Sitting of 7 December 1978

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

TRADE
Return Ordered
of statistics relating to overseas Trade of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1979.—[Mr. John Smith.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Terrorist Incidents
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of terrorist incidents recorded each month during 1978 at Bess-brook, Forkhill, Crossmaglen and New-tonhamilton Royal Ulster Constabulary stations.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): A total of 46 incidents has been recorded. I shall, with permission, publish the details in the Official Report.
    Mr. McCusker: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the violence in South Armagh presents a very serious situation, and that the statistics he has given us today include the deaths of 10 innocent people, soldiers, UDR men, policemen and civilians? Will he have another look at the action which his right hon Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) took in 1976 to combat the growth of terrorism in South Armagh and perhaps reintroduce those measures?
    Mr. Mason: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the operations of the SAS. As he well knows, the SAS is now operating Province-wide, and I can assure him that it is not neglecting his constituency. Though there have been 46 incidents—every one of which is one too many—in his area this year, that
    1596
    represents a big improvement on the whole of 1977.
    Following are the details:
    Terrorist incidents recorded at RUC stations Bessbrook, Newtownhamilton, Crossmaglen and Forkhill, Co. Armagh: 1st January to 30th November 1978.

    January

    10

    February

    5

    March

    5

    April

    3

    May

    2

    June

    5

    July

    5

    August

    5

    September

    3

    October

    2

    November

    1

    Total

    46

    These figures cover murders, shootings, explosions, hijackings and mortar attacks.
    Mr. Wm. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many incidents of a terrorist nature occurred in Northern Ireland during the month of November 1978.
    Mr. Mason: There was a total of 260 terrorist incidents in November, compared with 245 in the same month last year. These figures cover shootings, bombings, incendiary attacks, hijackings and armed robberies.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that this increase in the month of November indicates that the IRA is trying to raise the level of violence? Is he aware that it is vital that the IRA does not succeed in its objective of provoking a reaction from other sections of the community? Will he give an assurance that the security forces will not be driven back to fencing in the law-abiding town centres and will he say what further measures were introduced in November to contain the threat and reassure the populace?
    Mr. Mason: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the local commanders in the towns of Northern Ireland work with the local security committees. Local politicians, members of the local populace, business men and traders are on those local security committees, and they themselves in spite of the bombing attacks by the Provisional IRA in recent weeks, have taken the decision not to erect the barriers and not to allow the PIRA to defeat them.
    Mr. Farr: We recognise that the Secretary of State had to postpone yesterday's visit to London by the Irish Foreign Minister, but will he take urgent steps to resuscitate that arrangement, and will he call the attention of the Irish Government to the fact that supplies, money and explosives are drifting up to the North from the South? Moreover, will he ask the Minister to correct the wrong impression which was given recently in the Dail, where statements were made to the effect that there would be dead prisoners in the Maze before Christmas?
    Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. I am not aware that there will be dead prisoners in the Maze before Christmas. The situation there is well in hand. The prison officers are doing a remarkably good job, and they are cleaning and disinfecting all those cells every three weeks. They are not allowing that situation to get out of hand.
    On the other matter, yes, of course, I shall see the Foreign Minister of the Republic as soon as possible. I am sorry that the visit was postponed, first, because of a change of parliamentary business, and second, because he would have been dashing back from the EMS conference. But I must tell the hon. Gentleman, on the security plane, that we discuss the situation every time we meet, and there is increasing co-operation between the North and the South. In fact, the Garda Commissioner came to Belfast in September this year to discuss the improvements with the Chief Constable.

    Home Ownership
    Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new plans are being put forward to encourage home ownership in Northern Ireland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): A number of measures have already been taken to encourage home ownership in Northern Ireland. Other measures at present under active consideration include the sale of Housing Executive dwellings to sitting tenants in areas where housing need has been met, and the need for official action to secure the provision of sites for private house building. Moreover, when a current study of the factors governing the level of house prices in
    1598
    Northern Ireland is complete, I intend considering what further measures, if any, might be taken.
    Mr. Townsend: But is the Minister aware that the shortage of home loans in the Province has almost reached crisis proportions? Further, does he appreciate that, by restricting lending to what are virtually substandard dwellings, the Housing Executive has placed a large part of the housing market out of the reach of the buyer?
    Mr. Carter: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman clearly does not know enough about private home ownership in Northern Ireland. The truth is that we probably have the best arrangement with the building societies of any region in the United Kingdom, and the Executive certainly places no undue limit currently on the question of loans to those who wish to buy their own property.
    Mr. Bradford: I appreciate the contribution which the Housing Executive's home loans scheme makes to the possibility of house purchase in the Province, but will the Minister accept that the home loans department of the Executive takes an inordinately long time to process applications, thereby occasioning payments on bridging loans by the applicants?
    Mr. Carter: I am not aware of that, but if the hon. Gentleman has examples that he can forward to me I shall take the matter up. The Housing Executive is bearing a rather unfair share of the burden of providing loans to people who wish to buy their homes in Northern Ireland. Undoubtedly, its organisation is overstrained, but by and large I think that it copes.
    Mr. Watkinson: Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on the initiative which his Department has shown in bringing forward the home purchase scheme? Does not part of the problem of housing in Northern Ireland relate to the outdated and outmoded practices in the private rented sector, and can my hon. Friend indicate what is the prospective house building outturn for the coming year?
    Mr. Carter: In both private and public sectors we shall not achieve quite what we wanted to achieve this year, for a variety of reasons. However, in the

    1599
    private sector we have probably the most imaginative and wide-ranging programme to stimulate private sector acquisition of any region of the United Kingdom. Some hon. Members—the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) in particular—ought to be made aware of that, and I shall write to the hon. Member giving full details of the measures we are taking in Northern Ireland.

    Areas of Need (Belfast)
    Mr. Woodallasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether there is any further progress to report on the Belfast areas of need programme.
    Mr. Carter: There has been significant progress. The Government recently announced a £1 million community development project for a 10-acre site in the Shankill area of West Belfast. On the industrial front, the first two neighbourhood business units are expected to be operational early in the new year. These units are specially designed to accommodate small businesses in areas affected by redevelopment.
    The Belfast city council, the Belfast education and library board, the Eastern health and social services board and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive are making good progress with special Belfast areas of need programmes, which include provision of sports, recreation, community health and social service facilities, an educational programme, and special cleanup efforts.
    Progress continues to be made on the schedule of projects to be financed from the initial £2 million allocation of United Kingdom inner city funds. To date, about 16 projects have been completed, and the remaining schemes will be completed in 1979.
    Mr. Woodall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply but, although I acknowledge that progress has been made, I should be glad to know whether the views of the ordinary man in the street have been sought in deciding the priorities. Further, have all the schemes come forward from public enterprise or has private enterprise come forward with any proposals?
    Mr. Carter: On the last point, sadly, the vast majority—if not all—of the money which has been disbursed on these
    1600
    projects has been public money. We should like to see private money coming in and playing a part in the whole enterprise of revitalising the inner part of Belfast.
    On the first point, every conceivable effort is made to ensure that the local community and all the community groups which proliferate in Belfast are made aware of what we intend and what we should like to do. Similarly, we listen to everything which they would like us to do.. Therefore, from the point of view of the man in the street, I think that we make every effort as a Government to carry everyone with us.

    Local Government Powers
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to take a further political initiative regarding the powers of local government in the Province.
    Mr. Mason: I have no plans substantially to increase the powers of the existing district councils; nor do I think that it would be right to establish in Northern Ireland a system of local government similar to that in England and Wales or Scotland. But I want to see the powers that were once exercised by county and county borough councils once more in the hands of elected representatives in a system of devolved government acceptable to both parts of the community. That is what my talks with the political parties will be about.
    Mr. Latham: Is not the present situation very unsatisfactory except as a temporary measure, and should not the right hon. Gentleman, now that he is taking correct action over parliamentary representation, look again at this matter since there really ought not to be differences within the United Kingdom in this matter?
    Mr. Mason: I hope that the major political parties in Northern Ireland will hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. My job is to try to get the four major political parties in particular to start thinking seriously about methods of devolution in Northern Ireland. In the past few weeks, I have met representatives of six political parties, including the four major political parties, and they are now prepared to think seriously about methods

    1601
    of devolved government. I hope that we can make some progress.
    Mr. Madden: Does my right hon. Friend believe that extensions of local government powers are compatible with the continuation of direct rule, which, if public opinion polls are to be believed, enjoys the popular support of both the majority and minority populations?
    Mr. Mason: The latest survey indicates that the majority of the majority and minority population are content with direct rule, although, of course, most of them would like to see Ulstermen governing Ulster. As a matter of fact that would be the best solution. I am working towards it. But I hope that the political parties will co-operate.
    Mr. Neave: Is not the real point that regional services should be restored to Northern Ireland people as soon as possible, and, since little progress is being made at present in the Secretary of State's talks, will he now consider ways of improving direct rule in the short term other than those which he has devised so far? Has the right hon. Gentleman come to a decision on the suggestion which I made in the House on 9th November, that he should invite Sir Patrick Macrory to devise a scheme for a regional council?
    Mr. Mason: I do not want to disappoint the hon. Gentleman again with regard to his suggestion on the Macrory intervention, but I think that it is premature. I say that on the basis that, as I said a moment ago, I have now met six of the political parties in Northern Ireland, including the four major political parties—the Official Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Alliance Party and the Social Democratic and Labour Party. All four of them have now indicated that they are prepared to return and talk about forms and methods of devolution in the Province. I should like to go through that round of talks before I take on board the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    Mr. Neave: May I ask the Secretary of State a further question? If that second round of talks is not successful, will he then consider inviting Sir Patrick to devise a scheme?
    Mr. Mason: I would not give an assurance at this stage, but I would not close my mind to it.
    Mr. Fitt: Is it true that my right hon. Friend has recently had discussions with Official Unionist Party Members in the House on the question of a return of local government power to local authorities in Northern Ireland? Is he aware of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) at Warren-point last weekend in which he indicated to his audience, in his usual nudge-nudge, wink-wink fashion, that he had had discussions and that it would be a very short time before local authority powers were returned to local authorities in Northern Ireland? Will my right hon. Friend say whether that is true?
    Mr. Mason: I am sorry, but I am not responsible for press speculation, and neither am I responsible—God forbid—for the utterances of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—
    Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman would be very lucky if he were.
    Mr. Mason: —on every subject on which he pontificates. But I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself will inform my hon. Friend whether he has discussed with me a stepping stone towards a return of local government power.
    Mr. Powell: Would the Secretary of State be willing to tell the House of all the discussions which take place between him and his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), or does he think that discussions which take place between hon. Members outside the Chamber are not a subject for discussion on the Floor?
    Mr. Mason: I entirely agree with the latter point, and it would be an incredibly lengthy job for me to disclose to the House all the discussions that I have with my hon. Friend.

    United States of America (Secretary of State's Visit)
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to the United States of America.
    Mr. Mason: The main purpose of my visit was to attend a luncheon organised by Business Week magazine to mark the publication of its special supplement on Northern Ireland in its edition of 23rd October. This was consequently a most

    1603
    valuable opportunity to present Northern Ireland's case to senior executives of substantial American corporations interested in overseas American corporations interested in overseas investment, and also to hold detailed discussions with a number of firms which are currently planning specific investment projects
    Mr. Molyneaux:Is the Secretary of State able to give some indication of the extent of additional investment by American companies already in Northern Ireland? Second, can he give an estimate of investment expected by undertakings not yet operating in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Mason: There has certainly been a quickening of interest in the Province among American companies. I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his investment drive in Western Europe and in America. I have also been in America and Japan on the same campaign. This year, 29 American firms have visited Northern Ireland for the first time, compared with two over the whole of last year. Five new American companies have come into Northern Ireland for first time. They are investing £180 million in Northern Ireland and they will generate 3,500 jobs. That is the measure of the success that we are having for those companies which come, see for themselves, cross the threshold of disbelief, and then, on their own hard-headed business criteria, decide to invest in the Province.
    Mr. Neave: Is the Secretary of State aware that we welcome the hard work that he and the Minister of State have done to stimulate future interest by American companies in the possibility of viable enterprise in Northern Ireland? Will he take urgent action to counter IRA propaganda among American businessmen, particularly about the disgusting protest that has been made?
    Mr. Mason: Yes. I indicated to the House yesterday how we were countering that. Our ambassador in Washington has been aiding us in that campaign. I hope that the hon. Member and the House will recognise that we have managed to counteract that propaganda, because we can prove how many potential investors have come to the Province. We sponsor their visits and encourage them to come to see for themselves. Once they are there
    1604
    and see that the Province is returning to normality, there is a chance of investment.

    De Lorean Motor Company
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the expected date of the production of the De Lorean car.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has introduced for scrutinising progress on the De Lorean car project and expenditure in it.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I understand that the De Lorean Motor Company expects to begin car production early in 1980.
    The formal agreement with De Lorean, Limited requires the Department of Commerce and the Northern Ireland Development Agency to be supplied with quarterly management accounts within two months of the end of each quarter and with detailed audited annual accounts within four months of the end of the financial year. In addition, the Department has the right to request any other financial information which it may require.
    The Northern Ireland Development Agency is also entitled to designate two of the company's directors for as long as it holds shares in the company, or while there is any outstanding loan or guarantee of indebtedness issued by the Department or the agency to the company or its subsidiaries or affiliates. As a further measure, the company has covenanted to supply both the Department and the agency with copies of all detailed business plans and reports submitted to the board of directors.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I entirely understand and. applaud the aim of providing more jobs in West Belfast? Does he also accept that. the £55 million expenditure causes a certain amount of anxiety? Does he agree that the only real way in which there can be adequate scrutiny of that amount of money is by full public ownership which does not depend upon such a private enterprise venture? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the marketing and technical expertise is adequate for when De Lorean enters into a contract with

    1605
    Lotus cars? Is he satisfied that the safeguards will ensure that the De Lorean venture does not become like that of other wonder cars which have been somewhat oversold—such as the Doble, Tucker and Brickhill cars?
    Mr. Concannon: I am satisfied with the project and the effort that has been put into it. The project will provide 2,000 jobs in one of the most depressed areas. I should have thought that the House would be satisfied that we are doing something about that situation.
    The outright grants to the firm comprise £28'5 million of total Government involvement. Investment of £17'5 million is in equity capital by the Northern Ireland Development Agency and it has been made on a normal commercial basis. A loan of £6'7 million has been made by the Department of Commerce and will be repaid with interest when the company is able to do so. Private investment in the De Lorean project so far amounts to about £13 million, which is not minimal.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: The Minister of State seemed to imply that directors could be appointed. Are they to be appointed by the Northern Ireland Development Agency? May we have an assurance that they will be more than a channel of communication between the Department of Commerce and the company and that they will have powers, including the power to veto expenditure, if they are worried about the way in which the project is developing?
    Mr. Concannon: We have the power to appoint two directors. They have already attended their first meeting. One of then) is a Northern Ireland Development Agency accountant and the other is a senior executive of NIDA. I am satisfied that they will be looking after the interests of NIDA.
    Mr. Fitt: Does the Minister accept that there are thousands of unemployed people in West Belfast, of all religions and all political persuasions, who are looking forward anxiously to the beginning of production in this car factory? This is an area which many people believe has been deliberately isolated over many years. Does he agree that there seems to be a tendency in certain quarters to knock this project? I am not talking of
    1606
    my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). Will the Minister bear in mind that those who knock this project have for years requested the Government to invest finance which runs into millions, to keep the Belfast shipyard afloat?
    Mr. Concannon: I am surprised about the knocking, but I am pleased that it has not come from the Opposition Front Bench. In one debate the Opposition thanked us for getting on with the job. I make no apology for taking account of the imperative need to promote jobs in that area. It is one of the worst unemployment black spots, not only in Northern Ireland but in the whole United Kingdom.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions and answers are beginning to get longer again.

    Bombing Incidents
    Mr. Litterickasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many bombs have been defused by the security services and how many explosions have occurred in Northern Ireland since 9th November 1978; and how many exploded or were defused in the four-week period prior to that date.
    Mr. Mason: In the four weeks from 12th October to 9th November, there were 35 explosions, and five devices were neutralised in Northern Ireland. Since then 80 explosions have been recorded and 19 devices neutralised.
    Mr. Litterick: I am grateful for that reply. In view of his assertion on 9th November, which was confirmed a week later by the Under-Secretary of State, that the security forces had the provisional IRA beaten, does the Secretary of State agree that it would be inadvisable if there were over-reaction by the security forces in response to the new outburst of violence? Does he agree that the emphasis should be political, economic and social?
    Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend is obviously a headliner-reader. We have never used the words"the Provisional IRA are beaten." We have never used the word"victory ". We always talk about"making progress"in Northern Ireland. We have been making progress in the defeat of terrorism in the Province.

    1607
    We have also been making progress on the economic front, as instanced by the replies that I gave earlier. I am hoping to make progress on the political front if the political parties will be co-operative.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since hope of success sustains the Provisional IRA, and since there is reason to believe that the outrages which are the subject of this Question were for the encouragement of the continued filthy tactics in H block, is the right hon. Member aware that we accept his assurance that there will be no yielding and no amnesty? We offer our sympathy and respect to the Northern Ireland prison service.
    Mr. Mason: I can assure the House that there will be no return to special category status and that the Maze protestors will not be recognised. Hon. Members can rest assured—and I hope that the Opposition reaffirm this—that there will be no amnesty for those prisoners.

    Homeless Persons
    Mr. Ernest G. Perryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied that enough is done to provide emergency help when people are bombed or driven out of their homes by anti-Government forces.
    Mr. Carter: Yes, Sir. Officials of various Government Departments, public agencies and voluntary organisations act speedily to provide emergency help when people in any part of Northern Ireland have to vacate their homes through bombings or other terrorist activities. This help takes the form of immediate shelter, meals, transport, hardship payments and other special needs as well as first aid repairs to homes or the transfer of families to emergency housing. Operations are closely co-ordinated and every effort is made to give immediate assistance.
    Mr. Perry: I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply. Does he realise the extent of the shock to those who are the victims of terrorism? Is he confident that the available services are satisfactory, particularly when it comes to handing out cash to people who have lost everything?
    Mr. Carter: My hon. Friend is right. We probably all underestimate the shock
    1608
    and disturbance that a bombing causes to any family. However, our emergency services make every effort to restore a home or family to normality as quickly as possible. It is a credit to all the organisations involved that we have never had any serious criticism of any of the emergency services that we provide.
    Mr. Bradford: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the bombers do not stop at 5 o'clock on Friday afternoons and that the availability of the emergency services is not all that it might be at weekends? Secondly, does he accept that the extent of emergency repairs is often such as to render poorer people of the community out of pocket because of the new de minimis level in the order, which imposes a limit on compensation for criminal damage?
    Mr. Carter: I am prepared to consider the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. During my time in Northern Ireland it has not appeared to me that anybody has suffered economically as a consequence of bomb damage. As the hon. Gentleman says, the bombers do not stop at midnight. Neither do the emergency services. The Housing Executive, all the voluntary organisations, the RUC and everybody else involved operate a 24-hour service.
    Mr. Concannon: And all Ministers.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Did the Minister see the"Man Alive"programme earlier this week on the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast? Is he aware of the admiration that the programme invoked in all those who saw it for the selfless work of those in that hospital who look after the victims of terrorism?
    Mr. Carter: As the programme pointed out, the hospital is at the forefront in the techniques that it employs and leads the whole of the Western world and probably the whole of the medical world. The House and everybody in Northern Ireland are indebted to the work of the surgeons, the medical staff and everybody working within the precincts of the hospital.

    Harland and Wolff
    Mr. Craigasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present and future prospects of Harland and Wolff.
    Mr. Fauldsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whether any progress has been made in obtaining orders for Harland and Wolff.
    Mr. Concannon: Harland and Wolff Limited has secured orders for three new ships—a bulk carrier and two ferries—so far this year. This means that the yard currently has eight ships on its order book, for delivery between the beginning of 1979 and the end of 1980.
    Harland and Wolff cannot escape the effects of the present world recession in shipbuilding, in which no significant improvement is expected before the mid-1980s, and the size of the work force must continue to adjust to these circumstances. However, I am determined to do all in my power to help the company secure new orders where possible. I am also encouraging the company to diversify its activities into new fields, such as offshore oil-related work, to help offset the effects of the depression in shipbuilding.
    Mr. Craig: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the importance of Harland and Wolff to the economy of Northern Ireland in terms of the people employed within the company and the many industries that service the yard? Is he satisfied that sufficient steps are being taken to make the yard competitive in the difficult circumstances that prevail? If so, what does it mean in terms of the labour force to be employed?
    Mr. Concannon: As I have said, much depends on whether we are fortunate with new orders, bearing in mind the depressed state of the industry. The size of the work force will continue to adjust to those factors. Progress will be steady and controlled on the basis of full consultations and understanding among all concerned. Much will depend upon the relative performance of the shipyard and success in securing new orders and so maintaining a full work load.
    Mr. Faulds: I understand the problems of the shipbuilding recession throughout the world, but is my right hon. Friend satisfied that his efforts to encourage diversification are proving successful?
    Mr. Concannon: We have had some success in diversification at Harland and Wolff and the company is seeking work
    1610
    in new areas. One such new area is the signed agreement that we have with MAN of West Germany for the manufacturing in Belfast of medium-speed diesel engines. We have also taken orders for offshore oil-related work. We have attempted to enter the structural steel work sector. A range of motor and cycle accessories is already being produced. These diversifications make a valuable contribution to the company's work load, but I do not think that they will ever provide a complete solution to the problems caused by the world shipbuilding depression.
    Mr. Neave: Arising from the right hon. Gentleman's answer about diversification, will he indicate how many jobs have been preserved as a result of the progress in diversification? We welcome the new orders, but will he tell the House why no defence contracts have been awarded to Harland and Wolff? Will he approach his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about that?
    Mr. Concannon: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have followed up the lack of defence contracts. However, there are not many defence contracts going around any of the shipyards. That is one of the problems. The agreement that we have with MAN will safeguard about 400 jobs in the engine workshops with the construction of the medium-speed diesel engines. I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that the engine works are suffering from a serious shortage of orders. I have to say that the number of people employed in that sector is bound to decrease.

    Natural Gas
    Mr. John Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what talks he has had regarding policy in regard to future use of natural gas in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Concannon: I have had talks with representatives of the Northern Ireland Gas Employers Board, the Association of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland, the General and Municipal Workers' Union, the Belfast city council gas department employees, the Northern Ireland coal trade and several community groups.
    Mr. Ellis: When does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to make a statement? Before he makes his statement,

    1611
    will he bear in mind that the cost of taking natural gas to Northern Ireland would run into many millions of pounds and that by the time the installations were completed it might be that the natural gas would be nearing depletion? Will he bear all these matters in mind?
    Mr. Concannon: I hope to put the Government's proposals to the House early in the new year. I cannot commit myself to an exact date now. All the relevant factors, including the factor to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention, must be considered thoroughly.
    Mr. Powell: Should it not be made clear that in the long term there is no conflict between the supply of natural gas in Northern Ireland and the consumption of coal in the Province, and that these are essentially distinct markets?
    Mr. Concannon: During my meetings with various bodies it has been pointed out to me that there is a surplus of energy in Northern Ireland and that anything that we do to help bring forward one source of energy will be only to the detriment of one or more of the other sources.
    Mr. Farr: As the right hon. Gentleman said in July 1977 that this issue would receive his attention, will he try to make a statement before the early part of next year? The matter is vital. The possibility of establishing a gas link between the mainland and Northern Ireland is extremely important.
    Mr. Concannon: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have put some hard work into the project. As I have said, there is a surplus of energy in Northern Ireland. We are subsidising to the tune of £250 million one of the other sources of energy. When I started on this venture I had in mind a time scale of three months. However, every move that I made seemed to bring me up against another brick wall. I hope to announce our proposals to the House in early January.
    Mr. Fitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Energy Commission within the EEC has recently discussed the problem and has indicated its willingness to provide substantial funds for the erection of the gas pipeline, whether that be from existing sources or from the newly
    developed
    1612
    Morecambe field, which I understand is to be opened up quite soon?
    Mr. Concannon: As I have said, the problem in Northern Ireland is the cost of energy and what will happen to certain sources of energy if we introduce another subsidised source of energy.

    Cement
    Mr. Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any statement to make on the supply of and distribution of cement in the Province.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom Pendry): I met representatives of Blue Circle Ltd. on 28th November and expressed my concern at the recent acute shortage of cement in Northern Ireland and at the delay in implementing plans for new plant to cover longer term needs. As a result, the company is studying both problems urgently and is currently discussing its proposals for their solution with the interested parties. I am glad to be able to tell the House that production is now back to normal.
    In addition, at my meeting I obtained the company's agreement to the creation of a joint working group within the Northern Ireland construction industry advisory council to monitor and progress plans for the adequate supply of cement in Northern Ireland. The construction industry and the trade unions, I am glad to say, have agreed to take part.
    Mr. Powell: Is it not unsatisfactory that the supply of cement in the Province should be entirely dependent upon a single company? Should not the provision of a second independent source of cement in the Province be considered when we realise that the construction industry and other industries are constantly vulnerable to interruption as long as the supply is in monopoly hands?
    Mr. Pendry: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is a step forward. The Government have not closed any option for the future. However, we thought that this would be the best way forward in the short term. I think that, with this committee meeting possibly in two weeks, we should give it the opportunity to do the job.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour Party, in its document on construction for the future in Britain, clearly laid down that there should be some measure of public ownership in the industry in order that there should be genuine competition in which the State would be involved?
    Mr. Pendry: That option also is not closed permanently. I answer as I answered the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—namely, that in the short-term we feel that this is the best way forward. I hope that all will recognise that this is new and imaginative. We have the trade unions and the employers in the construction industry sitting down together, and we hope that we shall be able to make some progress.

    Royal Ulster Constabulary
    Mr. Freudasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the recruiting figures for the Royal Ulster Constabulary in each of the last three years and to date in 1978.
    Mr. Pendry: During the last three years, the numbers of recruits joining the regular RUC were as follows:

    1975

    505

    1976

    581

    1977

    679

    So far this year 631 recruits have joined the force, and the strength now stands at 6,116.
    Mr. Freud: The figures are obviously encouraging, but does the Minister feel that enough is being done to recruit into the RUC? Will he now seek to set up a committee of inquiry to try to find out why there is an extraordinary reluctance on the part of the Catholic community to join the RUC?
    Mr. Pendry: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the situation is very encouraging. It was perhaps unfortunate that his speech last night followed the winding-up speech, because, I too, would have been interested in the reply. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take note of the remarks that the hon. Gentleman made last night, and will be replying.
    It is unfortunate that there are too few Catholics in the force. I think that is recognised by all. It is also unfortunate
    1614
    that not sufficient encouragement is given in certain quarters to see that more Catholics join the force. I think that we are in accord on that matter. We hope that more will be done in future in this respect.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that these bald figures cloak a situation which is due to the Government not publicising the numbers of Catholics recruited, and therefore give no real indication whether the minority community has any respect for the RUC? Therefore, is it not absolutely relevant and necessary for us to know whether the minority community has any confidence in and is joining that force? Can we not somehow get at the numbers? I support the request of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) for some kind of inquiry to reveal the numbers.
    Mr. Pendry: As my hon. Friend knows, it is difficult to arrive at numbers, because religion is not asked about on the application form. However, it is certain that the RUC is gaining more support. I am confident that it has the support of most people in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McCusker: If the Minister believes that lack of leadership in the Catholic community is deterring young Catholics from joining the RUC, may I ask what specific proposals he has to get leaders in that community to encourage their members to join the force?
    Mr. Pendry: I feel that it is up to those leaders, not me.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: We would all like more Roman Catholics to join the RUC and hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will encourage them, always subject to getting the best men and women irrespective of religion. However, is it not a matter of satisfaction to the House that a number of Roman Catholics are now making their mark in the modern RUC at high and key levels in the force?
    Mr. Pendry: I believe that to be so.
    Mr. Litterick: Will my hon. Friend tell the House who has responsibility under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act for knowing whether the RUC is actually conforming with the

    1615
    terms of that Act with respect to recruitment?
    Mr. Pendry: I do not believe that there is a quota system. I should need to look into this matter before replying to my hon. Friend.

    NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
    Mr. Wardasked the Prime Minister when he last met the heads of nationalised industries.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I met some of the heads of the nationalised industries at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council yesterday. Any further meetings will be arranged as necessary.
    Mr. Ward: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the heads of nationalised industries the effect on jobs of micro-technology? What further steps has he in mind to deal with the social implications of this revolutionary change to ensure that we do not have greater divisions between those who have the privilege to work and those who have not?
    The Prime Minister: At the NEDC meeting yesterday, at which we discussed this matter, two heads of nationalised industries were present and joined in the discussion. I have this afternoon answered a Question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) on this matter and have put in the Library copies of the CPRS report together with my statement and the report by Mr. Eric Hammond, the chairman of the electronic sector working party. The Government wish to see here a programme of information and of carrying this into industry through training. We have set aside f100 million to achieve that aim.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Assuming that the Prime Minister wants Parliament properly to carry out its constitutional function of examining public expenditure, may I ask whether he shares the concern of the Public Accounts Committee that, as things stand at present, it cannot adequately examine the accounts of the National Enterprise Board or the British National Oil Corporation? Will he therefore
    1616
    agree to the Committee's demand that it should be allowed to look into the accounts of both those bodies?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that there was a debate on this matter on Monday in which the Government's view on the issue was expressed. I shall, of course, look at it again in the light of—
    Mr. Lawson: The Government did not express any view.
    The Prime Minister: That is often the case with Governments. I shall look into the matter, if the right hon. Lady asks me to do so, to see whether there is any prospect of any change.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I should like to press this question a little more strongly. The trouble is that there was no reply and there is no good reason for refusing admission to the accounts if Parliament is to carry out its function properly.
    The Prime Minister: I note the right hon. Lady's view. The matter can be looked at to see whether there is any justification for what she said. However, I do not think that I should be asked to take a final decision in the light of a supplementary question.
    Mr. Radice: Further to my right hon. Friend's answer on microelectronics, does he accept the conclusion in the CPRS report that the fears about employment and unemployment have been greatly exaggerated and that the situation will be far worse if we do not get into this area now?
    The Prime Minister: There was rather a division of opinion on this matter at the NEDC meeting yesterday. I think that it was generally agreed that none of us could forecast the impact on unemployment. Some thought that the CPRS was too optimistic in its assessment of employment prospects. What was generally agreed among us was that, unless Britain remains in the forefront of all these new technologies, and if they are adopted by other countries, we are bound to fall behind. Therefore, it is the task of Government and both sides of industry to adapt to the social changes which will be required when we introduce these technologies.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 7th December.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I am holding meetings with both the Prime Minister of Egypt and the Prime Minister of Canada. They will, of course, be separate meetings. This evening I shall be host at a dinner in honour of Mr. Trudeau.
    Mr. Skinner: Did the Prime Minister notice today's strong farm workers' lobby in Whitehall? Will he put on his"Farmer Jim"hat and consider their justified pay claim? Perhaps he will stop theorising about the subject as an employer and recommend to the powers that be that he will meet his part of the bill, and to hell with sanctions.
    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether my hon. Friend knows the details of the farming situation. I should be very happy indeed to introduce him to some of the considerations. Perhaps I can inform him now that what the wages council does is to fix minimum wages—the actual wages are settled by negotiation on each farm.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the Prime Minister now tell the House what he proposes in regard to a further inquiry and action on the Bingham report and on the question of the Beira patrol?
    The Prime Minister: I think that I am entitled to say that contacts are being continued between the Front Benches. The Government have their own clear view about what course should be followed. The Lord President will be very happy to continue those discussions to see whether we can get agreement.
    Mr. Noble: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a majority of Labour Members and people in the country were delighted with his statement on the European monetary system yesterday? Does not he consider that the question of currency stability needs to be discussed in a much wider international framework, particularly with the United States?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. In fact, I made reference to this yesterday. However, my hon. Friends question gives me the chance to say that I hope to meet the President of the United States. Indeed, a statement was issued an hour ago saying that, at the invention of President Giscard d'Estaing, the President of the United States, President Giscard d'Estaing himself, Chancellor Schmidt and I will be meeting on the island of Guadeloupe on 4th and 5th January to discuss matters of common political concern. There will be no formal agenda at this meeting, but our discussions will be on an intimate basis, which will enable us to exchange views with each other. I believe that it will be of benefit to the world.
    Mr. Tapsell: When the right hon. Gentleman was on the mainland of Europe earlier this week, did he receive many congratulations on his recent savage attack on the memory of Sir Winston Churchill?
    The Prime Minister: No one raised the question with me. I think that the Europeans have a sense of proportion about the cut and thrust of debate in this House.
    Miss Maynard: With regard to farm workers' pay, will the Prime Minister consider favourably meeting the leaders of the farm workers' union and to look sympathetically at their claim, in view of the industry's ability to pay, the farm workers' production record, the fact that of those drawing family income supplement 17 per cent. are farm workers and also in view of the need to increase domestic food production in order to cushion the impact of the CAP on the British consumer?
    The Prime Minister: If any meeting is to be arranged—I do not want to pronounce upon it—I think that it should be with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    Mr. Grylls: Will the Prime Minister take time today to answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the Comptroller and Auditor General going into the accounts of the NEB? Is it not rather disgraceful that he refuses to allow this to happen on the very day that the NEB is asking for another £1,000 million of taxpayers'

    1619
    money? Would not that be the right way of doing it?
    The Prime Minister: I have already answered that question.
    Mr. Welshasked the Prime Minister if he will his official engagements for Thursday 7th December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Prime Minister aware of the inadequacy of present death grant levels in view of rising costs and inflation, and that to maintain the death grant at its original 1949 value it would have to be raised from the present level of £30 to about £123? In view of the great concern felt by pensioner organisations, will he therefore look into this matter in order to raise the grant to something more appropriate to present day costs?
    The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me some preliminary warning that he intended to raise this matter, which has enabled me to look into it. As he correctly said, the value of the death grant has substantially fallen behind. This matter was discussed very recently at the Labour Party conference, among other places, and has been taken up by a number of my hon. Friends. I think that there is obviously a substantial discrepancy here. But we are keeping a very tight control on public expenditure, and we intend to keep it within the limits which are laid down. Therefore, I cannot undertake that there will be an increase in the death grant during the current financial year.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will my right hon. Friend take an opportunity today to look at reports that the Co-operative Housing Agency is to be closed down? Is he aware that if this does take place it will cause great anger in the co-operative movement? Will he take steps to ensure that it does not?
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of this, but I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and ask him to communicate with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Arising from the Prime Minister's statement yesterday about the development of microelectronics, is he aware that we have in Wales a unique country which would be a wonderful site for the development of this technology?
    The Prime Minister: I heartily agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am sure that this new technology could happily find a home in South Wales. However, I think that we must look at this from a national point of view and I cannot go further than my right hon. Friend has done so far.
    Mr. Tim Renton: In the course of a busy week, has the Prime Minister yet had time to read yesterday's leading letter in The Daily Telegraph from the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) entitled"The Duty of a Minister "? If so. has he yet obtained a commitment to collective responsibility from the Secretary of State for Energy similar to that which his predecessor obtained? If he has obtained such a commitment, why is it not working?
    The Prime Minister: I did read my right hon. Friend's letter, and I was very interested in it. If I have anything to communicate to the hon. Gentleman on the subject, I shall let him know in due course.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: If my right hon. Friend has time during the course of the day, will he look at the replies given by the chairman of the NEB to the Public Accounts Committee? Is he aware that the good reason given by the chairman for non-disclosure was that of business confidentiality? Is he further aware that, though on the Conservative side of the House, contrary to what the right hon. Lady said, business confidentiality is widely accepted as a good reason, it is not accepted as such by Labour Members?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has revealed what I had already suspected —that perhaps there are more points of view than that expressed by the right hon. Lady. It only goes to show how right I was to be cautious and not to be seduced by her blandishments. I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to consider the points raised by the right hon. Lady to see

    1621
    whether there is any occasion to change the practice. But clearly, when we are dealing with private enterprise firms, a lot of value must be attached to business confidence if they wish it to be respected.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Will the Prime Minister find time today to complete his thinking on the advice to be given to those who, in the course of industrial disputes in essential services, are contemplating crossing the picket lines in order to ensure the safety of the public?
    The Prime Minister: This is an important point. I understand that there is a Private Notice Question at 3.30 p.m. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will kindly wait for a few moments.
    Mr. Loyden: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said about advanced technology, will he take some time today to consider the social consequences of that technology? Does he not agree that this is an important factor in the siting of future industries? Will he therefore consider whether the siting of INMOS in the South-West would be a contradiction of that policy?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware that my hon. Friend is pressing the case for INMOS to be settled in the Merseyside area in view of the need there, but I cannot pronounce on that matter today. Of course the social consequences of basing these industries are important, as are the consequences that will flow from the employment that they will give. That I readily understand.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY STATEMENT (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)>
Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I could draw your attention to column 1427 of the Official Report in relation to yesterday's proceedings and a supplementary reply given by the Prime Minister, and ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you would ask the Prime Minister to withdraw some words that he used. In a supplementary reply he said
1622
" It is remarkable that the Opposition's spokesman on foreign affairs…should regard it as a disgrace when we defend our national interests."—[Official Report, 6th December 1978; Vol. 969, c. 1427.]
I have checked very carefully, Mr. Speaker. I never used those words. Not only that; I have never used words to which that interpretation could be given. This may have been done inadvertently, or deliberately—but in whichever way, I should be grateful if the Prime Minister would withdraw those words.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to telephone No. 10 Downing Street this morning about this matter. I had not heard his actual words, but I notice that what he said was in reference to Britain's being a reluctant partner and that he thought that it was quite contrary to the national interest and wholly to be deplored.
I certainly do not want to make a lot of this—I withdraw anything if the right hon. Gentleman feels it improper to be said—but I do hope that we shall not be too sensitive on these matters. I must say that when I consider the attacks that are made upon my honour every day, I should be raising points of order with you all day, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is correct for Opposition Members to protest at statements about the national interest, when the Conservative Party, for a long time, has decided, quite wrongly, to claim the Union Jack as its party flag.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member knows that, rather than raising a point of order, he is seeking to score a point. We ought to move on to the Private Notice Question.
Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not deny that I was trying to score a point, Mr. Speaker, but what was the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) trying to do?
Mr. Speaker: Order.

HOSPITAL SERVICES (LONDON)
Mr. Patrick Jenkin Mr. Patrick Jenkin (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the continuing disruption of hospital services by members of NUPE at West London and Charing Cross hospitals.
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): I deplore the outbreak of unofficial industrial action at the West London and Charing Cross hospitals which is depriving patients of treatment. I understand that the action is a protest against the dismissal of three employees from the West London hospital. There are established procedures in the National Health Service which protect staff against unfair dismissal. These have not been used, although management has made clear its willingness to set up an appeals panel immediately.
The action of NUPE members at the West London hospital is having little effect on patient services there. Pickets from the AUEW and EEPTU at Charing Cross hospital are turning away deliveries and, as a result, shortage of essential supplies are limiting surgery to urgent cases.
I understand that local discussions are going on at present and I hope that these will be successful in resolving the dispute. I renew my appeal to the staff concerned to return to work immediately in order that services to patients may be resumed in both hospitals as quickly as possible.
Mr. Jenkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will warmly endorse his condemnation of this unofficial action? But will he go further? Will he say whether he unequivocally supports management in seeking to discipline staff who have acted illegally and dangerously in switching off the boilers at the West London hospital last month, to the immediate danger of patients?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two union officials involved, Mr. Hunt and Mr. Penfold, who have been willing to use the appeals procedure to which he has referred in respect of members of the union, have been totally unwilling to use it in respect of themselves?
1624
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the area officer of NUPE, Mr. Bernie Grant, has claimed to management that whatever his union officials may have done, whether it be illegal or otherwise, they are fully protected in law under the present Government's legislation? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if that is in fact right, he and his colleagues bear a heavy responsibility for what is now happening?
How much longer have patients in the Health Service to go on putting up with strike-happy union branches using these patients as pawns in their struggles?
Mr. Ennals: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has used this as an occasion for delivering a lecture on his experience of industrial action. He will know that I strongly condemned the action when it was originally taken and the boilers were switched off. I made clear yesterday my attitude to the action that has been taken now, and I think that it is pretty clear that the public also know the attitude taken by the Secretary of State for Social Services.
I have also made it clear that the management has offered, straight away, to set in motion the appeals panel procedure and that it applies now. I think that to make further comment when negotiations are taking place at this time would not ease the matter. After all, this is a local dispute, and it is right that it should be resolved locally.
When the right hon. Gentleman says"How much longer?" I must make two points to him. First, of course a dispute such as this receives enormous publicity. It is right that it should receive it, because I think that it is deplorable. But, in general, the record of industrial action in the Health Service is not that which is conveyed by right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition. Secondly, in terms of what action I should take, the right hon. Gentleman well knows that, as a result of discussions that I had with the leaders of the unions and the leaders of the professions, there is now being considered by the general Whitley Council a new disputes procedure to operate at a local level, which I believe when carried out will remove this sort of disturbance.
Mr. Michael Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that at Charing Cross hospital it is not members of NUPE who are taking part in this action, as erroneously suggested by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin)? Everyone will support my right hon. Friend's appeal for the use of the proper procedures. There is some hope of solving this dispute provided that it is not exacerbated by unnecessary questions in this House.
Mr. Ennals: I very much agree with the point made by my right hon. Friend. I hope that the House will respect this, because I hope that the talks that are taking place now will lead to an end of the dispute.
In relation to the situation at Charing Cross, pickets at the hospital, from two engineering unions, as I have said—the AUEW and the EEPTU—are preventing supplies being sent in. Urgent surgery is still taking place, but non-urgent admissions have been stopped. As supplies run short, it will be progressively more difficult to maintain services, and it is not certain that all surgical lists can be maintained tomorrow, even for urgent cases. That emphasises the importance of reaching a solution today.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call one more question from each side of the House.
Mr. Crouch: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is enormous public concern these days that whenever there is a dispute in the Health Service, however local it is, it is brought at once to his attention and the attempt to deal with it is at the Secretary of State level? The real way of dealing wih these disputes is at a local level. Will the right hon.
1626
Gentleman go out of his way to emphasise that he is devolving responsibility in this way, so that disputes are settled at a local level?
Mr. Ennals: It was certainly not my wish that this issue should be brought before the House today. It was the decision of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) to raise it. I agree absolutely that these are local disputes. That is why I emphasise that the machinery exists for dealing with them. That machinery should be used, and it is not for this House to decide how to conduct industrial relations in such a dispute.
Mr. Faulds: Does my right hon. Friend realise that most of us on the Government Benches believe that any picketing activities, in support of unofficial action, which endanger the lives of patients are totally unacceptable?
Mr. Ennals: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's point. I entirely agree with him.
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Patrick Jenkin to conclude.
Mr. Jenkin: The Secretary of State has sought to challenge my right to bring this matter to the Floor of the House. Is he aware that he has signally failed to answer my point—that Government Ministers are contributing to this situation by the legislation that they have passed, and that the trade unions are claiming immunity under that legislation?
Mr. Ennals: I did not for one moment challenge the right of the right hon. Member to bring this matter before the House. I was responding to a question put by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who argued that these were local matters which should be dealt with locally.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 11TH DECEMBER—PRIVATE Members' motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, motions on the Appropriation (No. 4) (Northern Ireland) Order and on the Shops (Northern Ireland) Order.
Tuesday 12TH DECEMBER—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Wednesday 13TH DECEMBER—Motions on the rate support grant orders, on the Social Security (Contributions) (Mariners) Amendment Regulations and on the St. Lucia Termination of Association Order.
Thursday. 14TH DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Public Lending Right Bill.
Motions on EEC document R/2790/1/78 on the European monetary system and R/3126/78 on its implications for the common agricultural policy.
Friday 15TH DECEMBER—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment until Tuesday 16th January 1979.
Mrs. Thatcher: What has happened to the regulations for the conduct of the European Assembly elections? Draft regulations were laid in August and were expected to be passed by the end of the year. We have not yet had a debate on them. When shall we have it?
Secondly, the Leader of the House will be aware that he is constantly bombarded with requests to debate important matters such as the Procedure Committee report, the report on the preparation of legislation and the Government's White Paper on broadcasting. Why, then, is he trying to get the House to rise so early as 15th December? This is unusually early after a long recess, when all these matters and others are waiting to be considered.
Mr. Foot: On the first matter, following the approval on 30th November of
1628
the European Assembly constitutional orders, there will now be a further regulation setting up the arrangements for 7th June. This will be the subject of the affirmative procedure and will be laid before Christmas.
The length of the recess is a matter for debate. If the right hon. Lady wishes to vote on this matter, she may do so when we come to it. Of course there are many important matters that the House wishes to discuss, but the length of the recess is not out of the ordinary. It is perhaps slightly longer than most recesses under a Labour Government and slightly shorter than recesses under a Conservative Government.
Mr. Strauss: My right hon. Friend will remember that earlier in the year the House considered the report from the Privileges Committee suggesting certain important and overdue changes in its working and administration. Those changes were agreed to by the House, but most of them require legislative confirmation. Does my right hon. Friend hold out any hope that in the less busy months to come we may have the necessary legislation to implement the House's decisions?
Mr. Foot: I cannot say that the House will not be busy when it returns from the Christmas Recess; I am sure that it will be. There is much important legislation to carry through. But I certainly acknowledge that on one of these questions particularly—a question that has arisen from a case in which my right hon. Friend participated many years ago—there is a very strong case for the matter being dealt with by legislation. We are still trying to see how we can do that. On the question of fines, I am doubtful whether we should proceed on that. But that is a different question, and I hope that consideration of that matter will not obviate proceedings on the other.
Sir Frederic Bennett: Does the Leader of the House expect the appropriate Minister to make a statement on the mission to Central Africa of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes)? Does he think that the right hon. Member will be back in time to make a statement to the House before we rise? I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that in view of the situation it would

1629
be wrong if no statement with ministerial authority were made between now and the end of January.
Mr. Foot: I shall look at both those questions but I cannot give the hon. Member any guarantee, because I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will have returned by then. I shall look at the other question, of course. That might be a matter that could be raised in the debate on the recess.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the television licence order will be debated before the 40 days expire, towards the end of January?
Mr. Foot: I agree that that is a perfectly proper subject for debate, and there will be time for such a discussion when we return.
Sir David Renton: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Procedure Committee report is uniquely important? It was generally supported by all members of the Committee. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Government appear to be dragging their feet about allowing this matter to be discussed?
Mr. Foot: I do not propse that the House should drag its feet. On occasions when this matter has been raised I have agreed that there must be a proper debate in the House. I hope that we shall be able to debate it very soon after we return. I have indicated that it is better for the House to have a general debate before the Government provide their views on the subject.
Mr. William Ross: Are we taking the rate support grant order for Scotland as well as that for England and Wales on Wednesday? If so, will the Leader of the House ensure, Just for a change that the Scottish order is taken first?
Mr. Foot: I do not know whether I can give such a guarantee. I shall took at the normal practice and see whether we must follow it or not.
Mr. St. john-Stevas: May I press the Leader of the House a little further on the important point raised by\ my right hon. Friend on the Procedure Committee? Surely the Leader of the House must be aware that not only is there that
1630
most important report to be debated, but there are at least eight other reports from the Procedure Committee with important recommendations, including that on Opposition motions on Supply Days. I appreciate that the Leader of the House is in need of a rest, but could we not have this debate in the week before Christmas, instead of adjourning early?
Mr. Foot: We believe that what we propose will be helpful to the House as a whole, but of course we can judge that when we have the debate. In the next Business Statement that I make I hope to indicate the debate on the eleventh and twelfth reports of the Expenditure Committee on the Civil Service and I hope also to be able to give some indication of the debate on the procedure matter.
Mr. Ashley: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion no. 87 asking for an independent public inquiry into the effects of hormone pregnancy test drugs on unborn children?
[That this House notes that children have been born with serious deformities due to hormone pregnancy test drubs; that no official warnings were issued about these drugs until eight years after the first reports indicating the possible dangers; that some doctors continued to prescribe the drugs for pregnant women after official warnings of the Committee on Safety of Medicines; that the Department of Health and Social Security have continuously rejected requests for an inquiry into these matters; and now culls upon the Secretary of State to set up an independent public inquiry.]
Does my right hon. Friend know that parents of such handicapped children are considering taking legal action and, if they do, there can be no debate in the House? May we have a debate as soon as possible?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise an early debate, but in the light of my hon. Friend's question I shall study the other parliamentary questions that have been put and see what the situation is.
Mr. Rees-Davies: May we have a debate in the early part of next year on the report of the Royal Commission on gambling, bearing in mind the undertaking given in the Adjournment debate last week on behalf of the Home Office

