, and we in this House, as the situation arises, continue to take, step by step, actions which reform ourselves. I have a feeling that, as a result, we are keeping up to date with the times.
When I was reading this report a penny seemed to drop somewhere, so far as I was concerned. In your Lordships' House on 24th July 1929, there was a debate introduced by Lord Darling, suggesting that Ministers should be allowed to come up and take part in your Lordships' debates in this House, although they were not permitted to vote in it. This was particularly interesting because it happened that Lord Parmoor, who was then in the post now held by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, was not in favour of this at all. He referred to his few supporters as a "band of brothers". He also made some remarks, which I heard quite recently, the main one of which was that when a Conservative Government are in power, there is no effective Second Chamber. I seem to have heard that not very long ago.
What we are coming down to in the matter of the operation of this House is the fact that we must not overplay politics—political Parties—in this House. We are a revising Chamber, and every step we take must be to maintain our position as a revising Chamber. I should like to suggest to your Lordships that this seems a most excellent report in regard to a method by which to do this. Any steps we may take towards establishing the committees which my noble friend Lord Windlesham wants should, I suggest, be welcomed.
Over the past few weeks—and over the past few years, for that matter—we have had a number of Bills which, to rather uneducated Back-Benchers like myself become quite shattering. I remember sitting on the other side of the House listening to a debate on a Bill when a Tory Government were in power, and I recall Lord Diamond standing up at three o'clock in the morning quoting percentages of 500 million, multiplying them by 10, and taking away the various other factors which occur. He did it all in four and a half minutes, and then we divided. I did not have an idea what we were talking

247
about. That was not a Bill which should have had its Committee stage in the House.
We have had the Patents Bill, to which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred. That was a Bill which could well have gone to one of the committees envisaged by my noble friend Lord Windlesham. We have also had the Deer Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, introduced. That was discussed by a very small selected body of people, and it took up a considerable amount of time. That, too, was a Bill which should have gone to one of the committees proposed by my noble friend Lord Windlesham.
I commend to your Lordships the view that committees of this kind should be set up as speedily as we can do so within the rather slow moving wheels of this House. I would utter one word of caution. When the specialist committees are being set up (as I hope they will be) I believe that the membership of these committees should be fairly broadly based, so that perhaps those Back-Benchers who normally do not take part frequently in debates in the House should be involved in them. If we are to have specialist committees, it should be remembered that there are a large number of people with specialist ideas who do not take part in your Lordships' debates very often, and I feel that these people should be included. I wish to give great support to the report and to wish it well. It is one more step towards the advance of the reform of your Lordships' House without there being a tremendous upheaval, rude words, and everything else, and I hope that my noble friend's Motion will be carried.
6.56 p.m.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, this has to me been a very stimilating debate, and not the least of the stimulation has been occasioned by the shortness of the speeches, and I hope that mine will match in length those that have already been made. I have the honour to be the chairman of one of your Lordships' scrutiny Sub-Committees dealing with EEC matters—the one on agriculture and consumer affairs. My noble friend Lord Shepherd will remember that at the time that I was appointed (when he was then Leader) somehow it came to the notice of the Cabinet Office that I had expressed
248
the idea that my Sub-Committee might take a wider look at some of the problems which we knew were being considered in Brussels, but without waiting for a draft Directive, or regulation, which we knew would be in the pipeline. This idea apparently occasioned great nervousness in the Government. I was summoned to see my noble friend Lord Shepherd, and I assured him of the innocence of my intentions, and I may say that he was very gentle with me.
Then I went to see my noble friend Lord Peart, then the Minister of Agriculture. He received me very kindly. The upshot of the affair was that it was indicated to me that the Sub-Committee's locus standi did not extent beyond responding to an initiative from Brussels. The Government need not have worried, because in fact the Sub-Committee has been far too busy, nose to grindstone, dealing with the flow of legislation, to have had time to lean back and take a wider, inquisitorial view.
There have also been plenty of opportunities to use Directives, or regulations, as pegs on which to hang observations on policy, if we wished. Discussion of the Common Agricultural Policy budget is a chance for us to say almost anything we like about the Common Agricultural Policy and its impact upon Britain, and therefore on a certain question or policy which we think our own Ministry of Agriculture should adopt.
I have no doubt that the nervous reaction of the Cabinet Office, and possibly in the Ministries, was to some extent conditioned by their experience of the 1968 Crossman Committees. The Government were exceedingly shy that we might set ourselves up as an authority on the making of policy; in addition, perhaps, give ourselves expensive trips to all parts of the world; and generally be a disruptive nuisance. But as things have turned out, I think I can say that their fears have not been realised. We have had a job to do. I believe that we do it quite well—that is, from the comments which I have read and which have filtered back to me—and that our Sub-Committees have been extremely helpful in the strictures, suggestions and comments which they have made in their reports. I think I can also claim that the initial suspicion in which we were held by

249
Ministers and Departments has considerably melted. We may be a nuisance—indeed, I hope that in some respects we are a nuisance—but we are far from being an unconstructive nuisance. The result is that the initial spirit of suspicion has changed to a spirit of helpfulness and co-operation, without which, I may say, we would find many of our inquiries made more difficult; and this has come about without in any way compromising the independence of thought or freedom of action on the part of the sub-committee.
My noble friend Lord Shepherd quoted Mr. Prior as saying that the only power of an Opposition is the power of delay; and if that is really so, it might explain why so much legislation lands in our laps during the "fag-end" of a Session. But although delay may be the power of last resort, an Opposition or any scrutinising body has another power which, perhaps, in the ideal democracy, should really be the only one, and that is the power of informed argument. I feel a great suspicion of those who talk a lot about power, by which they mean acquiring a position from which they can order people about. My suspicion extends to the unicameralists. Too many of them are of a kind who just want to push things through without argument and without scrutiny. It is highly important to our democracy, I believe, that there should be a second Chamber, a contemplative Chamber as well as a revising one, and that that Chamber should be thoroughly well equipped to scrutinise proposed legislation.
One cannot be, or perhaps I should say one ought not to be, influential without being well informed. From my experience of three years, now, on an EEC scrutiny sub-committee and a number of years previously served on Private Bill Select Committees, I think there is no better way of informing oneself than the Select Committee procedure. A subject which may begin as dull and opaque soon becomes interesting and very much clearer; but I would not argue, like my noble friend Lord Darling, against establishing what he called subject committees. I believe that the present EEC Scrutiny Committees may work as well as they do because they respond to specific draft measures put out by Brussels, and it is possible that if we tried to range over the whole field of
250
policy we might get bogged down. But I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Aylestone (that is, if I did not misunderstand him) that the making of policy is the prerogative of the House of Commons. It is the prerogative of everyone in this country, and this House, as a House of Parliament, is well equipped to take a hand in policy-making. That, indeed, is what all our debates are devoted to doing now.
As I indicated at the beginning, because in our Sub-Committees we are continually absorbing the facts of policy in response to the steady flow of legislation from Brussels, it is impossible for members of your Lordships' Sub-Committees not to form much clearer ideas on policy than they would have had had they not belonged to the Sub-Committees. This accumulated wisdom (if that does not put it too highly) is, of course, at the service of your Lordships in debate, or can be communicated directly to Ministers, and is so communicated.
I should have liked to have dilated more on several of the matters which have been raised today, but I must keep my speech short, so in summary I want to say three things. The first is that this scrutiny of EEC legislation has shown us the way to having a much more open type of government than we have hitherto been used to in this country; and this has been achieved, not at any expense to Brussels or to our own Government, but to their enrichment, as well as to the education of the members of your Lordships' Sub-Committees. Secondly, I dare say that the Government are against the establishment of the type of Select Committee which has been suggested by my noble friend Lord Shepherd's Committee, but I suggest to them that there is nothing to be afraid of, and much stands to be gained all round for the benefit of the Government, of Parliament as a whole and of the democratic process. Thirdly, although I do not support the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in trying to make the Government commit themselves today to a certain course of action, I hope that a Select Committee or Committees will be set up and that, if at first it does not succeed as well as we had hoped, we will try, try and try again until we get it right, because I think it is far too important and useful an idea to be allowed to lapse.
7.7 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, some Members of this House have talked about the reform of this Chamber; others, such as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, have dared to talk about the procedures of another Chamber. I shall be nothing like so bold. As the junior member of the Committee which produced the report which is now before this House, I shall restrict myself to what we recommended. As a member of that Committee, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and my noble friend Lord Windlesham, who presided in a joint and amiable way over our proceedings—twin pearls on the bosom of the Mother of Parliaments, if I may so describe them—and I hope that they are as happy as I am about what I sense to be the mood of the House. Most speakers in this debate have in different ways supported the thrust of our proposals, if not their every detail.
I should like to say a word about Part III of our proposals; that is, that part of our report which sets out the grounds for suggesting a development of the Select Committee system of your Lordships' House. If I believed that an extension of this system would revolutionise our procedures or alter most of the way in which we work, it would not be something which I should find it easy to support. I see it as a logical and natural development of what we have achieved so far—and this is a point made by my noble friend Lord de Clifford. I so regard it for several reasons. I, like other noble Lords, am very sorry indeed that my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir is not here tonight. I am not sorry merely because she would have lent lustre to our debate. I regret the reason why she is not here, but most of all I regret her absence because she has shown the way forward for this House. With her deft and dignified chairmanship she has tapped the enthusiasm of your Lordships for a new type of Parliamentary work; and her personal testimony would have helped to stem the doubters who may be sitting on the two Front Benches.
My Lords, I hope that when we are looking at the way in which these Committees might work in the future we shall remember what has already been said about the proposals of Lord Maybray-King, when Lord Windlesham had to
252
respond to the report that Lord Maybray-King brought forward about how your Lordships should examine proposals coming from the EEC. There was a great deal of nervousness about whether Committees of this House would tear themselves loose from those wide terms of reference, would interfere here there and everywhere, would embarrass the Government in negotiations at the highest level of the Community and would generally make a nuisance of themselves. As other noble Lords have said and as I know from personal experience, the Committees of this House have provided useful information for the Government to use in negotiating in the Council of Ministers; far from inhibiting or hindering the work of the Government, those Committees have helped it.
I speak, too, because I have been a Member of the European Parliament or Assembly at Strasbourg. I think it very dangerous to compare different types of Parliamentary institution because they reflect the traditions from which they have grown. It is dangerous to make apparently obvious comparisons when so often there is an underlying difference. However, there is one point that I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention. It is this.
As we have found in the Scrutiny Committee of this House, the amount, the complexity and the nature of the proposals that come out of Brussels mean that Parliamentarians called upon to examine them must equip themselves to understand those complexities. We in the Scrutiny Committee have developed a system of sub-committees and in the European Parliament they have done the same thing. They have 12 sub-committees in the European Parliament, that very political assembly. There is no shortage of Party political feeling. Every political affiliation is represented, from the Communists to the neo-Fascists—with everything in between. That Assembly has decided that the way to cope with complex proposals for legislation is to have an examining stage in committee because it enables Members there to understand what is going on.
I should like to support the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as strengthened by my noble friend Lord Windlesham. I believe in

253
Parliament, but I believe that, while the Government and the Civil Service have developed, we, in both Houses of Parliament, are still behaving in a way that would be recognisable to someone who came back and was reincarnated from the 19th Century. There are many similarities between the procedures then and those we operate now. Of course, that is good, but it is no use if we in Parliament are still riding a penny farthing and attempting to keep up with the Government who are speeding along the motorway accompanied by the Civil Service. We cannot keep up with the complexities of modern legislation unless we develop our procedures to keep in touch with the growing complexity of Government.
There are noble Lords with much longer experience of this House who have grave doubts about the composition of these committees and whether they can be run in a way that would not trample on the susceptibilities of another place. There are doubts about whether controversial legislation could be referred to them. But I would say this. We have found in the European Communities Committee that we can handle controversial matters. If the right chairman and the right policy areas were picked, then the infinite adaptability of this House would show itself once again. As my noble friend Lord de Clifford has said, if there is a new challenge, we respond to it and develop a procedure to cope with it.
I believe that what we have done in the past has given us grounds for hoping that a cautious experiment of the sort suggested by my noble friend Lord Windlesham is worth trying. By using the word "cautious", I hope I shall not encourage the noble Lord, Lord Peart, to be overcautious; to me, to be cautious would be not to go for the full gamut of committees that we have suggested in our report. I think that that would be difficult for reasons of expense and, if we are going to make experiments, we want to make sure that we are not too ambitious at the beginning.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will not be deterred by what I might call "Lord President's palpitations". Of course, I am not referring to the present incumbent of that Office. I hope that his nightmares about his time clearing up
254
after Dick Crossman in the other place will not deter him from trusting your Lordships. He is in tune with this House. He knows the Members of this House. We are not like the people in the other Chamber. The noble Lord can trust Members of this House to behave themselves; as my noble colleague on the European Communities Committee, Lord Raglan, has shown, we restrain ourselves even in agriculture.
When the noble Lord comes to speak, I hope that he will not be harking back to the dangerous and difficult times of the past when unruly Members of another place gave him heartache. I hope that he will think about the courteous and gentle ways in which Members of this House contribute to help the Government. I hope that he can see that there is an untapped pool of talent here waiting to improve the Government's legislation and play a constructive part in the procedures of Parliament.
My Lords, before I sit down I want, at the risk of being pompous, to say one thing. This is a very serious matter because Parliament dies if it does not update its procedures. Procedures are the muscle and the sinew of Parliament. If we do not exercise that muscle and keep it in good trim for contemporary challenges then we shall have no real job left to do. I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, to give us a chance to show that we in this Chamber are still the younger Chamber of Parliament and are still able to cope with new challenges.
7.16 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, the composition of the Committee that produced this report is really—and I hope I do not sound patronising—impressive. It has the mandarins and the senators in the best historical sense of the words. They have produced a report which is possibly constitution-changing. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, intimated that he did not like it; I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Peart will also intimate that he does not like the ideas put forward. Front Benches hunt in couples. If we pass the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, we shall be changing the Constitution and shall be redressing the balance between the Front Benches, the Government and the Back Benches. The Motion will give

255
this House some of the powers of Congressional Committees and there will be a greater separation of powers. Montesquieu would approve.
The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in his memorandum to the Committee, reports that he went into the Select Committee on Hare Coursing with certain views and finished it with some of those views changed. The nature of this House is relatively "un-whippable". One noble Lord who has spoken today (who shall be nameless) said privately to me: "I only vote for my Party when I have never heard one of the arguments put forward. Whenever I have listened to any of the arguments, I always vote against my Party". He is not a million miles away. That is a very healthy attitude of mind for Back-Benchers in this House because we do not owe anything to anybody except our consciences and sense of duty. Consequently, we must pay less attention to the Whips and more attention to our conscience. If that allows us to investigate, to look at, to subject to independent judgment the plans and policies of any Government, whatever their persuasion, it must in my humble opinion, be good for Parliament and for the people.
As I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, did not seem to like the idea very much and I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will not like it very much, either. But it is a pity that this opportunity for independent assessment of Government ideas and policies has not been put into practice in the other place. It is, I am afraid, second best that it should happen here.
I started with a note on Montesquieu and I shall finish with a Mandarin Chinese of the Ming Empire who complained that the composition of your Lordships' House was totally inexplicable to him. It is still inexplicable to us now. However, even though we cannot change our composition, I hope that we shall be able to change our procedure so that we can have some influence and some hope of making Governments of both persuasions change their mind on occasions, whether it be on the Community Land Act or the Local Government Act. If we can do that, then we shall have advanced somewhat and shall have served our country well.
7.21 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, this has been a very welcome debate and one which has aroused more interest than is usual on procedural subjects. Ever since I came to this House—which is not long ago—I have been impressed with its procedures and the common sense with which business is conducted; but I am aware of the need to review procedure, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said, from time to time and sometimes to revise it as well. This debate has given us a chance to do this. May I add—and I am not being patronising in any way—that we have had some excellent speeches. I was tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, about my experience in another place. When I was Leader of the House I was generally in tune with what Back-Bencher Members wanted at that period. I hope that I am today here in this House.
I found myself very much in sympathy with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and also the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who gave evidence also to the Select Committee with me. At least I am confident that the leaders of the main political Parties in the House showed good common sense. I am something of a pragmatist here when approaching this matter. It is not a Party matter. I do not think that anyone today has spoken in that sense. We have had contributions from Front Benchers—and I liked the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Denham. Forgive me for mentioning this, but it was rather refreshing. I hope that we will all take careful note of it when we read our copies of Hansard tomorrow.
But this is a difficult subject and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Shepherd for his clear explanation of his Committee's report. Certainly the House will have learned much from his speech and will appreciate the hours of deliberation in Committee which lay behind it. I pay tribute to him. I may differ on some nuances; but he has produced a report which has enabled us to have this debate today.
This report is the work of a most experienced Committee; and first of all I pay sincere tribute to them for their very wide and searching approach to the subject, and for their very hard work. It is obvious that they have got to grips with

