Sitting of 4 July 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time tomorrow.

  KENDAL MARKET BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  To be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Mr. Speaker: I must appeal to hon. Members to make their supplementary questions brief in order to be fair to others who have Questions further down on the Order Paper.
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
    EMPLOYMENT

      Press Charter (Publication)
      Mr. Silvesterasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is now in a position to announce a date for the publication of the Press Charter.
      The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I am not yet able to say when the draft Press Charter will be published.
      Mr. Silvester: Is it not disgraceful that the Government should hesitate in making clear their attitude towards the freedom of the Press and the closed shop issue before the end of the Session, or, perhaps, before a General Election?
      Mr. Walker: The House debated these matters on 18th May. On that occasion
      208
      I set out the position very fully. I recalled that it made obvious sense for the Government to wait until the Royal Commission had published its report before setting in hand the very lengthy series of consultations required by the statute, and which it makes good sense to undertake.
      Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the problems is the continuing inability of the Newspaper Publishers Association to speak with a united voice? Will he also confirm that he has no intention of having a provision in the charter which would give a right not to belong to a trade union because of the damaging effect which that would have on industrial relations?
      Mr. Walker: Yes. In the debate on 18th May, I mentioned the way in which the consultations had inevitably been lengthened by the inability of Fleet Street to speak with a single unified voice and by the number of employers and proprietors who wished to make separate representations. I have said repeatedly in the House that I think such a proposal as that advanced by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior)—to give journalists a statutory right not to belong to a trade union—would not only be to repeat the follies of the Industrial Relations Act but would be quite inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act.
      Mr. Prior: Does not the Minister of State agree that it would be far better if the National Union of Journalists used its efforts to persuade people to join rather than have to use compulsion as the only means of getting 100 per cent. membership?
      Mr. Walker: I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I always have done, that the case for trade unionism and trade union membership must rest on its merits and on its own appeal.

      European Community (Unemployment)
      Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to place on the agenda for his next meeting with his EEC colleagues the question of long-term structural unemployment within the Community.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): Social Affairs Ministers of the Community regularly discuss unemployment in all its

      209
      aspects, including the effects on employment of industrial change and the special problems of particular groups of the workforce.
      Mr. Dempsey: As unemployment is likely to be long-term and we cannot afford to sit around until world trade takes off, will not the Minister advocate, for example, the extension of facilities for 16-year-old school leavers such as further education, youth training, work sharing with weekly financial income, and a reduction of the working week, which need not be accompanied by inflationary costs, as well as a reduction in the retirement age? Would not these suggestions make substantial reductions in the present unemployment figures?
      Mr. Grant: A number of the matters raised by my hon. Friend are under consideration by our own Government and some of them by Community Governments. Certainly, with regard to work sharing, we are hoping that it will be possible for there to be a Community initiative before the end of the year.
      Mr. William Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend accept that any long-term solution to the problems of structural unemployment can be dealt with successfully only on a Community basis? If we try to tackle these problems on a national basis, we shall end up with a kind of beggar-my-neighbour sterility.
      Mr. Grant: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. Obviously we are not ruling out national measures to deal with structural unemployment, but clearly there is an advantage in doing these things on a Community basis.

      35-hour Week
      Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the CBI and the TUC in regard to the introduction of the 35-hour week throughout industry; and if he will make a statement.
      The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I am in frequent contact with the TUC and the CBI about employment and industrial relations matters, and we have a common interest in clarifying the issues involved in reduction in the working week.
      My hon. Friend will probably be aware of an article on work sharing published
      210
      in the April edition of the Department of Employment Gazette which covered, among other things, the costs involved and concluded that a reduction in overtime might be the first priority. I welcome the TUC's recent initiative in seeking a reduction in the amount of overtime worked.
      Mr. Atkinson: I am aware of the article to which my right hon. Friend refers. Does he recognise that, if manual workers are to take a fair share of the benefits accruing from technical advances, and if we are to increase employment in industry by 10 per cent, to overcome some of the worst unemployment difficulties, politicians must now come together with wage bargainers and trade unionists with a view to reducing the working week to 35 hours?
      Mr. Booth: I agree that one of the benefits that we hope to get from technological advances is the reduction of the working life—possibly the reduction of the number of working hours, as well as consideration of the options for early retirement. In the current situation we must ensure that these possibilities are organised in ways which do not mean additions to unit costs which would otherwise come about. That would militate against the very result that we want to achieve in the reduction of the number of working hours, namely, an increase in the numbers employed.
      Mr. Stokes: Would it not be madness to introduce a 35-hour working week when the country cannot produce enough in a 40-hour working week?
      Mr. Booth: We are not proposing at this stage to introduce a 35-hour working week. The discussions that I have had with the CBI and the TUC have been to investigate the ways in which any reduction in the number of hours could be achieved without loss in production and without loss of pay, and preferably to bring about an increase in the numbers employed and a drop in public expenditure.
      Mr. Rooker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is necessary before there is a general reduction of the working week is some statutory control of overtime to ensure that it is not abused? Before that happens, will he ensure that

      211
      the reasons for overtime—namely, degenerate payment systems and low basic rates—are also tackled?
      Mr. Booth: I hope I have made clear to the House that I have given priority to considerations of overtime. This was one of the first things that I took up with the CBI and the TUC. I believe that many of the factors leading to overtime working, which my hon. Friend mentioned, could result in difficulties if the cut in hours took place by statute without some proper compensation arrangements being made for those who work overtime only in order to take home a living wage.
      Mr. Henderson: Does not the Secretary of State agree that he is doing a disservice in not pointing out that there are many people, particularly in offices, who are on a shorter week than 40 hours? Does he agree that one of the objectives should be to ensure that people who are paid on an hourly rate are given the same conditions and status as office workers?
      Mr. Booth: One of the priorities that one could advance in the matter of hours reduction is the elimination of differences between blue and white collar workers.
      Mr. Madel: What conclusions have the Government drawn on the suggestion that plant and machinery should be used for longer periods but not by the same people on the one shift—in other words, that we should have a different system of shift working?
      Mr. Booth: Certainly this is one of the possibilities, but it must be achieved by consideration plant by plant and industry by industry. It does not lend itself necessarily to a national policy. Among the many pieces of useful advice that the general secretary of the TUC sent to the secretaries of affiliated organisations, following my meeting with the TUC, was one which suggested ways of using greater capacities of the plant to bring more people into employment rather than creating more overtime working.

      Unemployed Persons
      Mr. Rifkindasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for the number of persons unemployed in the United Kingdom; and
      212
      when the level of unemployment last reached a similar figure.
      Mr. Booth: At 8th June, the total number of registered unemployed people in the United Kingdom was 1,446,061, of whom 145,626 were school leavers. Seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, the number was 1,364,600, which was very slightly lower than last month.
      Mr. Rifkind: Does the Secretary of State believe that it is merely a depressing coincidence that each Labour Government have presided over a substantial increase in the level of unemployment during their tenure of office? While he will doubtless wish to blame the rest of the world for this phenomenon, will he not agree that it must be due, at least in part, to the regrettable, if understandable, insistence of Labour Governments on concentrating their energies on protecting non-productive existing jobs rather than seeking to create new productive employment?
      Mr. Booth: The present Labour Government are presiding over a situation in which unemployment has been declining for eight successive months and more people are in employment than in 1971, 1972 or 1973 under the previous Government.
      Mr. Roy Hughes: I hope that my right hon. Friend will disregard the highly partisan point of view which has just been put. Bearing in mind the very grave unemployment situation that unfortunately exists in Britain today, however, allied to the development of modern technology, does not my right hon. Friend feel that his Department should give a lead to both sides of industry in introducing a 35-hour week, irrespective of whether it means any statutory ban on overtime?
      Mr. Booth: Certainly I take the view that my Department must be very closely involved, possibly more than any other Government Department, in dealing with employers and unions on the question of hours reduction. The reason for that is that one does not automatically produce an increase in the numbers employed by reducing the number of hours worked. Therefore, a number of factors must be considered which my Department is well equipped to take into account.
      Mr. Budgen: Further to the interesting supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), has the Secretary of State any plans for introducing an over-time inspectorate with a proper career structure, proper salaries and index-linked pension?
      Mr. Booth: No. This is a form of job creation that I have not yet contemplated.
      Mr. Fernyhough: As the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) referred to the number of productive jobs lost under the present Government, will my right hon. Friend state how much greater the number would have been had we acquiesced in closing down British Leyland, in not dealing with Chrysler, in not dealing with the shipbuilding industry and in not rescuing Ferranti?
      Mr. Booth: I cannot give a precise figure on that, but, to endorse the point which was implicit in my right hon. Friend's question, I can say that we could add to those figures another 900,000 people who have been assisted by special employment measures run by my Department and the Manpower Services Commission.
      Mr. Prior: Is the Secretary of State aware that I can give him a precise figure? It is clear that for every one person who has become unemployed in the lifetime of Conservative Governments' since 1945. 11 have become unemployed as a result of Socialist Governments since the war. It might be a good idea for the present Government to ask themselves whether it is not Socialist policies rather than a world recession that cause high unemployment.
      Mr. Booth: The right hon. Gentleman goes to the very limit in his presentation of statistics to try to favour his case. That case is not borne out by any practical observations of what has happened in a number of countries faced with similar problems of a world slump and which have either accepted or declined the types of measures that have been used in this country and which have kept a number of industries in existence.

      Skillcentre Vacancies
      Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what special measures are being taken to fill the 1,000 places in skillcentres currently vacant.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that local publicity of training opportunities is being intensified. In addition, a national campaign is planned to recruit instructors.
      Mr. Hooley: I welcome the efforts which have been made, but is my hon. Friend aware that part of the problem lies in the less-than-inspiring salaries paid to instructors and the difficulty of recruiting instructors on those salaries? Will he examine that aspect of the problem?
      Mr. Walker: That is part of the problem, and it is why the Manpower Services Commission is introducing a national recruiting campaign. I hope that the recent pay increase in the Civil Service, which will benefit the instructors, will help to alleviate the difficulty which my hon. Friend has identified.
      Mr. Stokes: Is not the lack of young men wishing to become skilled due to the failure to pay skilled men a higher wage than that paid to ordinary unskilled workers, because of the effects of successive incomes policies?
      Mr. Walker: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should not be a pay policy. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, in common with everybody else, would see the great benefits which the pay policy has brought in the past three years.
      Mr. Litterick: Is the Minister aware that the DHSS has apparently stopped collecting statistics on the employment and unemployment of registered blind school leavers? Will he give the House an assurance that his Department knows how many blind school leavers there are, where they are and, therefore, the extent of their training requirements?
      Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend will not expect me to know what has happened in the DHSS in this connection. I shall draw the point he has made to the attention of the Department, and I shall

      215
      examine it myself. I should have thought that we have the necessary statistical information about blind school leavers through the disablement resettlement officers and similiar people. Nevertheless, I shall examine the matter and write to my hon. Friend in order to put the matter beyond doubt.
      Mr. Madel: Do not vacancies exist not only because of shortages of instructors but because of the siting of skillcentres? Should not the Government examine the possibility of putting on similar courses in existing educational establishments so that these courses can be taken up?
      Mr. Walker: Probably more than half of all trainees who underwent training through the training opportunities scheme received their training in colleges of further and higher education and not in skillcentres. The skillcentres are sited with considerable regard to the market in mind, but some have now been established for 30 years or so. Some of them may need to be examined to see whether they are serving the needs of the market. I shall draw the point to the attention of the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.

      Disabled Workers (Quota)
      Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate, for each of the last five years, of the numbers of firms with over 20 workers which do not employ their 3 per cent. quota of registered disabled people, which do not have Government permits and which may have taken on any new workers who are not disabled.
      Mr. John Grant: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that it is not possible to say which firms have taken on workers who are not registered as disabled without inspecting the quota compliance records of all the employers who are below quota and without permit.
      Mr. Ashley: Why cannot this information be given? Is my hon. Friend aware that I estimate that thousands of employers are now breaking the law? Does he agree with that estimate, and, if so, why cannot such employers be prosecuted in the same way as any other law-breaker? Why cannot Government
      216
      Departments which are failing to fulfil their quota also be brought into line?
      Mr. Grant: The reason why it would be difficult to take this step is simply that it would require a large increase in manpower. The resources that that would take up are better spent in trying to back up the positive policies programme which has been set up to try to get more disabled people into employment. I know my hon. Friend's views on this subject, but I must repeat that all the independent advice we have received suggests that the approach I have outlined is the best method of getting more disabled people into jobs. It would be wrong to jettison that approach now, but the Manpower Services Commission is committed to review the operation of the system. In that review it will certainly consult, among other bodies, the all-party Disablement Group.
      Sir J. Langford-Holt: How does a firm which employs 20 people employ 3 per cent. disabled, which appears to be 0·6 of one person?
      Mr. Grant: I do not wish to bandy statistics with the hon. Gentleman, but the facts are that if all the unemployed registered disabled people were spread around it would still be possible for employers to reach only 2·2 per cent., because over the years there has been a considerable fall in the number of registered disabled people.
      Mr. Terry Walker: Does my hon. Friend realise that his reply will cause much disappointment? Could not regional officers do more to monitor the system in regard to companies? Could they also examine the practice in local authorities, because they are not complying with the law either?
      Mr. Grant: The public sector figures have been published for two successive years. I agree that they leave a great deal to be desired. On the point about inspection, we asked the MSC to concentrate its inspections on firms which are below quota and without permit. The investigations are producing some interesting results. It is difficult to find what could be described as flagrant breaches. It is only in cases of flagrant breaches that prosecution is merited. Where flagrant breaches occur, prosecution is considered.