1631
that this was a matter uppermost in its mind and that several measures need to be implemented to reform the law in various aspects, as reported by Lord Rothschild? It is time that an opportunity was given for a debate in the House.
Mr. Foot: I fully accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about the desirability of having a debate on this matter when can find the time.
Miss Richardson: A few days ago we had an important report from the Data Protection Committee on the question of record-keeping on individual citizens. May I ask for an assurance from my right hon. Friend that soon after the recess we shall have a debate on this subject?
Mr. Foot: I cannot give an absolute assurance. I shall look closely at what my hon. Friend said and see what are the possibilities of a debate on the subject.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the Leader of the House aware that I have a complaint that my speeches in the House are not reported in the provincial press? The only consolation I have is that the right hon. Gentleman's speeches are also not being reported in the provincial press. Does this not prove without doubt that it would be a mistake to have a closed shop affecting the House or the press generally in reporting proceedings. and that a closed shop is unacceptable?
Mr. Foot: I do not think that affects the issue. I certainly hope that the dispute will be resolved as soon as possible. Irrespective of whose speeches are reported, I am very much in favour of a full, varied provincial press, even if the leader columns of many newspapers seem to express much the same opinion. In that respect I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Palmer: As there are difficulties about the introduction of the proposed electricity Bill, will my right hon. Friend arrange a day's debate soon on the excellent report by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on this subject?
Mr. Foot: I shall certainly consider that. As my hon. Friend knows better than anyone, there has been considerable examination of the Bill. The Government would like to get the Bill on the
1632
statute book, but we cannot always have our way.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: In view of the belated, wholly justifiable and currently fashionable preoccupation of the Government in microelectronics and other technological matters, how soon ma,, we have a debate on the many reports by the Select Committee on Science and Technology?
Mr. Foot: Not next week, but we will see what we can do soon afterwards.
Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House, without pleasantries or persiflage, when we may expect a statement to the House on the legislative intentions of the Secretary of State for the Environment on archaeological matters?
Mr. Foot: I fully accept the importance of this Bill. The finishing touches are being put to the legislative aspects and I hope it will be before the House very soon.
Mr. Tapsell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that exactly a year ago, during business questions, I asked him whether he was aware that our obligation under the EEC necessitated our announcing an easement of exchange control regulations before the end of that year, and that he categorically stated then that no such easement would be announced; and then the Government announced it the day after the House rose for the Christmas Recess? As those obligations require a further easement of exchange control regulations at the end of this year, will the Leader of the House say whether the Government intend again to announce it immediately after the House rises or whether it will be announced next week?
Mr. Foot: The preface of the hon. Gentleman's question makes it all the more necessary that I should be careful about the reply to it. I would not like to make a reply off the cuff without examining the matter in detail.
Mr. Grocott: In view of the events taking place in Namibia, which are amusingly described by the South African Government as elections, and the important effect that these have on British foreign policy, will my right hon. Friend undertake to have a debate on foreign affairs to discuss these matters as soon as possible?
Mr. Foot: I fully acknowledge everything that my hon. Friend says about the great importance of the subject and of some discussion in the House on what has happened in Namibia. The British Government played a leading part in trying to secure genuine elections in that country. We hold to that policy; that is what we want to secure. I shall discuss with the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary the question how we may have a discussion in the House.
Mr. Dykes: The Commission of the Communities is preparing a proposal for a European trade-mark office to be set up by 1980. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider holding a short debate on this subject in the new year, so that we may all press the good case for the office to be situated in London?
Mr. Foot: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
Mr. Madden: In view of the growing support for the abolition of television licensing, will my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance that he will provide an opportunity for this matter to be debated within the 40-day limit on the prayer that has been tabled?
Mr. Foot: I fully accept, as I told my my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), the strong feeling on the Government's side of the House about this matter. I certainly think that we should have a debate.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: When the House returns after the recess, will the Government introduce legislation to implement the policy proposed in Labour's programme for 1976 which the Lord President will recall was backed by an overwhelming number at the Labour Party conference? If the answer is"No," does it mean that the Government have completely fallen out with Labour Party conference policy?
Mr. Foot: Of the policy that we put before the electorate at the previous election, we still have a few items to carry into effect. We shall carry into effect as many as we can.
Mr. English: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his soft words about the Civil Service report. Does he realise
1634
that slightly less than one-third of the House of Commons seeks a debate on this report, which was published more than 15 months ago, and that he has not yet promised it? Incidentally, I note his order of priority for next Thursday—authors come before the European monetary system. Is that right?
Mr. Foot: Both are important, and I hope that many authors will be read long after the European monetary system has sunk into history. That reveals a proper sense of priorities. I hope that I have a better vote of thanks than that from my hon. Friend, because we have gone out of our way to meet his legitimate request on several occasions for a debate on this report.
Mr. Moate: Further to the point made about next Thursday's business, will the Leader of the House tell us how he expects the debates to proceed? How much time does he expect to be provided for the debate on the European monetary system and the debate on the EEC documents? At what time does he expect those debates to start?
Mr. Foot: It depends how co-operative everyone is.
Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend consider as a matter of urgency a debate on the Co-operative Housing Development Agency following the story in today's Guardian and the questions asked about the unilateral decision to close it down? It is a matter of great concern to Labour Members of Parliament. Would my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on this subject, so that we, could well go on to other topics such as the lamentable decision to sell out Kirkby to private enterprise?
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend refers to the reply made by the Prime Minister on the subject. I do not think that I can add anything to it.
Mr. Litterick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the document reviewing the supplementary benefits scheme, entitled"Social Action ", has been widely misrepresented as showing the views of Her Majesty's Government, particularly the Department of Health and Social Security, on the future of the supplementary benefits system? Will my right hon. Friend therefore give an undertaking that there

1635
will be an early debate, so that the DHSS in particular and hon. Members in general can express their views on that document?
Mr. Foot: There will be a debate when the matter comes forward, but I cannot promise one next week or that I shall be able to announce it in next week's Business Statement.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion No. 114 on the NEB micro-processing industry and the need to locate all employment related to that project in areas of high unemployment?
[That this House would strongly resist any attempt to locate the headquarters and laboratories of the NEB-created Inmos in Bristol; and insists that all employment related to that important project be located in assisted areas.]
Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the employment will be situated in such areas and a further assurance that, if there is to be an adverse decision, it will not be announced during the recess?
Mr. Foot: I understand fully the great importance attached to this matter by my hon. Friend and by many of my other hon. Friends from different parts of the country. My hon. Friend may rest assured that representations have been made in the strongest possible terms. I cannot make any further statement about when a decision will be announced.
Mr. Lee: Can my right hon. Friend give us further information about the Gilbert Islands independence Bill? I appreciate that the conference that is to resolve the matter has not yet finished its deliberations, but the House would appreciate an indication about the likely timetable of the Bill before we rise, so that we know where we shall stand when the House returns in January. Some of us will have quite a bit to do with that Bill.
Mr. Foot: I have no doubt that this is a matter that could be raised after my
1636
Business Statement next Thursday. I shall certainly come well equipped to answer my hon. Friend then.
Mr. Speaker: With regard to the business for next week and the debate on Tuesday 12th December on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, hon. Members may hand in to my office by noon on Monday 11th December their names and the topics that they wish to raise. The ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his own name and one topic.
The Consolidated Fund Bill includes the Defence and Civil Votes on Account for 1979–80, presented in House of Commons Papers Nos. 54, 55 and 59, and the Supplementary Estimates for 1978–79, presented in House of Commons Papers Nos. 52 and 53. It will be in order on the Second Reading of the Bill to raise topics falling within the ambit of the expenditure proposed in those papers. I shall put out the results of the ballot later on 11th December.

BILL PRESENTED
INDUSTRY
Mr. Secretary Varley, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Millan, Mr. Secretary Morris, Mr. Secretary Booth, Mr. Gerald Kaufman and Mr. Leslie Huckfield presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the limits on sums borrowed by, or paid by Ministers of the Crown, to, the National Enterprise Board, the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency and subsidiaries of theirs, on sums paid by the Treasury in pursuance of guarantees of loans to the Board or either of those Agencies and on loans guaranteed by the Board or either of those Agencies or subsidiaries of the Scottish Development Agency: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 40].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, at this day's sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Robert Sheldon relating to Civil and Defence Estimates as soon as the House has entered upon the business of Supply.—[Mr. Tinn.]
Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last year many of us on the Back Benches found ourselves in the same sort of dilemma as we face today. Two years ago we were allowed to debate the substantial sums of money included in the civil and defence Estimates, but last year the Government changed the form in which the motions were put down and we were precluded from debating in detail the Supplementary or other Estimates.
You ruled, Mr. Speaker, that it was in order for those of us who wished to do so to speak to the motion and to state our view that a debate should take place. May I have your guidance on whether that is possible again this year?
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put his point of order. The matter is quite straight forward. This is a debatable motion, but what is not permissible, if I may say so in advance, is for hon. Members to go into detail on any of the Estimates. All that we can do is to decide whether the House is in favour of the business motion, which will require me to put the Estimates formally.
Mr. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have before us a motion which demands that you should
" put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the Motions in the name of "
the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
" relating to Civil and Defence Estimates as soon as the House has entered upon the business of Supply."
Many hon. Members on the Labour Benches feel that it is indefensible that we should be expected, on the nod, to vote for or against the substantial sums of money involved. As you said, Mr. Speaker, we may be able to raise certain issues relating to the civil and defence Estimates if we are lucky in the ballot for
1638
the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, but if we allow the Estimates to go through by default now or vote for them, there will be little point in raising any quesions next week, because the Estimates will already have been passed by the House.
It has been suggested that on other occasions we can vote on documents that include these Estimates, but I do not think that that is so in relation to the Supplementary Estimates. I shall not go into detail on those Estimates, but it is clear that considerable increases are demanded across a whole range of services.
The hon. Members who signed the motion to reduce the defence Supplementary Estimate did so because they are opposed to the Government's demand that we should spend another £250 million on defence. They are not opposed to spending the money that is required to meet increases in the pay of members of the armed services. That is why the motion includes the figure of about £143 million.
It is well known that the proportion of Britain's GNP that is spent on defence is more than that of any other European NATO country. We believe that it should be brought down at least to the average of those countries.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Thomas: Finally—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Did I hear the word"finally "?
Mr. Thomas: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I know that some of my hon. Friends want to say something about this matter. May I appeal to you to allow us to vote on the separate Estimates? There will be five motions before the House, and many of us wish to express our disapproval in the Lobby about the final motion on the defence Supplementary Estimates. However, if there is to be only one Division, we shall vote against the Estimates as a clear indication that we are no longer prepared to see the Government spending more and more on defence while cutting back expenditure on housing, health, social services and other essential services.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not advance the case that he would make if the business motion were not carried. I want to make clear to the

1639
House that I shall put each Estimate separately. If the House wishes to divide on any Estimate, it may do so.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) and to several other hon. Friends who, I know, feel very strongly on this matter and wish to have a full debate that there may be some misunderstanding about the nature of the propositions that will be coming to the House shortly and in the period ahead?
It may be useful for me to remind the House and my hon. Friends that there will be a minimum of three days on the individual Services.
Mr. Frank Allaun: That will be too late.
Mr. Foot: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Alluan) will wait a moment. There will also be two days on the defence White Paper in the spring.
Mr. Allaun: It will be too late then.
Mr. Foot: If my hon. Friend will allow me to continue, I can tell the House that there will be a further day in July on discipline, which may be taken formally to allow for a more general debate on defence.
Mr. Allaun: It will be too late for us to do anything about the Estimates at that time.
Mr. Foot: If my hon. Friend will listen to the end of what I am saying, he may understand my point. I have given the House that information because there may be hon. Members who are interested in those other aspects, which will be able to be raised in those debates.
The winter defence Supplementary Estimates of £248,547,000 before the House are almost entirely pay allowances, pensions and price increases. Moreover, all the Votes will come before the House again and any of them could be the subject of the remaining 26 Supply Days.
Although I appreciate the case that my hon. Friends have put and accept that they may wish to press it further—knowing that they raised the matter a year ago —I hope that they will also be able to take this matter into account. It is the fact
1640
that these issues will be debated afresh and many of them will be voted upon at a later stage in the proceedings of the House.
Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That statement, though technically correct, might be misinterpreted by those who, unlike you, Mr. Speaker, do not understand the procedures of the House. I wonder whether you would confirm that these resolutions, if passed today, have no validity in law. The moment next Tuesday that the Consolidated Fund Bill is passed, by virtue of an Act of the nineteenth century, these resolutions that we are passing today without discussion automatically obtain the force of law, although they are merely resolutions of the House of Commons. Would you agree, Mr. Speaker, that when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House says that these matters may be discussed again, the stress is on"may "?
Mr. Speaker: I do not give interpretations of the Lord President's speeches.
Mr. Frank Allaun: I repudiate what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has just said. Twelve months ago, I asked:
" On a point of order. Am I right in believing that if this is voted on today, any subsequent debate would be completely worthless and ineffective?"
You replied, Mr. Speaker:
" If this motion is carried, I shall put the Question without discussion on each of the Estimates. That is what it means."—[Official Report, 12th December 1977; Vol. 941, c. 46.]
This means, Mr. Speaker, that without debate we shall pass a large sum of money today and there will be no opportunity to debate whether that is good.
I intend, Mr. Speaker, to abide strictly by your limits. I am not questioning the merits of this vast expenditure on arms, which, I am sure I do not need to tell you, hardly warms the cockles of my heart or those of my hon. Friends. I shall stick strictly to the point. I wish to oppose the acceptance by the House of this motion from the Prime Minister because it means that, without any debate, the spending of an additional sum of £248 million on defence will take place.
I must reply to one point that the Leader of the House has just made. This question arose 12 months ago. A deputation

1641
of hon. Members went to see the Lord President. There are hon. Members here today who will say that on that occasion my right hon. Friend promised that it would not happen again and that there would be an opportunity for debate. I ask him whether he will reply to that point.
One of the origins of parliamentary democracy, on which I am not attempting to lecture you, Mr. Speaker, is that before expenditure takes place there should be a debate, a vote and a decision. Indeed, you, Mr. Speaker, have the responsibility to see that that right is fully observed. You also have a second responsibility, Mr. Speaker—that is, to preserve the rights of Back Benchers. On this occasion, because the two Front Benches are united in spending more on arms, they have decided that there will be no debate on this matter. Labour Back Benchers —I do not notice that Tory Members are vociferous on this point—are denied the rights that you, Mr. Speaker, are here to defend.
I hate to address my remarks to you, Mr. Speaker, as I do not blame you. I blame the two Front Benches for the predicament in which we are being placed. Usually, Mr. Speaker, there is a full debate in this House before a large sum of money—
Mr. Tebbit: Rubbish.
Mr. Allaun: The hon. Gentleman is right in some respects. Today is an example. Usually, if there is an item involving several millions of pounds, a whole day's debate may take place on it. Today we are debating an item of several hundred millions of pounds without a debate at all. It can hardly be argued that shortage of parliamentary time has prevented a debate. We have just heard the dates of the Christmas Recess. We have had a Summer Recess the like of which I have never experienced before in my 23 years in the House. One might say, without being disrespectful to the House, that it is becoming almost a temporary holiday home
What we are doing today would certainly not be acceptable in the United States legislature. This is part of the 3 per cent. per annum increase in arms spending decided by the House last March
1642
—a costly and foolish decision because it will encourage similar increases by the Russians. In the United States, Congressmen are challenging the 3 per cent. Parliamentary procedure is not prohibiting American Congressmen debating this subject. If this is taking place in the American Congress, why should not we have an opportunity to discuss this matter? Irrespective of whether Congress decides to drop the 3 per cent., why should we not be allowed to discuss the issue?
Our arms bill is raised from a little over the monstrous sum of £7 billion a year by another £248 million and no one is allowed to say a word. There is no explanation at all of some of the items we are being asked to pass. I refer to one of them. We are told that an additional £49 million is being sought to compensate for delays in production receipts for air systems. Perhaps some hon. Member could explain what that means. I do not understand it, and quite a lot of people outside the House will not understand it. There is no word of explanation.
To whom are we selling? To which country? What kind of weapons or stores are we selling? Nobody knows. Yet this sum is to go through the House without discussion, just as the decision to make the first atom bomb went through the Cabinet without discussion. This is government without explanation, government by concealment. It is happening continually, and it is eroding our democracy. There have been no fewer than 16 Supplementary Estimates for defence in the past five years. I think that you will have some doubts about this process, Mr. Speaker.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to answer this question. If this procedural vote is taken this afternoon, can there be any subsequent debate before the expenditure is sanctioned? If there cannot be such a debate, we are making a mockery of democracy.
Mr. English: This is a matter of some importance, as I hope Tory Members, on another occasion, will be the first to realise. The situation is that no expenditure may lawfully be incurred by Her Majesty's Government without the approval of Parliament as a whole. That is done by an Appropriation Act.

1643
Pending the Appropriation Act, published and agreed once a year, there are Consolidated Fund Acts such as the one due to be dealt with on Tuesday next. By tradition, the Committee stage of a Consolidated Fund Bill is never debated upon any amendment. I believe that there may be a technical amendment, involving the word"may ", to the extent of saying the Government"may"or may not spend some money. The details cannot be amended.
The reason for this, Mr. Speaker, is that your predecessors in the Chair have said upon successive occasions that it would be pointless for the House to discuss something twice. We may not move an amendment to any item of public expenditure on the Consolidated Fund Bill on Tuesday night, first, because we are taking the Second Reading and, secondly, because immediately afterwards, on that night or on the Wednesday, the Committee stage will be taken formally, when no amendment will be possible.
The reason for this is that, theoretically, we have discussed all the issues upon Supply resolutions. Those Supply resolutions, like any other resolutions of the House, have no force in law of themselves. They do have force, however, because of the Public Accounts and Charges Act 1891 which, in effect, makes them temporary Consolidated Fund Acts. It gives them a temporary legal force and makes them temporary appropriations under section 2(1) of the Act from the time a Consolidated Fund Act is passed. In other words, that thing which we are not allowed to discuss in detail on Tuesday night will validate what we are allowed to vote on today.
This is an extraordinary procedure which has grown up over a period. The theory is that the expenditure of a Government must not be discussed anywhere save upon the Floor of the House. This is what is at fault. We are supposed to discuss these things upon a group of Supply Days. Wisely and properly, in a democracy, we have said that the subject for debate on those Supply Days is entirely a matter for the Opposition Front Bench. The right hon. Lady and her colleagues decide what we are to discuss today. They wish to discuss the Ford sanctions and connected matters, something entirely proper to be discussed in that this is obviously an issue of public
1644
importance. However, for every day that one of these subjects of public importance is discussed, some portion of the expenditure of the Government is not discussed. Today we are to discuss sanctions against Ford. That is well and good. The moment we do so we lose for ever the possibility of discussing public expenditure totalling tens of thousands of millions of pounds. That cannot be a right and proper procedure.
This is why my colleagues—and by that I mean every hon. Member of this House belonging to every party who has signed the motion relating to the report on Me Civil Service that I mentioned in business questions today—wishes to have debates upon the report on the Civil Service by the Expenditure Committee and upon the Procedure Committee's report. It cannot be right that the whole of public expenditure is ignored because it cannot be discussed anywhere once we decide to discuss another subject on a Supply Day. The delay on the part of my right hon. Friend in bringing forward these matters for discussion is simply causing him more trouble than he need have got into.
Today is a good example. We are faced with sums of money totalling tens of thousands of millions of pounds. We have only to look at the Order Paper to see such sums. There is the sum of £17,470,584,900 on the first motion alone. On the third motion, the figure is £1,860,115,000 and on the fourth motion it is £3,155,066,000. Such sums are not to be discussed. All that we are to be allowed to do, as you have correctly ruled, Mr. Speaker, is to say that we should discuss them. If this motion is passed, as it probably will be, because the Opposition Front Bench wants to see it passed as much as the Government Front Bench, there will be no opportunity of voting on any amendment to this expenditure.
I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the slightly different practice of some of the Commonwealth countries and the United States Congress, which have taken our original procedures and used them. In other countries there are things known as appropriations committees, which are allowed to discuss public expenditure and to say No, you should not spend so much on a particular subject. You should. perhaps, spend more on some other subject." I imagine that many of my hon.

1645
Friends who have raised this matter would say that we should spend less on defence and more on social security. Many hon. Members opposite would no doubt wish to say that we should spend more on defence and, perhaps, less on social security. The interesting point is that none of them will be allowed to say what he believes.
On whichever side of the House hon. Members may sit, whatever the electorate decides about who should govern and who should be in opposition, the same individuals will not be allowed to discuss these matters unless they are in the Government and unless they are, above all, Treasury Ministers. That is why the Expenditure Committee recommended in its fourteenth report—the last report of last Session—that the financial procedures of this House needed alteration. That is why, more than 15 months ago, in its report on the Civil Service, the Expenditure Committee recommended a much-needed change in our financial procedure. That is why the Procedure Committee made similar recommendations. That is why when, on Monday evening, we were discussing the reports of the Public Accounts Committee, everyone who spoke said that these procedures needed revision. That is why the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that these reports should be debated. They have not been debated and it has not been announced that they are to be debated. We now have a situation in which we have to say that the expenditure of these tens of thousands of million of pounds is not to be discussed.
Mr. Newens: I wish to speak against the motion relating to the Supplementary Estimates. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), I have considerable misgivings about the proposals concerning military items in these Estimates. I also feel strongly about the principle, which has been raised by my hon. Friends, of approving the expenditure of large sums of money without debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) pointed out that there was a means whereby we could negate the motion that we may approve today if we seek to vote against the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Many of us would not wish for one moment to vote against this fund, because it includes many items of which
1646
we are in wholehearted support. In those circumstances, that is no substitute for hon. Members having the opportunity of a proper debate on these items here today before they are put to the House. Therefore, I wish to speak against the Prime Minister's motion that is before the House.
The original Estimates that were before the House were fully debated before any decision was reached upon them. No one in this House, no one who believes in democratic principles, would argue that expenditure should be incurred by the Government, within the original Estimates, after being approved without a debate, but here today we are taking a decision which means that this expenditure will be added to very considerably without any discussion being allowed on those items which we are being asked to approve.
I argue that the Supplementary Estimates now before the House alter, in a number of respects, the character of our original decision on the Estimates earlier this year. This raises a principle that we as a House have a right to debate. In the first place, all of us are aware of the arguments that have been advanced in recent years, from both sides of the House, for the containment of public expenditure. On a number of occasions over the course of recent years the House has approved cuts in public expenditure to which a number of my hon. Friends and I have been wholeheartedly and completely opposed.
If we approved of those cuts I am quite sure that we did so only after a certain amount of soul searching, and had we been aware originally that additional moneys were to be made available, we would certainly not have agreed that those cuts or limitations should have been imposed. We would have opposed the addition of the supplementary sums that are being proposed here today.
For that reason it is quite wrong that those sums should be approved without a full debate, as is proposed in the motion of the Prime Minister today. The present Supplementary Estimates deeply affect the attitude of all of us to the whole package of public expenditure that the House is being asked to accept for the whole year. The House did not approve the carrying out of certain policies or the expenditure of money on

1647
certain items without regard to the expense. The House approved certain expenditure, bearing in mind the need for economies and the priorities that the House then had in view. The fact that certain additional sums of money are now to be made available demands that we in this House should have an opportunity, in debate, of arguing where those additional sums should be expended.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman seems to be having a debate. Does he realise that a large amount of this expenditure is for an increase in forces' pay? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us not start debates on this. I am hoping that we can soon come to a decision, because we are taking a Supply Day.
Mr. Newens: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) raised a point that in many ways impugns the views of many of those who signed the amendment, which is not being debated. I point out to him that many hon. Members on the Government Benches would argue very strongly in favour of that expenditure, which would enhance the pay of the forces. Many of my hon. Friends and I would argue.—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am quite sure that the hon. Member would do so if there were a debate on it, but he must confine his argument to the Prime Minister's motion.
Mr. Newens: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for responding in that way. I hope that you will forgive me, Sir, for having been distracted from my argument by the intervention of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford. He showed how important it is that the House should have an opportunity to discuss these matters. For reasons that I fully understand, many hon. Members are denied the opportunity of advancing their arguments on these different items, which would be debated if this motion before the House were defeated—because I take it that if this motion were defeated it would be incumbent upon the Leader of the House to find means whereby we would have the opportunity to debate these matters.
For this reason I believe that hon. and right hon. Members on the Conservative
1648
Benches, who so often argue about the need to contain public expenditure, should vote with us when we oppose this motion, because it would give the whole House the opportunity to debate these items in detail. I make no bones of the fact that I am wholeheartedly in favour of much of the expenditure that is proposed, but in the form in which this motion is placed before the House it does not give us the opportunity of differentiating between expenditures that we think are desirable and those that we would wish to reject. Part of the funds relates to defence expenditure. some hon. Members are in favour of more expenditure while others, like myself, are in favour of much more drastic cuts than anything we have seen.
I have already made clear to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford that I strongly sympathise with the pay needs of the armed forces and I certainly would not wish to cut that item back. On the other hand, we oppose other items that are involved here. Therefore, it is necessary that they should be taken separately, with the opportunity for a debate on particular items about which we feel extremely strongly.
In the document"Supplementary Estimates 1978/79"it is stated on page 3 that we are being asked to provide some of these funds for new services. If we are being asked to obtain additional money to meet the cost of any new services, it means that the very principle involved in the provision of these new services affects the House very pertinently. Why should the House be asked to accept this without debating the principles that are involved? Why should we have to walk through the Lobbies—or perhaps not even take it to a Division—to approve new services the objectives of which are not implicit?
Mr. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a great deal of validity in what has been said so far. Do you agree that, since this is a matter for the House as a whole, the Leader of the House should be present? Surely the Financial Secretary to the Treasury cannot come to a decision on a matter that is the responsibility of the Leader of the House.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): Further to that

1649
point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Lord President apologises for his temporary and unavoidable absence. He has urgent matters to attend to and hopes to return to the Chamber as soon as possible.
Mr. Cormack: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is no more urgent or important matter for the Leader of the House to attend to than the business of this House. May I respectfully submit that his place is in this House here and now?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to spend time on points of order about where the Lord President is and what he is doing. I cannot instruct anyone to come here.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the outset you stipulated the limitations on the debate. Will there be a Government reply to the various points that have been made, or will this debate simply dissolve into an immediate Division?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know. If anyone rises, I shall call him. If no one rises, I shall not.
Mr. English: The business of Supply is for the Opposition to determine. Most of the Shadow Cabinet is present. This issue could easily be resolved by the Opposition allowing one of their Supply Days to be devoted solely to the discussion of public expenditure.
Mr. Speaker: It is an old custom in this House that the Opposition, when allotted a Supply Day, should be allowed to have it.
Mr. Newens: I should certainly be happy if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House were here to hear what 1 am saying on this important issue. I realise that he may have other pressing engagements, but it is important for the House to consider the approval of expenditure of this character and dimension without the opportunity of discussing the issues.
The Supply Estimates provide that new services can be developed with the funds that we are being asked to approve today.
1650
Those new services might involve principles about which many of us would feel extreme concern. For example, many of us are wholeheartedly opposed to the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons. This expenditure could possibly relate to such development. In the past, the House decided on the question of nuclear weapons without even members of the Cabinet being aware of the implications of the decision. We have the right to ask what this money will be spent upon.
Many of us have the impression that it is being spent on nuclear weapons, but we shall be precluded from debating that if we pass the motion.
The House has the right to question Ministers, but no Defence Minister is present—
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert)rose—
Mr. Newens: I apologise. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend present. I missed him because he was snuggled down on the Front Bench.
Other services can be provided for out of these funds, and this may include the question of the SAS. In pressing for an adequate debate I remind hon. Members that the House often spends long periods discussing trivial matters, but the voting through of huge sums such as this is done on the nod.
If we pass the motion the amendment that stands in the names of many of my hon. Friends and myself will not be put to the House. It is totally undemocratic to deprive hon. Members of a proper vote and discussion.
Another aspect arises out of the defence Supplementary Estimates. Many of us feel that a quantitative addition to the sum total expended will involve an important question of principle. The Government are committed to reducing the percentage of gross national product spent on defence to that of the average of our NATO allies. Approval of this expenditure today may well change the direction of that policy so that we are spending more, not less. If the Government have decided to change their policy in that respect, that is a question of principle that the House should have the chance to debate. This should not be achieved by stealth.

1651
This issue involves a global sum of public expenditure—a further matter of great importance. Many hon. Members believe that increases in public expenditure are a cause of inflation and that the House should turn its attention to the subject of public expenditure. The Opposition have frequently asked for much greater cuts than the Government have made. Therefore, we need to examine the effects of these Supplementary Estimates on the global sum and to consider their inflationary effect. It is only right that we should have an opportunity to discuss these matters before decisions are taken. It is not enough merely to take these matters on a vote.
Mr. Cryer: Does not my hon. Friend accept that expenditure of this nature is important in terms of the Government's economic policy? Defence expenditure tends to be more inflationary than much other expenditure because there is no production of goods and services to meet the demand created by the vast majority of people, who are not in the armed services.
Mr. Newens: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is a further reason why the House should not let this expenditure go through on the nod.
We are being asked to approve expenditure that will add to inflationary pressure. Those Members of the Opposition who constantly call for cuts in public expenditure will be blaming Labour Members for calling for greater amounts of civil public expenditure and will accuse us of being responsible for inflation. Therefore, we have a right to advance our views on this subject and, unless this matter is debated fully, we shall be prevented from so doing.
Let me turn to the subject of priorities.
Mr. Burden: On the subject of priorities, the Leader of the House will know that an important matter is to be debated a little later today.
Mr. Newens: This motion is also important.
Mr. Burden: The Leader of the House is fully aware of the views of his hon. Friends below the Gangway. Will the right hon. Gentleman allow the House to get on with business by giving his hon. Friends an opportunity to debate this
1652
matter next week?
Mr. Newens: I am appalled by the hon. Gentleman's attitude. He is suggesting that later business on the Order Paper is more important than discussion of these huge amounts of expenditure.
Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is suggesting that a motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is less the business of the day than is a motion to adjourn the House.
Mr. Newens: I agree that the mattcr that is now before the House is serious. If Parliament means anything and is not to be taken as a rubber-stamping farce, we should be able to debate these matters.
I take great exception to the remarks of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). I am sure that he and his hon. Friends in a General Election campaign will attack Labour Members of Parliament for arguing in favour of greater public expenditure in certain respects. The hon. Member is suggesting that we should put this important motion on one side to enable him to get on discussing the business in which he is interested. He wants to fight in a Tweedledum and Tweedledee manner.
Mr. Michael Marshall: The hon. Gentleman is being carried away by his own vehemence. Obviously he did not hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) said. He called on the Leader of the House to provide time for a separate debate on this motion. In view of the strong feelings which have been expressed, I am sure that many Members of the Opposition would support such a suggestion. Since the House is rising early for Christmas, I suggest that that matter should be discussed separately before Christmas. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will join with the Opposition in pressing his right hon. Friend to accede to that suggestion.
Mr. Newens: If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House puts forward another proposal, that might well meet the situation. I am dealing with the position as it now stands.
Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that the substance of this matter cannot be debated.

1653
Therefore, I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not intend to accept such a motion at this stage. I shall accept a closure motion when I think that it is wise to do so.
Mr. Newens: My hon. Friends and I have argued on many occasions that the House should debate issues about which we feel deeply. However, on many occasions the procedure has been such—this has been acceded to by both Front Benches—that these matters have been precluded from debate. Therefore, my hon. Friends and I have no alternative but to take our present course because this is the only means of bringing these matters to the notice of the House. It is scandalous that we should be prevented from debating these issues because certain hon. Members want to get on with the usual rigmarole.
Mr. Lee: Is there not an ominous parallel with the situation that arises out of much of the business relating to the EEC? The House is asked to deal with matters retrospectively, or is not given adequate time to discuss the EEC budget, or we find that the budget is presented in a misleading and compressed form. A similar arbitrary way of dealing with expenditure is now spilling over into the procedures of this House. Should we not resist this process so far as we can?
Mr. Newens: I agree with my hon. Friend. The House knows that I do not normally participate in trifling arguments. This is a matter of great principle, and I am sure that some Opposition Members sympathise with me. On this motion we are being asked to do something that is wrong and are being prevented from carrying out our job as Back Benchers.
The Opposition have argued on many occasions for cuts in public expenditure relating to health, education and the welfare services. If on this motion we agree additional military expenditure, the Opposition may argue that the global sum needs to be contained. Therefore, the pressure for more cuts in civil expenditure—expenditure that many Labour Members favour—may increase.
Later today the House will discuss the subject of inflation in general. Decisions could be taken in other spheres which
1654
would lead my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce an additional Budget. If that happens, expenditure on health, welfare and education may be cut so that we may contain expenditure of a military nature of the type we are being asked to approve today.
In my view, these Supplementary Estimates could themselves contribute considerably to inflation, and I therefore argue that the House has a right to debate these matters on another occasion. I hope that something will be done to make this possible. The idea that the House should pass a huge sum on the nod, without proper debate, must be considered—
Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am attempting to listen to my hon. Friend's fascinating speech, but there is such a row coming from the Opposition Benches that I am finding it very difficult to do so.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may say that I understand that there is much rejoicing in Heaven over a sinner that repenteth. From time to time, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) gives me cause for worry.
Mr. Newens: I was saying that the idea that the House should pass huge sums of money on the nod without proper debate must be considered against the background of the way in which we normally work in the House, devoting enormous time and consideration to quite trivial issues.
Mr. hon. Friends and I strongly object to the procedure proposed, and I have spoken on this occasion because I believe that the House should take this matter very seriously indeed. Last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) pointed out, we raised this matter and we were given some sort of promise that an opportunity would be provided for us to discuss these issues. That opportunity has not been provided, and once again we are being asked to pass a motion in precisely the terms of that which was passed last year. When I went to the Vote Office last night, I checked it. The motion is word for word the same as the one passed last year.
In these circumstances we have a right to ask, as Back Benchers, what exactly

1655
are our powers here. Are we just rubber stamps who walk through the Lobbies to approve the expenditure of huge sums of money without debate? My hon. Friends and I wish to protest at this state of affairs. We think it quite outrageous that we should be asked to do that. It is totally wrong that we should be called upon to approve as part of a package military expenditures to which we are absolutely opposed.
In these circumstances, we feel that we have only one option open to us, which is to oppose the Prime Minister's motion presently before us. Therefore, I make no apology for having opposed it at length. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides will recognise that we have not come here today to discuss this issue lightly. We must pay heed to the opinions of the British people. They hear the heehawing and the noise at Question Time, and if they realised at the same time that we permit this sort of thing to be done, they will think it a disgrace and ask why on earth hon. Members on both sides of the House do not stand up and say something about it.
On this occasion, I thought it timely that I should make a clear statement on the issue. Although there is a certain amount of merriment in the House over this matter, I assure the House that that does not mean that my hon. Friends and I regard this as a matter that can be taken lightly. I hope that my right hon. Friend and right hon. and hon. Members next year will see to it that hon. Members who represent a sizeable section of opinion in this country have the opportunity to be heard, which is their right. That is what we are demanding today, and that is why we shall vote against the Prime Minister's motion, believing that that is the only way of making our protest clear.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since there is a small group of hon. Members who wish to debate this matter, and we have heard a lot about the motion itself, may I move, That the Question be now put?
Mr. Rooker: Further to that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I indicated earlier that I shall accept a motion, That the Question be now put, when I think it is
1656
the right time. I said that only 10 minutes ago.
Mr. Ridley: I, too, should like to make a contribution on the subject of the Supplementary Estimates and the need for the House to be given an opportunity to debate them. It may surprise the House to know that I tabled a number of Questions asking how many Ford motor cars that were to be purchased by the Government would subsequently not be purchased as a result of sanctions. To my astonishment, these Questions were transferred to the Ministry of Defence, and I have now got the answers in today's Hansard. I asked how many—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman asked the right Questions—I say nothing about the answers—but we are debating the business motion, which has been discussed at length by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens).
Mr. Ridley: I suggest that it is relevant, Mr. Speaker, because the Ministry of Defence is apparently to incur expenditure on purchasing more expensive motor cars than might have been available if it had purchased Ford motor cars. Presumably, the £248,547,000 is in the Supplementary Estimate for the purchase of Japanese cars at greater expense for Ministry of Defence mandarins and Service Ministers.
It is clear that there is no intention of buying military vehicles with this money. It is all for motor cars, as I understand it, and this seems to be a point which the House should debate today. I had thought that the House would debate it today. I thought that that was the substance of the debate, but, since I am not able to make my speech on the later motion, I should like to make my speech on the desirability of not pursuing policies represented by this Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been very helpful to me. I realise now the direction in which he is going. I remind him that we are now discussing not these Estimates and what ought or ought not to be in them but whether we accept the Prime Minister's business motion that they be put to a vote without debate.
Mr. Ridley: I should like to discuss the Estimates. That is why I rose. I should like the Government to provide an appropriate opportunity for me to discuss them, but you have made it abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, and I entirely accept your ruling, that we may not discuss the substance of the Estimates on this occasion. It therefore seems to me to be futile to try to prevail in this debate in making the point that we should be able to discuss the Estimates on a later occasion, whereas that is the only point, as you so rightly put it, that we may make in this debate.
My worry about this Estimate relates to exactly how much of this money is going to buy expensive motor cars, as a stupid and arrogant retaliatory action against Ford, but I cannot make the point on this occasion. It would be quite out of order, and I should entirely accept your view, Mr. Speaker, if you were to rule me out of order.
My suggestion is that we pass the motion now and deal with the Estimates and then proceed to discuss the matter of substance which is the one issue that I want to raise on the defence Supplementary Estimate, but that I am precluded from discussing now by the rules of order.
Mr. Mikardo: I shall be brief and confine myself strictly to the Prime Minister's motion. One morning, two or three days ago, I was listening to the radio waiting for the cricket score from Australia when I heard the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) being interviewed. We all know that the right hon. Member takes seriously his responsibilities as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He devotes to the functions of that office a great deal of skill and expertise.
The right hon. Gentleman argued strongly—I agreed with every word that he said—that the extent to which the House controls the expenditure of Government, or Supply, has become less and less with every year that passes.
The right hon. Gentleman's solution to this problem was, in one way ot another, to do some of the scrutiny in Committee. That was the solution that 1 understood my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) to advocate a little while ago. One right hon. Member of the House who would not go along with that idea, as we all
1658
know, is the Leader of the House. He has always been opposed to any increase in or extension of the Select Committee system. He has always argued, with his own particular cogency, that we should do our important business on the Floor of the House. If we are properly to scrutinise expenditure, according to my right hon. Friend, the House should be able to look in detail at Estimates.
Mr. English: But we cannot.
Mr. Mikardo: If we had had a debate, which I know we cannot have, my speech would have been purely interrogatory. I had a number of questions to ask. I should be surprised if many other hon. Members did not also have questions to ask. I challenge hon. Members to say that there is a single one among them who can go through those Estimates, put his hand on his heart and say that he knows what every item means.
Mr. English: And say that he agrees with it.
Mr. Mikardo: One cannot say whether one agrees with an Estimate when one does not understand what the item means. The Estimates are drawn up by accountants. Accountants are adept at using records to disguise rather than to clarify what is taking place. These Estimates in particular are riddled with jargon. If we are to scrutinise expenditure we must understand it.
I should have liked to ask"What does this mean?" of four items. I should have liked to ask"To whom does the money go, and for what? ".
I remember in the 1951 Parliament an all-night debate on the Army Estimates. There were a number of items about which I asked the then Under-Secretary of State for War"What are they and what do they mean? ". I can remember only one of those items. It involved the salary of paper-keepers. I asked the Minister"What are paper-keepers?"There was a great deal of flurrying and to-ing and fro-ing between the Benches and the space behind Mr. Speaker's right hand. The Minister had to blabber on for three-quarters of an hours before he got the answer and told us what paper-keepers were. [HON. MEMBERS:"What are they? "]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I waited to hear the end of the story, but I still do not understand how relevant it is to the motion.
Mr. Mikardo: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it is relevant. I told the story because it is an example of an item in the accounts which Members do not understand and cannot therefore scrutinise. [HON. MEMBERS:"What are paper-keepers."' I deliberately refrain from answering that question because by doing so I would breach your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I shall tell hon. Members afterwards.
Three items in the five Estimates are Greek to me. They are written in jargon. I do not know whether it is right to spend the money that is involved, because I do not know what they mean. I am not allowed to ask what they mean. That means that hon. Members who are charged with the responsibility for scrutinising expenditure have to agree to public money being spent on something when they do not know A from a bull's foot. If that is proper parliamentary control of expenditure and proper parliamentary democracy, we shall have to do some fresh thinking.
Mr. Ronald Bell: The motion is really about the House approving the expenditure of £25,000 million without debate. That is what it comes to. One understands why that produces a certain sense of shock. Unfortunately, if we had not had this short discussion today, or if the motion were not on the Order Paper, the matter would be subject to a guillotine and be approved in the Consolidated Fund Bill next week.
Although it seems to be an enormous issue, it is the result of the procedure to

Division No. 12]

AYES

[5.20 p.m.

Alison, Michael

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Bulmer, Esmond

Anderson, Donald

Boardman, H.

Burden, F. A.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Armstrong, Ernest

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Carlisle, Mark

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Carter, Ray

Awdry, Daniel

Boyden, James (Blsh Auck)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Bradford, Rev Robert

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Bates, Alt

Braine, Sir Bernard

Clegg, Walter

Belth, A. J.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Bell, Ronald

Brittan, Leon

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Brotherton, Michael

Cormack, Patrick

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Costain, A. P.

Benyon, W.

Buchanan, Richard

Cowans, Harry

Berry, Hon Anthony

Buck, Antony

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Biggs-Davison, John

Budgen, Nick

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

which we have become all too accustomed. It is a procedure to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has been drawing attention for a long time. I certainly do not wish to take up the time of the House when an important debate is pending.
I say to the Leader of the House and to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that it is provoking the House to put down these Votes as a nominal justification for the debate that follows. We are used to nominal Votes leading to a debate on a matter of general interest, but when a motion involving £25.000 million is to be passed on the nod, the issue is brought to the surface.
By a growing convention we have abandoned financial control over Government activities. The lesson that we might learn from today's debate is that we must set up a Committee procedure to deal with these Estimates. At present the whole system is a farce. We are asked to approve this enormous expenditure on the nod in order that we may properly have a debate in the House on another important subject.
I hope that we shall get on to that subject now or soon. This matter should have focused our minds on the fact that we are engaged in an outrageous farce about the control of public expenditure. We must do something to give reality to our scrutiny of expenditure.
Mr. Humphrey Atkins Mr. Humphrey Atkins rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 106.

Crawshaw, Richard

Judd, Frank

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Crouch, David

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Prior, Rt Hon James

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

Kimball, Marcus

Raison, Timothy

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Deaklns, Eric

Knox, David

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Lamont, Norman

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Doig, Peter

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Dormand, J. D.

Lawson, Nigel

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Drayson, Burnaby

Le Merchant, Spencer

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Dunlop, John

Lloyd, Ian

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Dunnet, Jack

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Durant, Tony

Luard, Evan

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Dykes, Hugh

Luce, Richard

Rowlands, Ted

Eadie, Alex

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Royle, Sir Anthony

Ennals, Rt Hon David

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Sainsbury, Tim

Eyre, Reginald

McCrindle, Robert

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Fairgrieve, Russell

McElhone, Frank

Scott, Nicholas

Faulds, Andrew

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

MacGregor, John

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Ford, Ben

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Silvester, Fred

Forman, Nigel

Maclennan, Robert

Sims, Roger

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'I'd)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fox, Marcus

Madel, David

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Mahon, Simon

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Freud, Clement

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Smith, Timothy John (Ashfleld)

Fry, Peter

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Spence, John

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Marten, Neil

Stanbrook, Ivor

Ginsburg, David

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Stanley, John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Mates, Michael

Steel, Rt Hon David

Golding, John

Mather, Carol

Stott, Roger

Goodhew, Victor

Maxwell-Hysiop, Robin

Stradllng Thomas, J.

Gourlay, Harry

Mayhew, Patrick

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Graham, Ted

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Tapsell, Peter

Grant Anthony (Harrow C)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Mills, Peter

Temple-Morris, Peter

Gray, Hamish

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Grieve, Percy

Moate, Roger

Tinn, James

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Monro, Hector

Tomllnson, John

Grist, Ian

Montgomery, Fergus

Townsend, Cyril D.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Moonman, Eric

Trotter, Neville

Hampson, Dr Keith

Morgan, Geraint

Urwin, T. W.

Hannam, John

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Viggers, Peter

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Wakeham, John

Hart Rt Hon Judith

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Morrison, Rt Hon Charles (Devizes)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Hayhoe Barney

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Wall, Patrick

Heseltine Michael

Mudd David

Ward, Michael

Heseltine, MichaelHicks, Robert

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Weatherill, Bernard

Hicks, Robers Hodgson, Robin

Neave Airey

Weetch, Ken

Holland, Philip

Nelson, Anthony

Wells, John

Home Robertson, John

Newton, Tony

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Hordern, Peter

Nott, John

White, James (Pollok)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Onslow, Cranley

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Howell, David (Guildford)

Orbach, Maurice

Whitlock, WilliamWhitney, Raymond

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Whitney, Raymond

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Wiggin, jerryWilliams, Rt Hon Allan (Swansea W)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Page, Richard (Worklngton)

Williams Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Palmer, Arthur

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

James, David

Pardoe, John

winterton, Nicholas

Janner, Greville

Park, George

woodall, Alec

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

Parkinson, Cecil

Young, David (Bolton E)

Jessel, Toby

Pendry, Tom

Younger, Hon George

John, Brynmor

Penhallgon, David

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Percival, IanPerry, Ernest

TELLERS FOR THE AYES;

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Sir George Young and

Jopling, Michael

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

NOES

Allaun, Frank

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Conlan, Bernard

Ashton, Joe

Buchan, Norman

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Corbett, Robin

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Campbell, Ian

Crawford, Douglas

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Cant, R. B.

Cryer, Bob

Bldwell, Sydney

Carmichael, Nell

Dempsey, James

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Dewar, Donald

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Cartwright, John

Edge, Geoff

Bradley, Tom

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

1662

1663

English, Michael

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Selby, Harry

Evans, Fred (Caerphllly)

Litterick, Tom

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Loyden, Eddie

Short, Mrs Rente (Wolv NE)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Silverman, Jullus

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

MacCormlck, lain

Skinner, Dennis

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Spearing, Nigel

Flannery, Martin

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Spriggs, Leslie

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Madden, Max

Stoddart, David

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

George Bruce

Mikardo, Ian

Tierney, Sydney

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Torney, Tom

Grocott, Bruce

Morton, George

Tuck, Raphael

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Newens, Stanley

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Heffer, Eric S.