257
the problems of legislation in the light of last Session's spillover, and that particularly where their main recommendations for Select Committees are concerned. They have set their sights very high.
There are a number of other recommendations which we should consider, and my noble friend Lord Shepherd explained these for us. Of course I accept the need for adequate time to consider legislation in this House, and it is important that we should be able to do our job of revision properly. It cannot be done in a rush. But noble Lords will know that accidents do happen, and that last Session there were rather more accidents than usual in another place.
The Committee suggests minimum intervals between stages of Bills and in general these are intervals which are already observed. I should be quite content to adopt these as a counsel of perfection, though it is inevitable that we must slip from grace now and then and these departures from normal practice will often be right and necessary. For instance, the interval between Committee and Report may be on the generous side. Whether it would be useful, as the Committee recommend, to give explanations in the House every time that the intervals are departed from, is open to doubt. Particularly in the period before the Summer Recess, this would lead to a lot of statements of the obvious.
The report makes a number of recommendations aimed at improving the conduct of Committee and Report stages. In general these are exhortations to obey the existing rules, as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, reminded us, and of course they are obviously right. If we all avoided repeating our arguments, if we all made shorter speeches, if we were scrupulous about the Standing Order restricting the right to speak more than once in a debate, and so on, we could all go home earlier at night. This hardly needs emphasis by me.
As the House will know, another Select Committee has been set up in another place and several recommendations will depend on the conclusions which that Committee reach. For instance, it is right that consideration of the annual Sessions of Parliament should depend on decisions in another place.
258
I note also what your Lordships' Committee say about the introduction of non-controversial legislation without any commitment by the Government to its enactment during the Session in which it is introduced. This is a matter which can be considered in the light of future developments, but no Government of any complexion, I suspect, are likely to consign their legislation to an indefinite passage through Parliament. All Governments' programmes represent Bills which they consider right in the national interest.
I turn now to the question of scrutiny by Select Committee which has been the main subject of this debate. I can say at once that I recognise the strength of feeling on this subject and that many noble Lords will feel that there is in these proposals the kernel of a good idea. Only time will tell but there may indeed be a future for Select Committees in United Kingdom legislation. I acknowledged this when I gave evidence to the Committee.
What I envisaged as a possible runner then, and I do so now, is a Select Committee appointed to monitor progress of a major Bill, or Bills, through the Commons and to report on the Bill when it is brought to this House. Its report would indicate, for instance, how many hours had been spent by another place on each part of the Bill; which areas had or had not been fully explored; and whether the Government had given undertakings to be implemented in this House. This would give us guidance about the matters to which we should pay particular attention.
The Committee would not be seeking in anyway to interfere with the deliberations of another place. Its main source of information, for instance, would be the Hansard of proceedings in another place. It would not, and I emphasise this, take evidence from Ministers or civil servants while the Bill was in another place. Such evidence would inevitably reduce the service given to another place, and would place intolerable burdens on Government Departments.
The object of the Committee would be to make our revision of the Bill in this House more efficient, by supplying information and by avoiding the repetition

259
of points which may have been fully argued. It would even ensure more rapid return of our business to another place.
But this good idea has grown. The baby has turned into a giant and I can only say I feel more at home with the baby. Since the Leaders and Chief Whips gave evidence, the Committee on Practice and Procedure have developed this idea until it has a quite different purpose which in my view goes too far. Instead of being a proposal to improve our revision and to relieve the congestion at the end of the Session, it has become a radical new scheme for the scrutiny of public policy on a broad front.
If I may quote from a member of the Committee, I think the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, show very clearly what the proposal was initially. He said during the taking of evidence:
"What was in our minds in the first instance was simply that a Committee should follow specific pieces of legislation which were likely to come before the House of Lords during that particular Session, that they would, so to speak, keep in touch with them while they are in the House of Commons so that the Lords Committee could advise the House through either written or verbal report when this legislation came before the House".
That was the scheme, as I understood it, when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I gave evidence to the Select Committee. The Committee's questions to us referred only to Bills. I have checked this to refresh my memory. There was no mention of other proposals such as delegated legislation, White Papers or Green Papers. We were discussing the consideration of Bills and I said that I would not oppose a limited experiment. I repeat it now. I do not oppose a limited experiment. But that is in the context of Bills, not of other proposals, because these introduce a different concept altogether.
We are primarily a revising Chamber and that should be our main aim. We should think very carefully before we embark on a new role for this House as a board of examiners. I do not think we should set out to adjudicate on every branch of Government policy which has been explained in White or Green Papers and I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said in his speech it would be wrong to go beyond legislation until we had tried a more limited experiment.
260
Of course, I understand very well the reasons why the baby grew into the giant. The Committee's recommendation grew from the experience of the European Communities Committee and their undoubted success in the difficult task of scrutinising European Secondary Legislation. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, and should like to say that we wish her well. She has done so much; she has made a success of this Committee, and its work is a great tribute to her ability. I have given evidence in another place so often to the Scrutiny Committee on European legislation; but reading the report of the Committee here in this House is a tribute to the people who compose the Lords Committee. They have done their job magnificently and I applaud this. It was a natural step to say that, if this kind of scrutiny works for European legislation, why not extend it to domestic legislation? I understand the argument. But I also see differences between European and domestic legislation which make a direct transplant from one field to the other unsuitable.
The main differences are twofold: first, the timescale and, secondly, the procedure. European legislation is a long-drawn-out process in which the Council of Ministers agree to legislation only when national Parliaments have completed their scrutiny. There is no Sessional deadline. Then there is the different procedure. Where domestic legislation is concerned, there are many other opportunities for scrutiny, and the Select Committee can be only an extra stage or take the place of something else.
So, my Lords, I am not convinced that European-type scrutiny is suitable for domestic legislation. Furthermore, there are points about the composition of Select Committees which we cannot ignore. We have developed a complicated network of European Scrutiny Committees which depend on the loyalty and hard work of about 80 Members of the House, nearly all specialists in their particular subject. If we were to construct another network for domestic legislation and other proposals, we should need another large number of experts. In evidence, the Chairman of the European Communities Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, made it clear that it would be too great a burden on the existing

261
membership to take on the additional field of domestic legislation, unless its remit was very restricted. I think, my Lords, that in a part-time House this is asking too much. We cannot set up two parallel Committee systems of equal quality, and we would be rash to try. One or other network would suffer.
Arising out of this, I should mention Public Bill Committees which are suggested as part of the new procedure. The demands put on Peers by Scrutiny Committees and Public Bill Committees are different. The Public Bill Committee requires daily attendance at a time not of the Committee's choosing but at a time to synchronise with the progress of the Bill. This is quite unlike the Scrutiny Committees' timetable. I believe that noble Lords could find this a real problem and I should prefer to see the scrutiny procedure merely as a prelude to consideration in Committee of the Whole House, when the Scrutiny Committee members could give the House the benefit of their advice. Quite apart from this point of manpower, the Public Bill Committee is unsuited to controversial Bills, while the scrutiny procedure would probably be useful only on Bills where there is an element of controversy.
I have listened to the debate with great fascination and I have come to this conclusion. There is evidently a strong current of opinion in favour of an experiment to try out the Select Committee's recommendation for scrutiny procedure. There are also widely-differing views about what the experiment should be and even about precisely what the Practice and Procedure Committee have recommended. So I echo the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, in saying that I am prepared to accept the proposal for an experiment and that the recommendations should go to the Procedure Committee for detailed consideration of the problems involved. This should be done with a view to establishing a Select Committee next Session. The details of the Select Committee, its terms of reference and its scope, remain to be decided by the House.
But I agree to support this course of action on the understanding that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will not press the Motion which stands on the Order Paper in his name. I have to say with
262
regret that I cannot accept his Motion in its present form, and if he presses it I shall be obliged to vote against it. There is too much uncertainty about the Select Committee's recommendatons and how they apply to different kinds of Bill.
I do not want to prejudge what conclusions the Procedure Committee will come to, but it is likely that they will suggest at least some modifications of the proposals in Part III of the report. They may, for instance, find that some or all Bills will be unsuitable for the Public Bill Committee procedure. They are likely to find that, on the grounds of the manpower and accommodation available, only one experimental Committee is possible. I am sure that they will agree that the House must be free to decide in individual cases that a Bill should follow the normal procedures. In any event, the Procedure Committee should be able to discuss the experiment in the light of this debate without being bound to every detail of the proposals in Part III of the report.
I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham, and the other members of the Select Committee will understand the constructive purpose of my suggestion. On the understanding that the proposal goes to the Procedure Committee with a view to setting up an experiment in the light of what has been said in this debate, I hope that the House will not be asked to vote this evening. I do not think that would be useful and I would prefer to go ahead with an agreed experiment which would have the best prospects of success.
Lord WINDLESHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and with the leave of the House, can I get clear what the noble Lord the Leader of the House is offering? There is some differance between what he has in mind as an experiment and what some other noble Lords envisage as an experiment. Is he able to give an undertaking to the House that what he has in mind and what he will support at the Procedure Committee on behalf of the Government, does not fall short of the proposal put forward by my noble friend Lord Carrington, when he spoke earlier in the debate this afternoon?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I have the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord

263
Byers, the Leader of the Liberal Party, broadly accepted what I have put forward. I think that I have been constructive, and in view of this, and in view of the debate, I should hope that we could agree to what I have proposed. I think that this would be sensible.
Lord WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I take that to be an affirmative answer. It is now for my noble friend, Lord Shepherd, to reply to the debate, and I will indicate our response when the Second Motion is called.
7.41 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I moved the Motion earlier this afternoon, as a servant and as chairman of a Select Committee of this House, and I immediately apologise to noble Lords who were then present for the length of my speech. I accept the very generous spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, placed strictures upon me. Perhaps they will understand that for so many years, speaking from that Dispatch Box, I worked on the basis that if you had 14 pages, double-spaced, that took 25 minutes. But speaking from here, one does not have 14 pages, double-spaced, and I had to do my own homework. So I apologise to your Lordships' House, and I will make certain that the brief notations that I make are considerably fewer than earlier this afternoon.
This has been a very good debate, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Peart will see that the House has approached reform and a change in procedure in a constructive way, and not one of challenge either to the Executive or, in particular, to another place. That is not what was behind the examination of your Lordships' Select Committee. We were bound by, we operated within and we sought to exercise our judgment according to the terms of your Lordships' House, in order to find ways and means by which this House should be more effective. I have no doubt at all that, in trying to make an assembly within Parliament more effective, one faces the problem of Government and the Executive, in the same way as those who aspire to be of the Government and the Executive. But we have approached this subject solely in the spirit of which I have spoken.
264
I must say to some of my noble friends who have come from another place, and who said that they thought that your Lordships' House should move with a degree of trepidation and, perhaps, of respect to another place, that we have always done so. But until this House is abolished, until this House is changed and so long as we remain within the Constitution, then its membership has a duty to see that its constitutional role is fulfilled. It is a duty which is upon us. I have made many speeches about the need for a proper understanding between the two Houses. I would not support that proposition if it meant that this House should not seek to resolve its procedure, not only in order to make itself more effective but to make a better and greater contribution to Parliament as a whole.
I have listened with the greatest care to what my noble friend Lord Peart has said and, perhaps mischievously, may I say that I am glad indeed that it was he who made the speech and not myself. But what does one do? My noble friend has said that he accepts—I think that was the term he used—the general proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I did not say that.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend did not say that. Certainly, that was my understanding of the intervention of my noble friend Lord Windlesham. But I do not believe that a Division is either necessary or desirable. It is a fuller House at this time of the evening than we normally have, and certainly if we were to have a Division nobody could say that the House had not been adequately represented. But, at the end of the day, decisions taken on the Floor of the House are not necessarily the right decisions, because there exist two adversarial positions.
I must say that I was attracted—and it is an embarrassment to say this—by the advice to the House of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we should accept in principle that in the next Session there should be a Sessional Committee on policy to examine legislation. I suspect that, at the end of the day, the Executive being what it is, it will not understand what we mean by the word "policy". I say to my noble friend Lord Peart that

265
our greatest difficulty is that we could not define what should be the ambit of these Committees. We rejected the concept of watchdog of a Department, and we tried to find another phrase. Perhaps we might have used the word "subject" as opposed to "policy"—I do not know.
If the House were to take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that there should be a Sessional Committee in the next Session to look at legislation within the broad policy area, then I would not ask my noble friend Lord Windlesham—because he referred to me as his noble friend—to press this Motion to a Division. If that was the undertaking or understanding of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, then my advice, particularly to my noble friend Lord Windlesham, would be not to move the Motion but to take it to a Procedure Committee, because we have to consider not only the terms of reference of these Committees, which are important, but also their structure and their forms of implementation. If the Government feel that they could respond in that way, then I should hope that we might avoid a clash, which would not be to the benefit of your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: SELECT COMMITTEES
Lord WINDLESHAM Lord WINDLESHAM had given Notice of his intention to move to resolve, That:
(1) In the next Session of Parliament there shall be established one or more Select Committees matching policy areas in order to scrutinise Bills and other proposals within those areas as proposed in Part III of the First Report from the Select Committee of this House on Practice and Procedure (HL 141); and
(2) The implementation of this resolution be referred to the Procedure Committee.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as indicated in the previous debate, it is not my intention to make a further speech. We have explored the subject at some length. I am willing to rest on the good faith of the Leader of the House. We know he is speaking from a brief; he is
266
not entirely a free agent. But he is a man whom we have learned to admire and to trust. If he says he will carry away the spirit of this debate; what the members of the Select Committee have said; and what my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has said; I am willing to leave it at that. So I do not intend to move the Motion in my name.

PRESUMPTION OF DEATH (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.49 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: 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 Ritchie-Calder.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Champion in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Decree in action of declarator and determination of incidental questions in other proceedings].
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
"(4) A decree in an action of declarator shall have no effect in relation to the liability of the insurer under a policy of life assurance effected on the life of the missing person unless it is granted in terms of subsection (1)(a) above and the action has been served upon or intimated to the insurer, but any person having an interest in such a policy may at any time raise a further action of declarator in which the Court may grant decree in terms of subsection (1)(a) above."
The noble Earl said: I wish to say a word or two about the only part of the Bill which has caused anxiety—namely, the part which deals with the insurance companies. I should like to speak generally on Clause 2 if it is agreeable to noble Lords because this is really the crux of the Bill. The Law Commission considered for a time whether life insurance should be excluded altogether. They decided that it could not be excluded. However, they said, and I should like confirmation of this, that they would be free to write their policies as they liked.