      Employed and Unemployed Persons
      Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the levels of employment and unemployment.
      Mr. Albert Booth: While the ninth successive monthly fall in seasonally adjusted unemployment is to be welcomed, the level of unemployment remains too high. The Government's economic and industrial strategy will help to secure a high and stable level of employment and rising living standards, and the special employment measures and youth opportunities programme also have an important part to play in tackling unemployment.
      Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the allegations that the employment protection legislation is inhibiting employment and industrial recovery? Is this a fact, or is it a myth perpetuated by the Conservative Party and its supporters?
      Mr. Booth: I am most concerned about those allegations, and I joined the Manpower Services Commission in commissioning a study of the effects of employment legislation. That study was undertaken by the Policy Studies Institute. Its report, which was published on 28th June, found that the legislation was not having a significant effect on the number of additional staff taken on by firms. The report went on to point out that most British manufacturers find that employment legislation does not discourage firms from taking on new people. Indeed, the majority of employers do not find such legislation an obstacle to shedding surplus labour either. There is very little sign that the legislation inhibits recovery. I have made copies of this report widely available, and hon. Members who have not a copy are invited to study it in the Library.
      Mr. Scott: Since the Manpower Services Commission and the Government thought it worth while only to survey firms employing more than 50 people, will they exempt from the effects of the Employment Protection Act firms employing fewer than 50 people?
      Mr. Booth: It is not the case that we thought it worth while to study only large firms. A further survey is being
      218
      conducted into the operations of small firms, and we want to examine other matters in addition to the effects of legislation.
      Mr. Heffer: In view of the high level of unemployment on Merseyside, will my right hon. Friend say what will happen if the CPSA goes on strike in my constituency? If the Walton labour exchange closes on Friday, it will mean that workers who are unemployed will be unable to receive unemployment benefit. What is being done on this matter by the Department? Are any efforts being made to solve the dispute, and what will happen if the DHSS workers carry out their threat to support the CPSA workers? Is it not clear that immediate action must be taken by the Department to settle this dispute, which will affect fortnightly payments of unemployment benefit?
      Mr. Booth: I have been making efforts over a long period to secure the total cooperation of the CPSA and other unions involved in the fortnightly signing experiment. All the other unions have agreed, whereas the CPSA has not agreed to this experiment. Despite the holding of meetings as recently as yesterday morning, when I met the general secretary of the CPSA, I must tell the House that that union is still determined on a course of strike action which will close four benefit offices next week. I acknowledge that one of them is the Walton office. This could have repercussions on supplementary benefit offices since CPSA members are employed there.
      Although I am doing my utmost, and I am glad that there is some indication of co-operation between my officials and those of the CPSA to find ways of reducing hardship to claimants, I cannot at this stage give any assurance that there will not be some claimants who will face hardship if the action goes ahead.

      Disabled Persons (South Yorkshire)
      Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled persons were registered as unemployed at each of the employment exchanges in the South Yorkshire area at the latest available date.
      Mr. John Grant: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with

      219
      permission, circulate it in the Official Report. However, I am advised by the Manpower Services Commission that the total numbers of disabled people unemployed on 8th June 1978 in the area were 1,498 registered disabled and 3,116 unregistered disabled.
      Mr. Wainwright: Does my hon. Friend realise that it is almost impossible for these people to get a job when there is such a high rate of general unemployment? Will he, therefore, make certain that every employer employs at least the 3 per cent. quota of disabled people, and will he discuss with the Secretary of State for Industry ways of bringing more jobs to the Dearne Valley constituency?
      Mr. Grant: The rate of unemployment among registered disabled people in South Yorkshire is lower than the national rate, though it is higher in the Dearne Valley constituency. I have previously drawn attention to the Manpower Services Commission's programme for getting more disabled people into employment, and that is the best way to proceed. I certainly note my hon. Friend's remarks about discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.
      Mr. Buchan: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us are rather puzzled about his earlier reply that serious action could be taken only against flagrant breaches by employers? When an ordinary citizen breaks the law, he is prosecuted. Is it not time that when the law is broken in regard to quotas of registered disabled employees and firms are not carrying out their obligations, prosecution should follow?
      Mr. Grant: There is always some discretion for authorities whether they proceed to prosecution when someone is found committing an offence. For example, many people have been caught speeding but they have not all found themselves in court.
      Following are the figures:

      Registered disabled people

      unregistered disabled people

      Barnsley

      …

      …

      141

      325

      Chapeltown

      …

      …

      29

      36

      Dinnington

      …

      …

      59

      22

      Doncaster

      …

      …

      314

      671

      Firth Park

      …

      …

      112

      29

      Goldthorpe

      …

      …

      55

      87

      220

      Hoyland

      …

      …

      26

      22

      Maltby

      …

      …

      29

      92

      Mexborough

      …

      …

      88

      142

      Rotherham

      …

      …

      191

      391

      Royston

      …

      …

      23

      29

      Sheffield

      …

      …

      277

      1,052

      Thorne

      …

      …

      80

      115

      Wombwell

      …

      …

      47

      47

      Woodhouse

      …

      …

      27

      56

      European Community Social Fund
      Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to visit Brussels to discuss the workings of the Social Fund with his counterparts in the other member States' Governments.
      Mr. John Grant: I represented the Government at the Council of Ministers of Labour and Social Affairs on 29th June, when a new category of Social Fund aid to promote the employment of young people was discussed. I very much regret that, due to the opposition of one delegation, it was not possible to reach agreement then.
      Mr. Dykes: I thank the Minister for that reply and I share his regret. Since these are Community funds and not national public spending, would it not be a good idea to put into the Social Fund a much greater amount of money to deal with unemployment problems in the underdeveloped areas of member States, particularly such areas in this country? Will the Government undertake to press that the Social Fund should be made larger in future?
      Mr. Grant: We have considered for some time that a sizeable Social Fund is desirable, though many measures, particularly those relating to youth unemployment, are best conducted on a national basis. In general, we are in favour of a sizeable Social Fund and we have pressed for an increase.
      Mr. John Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of increasing the size of the Social Fund would be to transfer to it a substantial amount of the CAP? When he next visits Brussels, will my hon. Friend take up the future of the Community shipbuilding and ship repairing industries and make clear that, in relation to the proposal that 100,000 jobs in those industries should disappear between now and 1981, any restructuring

      221
      will be subject to consultations between British Shipbuilders and the Government and not with the Commission?
      Mr. Grant: The CAP is clearly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I know that shipbuilding is the very active concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

      Public Employees
      Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the respective percentages of the population in employment in 1976 and 1977 employed by (a) public corporations, including nationalised industries, (b) central Government, including Her Majesty's Forces, and (c) local authorities; and how this compares with the total figures of 27·1 per cent. in 1973.
      Mr. Harold Walker: In 1976, the latest year for which information is available, 7·9 per cent. of the United Kingdom employed labour force was employed by public corporations, 9·5 per cent. by central Government and 12·2 per cent. by local authorities, giving a total of 29·5 per cent.
      Sir J. Langford-Holt: As the Minister's reply shows a fair increase on the 1973 figures, can he tell me whether it is the Government's policy that these figures should continue to rise? How is it that figures after 1976, including those for the whole of 1977, are not available although we are now in the middle of 1978?
      Mr. Walker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares the view of many hon. Members that perhaps there is too much seeking of statistical information and too many censuses and surveys. I wish that Conservative Members would make up their minds whether they want the inquiries that will provide the information they seek or want the number of surveys and inquiries reduced. On the more substantial point, it is interesting that the hon. Gentleman carefully selected 1973 as a comparison, but the increases to which I have referred are consistent with the general rate of increase over the whole of the last decade. There seems to be a fairly constant increase over the years.

      Manpower Services Commission
      Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any immediate plans to meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.
      Mr. Booth: I am in constant touch with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.
      Mr. Durant: When the Minister next meets the chairman, will he discuss the working of the training opportunities scheme? Is he aware that I have a constituent who took a course but found that there was no immediate job for him, and another who found that the qualifications he gained on the course were not adequate for the job he was offered? Will the Secretary of State also discuss with the chairman the work of the jobcentres and emphasise to him that their role is to find work for people and not merely to satisfy employers' demands?
      Mr. Booth: There would be no disagreement between the MSC, its chairman and myself about the role of job-centres. Their main function is that described by the hon. Gentleman. Discussions are taking place between toy Department and the Commission about the training opportunities scheme. I have looked at a number of aspects of the scheme with the chairman, but I have not sought to persuade him or the Commission that they should offer courses only to people for whom there are immediate vacancies. It is right that people should be able to train for skills and the upgrading of their skills even if there is no immediate vacancy in an area for them, provided that there is a general indication that that sort of skill will be required in future.
      As to the development of the training opportunities scheme, there is a difficulty that some people trained in TOPS courses do not have the whole qualification necessary to take every job available in that skill. I hope that, in conjunction with industrial training boards, we will be able to work out a way of further upgrading the skill and experience of TOPS trainees on their entry into industry.
      Mr. Skinner: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman, will he discuss the curious and contradictory

      223
      attitude of the Tory Party in this matter? Is he aware that, while the Leader of the Opposition and her Right-wing lieutenants have been scathing about the misuse of taxpayers' money in the job creation scheme, Conservative Central Office has been busily applying for help under the scheme and has taken £11,000 in the process?
      Mr. Booth: Interesting as the subject is, I have better uses to which to put my time in discussions with the chairman than in discussing the curious and contradictory policies of the Opposition.

      School Leavers
      Mr. Tim Smithasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many school leavers are unemployed.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): At 8th June, 139,254 school leavers aged under 18 years were registered as unemployed in Great Britain.
      Mr. Smith: Is the Minister satisfied with progress on the implementation of the youth opportunities programme? In particular, is he satisfied with the quality of projects being approved, or is the Manpower Services Commission concerned only with the quantity of projects in order to reduce the unemployment statistics?
      Mr. Golding: The scheme does not come into operation until 1st September, but the Commission is most concerned that the schemes should have quality as well as quantity.
      Mr. Stoddart: Does my hon. Friend realise that in towns such as Swindon, which is an extended town with a young population, the problem of unemployed school leavers is acute? What measures does he intend to take to alleviate the problem in such areas?
      Mr. Golding: When I visited Swindon, my hon. Friend made clear the concern that he feels for the young unemployed. The Government have placed upon the Manpower Services Commission a commitment that any youngster having left school from Easter who is unable to obtain regular work or training will be offered a place in the youth opportunities scheme by next Easter. That will be the position in Swindon as elsewhere.

      Closed Shop
      Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the TUC and the CBI about the operation of the closed shop.
      Mr. Harold Walker: None, Sir.
      Mr. Gow: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that there should be discussion between his Department and the TUC about the way in which the closed shop is being operated? Will he consider the way in which 40 former employees of British Rail were dismissed because they refused to join a trade union and how two other employees of British Rail were dismissed because they resigned from a union? Does he think that that is a fair operation of the closed shop?
      Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman repeatedly raises this issue in the House. I must tell him what I have said on every previous occasion—namely, that these are matters for the collective bargaining process and for decisions between employers and unions.
      Mr. Mates: What is the hon. Gentleman's opinion?
      Mr. Walker: As for British Rail—
      Mr. Mates: What does the Minister think about it?
      Mr. Walker: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) will know that British Rail cases have been lodged with, and are immediately before, the European Courts of Human Rights. Therefore, it might be inadvisable for me to comment on the cases. I am sure that the TUC and the CBI are well aware of the views of the hon. Gentleman and myself. I again express the view that those engaged in negotiating for union membership agreements and in implementing them will seek to do so in the traditional, reasonable, flexible and tolerant manner.
      Mr. Ron Thomas: Will my hon. Friend refute the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) at the beginning of Question Time that trade union membership agreements in the Press industry have some sort of connection with a lack of freedom of the Press? Will he make it clear that we do not have a free Press because the hulk of the newspapers are

      225
      controlled by a small number of powerful individuals, and that that has nothing to do with trade union membership agreements?
      Mr. Walker: Yes. I remind the House that the statutory requirement to produce a Press charter goes beyond the application of the Press charter to closed shops and the Press. It deals with the wider issues of Press freedom and improper pressures from any source. When we lay the draft charter before the House, I assure the House that it will contain provisions to avoid improper pressures from whatever source. I hope that those concerned about the closed shop will not allow that concern to be used in a way that will reject the valuable safeguards for the freedom of the Press that we shall propose.
      Mr. Silvester: If it were the decision of the European Court to go against British. Rail, what action would the Government be prepared to take that they are not prepared to take now?
      Mr. Walker: The House will recognise that it would be most imprudent for me to speculate on the possible outcome of judicial proceedings that have yet to take place.

      Northern Region
      Mr. Radiceasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the level of unemployment in the Northern Region.
      Mr. Golding: No, Sir. Unemployment in the Northern Region is far, far too high. That is why the whole region has development or special development area status so that the full range of assistance under the Industry Act is available to help create new jobs and safeguard existing ones. In the short term, unemployment has been reduced by the Government's special measures, which have so far helped 72,000 persons in the Northern Region.
      Mr. Radice: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's answer. Is he aware that in recent weeks, despite all that the Government have done, there have been too many announcements of closures and redundancies involving thousands of workers in the Northern Region, including Howard Rotavator in my constituency? In conjunction with his colleagues
      226
      in the Department of Industry, will he take another look at the situation in the Northern Region to ascertain what can be done?
      Mr. Golding: I share my hon. Friend's concern about Howard Rotavator and his general concern about redundancies. The only hope that my Department can offer is through the temporary employment subsidy. The company is well aware that that is open to it.
      Mr. Anthony Grant: I know that the Minister wants to be fair. Will he be good enough to tell the House—the figures are obviously in his brief—how the present unemployment figures in the Northern Region contrast with those in 1973?
      Mr. Golding: The figures are higher than they were in 1973.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is my hon. Friend aware that both unions and management at ICI on Teesside are grateful to the Department for the efforts that it has been making to help overcome the problems created by the shortage of instrument artificers at the plant on Teesside? Is he yet in a position to tell the House whether he has been able to make any progress to stop further shutdowns of plant and more people being thrown out of work?
      Mr. Golding: My hon. Friend the Minister of State is making strenuous efforts to avert the difficulties with which we are faced. As late as last evening he was having informal talks with the unions concerned.

      PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
      Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 4th July.
      The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today I have a number of engagements with Chancellor Kreisky of Austria, including the opening of the new offices of the Anglo-Austrian Society, and this evening I shall be giving a dinner in his honour.
      Mr. Ashley: Now that the Government have shown such concern for top-salaried people, will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the plight of low-paid workers, especially homeworkers, and support the concept of a national minimum wage, which has been recommended by the TUC but rejected by the Government? Will he bear in mind that some homeworkers are receiving less than £10 for a 50-hour week and that the argument against a national minimum wage —on the ground that differentials would be reduced—is now quite bogus in view of the gains made by, and the claims of, many better-paid workers?
      The Prime Minister: I understand that an announcement on homeworkers will be made tomorrow. However, the complications of incomes policy and pay cannot be discussed in a reply to a supplementary question.
      Mr. MacKay: During the right hon. Gentleman's busy day, will he find time to comment on the speech made yesterday at Newcastle by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he said that the long-awaited economic miracle is within our grasp? Will he compare and contrast that with the CBI report, which forecasts that productivity will drop in the next four months? Which is right?
      The Prime Minister: I never know about forecasts. That is why I always mistrust them when I am asked about forecasts of this sort, and I advise the hon. Gentleman to do the same. I am sure that my right hon. Friend made an excellent speech yesterday that will repay everybody's attention. I look forward to reading it. I noticed the CBI forecast this morning and gave it all the attention that I give to all the other forecasts that I see.
      Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to study the recent proposals of the Highlands and Islands Development Board on land ownership in that part of the country, especially the taking of compulsory purchase powers for sporting estates? Will he remember that one of the most popular policies that could be put forward for that part of the country would be the nationalisation of all such estates?
      The Prime Minister: I know that that has been a proposal that has found a
      228
      great deal of favour with a great many people over many years, and it would repay much study. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider it.
      Mrs. Thatcher: Although the Prime Minister says that he does not make forecasts, he does become involved in forecasts, especially on inflation. Now that he knows that he has a year-on-year average increase in wages of 14 per cent. and virtually flat output, what is his forecast for inflation for next year?
      The Prime Minister: I did not say that I did not use forecasts. I said that I always add caution to what I am told in the forecasts that I see. I am glad to see that a considerable amount of scepticism is now appearing, even in the columns of the newspapers, about some of the forecasts, and perhaps about some of the forecasters, who might be redeployed for more profitable work at some time.
      As for next year's inflation figures, I do not think that we can go further than the end of this year. I think that that has been made clear to the right hon. Lady on a number of occasions. That figure can be pretty acurately forecast. We hope that it will remain within the region of 7 per cent. to 8 per cent., or round about that percentage. As for the figure next year, much depends, naturally, on the level of sterling, the price and cost of our imported raw materials and the level of wages. If the right hon. Lady can tell me the answers to all the questions posed by those factors, I will give her a figure.
      Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Prime Minister recall that he was exact in the mathematics he used in his New Year's Day broadcast, when he said that if wage increases went up by 10 per cent. price increases would follow at 10 per cent., and that if wages went up by 30 per cent. price increases would follow at 30 per cent.? Does he accept that average wages have increased by 14 per cent.? What is his forecast for price increases?
      The Prime Minister: There is a rough relationship between the two. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] That is why the Government were anxious to secure a 10 per cent increase this year to keep it within single figures. That it might turn

      229
      out much higher than that clearly worsens inflation.
      I see no reason why the Opposition should cheer about that. I have never hesitated to point out to the country the consequences of this. I shall continue to do so, as I did in my speech to the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions last week. The Government will continue to work within the limits of a free society in which many bargains are struck on which the Government have no influence at all. The Government will continue to work for maximum moderation in order to prevent inflation returning to double figures.
      Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the Opposition's argument, which she attributed to him, about the direct relationship between wages and prices can never be solved because wages constitute only a part of costs and that, therefore, there can never be a 10-to-10 or 30-to-30 relationship between the two?
      The Prime Minister: That is correct. I said something to that effect during my New Year's Day broadcast. When one is broadcasting, it is right to get across the simplicities. The simplicity is that there is a direct relationship between an increase in wages and an increase in the cost of living. The Opposition can disentangle the question of whether it is exactly the same arithmetically. The people understand the relationship. They understand well that when wages went up by 27 per cent. the retail price index went up by about the same amount. They now see that the retail price index is much lower because the increase in wages has come down. That is not the whole element. Sometimes I really believe that I shall get that into the Opposition's heads.
      Mr. Neubertasked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 4th July.
      The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).
      Mr. Neubert: Why have the Government again today funked facing up to the problem of pay differentials by deferring yet another legitimate public service award until after the general election?
      230
      Does the Prime Minister realise that Britain's failure to achieve peak performance is attributable largely to ministerial cowardice in refusing to allow people to b. paid what their skills, responsibilities and contributions deserve?
      The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is entitled to his opinion that it was an act of cowardice to endeavour to keep people within the 10 per cent. limit when we have influence over that. But it is not usually regarded in that way. It is generally accepted that the Government are right. The jeers from the Opposition Benches to my last answer showed that there is a great deal of anxiety when the Government cannot succeed in keeping people within the 10 per cent. limit. That is what we are proposing to do for the Boards of nationalised industries and elsewhere. The Opposition should make up their minds whether they support that policy. From there we have said that we shall stage the increases that have been proposed in the following two years. I believe that in a difficult situation this will probably meet with considerable support.
      Mr. Grocott: Will my right hon. Friend find time to explain to the people why we must spend three days of our time this week and public money considering Lords amendments to the Scotland Bill when the Lords speak for no one and represent no one and will be abolished next year anyway?
      The Prime Minister: The only reply that I can give is that this is the way in which the constitution operates at present. I am bound to say that a number of the amendments that the Lords have proposed would not be accepted in Scotland or Wales and, I trust, will be removed by the House of Commons in due course.

      INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES
      Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with coordination between the Departments of Industry and Employment in connection with procedures for issuing industrial development certificates.
      The Prime Minister: Yes.
      Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is part of the Opposition's

      231
      mythology that IDCs are difficult to obtain, especially in the West Midlands? But, if I mention firms such as Laystall Engineering, Lucas Aerospace and Bilston Steel he will be aware that in Wolverhampton, as in other parts of the West Midlands, there is a considerable reservoir of skill and experience. Is there any possibility that the National Enterprise Board will set up new, modern industries in the West Midlands based on new techniques, such as micro-electronics?
      The Prime Minister: During the past two years, few IDCs have been refused in the West Midlands. I believe that only one has been refused. That is because of the changing situation there. The National Enterprise Board is always ready to consider enterprises out of which productive improvement can take place, if the company is taken over and has a fresh injection of capital, or if there is a new feature, such as micro-processing, which can help the country.
      Mr. Hugh Fraser: Is the Prime Minister aware that an IDC was refused in Stafford and that this led to the loss of 300 jobs, not only in Stafford but in the country as a whole? Will he examine the question of IDCs to see whether they serve a useful purpose today? Will he either abolish them and stop all the nonsense about co-ordination or, at least, raise the level to 20,000 sq. ft., especially in the West Midlands?
      The Prime Minister: I am not sure to which company the right hon. Member is referring. No doubt he will table a Question about it since he has not mentioned its name. I have asked myself why it is necessary to keep this control when so few IDCs are refused. There is a case for saying that the Department of Industry needs to keep surveillance on the situation so that genuinely mobile new enterprises can be directed to areas with heavy unemployment.
      Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many areas of inner London, which also have difficulty in obtaining IDCs, are in as bad a position in terms of attracting industry as many of the development areas? Will my right hon. Friend examine this problem, not only from Birmingham's point of view but from the point of view of London, particularly dockland?
      The Prime Minister: I understand the problem. As was made clear in the White Paper on the inner cities, London —where partnership agreements exist—ranks immediately after the assisted areas for the issue of these certificates.

      PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
      Mrs. Bainasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4th July.
      The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).
      Mrs. Bain: I am sure that the significance of today's debate has not escaped the attention of the Prime Minister. Will he reflect on the number of former dependencies that have been granted independence by the House and take this opportunity of joining the Scottish National Party in condemning the antics of the official Opposition in their attempt to destroy the Scotland Bill and his own anti-devolutionist Back Benchers who are hiding behind the skirts of Members of the House of Lords?
      The Prime Minister: I hope that when the Bill comes back we shall have the support of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) and her colleagues in getting it through. I understand that we shall. But if the hon. Member had had her way with the votes that she cast with the Opposition there would have been no chance of getting the Bill on to the statute book.
      Mr. Dalyell: Which Lords amendments does the Prime Minister wish to be removed from the Scotland Bill?
      The Prime Minister: That will be made clear in due course.
      Mr. Raison: Does the Prime Minister think that it will be satisfactory to have on the statute book a Bill which provides that Scottish Members may vote about education, housing and health in England but that neither English nor Scottish Members may vote about such matters as they affect Scotland?
      The Prime Minister: These issues have been debated many times in the House. The House has reached a conclusion.
      Mr. James Lamond: Has my right hon. Friend had any news today or recently from the United Nations, in particular with reference to whether it is to accept any of the excellent suggestions that my right hon. Friend made in his fine speech to the Special Session on Disarmament on 2nd June?
      The Prime Minister: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his comments. The British contribution throughout the whole of this session has been extremely valuable and a number of proposals have been taken up. In particular, for example, one has resulted in France returning to the general disarmament discussions in a way in which it has not for some time, and there are other issues on which believe we shall find considerable progress. Perhaps the most important is general acceptance of the proposition that no nuclear attack should take place in areas and countries which do not themselves possess nuclear weapons and which are not joined with others in an attack on countries which do.
      Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you notice that today no fewer than 35 Members wanted to know what the Prime Minister was doing today? Do you not think that the time has come when this circus act should be changed and when the Prime Minister should not be asked to go through this ridiculous hoop? Should we not be able to ask the Prime Minister Questions directly without this preamble?
      Mr. Skinner rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman rising on the same point of order?
      Mr. Skinner: No, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: Then may I deal with this point of order first?
      Mr. Skinner: I was simply drawing your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday you said that normally you took points of order after statements.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. This point of order arises out of Questions.
      May I tell the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) that it is up to the
      234
      House to decide on this matter. The present custom has developed to a very different scale in this Parliament. I have no control over the Questions on the Order Paper.
      Mr. Ashley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to know whether you can protect the rights of Back Benchers. In response to my supplementary question on Question No. Ql, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a display of arrogance, refused to answer the question. He brushed it aside. It is understandable that apart from the most enthusiastic party points, the Prime Minister may not wish to deal with critical points from the Government side, especially if they relate to the problems of low-paid workers. May I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no point in Back Benchers putting down Questions if the Prime Minister is to act in this arrogant and ill-considered manner? May I therefore ask what you can do to intervene? If the Prime Minister is to be so patronising, we object.
      Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member be kind enough to put a point of order with which I can deal? A protest is not a point of order, but if the hon. Member will make his point of order I shall try to deal with it.
      Mr. Ashley: I was hoping to make a protest and a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns how you can protect the rights of hon. Members when they put questions. The second part of my point of order is that there is a growing tendency among Ministers who group Questions and thereby evade and avoid them. Although you are not responsible for ministerial answers, Mr. Speaker, are you aware that this practice is interfering with the rights of Back Benchers to receive information from Ministers? I therefore seek your guidance.
      Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take up precisely the same point. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he felt that it was wrong to reply to a question about top salaries or low pay in terms of income policy in the course of a supplementary answer during Question Time. I do not disagree with that, but since the Government are issuing a reply to a Written Question and are not

      235
      making a statement in the House on this matter, how, other than by questioning Ministers, are Back Benchers to get the opportunity to raise the matter? We try to question Ministers on the matter, but we are told that it is not possible for it to be dealt with in that way. This is a question for the House, not just for Ministers.
      Mr. Speaker: I must tell the hon Member, first, that I do not know whether the Government are answering Questions tabled for Written Answer. That is not within my knowledge. Secondly, the content of a Minister's reply is not my concern. Since I have been here, and I am sure long before that, there have been Members who have been dissatisfied with both the tone and content of replies that they have received
      Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) I want you to consider a little further the problem of Back Benchers on matters of this kind when controversial issues are at stake but when there is no apparent variance between the views of the two Front Benches The Tory Opposition, it seems, agree with the general line taken by the Government in their statement last night, and they therefore do not attempt to ask suppementary questions on the matter. That means that Back Benchers—at least those who want to participate in the argument—are disfranchised in the sense that they are not permitted to raise the matter. That situation arises because the two Front Benches have agreed not to raise the matter, as witness the fact that the Leader of the Opposition did not choose to raise the matter. That has meant that we on the Back Benches have been denied the opportunity to deal with the issue.
      Mr. Speaker: I am deeply conscious that a major part of my responsibility is to guard the rights of Back Benchers, but the hon. Member is aware that hon. Members may table their Questions on the Order Paper. No one is stopping them from doing that.
      I call Mr. Judd—statement.
      Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: I shall take this point of order, but I hope that that will be an end to the business.
      Mr. Adley: The Prime Minister told us that he was meeting Chancellor Kreisky, but none of us was able to catch your eye to pursue the matter through supplementary questions. Does that not indicate that a solution to the problem might be to have two sessions of 15 minutes? In the first the House could deal with anything that anyone wished to raise. In the second we could ask questions relating to the Prime Minister's business.
      Mr. Speaker: I am sure that if there was an allocation of an hour that would not be long enough in which to call everyone who wanted to be called. One of my weaknesses is that I cannot read the thoughts of hon. Members who want to ask supplementary questions.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETINGS)
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about business to be taken by Ministers of the European Community during July. The monthly written forecast was deposited on Thursday 29th June.
Heads of State and Government will meet in the European Council in Bremen on 6th and 7th July. At present six meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for that month. The Budget Council will meet on 18th July, the Finance Council on 24th July, a joint ACP/EEC Council on 24th July, the Agriculture Council and the Fisheries Council on 24th and 25th July, and the Foreign Affairs Council on 25th July.
The Budget Council is expected to establish the preliminary draft general community budget in 1979.
The Finance Council is expected to discuss a draft Commission decision adapting economic policy guidelines for 1978 and proposing guidelines for the preparation of public budgets in 1979. The Council is also expected to review the outcome of the European Council meeting in Bremen and the Western economic