Noble, Mike

Watkins, David

Henderson, Douglas

Ogden, Eric

Watkinson, John

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

O'Halloran, Michael

Watt, Hamlsh

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Parry, Robert

Welsh, Andrew

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Pavitt, Laurie

Wigley, Dafydd

Hunter, Adam

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Radice, Giles

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Richardson, Miss Jo

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Kerr, Russell

Robinson, Geoffrey

Kilfedder, James

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Rooker, J. W.

Mr. Stan Thorne and

Kinnock, Nell

Ryman,John

Mr. John Lee.

Lamond, James

Sedgemore, Brian

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: The Question is—
Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be no point of order now. The House has given me an instruction to put the Question.
Question put accordingly:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Ser-jeant at Arms provide the hon. Member
for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) with cover for his head. There is an hon. Member seeking to raise a point of order, and his head needs to be covered.
Mr. English (seated and covered): Mr. Speaker, I should be obliged if you would simply confirm that everyone who votes in favour of this motion will be voting to preclude debate upon £23,000 million of public expenditure and that everyone who votes against it will be voting to have a debate upon that public expenditure.
The House having divided: Ayes 338, Noes 92.

Evans, John (Newton)

Luce, Richard

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Eyre, Reginald

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Rhodes James, R.

Fairgrieve, Russell

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Faulds, Andrew

McAdden, sir Stephen

Rifkind, Malcolm

Fisher, Sir Nigel

McCrindle, Robert

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

McElhone, Frank

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

MacGregor, John

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Ford, Ben

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Forman, Nigel

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Rowlands, Ted

Forrester, John

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Royle, Sir Anthony

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'l'd)

Maclennan, Robert

Sainsbury, Tim

Fox, Marcus

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Scott, Nicholas

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

Madel, David

Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Mahon, Simon

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Fry, Peter

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Marks, Kenneth

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Ginsburg, David

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Silvester, Fred

Golding, John

Marten, Nell

Sims, Roger

Goodhew, Victor

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Skeet, T. H. H.

Gourlay, Harry

Mates, Michael

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Mather, Carol

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Graham, Ted

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mawby, Ray

Snape, Peter

Grant, John (Islington C)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Spence, John

Gray, Hamish

Mayhew, Patrick

Stallard, A. W.

Grieve, Percy

Meacher, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Grist, Ian

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Stanley, John

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Millan, Rt Hon Robert

Stott, Roger

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Stradllng Thomas, J.

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mills, Peter

Strang, Gavin

Hannam, John

Mlscampbell, Norman

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Moate, Roger

Tapsell, Peter

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Molynenux, James

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Monro, Hector

Temple-Morris, Peter

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Montgomery, Fergus

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Heseltine, Michael

Moonman, Eric

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Hicks, Robert

Morgan, Geraint

Tierney, Sydney

Hodgson, Robin

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Tomlinson, John

Holland, Philip

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Townsond, Cyril D.

Home Robertson, John

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Trotter, Neville

Horam, John

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberivon)

Urwin, T. W.Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Howell, David (Guildford)

Morrison, Rt Hon Charles (Devizes)

Viggers, Peter

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Hucklield, Les

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Wakeham, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Mudd, David

Walker Harold (Doncaster)

Hunter, Adam

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Hurd, Douglas

Murray, Rt Han Ronald King

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Neave, Airey

Wall, Patrick

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Nelson, Anthony

Ward, Michael

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Newton, Tony

Watkins, David

James, David

Nott, John

Weatherill, Bernard

Janner, Greville

Oakes, Gordon

Weetch, Ken

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

Ogden, Eric

Weitzman, David

Jessel, Toby

Onslow, Cranley

Wellbeloved, James

John, Brynmor

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wells, John

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Page, John (Harrow West)

White, James (Pollok)

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Page, Richard (Workington)

Whitlock, William

Jopling, Michael

Palmer, Arthur

Whitney, Raymond

Judd, Frank

Park, George

Wiggin, Jerry

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Parkinson, Cecil

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Pattie, Geoffrey

Williams, Rt Hon Allan (Swansea W)

Kershaw, Anthony

Pendry, Tom

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Kimball, Marcus

Percival, Ian

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Perry, Ernest

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Nicholas

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Phipps, Dr Colin

Woodall, Alec

Knox, David

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Woof, Robert

Lamborn, Harry

Price, David (Easttelgh)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Latham, Michael (Mellon)

Price, Willam (Rugby)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Lawson, Nigel

Prior, Rt Hon James

Young, Sir G. (Eallng, Acton)

Leadbltter, Ted

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Younger, Hon George

Le Merchant, Spencer

Radice, Giles

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Raison, Timothy

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Lloyd, Ian

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Mr. James Tinn and

Lofthouse, Geoffrey Luard, Evan

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Mr. Joseph Dean.

1666

1667

NOES

Allaun, Frank

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Ashton, Joe

Heller, Eric S.

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Henderson, Douglas

Robinson, Geoffrey

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Beith, A. J.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Rooker, J. W.

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Bidwell, Sydney

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Ryman, John

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Sedgemore, Brian

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Selby, Harry

Buchan, Norman

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Kelley, Richard

Silverman, Julius

Carmichael, Neil

Kilfedder, James

Skinner, Dennis

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Spearing, Nigel

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Kinnock, Neil

Sprigs, Leslie

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Lamond, James

Steel, Rt Hon David

Corbett, Robin

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Stoddart, David

Crawford, Douglas

Litterick, Tom

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Cryer, Bob

Loyden, Eddie

Torney, Tom

Dewar, Donald

MacCormlck, lain

Tuck, Raphael

Edge, Geoff

Madden, Max

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Watklnson, John

English, Michael

Mikardo,Ian

Watt, Hamish

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Welsh, Andrew

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Morton, George

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Newens, Stanley

Wigley, Dafydd

Femyhough, Rt Hon E.

Orbach, Maurice

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Flannery, Martin

Pardoe, John

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Parry, Robert

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Freud, Clement

Pavitt, Laurie

George Bruce

Penhaligon, David

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Mr. Stan Thorne and

Grocott, Bruce

Richardson, Miss Jo

Mr. John Lee.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, Mr Speaker shall put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Robert Sheldon relating to Civil and Defence Estimates as soon as the House has entered upon the business of Supply.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1979–80 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
    Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that it will have to be taken after I have put these Questions, because the House has just decided that I must put them forthwith.

    Division No. 14]

    AYES

    [5.48 p.m.

    Allaun, Frank

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Anderson, Donald

    Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Meacher, Michael

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Ford, Ben

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Ashley, Jack

    Forrester, John

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Ashton, Joe

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

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Bagler, Gordon A. T.

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Moonman, Eric

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Morgan, Geraint

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Bean, R. E.

    Ginsburg, David

    Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Golding, John

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

    Gourlay, Harry

    Morton, George

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Graham, Ted

    Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronad King

    Bradley, Tom

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

    Ogden, Eric

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Palmer, Arthur

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Home Robertson, John

    Park, George

    Buchanan, Richard

    Horam, John

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

    Pendry, Tom

    Campbell, Ian

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Perry, Ernest

    Cant, R. B.

    Huckfleld, Les

    Phlpps, Dr Colin

    Carter, Ray

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Price, Willam (Rugby)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Hunter, Adam

    Radice, Giles

    Cartwrlght, John

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Janner, Greville

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Coleman, Donald

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Concannon, Rt Hon John

    John, Brynmor

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Cowans, Harry

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Cryer, Bob

    Judd, Frank

    Silkln, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whlteh)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Lamborn, Harry

    Skinner, Dennis

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

    Leadbltter, Ted

    Snape, Peter

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Litterick, Tom

    Spearing, Nigel

    Deakins, Eric

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Stallard, A. W.

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Luard, Evan

    Stoddart, David

    Dempsey, James

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Stott, Roger

    Dewar, Donald

    Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dlckson

    Strang, Gavin

    Doig, Peter

    McElhone, Frank

    Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

    Dormand, J. D.

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Summersklll, Hon Dr Shirley

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    McKay, Alan (Penistone)

    Taylor, Mrs Arm (Bolton W)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Dunnet, Jack

    Maclennan, Robert

    Tierney, Sydney

    Eadle, Alex

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Tinn, James

    Ennals, Rt Hon David

    Madden, Max

    Tomlinson, John

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Mahon, Simon

    Urwln, T. W.

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Mailalieu, J. P. W.

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Ewlng, Harry (Stirling)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Walnwrlght, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Motion made, and Question,
    That a sum, not exceeding £17,470,584,900, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1980, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 55.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]
    put forthwith, pursuant to Order this day:—
    Mr. Newens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be no point of order.
    The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 52.

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    White, James (Pollok)

    Woof, Robert

    Ward, Michael

    Whltlock, William

    Wrlgglesworth, Ian

    Watkins, David

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Watklnson, John

    Williams, Rt Hon Allan (Swansea W)

    Weetch, Ken

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Weitzman, David

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    Mr. Alf Bates and

    Wellbeloved, James

    Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrlngton)

    Mr. Thomas Cox

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Woodall, Alec

    NOES

    Freud, Clement

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    George Bruce

    Rooker, J. W.

    Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Beith, A. J.

    Grocott, Bruce

    Ryman, John

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Selby, Harry

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Buchan, Norman

    Kelley, Richard

    Sprlggs, Leslie

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Kilfedder, James

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Carmichael, Neil

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Klnnock, Neil

    Tomney, Frank

    Corbett, Robin

    Lamond, James

    Tuck, Raphael

    Edge, Geofl

    Loyden, Eddie

    Wainwrlght, Richard (Colne V)

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    English, Michael

    Pardoe, John

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Evans, Fred (Cserphiliy)

    Parry, Robert

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

    Penhallgon, David

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Flannery, Martin

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Mr. Ron Thomas and

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Mr. John Lee

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES (CLASS XIII A), 1979–80 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
    Motion made, and Question,
    That a sum, not exceeding £2,726,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for House of Commons: Admini-

    Division No. 15]

    AYES

    [6.03 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Allaun, Frank

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

    Anderson, Donald

    Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Davidson, Arthur

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Ashley, Jack

    Davles, Rt Hon Denzil

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Ashton, Joe

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Home Robertson, John

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Horam, John

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Deakins, Eric

    Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Bates, Alt

    Dempsey, James

    Huckfield, Les

    Bean, R. E.

    Dewar, Donald

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Dolg, Peter

    Hunter, Adam

    Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

    Dormand, J. D.

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Janner, Grevllle

    Boardman, H.

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Dunnet, Jack

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

    Eadia, Alex

    John, Brynmor

    Bradley, Tom

    Ennals, Rt Hon David

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Ewlng, Harry (Stirling)

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Buchanan, Richard

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Judd, Frank

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Campbell, Ian

    Ford, Ben

    Kelley, Richard

    Cant, R. B.

    Forrester, John

    Lamborn, Harry

    Carmichael, Nell

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

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Carter, Ray

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Luard, Evan

    Cartwright, John

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

    Cohen, Stanley

    Golding, John

    McElhone, Frank

    Coleman, Donald

    Gould, Bryan

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Concannon, Rt Hon John

    Gourlay, Harry

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    MacKenzle, Rt Hon Gregor

    Cowans, Harry

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Grocott, Bruce

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    stration for the year ending on 31st March 1980, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 59.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]
    put forthwith, pursuant to Order this day:—
    The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 57.

    Madden, Max

    Phipps, Dr Colin

    Tierney, Sydney

    Magee, Bryan

    Price, C. (Lewlsham W)

    Tilley, John

    Mahon, Simon

    Price, Willam (Rugby)

    Tomlinson, John

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Radice, Giles

    Urwin, T. W.

    Marks, Kenneth

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Wainwrlght, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Meacher, Michael

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Ward, Michael

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Rowlands, Ted

    Watkins, David

    Millan, Rt Hon Robert

    Sandelson, Neville

    Watklnson, John

    Moonman, Eric

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Weetch, Ken

    Morgan, Geraint

    Selby, Harry

    Weitzman, David

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wellbeloved, James

    Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    White, James (Pollok)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Whitlock, William

    Morton, George

    Silkln, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

    Snape, Peter

    Williams, Rt Hon Allan (Swansea W)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Spearing, Nigel

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Stallard, A. W.

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Woodall, Alec

    Ogden, Eric

    Stoddart, David

    Woof, Robert

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Stott, Roger

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Strang, Gavin

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

    Park, George

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Mr. Ted Graham and

    Pendry, Tom

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Mr. James Tinn.

    Perry, Ernest

    NOES

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Rooker, J. W.

    Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Beith, A. J.

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Ryman, John

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    Bldwell, Sydney

    Kerr, Russell

    Skinner, Dennis

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Kifedder, James

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

    Kinnock, Neil

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Lamond, James

    Tuck, Raphael

    Corbett, Robin

    Litterick, Tom

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

    Crawford, Douglas

    Loyden, Eddie

    Welsh, Andrew

    Cryer, Bob

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Edge, Geoff

    Newens, Stanley

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    Pardoe, John

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    English, Michael

    Parry, Robert

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Penhallgon, David

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Flannery, Martin

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Mr. John Lee and

    Freud, Clement

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Mr. Ron Thomas.

    George Bruce

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    CIVIL SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1978–79
    Motion made, and Question,
    That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,860,115,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of pay-

    Division No. 16]

    AYES

    [6.19 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Allaun, Frank

    Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

    Campbell, Ian

    Anderson, Donald

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Cant, R. B.

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Boardman, H.

    Carter, Ray

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Cartwright, John

    Ashley, Jack

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Ashton, Joe

    Boyden James (Bish Auck)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

    Bradley, Tom

    Coleman, Donald

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Concannon, Rt Hon John

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Conlan, Bernard

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Bates, Alt

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Craigen, Jim (Maryhlll)

    Buchanan, Richard

    Bean, R. E.

    ment during the year ending on 31st March 1979 for expenditure on Civil Services, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 53.— [Mr. Robert Sheldon.]
    put forthwith, pursuant to Order this day,:—
    The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 46.

    Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

    John, Brynmor

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Cryer, Bob

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Davidson, Arthur

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Judd, Frank

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Rowlands, Ted

    Deakins, Eric

    Lamborn, Harry

    Sandelson, Neville

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Dempsey, James

    Litterick, Tom

    Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

    Dewar, Donald

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Doig, Peter

    Loyden, Eddie

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Dormand, J. D.

    Luard, Evan

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Sllkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

    Skinner, Dennis

    Dunnet, Jack

    McElhone, Frank

    Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

    Eadie, Alex

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Snape, Peter

    Ennals, Rt Hon David

    McKay, Alan (Penistone)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Stallard, A. W.

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Faulds, Andrew

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Stoddart, David

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Madden, Max

    Stott, Roger

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Magee, Bryan

    Strang, Gavin

    Ford, Ben

    Mahon, Simon

    Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

    Forman, Nigel

    Mallalleu, J. P. W.

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Forrester, John

    Marks, Kenneth

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

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

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Tierney, Sydney

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Tilley, John

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Tinn, James

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Tomlinson, John

    Golding, John

    Meacner, Michael

    Urwln, T. W.

    Gould, Bryan

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Graham, Ted

    Moonman, Eric

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Morgan, Geralnt

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Ward, Michael

    Grocott, Bruce

    Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

    Watkins, David

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Watkinson, John

    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

    Morton, George

    Weetch, Ken

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

    Weltzman, David

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Wellbeloved, James

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    White, James (Pollok)

    Hayman, Mrs Helene

    Oakes, Gordon

    Whitlock, William

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Home Robertson, John

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Williams, Rt Hon Allan (Swansea W,)

    Horam, John

    Palmer, Arthur

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

    Park, George

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

    Huckfield, Les

    Pendry, Tom

    Woodall, Alec

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Perry, Ernest

    Woof, Robert

    Hunter, Adam

    Phipps, Dr Colin

    Wrigglesworlh, ian

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Price, C. (Lewlsham W)

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Janner, Greville

    Price, Willam (Rugby)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Radice, Giles

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Mrs. Ann Taylor and Mr. John Eva

    NOES

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Selby, Harry

    Beiih, A. J.

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Kelley, Richard

    Sprlggs, Leslie

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Kilfedder, James

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Thome, Stan (Preston South)

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

    Kinnock, Neil

    Torney, Tom

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Lamond, James

    Tuck, Raphael

    Corbett, Robin

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

    Edge, Geoff

    Newens, Stanley

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    English, Michael

    Pardoe, John

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Evans, Fred (Caerphily)

    Parry, Robert

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

    Penhallgon, David

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Flannery, Martin

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Freud, Clement

    Rooker, J. W.

    Mr. John Lee and Mr. Ron Thomas.

    George Bruce

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Ryman, John

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1979–80 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
    Motion made, and Question,
    That a sum, not exceeding £3,155,066,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards

    Division No. 17

    AYES

    [6.35 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

    Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

    Alison, Michael

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

    Huckfleld, Les

    Anderson, Donald

    Davidson, Arthur

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

    Hunter, Adam

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hurd, Douglas

    Ashley, Jack

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Deakins, Eric

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    James, David

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Dempsey, James

    Janner, Greville

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Dewar, Donald

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

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

    Bates, Alf

    Doig, Peter

    Jessel, Toby

    Bean, R. E.

    Dormand, J. D.

    John, Brynmor

    Bell Ronald

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Bennett Dr Reginald (Fareham)

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

    Benyon, W.

    Dulfy, A. E. P.

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Dunlop, John

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Bitten, John

    Dunnet, Jack

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Durant, Tony

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

    Eadie, Alex

    Jopling, Michael

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Ennals, Rt Hon David

    Judd, FranK

    Boardman, H.

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Kaufman. Rt Hon Gerald

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Eyre, Reginald

    Kilfedder, James

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Kimball, Marcus

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Faulds, Andrew

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

    Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

    Knignt, Mrs Jill

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Knox, David

    Bradford, Rev Robert

    Ford, Ben

    Lamborn, Harry

    Bradley, Tom

    Forrester, John

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'I'd)

    Lawson, Nigel

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Fox, Marcus

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Brittan, Leon

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

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Brotherton, Michael

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Fry, Peter

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Gardiner, George (Relgate)

    Luard, Evan

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Luce, Richard

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    George Bruce

    Lyons Edward (Bradford W)

    Buchanan, Richard

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Buck, Antony

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    McCrindle, Robert

    Budgen, Nick

    Golding, John

    McElhone, Frank

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Goodhew, Victor

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Gould, Bryan

    MacGregor, John

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Gourlay, Harry

    McKay, Alan (Penistone)

    Campbell, Ian

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

    Cant, R. B.

    Graham, Ted

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Carlisle, Mark

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Carter, Ray

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Gray, Hamish

    Mcmillian, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Cartwright, John

    Grieve, Percy

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Grist, Ian

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Channon, Paul

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Madel, David

    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Magee, Bryan

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifte)

    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

    Mahon Simon

    Clegg, Walter

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Cohen, Stanley

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Coleman, Donald

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Concannon, Rt Hon John

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Marten, Nell

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hicks, Robert

    Mather, Carol

    Costain, A. P.

    Hodgson, Robin

    Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

    Cowans, Harry

    Holland, Philip

    Mawby, Ray

    Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

    Home Robertson, John

    Maxwell-?Hyslop, Robin

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Horam, John

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Crouch, David

    Hordern, Peter

    Meacher, Michael

    Crowder, F. P.

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    defraying the charges for Defence Services for the year ending on 31st March 1980, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 54.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]
    put forthwith, pursuant to Order this day: —
    The House divided: Ayes 342, Noes

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Rhodes James, R.

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Mills, Peter

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Tierney, Sydney

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

    Tilley, John

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Tinn, James

    Molyneaux, James

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Tomlinson, John

    Monro, Hector

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Trotter, Neville

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Morgan, Geraint

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

    Rowlands, Ted

    Viggers, Peter

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenthawe)

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Wakeham, John

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Wall, Patrick

    Morrison, Rt Hon Charles (Devizes)

    Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

    Ward, Michael

    Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Watkins, David

    Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

    Watkinson, John

    Mudd, David

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Shepherd, Colin

    Weetch, Ken

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Shersby, Michael

    Weltzman, David

    Neave, Airey

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Wellbeloved, James

    Nott, John

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Wells, John

    Oakes, Gordon

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Sims, Roger

    White, James (Pollok)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

    Whitlock, William

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Snap, Peter

    Whitney, Raymond

    Page, Richard (Workington)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Palmer, Arthur

    Spence, John

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Park, George

    Sprigs, Leslie

    Williams, Rt Hon Allan (Swansea W)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Stallard, A. W.

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Pendry, Tom

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    Perry, Ernest

    Stanley, John

    Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Phipps, Dr Colin

    Stoddart, David

    Woodall, Alec

    Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

    Stott, Roger

    Woof, Robert

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Price, Willam (Rugby)

    Strang, Gavin

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

    Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Younger, Hon George

    Radlce, Giles

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Raison, Timothy

    Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Tebblt, Norman

    Mr. Jim Marshall and

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mr. Thomas Cox.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    NOES

    Ashton, Joe

    Grocott, Bruce

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Hayman, Mrs Helena

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Beith, A. J.

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Buchan, Norman

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Ryman, John

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Carmichael, Nell

    Kelley, Richard

    Selby, Harry

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Kilroy-Sllk, Robert

    Short, Mrs Ren&ax00E9;e (Wolv NE)

    Corbett, Robin

    Kinnock, Nell

    Silverman, Julius

    Cryer, Bob

    Lamond, James

    Skinner, Dennis

    Edge, Geoff

    Lee, John

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    Litterick, Tom

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    English, Michael

    Madden, Max

    Torney, Tom

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Tuck, Raphael

    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Wainwright, Richard (Coins V)

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Moonman, Eric

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Morton, George..,.'

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Flannery, Martin

    Newens, Stanley

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)

    Pardoe, John

    Freud, Clement

    Parry, Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Mr. Stan Thorne and

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Penhallgon, David

    Mr. Frank Allaun.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1978–79
    Motion made, and Question,
    That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £248,547,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of pay-

    Division No. 0001

    AYES

    [6.51 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

    Hunter, Adam

    Anderson, Donald

    Davidson, Arthur

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Ashley, Jack

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    James, David

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Deakins, Eric

    Janner, Greville

    Awdry, Daniel

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Dempsey, James

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

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Dewar, Donald

    Jessel, Toby

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

    Dodsworlh, Geoffrey

    John, Brynmor

    Bates, Alf

    Doig, Peter

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Bean, R. E.

    Dormand, J. D.

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Bell, Ronald

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

    Benyon, W.

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Dunlop, John

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Bitten, John

    Dunnet, Jack

    Jopling, Michael

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Durant, Tony

    Judd, Frank

    Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

    Eadie, Alex

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Ennals, Rt Hon David

    Kilfedder, James

    Boardman, H.

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Eyre, Reginald

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Faulds, Andrew

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Knox, David

    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

    Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

    Lamborn, Harry

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Bradford, Rev Robert

    Ford, Ben

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Bradley, Tom

    Forrester, John

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C I'd)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Fox, Marcus

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Britlan, Leon

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

    Luard, Evan

    Brotherton, Michael

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Fry, Peter

    Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    McCrindle, Robert

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    George Bruce

    McElhone, Frank

    Buchanan, Richard

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

    MacGregor, John

    Buck, Antony

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    McKay, Alan (Penistone)

    Budgen, Nick

    Golding, John

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maclennan, Robert

    Burden, F. A.

    Gould, Bryan

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworlh)

    Gourlay, Harry

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Campbell, Ian

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    McNalr-Wilson, p. (New Forest)

    Cant, R. B.

    Grant, John (Islington C)

    Madel, David

    Carlisle, Mark

    Gray, Hamish

    Magee, Bryan

    Carter, Ray

    Grieve, Percy

    Mahon, Simon

    Cartwright, John

    Grist, Ian

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Channon, Paul

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Clegg, Walter

    Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Marten, Neil

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Cohen, Stanley

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Mather, Carol

    Coleman, Donald

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

    Concannon, Rt Hon John

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Mawby, Ray

    Conlan, Bernard

    Heseltine, Michael

    Maxwell-Hysiop, Robin

    Cope, John

    Hicks, Robert

    Meacher, Michael

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hodgson, Robin

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Costain, A. P.

    Holland, Philip

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Cowans, Harry

    Home Robertson, John

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Horam, John

    Mills, Peter

    Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

    Hordern, Peter

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

    Howell, David (Gulldford)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

    Molyneaux, James

    Crowder, F. P.

    Huckfield, Les

    Monro, Hector

    Crowthar, Stan (Rotherham)

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    ment during the year ending on 31st March 1979 for expenditure on Defence Services, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 52. —[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]
    put forthwith, pursuant to Order this day:—
    The House divided: Ayes 335, Noes 69.

    Moonman, Eric

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Morgan, Geralnt

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Tierney, Sydney

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Tinn, James

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Tomlinson, John

    Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Trotter, Neville

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Morrison, Rt Hon Charles (Oevlzes)

    Sainsbury, Tim

    Viggers, Peter

    Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

    Sandelson, Neville

    Wakeham, John

    Mudd, David

    Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Wall, Patrick

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

    Ward, Michael

    Neave, Airey

    Sheldon, Rl Hon Robert

    Watkins, David

    Nott, John

    Shepherd, Colin

    Watkinson, John

    Oakes, Gordon

    Shersby, Michael

    Weatherill, Bernard

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Weetch, Ken

    Onslow, Cranley

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Weltzman, David

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Sims, Roger

    Wells, John

    Palmer, Arthur

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Park, George

    Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

    White, James (Pollok)

    Parker, John

    Snape, Peter

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Spearing, Nigel

    Whitlock, William

    Pattle, Geoffrey

    Spence, John

    Whitney, Raymond

    Pendry, Tom

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Perry, Ernest

    Sproat, lain

    Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Stallard, A. W.

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Phipps, Dr Colin

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

    Stanley, John

    Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Price, Willam (Rugby)

    Stoddart, David

    Woodall, Alec

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Stott, Roger

    Woof, Robert

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Wrigglesworlh, Ian

    Radice, Giles

    Strang, Gavin

    Young, David (Bolton E)

    Raison, Timothy

    Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

    Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    Younger, Hon George

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Rhodes James, R.

    Tebblt, Norman

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mr. Ted Graham and

    Roberts. Albert (Normanton)

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Mr. Joseph Dean.

    NOES

    Allaun, Frank

    Garrett, John (Norwich S)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Ashton, Joe

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Penhallgon, David

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Price, C. (Lewisham W)

    Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

    Hayman, Mrs Helena

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Beith, A. J.

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Buchan, Norman

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Ryman, John

    Carmichael, Neil

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Selby, Harry

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

    Kelley, Richard

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Skinner, Dennis

    Corbett, Robin

    Kinnock, Nell

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Cryer, Bob

    Lamond, James

    Torney, Tom

    Edge, Geoff

    Lee, John

    Tuck, Raphael

    Ellis, John (Brigg &amp Scun)

    Litterick, Tom

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

    English, Michael

    Loyden, Eddie

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

    Mlkardo, Ian

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Morton, George

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    Newens, Stanley

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Flannery, Martin

    Pardoe, John

    Mr. Stan Thorne and

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Parry, Robert

    Mr. Ron Thomas.

    Freud. Clement

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker: Bill to be brought in—
    Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take a point of order when I have completed the business, following the long-established tradition under which it must be completed.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions relating to Civil Estimates, 1979–80 (Vote on Account), Civil Estimates (Class XIII A), 1979–80 (Vote on Account), Civil Supplementary Estimates, 1978–79, Defence Estimates, 1979–80 (Vote on Account), Defence Supplementary Estimates 1978–79, by the

    1685
    Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Denzil Davies, and Mr. Robert Sheldon.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND
    Mr Robert Sheldon accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1978 and 1979; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 43.]
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During our debate on the Estimates I specifically asked you about a Government reply to our discussion. You were kind enough to say that should the Minister wish to catch your eye you would give him the chance so to do. I am sure you will agree that many important points were raised in that debate, but unfortunately the Opposition Chief Whip blundered into the House and broke up our democratic discussion.
    I seek clarification. The general convention of the House, which you, Mr. Speaker, enforce with rigorous fairness, is that before a closure motion is accepted two hours of debate must elapse. In those circumstances, with no Government reply to our debate, it was disturbing for us to discover that less than one and a quarter hours had been allowed for the debate.
    Is it possible for you to allow the Minister to reply now, since you indicated that you would give him an opportunity to do so, and I understand that he was most willing to reply? If it is not possible for him to reply, that demonstrates the urgency and importance of the point we made earlier that these Estimates should not be adopted without proper scrutiny.
    I shall be pleased if you will give the Minister an opportunity to address the House, because he no doubt has a great deal of valuable information to divulge.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I intend to take serious, not frivolous, points of order. Today is a Supply Day. By long tradition, those who table a motion for debate are entitled to their debate.
    1686
    There is no stipulation as to the time that should be allowed before Mr. Speaker accepts a closure motion. I had already twice declined to accept such a motion before eventually accepting it.
    Mr. Madden: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: There can be nothing further to raise on that point of order. I have answered it. I had given the matter consideration, and it was completely within my discretion whether to accept the closure.
    Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is confusing to the public at large if, on a Supply Day, when the business is determined by the Opposition, the motion that precedes it is in the name of the Prime Minister. We here understand why that should be so—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come quickly to his point of order. I do not want to hear debating points now.
    Mr. English: Will you in future, as a matter of order, Mr. Speaker, rule that on Supply Days, which are the responsibility of the Opposition, all motions tabled should be in the name of the Opposition?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) knows that I can make no such ruling.
    Mr. Thorne: Further to not the last point of order, but the one that preceded it—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That has been dealt with, and I gave my reply. It was within my complete discretion to decide when to accept the closure.
    Mr. Thorne: On a fresh point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises from your comments about the right of the Opposition to debate Supply motions. I recall that when Labour Members were anxious to debate the Employment Protection Bill on a Friday and to ensure that it became law, they were prevented from doing so because closure motions, designed to speed up the progress of the Bill, were not accepted by the Chair because insufficient time had elapsed in debate in accordance with the established practice. We have

    1687
    broken with that practice today, and I regret—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been here long enough to know that different considerations apply on a Friday when Private Members' business is being discussed.
    Mr. Rooker: On a fresh point of order, Mr. Speaker. You referred earlier to the long traditions of the House. It is those traditions that the public outside do not understand. They are some aspects that some of us have been sent here to change. How can I, as I am unable, I understand, to raise a debate under Standing Order No. 9 on proceedings that have taken place here today, explain to the public why things happened today as they have done? How do we explain why £23 billion of public expenditure went through on the nod—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is renewing the earlier argument. How he explains all that to the public is a matter for him, but no doubt if he is as eloquent outside as he is in the House, he will do it well.
    Mr. Rooker: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it was within your control to allow us to have a debate—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. He is not allowed to challenge my ruling except by Notice of Motion on the Order Paper. He is entitled to pursue that course if he wishes to say that I accepted the closure too soon.
    Mr. Newens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not the business that we have been discussing today come under the heading of Supply, and is it not therefore legitimate business for the House to discuss? We have been discussing the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which should take precedence over any other business. If that is so, and as we have put forward a number of arguments on the motion, are we not entitled at some point to a ministerial reply? We understand that it is not possible now for us to have a reply from a Minister, and I personally feel that that is unfortunate. We realise that we must accept your ruling—
    Several Hon. Members: Is this a point of order?
    Mr. Cryer: This is the rock of the constitution.
    Mr. Newens: May we be guided on the question when we shall have the opportunity of eceiving a Government reply, and also when we may make our position clear about the Consolidated Fund Bill and other issues?
    Mrs. Wise: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister does not get an opportunity to reply, might not the conclusion be drawn that he is reluctant to speak? Would not that be unfortunate for us all?
    Mr. Madden: May I raise a fresh point of order, Mr. Speaker? I am sorry to detain you and the House, but I have been endeavouring to raise this point of order since the business motion was put. Unfortunately, at that time there was considerable competition for your eye. On Tuesday, at column 1,225, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) raised a point of order about the picketing of this House by the National Union of Journalists. At that time on Tuesday—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should have raised that matter this afternoon.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must abide by some rules in this House. As I was saying, the hon. Gentleman knows that it was open to him this afternoon at the end of Question Time, when somebody else raised a point of order, to deal with the matter. I do not want to deal with the subject of picketing now, because it has nothing to do with this issue.
    Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was on my feet, together with the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), seeking to raise a point of order at the time you called him. We then entered upon the debate on the motion and subsequently took the votes on the Estimates. I sought to raise my point of order at that time, but did not catch your eye.
    Mr. Speaker: I must rule that it is not possible to raise that matter now.
    Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are in great need of your assistance, and of the help of both the

    1689
    Leader of the House and the Shadow Leader. I am glad to see that one of them is present.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would the hon. Gentleman mind saying which one?
    Mr. English: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is so recent a Shadow that I have not necessarily noticed his presence. This is a serious point. Nobody wishes to deprive the Opposition of their due democratic right to discuss matters on a Supply Day. However, we wish to abolish a system under which the Opposition, who do not wish to have £23 billion of public expenditure discussed, have to pray in aid the Prime Minister to move a motion.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. English: Furthermore—

    Division No. 19]

    AYES

    [7.24 p.m.

    Lamond, James

    Selby, Harry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Ron Thomas and

    Mr. John Lee.

    NOES

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Cryer, Bob

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Ashley, Jack

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Ashton, Joe

    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Dempsey, James

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Awdry, Daniel

    Dewar, Donald

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Bates, Alf

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Hayman, Mrs Helene

    Beith, A. J.

    Doig, Peter

    Henderson, Douglas

    Bell, Ronald

    Dormand, J. D.

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Drayson, Burnaby

    Hodgson, Robin

    Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Holland, Philip

    Benyon, W.

    Dunnet, Jack

    Home Robertson, John

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Durant, Tony

    Horam, John

    Biggs-Davison, John

    English, Michael

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

    Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

    Boardman, H.

    Evans, loan (Aberdare)

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Ford, Ben

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Forrester, John

    Hunter, Adam

    Bradford, Rev Robert

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Bradley, Tom

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'I'd)

    Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

    Brittan, Leon

    Fox, Marcus

    James, David

    Brotherton, Michael

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

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

    Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Freud, Clement

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Fry, Peter

    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

    Buck, Antony

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Budgen, Nick

    George Bruce

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Burden, F. A.

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Kelley, Richard

    Campbell, Ian

    Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

    Kilfedder, James

    Cant, R. B.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Kimball, Marcus

    Coleman, Donald

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Graham, Ted

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Costain, A. P.

    Grant Anthony (Harrow C)

    Lamborn, Harry

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Grimond, Rt Hon J.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

    Grist, Ian

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Caigen, Jim (Maryhill)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Loyden, Eddie

    Cronin, John

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I stand up. I believe that the time has come to stop points of order because, clearly, there have been frivolous points of order.[HON. MEMBERS:"No."] In my judgment—and if the House does not like it, it knows what to do—that has been the case.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: As he is on his feet, I shall hear Mr. John Lee.
    Mr. John Lee: I beg to move, That Strangers do withdraw.
    Notice being taken that Strangers were present, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 115 (Withdrawal of Strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That Strangers do withdraw: —
    The House divided: Ayes 2, Noes 223.

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Pardoe, John

    Stanley, John

    McCrindle, Robert

    Parker, John

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    McElhone, Frank

    Pendry, Tom

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Penhallgon, David

    Swain, Thomas

    MacGregor, John

    Perry, Ernest

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Tebbit, Norman

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Madel, David

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Tomlinson, John

    Magee, Bryan

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Torney, Tom

    Mahon, Simon

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Trotter, Neville

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Tuck, Raphael

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Mather, Carol

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Viggers, Peter

    Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Wakeham, John

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Ward, Michael

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Weetch, Ken

    Mills, Peter

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Weltzman, David

    Mlscampbell, Norman

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Molyneauv, James

    Salnsbury, Tim

    White, James (Pollok)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Moore, John (Croydon C)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Whitlock, William

    Morgan, Geraint

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

    Mudd, David

    Shepherd, Colin

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Neave, Airey

    Shersby, Michael

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Noble, Mike

    Sims, Roger

    Woof, Robert

    Nott, John

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Skinner, Dennis

    Onslow, Cranley

    Spence, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

    Mr. James Tinn and

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Stallard, A. W.

    Mr. Peter Snape

    Palmer, Arthur

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Question accordingly negatived

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you have rightly said, the Opposition have their rights on a Supply Day, which might have been frustrated by the Government having lost control of a large section of their own party. In these circumstances, may I ask the Leader of the House to tell the House what he intends to do to give us time next week to debate this subject, which is vital to hundreds of thousands of workers, and because of the issues of freedom involved, which are of importance for every citizen in this country?
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The question that the hon. Gentleman has put to me is, of course, important and I should like time to consider it. I have had only a moment for consideration, and I must tell him that I do not accept the prelude to his remarks, because my hon. Friends who raised the matter earlier—it was on the Order Paper —dealt with it as they were entitled.
    Moreover, it was not a debate in which only my hon. Friends participated. Several hon. Members from the Opposition Benches also took part. Therefore, the matter being on the Order Paper as it was, I cannot accept that my hon. Friends were not entitled to do what the rules of the House permit them to do. Whether I would desire them to do it is another question altogether, but hon. Members on the Opposition Benches must learn that Members in all parts of the House have their rights according to the normal orders of the House of Commons. If any of my hon. Friends had been out of order, I am sure that you would have called them to order, Mr. Speaker, but that was not the case.
    I say in response to the hon. Gentleman that I shall certainly consider what he has said, but I suggest that the House should now proceed with the matter on the Order Paper. I fully accept that it would be impossible to reach a proper conclusion by 10 o'clock, and therefore I suggest that we initiate the debate now. I agree that we cannot reach a conclusion, but we can have
    1694
    further discussions on how we might proceed later.
    I believe that it would be quite wrong to respond to the hon. Gentleman's request by saying that I accept it immediately. I am entitled to consider it. In the meantime I suggest that the House should proceed with the matter on the Order Paper. I fully accept that we cannot reach a conclusion on the matter, but I should like time to consider the proposition that the hon. Gentleman put to me a minute or two ago. That was the first I had heard of it, and I think it perfectly reasonable that I should have time for consideration.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. All of us in this place are anxious that the House should not be brought into disrepute. The Lord President has suggested that the debate be initiated this evening. If the House is in fact allowed to do so, the Opposition would be happy to follow that course provided that we have an opportunity this evening not only to debate the matter but to vote in the Division Lobbies.
    Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question whether a vote shall take place after a certain period is not for the hon. Gentleman to decide. It is a question for Mr. Speaker to decide. I suggest to the House—I fully understand that the feelings of many hon. Members, after the discussions that we have had, have run high on these questions—that it is proper that the House should take some time to consider the matter. In my opinion—others may disagree—on a matter of this significance, if we started the debate now it would be improper to reach a conclusion at 10 o'clock. That is my view. I believe that there should be a longer period than that. But I do not see any difficulty in starting the debate now, and I am quite prepared to consider the matter put to me by the hon. Gentleman.
    I am not prepared, at a moment's notice, to give a response without considering the other implications, such as those for the business for next week. We have all these matters to consider, and I am asked by the hon. Gentleman to give an off-the-cuff reply at a minute's notice. I do not think that that is a reasonable way for the House to proceed.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition are perfectly happy to follow the suggestion of the Lord President that the debate be initiated, provided that we can have some indication from the Chair that we shall be able to reach a conclusion this evening. If you find it impossible, Mr. Speaker, to give such an indication, we must ask the Lord President for a full day's debate next week on this vital issue.
    Mr. Foot: I am prepared to consider representations from the Opposition. What I am suggesting is that we should start the debate now and that we should continue with the business on the Order Paper as it was agreed. Indeed, the order of business today was agreed by the Opposition as well as by us. I suggest that we continue on that basis. We would then have time to consider what should be the next step. I certainly agree that it would not be proper to try to bring the debate to a close at 10 o'clock, and that also, in my view, has to be taken into account. I think that we should have time to consider these matters and, in order that we may do so, I think it right that the debate should now be initiated.
    Mr. David Steel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. is not the difficulty in which the House finds itself that there are two groups of hon. Members with quite legitimate interests to pursue, namely, those who feel that it was wrong to pass such large sums of money on the nod and who have legitimately used the procedures of the House to express their displeasure, and, on the other hand, those on the Opposition Benches who have thereby lost their right to a full Supply Day?
    I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it really cannot make sense to follow the course suggested by the Leader of the House, namely, that we should begin a debate not knowing when it might end. Surely, that is quite unreasonable. Nor, with respect to the Shadow Leader of the House, do I think that it can make sense to have a decision of this magnitude after a debate of two and a quarter hours, when plainly there are hon. Members—I am not one of them—who represent constituencies vitally affected by these matters. I am certainly hoping to catch your eye. Mr. Speaker, and I know that
    1696
    I have certain privileges in that respect, but I am seeking to protect the rights of those who have constituency interests, of whom, as I say, I am not one.
    I do not think that either course is sensible. I feel that we must accept that, sadly, we have lost today and a lesson must be learnt for the future as to the procedure of tabling these motions on a day such as this, and the Opposition should be given their Supply Day next week.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If we begin the debate now, I am not prepared to tell the House at this point whether I would take the closure. It would not be the first time that it had been taken after a two-hour debate. It will be three-quarters of an hour short of an emergency debate it we begin now. I do not wish to commit myself at all. I shall see what happens in the debate.
    Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: Further to that point of order and to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. We cannot start this important debate. The Leader of the House has had three hours to know exactly what is going on. It has gone on before his very eyes—or, if it has not, the reason is that he was not present in the Chamber. The Government have run away from a debate on sanctions. They have deliberately done so because they were afraid that they would not win it, and this despite the fact that it is an extremely important subject which affects almost every constituency.
    I demand from the Lord President a Supply Day to discuss the subject. Otherwise, he must understand that all co-operation through the usual channels will be withdrawn.
    Mr. Foot: I shall certainly take into account the submissions that have been made both by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, but I am entitled to have some time to consider those submissions. The first submission that we have had from the Opposition—that we should adjourn the debate and not proceed—was put by the hon. Member for Chelmsford.
    The Opposition agreed to the procedures under which we were operating

    1697
    today, and therefore the right hon. Lady is not entitled to make such charges at all. What we are seeking to discover is how best we can use the time and how best we can consider also the business for next week.
    I am entitled, and the Government are entitled, to consider what is the business for next week before we accept representations of that character. If the Opposition want to have discussions through the usual channels about the business, of course we are prepared to do so, but we are not prepared to accept it under the threat that, if we do not accept a particular demand, all the facilities or arrangements through the usual channels are to be broken off. Let us have discussions through the usual channels. That, of course, is exactly what I was proposing.
    I suggest that this debate could have been started. I feel that we could have proceeded in that way, but if the House does not want to proceed with the debate this evening, we shall have to consider what is to be done in the future. I have to take into account the representations of other Members, and I have to take into account the position of the House. I am not prepared to agree to a proposition put by the Opposition in these circumstances in this way without considering the full implications.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Before things get any worse, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it would be possible to suspend the sitting for a brief period—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—so that the suggestion put forward by the Lord President can be followed up?
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Of course, that is possible in the interests of the House, if the House generally wishes to reach a conclusion on this matter. I see no harm whatever in suspending the sitting until 8 o'clock to allow discussions to take place.
    Mr. Michael English: Before you do that, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: So be it. The sitting will be suspended until 8 o'clock.
    7.48 p.m.
    Sitting suspended.
    8.0 p.m.
    On resuming—
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Lord President.
    Mr. Foot: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement to the House on how I think we should proceed. In the light of all that has occurred I do not believe that it will be possible for us properly to debate the subject of sanctions, as was originally intended. I do not believe that we should seek to proceed with that debate tonight, and in a moment or two I shall move the Adjournment of the House.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the Lord President that there is an order to be dealt with before the Adjournment of the House can be moved.
    Mr. Foot: I was not prepared to lose that order, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping that we could deal with that first before turning to the Adjournment of the House. I was explaining that I do not think that we should proceed with the subject tabled by the Opposition for debate. Tomorrow morning there will be a meeting of the usual channels to discuss future business, and I shall make a fresh Business Statement to the House at 11 o'clock tomorrow.
    We have to consider the whole position of the business that is before the House, and I think that we are fully entitled to take that into account. I believe that what I have suggested is the best way for the House to deal with the whole situation. I hope that what I have proposed will be accepted.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I say that that very reasonable suggestion from the Lord President is completely acceptable to the Opposition? May I just add one personal caveat? Any connection between these extraordinary events today and my appointment as Shadow Leader of the House is purely coincidental.
    Mr. English rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) really want to keep it going?
    Mr. English: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Back Benchers have their rights, too. Indeed, they are a majority in the House. When the two usual channels meet tomorrow for their discussion I ask that they consider the reports of bipartisan Select Committees that have been unanimous in saying that this procedure should be altered.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that the House is now prepared to move on to the next item of business.