267
I hope that this is correct. I take that to mean—I do not know—that they could put in a clause saying that in the event of the Bill being applied in certain cases their insurance policy would not apply. I should like to know whether that is, in fact, the situation.
They are worried about two matters in Clause 2 which have to be dealt with. The first is that the court has to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that somebody has died. That is relatively easy—it requires positive proof. The second matter that they have to prove is a negative—namely, that somebody has not been known to be alive. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, knows that it is not easy to prove at the best of times what is a negative. Whether you prove it depends entirely on what evidence is put before the court. My Amendment, which I appreciate is not an easy one and I wish to examine it, takes the insurance company out of Clause 2(1)(b). This may well be going too far and I appreciate that that may be the case.
However, I should like to know what assurance we have that adequate examination and inquiry has been made. Frankly, this is not a point which is emphasised very much in the Bill. There is no standard set as to what the inquiry should be. There are no very definite instructions as to who is responsible for this. If one looks at Clause 5 one sees that anyone is asked to give information if they know about it, and Government Departments are expected to co-operate. This depends, of course, on whether the question is put to the right person. There are all sorts of people who may know about it, provided they are aware or have some idea that a query has arisen. Among the questions which I particularly wish to ask is this: can any party, who is perhaps examining this, raise the question of whether the inquiries have been adequate or whether they have gone far enough? This is the point which an insurance company may well want to know: have adequate investigations been made as to the possibility of someone being alive? I do not know whether in view of the wording this is possible. I do not know about being satisfied on the balance of probabilities. That depends on what is before the court. Let us suppose that the
268
insurance company says, "We are not satisfied that the matter has been sufficiently penetrated". Could it raise this as a point and ask for further examination of the matter?
I should like to say a little about Clause 9 which makes an act of sederunt and lays down the inquiries which are to be carried out. It seems to me difficult to be quite certain how those inquiries should be carried out until the action has actually been raised, because the type of inquiries you should make are quite different in different cases. They do not bear any relation to each other. The man may have gone to the Argentine, Australia, Canada or where you will and the inquiries should be directed to different parts.
I am merely asking at this stage whether the Government would consider taking insurance companies out of Clause 2(1)(b) or whether they can say anything about the standard or the peremptory requirements for making adequate search for the person in question. All we are asking is whether he is known to be alive. There are 50 million people in this country. It may be within your Lordships' knowledge that a man was burnt to death in a car before the war and he was never identified. It is quite likely that there are a number of people who have not been identified today. Social security people will co-operate no doubt, but names can be changed—maybe numbers can be changed. It may be that the social security people are not the only Department. The Department of the Civil Service, for instance, may even have him in their employ.
I raise this question to find out what are the standards of this fundamental question of proving the negative that the man has not been known to be alive. I am asking this purely as a probing question. I think that it is an important one to which we must have an answer. I formally beg to move the first Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I have also put my name to the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Selkirk tabled a few hours before I was intending to do so. He has made an inquiry which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for the Government, will be able to answer, I hope, later in the debate. I should like to add a few words to point out that this is a matter of considerable concern to the

269
life insurance companies in Scotland whose views have been represented through the Associated Scottish Life Offices.
I think that the intention of the Scottish Law Reform Commission may not be precisely reflected at present in the Bill due to a misunderstanding on technical insurance matters. The first three clauses of the Bill provide for action on the presumption of death on a certain date to be seven years after the person was last known to be alive. Those clauses attempt to co-ordinate consequent actions.
We all agreed on the Second Reading of the Bill that a reform of this nature was required. In Clause 4 we come to the situation where the person presumed dead reappears, whether it is by mistake or deliberate fraud. Here the provisions are drafted with an attempt to be fair to everyone affected. Courts are given discretion to order repayments, including sums which insurance companies may have paid out under policies on the assumption that a person is dead. I think that it is right that discretion should be given to a court to consider in the individual case what should be done, rather than try to legislate too precisely in the Bill.
Next, there is the extraordinary exemption that certain capital sums paid in life insurance should be exempted from the discretion of the courts so that they will not be able to consider that kind of insurance payment at all. The vehicle which is to be used to try to rectify the situation when a person presumed dead reappears is the "variation order". The Bill, as it now reads, expressly excludes capital sums which have been distributed by way of an annuity or other periodical payments.
Lord McCLUSKEY: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, whether he would consider perhaps debating this matter with us when we come to the second and third Amendments which are, I think, specifically directed to the point to which he has now turned?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I thought that it would be convenient to do it at this stage, because they are alternatives. If something on the lines of this Amendment were to be accepted, it might not be necessary to have the later Amendments.
270
I do not necessarily expect the noble Lord to be able to answer straight away but I thought it right to put it at this stage into its general setting in the Bill in order to avoid having too many debates. My point is that capital sums which are payable at stated intervals following a death are to be exempted, but for no particular reason. The discretion which is allowed to the courts should surely cover this situation as well, and if Amendment No. 1 were accepted the difficulty would be removed. If the Promoter of the Bill and the Government cannot accept it, then there are alternative Amendments which my noble friend and I will try to move.
It seems to me that there could have been a misunderstanding when the Scottish Law Commission considered the matter. It is clear from paragraph 107 of their report that the Commission were thinking of an annuity in a certain sense and were regarding it as falling into a certain category. That may be the reason why the Bill is drafted in its present form. The provision that capital sums paid by instalments should be excluded from Clause 5(3)(b) of the Bill is not consistent with the intention of paragraph 107 of the Law Commission's Report. Therefore I think that there may have been a technical misunderstanding. I hope that at the appropriate point, on either this Amendment or the later ones, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, or the Government spokesman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCloskey, will be able to explain why this apparent anomaly has arisen and clarify why there should be this express exclusion from the discretion of the court when it is very sensibly being given discretion as regards other insurance payments.
8.2 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: I should like to thank the two noble Lords for their attitude and response to this clause. I hope that we shall separate the two. I think that I understand what we are speaking about in Clause 2 but, like the other noble Lords, I am not quite clear about the small print in the other.
I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will not press the Amendment. Indeed, I do not believe that he intends to do so. The intention of the Bill, which we all applaud, is to deal with a situation which

271
badly needs clarification. We made that point very clearly on Second Reading. I suggest that if this Amendment is approved we shall create the anomalies which all of us are determined to remove. Insurance companies are made a separate issue.
Perhaps I should remind noble Lords that the Scottish Law Commission thoroughly considered this question. We appreciate the genuine concern of the insurance companies about the possibility of fraudulent claims that are contrived by "deaths". Nobody underestimates this possibility, although by any standards they have been very rare. It would be difficult for the insurance actuaries to find cases where they have had to pay out on a contrived, fraudulent "death". The Commission considered in particular fabricated claims or speculative actions. The main argument which persuaded the Commission to make no exception in the case of insurers—and I support absolutely the Commission over this—was that the degree of presumption of a person's death should be universal in its application and that it would be illogical to have any exclusions. The risk of fabricated claims is thought to be greatly diminished by reason of the fact that the question of the disappearance of a missing person—that is, proving the negative—not having been known to be alive for a period of years would have been thoroughly examined by a court of law, before which all the relevant facts would have been placed. I meet the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on his point regarding the difficulty of proving the negative. Furthermore, there is the question of what would be the terms upon which a sheriff court or the Court of Session would be asking pertinent and probing questions.
I take assurance from the report of the Law Commission, which states that the questioning would be very thorough. This depends—as it will during the second leg of the debate on the capital and annuities question—on the President of the Court of Session and the rules that he will provide. I am sure that it was the intention of the Law Commission that these rules should provide the criteria upon which anybody would be presumed dead, including—and necessarily including —the possibility that this might be an insurance wangle. Of course I cannot give assurances because I do not know
272
what the rules of the court will be, but I assume that the rules will include very searching questions about whether an insurance issue is involved. If it were, it is certain that the insurance companies would be involved in the discussions regarding presumption of death.
If I may reassure the insurance companies, there is in any event added protection for insurers in Clause 6, which provides that a policy of insurance should be effected in respect of any claim which may arise by virtue of an order under Clause 5(2) of the Bill—that is, where a decree of declarator has been varied or recalled and the court makes a further order respecting the rights to or in any property acquired as a result of the decree. This would cover cases where a missing person is later found to be alive. In a sense, this is a double insurance. However, my difficulty—and I think it is the difficulty, too, of my noble friend—is that while I regard Clause 2 as the clause which removes anomalies there is also the question of what the Lord President and the Rules Council will specify. In the light of what we know of the Lord President and the Rules Council and, indeed, of the Scottish Law Commission and the very substantial representations which were made by the association of insurance companies to the commission, that has all been taken into account.
What I oppose—and sensing the attitude of noble Lords opposite, I think that they also oppose—is the fact that a distinction made in the case of the insurers (that is, insisting upon their being excluded, which is what is proposed) or a specific request to be serviced in advance, would to some extent defeat the purpose of the Bill. It is impossible to provide in the Bill that a decree cannot be granted unless service is made of an insurer, because there may be no knowledge of an insurer and, secondly, because the postal services are probably the rule of the court—it will depend on the Lord President. But I think the people we are talking about think about these things on a sound basis and we can be assured that, however much it is the fact that the insurance companies have this misgiving, which I sympathise with and acknowledge their right to have, the misgiving is unreal and I would quite seriously ask the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in justice to the Bill and its intention, not to press this Amendment.
8.11 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: As a supplement to that answer, I wonder whether I may offer some specific answers to specific points. First the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asked whether insurance companies would be free to write their policies in such terms as they chose. That, of course, was the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission in paragraph 52 and I can answer that question with an unequivocal "yes". If I need to amplify it, I only have to say that this is because the Bill contains no provision laying any kind of prohibition upon the right of insurance companies to write the policies in such terms as they may consider appropriate.
Turning briefly to the next point, I acknowledge the force of what the noble Earl said about proof of a negative. As he knows and as I would remind other noble Lords who have a copy of the report, we have been concerned with this kind of provision for a long time in Scotland, though the proof of a negative is an unusual kind of thing in a court of law. But in paragraph 13 of the report there is a quotation from Section 3 of the 1891 Act where the matter to be proved was put in the following terms:
"When any person has disappeared and has not been heard of for seven years or upwards".
That is really in the same category of negative matters which require to be proved.
Perhaps in order to amplify what has been said on matters of proof I may begin by respectfully suggesting that my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder was guilty of a slip of the tongue in suggesting that rules of court might lay down indications as to modes of proof. Although it is a matter for the court to decide, I think it is clear that rules of court can lay down provisions as to procedure and, in particular, as to the persons upon whom service of the action must, or can, be made. Of course it follows from that that, once the rules of court contain such an obligation to intimate and serve upon this person and that person, the persons upon whom service is made will look at the matter and, if they have information to present to the court, will come forward with that information. To that extent, the rules of court may affect the proof.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asked specifically what assurance we shall have
274
that adequate inquiry will be made and to what standard. As to standard, one can only say that the Bill must lay down what is the burden of proof, whether it is proof beyond reasonable doubt or proof on a balance of probabilities. The Law Commission considered this with some care and adopted the standard which is to be found in Clause 2(1)—the standard of a balance of probabilities. But of course that is only the skeleton of the matter. The court is bound to bring a very guarded discretion to a matter of this kind. I think that the noble Earl will acknowledge the correctness of this and will agree that it is not for the legislature to seek to lay down with great precision how a court should go about a task to which it is well accustomed; that is, the task of determining what is and what is not proved by the evidence.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I refer to one or two parts of the report itself because I think they give a clear indication—and they are reflected in the Bill—of the kind of matters to which the court would certainly pay attention. First, the general approach is mentioned in paragraph 51, where it is said that in a court of law all the relevant facts are likely to have been placed before the court. But, if one looks more particularly at certain other paragraphs, one sees how that is to come about and what is to happen. First, paragraph 82 recommends the making of rules and as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has said, we cannot dictate to the Lord President and the Rules Council what rules they shall make. But surely we can properly respect their discretionary experience in this matter and they will certainly take account of the recommendations in paragraph 82, of any comments made by noble Lords in this House and, indeed, of any representations which the Rules Council may receive from such bodies as the life offices.
Secondly, I should like to look briefly at paragraph 84 because that deals with advertisement and it specifically draws attention to the desirability of making advertisement not just in the small print of the "quality" newspapers—to use a shorthand—but real advertisement in newspapers which are likely to get at the persons who might know something about the existence of the one who has disappeared. So that is one kind of evidence at which the court will have to look—

275
the fruits, if any, of such advertisements. Secondly, in paragraph 85 one finds a recommendation—and no doubt this is just the kind of matter that the court will have regard to, as it always has done in this type of case in the past—that there should be inquiry of the Registrar General for England and Wales and the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages for Scotland whether they have any record of the death of the person concerned. That has always been done and no doubt it will continue to be done, just as the Commission recommended.
In paragraph 86 we find a recommendation which is to be found reflected in the Bill, that certain persons should be obliged to disclose information to the court. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, spoke about this at Second Reading. One has a clause in the Bill obliging the disclosure of information, which of course is Clause 9.
Next, I should like to mention paragraph 89, which is reflected by Clause 9. Paragraph 89 considers the general duty of disclosure and seeks to preserve the normal rule about confidentiality but otherwise we expect people like bankers and the like to come forward as witnesses to give evidence about the survival of any missing person. I would suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that, although the court is not bound to follow these recommendations, it is very likely to do so and therefore, bringing a guarded discretion, accepting the standard laid down in Clause 2 and taking account of evidence from this kind of source, the court will be able to make a judgment of the kind that it is accustomed to make in similar types of proceedings.
To deal briefly with the next question, the noble Earl asked whether any party could raise the question of whether adequate inquiry had been made. First, the court itself, if it approaches the matter as the noble Earl and I would surely expect it to do and brings a guarded discretion, would put itself in an undefended action in the role of a contradictor and thus require that adequate inquiry be made. Secondly, of course any person who can qualify interest to intervene in the proceedings may do so and come forward and make representations about the adequacy. Thirdly, the persons who are listed in paragraph 82
276
and whom one would expect to see figuring in the rules made by the court, if the court so decided, include the Lord Advocate acting in the public interest. This, again, is a matter with which the Lord Advocate is well accustomed to dealing and it so happens that, because of his jurisdiction over the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland and, through the Procurator Fiscal, his connection with the police, he has particularly good access to information about many persons. Thus the Lord Advocate could properly come forward, if he had any information, and make representations about the adequacy of the inquiry. I hope that answers the point the noble Earl raised.
Lord Campbell of Croy specifically mentioned that he thought that possibly there was a misunderstanding by the Scottish Law Commission of technical insurance matters. I wonder whether I could invite him to specify more precisely what he thinks that misunderstanding to be, because, quite frankly, we have not been able to follow the submission by the insurance companies, which, of course, was made through a Member of the other place and brought to our attention, as to precisely what that misunderstanding is. We would certainly be happy to give consideration to it if the noble Lord can specify more precisely what that misunderstanding is said to be.
I would, however, say this to him: if he looks at the construction of Clause 5 in the Bill, which is the relevant one in relation to this particular matter, the real test is to be found in subsection (2) on page 4, about line 30 onwards. The test is there that the court may make such further order,
"…as it considers fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case
The part to which the noble Lord referred, in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of Clause 5, is introduced by the words:
"… the court shall, so far as practicable in the circumstances, have regard to the following considerations …"
and the main one, in paragraph (b), is,
"… that any capital sum paid by an insurer as a result of the said decree … or any part of such sum should be repaid …"
So the court is bound to have regard to that. It is not bound by Statute, as I read this Bill, if it becomes an Act, not to have regard to the matter within the

277
brackets in paragraph (b). In other words, there is no prohibition upon looking at some such matter. If the insurance company were able to demonstrate that a particular payment which appears to fall within the words,
"annuity or other periodical payment"
was of such a character that it was unfair and unreasonable in all the circumstances of the case not to take account of the character of that, then I am quite certain the court would be free to have regard to such a representation.
I do not know whether that answer satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, or the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I should like them to consider that before the next stage is reached, and I would certainly renew my invitation to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, to specify the misunderstanding if he can. We would certainly like to go back to the Law Commission and ask them whether that misunderstanding is a genuine one.
In closing, I would apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for interrupting him. I thought that these two matters might be taken separately. I now fully understand why he addressed himself to the matter in the way that he did.
8.17 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I think it might be convenient if I tried to deal with the point the noble Lord has just put to me. I start by saying that this is a complicated and technical matter. Lest there be any misapprehension about what I said, my words were that I believed that the intention of the Scottish Law Commission may not be precisely reflected in the Bill due to a misunderstanding on technical insurance matters. Where that misunderstanding has occurred I would not know. I was not suggesting that the Law Commission had misunderstood. Somewhere between the Report of the Law Commission and action being translated into this Bill, I believe there may have been a misunderstanding, but I would not attribute it necessarily to the Law Commission.
The noble Lord asked me whether I could be more specific about where this misunderstanding has occurred. I understood that the life insurance companies in Scotland had addressed their grievance about the Bill to the Government, and the
278
noble Lord has confirmed that; so I had not written to the noble Lord beforehand to try and explain this because I knew that he would have already received their representations. The way it has been put to me is this, that there are to be excluded, as the Bill is at present, capital sums which have been distributed by way of,
"an annuity or other periodical payment".
The term, "other periodical payment" would include sums which may be largely distributed by way of income benefit, and "income benefit" appears to be a technical term in the insurance world. The insurance companies believe that this kind of payment is in effect a capital sum payment, following death, at stated intervals, and, as I said earlier, they do not see why that form of payment should be expressly excluded from the Bill.
Turning to paragraph 107, which is the key one, in the Law Commission's report, it appears that the Commission was thinking of that kind of annuity which, even if it has a capital content, should be regarded as irrecoverable. That seemed to be the point, that they thought there was a kind of insurance payment which would be irrecoverable anyway. But an income benefit—that is the technical term apparently—is a wholly capital sum payable in instalments and is in no way an annuity or the income or fruits of an estate. That is why the insurance companies in Scotland who are concerned with this kind of policy believe that the provision that capital sums paid by instalments should be excluded from Clause 5 of the Bill is not consistent with the intention of paragraph 107 of the Law Commission's report.
I have tried to give a brief explanation in reply to the noble Lord. I agree with him that this is something which does need further thought and consideration between now and the next stage. As this is the Committee stage and we have the opportunity of speaking more than once, I naturally rose immediately to try to give the noble Lord a brief explanation in response to his request. I hope that following what has been said this evening it will be possible for those who are drafting and assisting with this Bill to look very quickly at what I have said in the light of the representations that have been received from the life offices in Scotland, and see