237
summit in Bonn and may discuss a draft life insurance directive.
A joint ACP/EEC Council will be held to open the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention.
The Agriculture Council is expected to discuss proposals for the organisation of the market in potatoes and wine and agricultural structural problems in the Community generally and in the Mediterranean area.
The Fisheries Council is expected to consider the future of agreements with Norway, Sweden and the Faroes, conservation measures and possibly the other Commission proposals for revision of the common fisheries policy.
The Foreign Affairs Council will consider any necessary follow-up to the European Council meeting and will discuss issues raised at the joint ACP/ EEC Council meeting. The Council will also consider EEC-Yugoslavia relations, review developments in the GATT multilateral trade negotiations, and receive a progress report on the negotiations for Greek accession to the Community. They will have a second discussion of the Commission's enlargement "fresco". They will review progress in the negotiations with Spain on the revision of the 1970 agreement and may continue their discussion of structural policy in the iron and steel sector. The Council will also review progress made in the arrangements for direct elections to the European Assembly.
July, Mr. Speaker, marks the end of the Danish presidency of the Council of Ministers and I should like in conclusion to express the Government's admiration for the capable and effective way in which Denmark has discharged the onerous duties of that office. In particular I wish to express our warm regard for the skilful manner in which Mr. K. B. Andersen, the Danish Foreign Minister—a statesman of great warmth, humanity and vision—has presided over the Council discussions and to wish him well for the future.
Mr. Hurd: I thank the Minister for that statement and should like to ask him two related questions. First, when will the Council of Ministers discuss the proposals now being aired by the Commission for forming a cartel for synthetic fibres and perhaps for other industries? Although it is true—and we recognise it
238
—that steel has a specific and special position under the treaties, will he not accept that in general the treaties give the Commission the job of removing obstacles to competition and not of creating cartels? When will the Council of Ministers consider that?
Second, but related to the first question is it not time that the Council of Ministers took a general look at the kind of draft directives coming before it in the name of harmonisation? Has the Minister read the powerful report produced in another place about the use being made of article 100 of the Treaty of Rome, which suggests that there is a tendency by the Commission to step beyond the limits set in that article and in related articles? Would it not be a good thing and save everyone a lot of trouble if the Council of Ministers made it clear that any proposals which step beyond those limits stand no chance of being accepted?
Mr. Judd: On the first point, there are no immediate plans to discuss synthetic fibres, but I will look into that matter and see that I get a reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible. I endorse his general view about draft directives. It is tremendously important that we all make certain that the Commission operates within the spirit of what it was intended to do and does not exceed its powers.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call anyone else, may I remind the House that this is a Supply Day, that there is to be a major debate on unemployment, that before that there is a Ten-Minute Bill which is likely to be opposed and that I have a long list of hon. Members who wish to speak in the main debate?
Mr. Forman: Is the Council of Ministers aware of the misgivings and worries expressed by many developing countries about the way in which the Council and the Commission are handling the Community mandate in the context of the multilateral trade negotiations? If it is concerned, what steps does the Council intend to take to meet some of those misgivings?
Mr. Judd: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Council of Ministers and the British Government are well aware

239
of the special problems of the developing countries in the context of world trade and that we shall bear this very much in mind in the context of our collective negotiations as a Community in relation to multilateral trade.
Mr. John Evans: Will the proposed date for direct elections be on the agenda for the meeting of Foreign Ministers? Does my hon. Friend agree with the recent statement of the Greek Foreign Minister that he sees no obstacles to Greece joining the Community by 1980? Could that mean that the date for direct elections will be put back until after Greece joins, or will Greece participate in direct elections before she joins?
Mr. Judd: The date for the elections is not on the agenda, because the intention is firmly to stand by the agreed date of June next year. As for Greece, the hope is that we can conclude negotiations by the end of this year, looking forward to Greek accession in 1980 or, at the latest, 1981.
Mr. Beith: Is the Council of Ministers aware of the anxiety in the sawmills and chipboard industry of this country about the situation which is developing there, with fears of great dumping of chipboard in Britain from both outside and inside the EEC? Is he aware that there is great concern that the procedure available to the EEC for handling this situation has not been properly operated? Can he find a way of discussing it in the course of this agenda?
Mr. Judd: If there is a problem surrounding the chipboard industry, we shall look into it and see what can be done.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I hope to call those hon. Members who have already stood, but I shall not be able to call anyone else.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the Government be pressing for a further devaluation of the green pound in view of the tragedy affecting small pig farmers all over the United Kingdom? Will the Minister of Agriculture's pledge that he will stand firm by a 50-mile fishing limit mean that we get that limit before the General Election?
Mr. Judd: There are no plans for devaluation of the green pound. On the second question, the Minister of Agriculture is absolutely determined—as are the whole British Government—that in our work for a common fisheries policy, which we want to see, the special needs of the British fishing industry must be met and that policy will have to recognise that 60 per cent. of the fishing resources available to the Community will come from British waters.
Mr. Spearing: The Minister mentioned the follow-up of the so-called European Council in Bremen on 25th July, where the Foreign Ministers will take up these matters. In respect of the prospective moves towards European and monetary union, does not the Minister recall that this country is now £2,000 million a year in deficit on imported manufactures from the Six? In view of that, will not any moves towards economic and monetary union increase that flow and thereby increase unemployment in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Judd: It is certainly true that we have to overcome an adverse trade balance with the rest of the Community that remains a high priority for the Government.
Mr. Dykes: Has the Minister noted that there is a question in the European Parliament this week about European air fares, with the inference of making them lower, as in the United States? Will the Government press that, especially now that IATA seems to be collapsing?
Mr. Judd: That is, of course, a question for the Secretary of State for Trade, but I will bring it to his attention with a view to seeing what can be done.
Mr. Christopher Price: May I get the Government's position clear over the salaries for the new European Parliament? Is it the case that if the Government cannot get agreement to a salary around or below £20,000, and it is not possible to find some agreement within the Council of Ministers, they will be prepared to hold up direct elections until such agreement is reached?
Mr. Judd: We do not see a link of that kind, but what we have made absolutely clear as a Government is that we believe that it is essential that the rate

241
of remuneration and the expenses allowances and the rest which will be payable to directly elected Members of the European Assembly should be known before those elections begin. Those standing should be aware of them, and, much more important, the electorate should be aware.
Mr. Biffen: Will the Minister reconsider the rather bland reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) on the proposed synthetic fibres cartel? Is he aware that the Commission is evidently seeking to exercise its muscle, hoping to demonstrate that it has considerable power, in anticipation of the direct election of a European Assembly, so that these matters can then be exercised between the Commission and the Assembly to the exclusion of the Council of Ministers and the national Parliaments to which they answer? Is he aware that the prospect of cartelisation in a major sector of British industry is indefensible and certainly requires debate and decision in this Parliament?
Mr. Judd: I shall certainly see that the strength of feeling represented this afternoon on synthetic fibres by both hon. Members is taken seriously and that we look into what can be done on that front. On the much more important issue of principle which the hon. Gentleman raises, I can say categorically that the view of Ministers in this Government is that, in the future of the Community, power and responsibility must lie with the Ministers, who must be accountable through their domestic Parliaments to the public for whom they speak in Brussels.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: If fish is mentioned, will the Minister make it clear to the EEC that the British Government consider that the offer of 30 per cent. of the fish catch for this country is derisory, since our waters contain 60 per cent. of that catch? Will he also make it clear that we regard it as undesirable that Spain should enter the Community unless it ceases to persecute Gibraltar?
Mr. Judd: My hon. Friend has asked me two questions. One of the reasons why we have not been able to finalise agreement on a common fisheries policy is that we do not believe that the proposals put forward adequately meet the needs of the
242
British fishing industry and the British public because of what we are expected to contribute to that policy. There will be no question of agreeing on a common fisheries policy until we can get adequate satisfaction on that score. On the second point, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the situation clear. We find the present restrictions on contact between Spain and Gibraltar totally unacceptable. We believe that these restrictions should be lifted before Spain becomes a member of the Community. This should not wait on Spain acceding to the Community.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: While welcoming yesterday's announcement by the Minister of Agriculture on further measures to conserve fish, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that further measures are needed if the conservation programme is to be comprehensive and effective? Can the Minister say whether these further measures, particularly that relating to the carrying of nets of only one size, will be made in advance of the next meeting of the Fisheries Ministers or are they dependent upon the next meeting of these Ministers?
Mr. Judd: The Government are currently investigating the point the hon. Gentleman has just made about vesels carrying nets of only one size. This is a serious issue and we want to see whether steps are necessary. It is because we believe that the most important responsibility of all is to ensure that stocks are preserved and not eroded beyond redemption that we have taken unilateral action, having informed the Commission that we would do so through the procedure that is laid down. We shall continue to take whatever conservation measures are necessary to protect the fish stock.
Mr. Dalyell: Many of us echo the tribute to our Socialist colleague, K. B. Andersen, who was most helpful to all who had to approach him and work with him? Is it within the recollection of my hon. Friend that both here and in the European Assembly some of us have tried to raise the incredible story of the "Scheersberg", the ship that disappeared with 200 tons of uranium oxide and, bluntly, were rather slapped down and told not to fuss, that it was a matter of no importance and that it happened a long time ago? Is it really a matter of

243
no importance that it now becomes clear that Israel has nuclear weapons on this acount? That is hardly, one would have thought, a trivial matter. Even if this happened 10 years ago, are there not serious issues arising from this matter in relation to the security of EURATOM? Will the Council of Ministers, under the German presidency, try to make a statement by October or November as to what happened and what are the consequences and conclusions to be drawn?
Mr. Judd: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I know that over a long period of time he has expressed a deep and responsible concern about this story. I suggest that this is a specialised issue. If he would like to take the matter up specifically with me in the detail which it warrants we shall look at what he has to say and see how we can respond.
Mr. Jessel: Will the Fisheries Council discuss why, on Norwegian fish coming into the Community, four times as high a rate of duty is paid as on Icelandic fish entering the Community? Apart from the important interests of British housewives, why should we tolerate a situation in which Norway, which has always been our ally, is less favourably treated than Iceland, which has tried to push us around?
Mr. Judd: I agree that in the context of our approach towards a fishing policy for the Community good working relationships with Norway and a recognition of the particular contribution which Norwegian waters have to make towards the needs of consumers in the Community must always have a high priority.
Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that, as a result of the decision of the Cabinet to pay the top salaries recommended for heads of nationalised industries, judges and others, a lever has been provided for those pro-European types who wish to get handsome salaries for those in Europe? Can the Minister also clear up the matter raised in the House a few days ago about whether the salaries paid to British Members of the European Assembly will be subject to British tax? The Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not seem to know.
As for the question of the European elections in June 1979, may I ask the
244
Minister to confirm that there is now an element of doubt whether the June date can be satisfied? Will he further agree that there have been reports submitted to the Socialist group which suggest that there are technical reasons why the June date cannot be met?
Mr. Judd: I know of no reason why June cannot be met as a target date. There is a commitment, I assure my hon. Friend, among Ministers in the Council of Ministers to meet that date. Dealing with the taxation point, it is clear that Members of the European Assembly will be taxed under the national taxation system unless the relevant protocols are changed and for that to happen there would have to be unanimous agreement by all member States. I see no likelihood of the British Government agreeing to any such change. I might add that the Inland Revenue authorities regard as taxable any payments for expenses for Members of the European Assembly which are over and above what is actually required for doing the job.
Mr. Stoddart: Has my hon. Friend noticed from the draft budget that there is yet another increase in the amount of money provided for dumping food on world markets, very often to the detriment of our Commonwealth? When will the Government do something about this?
Mr. Judd: I believe that on reflection my hon. Friend will agree that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has begun to tackle this problem pretty effectively. In our approach to the reform of the common agricultural policy, one of our highest priorities is to stop this abuse of public funds whereby they are wasted in building up surpluses of this kind. This is not a good way to use public funds. I believe that the credibility of the Community suffers when more than 70 per cent. of its budget goes into a common agricultural policy with such a priority.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Coffee Extracts and Chicory Extracts) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (TELEVISING OF PROCEEDINGS)
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Fan), may I remind him that, although this is a Ten-Minute Bill, he is not bound to take 10 minutes?
3.57 p.m.
Mr. John Farr: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to televising the proceedings of the House of Commons.
There has been general dissatisfaction with sound broadcasting at Question Time and many people in the country find it generally incomprehensible. Some of us feel that matters cannot be left in the present unhappy position.
My Bill would place the control of the transmission of television pictures in the hands of a vetting committee composed of hon. Members—Front Benchers and Back Benchers—in equal numbers. Probably a 20-minute programme would be available for transmission each day, mainly recorded, with live extracts from especially important debates.
The vetting committee's work would be done eventually by a person whom I would call a dogsbody. When mutual trust had been established, the vetting committee would be formal only. Only five or six cameras would be needed in the Chamber, all remote-controlled. Cabling would he unobtrusive and the lighting no more than the standard we laid down some years ago in the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act.
When I was in Canada 18 months ago I discussed with Mr. John Diefenbaker the struggle he had had to gain admittance for the cameras to the House of Commons in Ottawa. Members will recall that this is now an accomplished and successful fact. Mr. Diefenbaker, too, had to struggle with the fears of some Members of Parliament who felt that TV would be a "spy in the sky". He did nothing to quell those fears when he went on television one evening and said:
"We, the Conservatives, are fighting for the right of you, the public, to come into the Chamber with us to see who is in his place and who is not."
246
That is no intention of mine. I firmly believe that we have a responsibility in this House to show the public, especially the young public, that in the House of Commons we have a viable, effective and democratic debating chamber which, despite all its age, custom, history and tradition—or perhaps because of those qualities—works as effectively today in the twentieth century as at any time in its history.
About two years ago I was in Strasbourg when there was a debate on a motion of no confidence in the French Government. I was fascinated to see large extracts of that debate televised live, with some telling shots of Deputies cheering and jeering. I could not help feeling at the time—they had some first-class speakers on the television screen—that the whole subject was of great value to young people who wanted to see how democracy worked with the best arguments deployed for and against a specific issue.
The list of countries which allow the televising of parliamentary proceedings is large. No Parliament, having accepted the televising of its proceedings, has permanently withdrawn facilities later. In West Germany television has been accepted since 1953, whilst the most recent television of, of proceedings took place last year in the House of Commons in Ottawa where, to quote the London Evening Standard of 15th March this year:
"Parliament is the hit show."
It went on to say:
"The new show televised coverage of the Canadian Parliament is holding its own nicely and is showing signs of becoming a long running hit."
It went on to say that this has sparked off interest in the USA in the televising of Congress.
Briefly, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Holland, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and France already have live television coverage of their proceedings.
One final comment about the United States. In all but five of the state assemblies live televising is permitted. Recently, the United States House of Representatives approved by 324 to 44 votes to have its sessions televised, placing the mechanics in the hands of its Speaker.