    AGRICULTURE
    Ordered,
    That the Common Agricultural Policy (Agricultural Produce) (Protection of Community Arrangements) (Amendment) Order 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 1660), a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]

    PRESTON (COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
    8.4 p.m.
    Mr. Stan Thorne rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait a moment. I ask other hon. Members to withdraw or to resume their seats.
    Mr. Thorne: Every cloud—[Interruption]—has a silver lining. It seems that I now have a little more time at my disposal. If that is not so, at least there are others who may care to take part in the debate within the period that is available to us. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that at the bottom of the desk there is a tin of red paint which you might care to have removed.
    On 23rd March 1977 a decision was taken by Preston council to submit a compulsory purchase order in respect of a number of properties in an area where there was considerable unfit housing. The council wished to clear the area and to make alternative arrangements for the land that would become available. The Preston (Plungington No. 2) compulsory purchase order 1977 was the subject of a public inquiry on 9th May 1978, about
    1700
    six months ago. I understand that the North-West economic planning council is about 12 months behind schedule in dealing with decisions on compulsory purchase orders, and I recognise that within the Department of the Environment there is a backlog of similar requests by local authorities in areas where there is a need to demolish—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I have a brief statement to make to the House.
    I have advised the Serjeant at Arms that he should put the person concerned in the recent incident in the custody of the official authorities.
    Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What does that mean exactly? I deeply resent that interruption of our proceedings from the Gallery. When you say"in custody ", do we have the power to put the miscreant in the Tower for a while? What exactly is proposed?
    Mr. Speaker: The course that I have followed is to instruct the Serjeant at Arms to hand the person over to the police for action to be taken, because a tin was thrown that could well have injured somebody in the Chamber.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: I am grateful for that reply, Mr. Speaker. However, do we not have powers to be rather more strict than perhaps the police will be? The act was self-evident, and I think that from the House we should take very stern measures against such action.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but it is over 100 years since the House ordered anybody to the Tower. I think that we would be well advised to leave the matter in the hands of the police authority.
    Mr. Thorne: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that we are concerned with a compulsory purchase order in respect of a number of properties broadly within an area of about two miles in the Springfield Street-Aqueduct Street area. In that area there are land, workshops and 67 properties, of which properties 58 are unfit houses. Some of the unfit houses are in a deplorable condition.
    Unhappily, the application for the compulsory purchase order is made

    1701
    against a background that must be considered by the Department of the Environment. The Department will not be unfamiliar with the present housing situation in Preston generally. There are about 2,500 people in the Preston area who are waiting for suitable housing accommodation. The bulk of those people need accommodation urgently. Many of them are medical cases.
    The local housing authority's policy is to build 100 new houses per year. The Preston council is Conservative-controlled. The policy of building 100 houses a year is its way of dealing with the situation that I have described. Therefore, some of the families in need of housing will, clearly, never be rehoused in good accommodation. Some of their children will be married and 25 years older before they are likely to obtain reasonable housing accommodation.
    One of the unfortunate aspects of this compulsory purchase order application—it is not uncommon in a number of towns and cities—is that the local authority has indicated its complete unwillingness to rehouse the occupants of some of the unfit dwellings pending the Department's decision on the compulsory purchase order. It implies that it cannot rehouse them until that decision has been made. The Minister knows better than I do that there is no rule in any housing or other Act which prevents a local authority from rehousing tenants in unfit accommodation in advance of a decision on a compulsory purchase order. Unhappily, the Minister has no direct power to intervene, but my plea is that Preston borough council should attempt to rehouse some of the worst cases involved in this compulsory purchase order area.
    The Minister will recall that I was fortunate enough to have an Adjournment debate some months ago on the question of housing. In that debate we were considering the problems of multi-storey dwellings in the Avenham and other areas of Preston. The Minister offered to intervene in the sense of being willing, should the local authority make a request to him, to give advice on changing that situation.
    I should be interested to hear whether the local authority has taken up that offer of advice. It seems to me, particularly when I read statements made by
    1702
    the chairman of the local housing committee and observations which are made in council when housing is discussed, that advice is something from which the Preston housing authority could well benefit.
    There has been—and the Minister probably has a similar problem in his constituency—a growth in my correspondence over the last 12 months containing pleas for me to intervene and assist constituents with rehousing. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will no doubt recall from your experience that it is not the job of a Member of Parliament to seek to intervene in housing allocations or lettings in his constituency. That is a job for local councillors. In regard to this compulsory purchase order, one of the local councillors, Joe Ward, has been extremely active in pressing for rehousing for some tenants.
    I want to give the Minister every opportunity to reply in depth, and I do not want to go outside the terms of this Adjournment debate, but there is often —and it is true in this instance— a correlation between deprivation which arises from unfit housing and other forms of social deprivation. So it is with some of the families involved. As I said earlier, they are a mixture of elderly couples. Some of them have been owner-occupiers but, in the main, as might be expected, it is landlord-tenant accommodation with which I am concerned.
    In recent years these people have found it extremely difficult to attempt to redecorate and to deal with water seeping through roofs and so on. Some of them, it must be admitted, have given up the fight. They have virtually closed the upper parts of their houses and are living almost entirely downstairs. I went into one house which did not have a stick of furniture upstairs. The walls were black because of damp and moss was evident near the windows. Therefore, one could understand why they had deserted their upper storey accommodation.
    The Hewitson family in Springfield Street has for some years been seeking rehousing because of its deplorable conditions, but without success, and that applies to other families in the street.
    I recall seeing three houses in that area which were to be demolished, but they are now propped up by beams of wood at

    1703
    the rear. That poor families—there is such a family, with small children—have to live in those conditions is a tremendous reflection on how the Preston housing authority is prepared to ignore their plight. It is a deplorable situation. The whale area is a blot on the Preston landscape and a disgrace to any housing authority.
    I should be glad to learn from the Minister that he has high expectations of giving an early decision. Certainly that would considerably help the worst cases in this area. Some indication of an early decision would help me to apply further pressure on the Preston council to make advance lettings to a number of these families. I should welcome the Minister's remarks in this regard.
    8.17 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I welcome the opportunity of responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne). Apart from the occasions on which he has raised the problem of housing in his constituency in Adjournment debates, he has been a constant pressure group on my Department. I welcome his interest in and deep concern about the conditions in which some of his constituents live.
    My hon. Friend, in the reasonable way in which he put his argument, put his finger on a quandary which confronts us all. The problem of compulsory purchase orders is difficult and vital. It is a question, on the one hand, of the onus on both central and local government to minimise hardship to residents in areas affected by the prospect of compulsory purchase and, on the other hand, of the rights of individual citizens, some as property owners objecting to compulsory purchase orders, to have recourse to the proper legal procedures. That can sometimes take a considerable time.
    My hon. Friend will understand that I must avoid touching on the merits or demerits of the order to which he has referred. To do so would open the door to counter representations which would have to be considered, and that could mean further delay.
    My hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the welfare of residents in the clearance area which include Springfield Street and Aqueduct Street—the
    1704
    Preston (Plungington No. 2) compulsory purchase order 1977. In correspondence with my hon. Friend I have explained some of the reasons for the time taken in dealing with this order. I very much regret the backlog of compulsory purchase orders, because I appreciate that we are dealing not with paper statistics, and so on, but with living conditions and with people who are in desperate need of new and decent homes. Therefore, I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern.
    It is a fact that in the North-West region the number of applications for CPOs has grown tremendously. From January to November 1977, 166 decisions were made for the North-West region, and in the same period this year that number increased to 308. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that the staff have been under great pressure indeed.
    This CPO was submitted to my Department for confirmation on 15th September 1977. I can well understand that those affected are wondering why it has taken so long to come to a decision. It is the local council's intention that these homes be demolished and the land redeveloped for light industry. Objections were made to the inclusion of various homes in the order and a public local inquiry had to be held. That took place on 9th May 1978. The inspector's report has been received and the order is now with the Department's North-West regional office in the queue awaiting consideration. My hon. Friend has already been advised that a decision should be issued early next year. I shall have something to say about that later.
    I accept that such a long delay between public inquiry and decision is, to say the least, unsatisfactory. The delay stems from the large threefold increase in the number of orders which have been submitted by local authorities in the North-West during the last three years. Last year the regional office received 45 per cent. of all the slum clearance orders submitted in England. This has overstretched staff resources, which are already limited by manpower constraints. Nevertheless, despite there being until recently no increase in staff—as I indicated in the numbers that I gave—special efforts have secured an 85 per cent. increase in the output of decisions so far this year compared with the same period last year. I

    1705
    am glad to say that steps have now been taken to allocate more staff to this work. but with new orders coming in all the time it will take some time to clear the accumulated backlog.
    As my hon. Friend pointed out, Preston is an old industrial town with a high proportion of worn out and substandard terraced houses built to high densities in streets of grid-iron pattern. The local councils policy in relation to this obsolescent housing has over the past 25 years been one of phased clearance, starting with the worst areas first. One problem in achieving this aim has been the shortage of available land. The clearance of areas of older housing has been necessary, not only to eliminate unfit dwellings but to produce in-town sites which can be redeveloped for new housing accommodation.
    Following the Housing Act 1974 and my Department's recommendation that wholesale clearance was no longer the only desirable method of dealing with substandard housing, the borough council decided on a thorough and detailed review of the houses contained in its present slum clearance programme. Many houses originally classed as suitable for some slum clearance at some future date have, in the context of present-day policies, been found to be capable of improvement. In Preston more than 2,500 houses have been removed from the clearance programme. The new emphasis on improvement is a major task.
    I know my hon. Friend understands the new system that we have introduced, which gives us much more detailed information of the strategy of the local housing authority. The housing investment programme submitted under that new policy, covering the period from April 1979 to March 1983, envisages the improvement of 3,000 substandard houses during that period. In the case of council-owned property, this is to be achieved by direct action by the borough council and local housing associations, and in the private sector by making available improvement grants and local authority loans, supplemented by mortgages under the building societies support scheme.
    The 3,000 dwellings represented half the present substandard stock, having allowed for the clearance of about 1,000 homes which cannot be saved. I wish the
    1706
    borough council well in its efforts. There are, of course, still areas of older housing stock where clearance will be the only satisfactory form of action. Urban renewal is a gradual process—the improvement of some houses, the selective clearance and replacement of those beyond the pale. The borough council's submitted housing strategy recognises the need for an increase in the overall dwelling stock to accommodate demand from residents of clearance areas, as well as other needs such as overcrowding, the housing waiting list, and the anticipated increase in population.
    The council's building programme, supplemented by housing association activity, is intended to cope with this demand. Altogether, 850 council houses are expected to be completed in the next five years, and housing associations are expected to add a further 900 dwellings. Additionally, the Central Lancashire new town development corporation will be building to meet local needs as well as the needs of the incoming population.
    I turn to action in the Plungington area. The local council's main priority for urban renewal is the Plungington area, where it is fortunate in having the assistance of the Central Lancashire new town development corporation. The borough is working in partnership with the development corporation urban renewal team. A study has commenced of the whole area, involving some 2,500 properties, with a view to assessing the correct approach. This partnership is to be applauded. The development corporation's help includes making staff available, financial assistance towards improvements and the provision of new dwellings on cleared sites in and around improvement areas.
    Action in the Plungington area is to consist largely of improvement. One general improvement area has already been declared, and the borough council hopes to declare further areas—covering as many as 1,000 dwellings—in the near future.
    I can understand my hon. Friend's concern for the plight of residents occupying houses which the council wishes to clear. The hardship of those living in the CPO area is well understood by me. The responsibility for alleviating this rests with the borough council. Local authorities have been advised in circulars that they should do everything possible to assist

    1707
    residents during what is often a disturbing change in their pattern of living. They should encourage owners to carry out essential repairs or modest improvements needed to make conditions more tolerable. In the case of tenanted properties, there is no reason why the local authority should not acquire the properties and undertake the work themselves.
    It is open to owner-occupiers to serve a blight notice requiring the local authority to acquire their property in advance of the decision on an order. But local authorities should themselves do everything in their power to counteract the effects of blight, although blight always presents considerable difficulties for everybody concerned. They should intensify the provision of housekeeping services such as street cleaning, refuse collection, adequate rodent control and general maintenance of the surroundings.
    I have not had any representations from councils or, indeed, from residents about living conditions in the area. If the local authority requests that priority be given to this order because there is evidence that people are suffering such severe hardship, I shall be prepared to consider taking it out of turn so that a decision on the order can be brought forward.
    With that in mind I shall read carefully what my hon. Friend has said tonight. If necessary I shall get in touch with him, and certainly I shall be in contact again with my officers in the regional office. I have no doubt that the Preston borough council will take note of what my hon. Friend has said and, indeed. of my reply to this debate.
    8.29 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I do not think that the House should be allowed to adjourn this evening until it has had the opportunity, which the Opposition have denied it, of debating the subject of sanctions, which have—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Is the hon. Member proposing to address the House on the subject which is before it at present?
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I am addressing the House on the motion for the Adjournment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member mean the motion which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) or another motion? Is the hon. Member raising another subject?
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Yes, I am raising the subject of sanctions, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to page 285 of"Erskine May ", where it is clearly set out that the Chair has on many occasions
    "deprecated the introduction of such subjects in cases where due notice has not been given to the Minister concerned ".
    That happened in Sessions 1963–64 and 1970–71, amongst others.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my understanding was that what we were debating was a motion to adjourn the proceedings for today, and that on a motion for the Adjournment it was possible to raise any subject. Therefore, it is permissible now, particularly as we still have one and a half hours of the normal allotted time that is given to the House for the subject of debate today, to raise the subject of sanctions, as in fact it was earlier intended to be raised by the Leader of the Opposition on the motion for the Adjournment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. In what I have already said, I have indicated that it is in order, but it is an abuse of the practice of the House on occasions such as this to address the House when a Minister has not been advised and is not present.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: There is a Minister present, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will feel inclined to reply to the debate is, of course, a matter for him. I briefly mentioned to him that I would be raising the subject, but I accept that I did not give him what would normally be termed a proper or reasonable notice or advice, nor do I expect that he would reply to the debate. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will honour us with his presence during the debate, so that particular aspect of the regulations—if one can call them such —is satisfied.
    Perhaps I may now continue, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that we have

    1709
    before the House an important subject—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I have already explained to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) that a can of paint has been thrown from the Public Gallery. The paint has considerably damaged the carpet on the Floor of the Chamber, the upholstery and various other items of the furnishings. In order to avoid the damage being permanent, it is necessary to have the carpet cleaned whilst the paint is still wet. Therefore, I propose to suspend the sitting until 9.45 p.m. to enable the repairs to be carried out.
    8.33 p.m.
    Sitting suspended.
    9.45 p.m.
    On resuming—

    PAY POLICY
    Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: It is instructive that there are far more Members on the Government Benches for this important debate on sanctions than there are on the Opposition Benches. Tonight we have witnessed the Tory Opposition in high dudgeon, in fact, in hysteria about this policy, yet not one hon. Member from the Conservative Party is here to continue the debate as we wanted to earlier and as we intend to do now.
    The Tories ran away from their own debate just as they ran away from a substantive motion. This is an extremely important issue for every constituency in the country and, indeed, for every worker in the country and it needs to be debated fully and openly in the House.
    I have been a critic of the sanctions policy for a long time. In fact, it was I who first inveigled the Government into admitting the existence of the so-called black list. I have never accepted sanctions as an appropriate part of the Government's economic strategy and I believe that Parliament would never have given the Government discretionary powers under the Industry Act or the Export Credit Guarantee provisions had it known how they would be used.
    Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that not only is
    1710
    there no Member from the Conservative Opposition present; there is no one from the minority Opposition parties, either, to discuss this important issue?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. It is not for me to comment on who is present. This is an additional Adjournment debate.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is correct. Given the amount of hysteria that has been generated here tonight I do not think that the Opposition are taking this matter seriously enough. Not one of them has been prepared to wait until the comparatively early hour of 9.45 p.m. in the hope of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I do not believe that Parliament would have given discretionary powers to the Government had it known that they were likely to be used in a way that was unintended and unexpected. Had it known that the Government would use the powers in this arbitrary and unjust fashion, discriminating not against the companies but against the workers of those companies in reality, it would never have approved them.
    It is strange that although the Government have made a great deal of their industrial strategy to create and protect jobs and their economic strategy to bring down inflation, and have also introduced a whole variety of temporary employment measures to assist and sustain employment in areas such as Merseyside. they should use discretionary powers in an arbitrary and unjust manner to jeopardise the jobs already in existence.
    It is clearly possible that it temporary employment subsidy is withdrawn from a firm, if a firm is refused export credit guarantees or a variety of Government assistance under the Industry Act, it will have a serious impact on employment within that company. That would have been the case with Otis Elevator Company in Kirkby in my constituency, which last year settled above the 10 per cent. pay guideline—at 10ç5 per cent.—at the same time applying for temporary employment subsidy for 250 workmen. Had the Government carried out their threat to withhold temporary employment subsidy from Otis Elevator it would have led to the loss of 200 jobs in an area of excessively high unemployment. We have

    1711
    enough serious unemployment as it is. especially in Merseyside and Kirkby.
    Only today I heard that Kirkby's workers' co-operative is likely to be wound up, with the loss not of 260 jobs but of all 700 jobs, because the prospective private enterprise company which might have taken it over backed out of the operation. We cannot afford to lose those jobs. We cannot afford to lose the many hundreds and thousands of jobs that we have lost in the past few months in Kirkby and Merseyside, and then have a further threat to other jobs in the region as the result of the application of the Government's discretionary sanctions.
    Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the policy of sanctions against certain firms being indefensible, there are only a limited number of firms against which they can be applied? They cannot be applied against British Oxygen, because doing so would bring the whole of British industry to a standstill. Does my hon. Friend also agree that there are hundreds of provincial NUJ members on very low rates of pay who are on strike, and it would be indefensible if the Government attempted to use sanctions against newspapers?
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It would be totally indefensible and immoral if the Government were to use sanctions against farm workers. Everyone accepts that farm workers are at poverty level and on a minimum wage. They are asking for an increase well beyond the 5 per cent. If they get that increase, will the Government take discretionary action against farmers? If they do, the farmers, being subsidised, will no longer be able to continue in production. That would be indefensible.
    My hon. Friend takes me on to one of the most unjust elements of the sanctions policy. It hits the weak; it hits those in the public sector, who will be discriminated against more effectively and thoroughly than those in the private sector. The only policy that the Government have for upholding their non-statutory pay policy—it is not an incomes policy—is the imposition of sanctions. Even in the private sector, in the main, with the exception of firms like Ford,
    1712
    sanctions can be applied only to the weak private sector companies, the companies which need Government assistance. whether through loans and subsidies under the Industry Act or through temporary employment subsidy, in order to maintain employment.
    It is the weaker companies and the weaker workers in the companies within the private sector who are susceptible to the imposition of Government sanctions. Workers in companies which are strong, viable and profitable, and which do not rely upon Government orders, contracts or assistance, escape unscathed. That, clearly, is both unfair and intolerable. There can be no defence for a policy which in practice discriminates against the weak and allows the strong to get away with it. It is an efficient punishment not of the companies but of the workers in those companies.
    Mr. Stanley Bidwell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed sanctions against Ford are farcical, because Ford has a lot of leeway to make up in fulfilling its orders? How far can the sanctions be effective? It is local authorities which normally order motor vehicles.
    The Government's decision may be a blessing in disguise for Ford and may enable the company to fulfil its obligations in the international market. We have here all the ramifications of a multinational company's operations. The Granada, Ford's biggest and most successful car, is produced in Germany, with much Turkish labour; the Cortina is produced in Belgium; and the Ford small cars are produced in Dagenham and are in great demand in this country. Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole idea of threatening sanctions takes on a farcical character?
    Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like an assurance that the closed circuit television screens and the alarm systems in the House are working properly. I am disturbed that there are no Tories in the Chamber.
    Mr. Reginald Eyre: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by saying that there are no Tories here?
    Mr. Thomas: It may be that the television screens or the alarm bells are not working and that that is why the Tories have decided not to turn up for this very important debate on sanctions.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The only matter that concerns me is when our clock reaches half-past Ten.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) is right. There is a farcical facet to the whole concept of sanctions and to the way in which they have been imposed. It is possible that sanctions imposed on a company could lead to discrimination against the workers and might result in redundancies. That might have no relation to the fact that the workers in that company were extremely efficient, productive and hard working.
    Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: No. I must get on. Many of my hon. Friends who have been here throughout the day wish to speak. The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in.
    There is another aspect to Government policy. Until relatively recently it was shrouded in the mists of secrecy. We did not know what companies were being subjected to sanctions. I learnt only from newspapers that a company called High-Speed Turnings, in Kirkby, was being subjected to sanctions. We do not know to what sanctions these firms were or are being subjected, or for what reasons, or for what length of time. We also do not know what impact those sanctions were having on the companies concerned.
    All my hon. Friends in the Chamber who represent constituencies in which there is a great direct industrial interest want and need to know what impact the Government's policy is having on our constituents and the employment prospects in our constituencies.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not want to spend the half hour that remains of our valuable time dealing with points of order and refusals to give way. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) knows that he must
    1714
    resume his seat if another hon. Member does not give way.
    Mr. Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the custom of the House for hon. Members to give way to interventions, whether from one side of the House or the other?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is related directly to the temperament of the individual addressing the House and the time of day at which he is addressing it.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I must make clear to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) that I am not in the mood to give way to interventions from Conservative Members. We can do without flippant interventions. This is a serious subject.
    I should make it clear that, although I am highly critical of the Government's use of sanctions in this context, I am not opposed to the use of sanctions as a matter of general policy. I should like to see the greater use of sanctions for more positive and constructive things. I should like to see sanctions imposed against companies that do not employ their proper quota of disabled workers. There are many such cases, particularly in Government Departments.
    The same applies to those companies which practise some form, open or subtle, of racial or sexual discrimination, or involve themselves in some way in exploiting their workers, either through low pay or inadequate working conditions.
    It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Evans.]
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The sanctions policy is the use of other means of implementing the Government's so-called incomes policy. We do not have an incomes policy. What we have is a pay policy which is unfair, unjust, and riddled with anomalies—anomalies which mean that it is always the same people who are subjected to pay restraint and the imposition of sanctions of one kind or another. Equally, it is always the same people, whether stockbrokers, lawyers, estate agents or the self-employed, who escape

    1715
    entirely from the imposition of the pay policy. That is true now, it was true last year and the year before, and it has been true under every Administration's implementation of so-called pay restraint policies since 1947. It is always my constituents and those of my hon. Friend who are asked to put their noses to the grindstone and make sacrifices.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that most professional people often charge fees that are percentages of prices, which means that they have a direct interest in increasing inflation? Estate agency is one example, because whenever house prices rise, estate agents increase their commission.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I agree. Not only do they increase their commission in that way, not only are such people enabled to determine and announce their own pay increases; they are also—this happens throughout management in industry, commerce and the service industries—able to escape the implications and consequences of any pay policy by giving themselves all kinds of non-monetary perks. It is clearly indefensible that a pay policy riddled with such anomalies and injustices —a pay policy such as that which we now have—should be implemented by the Government.
    I am very much in favour of an incomes policy, but it must be a Socialist incomes policy—one that takes account of incomes and wealth, and in which the resources of society are distributed fairly and equitably according to rational criteria. We do not have such a policy. Without the implementation of such a policy, I cannot in any circumstances give my support to other policies which, in reality, amount to no more than a restraint upon the income of the working class.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Does my hon. Friend agree that an incomes policy would, perhaps, be a little more tolerable if it also embraced profits and prices and contained an element of control over investment?
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: That is precisely the point that I was making. I am deeply in favour of an incomes policy, so long as it takes account of all forms of income, earned and unearned, and other wealth. As a prerequisite for the implementation
    1716
    of that policy we must have a Socialist society that is seen to be fair and just as between all sections of the community. That is clearly and demonstrably not the case at the moment, and it has not been the case in the past.
    It is totally unreasonable continually to ask the same people to be making the same sacrifices when they see the obscene wealth displayed in other parts of the country by certain individuals and while we have such enormous disparities of income and wealth in our society. While such conditions exist there cannot be any justification for, or defence of, any kind of pay restraint.
    Mr. Eyre rose—
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I hope that the importance of this debate has been, first, to show that we on the Labour Benches have lived up to our responsibilities to our constituents and have aired this subject in the absence of the official Opposition and all of their cohorts in the minority parties. We on these Benches, at least, want this issue out in the open and debated. We are making our position clear to the Government. We do not support their pay policy. We do not support the imposition of penal sanctions upon workers to effect that policy.
    I hope that the Government will take note of the debate that we on the Government Benches have conducted tonight and when they come back next week will have had second thoughts, and will have forgotten all about the imposition of penal sanctions.
    10.5 pm
    Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: All those terrible things that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) has just mentioned were committed by a Labour Government—a Government whom the. hon. Gentleman has hitherto supported. One hopes that he will have the courage of his convictions and henceforth will vote against his Government because, clearly, they are guilty of doing something which is not worthy of the support of anyone who sincerely believes in the objectives of the Labour Government as I understand them. The Government's policies are contrary to the will of the Labour movement as a whole. It amazes us to find the Government pursuing policies that are at variance with

    1717
    the views of a large proportion of their movement.
    This is the time when one would expect members of the Labour Party, and especially members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, to stand up and make their voices heard at every possible opportunity to vote against the policies of their Government.
    Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman says that he and his party are opposed to sanctions. Does he remember the most horrific and terrible sanctions ever imposed? It was called the Industrial Relations Act, under which the entire trade union movement was subjected to the power of the courts, with a new chairman specially put there to penalise the unions. Was not that the most terrible sanction of all? How can the hon. Gentleman pretend to be against sanctions when he applauded that monstrous sanction that his party imposed?
    Mr. Stanbrook: I do not think that that was the most terrible sanction of all, because if there is one great evil against which we in this country have to fight and contend with all the time it is irresponsible trade unionism. Say what one may about the Industrial Relations Act, it was an attempt to cure that evil. That evil was so well recognised that even the Labour Government of 1966 to 1970 attempted to cure it in their own way by producing their White Paper"In Place of Strife ".
    It so happens that the ideas that formed the basis of that document received support in the country as a whole but were opposed by the trade union movement, and especially by the irresponsible section of it. Unfortunately for the country, the Labour Government were unsuccessful in their attempt to cure that evil, and when the Conservative Government tried to cure it by their methods they, too, were unsuccessful.
    Mr. Eyre: I remind my hon. Friend that during that period of the Labour Government between 1966 and 1970, when proposals were brought forward by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) to deal with the trade unions, they included penalties such as sending trade unionists to prison. The penalties then
    1718
    proposed were far more severe than any that were introduced by the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Stanbrook: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. That is true. In some ways the proposals of the Labour Government were more draconian than those of the Conservative Government, so it cannot be said that this evil of irresponsible trade unions is not well recognised, even by members of the hon. Gentleman's own party. One of the greatest tragedies was that the Conservative Government's attempt to deal with the problem did not receive the support that it should have done from the then Labour Opposition.
    Mr. George Rodgers: What will a Conservative Government do if ever they are elected to office? Will they introduce the kind of legislation of which the hon. Member speaks so proudly?
    Mr. Stanbrook: I cannot speak for the actions of my Front Bench should it be in a position to make immediate proposals. I say only that the evil remains and must be dealt with. I hope that a future Conservative Government will deal with it, though perhaps not in the same way as the Conservative Government of 1970 to 1974. Perhaps they will adopt a more acceptable approach, with more consultation, and perhaps, best of all, based upon the proposals laid before Parliament by the Labour Government of 1966 to 1970.
    In some ways there was a great deal to be said for those proposals. It was a great shame that the Conservative Government did not take them up and introduce them, putting them through the House with the commendation of the right hon. Member for Blackburn and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) who were, after all, the godparents of those proposals.
    They were defeated by a section of the Labour Party, and now they are passing from the scene. One hopes, however, that the Labour Party will see reason as time passes and will not be taken over by its Left wing, and that it will never have control of the government of this country again. Until the country recognises this evil with acceptable and effective proposals which will deal with the monster of irresponsible trade unionism, it will never solve any of its problems.

    1719
    I revert, however, to the main subject of the debate, which concerns the sanctions policy of the Government against firms which do not comply with the Government's incomes policy. This is perhaps a subject of tremendous fundamental importance. The power granted to Ministers to act within the discretion allowed to them by Parliament is conferred by statute. Every statute giving a Minister power of this kind is devoted to a particular purpose. When a Minister exercises his discretion outside the objectives of the relevant statute, I believe that he is acting unlawfully.
    It cannot be said, can it, in this country which, thank God, is still free, that a Minister is entitled to act beyond the purposes, spirit and intention of Acts which give him the power to act within his discretion? It must be wrong, if an Act gives him power to grant or to withhold assistance for the purposes of export credits or industrial training, for him to act out of motives dissimilar to those contained in the legislation or outside the comprehension of Parliament when it enacted that legislation.
    Mr. Bidwell: If the trade union movement was the irresponsible creature that the hon. Member has sought to depict in his historic narrative, which is entirely faulty, there would be justification for the Government's policies. However, the hon. Member's narrative is totally wrong. The element of trade unionism which can be described as irresponsible is minuscule in proportion to the overall size of the movement in which a great number of workers, especially in skilled occupations, engage in responsible negotiations. I speak as a sponsored member of the Transport and General Workers Union which is involved in the current difficulties over Ford.
    The trade unionists there engaged in responsible negotiations against a background of the stupendous profits made by that company. That is why those men are getting up tight against the Government's attitude which does not accord with the realities of industrial life. If the hon. Member's portrayal of wild and wanton trade unionists were correct, there might be some need for the Government's actions. However, as the hon. Member is wrong, the Government's action is also wrong.
    Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Gentleman has missed the fact that I have passed from the topic of his remarks to the subject of this debate, namely, sanctions. The Labour Government are caught in a trap of their own making. They were faced by a monster in the form of irresponsible trade unionism. In attempting to appease that monster, they gave it the industrial and political power that it wanted. That Government put through this House legislation which would not have been enacted if that Government had represented the people and had fairly expressed the wishes of the people in regard to trade unions.
    The Labour Government have since created a situation in which the trade unions have a stranglehold over our economy. The result is that, whereas originally the trade unions were prepared to co-operate in return for these concessions, now they are not. Perhaps there was a vestige of the original trade union purpose of benefiting their members, but the trade union movement seems now to realise that an incomes policy such as that devised by the Labour Government is good neither for the country nor for trade unionists.
    The trade unions not only have a political and economic stranglehold on the country; they determine the life of the Labour Government. The sooner the execution takes place, the better. The whole nation is awaiting the opportunity to get rid of the Labour Government who have so dishonoured their early promises.
    I wish now to deal with the economic sanctions that the Labour Government seek to impose. I believe that the action that they have taken is unlawful. Their policy is riddled with inconsistencies. We are all waiting for the sanctions to be imposed on the TUC for its breaches of incomes policy. If the Government are determined to impose sanctions on Ford, they must in all justice impose similar sanctions on the TUC. The TUC receives at least £1 million from the Government in respect of training. Why should that figure not be cut off completely? It is a discretionary power in the hands of the Minister, who can decide whether or not to grant that money. Surely it is well established that action against the TUC should follow action taken against any individual company.

    1721
    This is a fundamental problem. Magna Carta, 763 years ago, first established that no man should be punished except for a breach of the law. If we apply that principle to current circumstances, we wonder what kind of breach of the law Ford has committed. There is no statute that says that Ford may not pay more than 5 per cent. Indeed, if the Labour Government were more honest they would have enacted such a statute, but they have not had the courage to do so. At least the Government headed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) displayed that courage.
    Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that just over 100 years ago the men of Dorset, the Tolpuddle martyrs, when attempting to organise trade unions in order to deal with the vicious attacks on them by their employers, were condemned and sent to penal colonies? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is thinking of returning to that stage in our history. He displayed in his speech a violent hostility to the trade union movement. Perhaps he will try to define the difference between irresponsible and responsible trade unionists.
    It appears that what the Conservative Party wants is a trade union movement that is weak and ineffective. It would call that a responsible trade union movement. The British trade union movement was built up out of sheer necessity and the conditions of the time in which it emerged, but the attitudes of those times have been inherited by the Conservative Party in our politics today. When he talks about the trade union movement, the hon. Gentleman should remember that in the recent past that movement has acted in a most responsible manner in assisting this country out of its economic difficulties. The trade unionists feel, and I feel with them, that it is about time they began to get some of the rewards for the sacrifices which they have made in the past.
    The hon. Gentleman has referred to sanctions. I wish to make clear that there is a sharp distinction between Labour Members' approach to sanctions and the approach of the Conservative Opposition. I cannot for a moment understand how a party that could contrive the Industrial Relations Act could say with any degree
    1722
    of honesty that it was opposed to sanctions, yet that is what we hear from it.
    Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what sort of policies would be introduced by a Conservative Government, if there should ever be one, to deal with the so-called irresponsible trade union movement? The House might learn something from this debate if he told us exactly what the position would be if—God forbid—the Opposition were ever to form the Government of the day.
    Mr. Stanbrook: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that most helpful intervention, but it is he who is living in the past. All those who talk in terms of the trade union movement as he does are still living in the past—he referred to the Tolpuddle martyrs—because it was the Conservative Party that established the trade unions on a legal footing and probably gave them more assistance in their formative stages than did any other party in this country.
    It is the Conservative Party that accepts that an institution whose membership is composed of individual workers is entitled to operate within the law in the interests of those members, and that institution is, indeed, given a special privileged position in our law. That is the position, and it certainly was the position up to the second world war.
    All those victories of the past having been won, one would have expected trade unions to continue in that function. Unfortunately, for historical reasons, they own the Labour Party. They created it, and they still pay for it. The result is that they think that they can call its tune. A further result has been that this Government, in their desire to preserve such power as they had, were prepared to condone tyranny and, indeed, to appease it by granting political power.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Stanbrook: I give way to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Eyre: Before my hon. Friend continues to reply in such good terms to the intervention of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), may I underline the significance of the demonstration of rebellion on the Government Back Benches which we witnessed this

    1723
    evening, when more than 30 hon. Members assembled to support the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who initiated this Adjournment debate?
    In view of the extreme terms of criticism which have been applied to Government policy tonight, is it not clear that the hon. Members who assembled this evening could not possibly support the Government on future occasions in any matter relating to sanctions or incomes policy? I ask my hon. Friend to recognise the great political significance of the protest and demonstration which have taken place in the Chamber tonight.
    Mr. Stanbrook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. We have a rather curious situation here, in which a large section of the Labour Party, so it appears, is opposed to the current policies of the Government whom it is supporting in power. I noted that some hon. Members now present voted against the defence Estimates this afternoon, which also seems rather significant. I have always thought that defence in this country was almost sacrosanct in political terms, it being recognised that the first duty of any nation is to defend itself adequately. It is clear that in the priorities adopted by some hon. Members the defence of our country comes a long way down the scale.
    It is obvious that the Opposition are determined to maintain the defence of the realm against its enemies internally and externally, but that Government Members do not regard defence as a high priority on public expenditure. On the contrary, they are willing to support a tyranny that has been created, fostered and strengthened in the country by their party. One therefore wonders whose interests such hon. Members have at heart, since they support such tyrannies and are, at the same time, willing to vote against the defence of our country.
    If there were a touchstone it would be that of defence Estimates. Government Members either believe that we should have adequate men and that they should have adequate arms and equipment—
    Mr. Tom Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member is not referring to the subject that is before the House.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The motion is for the Adjournment of the House. Nothing else is under consideration. 1 remind the hon. Member that the Minister has sat patiently throughout the whole of this thrilling debate and is anxious to have a few minutes in which he can reply. I hope that the hon. Member will bear that in mind.
    Mr. Stanbrook: It had crossed my mind that the Minister, with whom personally I have no quarrel, was going to make his contribution, like so many of his hon. Friends, by an intervention to my speech. He appears not to wish to do that. I wish to advance the constitutional progress of the House so I shall sit down if the Minister wishes to intervene.
    10.28 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I have listened with interest to the arguments. I could not understand whether hon. Members realised that the monster that they are facing is not the monster of trade unionism, as envisaged by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), or even the small monster of Toryism—or the nil monster of Toryism —that we have seen from the Opposition Front Bench. Crucial to what is happening now and to the prospects for the future is the rate of inflation. Nobody disputes that. The TUC does not dispute it.
    Our success in getting the inflation rate down from 27 per cent. in 1975 to 8 per cent. today is there for all to see. We have come through the worst recession experienced in the West in recent times. Output is rising. Investment has risen and is still rising. We can keep output growing. Living standards rose by 7 per cent. in the second quarter of the year and, certainly, it improved further in the third quarter. Unemployment has fallen by 100,000 in the year.
    But we cannot be complacent. Our unit wages costs in manufacturing have been rising faster than in any other major industrial country. If that continues we shall see inflation roar away again. Progressively we shall lose out to foreign competition. Inflation exports jobs and depresses home demand overall. Faced with inflation people save more but think twice about investing in industry.

    1725
    The present policy is designed to keep inflation within single figures, and if possible to reduce it further. Our policy is not a negative policy or restraint. Under our policy there is scope for genuine self-financing productivity beyond the 5 per cent. limit. We shall achieve sustained improvement in real incomes, as opposed to confetti money, only by sustained improvement in productivity deals.
    There is scope, particularly in large bargaining groups, to deal with differentials. Other pay anomalies can be sorted out on the"kitty"principle. There are special provisions to allow higher rises for the lower-paid. The opinion polls have
    1726
    shown that the majority of voters are solidly behind our approach to incomes policy.
    It is our duty to do what we can to persuade employers in the public and private sectors to reach settlements that are within the guidelines. We shall take such action which is within our legal discretion—
    The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

  JURORS (TRANSLATION FACILITIES)
  JURORS (TRANSLATION FACILITIES)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Children (Protection)
  Children (Protection)
  Non-violent Offenders (Prison Sentences)
  Non-violent Offenders (Prison Sentences)
  Gingerbread (Grant)
  Gingerbread (Grant)
  Metropolitan Police (Pensions and Commutations)
  Metropolitan Police (Pensions and Commutations)
  Traffic Wardens(Industrial Dispute)
  Traffic Wardens(Industrial Dispute)
  Mr. Richard Milhous Nixon (Police Protection)
  Mr. Richard Milhous Nixon (Police Protection)
  Pakistan Nationals (Registration of Minors)
  Pakistan Nationals (Registration of Minors)
  Missing Children
  Missing Children
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  MR. FAHAD MIHYI
  MR. FAHAD MIHYI
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Tea Room and Smoking Room (Newspapers)
  Tea Room and Smoking Room (Newspapers)
  MICROELECTRONICS
  MICROELECTRONICS
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  NEW YORK
  NEW YORK
  PRESIDENT BREZHNEV
  PRESIDENT BREZHNEV
  ROME
  ROME
  ISLE OF ELY
  ISLE OF ELY
  HOVE
  HOVE
  SCOTTISH TUC
  SCOTTISH TUC
  EUROPEAN MONETARY SYSTEM
  EUROPEAN MONETARY SYSTEM
  SIDCUP
  SIDCUP
  INVESTMENT POTENTIAL (REPORT)
  INVESTMENT POTENTIAL (REPORT)
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Short Brothers Ltd.
  Short Brothers Ltd.
  Electricity Service (Accounts)
  Electricity Service (Accounts)
  Security
  Security
  Social Democratic and Labour Party
  Social Democratic and Labour Party
  Site Meetings
  Site Meetings
  Political Situation
  Political Situation
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  International Sporting Events
  International Sporting Events
  Prisons (Smuggling)
  Prisons (Smuggling)
  Blind Persons (Free Travel)
  Blind Persons (Free Travel)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Community (Butter Sales)
  European Community (Butter Sales)
  Milk Products (Intervention Stocks)
  Milk Products (Intervention Stocks)
  Bread and Flour
  Bread and Flour
  Farm Buildings
  Farm Buildings
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Seed Potatoes (Certification)
  Seed Potatoes (Certification)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
DEFENCE
  HMS"Ark Royal "
  HMS"Ark Royal "
ENERGY
  North Sea Oil (Participation Agreement)
  North Sea Oil (Participation Agreement)
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  Brazil (Uranium Supply)
  Brazil (Uranium Supply)
EMPLOYMENT
  Textile Industry (Byssinosis)
  Textile Industry (Byssinosis)
  Journalists (Wage Claim)
  Journalists (Wage Claim)
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Chemical Projects (Construction Costs)
  Chemical Projects (Construction Costs)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. Louis Gelman
  Mr. Louis Gelman
INDUSTRY
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  Capital Returns
  Capital Returns
  Airbus (Equipment Changes)
  Airbus (Equipment Changes)
  Common Ownership (Grants and Loans)
  Common Ownership (Grants and Loans)
  South Africa (British Companies)
  South Africa (British Companies)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Pensions (War Widows)
  Pensions (War Widows)
  Dependent Relative Allowance
  Dependent Relative Allowance
  Capital Taxes Office, Shepherds Bush
  Capital Taxes Office, Shepherds Bush
  Travelling Expenses
  Travelling Expenses
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Ford Motor Company
  Ford Motor Company
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
  Value Added Tax Officials (Court Case)
  Value Added Tax Officials (Court Case)
  Inland Revenue Prosecution (Leeds Crown Court)
  Inland Revenue Prosecution (Leeds Crown Court)
  Petrochemical Companies (Investment Incentives)
  Petrochemical Companies (Investment Incentives)
TRADE
  Construction Exports
  Construction Exports
  South Africa (British Companies)
  South Africa (British Companies)
  Shipping Lanes (English Channel)
  Shipping Lanes (English Channel)
  Air Fares
  Air Fares
WALES
  Trees and Woodland
  Trees and Woodland
  Mid-Wales (Economic State)
  Mid-Wales (Economic State)
  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Tolls
  Tolls
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  National Theatre Museum
  National Theatre Museum
  Educational Maintenance Scheme
  Educational Maintenance Scheme
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Giro Cheques
  Giro Cheques
  Disabled Persons (Day Centres)
  Disabled Persons (Day Centres)
  Renal Dialysis and Transplantation
  Renal Dialysis and Transplantation
  Haemophilia
  Haemophilia
  Hospital Admissions
  Hospital Admissions
  Joint Financing
  Joint Financing
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Family Planning Association
  Family Planning Association
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus
  Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
SCOTLAND
  Trees and Woodland
  Trees and Woodland
  Tayside (Educational Expenditure)
  Tayside (Educational Expenditure)
  Tolls
  Tolls
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authority Representatives
  Local Authority Representatives
  Rates
  Rates
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Air Pollution Control (Grants)
  Air Pollution Control (Grants)
  Sports Council Grants
  Sports Council Grants
  Local Authorities (Housing)
  Local Authorities (Housing)
  Housing Co-operatives
  Housing Co-operatives
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Standing Committee on Exports
  Standing Committee on Exports
  Agrement Board (Bennett Report)
  Agrement Board (Bennett Report)
  Building Research Establishment
  Building Research Establishment
  Waveney District Council (Refund)
  Waveney District Council (Refund)
  National Theatre Museum
  National Theatre Museum
  Fair Rents (Mobile Homes)
  Fair Rents (Mobile Homes)
  " Rural Recovery: Strategy for Survival"(Report)
  " Rural Recovery: Strategy for Survival"(Report)
  Local Authorities (Housing Capital)
  Local Authorities (Housing Capital)
TRANSPORT
  Railways (Passenger Services and Freight Charges)
  Railways (Passenger Services and Freight Charges)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Railways (Labour Costs)
  Railways (Labour Costs)
  Road Construction (Contracts)
  Road Construction (Contracts)
  Railway Sidings
  Railway Sidings
  Railways (Electrification)
  Railways (Electrification)
  M5, Exminster (Site Restoration)
  M5, Exminster (Site Restoration)
  Dangerous Loads (Spillages)
  Dangerous Loads (Spillages)
  Road Schemes (Northwich)
  Road Schemes (Northwich)
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  M27 (Southampton Airport)
  M27 (Southampton Airport)

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

FLIGHT TRANSFERS: HEATHROW/GATWICK
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: 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 it remains their policy that as from 1st April next all flights to and from the Iberian peninsula based on Heathrow airport shall be transferred to Gatwick; and taking the figures for April to September 1978 how many passengers they estimate will be affected in the six-month period April to September 1979.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, in recent discussions with the Spanish and Portuguese Governments, we have indicated a readiness to be flexible on the timing and to engage in further talks about the transfer to Gatwick of scheduled services between London and the Iberian peninsula, with the objective of reaching a settlement acceptable to both sides by Easter 1979. It is estimated that about 900,000 passengers might travel on scheduled services between London and Spain and Portugal, their islands and Gibraltar during the period from April to September 1979.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I understood my noble friend correctly. Is she aware that my information, which I believe to be correct, was that it was not now the Government policy that this transfer should take place on 1st April? Might I ask her whether I am to understand from that Answer that if agreement is not reached between British Airways, Iberia, and TAP that they should move, they will then be allowed to remain at Heathrow?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the position at the moment is that the British Government have invited the Spanish and Portuguese Government representatives to come to see for themselves what are the facilities we are offering at Gatwick, and to assure them that Gatwick is not a second-class station compared with Heathrow. I understand that the Governments have now accepted that invitation and within the next few weeks will be coming over to meet us. We have also indicated that we are prepared to be flexible. If it is not possible for these flights to be transferred by April, as we had hoped when we did our radical reappraisal of the whole question of the flights from Heathrow, then we are willing to be flexible and perhaps even postpone it for six months. But, as I pointed out in my original Answer, if that happens it will mean that there will still be considerable chaos at Heathrow because something like 900,000 passengers use the airlines which at this moment we are trying to change over to Gatwick.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, while agreeing with my noble friend on the numbers, might I ask her whether she could answer the point as to what the position of British Airways will be?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it is still a matter for negotiation. The Government representatives are coming over within the next two or three weeks, and we would not want to make any firm suggestions as to what will be the attitude of any of the parties to the agreement until we have had these discussions and seen how flexible we can be about them and how far we can go to meet them.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Spanish Government have already taken retaliatory action in this matter against British Caledonian Airways? What steps; are the Government taking to mitigate the effects of that action on British Caledonian?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my understanding is that there was some action against British Caledonian operating the DC 10 aircraft through Madrid and Buenos Aires, but the permission to operate this service has now been reinstated.
Lord KILMARNOCK: My Lords, might I ask the Government whether they can give an assurance that there will be no repeat of the extreme discourtesy with which the Spanish national airlines were given notice to leave Heathrow? Further, do not the Government agree that this directly contravenes the intention they declared in paragraph 17 of the last White Paper on airports policy not to dictate to airlines, and to give the maximum scope for commercial decision?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I hope that the British Government and British Airways will always treat their colleagues from other countries with extreme courtesy. I hope that this will happen in the course of these negotiations.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, is it not inevitable that Gatwick will remain a second-class airport until such time as its rail communications with Victoria are substantially improved?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I do not accept that Gatwick is a second-class airport. The facilities at Gatwick are extremely good, and the chaos at Gatwick is nothing compared with the tremendous usage of Heathrow at the moment. It is all part of rationalisation to try to get more traffic through Gatwick. There are also plans afoot for improvements in the railway service. There are plans for improvement at Victoria, and for rebuilding the station at Gatwick with escalators for luggage and what-have-you.
Viscount MERSEY: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that during this last summer on several week-ends the conditions at Gatwick were completely chaotic? If you are going to put a lot more traffic there is not the situation going to be made much worse in the coming summer months?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I have no personal knowledge of any particularly chaotic conditions at Gatwick over the last few week-ends. The position is that Gatwick at the moment can cope with about twice the traffic that it is getting; and therefore it seems to us, bearing in mind the state of Heathrow at the present time, that it is sensible to
268
transfer and do some rationalisation of some of the airlines which can conveniently be allocated to Gatwick.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, do I not detect a flapping of the wings of the Maplin chickens coming home to roost?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am flapping no wings, from Maplin chickens or others.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government are satisfied that the single runway operated at Gatwick is going to be sufficient to cope with this enormously increased volume of traffic?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords, until the mid-1980s.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is very difficult to get into Gatwick Airport from the east? There used to be an entrance but for some reason it has been closed and is now reserved only for the staff. Is she aware that this is an enormous inconvenience to all the people who live in East Grinstead, Tunbridge Wells and many other towns in that direction?
Baroness STEDMAN: I was not aware of that particular problem, my Lords, but I shall certainly look into it.

CHARTER 77 SIGNATORIES: ILO DECISION
3.13 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what decision has been reached by the International Labour Office on the complaint submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions that the Czechoslovak Government has deprived signatories of Charter 77 of their occupations; what was the vote; and how did the British delegations vote.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the complaint made by the ICFTU against Czechoslovakia was that the treatment of signatories of Charter 77 was in breach of international obligations which Czechoslovakia had undertaken. The governing body of the ILO decided last month by 38 votes in favour to four against with nine abstentions that the Czechoslovakian Government's reply to the complaint was unsatisfactory and that the complaint and the reply should be published. The United Kingdom voted in favour of the decision.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming that decision, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that I raised this issue six months ago? Will the publications now be issued in this country and will they be available in our Library? Will the usual procedure of a commission to Czechoslovakia be followed? If so, who will be its members? Further, will this decision encourage the United States to rejoin the ILO?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: That is a comprehensive supplementary, my Lords. Publication will be in the ILO's official bulletin, of which the next issue is due out early in 1979. The material to be published is expected to include the text of Charter 77, a number of case histories of signatories, the Government's reply and the report of the three-man committee which considered the complaint well-founded. There is no other action that can be taken, except that of publication, which is an exposure to the world of the decision taken against the representations of Czechoslovakia.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the persecution of Charter 77 members goes far beyond depriving them of their jobs, as was clearly shown in a letter sent by the Charter 77 movement to the Prime Minister last week? It was a copy of an open letter sent to Dr. Kurt Waldheim in which it was made clear that members of Charter 77 had been deprived of their social benefits, of medical care, had been driven out of their homes and their children denied education. Is this not therefore a far more serious matter than many people understand? Is the mere publication of the complaint and the reply from ILO going nearly far enough?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, all the matters referred to by the noble Lord will be in the publications. The only action that can be taken is to publish and let the world judge for itself. This is felt to be quite an indictment of the situation arising in Czechoslovakia on the point the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord correct in saying no further action can be taken? Would it not be possible to refer the matter to the United Nations' Human Rights Commission under the 1503 procedure as a gross and persistent violation of human rights?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: That is another question, my Lords; I am dealing specifically with the ILO and the decision reached.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to reply to the other point I made? Will Her Majesty's Government encourage the United States to rejoin the ILO in view of this decision? May I ask him to say who voted—it was an extraordinary vote; 38 to four with nine abstentions—and how many of the countries of Eastern Europe voted?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: The four who voted against were all from Eastern Europe, my Lords. All the Western Governments voted in favour and of the developing countries about one-third voted in favour and two-thirds abstained. All the employer members of the governing body and all the worker members, except the Russians, voted in favour. As I indicated, the United Kingdom voted in favour of publication. The answer to my noble friend's question about the United States; that is a matter for the United States to decide. It is also a matter by which world opinion, as a result of the publication of the report, can influence the United States, but we cannot decide for the American Government; they must decide for themselves.