279
whether the point can be clarified, or if the explanation the noble Lord has given or some other explanation will satisfy the apprehensions of the companies in Scotland.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: I should like very briefly to intervene here, because I am going to leave my noble friend to clarify the matter. As I said at the beginning, I am very bad on the small print, and this seems to me to be very small print indeed.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: But important.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: I would remind noble Lords that my noble friend pointed out—and, speaking as a layman, it seems to me that he was right to point out—that the court "so far as practicable in the circumstances" must "have regard to the following considerations". I should have thought that those considerations included precisely what has been said about the nature of the annuities. I do not know what a lawyer would make of it, but on reading it again I do not think that the words in brackets:
"that any capital sum paid by the insurer as a result of the said decree (other than a capital sum which has been distributed by way of an annuity or periodical payment)".
would preclude the court.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Perhaps the noble Lord would give way in order that we may deal with this point. In that case it seems quite unnecessary to place this specific exemption in the Bill. The courts are being given very wide discretion. Why include an exemption at all? Why not let them have discretion over this too?
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: I shall simply say that I should like to see the courts given all the discretion they want. I feel sure that the courts would exercise a discretion very much in the light of what would be the genuine concern of insurers. However, I think that I must rely on my noble and learned friend to give us whatever legal reservation he has about what I have said.
The Earl of SELKIRK: Perhaps I could dispose of the first Amendment
280
before we deal with the second and third: it will be a little easier. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for what he has said, and particularly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for the point he made about evidence.
I should like to ask one or two questions. First, the insurance companies are the only parties interested who have an interest in life. In the majority of cases most other people will want to prove death. The insurance companies therefore want to place as much emphasis as possible on finding out whether there is any evidence that the person is alive. I should like the noble and learned Lord to check how much negative evidence he wants before it comes to a balance of probability.
I appreciate that this is quite a difficult point, but I wish to put it in two forms. First, investigations cost money. I imagine that if Government Departments are asked it becomes a matter of public expense and they would no doubt cooperate. But if inquiries have to be made in Argentina, Australia or elsewhere, that would cost a great deal of money and the promoters of the action will not want to spend more money than is necessary. I take it that the courts can say that they have not had enough negative evidence. Secondly, as an interested party the insurance company could also say that they do not think that the lines of inquiry have been taken far enough in order to prove the negative point that they had in mind. Those are the two points which I want to put to the noble and learned Lord. If he can answer them I shall gladly withdraw this Amendment.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for the further explanation that he has given. It will certainly be considered. As regards the other point that possibly someone has, as it were, mistranslated paragraph 107, I must repudiate that because the Law Commission did us the service of producing a draft Bill. At page 74 of the report the noble Lord will find that the words to which he refers within the brackets on lines 15 and 16 of the present print of the Bill are taken from the Law Commission's own draft Bill.
On the question of cost, I certainly do not dispute what the noble Earl, Lord

281
Selkirk, says. I would suppose that most cases will either be cases in which the pursuer in the action is supported by legal aid or cases in which the expectation of benefit from the estate is such that it would warrant expenditure in removing the obstacle between the pursuer and achieving the benefit of the estate. I do not think that I can go further than that. I, personally, certainly have had some experience of appearing in this kind of action, either in relation to married persons under the 1938 Act or in relation to the 1891 Act, or even in relation to common law petitions. One must produce such evidence as one can—as a result of advertisements that are placed—of persons who would know if the missing person was still alive; for example, relatives, friends and so on—from wherever he may have connections, whether it be Australia, Argentina or elsewhere.
It is not my experience that in the past these inquiries have been enormously expensive. But, of course, if an insurance company was to come into the process—as it would be entitled to do if it has any patrimonial interest—and if it was to insist upon expensive inquiries and these inquiries were to draw a blank, that would help to enable the court to arrive at a decision on the discharge of the onus of proof. It may be that the insurance company would be unable to cavil at some order made upon it to pay the costs of such inquiries as it had caused to be made and which have turned out to be fruitless. I hope that that deals with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He has fully answered my point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Effect on property rights of recall or variation of decree]:
8.36 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 15, leave out from ("annuity") to ("or") in line 16.
The noble Earl said: We have really discussed this Amendment quite fully already. I do not think that I can add anything very useful to it. The point that the insurance companies were making was that this was a capital sum paid every year for a certain time. They wondered—and this is very much the point which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy made—whether, in terms of the report or the intention of the Bill, this should be a compulsory repayment. The words in question which they doubted were the words which appear in the Amendment. The noble and learned Lord has said that he will look at it and I should be perfectly happy if he will do so. If he undertakes to do so I shall not press the matter any further.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The undertaking that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, certainly covers Amendment No. 2 and would cover Amendment No. 3. It may be that in the light of that and having regard to the lateness of the hour, the noble Earl may feel able to withdraw both these Amendments.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Before that happens perhaps I could say a few words. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, realised that I raised this question on the first Amendment because, if that had been acceptable, I do not believe that it would have been necessary to have these as alternatives, as the first Amendment would have subsumed this point. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said—and I congratulate him on having gone into all these matters, but sympathise with him about the complications—that this was a point in the small print. I would only add that it is none the less a very important matter for life insurance in Scotland. Scotland has been a leader in the world in insurance matters and particularly in life insurance. Therefore, it is something that matters, even though it is a complicated and technical point, which I entirely accept.
I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said that he will look into this general question. I hope that we shall get a satisfactory answer at a later stage. This has appeared in the Bill due to the possibility of a change in the sense between the paragraph in the report and the drafting of the Bill.

283
I have the greatest respect for the Parliamentary draftsmen who have been assisting the Scottish Law Commission. One of them is a very old friend of mine, one whom I have known most of my life and who has just retired. I know that there is great difficulty in translating a paragraph from a report into the language of a Bill. It may simply be that in the course of that translation there has been a slight change of sense which was not intended.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Report received.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
8.41 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It gives me very much pleasure to bring before your Lordships' House this important Bill which seeks to implement conclusions in the further tripartite report, Coal for the Future, which was published in February. The Bill provides the framework for the continued development of the industry over the next few years. First, it will provide the sinews for this development by giving legislative authority for the increasing borrowing which is needed to finance its capital investment. Secondly, it will establish a framework of grants to assist the industry in case it should be blown off course. For one thing we have, I hope, learned from the uncertainties and changes of the past is that we cannot allow our essential economic and industrial interests to be disturbed by short-term fluctuations. The Government stand ready to provide support if that should happen.
Thirdly, the Government are proposing to continue the social grants which help the industry to bear the burden of the past and to deal with the problems which inevitably arise through exhaustion of
284
workings in an extractive industry. Fourthly, the Government propose to extend the powers of the industry in ways which will enable it to make the most effective use of its skills and resources and to promote new uses for coal.
Much of the past legislation on coal from the 1960s up to the Coal Industry Act 1973 had to do with an ailing industry which faced a future of decline. This Bill deals with an industry that, of course, still has problems. There are problems with coal stocks, problems that stem from productivity, and problems that result from a long history of under-investment. But the coal industry is now also an industry with a future. The history may be one of under-investment: the future is one of reinvestment. I shall come back to that in more detail, if I may, a little later, but let me say now that the investment at present being undertaken by the Coal Board must be seen as close to the minimum required for creating a coal industry with a long-term viable future. Whatever the arguments about an energy gap, I think most people will accept that we need, and shall need even more, a coal industry that is capable of playing an important part in meeting our energy requirements.
Turning to the clauses of the Bill, one of the most important provisions is of course Clause 1, which deals with the National Coal Board's borrowing powers. The present limits, set in the National Coal Board (Finance) Act 1976, are £1,100 million, which may be increased by order to £1,400 million. Clause I provides for these limits to be replaced by £1,800 million, capable of being increased by order on two occasions to £2,600 million. These higher limits are intended to cover the Board's borrowing requirements into the early 1980s. On present estimates, there is a reasonable likelihood that, up to the early 1980s, the Board's borrowings will be contained within the second limit of £2,200 million. But it is sensible and usual to provide some contingency margin above this.
The need for this substantial increase in borrowing limits stems principally from the scale of investment in production capacity that the Coal Board is undertaking in accordance with Plan for Coal. There are the big projects, of which Selby is so far the most notable, but there

285
are also a great many smaller projects designed to extend the life of existing pits, to tap new reserves, to enhance efficiency, to raise productivity, to increase production and to improve quality.
During the years to which the Bill is addressed, Plan for Coal investment in these projects will continue at a high level between £300 million and £400 million at current price levels. Had there been any consistent policy of investment in the coal industry over the past 20 years—and I am not making a Party point here because I think all Governments are covered by this period—then the industry could itself have borne a greater share in funding this investment. But the coal industry was, until recently, an industry in decline. There was investment in mechanisation; but there was a minimum of investment in new, low cost, highly productive capacity. With Plan for Coal, the industry is almost starting from scratch. In many ways, in that it could not, and would not, shuffle off its responsibilities to those who worked in the less economic parts of the industry, it was starting from worse than scratch.
There is a further important point to bear in mind in considering the need for the industry to look to external borrowing for a substantial portion of the funds for investment. Many are the projects in Plan for Coal, particularly the major ones such as Selby, which, as I mentioned earlier, will take some years of planning and construction before they are providing the full return that they promise. We are fortunate in having enormous coal reserves, but we must face the fact that we cannot benefit from them without a great deal of further investment, and that investment cannot take place unless money is made available for it. I am glad to say that the industry itself plans to make a substantial contribution to the total funds needed, and has set itself a target of 50 per cent. self-financing over the next few years. However, a substantial part must also come from borrowing. This will not be wholly a charge on the National Loans Fund. Much will be funded abroad, both in Europe and elsewhere. Nearly half the Board's outstanding loans have come from foreign sources. It is anticipated that about half this year's requirements will also be met in this way.
I should like now, if I may, to describe the provisions in the Bill for payment of
286
operating grants. There are four of these provisions. Clause 2 provides a power to promote the sale of coal to the electricity generating boards; Clause 3 provides a power to make grants towards the cost of stocking coal or coke; Clause 4 provides a power to make grants to help maintain capacity to produce coking coal; and Clause 8 provides a power to pay regional grants. There were provisions of a similar nature in the Coal Industry Act 1973. Powers still exist to pay stocking aid and coking coal grant, but they will expire next year.
Coal industries are, by their nature, inflexible, and the Government are not alone in deciding that they need powers to help their coal industry to cope with short-term fluctuations in external conditions. The European Community has recognised this by agreeing on the aids which it may be appropriate for Member Governments to provide to their coal industries. The coal industry has very high fixed costs. It has to pay its workers their guaranteed wage. If demand is low, there are no easy options such as cutting overtime because overtime is normally done for essential maintenance work or for special grades of coal. It makes little sense to close down pits and lose vital workers at a time when the industry faces a need for increased recruitment. We shall utilise the proposed powers only to the extent that is strictly necessary, particularly in view of the Government's concern to limit public expenditure.
Clause 3 revives a power in the Coal Industry Act 1973 to provide financial assistance for coal-burn. In certain circumstances, this could be a more appropriate power to use than that in Clause 2. For example, there may be difficulty in a certain area in coping with a further build-up of stocks. Like the power in Clause 2, it is not intended to be used continuously but as a means of dealing with temporary imbalances between supply and demand. Here again, I should like to emphasise that, in each case, we would require proof of the usefulness or the need for such a grant. Payments for assisted coal-burn were made under the 1973 Act only for the financial year 1973–74. The power in Clause 4 to make coking coal grants is one that the Government need to have in case help towards the maintenance of production capacity of blast-furnace coking coal proves necessary.

287
The same power was provided for in the Coal Industry Act 1973. However, given the present relationship between coking coal production costs and prices, assistance of this kind is not presently seen as necessary.
The House will note that instead of a separate financial limit for each of the powers to be provided by Clauses 2, 3 and 4, the Bill proposes a combined, financial limit which is defined in Clause 5. The logic of this is that these three powers are to some extent alternative ways in which the Government may react to problems in the industry. Thus, the payment of grants to assist coal-burn would reduce stocks which might otherwise be the subject of a request for stocking aid. This approach permits a combined limit lower in amount than the sum of three separate limits.
In Clause 8 the fourth operating grant in the Bill is the power to make regional grants. This, too, is a power of the kind that was included in the Coal Industry Act 1973. However, it is still the case that a high proportion of the workforce, I believe 70 per cent., work in assisted areas of the country and the Board is maintaining a number of loss-making pits in areas of high unemployment.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to set out at some time the areas of high unemployment to which he is referring?
Lord STRABOLGI: If the noble Baroness will allow me first to elaborate on the Bill, I will deal with that a little later. As I was saying, it is still the case that a high proportion of the workforce, about 70 per cent., work in assisted areas of the country and the Board is maintaining a number of loss-making pits in areas of high unemployment. The Government consider that they should, in these circumstances, have the power to make grants to the Board for the purpose expressed in Clause 8(1)—
"… of assisting or enabling the Board to pay due regard to the needs of the assisted areas when planning and carrying out colliery activities".
I come to the grants to be payable under Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill. Although the scale of colliery closures is much less than it was in the mid-1960s, mining is an
288
extractive industry and collieries still have to close as their reserves become exhausted. These closures tend to take place in the older coalfields in places where the chances of miners, and particularly elderly miners, being able to find new jobs are small. The Government think it right, therefore, to extend for a further period both the financial assistance to the Board towards the costs of redeploying displaced men and the payment of benefits to mineworkers who become redundant through colliery closures and cannot get other work. Clauses 6 and 7 therefore include powers to extend these arrangements. I will deal with the question of closures and redundancies when I wind up.
Clause 6 covers the payment of grants to assist the Board with payments they themselves have to make to redundant employees and to those who are redeployed within the industry. These grants were first paid to the Board under the Coal Industry Act 1965 and have been extended and amended from time to time. Under present legislation the powers will expire in March 1978. Clause 6 would extend them to March 1981 or, by order, to March 1982.
The Government thought it would be helpful at this stage to re-enact, without change, the relevant provisions of the 1964 Act. Accordingly, the various items which attract these grants are set out in Schedule 2 of the Bill. They cover such items as travelling and removal expenses and supplementation of earnings for men transferred to another pit, payments under the Redundancy Payments Act, compensation for loss of employment and superannuation prospects and early pensions for non-industrial staff. Provision is also made for assistance with recreation and welfare facilities and concessionary coal arrangements for redundant miners. The rate of these grants has for some years been at 50 per cent. of the Board's costs, and we propose to continue that rate.
I should like to stress that none of these arrangements is new. They have been in operation continuously since 1965. All we are doing now is seeking to extend them unchanged to the end of the 1980–81 financial year, or, by order, to the end of 1981–82. The same applies to Clause 7, which deals similarly with the