247
There is not one Member in this Chamber who is not proud of this House and the manner in which we conduct our affairs. Let us today take a big step forward and let the cameras in to show the country why we have that pride so that people can share it with us.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should inform the House that two hon. Members have indicated to me that they wish to oppose the measure, the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), whom I am about to call because he informed me on Friday last. Mr. John Stokes.
4.3 p.m.
Mr. John Stokes: I wish to oppose the Bill. Judging from the amount of noise, I believe that I shall have the support of the majority of the House. I have been a Member of this House for eight years. I feel that broadcasting, which we experienced recently, has been a bad departure from our previous behaviour and that it is a bad omen for television.
Prime Minister's Questions, as we saw this afternoon, have deteriorated. The length of questions and of supplementaries seems to get longer all the time, as Mr. Speaker frequently points out. Of course, the noise, the scenes, the rows and the exchanges tend to be emphasised, even by sound broadcasting, whereas much of the good work that we do remains unreported. All that would be much worse with television. Above all, it would ruin the character and the intimacy of the House.
I have other reasons for opposing the Bill. Over the centuries we have prayed that we might be "godly and quietly governed"—the words of the Prayer Book. I fear that with television we shall have a daily cacophony—a non-stop variety show which never seems to cease.
The cameras, more than sound broadcasting, are bound to emphasise the trivial. For instance, if a lady Member is speaking, there is bound to be as much emphasis on her dress as on the content of her speech.
248
Every idiosyncracy of hon. Members will be seized upon. If an hon. Member should be asleep—and sleep is sometimes the best thing when some of our colleagues are speaking—the cameras will not fail to want to have a close-up. What was once the most eminent debating assembly in the world will degenerate into something like the old English sports of cock-fighting and bear-baiting.
Constituents will peer into their screens and scan them to see whether their Members are present, not realising, of course, that attendance in this Chamber is only one of the many duties of Members of Parliament.
Many more of our colleagues will want to speak. There are always more speakers now than there is time for, as we have heard today. If a Member is lucky enough to be called, others will crowd behind him so that their visages are seen.
The temptation for the glib phrase and the striking headline will be much greater than it is now. As for our colleagues' physical gestures before the cameras, the imagination boggles. I fear that too many would try to look and speak as if they were Laurence Olivier.
It is sad that this proposal has nothing whatever to do with the good governance of this kingdom, but is purely an extension of the all-prevailing Moloch of television. Television now intrudes almost everywhere, except possibly into the bedroom and the bathroom, and no doubt it would like to go there, too. Why should it come here?
Finally, to end on a serious note, we have seen decline in this country over the last 30 years—
Mr. Ernest G. Perry: In the bedroom and the bathroom.
Mr. Stokes: We have seen decline in this country's greatness, prosperity, patriotism, manners and morals. I believe that bringing television into this House would be one step further down the slope to the utter triviality and vulgarity of the whole of our public life.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes181.

Division No. 242]

AYES

4.08 p.m.

Aitken, Jonathan

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Radice, Giles

Allaun, Frank

Grant, John (Islington C)

Raison, Timothy

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Rathbone, Tim

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Reid, George

Atkinson, Norman (H'gey Tott'ham)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Rhodes James, R.

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Hannam, John

Richardson, Miss Jo

Baker, Kenneth

Haselhurst, Alan

Ridsdale, Julian

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Rifkind, Malcolm

Bates, Alf

Heffer, Eric S.

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Beith, A. J.

Hodgson, Robin

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Hooley, Frank

Robinson, Geoffrey

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Horam, John

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Bidwell, Sydney

Hordern, Peter

Rooker, J. W.

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Body, Richard

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Sainsbury, Tim

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

James, David

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Bottomley, Peter

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Scott, Nicholas

Brooke, Hon Peter

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Sedgemore, Brian

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Bryan, Sir Paul

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Buchan, Norman

Kerr, Russell

Sims, Roger

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Skinner, Dennis

Canavan, Dennis

Kinnock, Neil

Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

Carmichael, Neil

Knox, David

Stallard, A. W.

Cartwright, John

Lambie, David

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Lamont, Norman

Stott, Roger

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Clemitson, Ivor

Litterick, Tom

Temple-Morris, Peter

Corbett, Robin

Loyden, Eddie

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Luard, Evan

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Crouch, David

McCrindle, Robert

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Cryer, Bob

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Tiley, John

Davidson, Arthur

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Tinn, James

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Madden, Max

Torney, Tom

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

Tuck, Raphael

Dempsey, James

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Mates, Michael

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Eadie, Alex

Maynard, Miss Joan

Watkins, David

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Watkinson, John

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Weatherill, Bernard

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Welsh, Andrew

Fairgrieve Russell

Molloy, William

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Farr, John

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Whitehead, Phillip

Flannery, Martin

Nelson, Anthony

Whitney, Raymond

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Newton, Tony

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

O'Halloran, Michael

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Palmer, Arthur

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Park, George

Young, David (Bolton E)

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Parker, John

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Freud, Clement

Penhaligon, David

George, Bruce

Peyton, Rt Hon John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Golding, John

Price, William (Rugby)

Miss Betty Boothroyd and

Gould, Bryan

Prior, Rt Hon James

Mr. David Hunt.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Cockcroft, John

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Alison, Michael

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Anderson, Donald

Cohen, Stanley

Evans, John (Newton)

Ashton, Joe

Coleman, Donald

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Conlan, Bernard

Eyre, Reginald

Awdry, Daniel

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Banks, Robert

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Fell, Anthony

Bell, Ronald

Cormack, Patrick

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Berry, Hon Anthony

Costain, A. P.

Ford, Ben

Biffen, John

Cowans, Harry

Forrester, John

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Dalyell, Tam

Fry, Peter

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Bradley, Tom

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Buck, Antony

Dewar, Donald

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Budgen, Nick

Doig, Peter

Goodhart, Philip

Bulmer, Esmond

Dormand, J. D.

Goodhew, Victor

Burden, F. A.

Duffy, A. E. P.

Gourlay, Harry

Campbell, Ian

Durant, Tony

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Cant, R. B.

Dykes, Hugh

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Elliott, Sir William

Graham, Ted

Clark, William (Croydon S)

English, Michael

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Gray, Hamish

Mather, Carol

Silvester, Fred

Grist, Ian

Maude, Angus

Skeet, T. H. H.

Grocott, Bruce

Mawby, Ray

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Snape, Peter

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mills, Peter

Spearing, Nigel

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Speed, Keith

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Molyneaux, James

Spriggs, Leslie

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Monro, Hector

Stanley, John

Hastings, Stephen

Montgomery, Fergus

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Hawkins, Paul

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Henderson, Douglas

Morgan-Giles, Rear Admiral

Stoddart, David

Holland, Philip

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Howell, David (Guildford)

Mudd, David

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Neave, Airey

Tapsell, Peter

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Neubert, Michael

Taylor, Teddy(Cathcart)

Hurd, Douglas

Oakes, Gordon

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Ogden, Eric

Thompson, George

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Orbach, Maurice

Tierney, Sydney

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Trotter, Neville

Janner, Greville

Page, Richard (Workington)

Urwin, T. W.

Jessel, Toby

Pavitt, Laurie

van Straubenzee, W. R.

John, Brynmor

Pendry, Tom

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Perry, Ernest

Viggers, Peter

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Phipps, Dr Colin

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Judd, Frank

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Ward, Michael

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Watt, Hamish

Kimball, Marcus

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Wells, John

Knight, Mrs Jill

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

White, James (Pollok)

Lamborn, Harry

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Whitlock, William

Lamond, James

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Lawrence, Ivan

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Winterton, Nicholas

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Woodall, Alec

McCartney, Hugh

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Woof, Robert

McCusker, H.

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Younger, Hon George

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Royle, Sir Anthony

MacGregor, John

Sever, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Mr. John Stokes and

McNair-Wilson. M. (Newbury)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Mr. Michael Brother to.

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Silverman, Julius

Question accordingly negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [28TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

EMPLOYMENT
4.18 p.m.
Sir Keith Joseph: I beg to move,
That this House, believing that the maintenance of a high level of employment and the creation of new jobs depend upon a thriving private sector, calls on the Government to give greater encouragement to enterprise instead of relying on measures which take no account of the root cause of the problem.
Despite a welcome fall in the level of seasonally adjusted unemployment, this country still has the highest rate of unemployment among the larger countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, with the single exception of Canada. On a strictly comparable basis, we have a higher rate of unemployment than the United States, France, Germany or Italy. This is after four years in which Ministers have produced a constant series of misjudgments, outrage, false optimism and false promises. I hope that they will give us better evidence today of understanding why we have higher unemployment than other countries and what should be done to bring the unemployment down. Judging from the amendment on the Order Paper, we shall have the same mixture as before—excuses, evasions and failed panaceas.
The position behind unemployment is, I believe, a failure by the Government to understand that jobs in the trading sector depend upon serving the customer at home and abroad, and that jobs in the public services depend on success in the trading sector. Profitable competitiveness in the trading sector is the base on which a country can afford a good supply of public services. The two are linked. Profitable competitiveness in trading is the base on which we can have good public services and good social services.
That truth does not emerge at all from Ministers' speeches or from the evidence of Labour Party thinking that we have in such manifestations as the recent Labour Party political broadcast. In that
254
broadcast there was sheer class war as the basis for the explanation of unemployment. At a time when it is the nationalised industries which dominate the headlines in closing works and reducing jobs, rightly, for the good of the country, and to the credit of the Government even to the extent that it is permitted, the Labour Party's political broadcast explains all unemployment on the basis of industrialists cruelly throwing out labour in order to maximise profits.
If that is the level of economic understanding that the Labour Party offers to the country, the prospect for employment is dismal. Where are the aspirations to full employment which used to be the basis of the Labour Party's appeal to the country? Gone. Where is even the understanding of how to recover any hope of approaching full employment? Gone. All we have is a whole series of failed panaceas.
Mr. Max Madden: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he defines full employment and, given the policies that the Conservative Party espouses, when he believes that such full employment could be achieved?
Sir K. Joseph: I spoke of an approach towards full employment. We certainly hope that this country can do better than is being done under the present Government and will do under the policies of the present Government if they are continued.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: While talking of aspirations, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the suggestion by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) that we should have blue light districts in which Tory crooks could operate in deprived areas is not Conservative Party policy but, indeed, that his party's policy is to apply that concept across the country as a whole?
Sir K. Joseph: The House may be interested to know that some Labour-controlled areas have shown great interest in my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals because they have discovered for themselves the absolute failure of standard Labour Party panaceas of more public spending and higher taxes. My right hon. and learned Friend carefully avoided any