EXTENSION OF THE FRANCHISE
3.18 p.m.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now introduce legislation for the purpose first of enabling the citizens of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands to have a vote in the elections to the European Parliament, and secondly to enfranchise United Kingdom nationals resident in other member countries of the EEC.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the answer is, No. These matters were fully discussed in our debates on the European Assembly Elections Bill, when both Houses considered Amendments to extend the franchise for these elections.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, apparently, the time is shortly coming when we shall be the only member of the Community whose nationals are not enfranchised if they are living abroad?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: That may well be so, my Lords, but, in the light of the discussions which took place in both Houses—a very full debate was held on this matter in your Lordships' House on 13th April, which the noble Lord will find at column 860 onwards, when these matters were very carefully considered—it is the Government's view that there should be no departure from the normal elections procedure which applies to our elections in this country.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether there is any wish on the part of the people of Elian Vannin for representation of this kind?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have no knowledge of that at all.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, are the Government quite happy that this very considerable number of British subjects should be permanently disfranchised?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, any British national living and working abroad is disfranchised so far as our own elections are concerned. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are dependencies of the Crown outside the Kingdom. As I understand the position,
272
the decision of the Council of the European Communities made on 20th September 1976, provided for direct elections to the European Assembly, and, it was clearly indicated, applied to the United Kingdom only.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, the Island of Reunion is to be represented in the European Parliament, is it not?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can only tell your Lordships the situation as I understand it arising from the decision of the Council of the European Communities, in which it was clearly indicated that the European Assembly applies only to the United Kingdom.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that no representations have been received, or asked for, from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man on this matter?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I said that I myself had no knowledge of any representations having been received. I shall make it my business to find out and let the noble Lord know.
The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER: My Lords, will the Minister accept it as a slight representation if I were to say that I have to go to Brussels quite regularly to assist in the relations between the Churches of the Nine, and it is extremely embarrassing when one is discussing these matters with people who live and work in Brussels to have to remind them that they themselves are excluded, whatever importance we attach to the elections?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can only repeat that we went very fully into this matter in both Houses. The Government have given very careful consideration to it and, as I said, have, rightly or wrongly, come to the conclusion that there should be no departure from the normal procedure which affects our own elections in this country.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, is it not time that the Government realised that we shall once again be out of step with the other countries in Europe, and will they not reconsider the matter?
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, noble Lords can say "hear, hear!", but the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, is the only Member of your Lordships' House who since April seems to have bothered about this matter, and we are now in December.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, in his last answer but one the noble Lord said that the Government had decided "rightly or wrongly". Will he not report to his colleagues in another place that disquiet has been expressed from all quarters of the House, including the Bishops' Bench?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, whenever there seems to be a marked difference of opinion in your Lordships' House and I am involved, I always make it a point to see that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is aware of what has been said—and I shall gladly do that.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, so far as disquiet is concerned, may I be excluded when it comes to telling what has been said in this House? I do not care two hoots about the elections to the European Parliament.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is it not a fact that the residents of the Isle of Man pay a much lower rate of income tax than do the residents of the United Kingdom, and therefore is it not quite reasonable that they should not be lumped together with the United Kingdom in a matter of this kind? I raise this point only because 300 years ago a man named Leatherland was the Governor of the Isle of Man.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that we are responsible for defence and foreign affairs in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and that therefore it would be perfectly logical that people situated in both those islands should be enabled to exercise their vote in the Common Market elections?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think that I can add anything useful to what I have already said.

BELIZE: FUTURE RELATIONS WITH GUATEMALA
3.25 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state what agreements have been made with the Government of Guatemala concerning their future relations with Belize; and whether the agreements are satisfactory to the Government of Belize.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, no agreements have been made with the Government of Guatemala concerning their future relations with Belize. Our proposals for a settlement were put to the Government of Guatemala in September, and weredescribed in a British statement during a debate in the United Nations on 28th November. The Government and people of Belize will be consulted on the terms of any agreement that may be reached.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Was it not agreed at the United Nations that Guatemala had no power over Belize, and that Belize should be considered to be an independent country? In view of the fact that Belize has been one of the most faithful Commonwealth countries, surely some agreements can be arrived at? This matter has been going on for a great number of years, and Belize has; been the country to suffer. Why should they go under the dictatorship of Guatemala?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have been in a state of dispute with Guatemala concerning Belize for quite some time—indeed, certainly for the last three years and, some would say, since the Treaty of 1859 in some respects. With regard to the position of the United Nations, the noble Baroness is quite right. A United Nations resolution which supports Belize's right to self-determination, independence, and territorial integrity was adopted about this time last year, the voting being 126 for, only four against, with 13 abstentions. The appropriate committee of the United Nations has just

275
been discussing a similar resolution. I do not yet have the result to hand—I think that the committee was at it yesterday and the day before—but I expect a similar result this year, though perhaps it may be even more emphatic in terms of numbers.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, will the noble Lord recall the somewhat robust attitude adopted by the late Ernest Bevin towards this dispute, and will he take a leaf out of the late Ernest Bevin's book in this respect?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I should like to take the whole book, my Lords, and indeed previous Governments, and possibly successive Governments, might do the same. It is a question of asserting the rights of the people of Belize; and we shall continue to do so. In doing that we shall of course seek the best possible solution in relation to the Guatemalan claim. However, Guatemala is not the only country interested in the future of Belize. Surrounding countries have a clear interest that adjustments in this area do not have the secondary result of creating uncertainty in their own areas. Therefore, the Government's attitude is perfectly clear and perfectly determined. We stand firmly on the terms of the United Nations resolution which I have just mentioned to the House.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, have the Government of Mexico, who are very concerned in this matter, expressed any attitude on the latest proposals?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords, not specifically to the proposals that I mentioned, and which were made available to both Houses by inclusion in the Official Report of the other place of, I think, 29th November. It is for the Guatemalan Government specifically to respond to those proposals which my right honourable friend made to the Guatemalan Foreign Minister in New York in September. We have not received from the Guatemalan Government, let alone any other Government, any specific response to those proposals. I repeat that countries such as Mexico—and there are others in the area—have a clear and distinct interest in there being a peaceful
276
and enduring solution of any disputes in the general area, including Belize.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord about one other point. Bearing in mind the great poverty of the Belize people, is it intended to spend £7 million on building a road from Guatemala to the Port of Belize? There is an adequate road at the moment so far as I am concerned. The mental hospital in Belize has just fallen down due to lack of reconstruction, and surely the money should be spent on the people of Belize, who are loyal to Her Majesty the Queen.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the amount of aid which we make available to Belize is not inconsiderable. We assisted in regard to the recent disaster which afflicted that people. Apart from that, I see that last year, for instance, our aid to Belize ran at about £4.6 million, which is not inconsiderable, having regard to the population involved. However, in regard to the road, I deliberately mentioned the Treaty of 1859 and Article 7, which provided for building a road of that sort. The Guatemalans say that this promise, this undertaking, was not honoured. They themselves built that road, which I call the 1859 road; so today we propose, in order to assist matters generally, to help them to build another road, which will benefit not only the Guatemalans but also the Belizians.

DISPUTES AT TWO LONDON HOSPITALS
3.30 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice. The Question is as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement about the continuing disruption of hospital services by NUPE members at the West London and Charing Cross Hospitals".
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell will, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, answer this Question by means of a Statement.

THE CHRISTMAS RECESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, perhaps I may add, for the convenience of the House, that the House will rise for the Christmas Recess on Thursday next, 14th December, and will return on Tuesday, 16th January.

CARAVAN SITES BILL [H.L.]
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the payment of grants to local authorities providing caravan sites for gipsies and other persons of nomadic habit and of grants to voluntary organisations working in the interests of such persons, and to amend the law relating to camps of such persons. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Baroness Stedman.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

WEST YORKSHIRE BILL [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of the first of the four county council Bills that appear on the Order Paper, may I say a brief word about all four of them. They are the Private Bills which started in this House last Session and were carried over so that they could proceed on their way through Parliament this Session, hopefully receiving a Third Reading here this afternoon and then going to another place. They are major county council Bills resulting from the 1972 Local Government Act, and in the course of their passage through this House they have been most carefully sifted by a number of Select Committees. I have no hesitation at all in recommending them to your Lordships for Third Reading and for passing. I should like to thank those Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in the proceedings of the various Select Committees that sat on these Bills. Some of them were pretty exhaustive and exhausting Committees, and I am indeed most grateful to those Members of the House who took part.
278
It is not very usual to have Amendments on Third Reading, but today, in fact, as your Lordships will see, there are Amendments to two of the Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, has some Amendments down to this first Bill, the West Yorkshire Bill, and I myself have some Amendments to the West Midlands County Council Bill, which we shall come to in due course. My Lords, I beg to move that the West Yorkshire Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Lord SAINT OSWALD Lord SAINT OSWALD moved the following Amendments:
After Clause 3, insert the following new Part:

PART IA INDUSTRIAL IMPROVEMENT AREAS
Declaration of industrial improvement area.
—(1) Where a report with respect to a predominantly industrial area within the area of a local authority is submitted to that local authority by a person or persons appearing to them to be suitably qualified and it appears to them, upon consideration of the report and of any other information in their possession, that conditions in the area ought to be improved by the improvement of the amenities of the area or of buildings therein or both and that such an improvement may be effected or assisted by the exercise of their powers under this Part, the local authority may cause the area to be defined on a map and by resolution declare it to be an industrial improvement area.
(2) Not less than twenty-eight days before passing a resolution declaring an area to be an industrial improvement area the local authority shall—

(a)publish in two or more news papers circulating in the locality a notice of their intention to pass a resolution identifying the area and naming a place or places where a copy of the proposed resolution, of the map on which the area is defined and of the report mentioned in subsection (1) above may be inspected at all reasonable times and specifying the name and address of the person to whom any inquiries and representations concerning the local authority's proposed action should be addressed;

(b)take such further steps as may appear to them best designed to secure that the local authority's intention to pass a resolution is

279
brought to the attention of persons occupying or owning property therein and that those persons are informed of the name and address of the person to whom any inquiries and representations concerning any proposed action to be taken in the exercise of the local authority's powers under this Part should be addressed.

Alteration of industrial improvement area.
—(1) A local authority may by resolution—

(a) exclude from an industrial improvement area any land for the time being included therein; or

(b) declare an area to be no longer an industrial improvement area.

(2)Where it appears to a local authority desirable in the interests of the improvement of the amenities of an area which has been declared an industrial improvement area that any land adjoining the area should be included in the improvement area, they may by resolution include the land in the improvement area and cause the improvement area to be re-defined accordingly.
(3)Not less than twenty-eight days before passing a resolution in pursuance of subsection (2) above, the local authority shall publish in two or more newspapers circulating in the locality a notice of the local authority's intention to pass the resolution, identifying the land intended to be included in the area by the proposed resolution and naming a place or places where a copy of the proposed resolution, and of the map on which the improvement area is re-defined, may be inspected at all reasonable times and specifying the name and address of the person to whom any inquiries and representations concerning the local authority's proposed action should be addressed.
Duty in relation to industrial improvement area.
Where a local authority have declared an area to be an industrial improvement area it shall be their duty to bring to the attention of persons occupying or owning the property in the area the action they propose to take in the exercise of their powers under this Part and the assistance available for the improvement of the amenities of the area or of the buildings therein by publishing from time to time, in such manner as appears to them appropriate, such information as is in their opinion best designed to further the objects of this Part.
Power to carry out mprovements.
.(1) Where a local authority have declared an area to be an industrial improvement area they may, for the purpose of effecting or assisting any such improvement as is mentioned in section (Declaration of industrial improvement area) of this Act, with the consent of all persons having an interest in any land or building within the area, carry out or cause to be carried out works thereon or therein or assist (whether by
280
grants or loans or otherwise) any owner or occupier of land situated within the area in the carrying out of such works.
(2)Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, for the purposes of this section, "works" shall include the following:—

(a) the construction of fencing or walls;

(b) the exterior repair or painting of buildings;

(c)landscaping and the planting of trees, shrubs and plants;

(d)the demolition of structures or buildings;

(e)the construction of parking spaces, access roads, turning heads and loading bays; and

(f) the conversion, improvement and modification of factory premises.

(3)Nothing in this section shall authorise a local authority to carry out works for the provision, extension or improvement of services which it is the function of statutory undertakers to provide, extend or improve.
Duration of Part.
.This Part shall cease to have effect at the end of 1984.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move certain very closely linked and interdependent Amendments to this Bill. If your Lordships should find me more than usually dull-witted in my presentation, I hope that out of your Lordships' charity I shall be excused part of it on the grounds that I flew back from Rhodesia today from a visit consequent upon a debate in your Lordships' House a few weeks ago, and I now turn my attention protectively northward to my own home county of West Yorkshire. Certain metropolitan districts in that county of West Yorkshire have found themselves inequitably treated under the provisions of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 in comparison with other metropolitan districts in Yorkshire and, I suppose, in other parts of the country. The purpose of these Amendments is to correct that inequality, which was in fact recognised sympathetically by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House sitting on this Bill.
Under provisions contained in Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972, an obligation was placed on local authorities to review local legislation within their areas. This presents a convenient opportunity to obtain powers which at this time are not the subject of public general legislation. At the present time

281
the local authorities within West Yorkshire are promoting this Bill, which has already been considered in detail by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, as has been explained by my noble friend. It is one particular aspect of this Bill that I now wish to raise, concerning industrial improvement areas. In speaking today I seek to redress a position which has occurred under the provisions of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. .
However, before: I make particular reference to the matter of industrial improvement areas, I feel it is appropriate to say a few words to your Lordships concerning the Bill itself. The local authorities in West Yorkshire have been considering the form and content of their Bill for almost four years. During that period it was subject to much pruning by the local authorities themselves, so as to consist only of provisions which it was considered could be fully justified. It was the smallest of the three Bills relating to metropolitan counties considered by the Select Committee. The Bill at the present time has some 100 clauses, and, of these, the various industry clauses are regarded as being of the highest priority. Your Lordships' Select Committee allowed those clauses giving local authorities in the county power to assist industry in various ways, including the making of grants and loans to firms, but inserted a requirement that these clauses are to cease to have effect at the end of 1984. That will require the need for the powers to be reviewed at a time when similar powers granted to other authorities cease to have effect. The Select Committee did not, however, allow the clauses permitting local authorities to declare industrial improvement areas.
The Select Committee, consisting of my noble friends Lord Aberdare and Lord Cathcart and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques—three men as thoughtful and considerate as any in your Lordships' House—decided to remove from the Bill the provisions concerning industrial improvement areas, and it may be of assistance to your Lordships if I am permitted to read verbatim from the report giving their reasons for that decision:
"The Committee are very sympathetic to the objectives of this part of the Bill, but they reiterate what was said in relation to the industrial assistance clauses in the proceedings on the Common Clauses, namely, that matters of this kind should be
282
enacted by public general legislation. Given that the matters covered by Part II of the Bill are dealt with, albeit more selectively, by the Inner Urban Areas Bill, which has now passed all its stages in another place, and has passed its Second Reading, Committee and Report stages in this House, the Committee do not feel able to allow these clauses".
That was the action and the opinion of the Select Committee expressed in sympathy for what we are trying to do, and were trying to do then.
Under the provisions of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978, two of the metropolitan districts within West Yorkshire —that is, Leeds and Bradford—have been given various powers, but the remaining three (namely, Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield) have received none. Your Lordships will recall that I referred a moment ago to the fact that the Bill has been under consideration for almost four years. I feel it is appropriate to point out to your Lordships that from an early date the industrial provisions were included in the Bill, and as such were under consideration a considerable time before the Government introduced their Inner Urban Areas Bill in December 1977. What has happened, as your Lordships will now see, is that two pieces of legislation dealing with this particular subject were passing through Parliament almost simultaneously, and, unfortunately for the metropolitan districts of Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield, the three noble Lords, noting an apparent duplication of powers, disallowed the clauses comprising Part II of the Bill.
As I have indicated to your Lordships, Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield have not been granted powers under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. It is, therefore, proposed to seek the reinstatement of Part II of the Bill as deposited in order to correct an inequality introduced by the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. However, the Amendment now proposed contains a substantial qualification which, had it been submitted to the Committee, would, I feel sure, have commended to them this Part of the Bill; that is, the inclusion of a clause that this Part of the Bill, like the other industrial provisions, will cease to have effect at the end of 1984 so that the need for them will then have to be reviewed. This, as your Lordships will observe, is to accord with Clause 8 of the Bill, as amended in Committee.
I would ask your Lordships to accept that the clauses contained in Part II of the Bill as deposited would not in any way conflict with the relevant provisions in the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. The 1978 Act is concerned with the regeneration of major inner city areas while the industry clauses, and particularly the industrial improvement area clauses, in the Bill are concerned with small-scale encouragement to industry within West Yorkshire. The powers sought under Part II of the Bill were to enable local authorities either to facilitate, by way of grants or loans, works on land or to put in hand such works themselves in co-operation will local industry. I would mention, by way of example, such works as the construction of fencing or walls, exterior repair or painting of buildings, landscaping and the planting of trees, shrubs and plants, construction of car-parking spaces, access roads and loading bays, and the demolition, conversion improvement of structures and buildings.
It may be of assistance to your Lordships if I describe some of the problems prevalent within the metropolitan districts of Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield in order that the position can be seen in its proper context. The basic problems in all three metropolitan districts are those of poor access and loading arrangements, old and obsolete buildings and underused and degraded land giving rise to a general air of environmental decay; and the object of the clauses in Part II of the Bill when deposited was to enable the authorities to overcome these problems on a local basis.
The problem of old and obsolete buildings is particularly prevalent in Calderdale and Kirklees. In Calderdale, for example, 80 per cent. of industrial buildings and 90 per cent. of existing floor-space had been constructed prior to 1914. The Preliminary European Regional Development Programme, published by the Government in 1977, states that in the textile areas of West Yorkshire, largely outside the major centres:
"… obsolete stone-built, multi-storey factory buildings are ill-suited to modern production-line methods, but their removal is expensive and their sites are often too small for modern development, while the fact that the industries are situated in the narrow Pennine valleys precludes development on alternative flat sites. In these areas, net outward
284
migration, often of young people, remains a serious problem, although unemployment percentage levels remain deceptively low. However, between 1965 and 1975, nearly 60,000 jobs in the West Yorkshire wool textile industry were lost".
That is the end of the quotation.
The problem of outward migration is a crucial one and one of great concern for the West Yorkshire local authorities, who see the promotion of the West Yorkshire Bill industrial powers as a potential weapon in reversing this damaging trend.
Although a great deal of both public and private investment has taken place in housing and industry over the last decade, the areas of poor environment have been consistently shunned by private investors and, obviously, the availability of the powers contained in Part II of the Bill as deposited provides an incentive to improve the environmental position, and thereby attract private investment. The regional strategy of the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council emphasised this point and made particular reference to the Castleford area, which is one of the typical mining communities situated within the Wakefield district, and, as it happens, within a mile or two of my own home.
My Lords, my own observation bears witness to the statistics I have been given: that there are 651 hectares of derelict land from all causes in Wakefield District, representing 2 per cent. of the total area of that district. Only two local authorities designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 have a larger proportion of their area which is derelict in relation to their total population.
While the metropolitan districts of Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield do not present the continuous areas of industrial and environmental decay which characterise the so-called Inner Urban Areas of cities like Bradford and Leeds, which are the two local authorities within West Yorkshire designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978, similar economic and social pressures are manifest in the smaller towns and more scattered communities and give rise to obsolete industrial buildings and layouts and to derelict and degraded land. In some communities this decay dominates the total environment.
I would point out that in the metropolitan district of Wakefield, in which I

285
live myself, much of the decay can be attributed to the activities of the coal mining industry over the past 100 years. The district is characterised by large scale tips, both active and disused, by pit-head machinery and coking plants, and by continuing opencast workings. At least 12 of the collieries within the district contain tips approaching 100 ft. in height, with one reaching nearly 200 ft. in height. Some 21 collieries are active in the district, together with three opencast sites, the latter constituting half the total for West and South Yorkshire.
The dominance of the mining industry in the local economy and the fact that the mining industry has lost 10,000 jobs in 15 years contributes significantly to the unemployment figures of 6·7 per cent. for the Castleford area and 11·3 per cent. for the Hemsworth area—both typical mining communities—taken in November this year. The latter is the second highest level of unemployment in the whole of Yorkshire and Humberside region. More significant appears to be the longer-term trend: over the 12 months to January, 1978, the rate of increase in the number of unemployed in the metropolitan district of Wakefield as a whole was more than double the national average.
The powers now sought do not confer or encourage the right to embark upon grandiose or extravagant projects. They are confined to the modest necessities of carrying out such works as I have already mentioned. There exists a perfectly respectable and cogent precedent in the Tyne and Wear Act 1976; so that we are not asking for anything new or exclusively favourable to West Yorkshire. The granting of the powers contained in Part II of this Bill as deposited cannot, in my humble submission, in any way detrimentally affect the powers contained in the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name the effect of which, if agreed, is the reinstatement of the original Part II of the West Yorkshire Bill subject to the limitation which I have indicated. If it is considered that more than one Amendment is comprised, dealing as it does with five clauses, then I beg to move that these may be considered en bloc.
3.48 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I think I have a reasonable
286
claim on the attention of the House for a few minutes on this Bill because in another place I represented for 25 years the Sowerby Division of Yorkshire, the whole of which is within the district of Calder-dale, one of the authorities which is hoping that this House will support the Amendment. I wish to carry my argument to the report of the Select Committee, and, if it is not a disrespectful thing to do, cross swords with them.
They give two reasons in their report for disallowing that part of the Bill which this Amendment seeks now to reinstate. The first reason—and it has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald— was that matters of this kind should be enacted by public general legislation. If this part of the West Yorkshire Bill was seeking to extend the powers of a local authority far beyond the generality of powers given to local authorities, if this was breaking significantly new ground in the granting of powers to local authorities, the Select Committee would be justified in saying that this is so i mportant, so novel, and may create such a precedent that it is desirable for anything of this kind to be subject to general legislation. But that is not the position in this case.
If you are able to study the second page of the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, has just moved, it will be found that it seeks to grant to the county authority power to use its own resources—not to come for any grant from central funds—in applying to areas not covered by the Inner Urban Areas Act which, were they within that Act, would qualify for the provisions within it. To try to make myself a little clearer, it is intended in the Amendment to be able to use the resources of the county authority to do to land and buildings and derelict areas outside a designated area what the Inner Urban Areas Act allows to be done inside a designated area. The reason for this in this particular district is that the designated areas of Leeds and Bradford do not cover anything like the areas that the West Yorkshire county has to face of the ruins of the Industrial Revolution. They are really depressing to see.
That area requires enormous cleaning up. The debris of collapsed industries, of mills that have been left deserted, is spread over a very wide area. Townships

287
which I know so well, such as Hebden Bridge, Sowerby Bridge, Todmorden and Ripponden, which are subject to this dereliction, are not to be covered, so it seems, under the provisions of the Inner Urban Areas Act because they will not fall within the designated area or within the catchment area provided for in the Act.
I suggest that this power is really an extension outside the central inner areas which are provided for in the 1978 Act to outlying areas outwith the designated areas, because they too are in a worse condition than the inner areas themselves and action should be taken to clear and clean them up using the resources of the county itself. That is the proposition. It is scarcely justified to say that a matter of this kind should be covered by general legislation. It is marginal; there is no new principle, it is only a matter of extension of area.
The second reason mentioned in the Select Committee's report has a bearing upon the first because they concede in the Select Committee's report that the Inner Urban Areas Act is more selective. They concede that it does not cover everything that the West Yorkshire county would wish to have. On the grounds already stated they think this Part of the Bill should be disallowed. My submission to your Lordships is that this is a matter of great importance to the elected representatives of the areas concerned. I humbly suggest that by far the best thing we can do is to agree to this Amendment and let another place go into this with, if I may say so, a closer association of the facts and circumstances of this matter than is possible for us in this House to have.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether it is right that this Amendment was actually embodied in the Tyne and Wear Bill, very rightly? When it was put into the Tyne and Wear Bill was there any argument about it or was it just accepted, as the noble Lord so rightly wants this accepted?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not know.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I take the opportunity of supporting the
288
noble Lord's proposition. I support this not because I come from Yorkshire but because when I came to the House in May 1975 my first speech was moving something similar on behalf of Plymouth City Council. I have listened to the noble Lord's speech very carefully and I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, may have second thoughts. As I understand it, it is true that the powers overlap the 1978 Act; but to enjoy those powers a local authority has to pass through two doors, the doorkeeper in each case being the Secretary of State. The first door is to be made a designated district. That is done by order of the Secretary of State. He has designated 43 districts in England of which only two are in West Yorkshire. The second door is to declare by resolution a particular area to be an improvement area. The resolution has to be sent to the Secretary of State and he can notify the local authority that all or part of the area is not to be an improved area.
This gives a very considerable control over the local authorities' powers whereas the Bill does not contain that control. It is the local authorities which are most aware of the needs and consider that they should have the powers and the discretion to exercise them. Having been a member of a local authority for many years, I stress this. In the speech of the noble Lord he suggests that the Committee anticipated that the districts of Wakefield, Kirkless and Calderdale would be designated under the 1978 Act, which was then a Bill. I understand that means the Committee did not come to the conclusion on the wrong facts. I gather it seems likely that it will be said that they did. The House is however being asked to look at the Committee's decision in the light of two further features. First, the designation order has been made, even though it contains basically what was expected. It was made on 5th September.
Secondly—and this is important—the Amendment is limited to end at the end of 1984. That was not a proposal considered by the Committee. That is as I understand it, but perhaps the noble Lord will correct me. This means that the House is being asked to allow an experiment for only five years. It would be very advantageous for other areas to consider a similar problem. If it shows that the powers of the Act are being eroded, then in five years'

289
time it will then cease. If, as is thought likely, it proves a very modest way to be successful—and the way the noble Lord has put it today it should be successful— and indeed to supplement the powers of the 1978 Act, further legislation could be promoted to continue the powers.
Therefore, I would have thought that what the noble Lord has put forward is advantageous to the area concerned. Five years in the history of Parliament is not very long and if it is not advantageous this can be corrected. It can be used for guidance to local authorities and to Parliament for the future.
4 p.m.
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, it is not with any pleasure that I rise to speak against any local government. I spent 25 years in local government in which I attempted to halt the decline of their powers in regard to the infrastructure they were responsible for. So it is with some sadness that I find myself up to now being the only speaker against the Amendment. I rather suspect that if in fact the districts mentioned by the noble Lord had been included in the Inner Urban Areas Act perhaps we should not have seen this Amendment and perhaps we should not have seen the clause. The noble Lord, kindly enough, agrees with me.
On the other hand, if it was true, as my noble friend said, that this is only marginal, then of course no one in this House or in the other place would have opposed this Amendment. Is it marginal? Is it of no moment to the economy of this country?—because we are really not talking about the powers of West Yorkshire just to give assistance to industry. We are talking about the powers of local government, because one could not resist the spread of these powers to other local authorities. Every argument that is used in favour of West Yorkshire can also be used in the Greater London Area. Let me say with more force that it could be used by many local authorities in the North-West of England who themselves have been disadvantaged by not being designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act. If that were to happen, then it would not be marginal because it would mean that these two Houses of Parliament would be faced with a demand from the
290
whole of the local government structure to have these powers.
My noble friend said that there is nothing wrong with the transfer of resources to private industry provided the local authority gives the money itself. Is that the real way we look at the transfer of resources? Does it mean that because a local authority raise a rate it has the right to say; "These are our resources and we will determine where they go"? Of course not. If you accept that argument it means you are equating resources with cash, and the real purpose of the Inner Urban Areas Act was not just to give assistance to certain people and certain areas; it was to pick up the major problem of the decline in our productivity and in our system of industry at the places where it is most needed. If it had been possible for any sensible Government to have given this assistance over the length and breadth of the land, of course it would have done so. But it was not possible, and a sensible Government had to be selective as to where they would place their resources.
In this case the resources were raised by the taxpayers but there is still a transfer of resources; and if West Yorkshire pursue their Amendment, and if they are successful here today and successful in another place, they will be followed by other local authorities. The case cannot be resisted and I believe that would mean there would be no selectivity by central Government to apply resources where they are needed most in our industrial organisation. If that situation arose then sooner or later central Government would have to put a limit on the amount of money that would be spent by local authorities.
I sympathise very much with Wakefield and Kirklees. I know the area and I believe they should have been designated under the Inner Urban Area Act. That surely is the way that the West Yorkshire authority should proceed in this matter. It should not begin to establish principles that could be picked up by any district council in the London area. I believe that the transfer of resources—that is what we are talking about—is not just on a local government basis, because local government is notoriously unsuitable to determine priorities in the industrial field. The only body that can really determine those priorities is central Government.

291
I believe that at this very moment central Government have made many mistakes in the designation of areas. They are making a greater mistake still when, in spite of the drift to the South-East of the resources of this country which leaves the rest of the country almost poverty-striken in some cases, they are still ploughing more money into the capital and the South-East of this country, where people have not yet begun to feel the real brunt of the economic problems of this nation.
What is required in the northern part of this country is that we should look at the question of the transfer of resources in terms of real priority measured against the national demand. If we really get priority there, it is not about the amount of money spent by local authorities in improving industrial areas. The priority is that once and for all this nation should set itself to the task of making sure that all the untapped potential for productivity and all the rest of it in the North of England, as opposed to the South-East of England, where congestion prevents it, should be tapped and it should be used for the benefit of this country as a whole.
I believe that West Yorkshire are wrong and that they should join with fellow authorities North of the Midlands and then ensure that central Government determine priorities for industrial investment and that when they do the voice of the North should be heard with such force that there should be a transfer of resources from the South and the South-East to the North of the land.

DISPUTES AT TWO LONDON HOSPITALS
4.6 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now read a Statement being made in another place in answer to a Private Notice Question on the dispute at West London and Charing Cross Hospitals. The Statement is by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and it reads as follows:
"I deplore the outbreak of unofficial industrial action at the West London and Charing Cross Hospitals, which is depriving patients of treatment. I understand that the action is a protest
292
against the dismissal of three employees from the West London Hospital. There are established procedures in the National Health Service which protect staff against unfair dismissal. These have not been used although management has made clear its willingness to set up an Appeals Panel immediately.
The action of NUPE members at the West London Hospital is having little effect on patient services there. Pickets from the AUEW and EEPTU at Charing Cross Hospital are turning away deliveries, and, as a result, shortages of essential supplies are limiting surgery to urgent cases.
I understand that local discussions are going on at present and I hope that these will be successful in resolving the dispute. I renew my appeal to the staff concerned to return to work immediately in order that the service to patients may be resumed in both hospitals as quickly as possible."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement and I very much sympathise with him in having an appalling Statement to make. I think the whole House is deeply shocked by the conditions at these two hospitals because the situation borders now on a national scandal. I find it extraordinary, looking at the Statement, that the Government can say that the unofficial strike at the West London Hospital is depriving patients of treatment, and in the third paragraph they say the action being taken
"is having little effect on patient services".
They go on to say that essential supplies are short and this is limiting surgery to urgent cases. These are inconsistent statements. The fact is that the whole situation is damaging. It must be alarming and frightening in the extreme to patients hoping for treatment at either of these hospitals. As I understand the waiting list at one of these hospitals is now one year, to ask people to wait even longer is even more deplorable.
I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that the situation is one that is a national disgrace, and one in which, above all, we need something like a patient's charter, for people who are ill,

293
who are least able to help themselves and who cannot in any way be said to be parties to this dispute, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, but who are suffering acutely. Should we not all combine together to see whether we can achieve a much better situation in the hospitals than a continual series of crises of this nature?
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I should just like very briefly to say how much I agree with what the noble Baroness has just said. I should like to ask the Minister whether he agrees that unofficial action in the hospital service, from no matter what side it comes and from no matter what source, is something to be very much deplored, because it is bound to have a bad effect on patients? You cannot divide people into urgent and non-urgent.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to say that I think there is some slight misunderstanding on her part. When I said that it was having little effect on patient services there, I referred to the West London Hospital. I say that because the people who are affected are those who are having to wait for non-urgent treatment at that hospital. I then went on to refer to the Charing Cross Hospital, where I said that they were turning away deliveries. As a result of shortages of supply, this was having a limited effect on urgent cases. I do not think that there was any inconsistency in what I said.
It may be beside the point. What is important is that this is happening and, as I said, I think that we all deplore this kind of thing from whichever section of the community it comes. People who are responsible for caring for others, particularly at the time when they need care, ought not to be put in this position, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for saying that he himself feels that it is to be deplored from whichever section it comes, whether it be from the medical profession or from trade union employees.
The only other comment I would make, arising out of what the noble Baroness said, is that I said to your Lordships a good time ago—I think as a result of a Question which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Carr, put to me about procedures—that my right honourable friend was employed in
294
trying to get some kind of procedure. I think I said at that time that he had called together members of the British Medical Association, members of the Royal Colleges, such as the Royal College of Nursing, members of trade unions and so on, to see whether some simplified form of procedure could be found which would stop this kind of thing. A procedure has been come by, and it has now gone to the General Whitley Council which is considering all these proposals. But, unfortunately, like most other things, it will take some time. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service came in on this in the very early stages, but as I said, the people concerned are unfortunately not prepared to use the facilities available at this time.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will permit me to say this, bearing in mind that these are my own local hospitals and I am literally within 100 yards of Charing Cross Hospital. He mentioned deliveries. This morning, the rumour seemed to be that the pickets were trying to prevent supplies of food from entering. This is rather different from affecting only waiting patients, and I wonder whether the Minister has any information, because this would be particularly deplorable.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the latest information—and I received this fairly recently—is that yesterday at Charing Cross Hospital only some surgical instruments and incontinence pads got past the pickets. Everything else was turned away. Oxygen will last until late on Friday or early on Saturday, oil will last for four or five days, rubbish removal has stopped and there is no movement of linen: disposables are at present being used. I have no information with regard to food, and I think that if it did apply to food I should have been given that information.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, as one who has been in a hospital when a withdrawal of labour was threatened, but, mercifully, was not brought into action, may I say that the effect in a hospital, not only on patients but on all other people who are not privy to it, is extremely serious even before it happens, and, of course, worse still when it is actually happening. May I ask whether,

295
in the examination of this extremely difficult problem about which public indignation is growing very fast, the Government, or the authorities who are examining it, will give thought, even if it is ultimately negatived, to the possibility that for employees who are serving sick people and who have a legitimate or an illegitimate grievance, there should be some alternative form of machinery which does not involve the withdrawal of labour, but which gives the employees a chance of getting a grievance through? Could that be considered as one of the ways of combating this growing danger to sick people which seems to be upon us?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that I can reply very shortly and say that that is the whole purpose of the procedure which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has tried to evolve and which has gone before the Whitley Council, about which I spoke to your Lordships some time ago.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, are the Government aware that in many cases like this the people concerned do not seem to obey the agreed procedure, and that their union leaders really do not have any influence upon them to make them keep to it? Are the Government also aware that a very great number of people have regarded the Labour Party with some sympathy, because it was felt that they would tend to put the public interest first? But the people now engaged in this dispute are definitely promoting private interests at the expense of humanitarian interests and the interests of the patients in the hospitals, and it really is an intolerable situation. Is it the case that the Government's ability to take trenchant and effective action in this matter is inhibited by the legislation which they themselves passed earlier in this Parliament?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is very regrettable that a Member of your Lordships' House should concentrate on the sins of omission and commission of the trade union movement. I have tried to be very fair about this. So far as I know, no noble Lord ever complained in 1976 when the consultants went on strike for a considerable period of time, and when the junior hospital doctors did the same,
296
and added tens of thousands to our waiting lists. What I am saying is that we ought to take the view that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, took, and condemn this from whichever source it comes. It is true that in this instance we are concerned with the activities of trade unions, but it is unfortunate when a Member of your Lordships' House gets up and rather implies that they are the only people who cause this kind of disruption.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, may I make it quite clear that I do condemn action from whatever quarter which causes stoppages in hospitals. There is no excuse whatsoever for it, and I hope that the whole House will make that clear. May I ask the Minister two questions? First, he made clear that this is unofficial action; it is not trade union action. Will his right honourable friend the Secretary of State therefore summon the leaders of these unions and ask those leaders to take disciplinary action under their unions' own rules against members who are disregarding the unions' own rules and practices by taking unofficial action? I really do believe that this is the least that the country should expect in a matter like this. Union leadership should seek to impose discipline on its members and make sure that procedural agreements which they have entered into are honoured by its members. While I am glad to hear that progress has been made by the Secretary of State upon getting a new procedure agreement, since the matter is so urgent could not the normal rather stately rhythm of the Whitley Council procedure be speeded up to deal with it?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I may deal first with the noble Lord's last point, we are trying to speed up this procedure. Discussions are taking place, but obviously we want to reach certain firm conclusions which will not have repercussions in themselves when they are put into operation. Therefore, it is worth spending a certain amount of time upon them. With regard to the other matter, as the noble Lord knows, my right honourable friend—and I want to associate myself with him—condemns very strongly behaviour of this kind. It is very irresponsible; when so many people are dependent upon the services and goodwill of others, it is lacking in any sense of responsibility. There can be no excuse at

297
all for this kind of behaviour, and when it is unofficial, I think that it aggravates the situation. The noble Lord, who has had a great deal more experience in Government than I have, will know that I cannot answer for my right honourable friend without first seeking his view upon it, but I feel quite certain that anything he can do to deal with people who behave in an unofficial way with regard to their unions he will do gladly.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm what was stated yesterday in the Press: that 32 patients who were suffering from cancer and who were to have had operations were not operated upon? And can the noble Lord say how many patients would have been operated on today but have not been operated upon?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I could give the noble Earl information, I hope he realises that I would give it to him, but I have no information on either of those matters.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question about picketing? Can he say exactly what is being prevented from getting through by the pickets? Can he confirm or deny that, quite apart from food, oxygen cylinders are not getting through to the Charing Cross Hospital, which is one of our major and most modern teaching and casualty hospitals? This could cause untold damage. Will the noble Lord accept that I, like many noble Lords, have condemned in this House strikes in the hospital movement by all grades, whether they be doctors, consultants, porters or anybody else? May I also ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that most of us feel that those who work in our hospitals in all grades are highly responsible people?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I agree in substance with what the noble Lord has said. The only question that he put to me was one that I tried to answer: oxygen will last until late Friday or early Saturday. Arising out of the question asked me by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, information has been passed to me to the effect that it is not true to say that yesterday 32 cancer patients were deprived of surgery. My information is that all 30 operations planned for yesterday
298
were in fact carried out, and that all operations planned for today were also carried out.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, may I say that it is a great relief to have that information. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, while fully accepting that all forms of strikes which have an effect upon sick and suffering patients are equally to be condemned, would not my noble friend say that the picketing of hospitals resolves itself into a totally different form from any other type of picketing? Have not the Government some means of preventing this appalling suffering that is inflicted upon unfortunate patients simply in conformity with the laws of picketing? Surely the picketing of hospitals falls into a totally different category from any other form of picketing.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if we can obtain common agreement as to the method of procedure in future disputes and if we can get it to work, that in itself ought to avoid anybody feeling that it is necessary to picket.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord reply to the question put to him by my noble friend Lord Segal about the Government's power to see that the law on picketing is properly enforced? Surely picketing is allowed in the sense of dissuading people from entering a building but not in the sense of stopping them physically?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the law on picketing has been referred to many times. I believe that a case was mentioned in your Lordships' House not so very long ago in which the law has been very clearly defined. I do not know whether the law needs to be looked at again, but I will see that what my noble friend has said about picketing is conveyed to my right honourable friend.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, arising out of the Government's reply on that point, can the noble Lord tell us whether the action of the pickets in turning back goods and supplies to the hospitals concerned is strictly legal?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not know whether or not it is illegal.

299
If it had been illegal, I should have thought that it would have been possible to do something about it. All I can say is that such action is to be deplored.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, in view of the great disquiet over this matter that has been expressed from all parts of the House, if this matter is not resolved can the noble Lord say whether he will be prepared to make another Statement early next week, or whether the Government will allow time for a debate?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I consider myself to be a servant of your Lordships' House and I will do what is possible, so far as I am able. However, this is a matter for the Government, and perhaps it could be dealt with through the usual channels. The noble Baroness the Chief Whip is here and will have heard what your Lordships have had to say.

WEST YORKSHIRE BILL [H.L.]
4.28 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, if we may revert to the West Yorkshire Bill, may I start by saying that I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald. I know that he has had a very hectic life in the last few days, but he was kind enough to give me notice of his intentions and to explain to me what he had in mind. At this stage of the debate on his Amendment, therefore, I think that it would be appropriate if I tried to explain to your Lordships what was in the mind of the Select Committee when they disallowed these clauses. May I also say that I very much welcome the opportunity that these Amendments give to me. So often proceedings on Private Bills do not attract much attention in this House. Sometimes, as on this occasion, they raise extremely important issues.
These clauses—and, indeed, the clauses concerned with aid to industry generally— gave the Select Committee much their hardest task in coming to a decision. While, on the one hand, we were extremely sympathetic to the desire of local councils to help themselves in coping with their unemployment problems, we also attached
300
great weight to the view of the two Departments who expressed views to us— the Department of the Environment and the Department of Industry—that, to be effective, aid to industry has to be selective and priorities have to be decided on a national basis. They argued that to give every local council powers to aid industry would detract from the ability of the Government to bring help to the worst areas of unemployment.
We considered very carefully the evidence that was given to us by the county councils and we considered the views of the Departments. We did not give an immediate decision; we took several days to consider the matter. When we came to a decision, we made this statement:
"The Committee had great difficulty in coming to a decision on these clauses in the light of reports from Government Departments. They are of the opinion that powers to assist industry at national and local level should more properly be contained in public rather than private legislation".
The conclusion that we came to on the general clauses to do with aid to industry was that, despite the doubts expressed by the Departments, they should be allowed, but we restricted them to giving aid to small firms, which we defined as firms employing not more than one hundred people. We felt very strongly that policy decisions of this nature which established the dividing line between what is done by central Government and what can be done by local government should be taken by Parliament and should be contained in public legislation, but on these clauses of aid to industry no such legislation existed, and so we came to a conclusion and we drew the line at allowing local councils to give aid to small firms. This did not seem to us to be likely to overlap or to dilute national priorities.
I mention this attitude of the committee in connection with aid to industry in the four Bills because I want to make clear to your Lordships the very sympathetic attitude that we had to the points that were put to us in evidence by the county councils. Those were our decisions on the clauses which were common to all four Bills but, as the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, has explained, in the West Yorkshire Bill there was a further group of clauses in Part II to give powers for the designation of industrial improvement areas. In this instance the situation was

301
exactly the opposite. We did have public legislation—it was not actually on the Statute Book, but it had passed through the other place and it had passed its Report stage in this House. At the time this was the Inner Urban Areas Bill, now the Inner Urban Areas Act.
Section 1 of that Act gives the Secretary of State power to specify districts having areas of special need as designated districts for the purposes of that Act. Sections 4 to 6 and the Schedule to the Act give power to those designated district authorities, subject to control by the Secretary of State, to establish improvement areas. The clauses which we disallowed and which the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, seeks to reinstate, give the same powers to districts to establish industrial improvement areas but without the need for the Secretary of State first to specify the district itself. The Amendment therefore, if allowed, would result in Leeds and Bradford being specified by the Secretary of State (who has already expressed his intention of doing so) and hence being able to establish industrial improvement areas under the Public Act, and Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield being able to establish the same type of industrial improvement areas under a Private Act.
This evidently did not give any qualms to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby; but if your Lordships are prepared to take any advice from me on the subject of private legislation, it is that I really would deplore the use of a Private Bill to try to change the effect of a Public Bill. That is in effect what I think the noble Lord was advocating, that because these districts had been excluded by the Secretary of State's decision in a Public Act, therefore it was right for a Private Bill to change that position and put them back into the position that they would have been in. If I may respectfully advise the noble Lord, I would suggest that what he and the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, and others who wish to see help given to these other districts, should be doing is putting pressure on the Secretary of State to designate them under the Public Act and not to try to include them in a Private Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, has very fairly already read out the report of our decision on this matter, and I shall
302
not repeat it. We expressed again our sympathy with the underlying objects of the clauses and again our firm belief that these are matters which are of national implication and should be enacted by public general legislation. In this case this legislation existed in the Inner Urban Areas Act, and it would make nonsense of the underlying purpose of that Act if local authorities in general had similar powers to those of the Secretary of State. There can be no doubt that other districts will follow suit. This is one of the earlier Bills in the whole succession of local authority Bills which is bound to follow under the 1972 Act, and if all the districts of West Yorkshire were to be given this power I can predict with certainty that other local authorities promoting Bills in the future would follow suit. I echo there the words, which I thought were very persuasive and forceful, of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. I thought he put the case extremely well. On this matter Parliament has made its decision. Parliament has given the Secretary of State powers to specify districts having areas of special need; Parliament did not give this power to local authorities, and in my view it would be inappropriate to do so by Private Bill.
I should like to make one further remark about the Tyne and Wear Bill which has been. cited as a precedent. It is perfectly true that a clause of this sort appears in the Tyne and Wear Bill, but of course it was put into the Bill at a time when this public legislation did not exist and therefore it was appropriate to a Private Bill because they were showing a need which was proper to them; but what I do not think is right is that subsequently, when there is a public Bill which has been argued through Parliament, giving certain powers, we should then try to enlarge those powers by means of a Private Bill.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I should have thought, with great respect, that if a local authority wished to include in a Bill something for which no provision had been made at all in general legislation, that is a much stronger argument for saying that it should be general legislation. My argument was that there is general legislation applying the principle of the matter—all experimental—

303
and this will probably do good, to give a special area with special problems special powers.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has not studied the Inner Urban Areas Act and what is proposed by this Amendment because they are identical, except that it would bring in three more districts which have not been designated by the Secretary of State, which is the whole purpose underlying the Inner Urban Areas Act. However, we can agree to differ on that. I only say that what we did in the committee was not done for any lack of sympathy; I think all in the committee would be delighted if the Secretary of State were to designate these districts; all we are saying is, please, not in a Private Act.
4.38 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I thought it might help the House if I were to intervene at this point, to give the Government's view on the relationship between the existing legislation, the Bill before us, and the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, is proposing. I start by saying that I support entirely the line that has been taken by the Lord Chairman.
The Government appreciate the concern of local authorities to play a greater role in the development of their local economies. In practice there is much that they can do within their existing powers, particularly by sympathetic and effective planning procedures. But as the Lord Chairman has pointed out, the dangers of wider powers proliferating among local authorities can be very great if Amendments of this sort are accepted. May I remind the House of the main point of Act II of The Gondoliers in the words of the Duke of Plazo Toro—or was it Don Alhambra? I am not sure—" When everyone is somebody, then no one is anybody ". My noble friend Lord Sefton of Garston put his finger directly on this issue when he pointed out that if West Yorkshire had these powers there is no reason why they should not be given to each and every local authority,
304
and in that way they would cancel out the possibilities of the inner area policy working at all.
This House spent a good deal of time in the summer considering the Inner Urban Areas Act, and for the first time in general legislation this Act gives a structure to the provision of powers for local authorities to intervene in the local economies. The Act allows selected authorities to set up improvement areas and within these to provide loans and grants for the improvement of land and buildings. The Inner City Partnerships have extended powers to grant-aid rents and site preparation works and to offer relief on interest payments for the acquisition of property and building work.
The Amendment now before the House, even with all the good intentions behind it, would in fact mean reversing the policy of the Inner Urban Areas Act. I cannot think that the House, on consideration and after having listened to the Lord Chairman, would want to accept the present Amendment, particularly after it had spent so long in careful and detailed consideration of the provisions to be included in the public legislation in the Inner Urban Areas Act. Noble Lords who are interested in that Act will recall the insistence of the House that designated local authorities should be permitted to help commercial areas as well as manufacturing industry, and this I accepted on behalf of the Government.
My Lords, there are also some serious weaknesses in the clauses the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, would like to see restored to the Bill; this is apart from the general principle that I have been discussing. First, the proposed powers would not be subject to any controls. Secondly, the local authorities concerned would in practice be competing with each other for investment in the country area. Thirdly, there would be a distinct likelihood of inefficient competition and counter-bidding between them and the risk of public money being wasted, which I know is the very last thing that he would want to bring about. The Inner Urban Areas Act in contrast gives powers to central Government to prevent wasteful competition between authorities, including limits on the scale of subsidy to be given to firms and on the number of improvement areas declared.