289
payments which the Government themselves make to redundant mineworkers. The Coal Industry Act 1967 enabled a scheme to be made for payments to mineworkers who become redundant and the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme was established by order in 1968. It has been extended from time to time and under present legislation is due to end in March 1978. Clause 7 extends the power to make such schemes until March 1981 or, by order, to March 1982; it simply re-enacts without further change the relevant section of the 1967 Act, as amended. Under the Redundant Mineworkers Payment Scheme the Government pay miners who become redundant between the ages of 55 and 65 about 90 per cent. of their previous take home pay for three years. Thereafter, and up to the age of 65, they pay them a weekly sum equivalent to the current rate of unemployment benefit. In addition, under Section 4 of the 1967 Act, they also receive their mineworkers pension paid prematurely. Men redundant between 35 and 55 receive lump sums which vary with their length of service, with a maximum of £1,250 for 25 or more years service.
The current annual cost to the Government of paying the grants under Clause 6 is about £13 million a year, and the cost of the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme is about 17 million a year. These payments attract grants from the European Coal and Steel Community which amount to about £3 million a year. I hope that the House will agree that it is fitting that the Government should continue to assist the coal industry to bear the social costs of closures and redundancies to the extent proposed in the Bill.
I come now to Clause 9, the first of the Bill's clauses dealing with the Board's powers to carry on various activities. The National Coal Board has always been involved in chemical activities utilising the products of coal. Joint ventures have been established with other organisations, particularly in the field of chemicals derived from the crude tar and benzole produced by the coke ovens. Thus, in 1966, Coal Products entered into collaboration with the British Steel Corporation, through the medium of Staveley Chemicals Limited, in the refining and processing of crude benzoic from coking plants. Through Staveley Chemicals' partnership, with Conoco,
290
in Vinatex Limited, NCB (Coal Products) Limited also has an interest in the production of PVC. Through its participation in these activities, the Coal Board has shown its concern to get the utmost value out of the products of coal. It is that same aim which underlies Clause 9. Research is already being conducted, in this and other countries, into the long-term use of coal as a chemical substitute for oil. As supplies of oil decline, there is bound to be a growing market for coal-based feedstocks in the chemical industry.
A partnership has been formed between Coal Products and BSC (Chemicals) which, if this clause is enacted, would be the vehicle for future joint petrochemical ventures, and might absorb activities with which the Board is already associated with BSC. Both NCB and BSC envisage co-operation between this joint partnership in oil and chemical companies in activities downstream of refining. NCB (Coal Products) has also set up a subsidiary, which is NCB (Hydrocarbons) Limited, which could be used as the vehicle for purchasing and getting oil refined, and in marketing oil products, some of which would be used in the chemical operations in which the Board is already involved.
The House will note the strong qualification in the second part of the first subsection of Clause 9—that activities relating to petroleum can be undertaken only if they can be seen to lead to eventual new uses of coal. It may be asked why this is so, and why the Board needs any additional powers. It already has the power under the 1946 Nationalisation Act to secure the efficient development of the coal-mining industry, and its functions under that Act include the carrying on of all such activities as may appear to the Board requisite, advantageous, or convenient in connection with its duties.
The reasons why the Government decided that legislation was needed are, first, that after careful consideration, there appeared to the Government to be some doubt about the adequacy of the Board's powers to carry on activities in the field of petrochemicals. Secondly, when the National Coal Board (Additional Powers) Act 1966, enabling the Board to search for, and exploit, oil under the North Sea, was before Parliament, the then Government gave an undertaking that if, at a later time, the Board wished to engage in

291
petroleum refining and distribution, or in petrochemical refining and distribution, or in petrochemical manufacturing, the Government would come to the House again with further proposals. Clause 9 of the Bill honours that commitment, and gives the Board express powers in these fields.
Clause 10 of the Bill deals with another extension of the Board's powers. The Board has frequently found other minerals in the course of its normal coal-mining operations. Examples are anhydrite, gypsum, and the aggregates. We can expect further discoveries to be made as exploration for coal continues. The Board has a great store of mining expertise which is directed, under the Nationalisation Act, solely to the gaining of coal. This is, of course, the prime duty of the Coal Board, and the purpose for which it was set up. This clause in no way alters that prime duty. But the clause would recognise that the Board has the skills to mine other minerals, and it would enable it to do so when they are discovered in the course of carrying out its primary function. It seems sensible, I suggest, that the Board should not be restricted from taking advantage of such discoveries, and thus making use of its expertise in ways which will improve the profitability of the Board's total operations.
My Lords, I come now to Clause 11. During recent years the National Coal Board has become increasingly involved in international affairs, not only in collaboration and co-operation with the other coal producers in the European Coal and Steel Community, but through bilateral agreements and arrangements with a number of other countries with important coal industries, and through exchanges of technical information and the provision of consultancy services overseas. The Board has done this both in its own right and through its associated companies.
The value to the nation of the Board's activities lies not only in the foreign exchange they earn, but also in the possibilities which are offered for promoting the sale of United Kingdom mining machinery and equipment. This latter point has been noted by the NEDO sector Working Party looking at the mining machinery industry. It is anxious to encourage an expansion of the NCB's
292
overseas activities because of the help the Board can give to our exports of mining equipment. The mining machinery industry has many pioneering developments to its credit. The Board and the machinery manufacturers will together be a potent combination for a promotion of exports of "know-how" and equipment.
The Board is the free world's largest coal-producing organisation, and it has established a high reputation on the world scene as an authority on modern mining methods. However, at present it operates at a disadvantage with its foreign competitors. This is because the range of activities which it is able to undertake under present legislation is limited, and does not extend to the searching for or mining of coal. Clause 11 seeks to remove this hindrance by allowing the Board to undertake overseas any activity which it can undertake in Great Britain. There is a safeguard in the clause in that the Secretary of State's written consent must first be given. There is another important safeguard. Where its proposed overseas activities require any capital expenditure or financial guarantees, the approval of the Treasury will first be required. There will be no question of the Board diverting an undue share of its attention to activities in other countries.
I need say only a very few words about Clause 12 of the Bill. Under current legislation the Board has to set up separate pension schemes for the employees of each of its subsidiaries. Clause 12 will enable it to avoid this. It will allow employees of its subsidiaries to be members of one or other of its two principal pension schemes, the Staff Superannuation Scheme for non-industrials and the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme for industrials.
My Lords, in conclusion I remind the House that this Bill is a comprehensive measure, and I need hardly underline its tremendous importance, as I said at the beginning of my speech. It is designed to provide the framework within which the coal industry in this country can be revitalised to develop one of our most important, and certainly our most plentiful, indigenous sources of energy. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Strabolgi.)
9.5 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for the detailed information he has given the House on this new Coal Industry Bill. This is my third such Bill. I think I have had one a year for the last three years; and of those three Bills this is, indeed, by far the most important that your Lordships have had to deal with. On previous Bills I have had the experience and the help of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh; of the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis; of the ex-Leader of the House, Lord Shepherd, on an energy Bill last year, I believe; and of Lord Kirkhill. Now I have the privilege of listening to and working with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
My Lords, I will be very frank with your Lordships tonight. The hour is late, and I feel that a lot has been said already by the noble Lord. It would therefore be in order, I hope, if from these Benches, anyway, I cut my speech down to as little as possible and, if I might have your Lordships' indulgence, rather deal with the Bill at Committee stage. I think we shall need to look at the Bill, powerful as it is, at that stage, when we shall be able to obtain more information in regard to it.
As I have already said, this is an immensely important Bill for the coal industry. But not only is it important for the coal industry: it is important for the United Kingdom. It is also important for the EEC, as we are now a member of that group of countries. It is important that we have a thriving and efficient coal industry. I noticed just now what the noble Lord said about the fact that in past years—and I take his point; it was non-political—successive Governments have run down the coal industry, purely because it was found easier to buy oil. This Bill is also important to ensure the supply of coal to industry, especially to the electricity generating stations; to provide for the domestic market, which I shall come to later; and, above all, to enable us to export to wherever coal is needed in this energy-thirsty world.
This Bill provides for mines to be refurbished and modernised, and in so doing it will provide many jobs for years to come, both for those who live in the mining areas and have no jobs and for
294
those who are already working in the mining industry. For this, the National Coal Board's borrowing powers are to be raised from the present level of £1,100 million to £1,800 million and then, by stages, to £2,600 million. Of course, that is to all of us a very large sum of money; but when we look at our energy programme we will see how urgently the money is required. I will elaborate a little further on this matter of finance when I come to the clauses in the Bill.
The energy problem does not concern only coal; there are equally urgent problems in connection with oil, gas and nuclear power stations. Energy resources are needed not only in the United Kingdom but also in the EEC, the US and throughout the entire world. From the United Kingdom's position, the Government must continue—and this is what this Bill is about—to invest finance into our energy programme so that oil countries such as the OPEC countries, or any others, who wish to hold us to ransom over any particular type of energy, will never be able to do that again. We learned, I hope, from what happened about three years ago when the rising price of oil from the OPEC countries created a world inflation problem; and we took some time to pull ourselves together on that.
My Lords, it is of great interest that the United Kingdom energy policy appears to be far in advance of that of the EEC and (I nearly go as far as to say) that of America. I noticed how worried was President Carter in elaborating on the importance of energy. Strange as it may seem, even America has its energy problems. I was equally interested to read in the Daily Telegraph of 2nd July a statement by Mr. G. Brunner, the EEC commissioner responsible for energy. Although I felt that in parts of his speech he might have been a little too outspoken on the depressing side of the EEC energy question, he had some kind words to say about the United Kingdom energy policy. This is what he said:
"Britain is the only country in the EEC which within the next few years could look forward to self-sufficiency in energy; and they might be tempted to think that the one thing they did not need was a European energy policy".
As I have just said, we were blackmailed by the OPEC countries. Since then, all of us have got our heads down. The Conservative Government who were in

295
Office when it happened, the present Government and their advisers, have all worked to a common aim to make certain that our energy programme progresses sufficiently to ensure that we shall never again meet such a problem from any other country.
From these Benches we agree that this Bill is an important one. But that does not mean that we should not look at it a little more closely. I find it a tragedy tonight that there are so few of us debating this most important subject. I should have liked the usual channels to push this debate into an earlier part of the day so that there could be more Members present debating it and listening. I do not apologise to noble Lords when I say that at this stage I intend to speak as briefly as possible, for I believe that the important discussions will take place at the Committee stage when more Members of this House will be present and aware of the importance of this Bill.
This Bill has enormous wings flying over enormous areas which we will have to look at. It seems to me that the National Coal Board are really going to poach on anybody's ground. In this connection I might refer your Lordships to Clauses 9, 10 and 11. Therefore, one must look at the suspicions that are being cast from those in the mineral industries. We must look at the clauses so that the National Coal Board, with its great experience, is not allowed to be able to take over and, indeed, upset any other industries with experience of mineral mining, and so on.
Clause 1 is a part of a Money Bill. I said that I wished we could go to Committee and I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, nodded. There is little that we can do on the first part of the Bill, as it deals with finance. But we can see where the finance is to be spread. I said earlier that we were going to look at the figures, which seem enormous. The limit at the moment is £1,100 million. That is to be raised in the next two years to £1,800 million and then by stages to £2,600 million. We are given as the reasons for that, that certain mines need modernising to bring them up to present-day standards.
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, to this debate. From his
296
experience, he will be able to tell us a great deal and I am sure he will teach me some more about the mines. I believe that there are about 100 mines and that some of these are in a bad state and need modernising. One wonders if there is enough money to do all the work that is needed. We have a great opportunity to see one mine, Selby, coming into its own. The Selby mine is reputed to be the largest in Europe if not the world. Regarding its coming into production, there are one or two hitches over problems of the water table, but I will not ask the noble Lord about that at the moment. In addition the Vale of Belvoir is an equally large mine, and there has also been a discovery at Nottingham which is not so large. We have enormous potential reserves. There are 300 years of coal reserves in this country and I hope that this Bill will be part of the build-up for years to come.
The tragedy is the over-shadowing cloud of the problems of wages, production and difficulty in keeping harmony among the miners. I should like to congratulate Mr. Joseph Gormley, who seems to be having a tough fight to keep his union members together. While he has that fight on his hands, while he is trying to describe to them what their wages must or must not be, this House should do all in its power to congratulate him because things cannot be too pleasant for him. He has done a great deal for the mining industry.
While these clouds hang over the coal industry and arguments take place on wages, the production of coal has gone down steadily since the last pay claim. It appears that there must be some behind-the-scenes reason concerned with trying to keep that production going—as I said, it is going down. I wonder whether the noble Lord will be able to throw any light on whether the miners are considering keeping down production in order to obtain a better productivity scheme. It seems to me that there is something wrong there, and I wonder what is the underlying reason. There must be some reason, because they have had a wage rise, but it does not seem to be working. So, having read and seen that the industry, the National Coal Board, the management and unions have said that progress is disappointing, I presume that, when they say that, they

297
mean that productivity is not reaching the required heights. I hope that, at the end of the day, on this Clause 1, we shall be able to see planning and efficiency, with the money going into it, so that we have a better industry. I should like to mention one further point: production was down by as much as 7 million tons last year; that is, per man-shift. I think that we ought to hear what the noble Lord can tell us about that when he tells us about the productivity scheme which I think is probably worrying them.
Looking again at investment, the most depressing part of the industry, as I see it, is the domestic side. Coming by rail from the West Country, I find it difficult to understand when I see new houses being built with no fireplaces and no chimneys. I may have mentioned this point earlier, but I believe that it is totally wrong that houses should be built today without fireplaces. If fireplaces were being put into new houses, the public would not find themselves held to ransom if there was a problem with electricity. They would be able to buy coal, so the coal industry would have an increased demand. I feel that there is something wrong there and I should like to see more domestic coal sold—although I must say that, unfortunately, the price has increased by 83½ per cent. and, therefore, people are probably not going to be able to afford it.
My Lords, I have dealt at some length with Clause 1. Referring to coal stocks, I fully understand the reasons for Clauses 2, 3 and 4. To hold such stocks one must have finance, and therefore this is part of the build-up of finance in connection with Clause 1.
I turn now to Clauses 9, 10 and 11. Clause 9 relates to activities concerned with petroleum. Of course, it is fully understood that coal produces a petrochemical and it is obvious that there must be new wording and new clauses in order that the National Coal Board can go into the petro-chemical industry. The join-up of the two companies should be useful not only for the United Kingdom but also in connection with exports. However, I have discovered one point here that may possibly be on the dangerous side and I should like it to be looked at again when we reach the Committee stage. I feel that the Coal Board should not need to go
298
into the petrol filling-station world. They ought to keep themselves to petrochemicals. There is no mention of extending beyond these, but they could do so. The clause is rather loosely drafted, and it could be that the Board could go into the petro-chemical world, so I should like to look into that clause in Committee, because it needs further examination. However, I believe that the thinking behind it is sensible, and it states that if in the course of their work in exploration and experimentation, the National Coal Board discover other minerals, they should be empowered to extract them.
There are several bodies in the mineral world, other than the Coal Board. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned some of the minerals that could be extracted from the ground. As I see it, there are aggregates, salt, potash and even cement, and I wonder whether Clause 10 is too loosely worded, and whether there could be a form of back-door nationalisation if the Coal Board went into other areas, pushing companies out of business. Near my home in Wiltshire there is a very large cement works, and if this were affected there would be disorganisation and higher costs. Furthermore, the experience of companies such as this would be lost.
At the moment, most of these companies are going through a bad time, which is partly due to the fact that local authorities are not building. So it could be unfair if the National Coal Board were able to go in when they know of the presence of a mineral. I am not saying that the National Coal Board do not already look for other minerals. But when companies have experience and have invested their money to get the minerals out, they should be left to carry on. Furthermore, there could be increased expense to the consumer if these companies were unable to continue. So that, as I said, I should like to go into Clause 10 in Committee.
Clause 11 deals with overseas activities. The National Coal Board, which are claimed to he the largest coal producers in the Western World, should be able in the national interest to use their expertise to the financial advantage of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned exports of milling machinery and so on, which will bring in extra finance to the United Kingdom, and I can see good reason for Clause 11.