255
suggestion that in what he called "demonstration areas" there should be any difference in taxes. We do not want to suggest that there should be a "Passport to Pimlico" situation. What he suggested was entirely sensible. Indeed, I was associated with the thinking behind his speech. It is that we have an excess of controls and regulations and taxes, and that we should try at least to reduce the excess of controls and regulations even if we only move nationally on taxes.
I hope that at least today the House will be spared a repetition of the sort of speech that the Secretary of State for Employment has given us in the past—that is, a catalogue of public spending coupled with figures for the jobs which it is expected will be created by that spending, without any reference to the number of jobs which will be destroyed by it. I hope, too, that we shall not have too much emphasis on the virtues of the industrial strategy. There was an excellent debate in another place yesterday on one of the banes of this country—overmanning and low productivity—and I commend hon. Members to a reading of a number of speeches in that debate from both sides.
We welcomed the recognition, when the industrial strategy was launched or re-launched by the Prime Minister at Chequers, by Ministers at that time of the indispensability both of profits and of competitiveness. We had hopes that, despite the rather facile title given to the concept—industrial strategy—it would lead to sensible behaviour. But, under the cloak of being a policy of supporting winners, it has been, under political pressure, an almost uninterrupted diet of spending taxpayers' money on losers.
We do not think that winners need the help of the Government. We do not think that it is even easy to identify what are winners. We are sure that the Government are no better equipped than the rest of the population to identify winners. Consequently, we hope that the Secretary of State will not lean too heavily on the industrial strategy or on the flood of subsidies and grants that is the substance of the Government's industrial policy.
In aggregate, we believe that these subsidies and grants do more harm than good. They will not make us more competitive, and it is by being more competitive that we shall have more jobs and
256
a higher standard of living and be able to afford more spending on public services where that is justified.
We believe that subsidies and grants and, indeed, the industrial strategy distract management and workers from the key task of putting their own house in order by co-operation between themselves. We believe that a new breed of businessmen and professionals is growing up—consultants in how to get grants and subsidies, and directors whose skill is in hunting the grant or hunting the subsidy instead of hunting the customer and hunting profit.
We believe that the impact for harm via higher taxes and higher interest rates of all these subsidies and grants is greater than the impact for good. We understand entirely the impulse behind the Government's desire to preserve jobs. We understand it in human terms, and we understand it in political terms. But we beg the Government to realise that the way they are going about it is not the way to increase the number of jobs and to increase the prosperity and the social services of the country. It is only by putting profitable competitiveness at the head of our objectives that we shall do what the country deserves and provide a framework in which jobs and prosperity and decent social services can be provided.
Anyway, these grants and subsidies may rescue some jobs but only at the cost of other jobs. I shall not take time today in trying to persuade the Secretary of State of that. I think that it is common ground between the two sides of the House that, even if the loss of jobs is not one job lost for every so-called job saved, at least the loss of jobs is probably equivalent to about half the number saved. If that is true, at least there is some measure of valuable common understanding between the two sides of the House. We must welcome every evidence of common understanding, because there is nothing that the country needs more than common understanding and stable approaches to economic policy if they can be achieved on a sensible basis between the two sides of the House.
We have welcomed the Government's recognition of the importance of money and the importance of establishing monetary targets for the country. In fact, their

257
policy today could well be summed up in three words—monetarism and subsidies. But we have constantly argued that monetarism is not enough. It is indispensable, but it is not enough. It has to be accompanied by a much lower level of Government spending than this Government embark upon; it has to be accompanied by incentives; it has to be accompanied by a lower level of controls and regulations and legislation than this Government believe necessary; and it has to be accompanied by a recognition of the crucial importance of decent profit levels as the source of confidence, expansion and investment.
On all these counts the Government are failing to accompany their monetary policies by the right other policies. We say that high spending, high taxing and high borrowing must lead to high unemployment, and we are witnessing the proof of that year after year as the Government vainly try to cure unemployment by more and more high spending.
We thought that the Prime Minister, in that notable speech at the 1976 Labour Party conference—a speech that could have been drafted by Milton Friedman—had finally established in the Labour Party's understanding a recognition that no country can spend its way out of unemployment, that more and more public spending leads to higher inflation, and that, in the memorable words of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), inflation is the father and mother of unemployment.
We applauded the Prime Minister's speech at Blackpool. We recognised that it might be a change of trend. But now, coming near an election, we find the same old poison spreading—more public spending. The savings that were established under the pressure from the IMF, after the Opposition had been demanding them and justifying them for a year or more, the savings that were painfully and at last carried out by the Labour Party—painfully so far as the Cabinet was concerned; not so painfully for the country—are now being reversed, and public spending is rising again. With public spending rising, we see that inflation is certain to rise also, and interest rates are rising, too.
We argue that jobs and higher employment depend upon enterprise and
258
competitiveness. A policy of overspending, overborrowing and overtaxing, the policy that the present Government are carrying out, weakens both enterprise and competitiveness. We believe that if the Government want to have more jobs, they must encourage and not discourage enterprise and competitiveness. To do this they must cut wasteful Government spending. They will, as a result, be able to cut income tax at all levels, prune controls and regulations and look again at some of their legislation, such as the Employment Protection Act.
Mrs. Renée Short: That is another chestnut.
Sir K. Joseph: I hope that the Secretary of State will not quote, in defence of every detail of the Employment Protection Act, a recent piece of research which, with brilliant skill, avoided studying those firms where the impact of that Act is greatest—namely, firms employing fewer than 50 people. That research is, on that account, worthless. It is worthless on that account. I do not refer to any other part of it.
Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens): In view of the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has made against Government intervention in industry, why did his own Government intervene in Rolls-Royce at that time?
Sir K. Joseph: We are trying to learn the whole while from the past. Hon. Members laugh. We welcome any occasion when the Government show, as they showed in the Prime Minister's speech at Blackpool, that they, too, are learning from the past. No party should be able to justify from the unique occasion of Rolls-Royce the panoply of grants, subsidies and rescues that have been going on.
We argue for the encouragement of enterprise. We argue that enterprise is being discouraged not only by high taxation but by the great weight of Government spending which, with all its consequences, is crowding out or stifling the impulse to expand or to take risks.
High spending forces the Government to go in for high borrowing. The high borrowing is associated with a high deficit. The high borrowing and the high deficit lead to high interest rates. The high interest rates discourage investment

259
and expansion. It is not only the financial crowding out in a direct sense; it is also that, time and again, public agencies outbid the private sector in the pay, the opportunities and the perquisites they give, without any profit and loss account and without any accountability, to people who might otherwise find more productive employment in the private sector.
We believe that the high spending, with all the risks that that involves in the state of sterling, leads to an unnecessarily sharp switch back in business conditions, which again discourages enterprise and expansion. We believe that the present climate of high taxes, high Government spending and massive controls and regulations, and the lack of comprehension of the importance of profit, discourages the very people—
Mrs. Renée Short: The right hon. Gentleman has said that four times.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing yet.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Certain hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies below the Gangway on the Government Benches have been barracking from a seated position for the last five minutes. It is very difficult to hear my right hon. Friend's excellent speech. Would you be able to maintain a certain degree of order? The best form of argument is delivered from one's feet and not from one's bottom.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I hope that the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman to whom those remarks relate have, in fact, heard them.
Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Members who have been speaking from a sedentary position have had their policies largely in force during the past few years—and look at the trend in unemployment that has followed.
I was referring to the discouragement by the present policies of the Government of the very people who have the most scope for providing extra jobs, the people whom we call, for lack of a word in English, entrepreneurs. There are entrepreneurs who operate in all sizes of business—self-employed persons, the small business, the medium business and the
260
large business and where there is scope, difficult though it may be, even in nationalised industries. We believe that the conditions which I have described discourage the risk taking that is at the heart of the entrepreneurial function, the heart of the function that bring the creation of new and additional jobs.
We are not arguing that money is the only motive of the entrepreneur. Many entrepreneurs function almost regardless of money. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, that is true. Many entrepreneurs get such satisfaction and such fulfilment from their work that they would go on even under the present discouraging tax climate. But there are other entrepreneurs and potential entrepreneurs to whom money matters to a greater extent, and they either opt out or they emigrate, or they do not take the risk because it is not worth while. The Government totally ignore the motives of those who have the most scope for creating jobs.
Not only is the motive of the entrepreneur and potential entrepreneur crucial for job creation, but a lower tax take is crucial to provide the risk money which is the start-up capital for the potential entrepreneur. Unless there are individuals, who, out of income, can save money which they can invest in the hope of profits in situations with risk, rather than in gilt-edged, the entrepreneurs will not have the capital with which to start.
The encouragement of risk taking is crucial also in big firms. After all, the managers and decision makers in big firms often have a choice between a higher or a lower risk option. If they are not going to gain, in terms of their personal income, from successfully taking the high risk option, why should they take the high risk? If the high risk fails, their career may be blighted. If it succeeds, they are no better off. Once again we see that a high level of personal taxation is desperately damaging to the enterprise and the competitiveness that is indispensable for greater employment.
It is not only the entrepreneurs and it is not only the decision makers at the top of businesses, of whatever size, who are affected by the tax level and the climate I have been describing. It is also the whole range of managers. Managers have suffered such a constant series of blows to their real standard of living in recent

261
years, by the combined effect of inflation. salary ceilings and vicious tax levels—part a result of pay control, part a result of high Government spending—that they are, in many cases, demoralised. It is a miracle that industry and commerce are running so relatively well, despite the discouraging climate that has been created.
It may be that the Secretary of State will not agree with anything that I have said, or with very little of it. It may well be so, and I do not doubt his sincerity, but I hope that I can persuade him of the truth of what I am saying, perhaps by looking at another aspect of the effects of high taxation.
There is a paradox before the House and the country. It is that, at a time when there is registered unemployment of 1⅓ million, there is a very large number of vacancies. Against registered unemployment of 1⅓ million, there are over 600,000 vacant jobs. Admittedly, more of these vacancies are in the South than in the North. Admittedly, more of them are for skilled than for unskilled work. I do not want to distort the picture. There are some towns in which there are over 100 applications for one vacant job. In other parts of the country there are vacant jobs available month after month, despite apparent high unemployment in the locality, and constant apologies for curtailment of services because of a short-age of labour.
How does the Secretary of State explain this paradox of high unemployment accompanied by a high level of unfilled vacancies in the same town or areas? I believe that we are wrong to look at the unemployed as if they are all of one kind. The vast majority of them are intensely anxious to find work, but there is a minority that is only changing a job, and knows that it has a choice of job to go to. There is another minority, which, in the words of the Department, is somewhat unenthusiastic in its attitude to work. There is yet another minority—quite a substantial one—which has read the signs right and adopts an "Is it worth while?" attitude.
For many people the net reward from being unemployed is about the same as, or nearly the same as—or even in some cases a bit better than—the net reward after the high tax take of being at work. That is not cheating. That is not scrounging.
262
It is just the result of the system of high taxation that the Government have been forced by its high spending to levy on people just above the supplementary benefit level. In this country today a man scarcely has to lift his head above the supplementary benefit level and he is hit with a tax rate of 40p in the pound. When to this small differential between the net rewards for working and not working is added the net benefit of moonighting, one understands why in parts of the country there are so many vacant jobs at the same time as there are so many unemployed.
All this will perhaps convince the Minister that taxes are too high and are destroying employment and jobs. Moreover, as a result of pay controls and high taxation, and to some extent as a result of insecurity, some people have left skilled jobs to take unskilled work. We all know examples of such shifts. We know that pay control, with the compression of differentials, has discouraged some people from carrying on in skilled trades. We know the example of the building industry where, despite an apparently high level of skilled building unemployment, there are many builders in many parts of the country constantly advertising vacancies. They cannot get people to take them because these people are better off moonlighting and drawing unemployment benefits.
Mr. Norman Buchan: These vacancies are not in the £15,000-plus bracket. The example given by the right hon. Gentleman was of those who find it just as well to be unemployed. If that is the problem, why did he support and vote for a proposal to give big tax concessions to the very rich, instead of giving the benefit to the people at the margin?
Sir K. Joseph: Taxes are too high at all levels of income. Unless the people who have the particular skill of serving the customer, the particular skill of being enterpreneurs, by creating and expanding new firms and existing firms, are encouraged, we shall have a smaller crop of expanding firms than we would otherwise. There are people of all levels of income who have the skill to create jobs, and who are being discouraged from doing so. We have far fewer small and medium-sized companies in our economy

263
than our rivals have. Under this Government, the birth rate of new businesses has plummeted and the death rate of small businesses has rocketed. The number of new businesses is far lower than it would be if the tax climate were more encouraging.
It is not only income taxation that is the problem but capital taxation and we welcome the belated change in capital transfer tax that the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced in his Budget. We want a changed climate, and we believe that the result will be more jobs in the trading sector, and that a more profitable trading sector will provide more scope for public service jobs.
The private enterprise sector of the economy can achieve the increase in jobs of which I am speaking. Indeed, it has done so. On four occasions in the past 15 years, the private sector has enormously increased the number of jobs. When I speak of an increase, I mean net extra jobs over and above the replacement of jobs which have been brought to an end by changing conditions. In 1952–56, in a period of 48 months, the private sector added 1 million additional jobs in manufacturing, commercial services and agriculture. In 1959–62, the private sector added in 36 months 830,000 more jobs. That was 22,000 net additional jobs a month. In 1962–66, over a period of 40 months, 600,000 net additional jobs were created—15,000 a month. In 1971–74, in a period of 36 months, 780,000 net additional jobs were created in the private sector—22,000 a month.
I believe that that is evidence that, given a less discouraging climate than now, the private sector will create more jobs. The Government do not understand this. By creating and maintaining the present discouraging climate they are stifling the chance of new jobs, smothering the entrepreneur and stopping the creation of new jobs.
Why is this? Why on earth are Ministers, who must be aware of this option, discarding it? Could it be that because the private enterprise option will lead to some individuals becoming wealthy, it is discouraged? Could it be that Ministers hate the creation of individual wealth more than they hate the growth of unemployment? It is a moral question which
264
they should face up to. We on the Conservative Benches would, I hope, face up to the evidence if we found that what we believe to be true was untrue. I hope that we would. I hope that Ministers will have the moral courage also to face the truth if they find that their methods do not work, whereas the methods we recommend have worked and would work again.
Mr. Ioan Evans rose—
Sir K. Joseph: It is some comfort to the country that the Government have had the generosity to recommend Freddie Laker, the arch-entrepreneur, for a knighthood. We welcome the knighthood for Freddie Laker but there are hundreds or thousands of potential Freddie Lakers on a more modest scale, who are being discouraged by the present climate.
We believe that the leverage of tax cuts—I am not referring to the champion of tax cuts on the Labour Front Bench, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—has to be understood. Just as Oxfam used to tell us, and still tells us, that to give a hungry person a meal only tides him or her over for a few hours, whereas to give him a spade and some skill can feed him for life, we believe that tax cuts at all levels of income, justified by cuts in wasteful Government spending, will provide an ever-renewed source of new jobs and an ever-renewed source of that profitable competitiveness which alone can create anything near full employment in this country.
We believe that the more our industries are threatened—and many of them are—by overseas competition, the more we need to encourage enterprising competitiveness by a more encouraging climate than we have now. We believe that the more we are aware of the transformation that the micro-processor may introduce into our manufacturing and commercial sectors, the more case there is for encouraging private enterprise by changing the climate which exists now. The more seriously we regard over-manning and low productivity—they are our bane—the more case there is for encouraging enterprise, because in that way there will be more jobs. Firms need to be able to reduce over-manning and to become more profitable and more competitive, so that they can win new markets for their goods, thereby creating more scope for jobs and