305
Above all, the Amendments, if carried, would weaken the Government's inner city policies and priorities. Resources are limited and public expenditure needs to be restrained. My noble friend Lord Houghton mentioned different parts of Yorkshire, which I also know, but of course that could be reflected by noble Lords in this House or honourable Members in another place talking about various parts of the country. The trouble is that with limited resources you have to try to direct them where you feel they are most needed. It is quite true that until resources improve there will be areas which will suffer; we are aware of that and we are not at all complacent about it. This means that the extended powers which are being sought by the noble Lord could be not supported by extra resources from central Government.
I therefore fear that the powers he seeks might in practice really have the effect of weakening the existing policies to help Leeds and Bradford, which on any basis I think do have priority needs. If inner city policy is to work, then the public sector's limited resources must be concentrated on the areas of greatest need. In the case of West Yorkshire that must mean the inner areas of Leeds and Bradford, certainly at the present time. I accept, and, as I say, I know personally, the problems facing other West Yorkshire areas, but I do not believe that they would be nearer solution if these Amendments were accepted. Passing Amendments is not going to produce the resources or the results that are wanted; I am sure the noble Lord is well aware of that.
The Inner Urban Areas Act has been on the Statute Book for only five months. I consider it must be given time to prove its worth. I again repeat what the Lord Chairman and my noble friend Lord Sefton have said, going back to the original idea of trying to rationalise legislation in the various private local government Acts, that really this is a matter for public legislation, which we now have. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendments.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, it is my intention to intervene only very briefly in this debate. I have listened very carefully to all that has been said. I have been approached by a number of people over these Amendments to the West
306
Yorkshire Bill, and I should like to begin by saying that I have very great sympathy indeed with the aims of the Amendments and with the point that my noble friend Lord Saint Oswald was making. I have myself moved Amendments from time to time on local Bills where I have thought this to be right. In this case, I have considered the matter very carefully indeed.
Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, would confirm my understanding of what she has just been saying about the financial implications involved. It seems to me that one of the difficulties about these Amendments is the financial implications. I understand that were these Amendments to be carried the effect would be that the money available for the inner urban areas, which we all want, would simply be spread that much more thinly; there would not be extra resources available.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, there would not be extra resources available. What has been allocated to Leeds and Bradford would not be spread more thinly; it would remain the same. But what would happen would be that Calderdale and the other areas the noble Lord included would be competing for investors. They would have to raise their own rates to find the money. The whole policy would be weakened, and, as the noble Baroness said, it would be spreading the allocation more thinly. But I want to make it clear that it would not spread the actual allocation of the Government more thinly, because it would not be able to go there. It would mean that they would have to find personnel and investors, and it may well be that Leeds and Bradford would be worse off because of the competition from the other areas. They may have to pay more out of their grant for specific services or help needed to attract investors than would otherwise be the case. It would topple the whole thing.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. My concern is that ultimately it would have the effect of increased expenditure, and it would have the second effect which I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has made very clear. Those of us who took part in the proceedings on the Inner Urban Areas Act were somewhat sceptical about the length of the list of places already

307
being helped by it; it did grow longer as the Bill proceeded through both Houses of Parliament, not surprisinginly because everybody who had a problem wanted some of the help. At the end of it all the jam was being spread fairly thinly. I think, therefore, one has to take a view about this, and although everybody wants to help these three districts, I am not certain that putting this Amendment back into the Bill will meet the case.
I have, however, a second difficulty, which has not been touched on at all, and perhaps my noble friend Lord Saint Oswald would comment on it. I refer to the clause on page 2, Power to carry out improvements. One of the proposals is that the local authority should carry out improvements themselves, which, of course, implies direct labour. It is not my intention to raise this matter in a debate at this time, but it is one on which I and my colleages would be very concerned if the clause were agreed to. Should the noble Lord carry this Amendment, this would be a matter which I would ask my honourable friends in another place to look at. I think we would all be very sympathetic to the reasons behind the Amendment. I think it is one of the tragedies of our economic situation today that we are able to do so little for those places which need so much help.
4.50 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, before the mover of the Amendment replies, I think that, as a member of the Committee, I ought to take the opportunity of supporting my noble friend the Chairman of Committees. I do so under two headings. First, there is the question of aid by local authorities to industry in general. Secondly, there is the particular question which is before the House. I should like first of all to deal with the general question of aid by local authorities to industry. We considered this matter because we had before us clauses common to all four bills. We had to bear in mind various considerations. First, was it wise that local authorities should give aid to industry in competition with each other? Alternatively, should aid to industry be given by national government on the basis of national priorities? That was the first decision that was required to be made. Personally, I felt that it should be a question of national
308
priorities and aid by national government, rather than having local authorities in competition with each other.
The second consideration was that certain technical skills were required in administering this kind of aid, otherwise money would be wasted. For example, it is easy to give money away on the assumption that it will increase employment when in fact, it does nothing of the kind, but merely moves employment from one firm to another firm within the locality. We heard about cases where I am quite sure that was what happened when the local authority made the grant.
Lord SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, I gave the figures for unemployment, which are unacceptably high. Therefore, it would not be a question of stealing labour from one factory or industry to bring it to another: it would mean employing people who are at present unemployed.
Lord JACQUES: No, my Lords. I shall give your Lordships an example of a case where it does not create new employment. A grant was made on the assumption that it would create new employment, but in fact it merely transferred employment from one firm to another. There were several cases where that occurred and in particular there was the case where money was given to assist the building of a restaurant. All the evidence indicated that all that would happen would be that the trade would be drawn from other restaurants to the one in question—in other words, there would be no new employment; it would merely be a transfer of employment from existing restaurants within the locality to the new restaurant. That, in our opinion, would be money wasted.
There was a third consideration regarding the general issue of aid being granted by local authorities. As a member of the Committee, I took the view that aid to industry should be moved as far as possible away from local authorities and that, if aid were granted locally, near to the people concerned, it might become a question of who one knew rather than whether one had a good case. I felt that the decision ought to be made at a distance from the locality so that that kind of influence could not be brought to bear. Those were the kinds of consideration that came up as regards this matter.

309
As regards the particular clauses which are the subject of the Amendments, we had the following problem: this was not a matter which had been neglected by Parliament and the Government. As a matter of fact, there was at the time a Bill, almost nearing completion, dealing with inner urban areas. Therefore, it was not a situation which called for experiment because it was being ignored.
The Inner Urban Areas Bill did not deal merely with the general principle of authorising public expenditure on aid to inner urban areas. It also laid down how the priorities should be decided. The effect of the clauses submitted to us was to make alterations to a decision which had been made by Parliament in general legislation. We felt that it was quite wrong for that to be included in local legislation and that was why the Committee made the decision which it did.
The Earl of ON SLOW: My Lords, first, I should like to apologise to your Lordships for not being present to hear the start of the debate. It seems to me that one point that arises out of the Bill— not only as regards these Amendments but also as regards the contested clauses which were dealt with by the Committee on which I had the privilege to sit—is the muddle that is being created by local government bodies having different powers.
The sooner it is laid down by general legislation that local government bodies either should or should not have the power to define their own areas of special need, the better. It should be done in a general Government Bill. It seems to me that this cannot be said too often. It has been said frequently by practically everyone, including the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and it appears not to have impinged in any way upon the hierarchy of Her Majesty's present advisers. In my view it is very important that this should be done. Indeed, it is almost worth voting for something which could possibly make a nonsense of the Bill in order to make somebody think again about including the whole gamut of local authority legislation in a general powers Bill which will give everybody the same type of discretionary powers which they will be free to use or not. Otherwise, there will be an even bigger muddle than
310
there was before local government reorganisation.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the noble Lord has picked a very bad example to suit his case, because only this year the question has been dealt with by public general legislation.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has not quite followed what I was saying, with the greatest of respect to him.
Several noble Lords: Order.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Am I out of order, my Lords? In that case, I shall apologise and sit down.
Lord SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, first, I should like to express my gratitude to all those who have shown such interest in the Amendments—indeed, interest which they deserve. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who has spoken on behalf of the Government. I do not believe that the Amendments seek to reverse the intentions of the Inner Urban Areas Act, but merely augment them and give assistance to those outside who have been excluded.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and his committee expressed sympathy for the case made but they did not, in fact, implement that sympathy. Therefore, although everyone was extremely grateful to hear the sympathy expressed and knew it to be well deserved, if it was not implemented it did not help a great deal.
The arguments which have been made against the Amendments seem to me to be made from the position of the bureaucrat in the manger: if some deserving areas are deprived of these powers, then all deserving areas ought to be equally deprived. I simply cannot agree with such an argument. Each case is worth considering on its merits and in my appeal I set out to outline the merits—not in detail—as I see them on the spot. After all, this is my own area of the country and the merits are very considerable.
We are told that God helps those who help themselves. The sponsors of the Bill are not invoking God in any direct sense, but they are being asked to be able to

311
invoke the help of investors. In reply to my noble friend Lady Young, the implications of direct labour had not entered my mind, I had assumed that these very small works would be carried out by contract labour. As I have said, these are very small powers. They are permissive and not mandatory. The decisions would be made by people who know the area best and who will put their limited funds to the best use.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendments disagreed to accordingly.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
5.7 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Having been given the powerful support that I have been given or rather that these Amendments have been given from very powerful speakers and advocates, I am of a mind to press my Amendments and I commend them to the House.
5. p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendments shall be agreed to en bloc?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 60.

CONTENTS

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ilchester, E.

Savile, L. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ingleby, V.

Shinwell, L.

Cockfield, L.

Kintore, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mancroft, L.

Teviot, L.

Falkland, V.

Morris, L.

Teynham, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Northesk, E.

Vickers, B.

Gainford, L.

Onslow, E.

Vivian, L.

Glasgow, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pannell, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Saint Oswald, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dowding, L.

Peart, L.(L. Privy Seal.)

Abinger, L.

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

Phillips, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Plant, L.

Alport, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hale, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Banks, L.

Henderson, L.

Simon, V.

Barrington, V.

Hood, V.

Spens, L.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Stedman, B.[Teller.]

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brockway, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stone, L.

Byers, L.

Luke, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Caccia, L.

Marley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Cathcart, E.

Melchett, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Collison, L,

Merrivale, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Meston, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

David, B.

Mishcon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Deramore, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Oram, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved the following Amendments en bloc:
Clause 60, page 50, line 3, after ("60") insert ("(1)").
Page 50, line 15, at end insert—
("(2) This Part shall not apply to the city of Birmingham.").
Clause 70, page 57, line 5, at end insert—
("(3) This Part shall not apply to the city of Birmingham.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I may deal with these Amendments

313
very briefly, as they were the subject of a full debate in this House on 17th July last. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, moved a motion seeking to make these Amendments to the Bill on Third Reading. Their object is to restore to the Bill Amendments, which were refused by a Select Committee, to exclude the city of Birmingham from certain provisions in the Bill. We had a full debate and the House agreed to the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness without a Division, and I undertook to put down these Amendments on Third Reading. I think that I need do no more than to move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill passed, with the Amendments, and sent to the Commons.

COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Teviot.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FORESTRY BILL [H.L.]
5.10 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, in rising to speak on the Third Reading of this Bill I should like to express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his courtesy in investigating a problem which was raised at Committee stage, and coupled with my name I should like to add that of my noble friend Lord Dulverton, who is not able to be here this evening, to express thanks for his investigations and the advice given by Parliamentary Counsel on an Amendment which was subsequently withdrawn.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for what he has said. I am also most grateful to him, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, and to the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, for their helpful and constructive attitude towards this small but important enabling Bill.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS, RE-RATING) ORDER 1978
5.12p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the draft Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order 1978, laid before the House on 22nd November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I propose to take this fairly briefly. This is an annual event and we go over much the same ground every year except that the figures are rather different. Your Lordships will know that the Secretary of State for Social Services has completed the review of National Insurance contributions which he has to carry out each year under the Social Security Act 1975. He has had regard to changes in the general level of earnings as he is required to do under the Act, and in the draft order now before

315
your Lordships he has proposed certain changes in contribution liability from 6th April, 1979. Your Lordships will recall that when I addressed the House last summer on the subject of the draft Benefits Uprating Order I indicated that levels of contribution liability would be reviewed about now and would take account of the extra expenditure which would fall on the National Insurance Fund in 1979–80 as a result of the benefit increases which had then been proposed and have since been put into payment. I think your Lordships will find it helpful if I say at the outset that only minimum changes in contribution liability are proposed under the draft order.
Before coming to details of the changes I should explain that in specifying the rates and earnings limits for 1979–80 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has aimed to achieve a close balance between income and outgo in the National Insurance Fund for 1979–80. I think it right at this stage to refer to the balance of income over outgo which, as the Government Actuary's report accompanying the draftorder shows, is now expected to be in the region of £247 million. This compares with an estimated deficit of £25 million to which the Government Actuary referred in his report at this time last year. The change from the original estimate of a small deficit to a surplus has been broadly due to a lower level of unemployment and a faster increase in earnings than originally assumed, but it is important to recognise that both the surplus of £247 million now expected in the year 1978–79 and the much smaller one of £34 million expected next year, 1979–80, represent a fall in the value of the Fund in relation to benefit expenditure. To put it in rather more precise terms, the balance in the Fund at the end of 1977–78 represented about 39 per cent. of expenditure in that year whereas, on the basis of the estimates now made by the Government Actuary in his report, the balance in the Fund will fall by the end of 1979–80 to about 34 per cent. of expenditure in that year.
Coming now to details of the changes, I will deal first with Class 1 contributions, that is with those payable by employed earners and their employers. No change is to be made in the rate of Class 1
316
contributions. The upper and lower limits of earnings on which employees and employers pay contributions are being raised for the coming year. They will be £19·50 and £135 a week in place of the present limits of £17·50 and £120 a week. The effect is that a person who earns at least £19·50 a week will pay contributions on all his earnings up to £135 a week. These new earnings limits are not specified in the draft order because, under the Social Security Pensions Act, they are now a matter for regulations. My right honourable friend has already made the regulations, which are subject to the Negative Resolution process, but I mention them for the sake of completing the picture. The new lower and upper limits are consistent with the requirement of the Pensions Act, which is that they should be respectively about equal to, and about seven times the amount of, the basic rate of the retirement pension. As your Lordships will know, this is now £19·50 a week, and seven times that gives us roughly the £135 a week. The effect of the changes to the earnings limits will vary according to whether or not an employee is contracted-out under the new earnings-related pension arrangements.
Employees who earn less than £120 a week—that is, the vast majority of employees—and their employers will either not be affected by these changes or, if they are, and if the employment is contracted-out, they will pay only a few pence a week more. The earnings-related structure of the scheme means that these employees, and their employers, already pay increased contributions immediately an employee gets a pay increase. Employees who are not contracted-out and who earn £120 a week or more, will pay higher contributions, progressing to a maximum increase of 97p a week for those with earnings of £135 a week or more. Their employers will also pay correspondingly more, with a maximum increase of £1·50 a week (excluding the National Insurance surcharge, which is a matter not for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State but for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer). Employees with earnings of £120 a week or more who are contracted-out, and their employers, will similarly pay more, rising to a maximum of 65p a week for the employee and 91p a week for the employer.
Turning to the self-employed—and in the past the House has shown a good deal of concern for the self-employed—your Lordships will recall that this time last year I indicated that we hoped to hold the level of liability of the self-employed steady until 1983, apart from changes to take account of increases in the general level of earnings. The proposals before your Lordships today are consistent with that aim. The draft order provides for a small increase in the flat-rate Class 2 contributions going up from £1.90 to £2.10 a week. No change is proposed in the rate of the Class 4 contribution, which remains at 5 per cent., but the range of profits or gains on which the contribution is levied is being changed.
Under the draft order, the range will be from £2,250 to £7,000 a year instead of the present range of £2,000 to £6,250 a year. The result of this change is that there will be no liability for Class 4 contributions where profits or gains are £2,250 a year or less; there will be a small reduction in liability on any particular level of profits between £2,250 and £6,500 a year, and an increase in liability where profits are above £6,500 a year. The maximum increase in the Class 4 contribution will be £25 a year and will be payable where profits or gains are £7,000 or more a year. The new upper limit of £7,000 a year is the annual equivalent of the new upper earnings limit of £135 a week for the contributions of employed earners and employers.
This appears to be rather complicated and perhaps I can best illustrate it by giving an example. A person with profits or gains of £2,250 a year will pay £12·50 less for 1979–80 than he did for the current year. On profits of £6,500 a year a person will pay the same amount in each year. Only on profits above this level will his liability for Class 4 contributions be increased. He will, for example, pay an extra £10 if his profits are £6,700 and, as I mentioned, an extra £25 if his profits are £7,000 a year or more.
Finally, I come to the remaining two changes which the draft order makes. It increases the level of earnings below which a self-employed person can be exempted from liability for Class 2 contributions, from the existing limit of £950 a year to £1,050 a year. So it has been raised by £100 a year. It also raises the rate of the voluntary Class 3 contribution
318
from £1·80 to £2 a week. I have tried to keep my remarks as brief as possible because, as I indicated earlier, no more than minimum changes in contribution liability are proposed on this occasion. The increases specified in the draft order simply reflect the changes in earnings levels and other factors which will affect our expenditure on National Insurance benefits and will enable the scheme to continue to operate fairly and, we think, on a sound financial basis. I hope my explanation has been adequate and I commend the order to your Lordships for approval.
Moved, That the draft Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order 1978, laid before the House on 22nd November be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
5.26 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his explanation of the draft order. Very substantial sums are mentioned here and I do not think any of us when discussing the Social Security Act 1975 were at that time aware of the speed with which the contributions would multiply. Under this piece of subordinate legislation a sum of no less than £9,000 million will be raised towards defraying the cost of the Health Service. It is not a matter which normally concerns your Lordships' House—it is a question of Supply—but in this particular circumstance we are considering the uprating of contributions and it is therefore a matter of special significance.
I have previously mentioned on the annual review of these upratings the question of the surplus and I feel it is appropriate to refer to it again this year; and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who is part of the same cast for this annual event, will do the same. The Public Accounts Committee's Ninth Report, published in July 1978, refers to some very significant figures, namely that for the year 1976–77 there was a wide discrepancy of no less than an estimated surplus of £389 million and an outturn of £928 million. These are very big figures indeed, though one in no way casts this as the responsibility of the Government Actuary, on whose shoulders so much of the burden of estimating will lie.

319
The suppositions which are put to the Government Actuary are at fault and we on these Benches say that in the Government Actuary's Report some particularly difficult suggestions are made with which we do not agree. I refer to the estimates of income and outgo to be found in paragraph 7 of the Actuary's Report, and in paragraph 7(ii) he says:
"By the end of 1979, and at the end of the current phase of the pay policy, average earnings will be at a level of 7 per cent. higher than a year before and the increase in the following year will also be 7 per cent.".
It is difficult in present circumstances to see how this estimate can in any way measure up to the prognosis we have received from other sources. Nevertheless, the estimate which the Actuary was asked to make was on this basis. Therefore, I think we can expect a considerable discrepancy between the estimate and the outturn, and I must leave it at that.
I am grateful to Lord Wells-Pestell for the example he gave, which differed from that given by his right honourable friend in that it was a new example on the Class 4 contributions. Examples are always welcome and I am grateful to him for altering his right honourable friend's statement in that he removed certain passages which would have been very lengthy for your Lordships to listen to.
5.30 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I wish to join with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his very careful and thorough explanation of the order. I am glad that the percentage contributions in respect of employed persons are not going up for either employers or employees this year, but inflation again makes it necessary, as the noble Lord explained, to raise the limits, both lower and upper, for Class 1 contributions; the former in step with the basic pension, and the latter so that it remains seven times the basic, as required by the new earnings-related scheme which commenced in April. This latter process is accomplished by separate regulations, but as the noble Lord pointed out, it is convenient to take it together with the provisions of the order.
Those earning less than the old upper limit pay no more. Those between the old and the new upper limits have the
320
highest percentage increase, as always, and those over the new top limit have an increase of a decreasing percentage, the larger their income. That is an anomaly which I have previously pointed out, and it must be so where contributions are cut off at a fixed limit.
Presumably the self-employed flat rate has gone up because it covers a larger amount of income with the raising of the lower limit for the 5 per cent. levy from £2,000 per annum to £2,250 per annum. Unfortunately, that means that the self-employed earning below the lower limit for the levy pay more, although employed persons in the same income range do not. Anyone earnings between £1,050, which is the exception limit—the limit below which contributions from the self-employed are not required—and the old lower limit for the levy of £2,000, will pay £10·40 more per annum; that is £2·10p per week, instead of £l·90p per week. However, those earning between the new upper limit of £2,250 and the old upper limit of £6,250 will pay £10·40 per annum more—just the same basic flat rate contribution—but they will pay £12·50 less per annum levy. So they are favoured with a net reduction, while the lowest earners pay extra. I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to confirm that I have got the figures right; and if he does, then what I have mentioned is another anomaly.
I note from the Government Actuary's report that the estimated surplus for the year 1978–79 is now £247 million, against £25 million deficit forecast a year ago, and £69 million deficit forecast in May this year. None of the proposals in the order and the related regulations will contribute to that turnaround, that surplus. So that is satisfactory so far as it goes and it suggests that the current percentages are the right ones.
For 1979–80 a surplus of £34 million —with the changes in contribution which the order and the regulations introduce— is forecast, as against a £25 million deficit forecast a year ago for the operations of the previous year. Considering the changes in benefit entitlement listed in the Government Actuary's report, which take effect in April 1979, this is encouraging, although we are warned by the Government Actuary that the forecasts are subject to rather greater un-

321
certainty then is usually the case; and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has referred to some of that uncertainty. It is pointed out that the balance in the fund—and here the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, underlined it—is, as a percentage of the annual expenditure, decreasing. On the whole it is a year of minimum change, as the noble Lord said, and with some reservation of the anomalies which I have mentioned, I am content that the order should be approved by the House.
5.35 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think that either of the noble Lords who have spoken has asked me to produce any facts of which they themselves are not aware. With regard to one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, it is worth repeating that the difference between the Actuary's estimate and outturn in 1976–77 was due mainly to contributions under wholly earnings-related structure which provided more than was estimated. There was also a smaller proportion than expected of those who were qualifying for unemployment benefit. This is the only explanation one can give for the point which the noble Lord made.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked why are the poorest self-employed to pay more than the better off? The different effect of the proposed contribution changes at various earnings levels arises from the mixed flat rate and earnings-related contribution liability of the self-employed. Both the flat rate Class 2 contribution and the profits limits between which earnings-related Class 4 liability arises are being raised to take account of the increases in earnings levels, as are the earnings level limits for employees. The result is that all the self-employed, other than those excepted from liability on the grounds of small earnings—which in the coming year will be £1,050, and in the present year is £950—will pay an increased Class 2 contribution, but those whose earnings are within, or slightly above, the existing profit bands for Class 4 liability will have a small reduction in their Class 4 contribution liability, which. in most cases will slightly exceed the extra cost of the Class 2 contributions.
I should not have thought that there would be a great deal in it, and I did not
322
think the noble Lord, Lord Banks, was drawing attention to any considerable discrepancy. I do not think that it is necessary for me to say anything more, other than to thank both noble Lords for their observations and comments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONTEMPT OF COURT
5.38 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD rose to call attention to the Report of the Committee on Contempt of Court (Cmnd. 5794) and the Government's discussion document (Cmnd. 7145); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I believe that there is at any rate one matter upon which your Lordships will be in agreement; namely, that as this report—the Phillimore Report—appeared in 1974, this debate has not occurred too soon. In fact, the matter has not been previously discussed in your Lordship's House, and except for a brief adjournment debate which took place, I understand, in April of this year, the matter has not been discussed in the other place, either.
However, we have the very useful Green Paper which was issued by the Government in March 1978. I understand that it is a Green Paper, though it is masquerading as a White Paper. When I inquired as to this I was given to understand that these days Green Papers always do appear as White Papers. Whether this is due to a great shortage in the factories of printers' green ink, I do not know. Nevertheless, with your Lordships' permission, I shall refer to this document as a Green Paper.
First, I wish to pay a tribute to the work of this very distinguished committee under the eminent chairmanship of the late Lord Justice Phillimore. It was a small committee, but it had a very distinguished membership, and it is worth noting that it consisted not only of lawyers but also of a number of eminent laymen, including General Sir John Hackett, and Mr. Robin Day, who contributed a valuable dissenting note on one particular point, but who otherwise agreed with all his colleagues.
As your Lordships will have seen from the committee's report, it went into these complicated matters with great care and thoroughness, and it arrived at no less than 35 recommendations by way of suggestions whereby the law could be improved. Many of these suggestions, of course, are relatively minor and uncontroversial; and for the purposes of opening this debate I propose to confine myself to what are described in the Green Paper as "central recommendations", in particular those relating to two crucial points. One is the definition of "contempt", particularly as affecting the Press and the media generally, and the other is the question of the time from which the law of contempt should apply, again especially as affecting the media. I would think that no-one in a democratic society such as ours would deny the importance of the freedom of the Press. On the other hand, no more will he deny (unless, perhaps, he may be a journalist) that the use of the law of contempt to ensure fair trials and avoid what has been called "trial by newspaper" is one of the great institutions which has been created by our common law judges.
Experience in other countries, particularly in the United States, has revealed what seems to us, at any rate, a sorry state of affairs, where, before a man has actually appeared in court for trial, he is subjected to a process of arraignment and, indeed, conviction by newspapers, long before he has had an opportunity to make his defence in court—and this is done in the name of the fundamental freedom of speech. Nor, indeed, is the experience on the Continent very much happier. A very well informed commentator, Dr. Mann, an Anglo-German lawyer of eminence, wrote in a recent number of the Law Quarterly Review in regard to our law of contempt and described it as:
" … one of the most exemplary contributions of English law to civilisation, the maintenance of personal liberty and standards of public life. Anyone familiar with conditions of the continent will be conscious of the great evil which trial by newspaper is doing there".
I could not help but notice the other day, in what is commonly described as one of our quality Sunday newspapers, a comment in regard to a proceeding which was then very shortly to commence. It said:
324
"There have in fact already been television programmes in the United States going over the details of the case and containing long interviews with many of the witnesses".
Then it uses these words:
"The niceties"——
that is the word chosen, "niceties"—
"of the English concern not to prejudice a jury with information which may not eventually be presented at a trial are largely baffling across the Atlantic and the Channel, where trial by newspaper is well enshrined as one of the fundamental freedoms".
Your Lordships may feel that that is not a very happy reflection; and I venture to say—and I propose to say no more than this—that current example may perhaps be giving us some inkling of how the media would approach such matters if they were given carte blanche, and that may perhaps give us some reason to reflect whether very soon we may not have to take a long and anxious look at the operation, as it functions at present, of Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
As your Lordships will have seen from the Report, the Phillimore Committee come down firmly on the crucial need to do nothing to weaken the control over the mass media by the courts in order to preserve the fair administration of justice. What they do point out is that there is a very real difficulty here—the difficulty of striking a balance between two great public interests. On the one hand you have the right to comment on and criticise freely all matters of public concern, while on the other there is the need to preserve the proper administration of justice and ensure that every accused person will have a fair trial which will not be predetermined by some other public body or organisation. In this connection, the Committee recognised two main criticisms of the present state of the law, and it is these two about which I am going to say a few words. The first is that under our existing law it is not clear what criteria apply in deciding whether a contempt has been committed. That is the first point. The second main point is: At what moment does liability for contempt begin?
As to the first point, a great deal of concern has been aroused recently, of course, by the celebrated thalidomide case, which ultimately reached your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity under the name of Attorney-General v.

325
The Times. The case was there decided in July 1973, and was reported in the Law Reports in 1974. I am very gratified to see that in the order of speakers there will shortly be following Lord Rawlinson, who of course played a leading role in that case and is probably better informed as to it than anyone else. We shall await his views on this matter with the greatest possible interest. One thing which emerged from that case was that there was a great deal of judicial disagreement as to the appropriate test to be applied. At the end of the day, in the House of Lords (not, perhaps, the end of the day as the future may portend, but at the end of the day so far as that case in our courts is concerned) their Lordships came up with what was in effect a new criterion—the criterion whether the article in question, the article in the Press, would prejudge issues which occur in the proceedings.
The Phillimore Committee criticised all the different approaches that had so far been developed in our courts, and in particular they criticised that criterion put forward by the House of Lords in the thalidomide case, which they thought had moved too far against the freedom of the Press. They particularly deplored the fact that public discussion may be stifled simply because of the uncertainty of the law and the fact that people do not know really when they can comment or how far they can go. However, Phillimore recognised that there was a very real problem here and that discussion on important public matters ought not to be suspended simply because, quite incidentally, there might be some prejudice to a possible litigant.
What they proposed, therefore, was to reconstruct somewhat what was regarded before the thalidomide case as the normal criterion applied, and they proposed the test in this form. They suggested that the law should be altered to make the crucial test of whether contempt had been committed, whether the publication creates a risk that the course of justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. This test more or less followed the traditional pattern which had been applied in the divisional court in the thalidomide case, with one important difference.
What the committee proposed was that the emphasis should be moved away from the degree of risk to t he degree of harm,
326
so that the question now would be whether serious harm or impediment was likely to occur. Phillimore thought that this test should apply both to criminal trials and civil litigation. A further complication has occurred which is referred to in the Green Paper. The thalidomide case has now been referred to the European Court under the European Convention which your Lordships were discussing only the other day. The judgment has not yet been given but it is awaited. The full court of the European Court is proposing to give judgment—we do not know exactly when; but it appears that it probably will not be until early next year.
I suggest that the implications of this case, as ventilated before the European Court, might be quite serious from the point of view of this country because if the outcome of these proceedings in the European Court were to produce a decision laying down that our whole attempt to preserve safeguards to protect accused persons on trial against undue prejudice from the Press or other media is misconceived, and that something like the Continental system, what one might call the European system, were to prevail, this would undoubtedly be a very serious setback for justice in this country.
At any rate one can certainly understand, if I may say so, the situation of the Government that it is impracticable for the moment to introduce new legislation until we know what the European Court has decided and what affect this may have on the future development of our law. I should not expect the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack to make any direct comment at this moment to your Lordships upon this judgment which is still pending before another court; but perhaps the noble and learned Lord might feel that he could at least disclose to us some of the Government's thinking in relation to this issue and how he feels that the traditional safeguards of our law can be preserved in any event, because I think that this will be one of the anxieties which will be foremost in your Lordships' minds.
There is also a further point, as indicated in the Green Paper, that certain aspects of this matter are now also being considered by the Law Commission. According to the Green Paper, their final report on this was expected during 1978. One

327
would venture to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when this final report can now be anticipated.
If I may venture a general comment on this crucial point which I have so far discussed, I suggest that when it comes to amending this aspect of law by legislation, if amended it is to be, any criterion that we adopt is likely to have some uncertainties. I do not think that it is possible in a matter of this kind to have an absolutely clearly defined criterion. It is rather like trying to define in an Act of Parliament some notion such as negligence. It is a general standard and there is a limit beyond which precision will not go. But, having said that, I would think that one is also left with the position at the end of the day, whatever criterion you have, the balancing must to some extent be left to the judges. It is for the judges to evaluate whatever principle is finally accepted and apply it to particular cases. I think that this is a respect in which we can entertain considerable confidence in the discretion of our judges to apply any such criterion with fairness.
As to Phillimore's own proposal, it seems to me, with all respect, that there is much to be said for the formula that they put forward and that it is probably to be preferred to the formula which was adumbrated by their Lordships in the House of Lords' decision. Prejudging an issue does not seem to be the sort of test which meets all the necessary situations and, indeed, you could very easily have many situations where an issue could be said to be pre-judged without necessarily causing a trial to be unfair. There is also the question of defences to which I shall refer briefly. Phillimore favoured a new defence of fair and accurate reports of proceedings in open court; but they rejected the idea of a defence that publication was for the public benefit. On the other hand, they favoured the introduction of a new defence in the case of contempt to the effect that the subject-matter is under public discussion and could only affect pending proceedings incidentally. I confess that that sounds rather a vaguely-framed defence and one cannot help wondering whether it would not tend to increase the uncertainty of the law without necessarily producing any very powerfully beneficial result.
Lastly I should like to say a few brief words on the second crucial issue, the question of the starting point of liability— a matter which has given rise to very considerable difficulty. At the moment, our courts—that is, the courts in England— apply the test of whether proceedings are imminent. This of course has been criticised as a very vague notion and very difficult for editors and newspapers to decide what constitutes "imminence". Phillimore therefore proposes to cut the Gordian knot by trying to fix a much more exact point of time at which one could say that contempt proceedings would be capable of being brought. They say that for this purpose you should distinguish between criminal and civil proceedings. In cases of criminal proceedings they go for the moment when a suspected person is charged, charged with an offence.
On the civil side, they suggest that the appropriate date would be the date of setting down an action. There certainly would seem to be considerable advantage in having relatively fixed points of time of that kind; although the Green Paper points out that these suggestions give rise to some considerable technical difficulties. On the whole it would seem that those difficulties are not by any means insuperable. What one would like to know from the noble and learned Lord is whether he can shed any further light on the Government's thinking on this crucial issue and, particularly, whether he would care to comment on the recent decision in the Scottish courts where the Scottish High Court of Judiciary in the case of Hall and Associated Newspapers came down firmly in favour of the view that the crucial time for the purposes of Scottish law should be when the accused person is arrested or, perhaps, when the warrant itself has been granted.
The basis of this suggestion is, one would think, a very convincing one. What the High Court of Judiciary said was that that is the moment when the accused first comes within the protection of the court and that is the moment from which the law of contempt ought to operate. It would be very interesting to know whether the Government have reached any further reflections in the light of that Scottish decision. Time does not permit me to comment on any of the other valuable proposals included in the 35 recommen-

329
dations to which I have referred. It would be interesting to know from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether the Government intend in any event to introduce legislation to give effect to those recommendations, apart from those I have already discussed.
In conclusion, I feel very strongly that the Phillimore Committee put us strongly in their debt for the very careful study that they have given to this vitally important area of law, and that it is now for the Government and Parliament to make up their minds what action is needed and to take appropriate action, I hope in the very near future. I further hope that it will be done without calling for any further inquiry. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.2 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I am sure that the whole House—as I certainly am—will be most grateful to my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead for having raised this important subject this afternoon and for his lucid survey of many of the difficult issues involved. It was in the hope of stimulating public discussion on these issues that the Government published their discussion paper—which is a neutral description of it, in view of its whitened colour—in March this year; and of course the Government will wish to pay particular regard to the views expressed in Parliament and particularly here tonight by the distinguished experts who, I am glad to see, have put their names down to speak before the Government come forward with firm proposals.
I should also like to echo what my noble friend has said by way of thanking the members of the committee which under the alas! late Lord Justice Phillimore carried out such a valuable and thorough survey of this technical and complicated branch of the law. I remember giving evidence to the Commission and having a pretty tough time indeed under the questioning of Mr. Robin Day and other members of the Commission.
I should like at an early stage in what I have to say to correct the impression which I fear is being created in some quarters that the continued maintenance of the law of contempt is simply a Government device to shackle the Press. We
330
have no such unworthy motive. It is significant that the first and unanimous conclusion of the Phillimore Report was that the law of contempt is required as a means of maintaining the rights of the citizen to a fair and unimpeded system of justice and of protecting the orderly administration of the law. An my noble friend has said, the Committee made 35 recommendations, many of which are uncontroversial, although some, like the recommendations that magistrates should have power to punish for contempt in the face of the court—a proposal with which I agree—break new ground.
The recommendations on which interest has largely focused are those concerning the rules prohibiting publication of material which is liable to prejudice the administration of justice because it is here that freedom of speech, which includes of course freedom of the Press and other media of information, can conflict with the due administration of justice or, putting it more directly, with the vital right of the citizen to a fair trial. Both of these are of fundamental importance in our society, as in any free society. Often they are complementary and assist each other, but in the area of the law of contempt, as my noble friend has said, a balance needs to be struck between them. Exactly where the balance is to be struck is a difficult and delicate matter and often a matter of personal judgment. I have doubts about the approach of those who press simply for the full implementation of the Phillimore recommendations. As I hope the discussion paper has indicated, it is not, I fear, as simple as that.
The discussion paper picked out four central issues which were the subject of one or more recommendations in the Phillimore Report about which the Government have reservations and about which we think further discussion and debate is desirable. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking those who have responded to the paper by submitting letters and memoranda to my Department and to the Crown Office in Edinburgh. The fact that the discussion paper picks out these four issues does not mean that the Government necessarily accept in their entirety all the other recommendations in the report; but there is one other about which I should say a word first, of all. Perhaps the most serious criticism which

331
the Phillimore Committee levelled at the present law was its uncertainty, especially as it affects the Press.
One aspect of this uncertainty is that each court which has had to consider a case of alleged contempt by the Press has applied its own formula as to the test of strict liability for contempt—that is to say, liability even though the contempt was unintentional—and each formula has, I fear, tended to be slightly different. The Phillimore Committee recommended not only that a statutory formula should be enacted, but that the emphasis should be shifted so that publications would be caught only where the potential prejudice or impediment to the administration of justice is serious. This would not only enlarge the area of Press freedom but also make its boundaries less uncertain. It is a point which needs to be borne in mind when we are considering the four issues raised in the discussion paper, to which T now turn, because it is relevant to all of them and is an important background consideration if these other matters are also to be dealt with.
The first question is that of a starting point for strict liability for publications which may cause prejudice to civil or criminal proceedings. The present position in England is not wholly clear. For a long time it has been assumed, on the basis of judicial statements in a number of cases, that there may be strict liability when the proceedings are imminent. In Scotland until this year it was assumed, on the basis of the Stirling case in 1959, that the courts would impose strict liability at an even earlier stage, namely, when the prosecuting authorities started to investigate a crime. However, the Phillimore Committee say that they could discover no case either in England or in Scotland in which strict liability had actually been imposed in respect of a publication before proceedings, civil or criminal, had started. They found only one case where that had been done— and that was in Northern Ireland in 1961— where two prejudicial articles about a murder suspect appeared on the day before he was arrested, and the circumstances were such that the reporters in question, as well as the suspect, knew very well that he was likely to be arrested before long. However instructive the facts of that case are, the report of it
332
indicates that the court did not go very deeply into the question of the starting point for strict liability. The committee thought that the uncertainty of the "imminence rule", if it can be so called, had in their words:
" … an inhibiting effect on the freedom of the Press which is out of all proportion to any value there may be in preserving it".
They propose the simple rule that strict liability for contempt in relation to criminal proceedings should not begin until the proceedings have started. For this purpose the moment they selected was the time when the accused was charged with an equivalent rule in Scotland, since it is said that is a readily identifiable moment.
The Committee acknowledged, however, that there are strong arguments the other way. I think it is clear that there is no precise moment at which prejudice may start to arise, and that it may be caused before an arrest is made is borne out by the facts of the Northern Irish case to which I have referred. As was said by a judge in a case some 75 years ago:
" … it is possible very effectually to poison the fountain of justice before it begins to flow".
For this it matters not whether or not the prejudicial conduct is deliberate.
An important point which is sometimes overlooked in discussion of this question is the defence provided by Section 11 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, that if the publisher did not know or had no reason to suspect that the proceedings were pending or imminent he should not be guilty of contempt. That is an existing statutory defence.
Again, it is in the public interest that a guilty person should be convicted, but if his case has been so prejudiced that he cannot get a fair trial by reason of "trial by newspaper" or the kind of illustration my noble friend was giving, his conviction may have to be overturned—that has indeed happened on at least one occasion in the United States—or at least the prosecution might have to be abandoned and a guilty man, for that reason, go free.
It is for consideration, therefore, whether in the pursuit of certainty the Phillimore Committee's recommendation would go too far and create an unacceptable risk that a suspect will be seriously

333
prejudiced before he is charged. A memorandum I received recently indicates that my doubts on this are shared by the Law Reform Committee of the Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar, although it is only right that I should say that in relation to civil proceedings they recommend going further than Phillimore and confining strict liability to publication in relation to cases which are to be tried by jury.
As my noble friend mentioned, there has been a new development in Scotland this year on the starting point in criminal cases. In the case of Hall, he was arrested in January and two days later an article about him was published which it was thought might be prejudicial. Hall was subsequently charged with murder and his trial received a good deal of national publicity. In the contempt proceedings against the newspaper which published the article, a court of five judges of the High Court of Justiciary was specially convened to hear the case. In a very full judgment the court laid it down that there is a starting point for contempt of the jurisdiction by the court, and that point is the moment when the accused is arrested or a warrant for his arrest is issued. The court went on expressly to disapprove of the dicta of Lord Clyde in the Stirling case, that the court's jurisdiction in the matter of contempt by prejudicial publication may run from the time at which a crime is suspected and investigation by the criminal authorities has begun. Although the court's ruling in this case was that the starting point should be the arrest or the issue of a warrant for arrest rather than the time of charge, as Phillimore recommended, this conclusion is not really very far from that recommendation. It remains to be seen whether this view will be followed by the courts in the other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, but all I can say at the moment is that we are keeping an open mind on this question and will listen carefully to views which may be expressed in this debate.
The problem of prejudicial publication does not arise so acutely in civil proceedings. Here the Phillimore Committee's recommendation was that the starting point should be when the case is set down or, in Scotland, when proof or jury trial is ordered. The main difficulty here is practical rather than a matter of principle.
334
In many civil proceedings, there is no such stage and although the committee recommended that provision should be made for such other proceedings by rules of court, the result, I fear, could well be a confusion of different starting points.
One aspect of this matter to which the committee drew attention is that of the "gagging writ", by which is meant a writ served simply in order to involve the law of contempt for the purpose of stifling adverse publicity about the writ server. Perhaps the Press has been excessively timid in this area, but it is of course something which has to be borne in mind when we consider this question. Clearly the objective which the Government and, I think we, should have in mind is to have a clear and simple rule.
The second main issue raised in the discussion paper is that of defences, to which again my noble friend referred. The committee made four recommendations regarding defences: two are that a publication which creates a risk of serious prejudice to legal proceedings should be justifiable if it is a fair and accurate report of the proceedings in open court or if it is part of a legitimate discussion on a matter of general public interest. The Government have serious doubts about whether all the problems involved in these defences have been fully appreciated.
The proposal exempting fair and accurate reports of court proceedings was prompted by doubts which had arisen in the Poulson and Kray cases, where there were widespread reports of proceedings against persons who were likely to be tried on other charges in the near future. The proposal broadly corresponded with what the law had previously been thought to be; but it turned out to be by no means entirely straightforward. An accurate report of legal proceedings may include matters discussed in the absence of the jury, which ought not to be reported in newspapers while the trial is in progress. The committee referred to this problem in connection with arguments in the absence of the jury regarding the admissibility of evidence which is so frequent a feature of criminal trials, alas! today. But it may arise in other ways as well. The Border Television case earlier this year gives an example. The accused pleaded guilty to some counts in the

335
indictment and was tried on others of a similar nature. The pleas of guilty were reported. The judge stopped the trial and sent it elsewhere. He thought that essential for a fair trial. The Divisional Court agreed and found a contempt established.
The proceedings in 1975 against the Socialist Worker newspaper for disclosing the names of witnesses in a blackmail case were another example. In commenting on that, Phillimore proposed that the judge should be given a statutory power to prohibit in the public interest the publication of names or other matters arising at a trial. But, my Lords, such a power would have to be framed in the most general terms if it is to ensure that in all cases of genuine need a judge's request for non-disclosure should always be heeded. This, I think, is not an easy problem. The Socialist Worker case came too late to receive more than a passing reference in Phillimore. Its implications clearly deserve serious study. Argument in the Colonel B case, raising some of the same issues, was begun in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House last week but consideration of it is still continuing. It is of course sub judice and I make no comment upon it.
The proposed defence of general public discussion is intended to preserve the public interest in uninterrupted discussion of the issues of the day. I think we would all agree that public discussion of important issues should not be stifled. But, given the new test of serious prejudice, this seems unlikely to occur, unless the discussion focuses closely on particular features of the litigation in question. Even with the present test, public discussion on the safety of drugs continued unabated throughout the thalidomide proceedings.
The third major question concerns the Phillimore proposal that it should not be contempt to bring influence or pressure to bear on a party to legal proceedings, unless that pressure goes as far as intimidation or unlawful threats to his person, property or reputation, and this, of course, was one of the issues which arose in the Sunday Times case.
Unlike the House of Lords in that case, the Phillimore Committee drew no
336
distinction between Press comment and criticism which is fair and temporate, and that which is unfair and intemperate. Their recommendation would permit both. The Government doubt whether that is right. We are all conscious of the great pressure which, as Phillimore acknowledged, the media can bring to bear on a litigant. Even a really virulent campaign of execration by the media against a litigant, designed to induce him to abandon his claim, would not necessarily be a contempt under the rule proposed by Phillimore, unless, presumably, it was liable to prejudice the court or to deter the party's witnesses.
The fourth and last main issue concerns the Phillimore proposal that conduct which is deliberately intended to prejudice legal proceedings should be treated as contempt only if it relates to specific proceedings, as distinct from the administration of justice generally. The Committee took the view that conduct of the latter type should normally be dealt with as a criminal offence. But it may not be possible for the criminal law always to be able to provide effective remedies. Parliament rightly insists that criminal offences should be framed in specific and restrictive terms.
Again, I refer to the Socialist Worker case, where the newspaper published the names of blackmail victims who, by order of the judge, had not been named in court. The publication could not have prejudiced the particular proceedings, because the witnesses had already given their evidence. Publication was objectionable mainly because, if it was permitted, it would tend to deter blackmail victims from giving evidence in future cases. This could, without doubt, prejudice the course of justice as a continuing process.
It is for the reasons I have endeavoured to explain that the Government have so far been unable to arrive at firm conclusions on the implementation of the Phillimore proposals, and we have published the Green Paper so that we may have the benefit of informed views upon them.
As my noble friend said, there are two other factors which have to be taken into account before final decisions can be reached. One is the forthcoming decision, to which my noble friend has referred, of the European Court of Human Rights