299
Like the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I should like to end by saying that the lot of the miner is not the nicest one. It is an awful job. But in the mining industry we have the best engineering brains, we have the best material and we have the EEC looking very jealously at our coal industry, which could be second to none in Europe. Therefore, although from these Benches we shall look at certain clauses in Committee, we welcome the Bill. We shall help all we can to make it a good Bill and we shall try our best not to delay it unduly.
9.35 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I should also like to thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his cogent presentation of the Bill to your Lordships and to express from these Liberal Benches our warm support for the Bill. I personally welcome the Bill on two main grounds. First of all, it appears to be essentially a good Bill and with enlightened administration should ensure a prosperous mining industry for decades to come. The contemplated investment is, of course, massive. However, with proper accountability it is essential for the economy of the United Kingdom to proceed in this way both from a national point of view and also having regard to our position as a member of the European Economic Community. Secondly, I welcome the Bill on a more general ground because it gives this House one of its most infrequent opportunities to discuss important aspects of the National Coal Board and the activities of the mining industry generally. I shall look forward to the contribution to be made to this debate at this late hour by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who has great experience of National Coal Board matters.
My Lords, in connection with the National Coal Board I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the observation of the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Eadie, when speaking on the first day of the Committee stage in the other place. The relevant reference is the 22nd March, at column 53 of the Official Report. He said that he met a number of large oil industrialists in America who emphasised to him how they wished to have in America a body like the National Coal Board, with the monopoly
300
powers that it has, for the purpose of improving the productivity of coal. I think that it is not irrelevant for me to say that I personally have also had the same experience when, by accident in New York a few months ago I met Sir Derek Ezra, the chairman of the National Coal Board. I was in America on other matters not concerned with coal, but I was able to entertain Sir Derek with some of my American friends who were most impressed with not only the activities of the National Coal Board in this country and overseas but with the patient work which Sir Derek himself was undertaking.
If I may again mention a personal matter, I have also been concerned as a member of the Patent Bar with aspects of the major technological breakthrough that has occurred in the industry during the past 15 or 20 years. I have often been down coalmines and at the face, and I have seen inventions adapted for the benefit of the miners and for increasing productivity. I have seen the new equipment introduced. I have also been associated with the remarkable research work undertaken by the National Coal Board and its associates in relation to the liquefaction of coal, pyrolisis and other matters which, at this late hour, I do not propose to mention. At times, my Lords, I have felt that perhaps the National Coal Board was not getting quite its money worth from the firms with which it was associated, but that is another matter and perhaps wholly irrelevant to this debate.
The first specific point that I wish to raise relates to Clause 6 which is concerned with grants in connection with "pit closures". The two words "pit closure" have a very sorrowful significance for many of us. Subsection (1) of Clause 6 states that grants will be made to assist in the redeployment of the manpower resources of the Board and the elimination of uneconomic colliery capacity. Subsection (2) of the clause states that the relevant expenditure of the Board is to be on the items indicated in Schedule 2.
I consider that the eight points raised in Schedule 2 as to the kind of expenditure which should be related to the closure of pits are inadequate. To those of us who have been associated from birth with mining conditions in Wales, the words "pit closure" give rise to memories of

301
social tragedies in Welsh communities. Even a recent EEC Directive—No. R3128/76 to which I shall refer later—says that to return to the coal policy of the 1960s, with large-scale pit closures, would have not only adverse psychological effects but also disastrous effects on the energy programme of the EEC.
The Welsh countryside has been desecrated and the social fabric of communities has been destroyed through pit closures. In my view, pit closures should be postponed for as long as possible in order to give an opportunity for coal burning industries to be brought nearer to those pits—industries which can dispose of the poor quality coal which so often comes from these kinds of pits—and also to reduce the costs of coal transport.
I cannot resist mentioning to your Lordships, even at this late hour, the pamphlet which was produced in 1969 by the Welsh Liberal Party called Life to a Nation: An Economic Policy for Wales. In that pamphlet we advocated that pit closures should be postponed for 10 years and that industry should be phased into the district not only to re-employ the manpower which would be displaced from the closed pits but also to enable coal burning industries to be brought into the area. One of the parameters which occupies so vivid a place in the minds of the experts who have to decide on pit closures is the cost of coal transport from this kind of pit. In 1969, therefore, it seemed to the Welsh Liberal Party that the cost of coal transport could be greatly reduced by encouraging those industries which burn coal to come into the neighbourhood. Therefore I suggest that perhaps a further examination of Clause 6 and Schedule 2 should be made to find out whether or not, apart from the grants payable in respect of pits which are likely to be closed, there ought to be grants for industries which should be specifically encouraged to come to the area of the pits affected.
Another matter—a social one—which I should like the Minister to clarify is whether the Bill makes adequate provision for better allowances for miners who have already retired, and also for widows who live in the mining areas of Wales which I know so well. Clause 7 of the Bill deals fully with redundancy payments and the Minister has tonight explained this aspect
302
of the Bill. In my view the needs of miners who have retired, often as a result of bad health due to their work in the industry, and the needs of the widows should be a prominent feature of the policy of grants in aid.
I now turn briefly to Clause 9, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Long, has referred. This is the clause which deals with the powers of the Board to carry on activities relating to petroleum. I shall be interested in the Minister's reply to some of the points raised by the noble Viscount. I have some reservations at present as to the scope of this clause, but I shall either await the observations of the Minister or raise the matter again in Committee.
Again, I should like to support what the noble Viscount, Lord Long, said in regard to Clause 10. I, too, have heard of the anxieties of the sand and gravel industry about the powers given under Clause 10 for the exploration activities of the Coal Board in relation to minerals. Here, again, at this late hour I do not propose to develop this point but will await the reply of the Minister. Clause 11 allows the National Coal Board in effect to do overseas what the Board does in the United Kingdom, and I welcome this aspect of the powers of the Board because it has a high international reputation both as to its equipment and its research and as a result the National Coal Board has very valuable assets in the way of technological expertise and know-how and I hope the Board is adequately staffed to exploit those valuable assets in the interests of the United Kingdom economy.
However, I would suggest that the Board should be careful not to become over enthusiastic as to its powers to enter into international competition abroad because in my view the National Coal Board should not get involved with activities involving a high degree of commercialisation. In other words, it should not involve itself in risky financial enterprises abroad, however attractive they may appear at first. It may be that some modification of the wording of Clause 11 is essential towards this end.
Finally, I should like to refer briefly to the consideration which has been given in the past few months to the communications issued by the EEC in regard to the

303
European coal industry and which are at present under the active consideration of the Sub-Committee F of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities, of which I have the honour to be a member. The Commission's communication R3128/76 of 14th December 1976, to which I have referred, expressed concern that the productive capacity of coal in the EEC has been endangered by the rising level of imports of cheap coal from countries such as Poland and South Africa, that is from countries outside the EEC.
A further communication by the Commission entitled the Community Coal Market Situation No. 478/77 dated 25th February 1977 has emphasised, first the need to maintain and possibly increase the consumption of Community coal, and, secondly, that the Community's production target is endangered by uncertainties arising from the increased recourse
304
to imports from third countries and the resulting increase by Community producers of their stocks. I do not know whether the Minister is able tonight to give any indication as to the policy of the National Coal Board, in the context perhaps of the EEC, as to large stocking of coal, the import of cheap coal into this country, and whether he is in a position to say anything about the policy of the Government as to the export of coal from this country by the National Coal Board to the EEC to make up for the deficiency of coal being imported, if the imports to the EEC are in any way cancelled or descreased.
In conclusion, may I again welcome this Bill, concerned as it is with creating a framework for the National Coal Board, the coal industry and the National Union of Mineworkers, not only for the benefit of the coal industry but also for the benefit of men and women in those areas which in the past have relied on coal as the main part of their social heritage.
9.52 p.m.
Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: My Lords, the day is far spent, the hour is getting late, and I understand there is another item on the Order Paper; therefore, I propose to be very brief indeed. A month ago—the day before the Whitsun Recess as a matter of fact—we had a very informative, knowledgeable debate on the general question of energy as far as it affects this country. The Bill before us tonight particularises, as its title indicates, the coal industry. One purpose has already been explained by the Minister, and supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Long, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran; it is to raise the ceiling of the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board. I think that is essential. The Bill has been given a general welcome, not only in this debate tonight, but in another place during the Second Reading, and also in the fairly extensive debates that took place during the 11 sittings of the Committee on the Bill. As Lord Long indicated, there will be ample opportunity for dealing with some of the detailed points that he himself raised in his speech.
I should like, in the brief time that is at my disposal, to confine myself to three main points. The first is that it is my belief that this Bill is not only an important but a necessary Bill in the raising of the borrowing powers of the NCB, to enable it to reach the target, I think of about 120 million tons by 1985, and progressively increasing up to the year 2000. It is its hope and its wish, and this legislation is to provide the opportunity for the targets of global output from the deep mines of Britain to be reached.
It is obvious to all of us that to provide facilities for improving our energy resources needs a great amount of capital. It does not matter whether those facilities are in the form of a power station, a nuclear plant or even a new coalmine. In these days when prices are not stable but are subject to the hideous monster of inflation, it is necessary, if the National Coal Board is to do its job, that the ceiling of the borrowing powers, which I believe was fixed in 1973, should be considerably raised. The main purpose of the Bill is to enable the NCB, in co-operation with the miners' union, progressively to achieve the target of more global production from the deep pits of Britain.
306
My noble friend the Minister made a statement about the legislation that has been enacted since, for instance, the 1960s. Compared with the legislation for the coal industry up to the time of the Bill, this Bill is really refreshing and something for which we should be grateful. During the past 15 or 16 years legislation has been concerned with pit closures and redundancies. Without going into a great deal of detail we can say that, as a result of the success which attended the efforts of the oil lobby both inside and outside Parliament, the coal industry was driven into the wilderness. This Bill gives some hope of a resuscitation—a kind of resurrection. Without any reservations I welcome this Bill.
The noble Viscount, Lord Long, referred to the fact that I might know the capital expenditure for existing pits. I have some figures here. There has been a considerable increase in the figure of capital expenditure in order to improve the mines both technically and mechanically. Perhaps I may quote just one. I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Viscount the exact numbers of the pits. I can give the amount of capital that it is proposed to infuse into pits which, according to the NCB, are expected to have a long life. In round figures, in 1977–78 there will be an infusion into existing mines of about £200 million of capital.
That reminds me of the poor technical ability that existed prior to nationalisation. I recall very well the report that was drawn up during the war; it was known as the Reid Report. As a condemnation of how the pits of Britain had been neglected, well I really have not language to describe it. I say, incidentally, on that particular point, that the output per man-shift before nationalisation was, I think, only 21 cwts.; it is now 43 cwts. So in the period of 30 years there has been an increase in output per man-shift of at least 100 per cent. At some stage saturation point will be reached. I doubt whether we have reached that point at the moment, but I want to say in reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, that the capital that has been invested in the pits of Britain during the last 30 years has been justified, and that the investment has shown good results.

307
I have one more minute. I gave myself ten minutes, but this is such a fascinating subject, and I want to ask two questions of the Minister who is to reply. First, seeing that planning consent has been given for what is described as the rich Selby coalfield—which is adjacent to where my noble friend Lord Popplewell lives—can the Minister tell us whether a start has been made? What progress has taken place up to the present time?
I do not know whether the second question is sub judice; I do not think it will be in the form I am going to put it. It is about the proposed Vale of Belvoir coalfield. Could my noble friend tell me when planning permission is likely to be applied for? If all one reads about the Vale of Belvoir is true, there is likely to be resentment and strong opposition. The only reason I mention that is because these planning applications take so long and so much money that by the time the operation is started of sinking a new pit, because of inflation the costs have increased again. I should like my noble friend to tell me, if he can, whether planning permission has been applied for so far as the Vale of Belvoir is concerned.
My last words are these: I wish this Bill every success. Without reservation I give it my wholehearted support. I hope that in the immediate years ahead the ideas and the planning that the Coal Board has in mind will fructify, and, as a result of what Parliament is doing in providing the necessary financial facility, that the object of an increased global output will be achieved.
10.5 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I apologise for trespassing on the time of the House, but I promise to be brief. This is one of the most important Bills to come before the British Parliament and I find it ridiculous that we should be talking about a sum of money that is chicken feed compared with what we paid for Concorde so that businessmen could get to America a few hours faster simply to spend a few hours longer at the airport before going about their business.
We are tonight discussing one of the most vital industries concerned with
308
Britain's future destiny, yet we are doing so at the tailend of the day's business in this House. I am anxious not to repeat what has been said in the previous excellent speeches; I do not say that with pomposity but, I hope, with understanding. I rather sympathise with my noble friend Lord Strabolgi in having at this late hour to answer our questions, and I fear that I must add to his burden by pointing out a number of factors.
For goodness sake let us compare the realities of coal production! When I was a kiddie there were 1¼ million people cutting coal; today 250,000 miners are supporting the entire pyramid of coal energy in Britain. When I was a child there were 60 pits in the Rhondda Valley; today there are just over 100 in the whole of Britain and there are perhaps two pits working in the Rhondda Valley. As my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield pointed out, under nationalisation we have production increased by 100 per cent., but we have six times fewer miners working in the pits than we had in the 1914 to 1920 era. Unfortunately, too many people have passed by coal and have been taken in and conned by the oil lobby, just as we were conned over the Common Market.
As noble Lords may know, I keep cuttings and this morning I took from my cuttings file a piece that appeared in New Society on 8th April 1971. It said that people would lose £7 a week from their paypackets unless they voted for Britain to join the Common Market. In my view it was mendacious, but I do not want to talk about coal with mendacity. I want coal to have the opportunity of developing in a modern way and, as the noble Lord who spoke for the Liberal Party, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, pointed out, there are plenty of caveats in Schedule 2 to prevent wild spending, and when we reach the Committee stage I hope we will do something to improve this excellent Bill. I want the mining industry to have the right—when, for example, exploring in Selby—to develop further. Suppose they come across aluminium, platinum or even sand.
Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: Or gold, my Lords.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Indeed, why not gold, my Lords? There is nothing funny about that; there is gold in Wales. Who will have the right to exploit it? Will the National Coal Board be told, "A few jolly boys from private enterprise are coming in to work this sand, aluminium or whatever it might be?" I suppose it would be bauxite there. In other words, my fear is that we shall be corking on my old formula, "Socialise losses but privatise profits".
In many walks of life we are working in terms of a new society, and let us not forget that even America does not keep going on private enterprise alone. Wide areas of private enterprise there must be subsidised, from the Tennessee Valley scheme to many of their modern coal mines in Virginia. In Pennsylvania, where I am a Freeman of the anthracite town of Wilkesboro, the pits are subsidised to this day. If we want miners we must pay them and they must be given incentives, but if taxation reaches such a pitch that, when they have been working for four days and their wives have been working in the pottery or lace industries or in local ancillary industries in the valleys, they cannot make ends meet, we will not get men to cut coal. Some noble Lords talk about cutting coal as though it were like working in a factory.
Viscount LONG: Nobody has suggested that, my Lords.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, a pit cannot be run like a factory. The further one goes from the pit bottom the dearer it is to cut the coal. It is all very well asking for increased productivity, but productivity in a pit cannot be increased like one would polish chromium benches or improve the heat and light in a factory. In the pits one is dependent on nature in the raw and the further out one has to go the more difficult it becomes to obtain the raw material, the coal, and that applies to seams from 10 inches to perhaps 10 yards thick in places. Consequently, in the mining industry you cannot talk flippantly about productivity, as you can in other types of factory production.
I turn now to a matter regarding hospitals. I think that there must be
310
provision for a grant here. When we talk of research, my Lords, we should remember that some of the finest research in medicine has been carried out by sons of miners who have become doctors, surgeons, physiotherapists or have undertaken other medical work ancillary to the mining industry. In the field of pneumoconiosis the British mining industry was top. I took myself to China, to the pits in Manchuria, with documentation in the form of films taken in Cardiff and other places regarding pneumoconiosis in miners. I want to see in the Bill provision for a grant for the hospitals in the mining areas, so that there can be the most modern equipment for men who have been mangled in the mining industry, and in the fishing industry, which is also a terrible industry in which to work.
I said that I would not keep your Lordships very long. I hope that I will get the chance to put down some Amendments for the Committee stage. I believe that we must think deeply about our system of taxation. I have been talking here quietly to the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, who is an experienced industrialist. Once there is a certain pitch of taxation—one must not blame only the miners; it also involves the man in the street—one is killing the goose that lays the golden egg. A formula must be found that will lead to productivity and which will benefit the men—whether one calls them trade unionists, or anything else—in their struggle for greater production. Otherwise, with wives working today, a three day week, or a four day week, will be all that the miner will give, and it will not be because he is an evil man. It will be because he wants to live longer, and he wants to get the opportunity of a little more fresh air. So his pits must be improved, as well as his hospitals and other health facilities.
What about the question of houses without chimneys. That arose because we were daft enough to be "conned" by the oil lobby and the electricity lobby—the most expensive forms of fuel. I have spoken for seven minutes—that is two minutes longer than I intended. What a pathetic little debate this has been. I mean that in terms of the time given to it, not in terms of the quality of the speeches, apart from mine. I hope that at Committee and Report stages we will