265
more capacity to pay the taxes on which the public services rest. There would be a much greater chance for them to reduce over-manning if a constant crop of new jobs were being created by encouraged enterprise.
We on the Conservative Benches are not saying that tax cuts are the only need. I hope that the Secretary of State will not answer me by saying that our total tax take is no more than it is in some rival countries across the Channel. Taxes in this country are too high in general, even if they are no higher than those in some other countries. It is the particular skill with which our tax system has evolved to discourage enterprise and effort which needs to be attacked and tackled by the Government.
Marginal rates of personal taxation are too high at every level of income. To keep the present levels of personal taxation is to ignore the mainspring of the economy. After all, the people to whom we are looking for the creation of jobs are human beings. They respond to the link between their contribution and the net reward. We hope that the Government will work with the grain, and take seriously the lessons of the past and the possibility of what private enterprise can do.
The amendment ignores all these truths, as I believe them to be. It rests on tired, failed panaceas and ignores human nature and human motives. A tax system which successfully motivates inventors, investors, entrepreneurs and workers will do more for jobs, our standard of living and our social services than all Government industrial strategies and subsidies put together. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the motion and to reject the amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Mr. Speaker has asked me to announce that the amendment has been selected.
4.52 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to acid instead thereof:
', recognising that this country's economy cannot be divorced from the effects of a major world-wide recession, supports the Government's special employment and training measures and
266
its other measures to help small firms, and believes that these supplement the Industrial Strategy which is a necessary base for the regeneration of British industry and the achievement of full and stable employment in the long term'.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has made quite clear to the House what he hopes I shall not say. He made it quite clear that he hopes I shall not repeat a speech which I have made before. When I came into the Chamber today, I was not quite so optimistic as to expect that the right hon. Gentleman would not repeat a speech which he has made before, but then I also regard consistency as something of a virtue.
I should like to start at one of the few limited points on which the Government agree with the motion. The motion
"calls upon the Government to give greater encouragement to enterprise".
We are constantly seeking ways of giving greater encouragement to enterprise. In fact, we are giving encouragement to enterprise on a massive scale. It is most noticeable that many highly successful practising managers of industry do not share the views of those who have framed the motion. They do not take the narrow view that the only way in which one can encourage enterprise is by the reduction of taxation. They happen to think that enterprise can be encouraged by the Government giving support to intelligent investment projects which produce more jobs in this country.
In fact, under legislation passed by both the last Conservative Government and this Government, managers in over 4,000 firms have come forward with applications for assistance and investment in projects which have created jobs in this country. They realise that it makes sense to work with the Government if the Government are seeking to enable them to create more wealth in this country. That is why we want to see industry grow. Of course, the creation of wealth is essential to the development of the means of achieving a lot of our social aims, even in circumstances where the creation of that wealth will not of itself create jobs in the wealth-creating sector. That is obviously true in areas of high capital intensity.
However, when recently we introduced new schemes to encourage enterprise there was a strange silence on the part of

267
Opposition Members, particularly Conservative Members. I exempt the Liberals, because they gave a great welcome to the small firms employment subsidy. What is the small firms employment subsidy if it is not an encouragement to enterprise? What is that subsidy doing by its present expansion, at the request of many hon. Members of the House who have seen the opportunities of small firms to grow through that sort of encouragement, if it is not an encouragement to enterprise to small business men?
Only a few days ago, on 1st July, we expanded the scheme to cover all firms with up to 200 employees in assisted areas and to firms in the partnership areas. Already, even with the operation of the scheme at a lower level, it is evident that small business men see a way of giving effect to their aspirations to grow in partnership with Government. They see the sense of accepting assistance from the British taxpayer, in order to grow, because by growing they are providing a service to the community as a whole. They are expanding their activity and employment.
One can take a number of examples. A small firm in Wales in the clothing business has increased its labour force from five to 32 in a year with the help of the small firms employment subsidy. An even smaller firm in Merseyside, engaged in general engineering, started in March 1977 and by June of this year had grown to an employment level of 10 with the help of the small firms employment subsidy. A firm manufacturing bedding in the northern region has grown from 48 employees to 96 with the help of the small firms employment subsidy. It now informs us that it has prospects of manning a new factory. This is growth which takes place. This is support and encouragement being given to enterprise. But the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East has that doctrinaire blindfold which will not allow him to see support for enterprise which comes in any form other than taxation reductions.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Will not the right hon. Gentleman simply accept that if the money is available companies will take it up? On the other hand, will he not consider the alternative that this money is pre-empting resources
268
which could be used elsewhere? Will not he address his mind to the problems of creating a climate and the right taxation which would allow those companies to do it for themselves?
Mr. Booth: I shall come to that point, because I have never contended that one can spend the same money twice. One cannot spend taxpayers' money in aiding a small firm to grow and spend exactly the same money in doing something else—for example, improving hospital or education services. I shall return to this point because it is an important part of this argument.
The point I am seeking to make at the moment is that there is not a difference between the motion and the amendment in terms of giving encouragement to enterprise. The difference, which is a serious and important one—even a fundamental one—is how that enterprise should be supported. I believe that the support must be not only for individual enterprise but for collective enterprise. The Government must be prepared to learn, and to listen to, the combined views of management and trade unions in British industry, which at the sharp end is facing the problems of seeking to maintain its ability to create wealth in a slump.
If for no other reason, the industrial strategy was valuable because of the advice which the Government have received from the sector working parties, from people working and practising in industry, about where the areas lie in which it is possible for British industry to expand its markets and about what sort of investment programme is needed to achieve that expansion.
In fact, it has enabled the British Government to back the judgment of people who have practical experience of the real problems of wealth creation. The backing of the Thames Board Mills project was a straightforward example of this. By giving a grant of about £10½ million towards a £99 million project, it was possible for Thames Board Mills to expand the carton-board works at Workington in a way which will reduce this country's dependence on imports to the tune of about £30 million a year. It created 300 permanent jobs in an area of high unemployment and made available another 300 jobs in the wood supplying industries. This is a case where the judgment of people in the field is that it

269
makes sense to have their enterprises encouraged and to work in co-operation, recognising that there is an interdependence in the community between the taxpayer, the Government and those who work in industry on both sides.
Sir Paul Bryan: Early in the Government's industrial strategy they made a great fuss about planning agreements. How many actual planning agreements have been agreed between the Government and firms?
Mr. Booth: I think there has been one agreement between Government and a firm. But, in fact, there is an element of the planning agreement in every one of the examples that I have cited. Of course, the conditions agreed for the provision of the help are an element of the planning agreement. It would make nonsense of the planning agreement concept to make this money available without any conditions as to its effect on employment, imports and wealth creation.
Another example of a firm which decided that it made a lot of sense to carry through enterprise with the support of a Government scheme, is Platts Forgings. That firm carried through a £1·7 million project with £186,000 assistance in taxpayers' money, not only to increase the production of drop forgings but to achieve higher exports and to bring about 45 new jobs in Staffordshire.
Mr. Michael Grylls: The Secretary of State was talking about sector working parties. As he will know, there is a sector working party for the electronics industry. Why did the Government give the go-ahead to the NEB to set up a factory with £15 million for micro-processors with no consultation whatever with that sector working party? Is not this ludicrous?
Mr. Booth: The Government's responsibility is to back the sector working party's report when we are convinced of the merits of the report's proposals. There is nothing in the decision to which the hon. Member refers which is in any way at variance with the conclusions of the sector working party in electronics. In fact, I would argue that it makes a lot of sense in the light of the findings of that sector working party.
270
The motion before us asserts that
"the maintenance of a high level of employment and the creation of new jobs depend on a thriving private sector".
This shows again the very narrow dogmatic and blinkered, if not blindfolded, approach that Conservatives have to this problem. My making no reference at all to the public sector, it seems that those who framed the motion believe that we need enterprise in only one part of our economy. It is my belief that we need it in all parts of the economy. We need improvements in efficiency and productivity and better utilisation of capital in both the private and the public sectors.
The nationalised industries are of crucial importance in providing employment in a great many parts of the country. In 1976 the public sector accounted for about 30 per cent. of jobs in this country—about 7 million, of which 2 million were in the public corporations, including the nationalised industries. Our economy depends upon the efficiency and productivity of the nationalised industries, as well as the efficiency of the private sector. I am referring particularly to industries such as coal, electricity and transport. The productivity of a number of these nationalised industries has increased enormously. Productivity at the coal face has reached 9·5 per cent. above that of last year. Productivity in the electrical generation sector has also increased.
My concern about the nationalised industries goes wider than productivity. It goes to the area of their operations, which point to a continued reduction of manpower requirements as a result of the improvements in productivity.
The Opposition motion implies that the Government are relying on measures that take no account of the root causes of the problem. What are the root causes? I cannot accept that the root cause of unemployment in this country is merely our level of taxation. There are other countries with similar levels of taxation. Surely, if one is to analyse on the basis of taking account of the root cause of the problem, one must have some recognition of the major world slump, the enormous technological changes that have taken place and the rapid increase in the work force.
Mr. F. A. Burden: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made a statement on 17th February 1977 to the effect that if there was a great increase in unemployment it would come about only through incompetence or through the definite intention of increasing it?
Mr. Booth: I do not recall the precise phrase that my right hon. Friend used, but I accept that in speaking at that time he might have expressed that view. This afternoon I am dealing with what is referred to in the motion as a failure to take account of the root cause of the problem. I believe that any proper analysis of the problem recognises that it is a complex one. It is not something for which there is a simple panacea. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East is suggesting that there is a simple panacea in the reduction of taxation and public expenditure on a massive scale. I do not believe that that approach will create jobs. It will reduce them, and it will reduce the services that are available in this country.
Sir K. Joseph: What about the evidence of those periods of three and four years in the recent past when, under less discouraging total economic conditions created by the Government, the number of new jobs grew so fast?
Mr. Booth: I dispute the right hon. Gentleman's figures. Employment in the private sector, taken from the summary tables of the Treasury analysis of public expenditure—table 1.10—in 1970 was 18,254,000. By 1974 this figure had fallen to 18,148,000. In 1976 it was 17,399,000. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has taken employment as embracing certain parts of manufacturing in the private sector. While he was disclosing the figures, I was looking at the actual graph of employment movements in the manufacturing sectors. Certainly there have been up and down movements, but the general movement in manufacturing over a decade has been downwards, although there were up and downs.
Sir K. Joseph: I was taking commerce as well.
Mr. Booth: Yes, exactly. In the period to which the right hon. Gentleman was
272
referring there was an increase in commerce at the same time as there was a decline in manufacturing industry. One offset the other to a certain extent. But that was part of the general picture over a decade in which we lost about 1 million jobs in manufacturing in this country and gained 1 million in services. I am referring to public and private services. There has been a change in the position, and I shall come to it.
Let us try to consider the proposition that reductions in public expenditure make a considerable contribution to the creation of more jobs and the suggestion that that of itself encourages people to take steps to that end. The Conservative defence spokesman argues that the cuts in defence expenditure proposed by the Labour Government will cost us 200,000 jobs. The Conservatives cannot have it both ways. They cannot on the one hand argue that if one cuts public expenditure in defence one loses jobs and on the other hand that if one cuts public expenditure in other areas one creates jobs. That points to the far more complex approach that is required to the problem.
If we are considering what it costs to sustain employment—this is a serious argument which was raised in an intervention—and whether that cost could be used to create employment in other areas, I ask the House to consider what happens in practice. Let us consider what happens in the payment of the temporary employment subsidy. Many Opposition Members have approached me about the payment of TES in their constituencies. They know full well that by a payment of £20 per week to a proportion of a firm's labour force for a period it is possible to sustain full-time employment to reorganise a firm in a way that will enable it not only to maintain employment but in many cases to grow.
Mr. Spriggs: My right hon. Friend says that a number of Opposition Members have applied for temporary employment subsidy on behalf of firms in their constituencies. Have any of them offered to give the money back?
Mr. Booth: What I said was that Opposition Members have approached me concerning the payment of TES to firms in their constituencies, advocating that as a desirable object. None has come to me