337
on the complaint of Times Newspapers Limited in regard to the decision of this House in the Sunday Times thalidomide case. I understand the decision in that case will not now be made until the New Year. In view of the impact which the decision of the European Court could have, it is plainly essential for us to know what it is before we can decide on the way in which the law of contempt should be reformed I do not think that I shall venture to anticipate what our response will be, until we hear the decision of the European Court. Here, again— and I give my favourite quotation from Lloyd George—it is undesirable to traverse a chasm in two leaps. So we had better wait to hear what the decision of the court will be; and we shall know in the New Year.
The second factor is the forthcoming report of the Law Commission on offences against the administration of justice. The Phillimore Committee referred to other branches of the criminal law, which are designed to protect the administration of justice, and observed that it was not possible to consider the law of contempt in isolation from these related areas of the law. I certainly share that view, particularly in view of the Phillimore recommendation that the scope of the law of contempt should be restricted. If all or any of those restrictions on the scope of contempt were to be implemented, it would be more necessary for all concerned to know how far the mischief could be dealt with in related areas of the criminal law. I hope that the Law Commission's report—this is my response to my noble friend's question—may be in my hands during the first half of next year.
I conclude by once again congratulating my noble friend on his initiation of this debate, and by assuring the House that whatever is said tonight will be given the most careful consideration by the Government, before they bring forward legislative proposals in due course. I cannot, for a large number of reasons, promise that it will happen in this Session of Parliament.
6.27 p.m.
Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL: My Lords, if there was any doubt among the intrepid noble Lords who are not lawyers, and who are still here after an hour of debate, that the law of contempt is not
338
complex and difficult, I think it will have been speedily discharged. It may be some comfort to them to know that I do not exclude those distinguished noble and learned Lords who sit on the Cross-Benches from those who find the subject difficult. The media claim that it is so confused and uncertain that it imposes many difficulties upon them, and there is some justification, if not much, for their claim. However, if it be the duty of Parliament to assist the Press and journalism generally by the enacting of some at least more workable, clearer system, whereunder the Press can know better what may or may not be published without offending, I think the Press in return should move into an area in which they could reciprocate, and stop the risking and muddying of the streams of justice, by ceasing the system of payment, direct or indirect, of monies for services or stories by persons whose notoriety arises from proceedings in court. That is an activity which generally scandalises very many people and may lead to consideration of whether to prohibit such activity, or to make disclosure of any such payments compulsory. I say that by way of introduction, because I want to make it clear that I am in favour of Parliament attempting by enactment to clarify this difficult branch of the law.
The history of the Phillimore Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, referred, pointing out how powerful a committee it was, is that it was appointed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham when the last Administration was in office. That followed the establishment of three committees by the then Leader of the Opposition, before that Administration came into office, on defamation, the Official Secrets Act and contempt of court. Those are three areas on which I do not think there can be any doubt among those who practise in the courts, or those who are engaged in public life, or indeed those who are engaged in publishing or in ordinary activities, that the law is not adequate for the present day and needs serious attention.
Defamation—largely judge-made law, which is not satisfactory—results today in totally unreal awards of damages. The recommendations of the committee which sat under Mr. Justice Faulks surely need urgent Parliamentary attention The

339
proposals of the committee on the Official Secrets Act which sat under Lord Franks also need urgent Parliamentary attention.
Contempt of court is probably the most complex of all subjects. A very powerful committee was brought together by my noble friend. As noble Lords will appreciate, it included three judges— alas! two of them are now dead—and a very experienced editor. As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, said, it also included a television journalist of unique distinction and a military academic of the first rank. It was a small committee, but one which was very well equipped to deal with this complex matter. It had this unique combination of law and journalism, plus the academic with the soldier's approach to these problems. It differs in that sense from certain more recently appointed committees which are manned by persons without such obvious authority and experience.
This very powerful committee spent three and a half years on the matter. It was the subject of detailed and thorough study—much greater study than can be given by learned judges who have to face this problem now and then (fortunately not very often) when a case of contempt of court appears before them. I, like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, appeared before the Committee as a witness and I can testify to the care and penetration with which they probed the problem. Their conclusions, therefore, must surely bear the greatest weight. The onus is upon those who reject their conclusions to establish the reasons why their conclusions should be rejected.
I do not accept all of the committee's conclusions. I was in the unenviable position of being both a party and advocate in the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, referred. It is, I suppose, the leading case in contempt. It is always difficult when one has to appear in those two roles. One is always advised, of course, never to be one's own advocate, but on occasion the Attorney-General has to be both. I note with interest that one of the noble Lords before whom I made submissions and who totally rejected them is to speak in the
340
debate. Another noble Lord before whom I made submissions and who agreed with them is also going to speak in the debate. Therefore, I await their contributions with the greatest interest.
It is right to say that we have to await the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, although I am not quite sure why we have to do so. The possibility of their rejecting the conclusions of the highest court in this land on an issue which is wholly domestic and wholly apt only for our processes and proceedings is one which disturbs me, for it concerns very much the authority of our courts. I am minded to say that we have to await what they will say because of the treaty to which we are a party, but I shall not be very much guided by the advice which they may give in their decision. Secondly, there is the Law Commission's report on offences relating to the administration of justice. That is very important.
I believe that the time has come to make up our minds. The committee sat for a long time and was manned by very distinguished people. Their report was published three and a half years ago and we have had all that time in which to consider it. The Green Paper is a very important and useful document and I understand the difficulties which any Administration must be faced with in dealing with this problem.
In our modern age, "contempt" is an awkward title. It does not give the impression of what it sets out to do. It gives the impression that contempt of court is a weapon to maintain the dignity of judges. It is nothing of the kind. It is not intended to maintain their dignity. It is intended to maintain the authority of the courts of law. On the authority of the courts of law, on the acceptance of the authority of the courts of law, and on the enforcement of the authority of the courts of law in no small part rests the concept of freedom under the law. A free society requires the enactment of law after debate in Parliament and the implementation of the historic common law.
It is vital that out liberties should be guarded by the institutions established by law and by nobody else. They are not to be decided by gossip, or rumour, or scandal, or by unelected journalists

341
or other outsiders, or by elected or unelected parliamentarians. Parliamentarians should be the first to understand the importance of the need to maintain the authority of the courts of law. Parliament is very jealous of its privileges. For many years I served in another place on the Committee for Privileges. They are rightly jealous of their rights and of the authority of Parliament, which is designed to enable parliamentarians to execute their duties without improper pressures from outside. That is also true of the courts.
Parliament should be the first to support the instruments which have been set up to execute the law which Parliament has enacted. Therefore the courts must be entitled to protection from outside pressures. They must be entitled to see that their authority is upheld. The parties concerned—accused, prosecution and witnesses—are entitled to protection and relief from influence in proceedings. That is why I say that the Appellate Committee of this House was correct in the case of the Sunday Times. No matter what is the particular position of the parties, where there is a deliberate attempt, in my view, to influence the conduct of litigation, which has ultimately to be decided by the courts, it is wrong and should not be accepted.
The administration of justice, which has got to be impartial, must be un-pressurised. That is of primary public interest. I emphasise the words "public interest". By that I do not mean public curiosity, which is often merely trivial and prurient. Greater judgment, even when there is the right to report, might well be exercised over the form of reporting. But it is of major public interest that the public should be able to see, hear and witness the administration of justice by the courts, because the dispensation of justice is probably the most important function that a civilised State has to exercise and makes all the difference between a totalitarian State—where the will of the State is the will of the Government and the will of the Government is the will of the Party, and that they make the law—and a free society.
Therefore, major importance has always been attached in the United Kingdom, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead,
342
made clear, to fair trial and prevention from outside influence. That involves restrictions upon other rights. If any danger threatens that fundamental principle, then that other right must give way. The noble Lord was right to point to the kind of practice overseas—for instance, the headline "Arrest of the Assassin" or, in another jurisdiction, as he pointed out, the district attorney giving his Press conference. The United Kingdom has resolutely rejected that kind of practice.
Also, we have to accept the modern factor that there has been a greatly increased extension of the influence of the media and its access to a vast audience. Therefore, it is important to ensure that there is no lessening of the principle, and the extent of the increased influence exerted by the media must not be ignored. Ten years ago there was no restriction upon the reporting of committal proceedings. In 1967, however, a limitation was imposed by the Criminal Justice Act. My own view, quite apart from tie quirk of the enacted law which permits one of many accused to have publicity even if the others of his co-accused do not wish it, is now that there should be a change; that the committal proceedings should be treated in a similar way to interlocutory proceedings in a civil process, and that therefore the reporting of the committal proceedings should be no longer permitted.
Even during the trial, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead has pointed out, there has arisen nowadays a new fashion in daily and weekly magazine style of articles, and even in television commentaries during the course of a trial. We must realise that this; could lead to what happens overseas, where juries are kept together without access to Press or television during the trial because it is vital that a jury should not be influenced by any outside pressure, either for or against the prosecution or defence. They decide upon the evidence, and that is why we have established a set procedure and the rules of evidence.
As I have said, it is clear from the Green Paper that the Government have borne in mind all those matters, and they have been impressed by the difficulties. However, I think the time has come when we all have to make up our minds. It is

343
no longer possible for us to be able to say, "These are the difficulties. What shall we do? We will deal with each case as it comes along". The difficulties that we then give to the judges are too great. Therefore I believe that we cannot leave the situation as it is and that codification is required. I believe that Phillimore got it about right.
Therefore, in my view—and I will sketch this through quickly in a debate in which many noble Lords wish to speak—there should be total restriction upon committal proceedings, because I treat that as an interlocutory process unless the charge is dismissed and the accused are discharged, when, as now, publication should be permitted. As now, there should be restriction on certain domestic proceedings and matters relating to children, with power for the judge to lift the restriction. As now, there should be restriction on the identification of rape victims and the accused (only recently introduced), until the accused is convicted when, of course, his identity may be made public. As now, there should be restriction on indecent evidence and evidence in matrimonial proceedings. As now, on application of the Crown under Section 8 of the Official Secrets Act in cases concerning national security, the court should be able to go into camera.
Then there is the case to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred, the publication of evidence prior to verdict of any matter in a jury trial: where the accused has pleaded not guilty there should then be no publication of matter indicating that that accused has pleaded guilty to other offences or that he has any previous convictions; nor should there be publication of any part of the proceedings in open court where the judge has ordered the jury out of court. Finally, I believe that there should be a total restriction—now I think it will have to be in statutory form—of any matter which may lead to the disclosure of the identity of a witness whom any court has directed should be permitted to give evidence anonymously, provided the court has exercised that power on the grounds of national security, personal danger to the witness or where disclosure was likely to impede the prevention or detection of other offences or the apprehension and prosecution of offenders.
344
I would make the publication of those matters in conflict with those proposals an absolute offence, with penalties and with power to the Attorney General to apply for injunction to restrain any breach. Apart from offences in the face of the court, which I do not propose to deal with and which I think Phillimore suggested should be separate absolute offences —disturbances in the court, scandalising the court and judges—I believe there should be no strict liability for contempt by publication which tends to prejudice a fair trial before, in a criminal case, a charge has been preferred or a summons issued (which is the Phillimore recommendation), and in a civil case where the case has been set down for trial or a date has been fixed for hearing.
I personally have much sympathy with the proposal which the Law Reform Committee of the Senate of the Inns of Court have put before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and to which he has just referred. The case of Hall v. Associated Press has shown that the law of England and Scotland has drawn much closer together than it was thought, when the law of Scotland was thought to be that of Lord Clyde in Stirling v. Associated Newspapers. It is obviously desirable that the law in both countries should be the same because clearly, whatever border may come into existence after devolution, the publications will still flow across it.
So I consider that in modern times we should accept the main Phillimore majority recommendations. That would give to the Press the yardstick, that is to say a moment in time when comment would be replaced by strict reporting, and make the test the serious impeding or prejudicing of a fair trial. I consider that on balance there are difficulties and, although there are certain risks and as much detail will have to be considered in drafting the legislation, that the acceptance of such recommendations, while freeing the Press from reasonable anxieties and uncertainties, would still maintain a devotion to the fundamental principle of the paramount importance of a fair trial and the administration of justice.
6.46 p.m.
Lord DENNING: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for speaking out of turn. My noble friend Lord

345
Wigoder has been kind enough to let me say a few words now because I have an engagement later in the evening. Like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson, I gave evidence to Lord Justice Phillimore's Committee, and as Lord Justice Phillimore and I sat on the thalidomide case in the Court of Appeal—and I hoped that we had decided rightly, but the House of Lords decided otherwise—perhaps I may say a word or two in support of the committee's recommendations.
The law of contempt of court in England has been evolved by the judges. There is hardly any statute dealing with it at the moment and, on the; whole, the judges have done well. Comparing it, for instance, to the United States of America, if I go there or to other countries they want to know about our law of contempt of court. In the constitution of the United States of America freedom of the Press is guaranteed so highly that it takes precedence over, it seems, even a fair trial and many other fundamental interests. I hope that we shall be able to keep the right balance here. It is between, on the one hand, the importance of a fair trial and the administration of justice and, on the other hand, the importance in the public interest that matters of national importance should be discussed and made public to the world at large, whether in the Houses of Parliament or in the newspapers, so that all may know what is concerned.
I should like to say one word on the thalidomide case. The trouble with the drug was that in the year 1962 all the deformed babies were: born; ten years later cases had not come to trial. It was a grave national concern and there should have been a public inquiry, but there was none. It was all the subject of individual litigation carried on for all that time, so much so that eventually, in 1972, not only in the newspapers but in the other place there was a debate when the whole matter was raised. Was it not right also for the newspapers at that stage, in a matter of public interest, to discuss it, even as the House of Commons had discussed it? The rules of sub judice apply in these Houses equally as well as in the courts of law, and the laws should be parallel in each. Therefore, I would suggest there is a great deal to be said
346
for what is implied in Lord Justice Phillimore's recommendations, that perhaps the law went too far in condemning the newspapers in that case.
As I read Lord Justice Phillimore's committee's report, they would propose the test! is there a substantial and serious prejudice to the course of justice in a pending suit? I would suggest that it may be desirable that there should be legislation upon it. But I would agree with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor: let it wait for the European Court, but do not let us be bound by it; do not let us let them give too much rope to the newspapers. Because the other thing which the courts in England have done is to stop trial by newspaper. We have not got that evil as they have in the United States.
And what about gagging writs in the civil cases? We have had them a little while ago. A shareholder circularised the other shareholders; he went to the company meetings saying that there had been wrongdoing among the directors. And what happened? A writ was issued against him for libel and for slander. The next time he wanted to raise the matter it was said, "You cannot comment now. It is all sub judice. It is contempt of court if you comment on these proceedings", because the writ had been issued, a gagging writ, especially issued to try to stop the truth being known or fair comment being known. I hope, certainly from what has been held by the judges, that we shall no longer allow these gagging writs.
I would add only one or two more words in support of what Lord Justice Phillimore's committee said. How much I would agree with what I gather the Court of Session has said in Scotland: let the newspapers be restrained from the moment the charge is made or the accused arrested, or whatever it may be. But it is making it too uncertain a test, as some cases have said, that they must not comment once a charge is imminent. Do not we know how the newspapers will put in a photograph of a man whom the police may wish to interview, or speak of people who are helping the police with their inquiries? What are they but comment before the man is charged? For certainly, I would commend what Lord Justice Phillimore suggested in criminal trials, that the rule comes down once the man is charged. As

347
to civil cases, it should not be as early as just the issue of the writ or even the setting down. I ventured to suggest to Lord Justice Phillimore's committee that comment should not be strictly prohibited until the case is coming near for trial.
All these are really only small points on our present law. On the whole, the law of contempt of court at the moment works well. It stops abuses by the newspapers, and on the whole, certainly in preserving order in the courts, we have followed the advice of Lord Justice Phillimore's committee, and that, too, works well. Our law on contempt of court is, I believe, more effective than that of any other country in the world. Let us maintain it, but let us put on the small amendments suggested by Lord Justice Phillimore's committee. Wait, of course, for the European Court, but I am not quite sure whether the Royal Commission are going to deal with contempt of court. Perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be able to tell us. I am not sure it is a matter which needs much alteration from what it is at the moment. At all events, I would welcome and hope the Government can do something about Lord Justice Phillimore's report.
6.55 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I have the uneasy fealing that I am taking part in the rather artificial ritual of an elaborate gavotte, a routine devised by our democracy in order to enable us to avoid taking difficult decisions on matters of real importance. The steps that we have taken so far, which are familiar in many other areas apart from contempt of court, have been first of all to set up a Royal Commission in June 1971, to invite representations from everyone who is interested; the Royal Commission then reports after just under three years of diligent sitting. For some extraordinary reason it takes nine months for the report actually to be printed. There must perhaps have been problems with the new technology even in those days. After the report is printed there is a further delay of three and a half years while the Government reflect upon the reflections of Phillimore upon the whole problem, an even longer period than the Phillimore Committee itself took.
348
The Government then issued a Green Paper in March of this year, and I think I must, if I may, join with those of your Lordships who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, on the almost indecent haste with which he has managed to bring the matter before your Lordships' House after a lapse of only another seven or eight months. I would suspect that if the routine is now carried out faithfully there will be, after the debate in your Lordships' House, a further period after which it will be pointed out by the Government that as no consensus was reached in the debate in Parliament it is clearly not practicable to take any further steps for the time being. I used, perhaps, not an appropriate meta-phore when I referred to a gavotte; it is really rather more of a politicians "excuse-me."
Phillimore achieved something of course, at once, or almost at once, because Phillimore made various recommendations as to contempts which were committed in the face of the court, which would have resulted in the proceedings taken there and then by the judge being rather more of a judicial nature and rather less of instant retribution. Those recommendations have been largely acted upon as a result of the indications given by the Court of Appeal in 1975. That much has been achieved.
I do not know if I may weary those of your Lordships who are not legal historians and who are, I believe, very much now in the minority in your Lordships' Chamber, by reminding your Lordships of the famous occasion, in I believe, the Shoreditch County Court. A particularly meek and mild county court judge gave judgment against a woman plaintiff, at the end of which she picked up a large brown paper bag, removed from the bag a dead cat and hurled it at the judge's head. After the judge had removed the dead cat from his lap he, in his mild way, uttered the most dire threat that he could think of; he used the immortal words "Madam, if you do that again …". That situation—and there are recorded contempts of that nature throughout the history of the courts— has, I think, been adequately dealt with now as a result of the Phillimore Committee, and for that we ought to be grateful.

349
But for contempts outside court problems of course arise. They arise, as many of your Lordships have pointed out in this debate, as a result of a genuine conflict between two real and important public interests. It is, therefore, inevitable, I think, that any solution to that problem must lie in a series of compromises, and must not lie in saying that either the principle of the purity of the administration of the law or the principle of freedom of the Press is always to have precedence.
I am very sorry that every noble Lord who has put his name down to speak on this topic this evening is, in fact, a lawyer. I should have thought that this topic was of at least as much concern to those many Members of your Lordships' House who are, in one way or another, concerned in the media and particularly the newspaper industry. However, because everyone who is to speak is, in fact, a lawyer I hope very much that noble Lords will not gain the impression that lawyers are oversensitive about this matter. I should not think it appropriate that we should seek to be so. We should try to hold a proper balance between the integrity of our administration of the law and the freedom of the Press. I therefore suggest that the Phillimore Committee was right when it recommended that, in terms of strict liability for publication, there would have to be serious prejudice shown in order that contempt should be committed. We ought not to be too touchy about the trifling prejudice that may result in one way or another.
When the Phillimore Committee went on to consider the time after which contempt might become possible of commission, I wonder whether perhaps somewhat unnecessary and exaggerated emphasis was not placed on the dangers to the administration of justice by publications in newspapers or programmes on the media. I should have thought that, in the vast majority of cases—both civil and criminal—in which juries do not take part, the chance of prejudice to professional judges in courts of appeal, to judges in courts of first instance or to lay magistrates is, in fact:, negligible and is not a threat that ought to be regarded as very grave.
As to the danger where juries are concerned, I am bound to say again that
350
I regard it as being somewhat exaggerated. I am inclined to believe that juries in the first place forget very quickly what they read in the papers, and certainly something that they have read in the papers two or three weeks ago or two or three months previously goes very easily out of their minds when they settle down to try a case. Secondly, when juries are told by the judge to put out of their minds anything they may have heard or read about a case, I am in very little doubt that they are perfectly capable of doing so with complete success.
I should like to remind your Lordships of a murder case in which the Kray family were involved. It was a particularly unpleasant murder case which was tried in two separate trials. The first murder was publicised on the front page of every newspaper day after day, and there was a conviction. When the trial for the second murder started the following day, it was argued that it was impossible for any jury not to be prejudiced by what they had read. There was evidence in the second case. The case went to its conclusion and the jury in the second case, in fact, acquitted the defendants. That I think indicates that juries are not quite so easily prejudiced, and we ought not perhaps to be too mealymouthed about the possibilities of prejudice in that way.
The London School of Economics has done a certain amount of research on juries with simulated trials and it has monitored juries listening to the same trial. It might be of assistance if it could do some research into this aspect of the matter and have a simulated trial with different juries, in some cases giving the jury utterly prejudicial information, but telling the jury to put it out of their minds. I would strongly suspect that the result would show very little difference whether the juries were given that prejudicial information or not. After all, in the United States of America very frequently extremely prejudicial information is published in the Press—for example, about the defendant's previous convictions—at the moment he is arrested. I doubt whether that leads to any more miscarriages of justice in the United States than we have in this country.
One other matter of possible prejudice to juries that I want to mention— especially as it has been mentioned by the

351
noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson— concerns committal proceedings in cases of notoriety where there are a number of defendants and one defendant elects to remove the restrictions on publicity. Under the present law the restrictions must be lifted for all the defendants As I understood him, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, was suggesting that the restrictions ought not to be removed in those circumstances in relation to any of the defendants.
I wonder whether a third course might not be more acceptable, and whether it ought not to be recognised that there may be valid reasons for removing the restrictions on publicity—for example, it may be that fresh evidence will come to light, witnesses may be found as a result of the publicity and so forth. And, that in such a situation, if one defendant out of a number of defendants seeks to remove I the restrictions on publicity, the reasons should be put to the court, to the magistrate, and the magistrate should decide where the interests of justice lie if there is, in fact, a genuine conflict of interest.
Bearing in mind what I believe to be correct about the fact that our judges will certainly not be prejudiced by printed matter appearing before the trial, and that juries are far less likely to be prejudiced than is commonly supposed, I should very much support the recommendation of the Phillimore Committee that the effective time should be the actual commencement of the proceedings, and not any earlier date at which it is said the proceedings might be imminent. Certainly in the civil sphere that would have a very remarkable effect in reducing the evil consequences of gagging writs, about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, spoke. I know that it is possible to construe certain passages in the Sunday Times' thalidomide case as indicating that the Press might take its courage in both hands and ignore gagging writs in future. However, I think that one cannot blame the Press for being a little reluctant to rush into this rather difficult area.
The only other problem that I should like to raise for one moment is one which has not, I think, been considered either by the Phillimore Committee or in the Government Green Paper, and it is not
352
one upon which I can offer any reflections as to a possible solution, or, indeed, want to invite the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to do so this evening. However, what might have been thought at one time to be wholly unrealistic is perhaps now a real possibility; and is, that a flagrant contempt of court might be committed under the cloak of Parliamentary privilege in one or other of the Houses of Parliament. Where that happens it might, of course, not in itself be prejudicial because there are very few potential jurors in the ordinary way sitting in the public galleries. However, where that happens it appears to place in real difficulty the position of, for example, Hansard; the position of newspapers that normally report the proceedings in the Houses of Parliament, and in particular the position of the broadcasting authorities if they happen to be broadcasting the contempt at the time it is uttered in the House of Parliament. I can see that it could very easily be possible to make most damaging remarks about pending or current cases in one or other Chamber of the Houses of Parliament, and recent history rather indicates that that is no longer the remote possibility that it might have been thought to be some years ago.
I hope that the Government will not eventually take the view that the problem is too difficult to deal with; I hope that they will accept the majority of the Phillimore Committee's proposals. I believe that that would create an area of certainty where much is uncertain, and I believe that those proposals would adequately protect the integrity of our administration of justice; but that they would, at the same time, extend and ensure the continued existence of the freedom of the Press. Like all of your Lordships, I know that where there is freedom of the Press it is bound to be exercised from time to time with grotesque irresponsibility. I do not think that that is any reason for seeking to whittle it down. In those circumstances, I hope that the Government will, in due course, find that the recommendations on the lines of the Phillimore proposals and the main issues are acceptable and can be brought into effect.
7.10 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I have a special reason for being grateful to my

353
noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead for enabling us to discuss this report this evening: It is that in my very old age I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that recent Governments have appointed too many Royal Commissions and too many committees, and not paid enough attention to what happens when they report. I am afraid that sometimes—and I draw no distinction between the Parties—Governments appoint commissions or committees because it means that they do not have to worry about the particular matter for quite some considerable time.
I should like to cite one example from something that has happened in the last 48 hours. I remember in the 1960s going to a conference of international Western lawyers in Stockholm on the question whether or not a citizen should have a right of privacy. In January 1970 Justice produced a report on privacy accompanied by a draft Bill which they persuaded a Private Member of the other place to introduce. On Second Reading the then Home Secretary, now my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, said that if only the supporters of the Bill would not press the Second Reading to a Division, the Government would appoint a Government Committee on Privacy. Wisely, or unwisely, the Justice supporters accepted that offer.
Then the Younger Committee on Privacy was appointed, and it reported in July 1972. So the Government had already gained two and a half years. That report of course dealt not only with privacy, quite apart from computers, but also with computerised personal information. Three and a half years having elapsed since then, in December 1975—by which time six years had been gained—the Government published a White Paper containing their views. It did not really deal at all with a large part of the field, but it did deal with computerised information. I thought that it was a first-class White Paper and I strongly supported the conclusions to which the Government then came. They settled what was their policy in relation to computerised information, but they said that from a practical point of view it needed a practical committee which knew about computers to work out how it was actually to be done.
Therefore, in June 1976 the Government appointed a data protection committee.
354
That committee worked very fast, considering the difficulty of the field. It took 18 months to report. It heard everyone who had knowledge on this subject—the manufacturers of computers, the users of computers and civil rights bodies. It received 300 written representations and saw, I think, 60 witnesses. The day before yesterday it produced its report. Here it all is. It contains the views of all those people and their recommendations as to the practical way in which to deal with computerised information, accepting, of course, the policy principles which the Government had laid down.
The day before yesterday, in announcing the publication of the report, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary pointed out that:
"The general framework of the Government's policy … was described in the White Paper".
He then said:
"Before reaching any conclusions; on the committee's recommendations the Government will wish to have the views of computer users and others who would be affected by the recommendations, and will also take full account of views expressed in Parliament and elsewhere. Representative organisations who are known to have a special interest in the subject will be approached direct by the Government Departments concerned".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/78; cols. 556–7.]
So all the people, who have already said what they thought to the committee and whose views are all set out in the report, are to be approached by the Government all over again. They are to repeat to the Government the views which they have already expressed to the committee. Obviously, that will take at least a year, and by that time the Government will not be in office. In June 1971 the then Government appointed this committee, being clearly of the opinion—with which I think we should all agree —that this was an area of the law which needed an overhaul.
In June 1971 the then Government appointed as chairman of this committee on contempt of court a judge who was not only distinguished as a judge but as a Lord Justice. I think that it would have been difficult to find any judge who was as capable, as extremely sensible or a man of as great common sense as that chairman.
We have now has the opportunity of seeing the Green Paper. Of course, I

355
make no complaint at all that it looks as though someone in the office of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has been told, "You think out all the possible objections to the recommendations being made." That is quite natural and quite right because it is to contribute to public discussion. In its report the committee give the reasons for favouring its own recommendations. Therefore, it is quite natural and proper that we should have had put before us all the objections.
I do not know what other speakers will say, but so far this debate has been of an unusual character. I have heard a great many debates on reports of commissions and committees, and what usually happens is that those who object to the recommendations turn up to object and those who agree with the proposals do not bother to come. However, so far tonight broadly speaking, every speaker—and certainly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—has said that the recommendations in the report are correct.
I listened not only with interest but with pleasure and profit to what my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had to say. However, there is something which he did not say, and I quite understood why he did not say it. He did not indicate whether or not there was any prospect of the recommendations being implemented. One understands the difficulties. As I understand it, the legislative programme is fully engaged and there is no room for anything else. In any case, the Government want to hear everyone's views. So far as I know, this matter has not yet been debated in the other place and it does not look as though there is any real prospect of anything being done. However, if I am wrong about this, I hope that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will say so when he replies.
I am only surprised that people are still willing to sit on commissions and committees, because more and more of the reports are not heeded. At least this report is being debated, whether or not it will lead to anything. But in many cases reports will not lead to anything and if my information is correct, Governments are finding it increasingly difficult to get
356
people to sit on commissions and committees if their reports are not implemented. Here the debate so far as shown that the general view in this House is that it was right to appoint this committe, that it has done a very good job and that, broadly speaking, the recommendations of the Phillimore Committee are right. Of course, 40 out of the 41 recommendations were unanimous. If that is the case, is it really impossible to hope that some time this Session—even towards its end—the Government could implement these recommendations?
7.20 p.m.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: My Lords, the Green Paper which we are discussing pays tribute to the Phillimore Report as having been of the utmost value. Respectfully, I agree. Respectfully, also, may I commend the course followed by Her Majesty's Government in issuing this Green Paper and in inviting the views of members of the public, and inviting those views on the broadest possible basis. I am firmly of the opinion that public opinion can be, and should be of immense consequence in the development of our law and in ensuring that our law is in accord with, and is kept in accord with, rational and enlightened lines of thought.
We are discussing contempt of court. It is a strange phrase. It is a compendious phrase. The Phillimore Report pointed this matter out but said, and I think rightly, "Well, it is useful perhaps to keep the terminology because, broadly speaking, we know what we have in mind when we speak of contempt of court". But I would so much agree with those of your Lordships who have pointed out that it does not have as its basis any question of protecting the amour propre of members of the Judiciary. It has far deeper and more secure foundations.
I can think of no more helpful survey of contempt of court than is to be found in the speech of the late Lord Reid in the thalidomide case. We have to have in mind that the Phillimore Committee was appointed before the House of Lords gave their views in the thalidomide case, and I think we have to have in mind that the thalidomide case was very special indeed. It related to a great national tragedy. The facts were desperately sad, and the

357
proceedings extended over some years. I am sorry that my noble and learned friend—who is literally my noble and learned friend—Lord Denning, has had to leave for another engagement, but it was clear from his speech that he thought that the decision of the Court of Appeal was right.
May I just remind your Lordships of what happened. The Sunday Times published a number of articles pointing out what a great tragedy had taken place; pointing out the sufferings and deprivations not only of the infants themselves but of their parents; pointing out the need there would be for sustenance for future years. All those articles came to the notice of the then Attorney-General, my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson, and he decided to take no action in regard to them. Very respectfully, I think he was right.
There then came a time when the editor of the paper, very fairly, wrote to the Attorney-General and said, "Well, now I am proposing to publish an article on rather different lines. This article is going to set out various facts which can be asserted against the defendants in the case, Distillers, and this article might convey to any reader the idea, 'Oh, well, Distillers must be negligent'". That matter came before the Attorney-General, and he thought, "That is going too far". The matter went to the Divisional Court and the Divisional Court, if my recollection is correct, said that they agreed with the point of view presented by the Attorney-General. It went to the Court of Appeal, presided over by my noble and learned friend, and they took a different view. Then it came to your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity, and five Law Lords took the view that the decision of the Divisional Court was to be preferred to that of the Court of Appeal. But I suggest to your Lordships that what is really important is to see whether one does not find principle laid down in that case, and principle which is clearly laid down, and principle which really does today guide us when we have to consider what is contempt of court.
With your Lordships' leave, I should like to quote just two or three sentences from the speech of the late Lord Reid, for whose wisdom I have always had unbounded regard. They are as follows:
358
"The law on this subject is and must be founded entirely on public policy. It is not there to protect the private rights of parties to a litigation or prosecution. It is there to prevent interference with the administration of justice and it should in my judgment be limited to what is reasonably necessary for that purpose. Public policy generally requires a balancing of interests which may conflict. Freedom of speech should not be limited to any greater extent than is necessary but it cannot be allowed where there would be a real prejudice to the administration of justice".
Is there not there the clearest possible guidance for all of us?
I would be very reluctant to quote any words of my own, but I did, I note, say:
"A court will therefore only find ' contempt' where the risk of prejudice is serious, or real, or substantial. If a court is in doubt whether conduct complained of amounts to ' contempt' the complaint will fail".
When dealing with matters of public policy there is so often the process of balancing conflicting interests, as Lord Reid laid down. We believe in the freedom of the Press. We depend upon the Press. We look to our newspapers to inform us in regard to current events. We look to our newspapers to give expression to competing views on matters of public importance. We look to our newspapers to expose all forms of tyranny, corruption, evil practices, or harsh dealings. We must not restrict the ability of the Press to do all of those things unless it is really necessary to do so.
Here comes the divergence of public interests; on the one hand, the public interest that, with proper safeguarding of individual rights, there should be freedom of expression, and, on the other hand, the public interest that the administration of justice should not be prejudiced. We believe also in the rule of law. We believe that our courts will safeguard for us that rule of law. We believe that only by the upholding of impartial courts of justice shall we be saved from anarchy. So there comes this process of balancing public interests, and this balancing has to take place in an infinite variety of special sets of circumstances.
Some have taken the view, and the view has been expressed, that there are uncertainties in the law relating to contempt. What exactly does that mean? I submit that there are no uncertainties in regard to the principles involved, so clearly

359
laid down by Lord Reid. There is nothing wrong, in my submission, with those principles. The only uncertainty is that when a case of alleged contempt comes into court it cannot be known with certainty in advance what the result of the proceedings will be. Nor could anyone rationally expect to be able to turn to some document and find specific directions as to what he could or could not say in various circumstances; the range of their variety could not conceivably be spelled out.
That is so in various branches of the law. A court may have to decide whether a publication was or was not obscene. The writer could not sensibly say there was no book which specifically set out what words in what contexts could be safely published. The motorist knows he must not be negligent, but he could not be heard to say that he found no words in any statute which laid it down with precision what variety of driving at a particular point, on a particular road at a particular time, and in any one of a rich variety of different sets of circumstances, would transform slight ineptitude into negligence.
I submit that the Phillimore Report contains many valuable proposals which should demand further consideration, and they have been referred to: should there be powers given in magistrates' courts; should there be limits in regard to circuit courts; should there be some statutory limit as to a punishment that could be awarded in the High Court; should there or should there not be some separate criminal offence of scandalising the court?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, put before us some interesting suggestions as to limiting the reporting generally of interlocutory proceedings. I fully see the force of all he said, but those proposals really belong to our law generally; they are not specifically related to the law of contempt. If adopted, they might have the result that the opportunities for contempt of court would, in that particular field, be limited.
Reference was made to cases of blackmail. If a learned judge says the name of the victim who gives evidence need not be disclosed—possibly, if the learned judge goes further and says the name of the
360
victim must in no circumstances be reported in a newspaper—what is to happen if some newspaper gives the name? Newspapers in those situations have, I think, invariably in the past acted in the public interest and in a wholly correct way. But supposing one publishes the name? If the judge had given a direction, it would be flouting the court and the complaint might be upheld for that reason. But if there is any doubt as to whether there is full power in the judge to give the direction that a name is not to be published, possibly that might be considered in the future.
There is one recommendation of the report which I respectfully suggest should be approached with considerable caution, and that is No. 4, in these words:
"The law as it stands contains uncertainties which impede and restrict the reasonable freedom of speech. It should be amended and clarified by statute so as to allow as much freedom of speech as is consistent with the basic purposes of the law of contempt".
Do we really need a statute for that purpose? If I am correct in submitting that what was laid down by Lord Reid is the guiding principle, how is that to be improved by seeking to anchor that principle whithin some particular words on the Statute Book? I respectfully suggest that the Government should be cautious in adopting that proposal.
In conclusion, let me summarise my view. If a complaint is made to the court, the investigation must involve considering very many different matters: what are the proceedings; what are the issues in them; what stage has the case reached; when will it be tried; how will it be tried; was the publication complained of made with some particular object; what was the reason for making it; is the complaint trivial or serious? If the publication was made in entire ignorance of the existence of the litigation, then there may be, as there is now, a statutory defence.
I personally have some doubts whether it is helpful to use the phrase "strict liability". Liability depends on examining all the facts and circumstances and then the judge coming to a conclusion as to whether the line has been exceeded. I personally doubt whether some rigid time element could usefully be introduced, for example that the complaint can relate

361
only to the time after setting down. Some publication just before, or even a long time before, setting down may in some circumstances be very damaging. But are these not all matters which come within the balancing process? Every consideration must be weighed by the judge—I emphasise every one—not only as to the time and the nature of the publication but every single circumstance, and then the court must decide whether it has been established that the publication would result in prejudice to the administration of justice and whether the risk of such prejudice is serious, real and substantial. For my part, I think we can safely leave it to our judges to protect our freedoms and the administration of justice.
7.40 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, it is always a privilege to listen to the noble and learned Lord who speaks with such clarity and eloquence, and indeed on this occasion, so far as I can see, with very little disagreement. I have in mind here the kind of problem that faces us from time to time when we hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, intervening, or speaking, as he did, at the end of the debate on human rights, making some very pertinent comments about the state of the law, the conduct of the law, and the mass of legislation. He called it a cloaca maxima, which I should think is almost contempt of some kind on its own.
Personally, I have no quarrel whatever with what was said about the law of contempt and with what the Phillimore Report said about the law of contempt on criminal proceedings. Of course, I agree that it is essential that we should take all steps that are appropriate to maintain the dignity, the authority, and the respect which our judges have a right to expect as men of the highest ability and the highest integrity. The only difficulty about this is that they always disagree. They disagree about everything. Now we have the great advantage of having, I think, five ex-Lord Chancellors and one prospective Lord Chancellor, and a much larger number of Law Lords than usual, even if the number has been diminished in recent times by one or two tragic deaths.
362
The Sunday Times published a very frank and full article in which it tried to explain why the Court of Appeal reached a decision unanimously on on; matter while the House of Lords so constantly reversed it unanimously in the same matter. I think that it was put quite fairly. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has gone because no one enjoys his judgments more than I do. Many have profited from them more than I have because I am not now capable of the mental effort which would enable me to profit fully, but no one has read his judgments with more admiration than I, and no one has realised more than I that here is someone with permanent beliefs.
The Sunday Times says that the main belief is that on the whole the judges know best. That was the note upon which I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, conclude, as I have done previously. There is much to be said for it. The difficulty is that however good are our judges now, we have lived through the years of political judgments, Party political judgments. I recall when I first came into this building. I had to apply for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to the Lords on an appeal under the Workman's Compensation Act 1906. The facts, quite briefly, were that my client, who was not a member of a union—he was not old enough, being only 14 or 15—was doing the work of a pit pony down below. That is literally the fact. He was handling the tubs, pushing the tubs, spragging himself to stop the tubs, breaking the tubs as they went along the line, and trying to control them on slopes. There was a large, heavyish row of tubs in seams only a few feet high. In those days as such applications had to be made by a solicitor, I found myself making my maiden speech here, after having spent a weekend with a wet towel around my head. I addressed Lord Dunedin, who himself was almost qualifying then for a special birthday party of the kind which my noble friend in front enjoys.
I had sent the papers on the case to Norman Birkett, whom I had the privilege of knowing. He had written back stating, "Get leave in forma pauperis, and I will take this myself." He made only one condition: he was committed fully in a

363
murder defence which could clash with my case, and that in fact happened. However, even the absence of one of the great advocates and one of the great men of our time—one with whom I was lucky enough to work in close and intimate contact in a number of matters over the years—did not, I think, alter their Lordships' minds.
My lad, in trying to sprag himself against a pit prop to bring the tubs to a standstill, had suffered injury; it did not appear to be slight, but it certainly did not appear to be serious. However, a couple of days later his doctor found that he was suffering from osteomyelitis— grave infection of the bone—which required his being taken away to the infirmary. He lost his compensation because he had not given notice of the accident. That was the judicial interpretation of the time. There were scores of decisions like that. I do not want to go back on some of these matters. I do not want to rake over old scores, but the Sunday Times says that the real difference is that the Court of Appeal like to say what it thinks the law ought to be, and the House of Lords try to say what it is. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was speaking about the recent decision on the Statute of Limitations. I have not given the noble and learned Lord notice about this, and I apologise to him. He is always so courteous that I know he will not mind my making this single comment. I remember reading very carefully the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glais-dale. He hated to have to decide that the words used in the Act could not bear the meaning which it was sought to put upon them. It is not easy.
I am one of those who are really afraid that, notwithstanding all the gifts of our judges, our law is in danger. I think it is in danger from more than one thing. There is too much law; it is too expensive; and we are churning out committees. This matter is raised today at the instance of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, and I congratulate him upon it; but my very valued noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner was today taking a penitential path, almost, when he talked about the appointment of too many committees and of too many areas being
364
opened up for research. What is our position today? I do not think anyone is really likely to disagree with very much in the Phillimore Report. I think the provisions are sound and well reasoned. But I think that time is not on the side of reform.
I think we acted quite sensibly in recent times in the case of some questions which were not raised. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, was Attorney-General at the time of the Sunday Times and thalidomide case. Let us face one thing first: There was never any possibility of a fair trial in the thalidomide case. Public opinion would not have liked to see a fair trial. Public opinion knew that, on the one side, you had a very wealthy and prosperous company with immense resources, and, on the other, you had a spectacle almost too tragic to see. My only complaint about what happened in that connection is this— and I must say that I read all the judgments in that case in the House of Lords. I thought it was a very moderate decision. I thought the law was being put in a less authoritarian way than it might have been some years ago. There is a rather strange thing about this law of contempt. The fact is that it is more often counsel who engage in outspoken criticism of the Judiciary, and in so doing may well be doing their absolute and necessary duty. We used to complain sometimes of the alleged pusillanimity of counsel.
I come now to the point on the Green Paper. We are discussing one or two points about the law of libel, which I think is in a quite dreadful state at the moment. We have been talking about reform for a long time. I took part in the proceedings at the Committee stage of the Defamation Bill in yesteryear, which was introduced by Mr. Harold Lever. I was supposed to be seconding him until I took a distinct dislike to the measure half way through and said, "This is a newspaper proprietor's charter." Indeed, I think I managed to get an Amendment made to the Bill in regard to which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, when he read it, said, "This must go, and must go at once because it would enable group libel on the widest possible scale." But nothing is done about libel. I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, who said that in matters of this kind he would

365
have no contempt by comment at all. I would be tempted to agree with that, but I would go further and say something with which no one will agree. I personally would rather like to see libel actions abolished altogether.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the Green Paper have called attention to this practice of gagging, which is a pernicious and vicious practice. The Green Paper says that, on the whole, it now appears to be on the decline. I do not know what figures the noble and learned Lord has, but I have no doubt he has them and I have no doubt this would not be there unless there was something to suggest it; but all my personal information from colleagues in the law is that it is used, particularly by men in eminent positions, to suppress criticism of any kind. Not only that, but these men then issue writs to defend their character. There is a procedure for dismissing an action for want of prosecution. There is a case for saying, "We are just waiting for a witness from Tierra del Fuego or Tristan da Cunha, he has been a long time coming and we ask for an adjournment", and it seems to be always granted. These cases drag on and on. The man is not defending his character at that stage: he is suppressing criticism.
In the end, the costs are enormous. How on earth can a libel action cost £90,000? I have no sympathy for the people who bring them; I almost invariably advise them not to. But in my view the gagging procedure is a contemptuous use of the legal process. In the end, it is settled on terms endorsed on counsel's briefs; and the judge no longer asks, as he invariably did in my early days, what the terms of settlement are, which would at least show whether the time of the courts had been wasted or abused. Subject to that, my Lords, I think this is an excellent report, but I do not think for a minute that anything is going to be done about it for a long time.
7.59 p.m.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: My Lords, I wish to refer to only one narrow point in this rather wide field. I want to refer only to the question of contempt of court in relation to criminal proceedings, and, within that part of the field, only to the single question of what
366
should be the starting point in time for the law of contempt to apply. I think it is agreed on all hands, and was approved by the Phillimore Committee, that restrictions should apply throughout the period that criminal proceedings are in progress, and the question is: For this purpose, when do criminal proceedings start?
The recommendation of the Phillimore Committee was, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, pointed out, that, in England, they should be deemed to start when the suspect is charged and, in Scotland, when he is first publicly charged, which is a formal step in the proceedings. The previous law in Scotland had been that protection might go back much earlier, to the time when the crime was known to have been committed and the investigation by the authorities had begun. That was the decision referred to earlier in the case of Stirling, which was always the subject of a lot of criticism in Scotland and, I dare say, in England as well. The recommendation of Phillimore was to put the beginning of protection much later.
Then there was the recent case of Hall, referred to earlier tonight, which put the beginning of the protection at the date when the suspect is arrested on a specific charge or when the warrant is granted for his arrest. It seems to me that arrest is the right time for protection to begin and the decision in Hall is to be preferred to the recommendation of Phillimore. In many cases there will not be much gap in time between the two; but arrest is the time when the suspect's right to protection begins. He is entitled to have his solicitor informed and he is entitled to be brought before a magistrate on the first lawful day after his arrest, and his right not to be interrogated arises at that time. There is every logical reason for saying that his right not to have his case prejudiced by publication of damaging particulars should arise also at that time.
That will be seen from the case of Hall. He was arrested on the 16th January on a charge connected with murder which attracted a great deal of publicity. There had been five or six murders in England and some in Scotland, and there were a lot of police inquiries and Press publicity. On the 19th January, three days later, the article complained of was published

367
in a newspaper. It was an article described by the court as being as clear an example as could be found of what is sometimes called "trial by newspaper". The accused man was named in the article and a lot of particulars about him were given. It was very prejudicial to his chances of a fair trial. He was not formally charged on the murder charge until about a week later. He was charged with murder on 27th January.
It seems to me that there is every reason in principle why the date of his arrest should have been treated (as it was by the court) as being the time when protection was required, when his need for it arose and when the law ought to provide it. It is so in principle, and it was so from a purely practical point of view that he required protection from then on. My Lords, I can see that it might be said to be difficult in some cases. The newspapers might not know when the man was arrested and, if so, on what charge. If that were shown to be so, that might be a good excuse or plea in mitigation. Where, as in this case, publicity was attached to it, the police had been making statements, day-to-day inquiries, and the newspapers were reporting what was going on and the police were digging to find the next body and so on, they well knew when he was arrested and there was no difficulty about fixing knowledge in that case.
I would therefore suggest that we should not be too frightened of drawing back to the time of arrest as the beginning of the proceedings. It is important to remember that in criminal proceedings the time span is usually not very long. It is quite unlike civil proceedings—and the thalidomide case is an exceptional example—for even in ordinary cases, a year or two, or even three years with appeals, is not out of the way. One can quite see that one may have to cut down the time during which contempt of court may be committed; but in criminal proceedings, which do not normally last very long, I would say that Phillimore was a little too late in coming in. I would suggest that the time of arrest in both Scotland and England is the appropriate date at which contempt should begin to be possible.
8.4 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, in dealing with the subject-matter of the Motion so lucidly put to your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, we are looking at principles which have flowed through the stream of our common law over the centuries. It would appear to have been somewhat muddied in the process. This is very understandable, as we are now regarding them in the light of developed and developing concepts of freedom of expression as well as in the far-reaching, and consequently, in some ways dangerous growth of the extent and power of the media. Our objective, as has been said many times in this debate, must be to safeguard, on the one hand, the proper administration of justice and, on the other, the freedom of speech, of reporting and of comment especially upon matters which are of public interest and importance.
It is no easy matter as is shown by the report of the Government discussion paper which—if I may adopt the Lord Chancellor's neutral phrase—is by no means a colourness document. It is no easy matter as those documents clearly show. I should have thought in this context that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, were somewhat unfair in this particular case especially. Indeed, if I may borrow his dancing metaphor I would say that of all subjects this is one upon which we certainly cannot do a quickstep because if we do we may well trip up.
I want to follow my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead in limiting my remarks to that part of the law of contempt which is applicable to the Press and the other media. In this connection there is one basic principle upon which I should have thought no one would disagree—until I heard the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. It is that, having regard to the serious penal consequences which can befall those who are held to contravene the law of contempt, it should be as certain as is practicable in its terms and its extent. That, in particular, applies to matters of strict liability and that, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained, is where the media would be liable even if the contempt is unintentional.