311
treat the Bill with the dignity that it deserves.
10.13 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, so far as I am concerned, my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek cannot speak a moment too long, and I am sure that all your Lordships will agree with me. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Davies, and other noble Lords who have spoken, that this is an extremely important Bill. Not many noble Lords have taken part in the debate. Nevertheless, what it has lacked in quantity, I think it has made up for in quality. It has been a most notable debate, with very valuable contributions from the noble Viscount, Lord Long, from the Opposition Front Bench, from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for the Liberals, and from my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who speaks with unrivalled experience of the mining industry, as well as from my other noble friend Lord Davies.
I shall not speak for too long because, as the noble Viscount said, we are to have a Committee stage, but it is my duty, and it is the least that I can do for this important industry, to do my best to answer the various questions which have been raised. I shall try to do this as briefly as possible. I should like to deal first with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who raised the question of Selby. The initial work has already started, and is under way. I think that one cannot underestimate the importance of this seam. Selby will produce 10 million tons of high quality, clean, electricity coal a year, and its productivity is expected to be at least four, and maybe five times, the present national average. But a mine such as Selby cannot be developed in a matter of two or three, or even five, years. It is an enormous project which requires careful examination by the authorities concerned with planning and, of course, our environment, and which calls for a very high order of planning and organisation on the part of the Coal Board and the many construction and equipment firms involved. It will take 10 years before the mine comes into full production, so it will be 10 years before we begin to reap the full benefit from the investment; but it will be an investment that is well worth while.
312
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Taylor also asked about Belvoir. The reserves under the Vale of Belvoir and East Leicestershire represent the biggest single discovery in energy terms in the United Kingdom. The area in which the 500 million tons of reserves lie covers 90 square miles between Nottingham, Grantham and Melton Mowbray. There are six main seams in depths ranging from 1,300 to nearly 3,000 feet. The present position is that the Board, which made a preliminary announcement on progress in January, is still considering the feasibility studies and the possible ways of developing the reserves. The Board is expected to make a further progress report on the 12th July.
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Long, asked me a number of questions. He asked how we can explain the lower output.
Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves Belvoir, I know that in some influential quarters there is concern or apprehension (I could put it in that way) that planning procedures may be changed. Can the Minister say anything about that in a few sentences?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not think that we have yet reached that stage. I think that we ought to await the report of the Coal Board. This is a very complicated question, as my noble friend, I know, would be the first to appreciate. There have been environmental matters raised as well. I think I would rather not say any more about Belvoir beyond emphasising its tremendous potentiality at this stage.
My Lords, I was just about to answer the noble Viscount on the question of lower output and production. It is true that present levels of productivity are lower than they were a year ago. In the financial year ending 31st March, 1977, colliery production was only 106 million tons, compared with 112 million tons the previous year. Although there is this recent decline, it is worth bearing in mind that overall levels of productivity have more than doubled during the period since the war, while face productivity has

313
almost trebled. There are a number of factors at work in the decline. Among those identified earlier this year by the Coal Board and the unions are adverse geology, a slightly higher rate of absenteeism, inadequate manning of coal faces and the effect on morale of pithead stocks of coal. The unions fully recognise the need for improvement, and are giving real co-operation to the National Coal Board in trying to improve matters. A powerful team, led by a Board member, is at present touring the coalfields to study the problem and ways of dealing with it. The National Coal Board believe that an effective incentive scheme would make a substantial difference to the performance of the coal industry. It is therefore particularly welcome that the National Union of Mineworkers is seriously considering this question. The implementation of such a scheme must, however, await a decision to allow productivity schemes under the pay policy.
The noble Viscount also asked whether the National Coal Board was planning to take over various small companies. I can confirm that the National Coal Board has no present plans to take over other companies in the course of carrying out petrochemical activities or of mining other minerals than coal. So far as petrochemical operations are concerned, the Board, through its subsidiaries, will be co-operating with BSC (Chemicals) and with companies in the oil and chemical industries. So far as other minerals are concerned, the Board has not yet decided precisely how it would operate. It already has a Minestone Executive which deals mainly in colliery spoil but it might well decide to operate through the NCB's subsidiary, NCB (Ancillaries) Limited.
The noble Viscount also asked about petrol stations. I can confirm that the NCB has no intention of disposing of any of the products of its petrochemical operations on the retail market. Thus, there is no question of the NCB setting up its own petrol stations. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the noble Viscount raised the question of the sand and gravel industry. I am aware that firms in the bulk minerals industry have expressed concern about Clause 10. However, there have been discussions between the National Coal Board and representatives of the industry.
314
The Coal Board has assured them that the Board has no present plans for expanding into the bulk mineral business. Clause 10 would not give the Board any power to take over existing gravel pits or any other mineral workings. It might be within the scope of the clause for the Board to purchase a working as a result of a mutual agreement with a company. Such an agreement would be entirely voluntary so far as the company was concerned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ward, asked about areas of high unemployment. Examples of these areas where the NCB maintains pits are South Wales, Scotland, North-East England, and the North-West. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, made an interesting suggestion when he suggested that coal-burning industries should be moved nearer to collieries when there was a plan to close them. There are instances of this; for example, the concentration of large power stations in the Trent Valley and the aluminium smelter and associated power station at Lynmouth in Northumberland. But there are some obvious difficulties in the way of promoting action to this end on a wide scale. Pit workings become exhausted and closures are therefore inevitable. Dislocation of industry and heavy costs might be involved in promoting any significant movement of industry to the coalfields.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, also asked about Clause 6. The eight types of expenditure set out in Schedule 2 which may qualify for grant have been unchanged ever since grants in connection with pit closures were first authorised in the 1965 Coal Industry Act. Schedule 2 merely repeats the wording—word for word—of the eight classes of expenditure set out in Section 3 of the 1965 Act. They cover all the major types of expenditure that arise in this field.
With regard to the very important question that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, raised about retired miners, retired mineworkers with appropriate service receive a basic industry pension of £5.23 a week. This is the present rate. It was increased to take account of the increased cost of living last autumn. Widows receive an appropriate part pension. The Government contribute £28.2 million a year

315
towards the cost of these pensions in respect of men who retired before April 1975.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asked me about the expertise of the National Coal Board. The National Coal Board has a worldwide reputation for technical expertise and can be relied upon not to enter rashly upon overseas activities, although with underground mining there must always be some risk because all the problems that occur in nature cannot be foreseen or identified in advance. Any project that requires capital expenditure would also, I can confirm, require Treasury authority.
The noble Lord asked lastly about the imports from Third countries. Imports from Third countries into the European Community have been increasing of recent years at the expense of Community production. The Commission produced a paper on this for the Ministerial Energy Council in March. As a result, it was agreed to set up a system of monitoring imports, and that is now in course of preparation. We have been losing no opportunity of drawing attention to the potential dangers of allowing community coal production capacity to be eroded in this way. I am glad to say that we have no cheap coal import problem in the United Kingdom. My Lords, I should like in conclusion to thank all noble Lords for their most valuable contributions which we will note and read carefully before our Committee. I look forward to the next stage of the Bill with eager interest.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOVERCRAFT (APPLICATION OF ENACTMENTS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1977
10.26 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM rose to move, That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1977, laid before the House on 20th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment order will bring
316
hovercraft within the ambit of the new collision regulations which come into effect on 15th July under the provision of the Collision Regulations and Distress Signals Order 1977. It may help if I briefly remind your Lordships of the background.
A set of international collision regulations proposed by the Inter-Governmental Consultative Organisation (IMCO) in 1960 was applied to British ships by means of a collision regulations order in 1965. These regulations proved valuable in improving safety of life at sea, but within a few years of their introduction it was evident that they did not cover some of the more recent developments in the marine world. These included not only a considerable increase in the speed and draught of many ships, but also the introduction of an increasing array of special purpose ships plus non-displacement craft such as hydrofoils and hovercraft. It became clear that new regulations were needed. These were drawn up at an international conference under the auspices of IMCO in London on 20th October 1972 and come into operation on 15th July for ships and seaplanes. However, special arrangements have to be made for British hovercraft, as I will explain. This need arises from the Hovercraft Act 1968.
When that Bill was before Parliament difficulty was experienced in determining whether hovercraft should be treated as ships or aircraft, and the decision was then taken that they should be treated as vehicles in their own right. Nevertheless, hovercraft operate in the marine environment so that it was appropriate to apply to them also the then current international collision regulations applicable to ships and seaplanes on the water with such adjustments as were necessary. This was done by the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972. The latest international collision regulations specifically include air cushion vehicles and other non-displacement craft. It is therefore necessary to amend that 1972 order so as to extend to hovercraft the provisions of the 1977 Collision Regulations Order. Those regulations taken on their own embody the revised international regulations only in respect to ships and seaplanes on the water. Hovercraft have to be specially dealt with, as they are in this order.
At the same time the references in the 1972 order to the 1965 collision regulations will be revoked. They are being replaced by these 1977 regulations, and I should like to say just a few words about them. They are the result of considerable thought based on recent experience, preparatory work and discussion, both nationally in the United Kingdom in the Department of Trade's Safety of Navigation Committee, and internationally, particularly in meetings of IMCO. I believe they will help to improve safety at sea still further.
I do not need to compare in detail the 1977 collision regulations with those of 1965. Perhaps the most notable change, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, is the incorporation of a new rule, Rule 10, governing the behaviour of vessels within traffic separation schemes adopted by IMCO. This rule follows the development over the past decade of a practice aimed at reducing the risks of collision by separating into two defined lanes vessels travelling in opposite directions in congested areas. It was on our initiative that the IMCO Assembly in October 1971 adopted a resolution:
"that Member Governments of the Organisation should make it an offence for ships of their flag which use any traffic scheme adopted by the Organisation to proceed against the established direction of traffic flow".
We in the United Kingdom gave effect to this resolution through the Collision Regulations (Traffic Separation Schemes) Order in 1972. It has been unfortunate that less than a dozen other countries have been able in the interim period to follow our example with their own legislation. This omission from the legislation of other States who are parties to the IMCO resolution as well as the Collision Regulations Convention will now be repaired when Rule 10 becomes mandatory on their vessels. This is particularly important to this country, since there are no fewer than nine IMCO-adopted schemes around our coast, the most important of which covers the narrows of the Dover Strait; and in this connection the regulation of hovercraft is very important, because it is widely evident that there has been a steady growth in the number of hovercraft in operation worldwide and, in particular, in the number of passages of the Channel undertaken by such craft. In fact, by
318
the end of last year hovercraft were reported to be carrying 30 per cent. of the passengers and 25 per cent. of the vehicles using the Dover Strait ferry services. Non-displacement craft such as hovercraft and hydrofoils are specifically included in the definition of "vessel" in Rule 3(a) of the revised International Collision Regulations, and if it were not for the particular requirements of the Hovercraft Act the new United Kingdom regulations would have been applied to this type of vessel as to other descriptions of watercraft included in the definition of "vessel". It is therefore important that hovercraft should be obliged to conform to the "rules of the road" followed by more conventional vessels, and it is that which this order is designed to achieve. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1977, laid before the House on 20th June, be approved. —(Lord Oram.)
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for that patient and careful exposition of the order before us. I must say to your Lordships that I am not going to speak for anything like the length that he did, but I believe this order to be wise and appropriate, and I hope that your Lordships will approve it.
If I may, I feel I should sound one caveat. We are here applying quite strict requirements—and properly so—to the operation and equipment of hovercraft operating particularly in the congested waters the noble Lord has mentioned, such as the Dover Strait. While that is certainly right, speaking in general terms, we ought to take care that we do not strangle the hovercraft in a mesh of regulatory red tape, particularly of the type that is applied to the aircraft manufacturing industry. I do not want to decry what is done in the aircraft world, because that, too, is right and proper. But whether it would be equally so if applied to the construction of hovercraft is a question of considerable doubt.
If we are to nurture and nourish the hovercraft and hydrofoil manufacturing industry, we must take care to ensure that those vessels are regulated in a way more appropriate to ships than to aircraft. Happily, the order that we have before us

319
tonight does just that, because it is designed and intended to ensure that these new and modern vessels can be integrated into the traffic patterns around our shores. But in the basic concepts of construction and manufacture, we are running a risk of setting down standards of construction and design more appropriate to aircraft than to ships and, therefore, of being unduly restrictive on hovercraft. That is a digression from the precise point of this order, but it is a point which I felt it appropriate to make on this occasion. Having said that, however, I am happy to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that this new order is appropriate and I hope that your Lordships will approve it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE QUEEN'S FLIGHT
10.38 P.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will strengthen and update the Queen's Flight, for instance by acquiring an HS 125 or a BAC 111 aircraft. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising at this nocturnal but happy hour to ask the Question on the Order Paper on the re-equipment of the Queen's Flight, I am conscious that a certain Press comment today may have set the scene for a more informative debate than usual. I am not sure whether I should be thanking the Press or the Government for this, but I naturally hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will be able to confirm whether indeed there was a lively discussion in the Cabinet on this issue and, if so, to indicate the result.
I recognise at once the difficulty and sensitivity of this issue, when considered against our present economic difficulties, the Government's cut-back and the defence budget pruning. But I put down this Question because I genuinely believe that much of the sensitivity is misplaced, that the Queen's Flight does an immense amount of unsung good for the country and that the time has been reached when a decision, in principle, to re-equip over a period of time should not be shelved again, as successive Governments have done in the past, against, I am sure, all the good advice that the Government are
320
receiving from the Chiefs of staff downwards.
As I shall not have an opportunity later, I should like at this stage to thank my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for indicating that he will be taking part and giving us the benefit of his undoubtedly refreshing ideas, and the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, who will no doubt be making some strident comments on the issue. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, because I do not think there is anyone on the Government Front Bench who is better equipped to answer this Question, as he served with distinction as a past Minister for the Royal Air Force in a previous Administration.
The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will readily appreciate and understand the outstanding service rendered by the 170 or so men and women in the Queen's Flight Unit at RAF Benson, and their total dedication and loyalty. It is perhaps interesting to recall, as I am sure the House remembers, that it was in July 1936 that Parliament decided that from that time on the public purse would be responsible for providing an air transport service for all the public duties carried out by the Royal Family.
The Royal Air Force was given the task. I understand that the unit was set up initially at Hendon and then moved after the war to its present base at Benson. Anyone who has visited the unit at Benson, as I had the privilege to do recently, cannot fail to notice immediately both the esprit de corps and the strong motivation of all the personnel at the unit. One can see the spotless hangar, the gleaming aircraft with their distinctive red, white and blue markings and Union Jacks on their tails. However, beside this emotive picture there lies the more dry and highly efficient operational side of the Queen's Flight. For year after year, month after month, weekly and daily the operations are planned covering the world. I understand that sometimes all five of their aircraft are in use at the same time. There is no back-up of reserves. Serviceability of the aircraft is, indeed, their pre-requisite of success. It is this total reliability which I believe has won admiration throughout the world.
I think that it is fair to say that whenever the question of the Queen's Flight is

321
raised, either inside or outside Parliament, the critics seize on the view that the Queen's Flight is merely an exclusive, personal and private flight for the enjoyment of the Royal Family—an expensive Royal perk on the taxpayers. Indeed, if a question of re-equipment is raised one sees the Press article headed: "The Government are to give a personal gift of two jet aircraft to the Queen". Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth or more patently dishonest.
My Lords, the Queen's Flight's brief, as I understand it—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will clarify the situation—involves two fundamental points. The first is to provide an air transport service to the Royal Family in the course of their public duties. The second is to provide an air transport service, when requested, for certain senior Ministers of the Government, for the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, and a whole list of others, but not, I am afraid to say, the Leader of this House or the Lord Chancellor. Most important, it provides a service for the visiting dignatories who come to this country. Last week, for instance, the President of France flew in one of the Queen's Flight aircraft.
My Lords, the Queen's Flight is potentially the most prestigious flying unit in this country. It is not unimportant to remember that this country rightly prides itself on its aviation achievements and, indeed, its great aerospace industry. What do the Government, at present, provide for this prestigious unit? They provide, as the House will know, three Andover aircraft which are propeller driven—the first was delivered 14 years ago—and two Wessex helicopters. The Andover has a range of, I think, 1,000 miles, a speed of 180 mph and has proved undoubtedly to he a magnificent and reliable aircraft. One is in no way criticising it as an aircraft. The Andover has served the Queen's Flight magnificently, but it has its limitations which are more acute today than perhaps they were five years ago. I understand that it is short of baggage space, an important requirement in this context. It has a maximum operational altitude of 15,000 feet, which often means that it cannot climb above bumpy weather, and a range of 1,000 miles. This means that it would
322
take six days to fly to Australia, or 2½ days to cross the Atlantic. The obvious question is whether this aircraft is adequate now for the Queen's Flight. In a country filled with aviation achievement, is it a suitable aircraft for our Head of State, for our Prime Minister and senior Ministers and, indeed, for our foreign visitors to fly in?
What do other countries provide for their Heads of State? I have searched high and low but have not found any other Head of State who uses an Andover. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to advise us on this point. Most Heads of State use the BAC 111, the Boeing 727, the Hawker Siddeley 125 or the Gulf Stream. Even the British Steel Corporation use the Hawker Siddeley 125.
The truth about the Queen's Flight today is that only a relatively short distance trip can be offered. In other words, I understand that it can supply from its own resources only two-thirds of what it is called upon to provide. For the medium and long-haul flights it depends upon either the now ageing but magnificent VC 10s of the Royal Air Force, or British Airways, or one of the Commonwealth carriers, depending on the flight. This in itself—one could, of course, quibble about cost—is expensive in terms of both time, planning, maintenance and security as well as the need for a standby aircraft.
How active is the Queen's Flight and could it now justify, as I suggested on the Order Paper, the Hawker Siddeley 125 and perhaps two medium-haul BAC 111s? I believe that over the years the operational use of the Queen's Flight has increased substantially, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to refer to this point when he replies. Equally, I suspect that its use by Ministers entitled to use the Queen's Flight has decreased. Whether this is Government policy, or due to the over-capacity of the Queen's Flight, or because Ministers prefer to fly in more modern aircraft, I do not know; but again I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reply on this point, for it would be interesting to know the facts.
As to the specific question of the Hawker Siddeley 125 and the BAC 111, I do not pretend to be able to judge the technical arguments in favour of either of these