369
With the greatest possible respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, no one can say that there is any certainty at all of definition at present. I must repeat that the greatly varying expressions as to the law and its application which were contained in the judgments in the case many times mentioned in this debate—namely, the Sunday Times thalidomide case—first in the Divisional Court, then in the Court of Appeal, and, finally, in your Lordships' House, are proof of that. The Phillimore Report worthily attempts the basis of a statutory definition in such strict liability cases with the words that were quoted by my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, which I need not repeat. It is a pretty clear and simple definition. In its turn it is based upon and is (and I here respectfully agree with my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead) an improvement upon the formula which was adopted by the Divisional Court in the Sunday Times case and very desirably avoids—and I say this with deference to certain noble and learned Lords who gave judgment in your Lordships' House in that case—it very desirably avoids the view that any mere prejudging of the issues is in principle of itself a contempt. It is difficult to give any definition to prejudging.
As the report points out, in the way in which one learned Law Lord worded his judgment, an opinion in a law journal on a legal issue or in a scientific journal on, for example, deformities which could arise from thalidomide, might well be caught. As the Government Paper pointed out, the requirement in Phillimore's definition of serious prejudice embodies in itself a significant narrowing of the limits of contempt in law and a corresponding increase in freedom of publication. One would have thought that Phillimore had the balance about right, even though the assessment of what is serious must inevitably again be left for the court to decide. It could, however, in most cases be pretty accurately forecast by those advising the Press and other media.
As has been pointed out, the report also deals with another uncertainty in the present law of England and Wales so far as publications are concerned; the point of time at which in regard to criminal and civil proceedings the axe
370
of strict liability falls. Here it would seem that the report and the Green Paper are at some variance. For what it is worth, I find myself on the side of the report. But whatever be the right choice to make, the present position I suggest cannot remain.
At the moment it is impossible for laywers to advise the media with any degree of certainty as to the precise stage when the axe of contempt in criminal and civil proceedings falls. Indeed, it is not an axe; it is much more like- a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of those who would wish to publish and comment, and it is not possible to say when that sword is supposed to fall. From the decided cases the media at present can only be advised that the stage in criminal and civil proceedings is when such proceedings are "imminent", and that advice must then be followed by those celebrated lawyers' words often heard but not much appreciated by the layman, that when proceedings are imminent will depend in each case upon its facts.
How can this be good enough in such a serious situation with such a serious offence, when considerations of public good and interest may also be involved? The report recommends a degree of certainty and fixes a stage in both criminal and civil proceedings; in the former when a charge is preferred, and in the latter a setting down stage. Mr. Robin Day—a not unknown member of the Phillimore Committee—would have it after that stage; that being the dissenting note to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, referred.
I will not weary your Lordships with the material arguments, which include the danger to a fair trial in criminal proceedings, of comment in some cases before a charge is actually preferred; and in civil proceedings the well known "gagging writ" to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred, in which the plaintiff's object in commencing proceedings is not to prosecute an action to trial but literally to try to stop public comment upon issues which may well be of public interest, and the difficulty of dealing with some civil proceedings on this basis when they have no stage in their procedure of setting down for trial.
They are proper points to be discussed and, with great respect to the noble and

371
learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I would have thought that there are solutions to these problems; and, indeed, some worthy suggestions have already been made. All I desire to say is that there must be some degree of certainty in this context; that the present position is quite unsatisfactory, and, for my humble part, the recommendations of the report seem workable and fair in a situation where one has of necessity to strike a reasonable balance.
Out of consideration for your Lordships generally and, in particular, for the noble and learned Lords who are still to speak and to whom your Lordships would much prefer to listen, I shall confine myself to one other subject which I think was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, in his speech. This was a matter which was referred to in strong terms in the Phillimore Report. I refer to the undesirable practice of some organs of the Press in offering substantial sums to witnesses for their story usually, and for obvious reasons, for publication after the trial in which they are to testify. One suspects—again for obvious reasons—it is often made conditional upon the result of the trial.
Having regard to matters which may be present to your Lordships' minds, I propose to say no more this evening about this particular subject, except to express the hope that this practice will be considered for inclusion in any statute dealing with contempt, and to remind your Lordships that it caused public concern as long as 12 years ago in the Moors murder case, as will be seen from Hansard of 11th May, 1966, volume 728 at column 400. The Attorney-General at that time said that the Government of the day would examine this practice. Nothing appears to have happened since. The Phillimore Report says:
"We regard this potential danger as sufficiently grave to warrant further inquiry as to its prevalence, and if found necessary legislation to restrain or wholly prohibit this practice. We recommend that such inquiry should be carried out".
Your Lordships may well feel that this recommendation is well founded. May I conclude by expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, for introducing his Motion so that our attention can be given to a part of our law
372
which needs far-sighted, balanced and fairly urgent attention.
8.17 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make one or two responses in regard to matters that have been put to me. In regard to what my noble friend Lord Mishcon has said, may I say that I was the Attorney-General at the time who prosecuted in the Moors murder case. What shocked us there was the payment by newspapers to witnesses who had not yet given evidence. What followed was a public protest by myself, and immediate action by the Press Council who set up a code of practice regarding this matter. That had a valuable effect for a time in checking the worst abuses; but abuses are again creeping in. I must not let it be thought that I was guilty of inactivity in that matter. I did what was open to me to do at the time.
I hope that I may be able to persuade my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner—with whom I so rarely disagree—that the position that the Government have taken regarding this issue is not a product either of laziness, deliberate obstruction or inability to make up their mind. I take the view, contrary to that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest—and it is very rarely that I disagree with him, either—that there is room and need for a Bill to create greater certainty in the field of the law of contempt. While I have every confidence in his judgment and in what the judges have done, it must be conceded that uncertainty exists. What the content of such a Bill should be is not something to which I can at this point of time commit myself. I cannot say exactly what it will contain. It will be a complex Bill covering a sensitive field. It is right now at this moment to await the event which I mentioned; namely, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Sunday Times case. Whatever its impact will be, we cannot ignore it; it will have to be considered.
Secondly, it would also be prudent to await the report of the Law Commission on offences against the administration of justice. That is shortly due to be published. This field is a crucially important one, and I should like to assure my noble and

373
learned friend that I certainly did not give instructions to my Department to draw up a list of objections and then cheer when a lot were produced—on the contrary. For once, he has done me less than justice. I assure him we are in earnest in wanting to see the law put on a proper footing on any points where it can be shown to be defective. But there are difficult issues here and, if I may be forgiven for a slight reproach, those that I mentioned have been somewhat brushed aside in one or two speeches. I say that, well understanding the complexity of the matters that we have to deal with. However, I have to say this: There are differences between the views of Ministers and committees that arise from time to time. However distinguished the membership of those committees may be, it is for Ministers to bear the responsibility for the decisions they take and the legislation they introduce.
In this highly sensitive field of maintaining a balance between the right of a man to a fair trial and the right to maintain a free Press, there are difficult issues and it is imperative that the matter should be approached with deliberation. If we have deliberated too long I am sorry, but I hope that before long at least we shall reach finality, and my own view is that we shall be dealing with some Bill concerning this matter. As to the timing of it, I cannot yet give an undertaking.
8.21 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, before seeking leave to withdraw my Motion, it is incumbent on me to express my thanks to all those who have come forward and participated in what I think has proved to be a most interesting and valuable debate. I think it has contributed a great deal in assisting the Government to form final views on the admittedly difficult problems with which the Phillimore Report has wrestled.
Though one appreciates, of course, that there are these other matters which will inevitably cause some further delay, I think it can rest as our firm hope that the outcome of this debate will be reasonably speedy decisions on the part of the Government, and that possibly we shall even see an appropriate Bill before this Parliament ends its life. In that hopeful
374
spirit, I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LIVE FOOD ANIMALS FOR SLAUGHTER
8.22 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they will introduce further measures to protect animals, particularly live food animals for slaughter, and horses. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I regret that we have to begin so late, and I thank noble Lords who have already indicated their desire to join in the debate. So I must be considerate towards them at this time and be as short as I can.
After the Question had gone down on the Order Paper, there was a double-page feature in the Daily Mirror for two successive days on the activities of dubious dog dealers and dog snatchers for National Health Service hospitals; so I notified the Minister that I would wish to ask a question or two about that. So I have three questions to ask: the first is about horses; the second is about the export of live animals for food; and, thirdly, I wish to ask about dogs supplied for hospital research and laboratory research.
It distresses me to say that I do not think the record of this Government on the protection of animals is anything like as good as it should be. I have said this before and I shall go on saying it until matters improve. I am trying to dismiss the fear that the Government are both dilatory and fainthearted in this field of public morals in relation to man and the animal kingdom. To me it is a very serious matter involving deep considerations of moral philosophy. I have said before also that if the Government are to live up to the policy outlined in the booklet Living Without Cruelty, published by the National Executive of the Labour Party recently, they have a long, long way to go.
Here we are again on the eve of another Recess, with little sign of action where action is overdue, though to be fair—and I must be fair—the Government have

375
recently announced a welcome change in one protective feature of our regulations about the export of horses: namely, the minimum protective values. These have been substantially increased with effect from 27th December; in many cases they have been doubled. Noble Lords may recall that the export of live horses and ponies is permitted only by licence. A licence is refused if the value of the animal is below the relevant minimum protective value, and the minimum protective values stipulated in the statutory orders are designed to ensure that horses going abroad are destined for riding, breeding or work rather than for the butcher's hook. For example, the present minimum protective value of a Shetland pony not over 10½ hands is £60, and it will soon be £145. For a heavy draught horse the present minimum value is £300 and that will be going up to £715.
These substantial increases are welcome because they will give added protection to horses being sent abroad. I know that the Minister probably does not share the pessimism about the size of the loophole of the old values which many of us in the animal welfare movement hold. The figures for exports of live horses this year are not in excess of those for last year: that must be admitted. Nevertheless, it is desired to increase the protective values which, on present values, give no real protection to horses at all because prices are still rising and horses are worth more dead than alive. I think this is a most welcome step. Having regard to my earlier strictures, I think the Government deserve a good mark on that.
I pass now to another aspect of the protection of horses which I have raised several times before. I believe we must do much more to protect horses at sales and auctions and in transit by road, so I am pressing once again for the application to horse sales of the protective conditions already imposed by the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 upon the sales of farm animals such as cattle, sheep and pigs. Your Lordships may remember that horses and ponies are not given the protection that farm animals get at markets and sales. Under the Markets (Protection of Animals) Order 1964 for sheep, cattle and pigs, while farm animals are given some protective conditions at auctions and sales
376
in all sorts of ways, horses are not included. Horses and ponies may be sold anywhere at any time of the day or night with no protection other than the general law relating to the Protection of Animals Act 1911, and conditions at many horse sales and auctions are still far from satisfactory. There are many complaints of overcrowding and rough treatment being made about that.
I raised this matter last on 15th December 1977 and I then supplied the Government with a list of auction sales regularly held in different parts of the country which gave rise to concern among observers who were watching what was going on. On 5th April this year, I asked the Minister how things were going and he replied at columns 163 and 164 of the Official Report. I shall paraphrase it. He said that a survey of conditions was going on in 132 locations where horses were sold. A good deal of the survey had been completed. They had found, in 13 of the cases, some minor shortcomings in the conditions that should be applied to them. Then came a powerful passage at the end of the questions, when in reply to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, who asked whether the results of the survey, if not the survey itself, would be published, my noble friend Lord Strabolgi replied:
"Yes, my Lords; we believe in open government. Moreover, we shall consult with all interested bodies, including, of course, the important animal welfare societies".
Open government is apparently to be the guiding principle of the present Government from now on, in more than one direction. But a year has passed and I ask the question: Where are we now?
I shall tell my noble friend one thing. Where we are now is just about 20 miles from Southall Horse Sale, which is held weekly and is one of the oldest and biggest, and was described to me recently by a senior police officer as a cesspit. That is what is on our doorstep. I shall not go into the lurid details, though I have them, but I await with interest the appraisal of Southall Market when open government produces an open report. I am informed that the Ministry of Agriculture, in an effort to remedy some of the shortcomings of these auction sales, already has a draft code of practice formulated by expert and horse welfare opinion, and I am told that it is even

377
acceptable to the auctioneers, which is surely a very good start for any reform of auction sales. So what are we waiting for? May I ask my noble friend where we are now with that?
Another point on horses, which I must mention, is that there are serious weaknesses in the enforcement of the provisions of the Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975. These are complicated matters, and they are complicated still further by the existence, though large parts of it have been revoked, of the Transit of Horses Order 1951. There are widespread breaches of the orders reported from many parts of the country. For example, there appears to be a lamentable failure to observe some of the strict conditions under which animals of different species shall be separated for the purpose of transport, and larger animals kept apart from smaller ones in order to avoid serious damage to them.
There appears, also, to be a lamentable outcrop from the grace given in 1975 to vehicles then in use for animal transport, because an exemption from some of the essential future requirements was granted to vehicles which were being used for animal transport on or before 1st August 1975. These vehicles are exempted from the important Article 3 and Schedule 1 of the order as regards construction and maintenance, and that exemption lasts until 1st August 1980. I believe that five years' grace was too long to begin with, and experience has shown that to be so. But three years have gone and two years are still to go. Some of these vehicles have long passed their best, probably being sold to less reputable dealers, and that may explain why there are so many ramshackle vehicles seen at markets at the present time.
This question of transport is of great importance since, as I have mentioned earlier, there is a limit on the number of slaughterhouses. There are now five—the previous figure was four—slaughterhouses in this country authorised for the slaughter of horses for the carcase trade with Europe. That means that, wherever they come from, horses must go to one of the five at Huddersfield, Crawley, Norwich, Bristol and Nantwich. That is all I have to say about horses, and now I have a few words to say about the export of live animals for slaughter.
There was a debate on this matter on 23rd March 1978, on the eve of the Easter Recess, on the day of publication of the report of the Agriculture Department on the subject of the export of live animals to Europe. Since then, values have gone up, though I am glad to see that the numbers have kept fairly steady, but they are very high indeed. On average, we are exporting to Europe at the present time about 30,000 live animals each month. The figures last year for sheep and calves were running at the rate of about 390,000. We thought that we were going to have a debate on this a long time ago. Indeed, in March this year when the report came out I asked when we would have a debate:, and we have never had one. There has never been a debate in another place, either. Indeed, there are Early Day Motions down signed by large numbers of Members of the other House, asking when. they will get a debate, but still the Minister claims the right of all Ministers to silence on the subject.
Finally, I come to dogs. On 14th and 15th November, the Daily Mirror ran a very big feature on this question of dogs, where they come from aid where they go to, and I think that that newspaper is to be congratulated on its courage and persistence in rooting out and exposing the evil s of the abuse of animals. Immediately after that exposure, a piece appeared in the Balham and Tooting News and Mercury of 17th November, from which I quote briefly:
"Hard-up health chiefs have to ask medical researchers at St. George's Hospital in Tooting to buy animals for experiments ' on tie cheap '. After a shock report in a national newspaper, St. George's Medical School Administrator, Dr. Julian Axe, said that: Due to financial restraints by the Government we are obliged to go to unaccredited sources for some animals. The ex-racing greyhounds which are not purpose-bred are used for research. The Medical School takes great care to ensure that no pets are used for research".
Then there were some admissions later that, for example, the Medical Research Council cannot be oversure that it is getting all its animals from accredited sources. Mr. Michael Funnell, the Press Officer for the RSPCA, is reported to have said:
"There are only 220 RSPCA officers in England. We just don't have the time to catch the snatchers who must make a fortune out of their trade. It's terrible".
Almost at the same time, a letter which has come into my hands was received by, I presume, a research laboratory in North London. I shall not mention the name of the person who wrote that letter or the address that it came from. However, it came from Cambridge and this letter to the research establishment said:
"I am writing to enquire if I can supply you with animals for research? If so, please contact me, either by phone or letter, at your earliest convenience. All animals are in good health and would be delivered to you under humane conditions. If you are interested, I would be obliged if you would state the type of animal required and prices paid per animal, approximately".
The question is: where are these animals coming from? I want to ask my noble friend a simple, plain question: Will the Government ensure that the National Health Service hospitals are instructed to stop buying dogs and cats from these dubious sources? It will be no comfort to people whose pets are missing, and who wait anxiously but in vain for their return, to tell them that their pets have gone in a good cause to the National Health Service. I say to the National Health Service hospitals: Please stop this disreputable trade by refusing to buy from shady dealers.
Also, I think it would help if the Government gave closer and more urgent consideration to the report Dogs in Society. This was the report of a working party which sat for a long time but upon which no action has yet been taken. If applied, however, it would introduce an entirely new era of dog care and dog discipline.
My final question is this: Has my noble friend anything more to say about the consideration which he assures us is being given by the Government to the setting up of a standing commission or committee to inquire into a wide range of matters concerning animal protection and welfare?
8.42 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful, even at this late hour, to consider a subject so important as animal welfare. If it is not presumptuous to say so, we should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for bringing so constantly to your Lordships' attention, in a series of
380
interesting debates, this particular subject. The noble Lord referred to his debate on 14th December of last year in relation to the horse meat trade, to his debate in relation to the export of live animals on 23rd March and, further, to his debate on 25th July last on the export of live animals. In many cases, similar matters have been repeated on three occasions. But what is so important is that there are gaps in the legislation. Abuses arise daily, and I should like first to address myself, in rather the same manner as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to horses.
Horses are sold at auction where there is no requirement to have present a Government inspector. I join the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in his plea for a re-examination of the situation, whereby the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 could be invoked and Section 20 of that Act applied to horses and ponies. Furthermore, the situation in regard to the whole body of legislation requires considerable thought. I have been looking at the body of legislation which covers this field. The basic Act is the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, with which this Unstarred Question is not concerned. However, there is a series of subsequent Acts of Parliament: the 1894 Act, the Protection of Animals Acts of 1911 and 1964 and, based upon those Acts, a whole series of transport orders—for instance, the Animal (Sea Transport) Order 1930 and the Transit of Animals Order 1927.
It is very interesting to look at this legislation and to see how, time and again, Parliament has directed attention to the situation with regard to the transit of animals, the subject with which we are dealing today, but has been unable to find a satisfactory solution. I am fully aware of the enormous change which has taken place in the transportation system between the end of the last century and today. Now there are roll-on, roll-off ferries. There is also the air transport of calves to distant places, et cetera. There is a very strong case for a review of the legislation and for the removal from the Statute Book of antique or harmful legislation which imposes an unnecessary burden. New legislation might well be more acceptable to the trade and also more adaptable to present circumstances.

381
I am well aware that recent legislation has taken off the Statute Book a whole range of different provisions. We struggled for years with the recommendations of the Brambell Committee and the recommendations of the Balfour Committee, and their incorporation into a very important piece of legislation—the European Convention on the Protection of Animals during International Transport—has only recently been accepted. That became law only two days after the last debate on this subject initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I think the noble Lord cast some doubt in that debate on whether that recent piece of legislation contained loopholes.
I shall not take up much time on the issue of the protection of horses, because the noble Lord has dealt with it in detail. However, I should like to join him in what he has said. The noble Lord believes that the Government have been dilatory and faint-hearted. I believe that in the past many Governments have been dilatory over bringing legislation up to date. Nevertheless, it is true that it is extremely difficult to match legislation with new procedures because the trade moves very much faster than Westminster. But we must not be faint-hearted. Again this was the noble Lord's charge, and I am quite sure that it is not the Government's aim to let the matter rest. Indeed, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will not permit the Government to let it rest. My noble friends on this side of the House will not permit it to rest, either.
I should like to refer to one page in an important report by the agriculture Department, to which reference has already been made; namely, the report of March 1978 on The Export Trade in Live Animals for Slaughter or Further Fattening. Perhaps I may turn to paragraph 62 on page 16 which relates to widespread dissatisfaction with the minimum weights for calves. This is one criticism of the report, and I hope that the Government will be able to give attention to it and, indeed, to a number of other recommendations contained in this very important document.
If I may refer to the question of dogs, in conjunction with many of your Lordships I have read the very significant
382
features which ran for three days in the Daily Mirror in the middle of last month. I believe that there is an issue here of great and very wide public significance— that is, the theft of pets. The article referred to a shadowy organisation, better known in the business as "The Runners". Although this organisation was apparently known, for some time it was not believed to exist.
The RSPCA are well a ware of the repeated incidence of the disappearance of pets in large numbers from the streets of towns and cities up and down this country. The only reason for this continuous repetition is to lay emphasis upon the undoubted existence of a body of persons which removes or steals licensed, and indeed unlicensed, animals which are private property. I think it is true to say that dogs, if licensed, are animals which it should be a criminal offence to steal, but I do not know whether it is a criminal offence to pick up a stray cat. Here may well be a gap in the law and it is a further matter for investigation. I would suggest that the dogs issue is one of very wide public significance, because of course this is the time of year when a large r umber of puppies are sold and, only too unhappily, shortly after Christmas they end up in the hands of unlicensed persons and ultimately they may well end in the laboratories referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships a moment longer than is necessary, but I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in returning to this subject and I should be particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, if he can supply the answer to one particular question of which I have given notice. It is this. In regard to the code of practice at auction sales, has the Minister taken any action about conditions at sales and markets where horses are handled, so that a code of practice, which was suggested two years ago by the late chief veterinary officer, to improve welfare conditions for horses and ponies may be implemented? I shall be most grateful if the ncble Lord can advise your Lordships whether action has been taken in that regard.
8.52 p.m.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, I feel in rather a false position. The only

383
reason why I put my name down to speak tonight was because it was thought, by me and by others, that somebody from these Benches—which I had better mention are the Liberal Benches—ought to support, and would like to support, as I do, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his numerous attempts in this matter. I support all his intentions and I had better make it clear immediately that anything I say is not said on behalf of the Liberal Party but on behalf of myself, because I have nothing technical to add to what has already been said.
I should like slightly to widen the scope of the debate, which is not confined solely to horses and dogs but which includes other animals for what could be called slaughter. I had better say at once that I am not a vegetarian. I do eat meat, and I very much dislike seeing what I sometimes see in reports of slaughterhouses, reference to the well-intentioned methods (which possibly the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, may be able to say something about) of, for instance, stunning animals before they are killed. All these things are done with the best intentions, but sometimes we do not know whether they are doing more harm than good. In that connection I should like particularly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked for; namely, a Standing Committee to look into this matter.
My feeling about animals is that with some it is quite easy to identify oneself and with others it is not so easy. Anyone in the glamorous world of show jumping can identify with horses. I have always failed to do so—at least, the last time I was on a horse I failed to. I had always been told that if one fell off in front of a horse it would not kick one's teeth out. But I found that was wrong, or that the horse had not been so instructed. I think most of us have a repugnance to horses being slaughtered, except where necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned Shetland ponies. I do not know what the conditions are for New Forest ponies, which I believe are bred almost entirely for food. I am not suggesting that the conditions are bad, but I should be glad if the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, could tell us something about that.
384
Although I find it difficult to identify myself with horses, I find myself much more in a position to identify with hares, or even with tortoises. There was a case in the papers the other day of a chef in a well-known hotel who had committed unspeakable cruelty on a tortoise in order that it might be eaten. I do not want to be frivolous, but I think that in looking at some of the animals which are not generally regarded as animals, and considering how much pain is inflicted on them—I am not talking about geese, because one of the very few things that I have ever given up is eating pâté de fois gras. I do not think it happens in this country, but I understand that unspeakable pain—or, to put it mildly, discomfort and inconvenience—is caused to the geese.
An interesting case of something which I have enjoyed eating in the past is the lobster. The other day the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said—and I entirely agreed with him—that he very much regretted that on all these questions of animal food the industrial side, and what he called "welfare do-gooders", are split up, whereas they ought to be able to get together and agree on the right way of doing things. I should call them not so much the "welfare do-gooders" and the industrial side as, possibly, the scientists and the poets. Lobsters are not a familiar theme of poetry. Indeed, the only poem I can remember is Lewis Carroll's "Tis the voice of the lobster; I heard him declare" which ends with some rather interesting lines suggesting that even a lobster might be frightened before it is killed.
"When the sands have run dry, in a voice like a lark
He will speak in contemptuous tones of the shark;
But when the sea rises and sharks are around His voice has a timid and tremulous sound".
Perhaps that makes the lobster rather too human.
If we take the scientific approach, sometime ago, before the war, Professor J. B. Haldane had an argument with some friends and colleagues as to the most humane way of putting a lobster into water. It was generally thought that the most humane way was to plunge it straight into boiling water rather than to put it into lukewarm water and then boil it up slowly. Being a scientist of considerable industry and courage he

385
arranged this experiment for himself with the help of two laboratory assistants, a thermometer and a large copper bowl. He got into it and recorded his own experience until he lost consciousness. His view was that that was a fairly comfortable way of doing it. Whether it would be for a lobster, I do not know.
However, we have now so many scientific methods of trying to register what is and what is not right that I feel a Standing Committee could do a great deal of good in possibly abolishing some unnecessary pain that is being inflicted on animals, which, unless one is a vegetarian, will be killed and eaten. I think this could be done without in any way damaging the economy. I have already spoken for longer than I meant to, which was five minutes. I have no other point to add, except to stress the value, as I believe, of appointing a Standing Committee to look into all these questions.
9 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for putting down this Question, and I am only sorry it comes at this late hour when we cannot really let ourselves go on the subject of animal welfare. There are so many sides of this subject which should be covered that it is very difficult to pick out any particular one. I must agree with the noble Lord; I do not think this Government have a particularly good record in animal welfare, but perhaps when the noble Lord replies we shall get a different impression.
What to me is quite extraordinary is that the concentration of enforcement of animal welfare is more and more being put on to the environmental health departments of district councils. I think there are nine Acts covering dogs, none of which appears to be being enforced properly, and when they are enforced they are enforced in a most uneven manner throughout the country. I would ask the Government, on the subject of dogs, whether we could not at some time soon have a consolidation Act which could in fact be policed and enforced, rather than the partial supervision here and there of all these Acts. I am particularly interested in the Pet Animals Act, the Animal Boarding Establishments Act, the Breeding of Dogs Act and also the
386
Guard Dogs Act. We are waiting for the Guard Dogs Act to be completed. When are we likely to see this? These are all welfare Acts and they are not being operated properly.
If I may turn to horses, the subject has been covered by a number of noble Lords, so I shall not go into what they have said. I would refer first of all to the Riding Establishments Act. This appears to be working reasonably well when it only requires an annual inspection, but there are considerable worries about these trekking establishments which only operate for a few months and appear to avoid the inspection under the Riding Establishments Act, due to the short time the}' operate. In any event, the horses which are there are not necessarily there at the time of the inspection; they may be brought in afterwards or taken out before. The subject of ponies and pony trekking establishments needs considerable further investigation by the Government. I trust and I hope that they may be able to give it some consideration, and will be able to say something about it.
The other thing which is worrying particularly the British Veterinary Association is the keeping of animals for experimental purposes. They are not at all happy that overall this is under any control whatsoever, except by those people who are in fact keeping them. The other subject which worries me, and I think worries a number of people, has been mentioned tonight and concerns particularly dogs and cats. The provision of these animals is under virtually no control at all. I hope the Government will be able to tell us that their views are that, within the foreseeable future, animals such as dogs and cats and rodents should be supplied only by people who are recognised to be keeping the animals properly for this purpose.
I have spoken a number of times on the export of live animals, and I think my views are well known. I do not like it, and I shall never like it. It still amazes me that things which do happen can happen. It astonishes me why the Ministry should permit the export of calves to Italy at a time when they are being brought before the European courts for cruelty in the methods of their slaughtering. One of the most hopeful signs that I have seen is the interest which the EEC are now

387
starting to take in animals. My only hope is that, if the Government will not do anything, the EEC will, and that they will be rather ashamed if the decisions of the EEC go further than their own decisions.
9.8 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by declaring an interest. I am a vegetarian and I have been so for 70 years. On the whole, I think, physically I am a pretty good advertisement for that practice. However, my concern tonight is not to state the case for vegetarianism, but to urge support for what my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby and others have said regarding practical measures to prevent cruelty to animals.
I have been in this House for 14 years and I have been very much impressed by the interest of your Lordships in animals: dogs, horses, otters, badgers and eagles. I have sometimes thought, by the emotion expressed, that there has been more interest in animals than in human beings. Therefore, I think that the House should be sympathetic to the plea which my noble friend Lord Houghton has made. His case has been overwhelming and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the others who have followed him have made their pragmatic, practical proposals for action by Her Majesty's Government.
When I speak in the House I usually seek to be constructive and to suggest the action which could be taken. With your Lordships' permission, tonight I shall make a different approach. I want for a moment or two to put the philosophical case for human beings approaching the problem of animals in a more sympathetic way. We human beings owe an immense debt to the animal kingdom. Life from the lowest forms has evolved over billions of years, and finally, in only the last 2 million years, it has reached the human being. The animal kingdom is the nursery of man. Darwin's theory of evolution emphasised the struggle for existence—the fittest surviving. That was corrected very largely by Kropotkin in his book Mutual Aid which showed that co-operation has been responsible for evolution as much as the factor of competition.
388
But admittedly in that process of evolution one species has lived by destroying a large number of the species below it, and that fact is very often used today in favour of the principle that man is justified in exploiting animals. He certainly does so. In the United Kingdom over 5½ million animals are officially known to be used for experimental purposes. About 65 per cent, of those experiments on living animals are for commercial purposes; one-third of them have no medical object whatsoever—they are carried out for such things as household and garden products; synthetic tobacco, as regards which I admit I am guilty myself, and, believe it or not, cosmetics for the decoration of women's faces. It is for those purposes that one-third of the 5£ million experiments on living animals are carried out. There is now factory farming with its infamous cruelty to poultry, pigs and cattle. They are imprisoned for our tables and treated as raw material for our tastes. There is the abominable trade in cattle and horses—continuous living cruelty—for the trade on the Continent, to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has drawn so much attention.
We justify all this and we justify indifference towards it because of Darwin's theory that one species evolves by living on another. But surely when the human being evolved a new level of consciousness was reached. It brought compassion, a hatred of cruelty and a sense of the universal life, identifying us with all of the past, the present and reaching out to the future. For the first time living beings were able to plan according to ethics.
One of the many birthday cards I recently received on my 90th birthday contained the text of the speech of Chief Seattle when Washington sought to buy the land of the Indian community. He said:
"The deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers.
The rocky crests, the juices of the meadows, the body heat of the pony and man—
all belong to the same family".
It is in that spirit of identity with all life and with the animal kingdom that we must face these problems.
For those reasons I welcome Labour's charter for animal protection, Living Without Cruelty, which includes impressive sections on the two matters which

389
the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, raised of live animals and live food animals for export. The campaign against cruelty to animals and cruelty to human beings is one; we are all a part of one family.
9.18 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I must declare an interest, in that I farm and, therefore, I shall refer to sheep and cattle for slaughter, and not to horses. As for dogs, I do not consider them to be live food animals. However, I see the point of exploring any cruelty, and I believe that exposure is a better way of prevention than legislation. Therefore, it is on three counts that I would make a plea to Government to consider very carefully before they embark on any new legislation or, indeed, new regulations regarding animal welfare.
First, we understand so very little about our attitude to animals; indeed, what I, as a farmer, might consider cruel might be totally different from what the noble Lords, Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Brockway, might consider cruel. I suppose that for someone who does not farm—and I believe I am correct in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, must be one of the very few Members of your Lordships' House who do not—some of our attitudes and indeed our philosophy towards our job, and in particular our animals, must seem illogical.
On the other side of the picture, I believe that the large majority of pets are kept on the border of cruelty. Noble Lords may say that I am being unfair. Maybe I am. For that reason I would never criticise the keeping of pets; I do so myself. However, the point I am making is that the question of what is and what is not cruelty is not possible accurately to define. It is a very imprecise science.
Secondly, farming, in particular livestock farming, dates back to primitive man, as we have been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. Things are not done or changed overnight. Hurried decisions and moves in farming are nearly always wrong. Changes should be made gradually, and be allowed to develop. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, admit that progress has been made, certainly so far as horses are concerned. I ask him, with
390
the greatest respect, to continue to bi patient: I am sure more would be achieved.
Thirdly, I am deeply suspicious that control and legislation ever achieves much—if it does achieve anything at all—and certainly in an area which (as I have said before and indeed the noble Lord, Lore Brockway, said it) is so imprecise as what constitutes animal cruelty. Indeed, often regulations and legislations are counterproductive. If I may, I shall give just one example. It is the law contained in the Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act 1954 which was amended by the 1964 Act. In that Act, under Section l(4)(b) the de-horning, except by caustic stick, is forbidden without an anaesthetic.
The picture I wish to paint to your Lordships is that of a single suckler outwintered herd—and there are many of them; and indeed I had one until the green pound made me give it up. On arrival in the morning you are faced with seven or eight newborn calves, which must be castrated and should be dehorned. Surely it is kinder to creep up quietly and castrate and de-horn that calf before either it is aware of your presence and, more important, its mother is aware of your presence, rather than, as the law demands, inject the anaesthetic into each horn, wait five minutes for it to work while the mother is hollering its heart out.
Here is a case of the law being an ass, and as a result the farmer will either break the law or fail to de-horn. If there is a single humane treatment I should like to see done, it is the encouragement— although again not through legislation— of more de-horning of cattle. The damage done in lorries, and indeed in cattle yards, by horned beasts hitting each other in my opinion certainly does cause cruelty. I would support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, if he could think of a practical way to encourage de-horning of commercial cattle. I believe a chance was certainly lost when we had the calf subsidy. So I ask the Government to read again the O'Brien Report; to read again the Ministry of Agriculture's Report of March 1978 on the Export Trade of Live Animals, to which noble Lords have referred.
I must draw noble Lords' attention to Appendix A, in which you will see listed

391
40 organisations to which the Government referred. I do not believe it is fair to say—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said—that the Government have not consulted. They have; 40 people here. For once—and I hate saying this because there is nothing I like doing less than to congratulate the Government, whether it be blue, pink or yellow—I really consider that the Government have worked very hard on animal welfare. As I say, I do not really like saying that.
Having said that, I think that the Government would be better advised to rely, as I think they are doing, on the oldest motive of all—self-interest. The farmer and the slaughterer are the people who are financially involved, and if their lambs and bullocks do not have kindly treatment throughout their lives up to slaughter, they will suffer financially. If for that reason only, they will ensure humane treatment. I happen to believe that farmers are not the cruel creatures that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, sometimes gives us credit for. But even if we are, I am sure that everybody in your Lordships' House will agree that it is rare to find a farmer who enjoys throwing his money away, and that is what cruelty does.
Having said that, I agree with the noble Lord that there is always the rogue farmer just as there is the rogue politician, rogue doctor or the rogue vet, but I am sure he will agree with me that legislation will not get rid of those sort of people anyway. I believe there is an unnecessary divide creeping in between farmers and the opposite side, whoever they may or may not be. As always, the best way to resolve our differences is not on the Floor of the House, or on the floor of any other house, but quietly over the proverbial pint, and not by further Government measures. Our interests are the same, if for ostensibly different reasons and philosophy, and it just must be possible for us to resolve them without further legislation and regulation.
9.26 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, it is characteristic of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby that he is not content with introducing one subject
392
of importance but on this occasion has successfully introduced several, and the debate has ranged over horses, dogs and cattle and was further extended by the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, to include lobsters. It has, nevertheless, been a well balanced debate and I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, took part and struck a realistic note as a working farmer. I hope that during my speech I shall be able to convince your Lordships that the Government, as Lord Stanley rightly said, are much more concerned about these matters than would have been evident from some of the speeches of other noble Lords.
I should like at the outset, in reply to my noble friend, to deal with the important question of the export of live food animals for slaughter or further fattening and try to give some indication of the factors which are causing the Government to think very carefully on this matter, about which so many people feel deeply, and I am sure what my noble friend Lord Brockway said impressed us all.
First of all, one has to recognise that where the welfare of animals is concerned, national boundaries should be of little relevance, provided that the legal protection of animals is reasonably equivalent on both sides of those boundaries. A major factor contributing to such equivalence is of course EEC legislation. That is why the Government must take into account the extent to which current and proposed EEC legislation could protect animals during international transport.
Your Lordships are of course aware that since 1st August of this year EEC Directive 77/489 has been in force. That is the Directive which lays down general requirements for the protection of animals during international transport. Its provisions cover all farm animals and horses, domestic animals such as cats and dogs, other mammals and cold-blooded creatures. Its provisions apply to all intra-Community trade and to animals being exported to or imported from third countries. It lays down general requirements for the construction of their means of transport and containers, for when and how animals should be tied, for ventilation and density, and so on. It prohibits the carriage of animals which are ill or injured or where their stage of pregnancy makes them unfit to travel.

393
Two major requirements apply generally to farm animals and horses. The first is that before they start an international journey, they must have an inspection by an official veterinary surgeon and be certified by him that they are fit to travel. The second is that the times between feeding and watering on the journey should not exceed 24 hours unless the destination where the animals are to be unloaded can be reached within a reasonable period. My Lords, that is where the Commission's new proposals offer considerable advance, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Brockway will take note of this.
These proposals are for a Directive designed to implement Directive 77/489 in a number of ways. The most important of these is the proposal that food animals will not be allowed to undertake an international journey unless they are accompanied by a travel document which will log the time when their journey started, and when they pass through particular checkpoints, so that the intervals between feeding and watering can be monitored, and appropriate action taken. The Commission is hoping to finalise its proposals and to send them to the Council before the end of this year. The Commission's proposals will no doubt need further refinement, but there will be opportunities for this to be done when they pass through the Council's machinery of scrutiny.
Another factor which the Government are considering closely is the suggestion which has come forward from the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, as well as from the body of which my noble friend is so distinguished a chairman and from the Farm Animal Welfare Coordinating Executive—that there should be some permanent, independent, advisory body which could advise the Government on animal welfare matters. This suggestion is a very far-reaching one, and the Government are most carefully considering it. We must also look at its relevance to the issues we are discussing today.
We have to look at the nature of the livestock industry, and the extent to which a limitation on movement—in both domestic and international journeys, since welfare in transit is equally important in both cases—could affect the different activities within the fattening and the slaughtering aspects of that industry.
394
The economic aspects of continuing, or discontinuing, all, or parts, of the export trade must also be carefully assessed.
Many people see the live export trade not only as undesirable morally, but as positively damaging to our economic interests. The point has been made—and I think that it was repeated this evening by my noble friend—that we should export on the hook, instead of the hoof, so that we gain the benefits not only of added value, but of increased employment opportunities, particularly in our slaughterhouses. There are, however, complex reasons for the existing pattern of trade, not the least of which is that it meets a particular demand from our customers, which would not be met by simply substituting meat for animals. There could also be important consequences for our producers. There can be no doubt that live exports have a significant effect on their incomes and production plans, including those in the dairy sector which provides most of the exported calves. A lost market outlet for live animals could lead in due course to lower production with wider ranging consequences. These are complex issues which all have to be taken into account before the Government can reach a decision.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, raised the question of the EEC and Italy. The EEC Directive 74/577 requires animals to be stunned before slaughter, although exemptions are made for emergency slaughter; and of course ritual slaughter is outside the scope of the Directive. Your Lordships will know—as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, said— that Italy failed to take the necessary measures to implement the Directive and was found to be in breach of it by the European Court of Justice. I am glad to say that she has now introduced appropriate domestic legislation.
I come now to the question of the: welfare and protection of horses, a subject which is also close to my noble friend's heart as well as to the feelings of this House. My noble friend has raised a number of important questions about the welfare of horses in the course of this evening's debate, and indeed there are one or two major points on which I hope to be able to offer some reassurance. I should like,

395
though, to speak generally on this question, and particularly with reference to the New Forest ponies referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington. The slaughter of healthy horses and ponies before the end of their natural lives and the export of horsemeat are frequently criticised. There have also been suggestions that the slaughter of these animals should be prohibited by law. These views have recently been stimulated by the New Forest pony sales. The problem is that the supply of horses and ponies at sales greatly exceeds the demand for those for riding, and that the alternative for those animals not bought for recreation is usually to put them down humanely. The compassionate feelings aroused are entirely understandable, but surely it would not be in the best interests of surplus horses and ponies to prevent them from being humanely destroyed. This would be bound to result in over-population, starvation and neglect—a form of cruelty of its own. A ban on the use of horsemeat for human consumption would have no justification on welfare grounds.
There has always been great concern about the possibility of horses being exported for slaughter. One of the methods used to prevent this is by imposing, through a Statutory Instrument, minimum values below which various categories of horses and ponies may not be exported. This was referred to by my noble friend, and I am glad to confirm that within the last few days the Government, after consultation with all the organisations concerned, have made a new Horses and Ponies (Increase in Minimum Values) Order, which will come into effect on 27th December, which has significantly raised these values. The increases not only take account of increases in prices of horsemeat abroad, which of course would be the incentive for exporting them, but also builds in a safety factor against further price increases. Agriculture Ministers will continue to keep these revised prices under review so as to make sure that this valuable safeguard against the export of horses for slaughter is maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has spoken about unsatisfactory conditions at some horse sales. During the debate in your Lordships' House in December last year, my noble friend, as he reminded
396
us today, drew attention to disturbing reports of conditions at auctions and sales of horses and ponies. Last year I said that a code of conduct for horse sales produced by the British Horse Society and sent to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by the British Veterinary Association would be examined by officials to see whether it could with advantage be included in any new legislation which might be made in relation to welfare at horse and pony auctions and sales. As part of the examination of the situation, officials of the State Veterinary Service carried out a preliminary survey of the places where horses and ponies are sold or auctioned. As I explained to my noble friend last March, that survey indicated that the welfare arrangements on these occasions are generally satisfactory, although in a few cases minor shortcomings were noted. This preliminary survey has been followed by a more detailed survey designed to give fuller and more specific information than was originally collected, so I think I can assure my noble friend that we are not dragging our feet. The material collected about the facilities at premises and the practices which take place has now been analysed, and Ministers will shortly be asked to decide what action would be appropriate and what form it should take.
Some doubt has been expressed about the extent to which the various transit orders made under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 are being effectively applied within Great Britain. As your Lordships are aware, responsibility for enforcing these orders rests with local authorities, who last year took 890 prosecutions under legislation dealing with cruelty to animals. The survey of horse sales which has now been completed will be made available to local authorities and I am sure that they will want to keep a particularly careful eye on conditions in any market where they have been found to be less than fully satisfactory.
My Lords, I should like now to come to the question of horse meat exported to EEC countries and the issues which are in the mind of my noble friend and other noble Lords today. There is legislation which protects the welfare of horses and ponies from the time when they are unloaded at slaughterhouses. The

397
Slaughterhouses Act 1974 and the Slaughter of Animals (Prevention of Cruelty) Regulations 1958 both apply. The Slaughterhouses Act 1974 requires all horse slaughterhouses and slaughtermen to be specially licensed by the local authority. It also provides for animals to be stunned before slaughter (although there is an exemption for religious slaughter methods).
The Slaughter of Animals (Prevention of Cruelty) Regulations 1958, as amended, lay down requirements for the construction of slaughterhouses and the humane treatment of animals in lairages and at slaughter. Any operator of a slaughterhouse or knacker's yard may apply to his local authority for the special licence to slaughter horses but to qualify he must meet more stringent provisions for humane treatment than are laid down for other animals. These include structural requirements designed to make it impossible for any live horse to see another horse being slaughtered or to see the remains of any horse or any other animal. They also lay down special provisions on the lairaging of horses. Ministry veterinary staff, who visit frequently, keep a very close watch on throughput in order to ensure that it does not exceed the maximum number considered to be satisfactory in each case. Most recent reports show no indication of overcrowding.
There have been criticisms that the number of slaughterhouses licensed to produce horse meat for the EEC market is too few. It has also been said that the location of slaughterhouses involves some horses and ponies having to make too long a journey. I do not know whether noble Lords are aware that a further slaughterhouse was licensed at the end of September this year, thus bringing the number licensed to export to EEC countries up from four to five. It is located at Nantwich as my noble friend said—although he did not say, and may not have known, it is a new one—and will contribute to the reduction of long journeys from the North and from Wales. There is as yet no slaughterhouse in Scotland licensed to slaughter for the EEC market. Any application for an operator for a licence would, of course, be carefully considered.
I think it is worth emphasising that although horses and ponies may in some circumstances have to travel long distances
398
to be slaughtered, their welfare is protected throughout the journey by the provisions of the various transit orders made under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said, which apply to horses.
I should like now to say, with all the emphasis at my command, that, bearing in mind some of the lurid details described by my noble friend, if persons attending sales see that horses are being transported, loaded or unloaded under bad conditions, it will clearly assist if they report the circumstances to local authority inspectors or to the police at the time so that the complaint can be followed up without delay. They would have the full backing of the law if they did that. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, spoke about dehorning. I am afraid I have no information on that; it was rather outside the scope of the debate. I shall take note of what he said and write to him, if I may. I must do the same to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, if he does not mind, about the question of the pony trekking establishments.
I should like now to say a few words about the supply of animals for experimental purposes, which was the other main subject of the debate. The Secretary of State for the Home Department is responsible for the administration of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 which governs experiments on living animals calculated to induce pain. He has no power to direct licensees under the Act to acquire animals for experimentation from a particular source. Nevertheless, nearly all the larger experimental establishments breed their own animals or else acquire them from such bodies as the Medical Research Council's Laboratory Animals Centre or from breeders accredited under the scheme organised by the Medical Research Council as most pets are unsuitable for laboratory work because of temperament or physical condition.
As to the use of cats and dogs in experiments, I draw your Lordships' attention to two relevant considerations. In the first place, they are not widely used. In the second place, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby knows that a licence holder under the Cruelty to Animals Act must hold special certificates. All these certificates, which are E, A, or B certificates depending on the nature of the

399
experiment, must be signed by the president of one of the learned societies and also by a professor in a medical discipline. These signatories certify that the purpose of the experiment requires a cat or a dog and that a conscious animal is essential or that recovery from anaesthesia is essential. The Secretary of State for the Home Department has power to disallow these certificates.
To perform an experiment on a cat or a dog in the circumstances that I have described without the necessary certificate would be illegal. However, no one wants to see a well-loved animal, a well-loved family pet, ending its life in this way, as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, have said, and of course I agree with them. The best course for any owner disposing of a pet and concerned about the possibility of the animal finding its way to a laboratory is to seek the advice of the RSPCA or a veterinary surgeon. My noble friend mentioned St. George's, Tooting. The medical school takes great care to ensure that no pets are used in research. All animals are purpose-bred with one exception. Ex-racing greyhounds which have already been culled as unsuitable for further racing are used for important research in developing new treatment for heart disease. They are all animals which are due to be killed. Their hearts are particularly suitable for research.
I too have read the articles in the Press referred to by my noble friend. But we have no evidence to suggest the theft of pets for sale to laboratories is widespread. Suspected thefts should be reported to the police. The existing law, the Theft Act 1968, as amended by the Criminal Law Act 1977, provides penalties for the theft or dishonest handling of stolen pets. Of course, it is also an offence to abandon a dog. It is an offence, if one finds a dog, to return it to anybody but its owner or to the police. The police also are not allowed under legislation to dispose of a dog into vivisection. All these matters have the full backing of the law. It is the view of the Cruelty to Animals Inspectorate, who visit research establishments, that those who purchase animals from dealers as opposed to breeders are fully aware of the law relating to pet stealing and are conscious of their responsibilities to ensure that supplies are legally obtained. Nevertheless, the need for a statutory
400
scheme to control the supply of laboratory animals is under consideration by the Home Office.

  "ART FOR SOCIETY" EXHIBITION
  "ART FOR SOCIETY" EXHIBITION
  LEBANON: UN PEACE-KEEPING FORCE
  LEBANON: UN PEACE-KEEPING FORCE
  MICROBIOLOGICAL RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT, PORTON
  MICROBIOLOGICAL RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT, PORTON
  HEAVY LORRIES: EEC CONTROL
  HEAVY LORRIES: EEC CONTROL
  WARDLEY HILL (A.47) ROAD IMPROVEMENT
  WARDLEY HILL (A.47) ROAD IMPROVEMENT
  TAXATION ON PERSONAL INCOME
  TAXATION ON PERSONAL INCOME