323
aircraft for the Queen's Flight. However, speaking as a layman, it seems a little odd that the Chiefs of Staff have a squadron—I think No. 32 Squadron at Northolt—of six Hawker Siddeley 125 aircraft, yet they cannot, apparently, spare one for the Queen's Flight. I do not know the answer, although I am sure there is one.
As for the BAC 111, surely this would be an ideal medium-haul aircraft, suitable for up to 4,000 miles. Already it has proved itself a winner throughout the world; already it is the aircraft used by six Heads of State; already it is with 60 operators throughout the world. It has just reopened its production line for 10 aircraft, and an order now must surely make good industrial sense. Its use could surely be combined with a Royal Air Force transport requirement. What is particularly surprising is that the BAC 111 is not yet in service with the Royal Air Force.
The last point I wish to put to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, in support of the case for updating the Queen's Flight is the simple word "prestige". I do not believe that the noble Lord will disagree that nobody in public life has done more to promote and support British Aviation than members of the Royal Family. It is a source of sadness to many of us, not least to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, that the Government have not yet found an opportunity for the Queen to travel in Concorde. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to say whether there may be a chance of this by the end of the year. We are immensely lucky in having Prince Philip and Prince Charles as proven aviators, and I understand that Prince Andrew is rapidly becoming a budding aviator as well. I suspect their enthusiasm and success as aviators is not unconnected with the charm and zeal of the present Captain of the Queen's Flight. Prestige has a value in aviation far more than in any other industry I know. The Queen's Flight has that prestige and so has British Aerospace; so I ask the noble Lord, is it not time that the one could help the other?
10.51 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, even at this late hour I am sure that many noble Lords, whether or not they
324
are present in this Chamber, are most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising this Question tonight. Life is full of coincidences and I feel strongly that it was the noble Earl's Question that precipitated the Press reports this morning. I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, is going to answer the noble Earl; but however he may answer, I feel sure that in his heart he will be sympathetic, and that is a great start.
Let us look at the situation in a practical way. As the noble Earl said, the Andover is a very fine aircraft; there is no doubt about it and I do not intend to knock it. But the BAC 111 is a much more suitable aircraft, if not in every way, in practically every way. So let us look at the disadvantage: the disadvantage seems to me to be one simple thing, namely the cost, which I understand may come out at £4 million per aircraft. This may well be the reason why certain members of the Cabinet do not feel very keen on the idea of having some new aircraft in the Queen's Flight. Also, it does not take into consideration the Tribune group outside the Cabinet: not only would some of them like to do away with the Queen's Flight, they would like to do away with the Monarchy as well as your Lordships' House! But let us not forget, my Lords, that they are a very small minority. One has only to have seen the behaviour of the mass of the British people and the love they have for their Sovereign, as shown during the Jubilee celebrations, to realise this.
Last year tourism earned for this country £1,628 million and the estimate for tourism this year is £2,100 million, an increase of £600 million entirely due to the Sovereign's Jubilee. In fact, the Press Officer of the British Tourist Authority called the Jubilee the "icing on the cake". I would ask the Royalist knockers to hazard a guess what our tourist income would be without the Monarchy. Surely out of the extra £600 million we could well afford two aircraft worthy of our Sovereign, and for senior Ministers to use when necessary.
I say we should give praise where it is due, whether it is to the Minister of State for Industry or the Secretary of State for Defence, for being the instigators of this "gift" to Her Majesty. At any rate it

325
will not cost us much, but the order for two BAC 111 aircraft, will be a not inconsiderable boost to the newly nationalised British Aerospace Industry and simultaneously it must be a great sales point for helping to sell more of these fine aeroplanes to foreign countries. I hate comparisons, but if General Amin can have a £2 million Gulf Stream, surely Her Majesty and senior Government Ministers should have, as the noble Earl said, prestigious aircraft to travel around on their official duties. It is not perhaps without irony that when Her Majesty goes to Sennelager on Thursday she will travel in an RAF VC 10. In the circumstances, this is quite right and proper; but how much better would it be if she were to travel in a BAC 111 in the Royal Livery of the Queen's Flight.
10.55 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we are, as always, grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for raising this matter with his usual clarity and force, and we are fortunate to hear his usually helpful and interesting intervention from the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley. I am afraid that I must be a little restrained. First of all, I must join with my noble friend and the noble Earl in expressing my concern at the present arrangements and the present fleet available to the Royal Flight. Certainly the Andovers, although they were splendid aeroplanes when they were bought, and indeed still are, are really no longer worthy of our Sovereign or senior Cabinet Ministers when they travel. The aeroplanes are 15 years or so old; they inevitably have to travel at comparatively low altitudes, which sometimes makes for bumpy flights; they are rather slow, and if Her Majesty or Ministers are travelling to the North of Scotland it takes a long time. These aeroplanes are often used for carrying Ministers to Belfast, Northern Ireland; indeed I am told that several flights a week are operated to Northern Ireland, not all using the Andover but a good many do. Therefore, the time has come for us to consider what can be done.
I am, however, doubtful whether it would be right to invest these very considerable sums in the BAC 111, which has been one of the suggestions. One has to remember that re-equipment on that scale does not end with buying the
326
aeroplanes. You have to buy the spares, and then to train the pilots. The RAF would certainly need a simulator. A simulator costs almost as much as an aeroplane. So although my noble friend and the noble Earl are thinking of expenditure of perhaps £8 million or £9 million for two aeroplanes, it will be much more than that; it will be £15 million at least by the time we have bought the simulator and all the necessary equipment, and trained the pilots. I doubt whether now is the time to impose this additional burden on the existing Defence Estimates.
However, as I have said, something has to be done with the Royal Flight because we really cannot continue with these comparatively tiny aeroplanes—and so few of them—that we have at present. What are the alternatives to the BAC 111, which I agree on the face of it is desirable? The other alternative mentioned in the noble Earl's Question is the HS 125. That, too, is certainly an attractive thought. It is a good deal less expensive to purchase the HS 125, and, above all, the RAF are already operating that type of aeroplane, so there would be no need for massive additional expenditure in terms of spares, supporting equipment, crew training and the like. If it is that the Royal Flight can use the HS 125, then that is most certainly an aeroplane which I would urge the Government to consider. But it is a very tiny aeroplane, much smaller even than the Andover. It will carry only six or eight passengers, and the Royal party, especially with their baggage, is often very much more than that.
So we may have to consider aeroplanes that are already in the RAF inventory. My noble friend has mentioned the VC 10. I believe that Her Majesty is shortly to travel to Germany in one of those. I would have thought that with the phasing out of the VC 10s, which I am told is to happen before too long, it might be possible to retain two or three of these aeroplanes reserved specially for the Royal Flight, and to use them on a much wider basis than is done at present. I agree that the VC 10 is not an ideal aeroplane for the shorter flights that are operated; namely, the ones to Scotland and to Northern Ireland. However, one needs to recall that the VC 10s which were purchased by the Royal Air Force are not identical to those that were purchased by British Airways. They are compara-

327
tively small inside and are fitted with the uprated super VC 10 engines. Therefore, they are capable of operating from some of the shorter runways, which are frequently used on Royal and Ministerial flights.
If for any reason the VC 10s are deemed to be unsuitable, I wonder whether it would be possible to retain one or two of the Comets which the RAF have operated so successfully for so many years. I know from my own experience that the Comet is a very comfortable and reliable aeroplane. Those that were operated by the Royal Air Force were not greatly used, and when it was decided to retire them a year or so ago the ones offered to the civilian market were very fine specimens. If there are any still in the RAF inventory—and I confess that I do not know the answer to that question —I should have thought that they could be equipped as splendid aeroplanes for the Royal Flight and are in many ways suitable for some of the shorter routes that they would have to operate.
Another point which I should like to inquire of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, is the question of the charter of civilian aircraft. We know that Ministers often travel in aircraft—in particular HS 125s—operated by the Civil Aviation Authority. We know that the Government pay the Authority for the use of those aeroplanes. I understand that in particular they are used on flights to Brussels and Strasbourg for matters connected with the European Parliament. However, I am told that this is not a very efficient method for the Government to use because, for one reason or another, they have to "pay through the nose", as it was put to me, for the use of those aeroplanes and considerable savings could be effected if the Government were to use aeroplanes belonging to commercial operators, which are apparently available at substantially less cost.
In the past I have put questions to the noble Lord as to the cost of chartering aircraft operated by the Civil Aviation Authority, but, hitherto at least, I have been told that this is a matter of commercial confidence and the information has not been revealed. I fear that I cannot hold out much hope of hearing the figures tonight, but perhaps the noble Lord would like to consider this matter
328
and whether the relationship between the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority in this particular area does not bear some re-examination.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull has explained how the use of Royal aeroplanes has increased on such a scale in recent years. I suspect that the time is now ripe for a very careful examination of the total requirements both of the Royal Family and of Ministers to see which of the aeroplanes that I have suggested—the HS 125, the BAC 111 or some other aeroplane—might be the most appropriate. It has been suggested to me that the Royal Family in particular would be well served if they were to have available to them one or more of the large helicopters recently acquired by the Royal Navy; namely, the Sea Kings. These are much larger than the Wessex helicopters which they operate at present. They are faster and have a much greater range. Above all, of course, like all helicopters they can be used to fly from point to point, and could presumably operate from the grounds of Buckingham Palace to wherever the passengers wish to go. I have spoken long enough, my Lords. As I said to start with, we are, as always, indebted to my noble friend for raising this matter, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will be able to help us tonight, as he always can.
11.5 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and other noble Lords, about strengthening and updating of the Queen's Flight. May I say also how much I appreciate the noble Earl's reference to myself. Of course, the Queen's Flight always carries a heavy load of commitments in any year, but it has been particularly busy in Jubilee Year, as one would expect. As an example, the arrangements necessary for the tour of Fiji, Tonga, New Guinea, New Zealand and Australia in February and March of this year by Her Majesty and Prince Philip required an exceptional amount of careful planning and forethought to ensure that the Royal party was conveyed as quickly and as expeditiously as possible between their various engagements, while still observing the highest possible standards of safety. Of course, all the arrangements went

329
perfectly, as they have always done. But this is mainly because there is an organisation—the Queen's Flight—which enables this to happen.
As noble Lords have pointed out, the Queen's Flight has always been regarded with great pride by the RAF. It is for this reason that many of the RAF members of the Flight—who are volunteers—remain with it for a number of years, despite having frequently to work very long hours in order to maintain the availability of the aircraft at the very high standards of maintenance that are required. With the special demands of the Royal Flight, it is particularly valuable to have a cadre of long serving personnel thoroughly familiar with the problems likely to be encountered. It is, perhaps, appropriate in Jubilee Year that I should take this opportunity of paying tribute to their services over many years. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken tonight who have also paid their tribute to this distinguished Flight.
Before I deal with the main thrust of the noble Earl's Question, that of strengthening and updating the Queen's Flight, it might be helpful if I were to explain a little of the history and background of the Flight. Noble Lords will forgive me if I have to repeat one or two points made by the noble Earl. It was formed in 1936 by King Edward VIII, was disbanded during the war, and re-formed in 1946, when it was equipped with four Vickers Viking aircraft and established at RAF Benson, where it has remained ever since, and where it is likely to remain. Its present aircraft consist of three Andovers which were delivered in 1964, and two Wessex helicopters which were delivered in 1969. These five aircraft form the Queen's Flight as we now know it.
Essentially, the Andovers are employed for longer journeys and the Wessex for short journeys. The Wessex can carry four passengers over a range of up to 200 nautical miles at approximately 120 knots. The need for a helicopter is fairly obvious, and the Flight's Wessex, which are only eight years old, do a very good job. It is, however, the Andover to which my attention has been drawn, since it is this aircraft that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would have replaced by, perhaps, BAC 111s or HS 125s. I say "replaced" because we see no particular
330
need for strengthening the Flight by I increasing its present number of aircraft.
Let me say first of all that the Andover is an excellent aircraft for the purposes of the Flight. A Queen's Flight Andover can carry 12 passengers over a range of up to 800 nautical miles at a speed of 235 knots. It also has a good short-field performance, which is extremely useful, particularly in some parts of the United Kingdom where the airfields are small, or when tours are being made in some areas abroad, where airfield facilities may be rudimentary. I should also like to add that it is extremely pleasant to fly in. I have flown many hours in these machines, and it is, as noble Lords have already recognised, very superior in one respect to the HS 125; it is very roomy indeed.
Noble Lords will of course realise that whenever the Queen needs to fly over long distances she uses a suitably equipped aircraft, either from the Royal Air Force (for instance a VC 10, which has already been mentioned) or one chartered from British Airways or from other civil airlines. There would be no question of her flying to Australia in an Andover. She would have gone in a VC 10, although may I say that certain members entitled to use the Andover have in fact taken such extended flights.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, also mentioned the HS 125 as an alternative to the Andover. The HS 125 is already in service with the RAF for Ministerial and other VIP duties. Indeed, members of the Royal Family have used the RAF's HS 125s on a number of occasions. For its specific use it is an extremely good and functional aeroplane. As all noble Lords have said, we shall, however, need to consider sooner or later the question of the replacement of the Andovers.
Why, then, noble Lords may ask, do we not go ahead and order new aircraft now? The House may not be aware that the cost of the Queen's Flight has always been borne on the defence budget. When it is used, as it is on occasions, by visiting Heads of State and British Cabinet Ministers other than Ministers of the Defence Department, a charge is made to reimburse the defence budget; and I presume, despite what noble Lords have said, that this is based on some rational system of casting. But most of the Flight's flying is done on behalf of Her Majesty

331
the Queen and the Royal Family; and the costs of this flying fall on to the defence budget. The capital cost of a new BAC 111, for instance, would fall on the defence budget, and, with its higher performance, its running costs would be greater than those of the Andover. I do not need to remind the House of the very severe restrictions on public expenditure generally which the Government are having to exercise at the present time.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the BAC 111 could do a far greater range of flights than the Andover can at the present time? One must therefore weigh up the Queen's Flight having to go out into the market—for example, to hire a jet from British Airways—whereas the BAC 111 would be able to do the job.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think that would need a very careful analysis of the actual duties at present performed by the Queen's Flight and I could not tonight answer as to the exact costing of it, although in a moment I shall be coming to a point made on this subject by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.
I was saying that I and my colleagues on this Bench are always reminding the House about restrictions on public expenditure. Nor do I need remind the House of the particular burden of reductions in public expenditure which the defence budget has had to bear at the risk of reducing resources available for important military projects. Noble Lords will therefore understand that the replacement of Andovers in the Queen's Flight by BAC 111s or HS 125s at this time is by no means an easy option for the Government. I think Lord Trefgarne recognised this point. Although he was somewhat pessimistic about the question of simulators and so on, I am certain these could be shared with commercial firms if that were necessary.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked whether the Government would strengthen and up-date the Queen's Flight. No one would wish to deny the importance of equipping the Queen's Flight with the best available aircraft. That is commonly agreed between us. Ideally this should be an up-to-date product of the British aircraft industry because of the unique
332
opportunity that a Royal visit presents of projecting abroad a good image of British industry. These considerations, and those I mentioned earlier, will need to be carefully weighed by the Government, and I and my colleagues welcome the opportunity of this Unstarred Question to hear the views of Lord Kinnoull and other noble Lords interested in this matter; I will, of course, bring their points of view to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Examiners Certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable: Ordered to lie on the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY CONVENTION) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
PASSENGER VEHICLES (EXPERIMENTAL AREAS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
TORTS (INTERFERENCE WITH GOODS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
SHREWBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL (FRANKWELL FOOTBRIDGE) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  LOAN GUARANTEES
  LOAN GUARANTEES
  NON-NATIVE SPECIES IMPORTS
  NON-NATIVE SPECIES IMPORTS
  RHODESIAN AFRICAN STUDENT AWARDS
  RHODESIAN AFRICAN STUDENT AWARDS
  MOTOR VEHICLE ASSEMBLY STATISTICS
  MOTOR VEHICLE ASSEMBLY STATISTICS