273
to pay such subsidy back, but I am prepared to set up a special session in my Department to listen privately to every Opposition Member who wishes us to withdraw TES where it is being paid in his or her constituency.
The serious point is that if by a payment of £20 per week one can be confident that one is avoiding the payment of redundancy pay, wage-related unemployment benefit, flat-rate unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit, of course that is a better way to spend public money. It is a way that not only sustains a person in employment but sustains a demand or goods and services.
Mr. Douglas Henderson: May I quote a figure which I have been given? The cost of supporting a married man with two children would be £4,000 per annum in transfer costs and loss of revenue. If that figure is correct, surely the additional payment of temporary employment subsidy to keep that roan in employment and therefore create some productive capacity to be used is relatively minor.
Mr. Booth: On a quick mental calculation, I believe that the figure of £4,000 produced by the Treasury is an initial cost. I believe that the average cost of sustaining a man in unemployment is lower than that—namely, about £50 to £60 a week.
Sir K. Joseph: There is not time this afternoon to debate this issue in itself, although I should love to have an opportunity to do so. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the duration of unemployment is about five months on average and that the duration of temporary employment subsidy is over a year on average? Before one can judge the impact on public spending, one has to take into account the duration of these payments. I ask the Secretary of State to accept that the fact that I do not constantly intervene in his speech does not mean that I agree with his analysis.
Mr. Booth: I readily accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. I do not expect in the course of one speech fully to convert the right hon. Gentleman to my point of view. I readily agree that, of course, one has to look at the period of payment and the length of unemployment. But one of the worrying features in the
274
development of unemployment is that an increasing number of adults have been unemployed for a fairly long period. The Manpower Services Commission is now analysing some of the causes and is trying to throw more light on this factor.
My broad contention is that what we have been doing by way of TES, the way in which we have refined it and the fact that we have required firms which have been paid the subsidy for more than six months to produce a proposal showing that they are restructuring and, therefore, will not need the subsidy beyond a certain period means that we have taken serious account of this possible objection. The average length of unemployment requires further analysis, because I agree that there are worrying features.
The temporary employment subsidy in one instance after another has enabled firms to change in a way that reflects the requirements of employment and wealth creation. For example, a large clothing firm in South Wales, having been paid TES against 60 members of the work force who would have been made redundant, changed its product into the manufacture of raincoats and is now successful in that line of production. I visited a firm in Manchester, Lonsdale and Bartholomew, which specialises in wallpaper pattern books. That company faced heavy losses as a result of the decline in the British market. As a result of the payment of TES and with the co-operation of staff and management, it turned that business round, went into exports and is now making a profit. Furthermore, it is now seeking to expand into additional premises and has taken on additional workers. Therefore, TES can be used to back enterprise and the analysis of people with practical experience.
I wish to point out—I hope not unfairly—that a total of 11,156 jobs has been saved by TES in Leeds. I appreciate that those jobs must be in North-West Leeds, South-East Leeds or South-West Leeds, because I know that people who share the views of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East would not use TES on such a scale. My general contention is that a massive reduction of taxation would have to be accompanied by cuts in public services. It might lead to an increase in imports if people, as a result of having more money to spend following

275
tax reductions, suddenly increased demand. It might have adverse effects on our balance of payments.
Thanks to the measures we have been pursuing and to the practical and realistic response to many of these measures, employment in this country has been improving, and considerably so. Of course we are concerned, and rightly so, about the numbers of unemployed, but this tends to make us fail to look at the numbers of people who are in employment. That, too, is an important factor.
Perhaps I should inform the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East that the fact that I did not intervene in his speech did not mean that I agreed with all his comments. I certainly did not agree with the comparative OECD figures that he quoted. I do not accept the basis of comparison which he advanced as giving anything like a fair reflection of the relative employment rates of different countries, particularly the United States. However, as a result of many of these measures we in the United Kingdom have 44 per cent. of people employed, temporarily or full-time, in civilian employment. This is higher than the figure in any of our other major competitors, with the exception of Japan. In France the figure is 39 per cent., in West Germany 40 per cent., in Italy 34 per cent. and in the United States 41 per cent. against the figure of 44 per cent. employed in this country. Looked at in another way, it can be seen that there are more than half a million more people in employment in 1977 than was the case in 1972. The number of people employed in this country has increased, after a period in 1975 in which there was a serious rise in unemployment.
Conservative spokesmen preach the importance of business confidence though they practise the undermining of it. They take that line when they say, for example, that the Employment Protection Act militates against the taking of people into employment. If that myth gains sufficient currency, it might have the effect which they predict. It will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Mr. James Prior: While he is talking about undermining, would the right hon. Gentleman like to give his views on the Labour Party's party political
276
broadcast on 15th June, in which it was said:
"The real blame lies with the industrialists who in their drive for profits have cynically closed firms and thrown millions on the dole. The Labour Party's aim is the common ownership of the means of production so that control of these firms can be taken out of the hands of a few profiteers and tycoons".
If that does not undermine the confidence of British management, what does?
Mr. Booth: I did not hear or see that broadcast, but, in so far as it refers to the Labour Party's aim of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, it is a pretty fair reflection of the party's constitution. I have my membership card in my pocket, and our constitution has been in existence for a very long time and has not brought to an end the activities of entrepreneurs or business managers in this country.
I believe that by building this myth, against all the objective evidence, the Opposition are undermining confidence, just as the reiteration by Opposition spokesmen on a number of occasions that unemployment must increase and inflation must go up tends to undermine confidence. There is a danger that if these prophecies are accepted, they may become self-fulfilling.
There is one area in which I hope that it will not be contended that we can rely on market forces. I refer to training. It is crucially important to realise that, even with our present levels of unemployment, we are still suffering from the fall in training that took place in this country between 1972 and 1974, particularly in the engineering industry, where the number of craft trainees and technicians fell below 17,000 a year. Thanks to measures carried through with the help of the MSC and the individual training boards, we have raised that total to about 25,000 a year over each of the last three years.
Clearly, we cannot solve overnight the problem of skill shortage. We must ensure that industrial training boards make as sensible an assessment as possible, in the light of their experience, of the skill requirements of the 1980s. The training decisions made now will determine the numbers of skilled people available in the 1980s.
I commend to the many hon. Members who are interested in the development of

277
training the interesting proposals on which the Engineering Industry Training Board is having consultations. It has proposed a new craft training system which provides much greater flexibility, including incentives linked to the achievement of certain standards and not simply to length of service, as is the case in many existing training schemes. I urge all employers and unions to study the proposals carefully and to give them a positive and constructice response. I believe that they may be in the vanguard of all the thinking that is taking place in response to our request to all industrial training boards to submit proposals.
The proposition that I have put to the boards on behalf of the Government, I hope with the support of the House, is that, if collective funding is to continue and if we are to continue to use taxpayers' money to back training, we should do so only on the basis that the boards' proposals contain a reasonable assessment of how many skilled people we shall need in the various industries and ways of meeting those needs.
Mr. Nicholas Scott: I am sure that it is absolutely admirable that the numbers are going up in this way, but it is a fat lot of good if those who acquire the skills are so taxed that in the 1980s they are earning their living not here but elsewhere in the world.
Mr. Booth: Whether they are earning their living here or elsewhere will depend upon people's judgments on whether Britain is a good place in which to expand industry. I believe that it is. That is not just the judgment of a chauvinistic British Minister. It is the judgment of many foreign managers who have examined Britain and decided that this is where they would want to invest. They include managers such as those of Sony who set up a plant in Bridgend, expanded the number of jobs from 300 to 700 and are now exporting many of their products. They include the managers of Thyssen (Great Britain), which is making mineshaft equipment in Llanelli, and the managers of Atlas Hydraulic Loaders Limited, which is making cranes in Lanarkshire.
In all these cases, managing directors of international firms acknowledge publicly the very high quality and hard work of British workmen. They believe that
278
this is a good place in which to expand, and the profit record justifies that belief. I do not believe for a moment that Ford's decided to make new investment in South Wales because it wanted to provide 2,500 jobs in an area of high unemployment. The company believed that that was the best place to carry out that production.
My answer to the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) is that there is a question mark but that the answer depends upon the judgment of people who have to live in the market place, fight for orders and justify employment by the wealth they can create.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East seems to believe that wealth creation somehow automatically creates employment. Up to 1950, there was considerable evidence that high rates of productivity growth were associated with increased employment, but in the following 20 years that ceased to be the case in an increasing number of industries where employment fell and higher productivity did not necessarily bring an increase in overall employment. We are facing a future in which rapid technological development holds out the prospect that we shall be creating more material wealth with many fewer people. We must use this wealth in a socially responsible way to create other job opportunities in services and in manufacturing.
We need to provide better public services and socially desirable alternatives to unemployment, such as earlier retirement, a shorter working week and wider educational opportunities. These are all technologically possible if we can create the necessary wealth, but there is no automatic process or natural law that says that when we create more wealth we automatically create more jobs.
The Government and the Conservatives are agreed only in saying that more wealth must be created. We disagree on how that can be done. It seems to me that the Conservative view is that the ability of an individual to profit is a precondition and that social progress is a secondary by-product of that. This view ignores the cost of the casualties along the road if we attempted to put that policy into effect in modern conditions. Of course, among the casualties would be the unemployed.

279
The Labour Party's view is that there is an interdependence of wealth creation and social cost and that the Government must help industry, both public and private, to create the wealth that can finance the employment of a growing number of people in services as manufacturing requires a smaller proportion of our working population. The development of these services also sustains manufacturing since the wages paid in the service sector are essential to maintain the demand for the output of the manufacturing sector.
The rejection of this interdependence threatens prospects for employment and social standards in this country. In its acceptance lies scope for the prospect of raising employment and social services simultaneously. I therefore commend the amendment to the House.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I promise to be as brief as I can, but I am bound to admit that the speech of the Secretary of State will slightly lengthen my remarks. I cannot let such arrant nonsense pass without comment.
I take a few points at random. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the small firms investment subsidy and the amount of help being given for investment to larger firms. He called them incentives, but such subsidies are not incentives to invest; they are methods of helping to finance investment. They are methods that would not be needed if the firms concerned were allowed to retain more profits which they would reinvest.
Now I must declare my interest as a chairman of an unquoted company. The record of profitability and of reinvestment of profits of smaller firms and unquoted companies is far better than that of large firms, and compared with the nationalised industries it is almost miraculous. The subsidies to which the right hon. Gentleman referred are giving help in financing, which would not be needed if the firms concerned could borrow at a reasonable rate. Interest rates have been forced up to prohibitive levels as a result of the high rate of interest that is required by the Government to induce people to lend to them. Why should people invest in risk capital when they can get a better return by buying Government stock?
280
The right hon. Gentleman's argument was that we must keep up interest rates and taxation so that the taxpayer may give subsidies to firms large and small instead of encouraging investors to invest and instead of enabling firms to invest their own profits both in providing extra working capital, which is especially needed during a period of inflation, and in making new investment.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted the temporary employment subsidy. The effect of the subsidy is, to say the least, uncertain. On 29th June I received an answer to a Written Question. The answer told me that on 21st June there were 170,500 people currently covered by the temporary employment subsidy.
On 28th June, the day before, I received an answer telling me that within three months 100,000 people would be unemployed were it not for the subsidy. That is a difference of about 70 per cent. In reply to the same two Questions about the youth opportunities programme the answer was 33,000. Apparently there is precise knowledge of the effect of the youth opportunities programme and only very imprecise knowledge of the effect of the temporary employment subsidy.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) about the importance of the training and mobility of labour. There is a serious problem and I do not altogether put the blame on the Government. The problem has arisen for historical reasons. Skilled people have been unemployed in certain parts of the country while there has been a great shortage of skilled labour in other parts. This is still so.
However, it is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that lack of training is the fault of the last Tory Government. It was this Tory Government that set up the arrangements for training five long years ago. If the new arrangements we made then for the training of skilled labour have not yet produced any results that is the fault of the right hon. Gentleman's Government, who have been responsible for not operating them properly for the past four years.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East referred to the pattern of unemployment. There are about 300,000 people who have now been

281
unemployed for more than 12 months. The average duration of unemployment has increased from about seven weeks in 1973 to about 15 weeks now. The solution advanced by the right hon. Gentleman is a steady move towards the corporate State, totally ignoring the fact that 40 per cent. of our gross domestic product comes from firms employing 500 people or fewer.
I make a few limited suggestions. I hope that the House will not think that I am putting forward a comprehensive plan. I cannot do so, because of the shortage of time. However, I shall make a few positive suggestions.
My first suggestion concerns smaller businesses and unquoted companies, whether they are in manufacturing, distribution or in service industries. It includes companies that are engaged in selling services both here and abroad, in distribution both here and abroad and in manufacturing for sale here and abroad. Our present employment protection legislation is a strong disincentive for very small companies. There is no doubt about that. I am not saying that it is a difficulty for larger companies; I am merely saying that it creates in its minutiae a difficulty for smaller companies, especially the provision of 26 weeks before unfair dismissal and the lack of flexibility for notification of redundancies.
This is something that no Government should lay down but in which changes could be negotiated to get full union support in view of the extra jobs that would result. Smaller firms cannot afford to take on labour that they feel may be temporary because of the difficulties with which they may be faced when the period during which they can use that labour economically expires. This is an area in which any Government should be willing to take the initiative.
My second suggestion relates to the low level of profits. Smaller firms are not uncompetitive. They lack profit, which is needed not just for reinvestment but to maintain the consistent rising working capital, which is required by an increase in money turnover, even if they are not increasing their real turnover spectacularly. Because of the longer credit that has to be given, smaller firms have a worse financial problem the more they export. The more that a small firm increases its exports the greater the problem
282
it has with its working capital and the more it needs profit to finance it and so to maintain employment.
Thirdly, a suggestion about tax incentives. I am not suggesting only that the average rate of tax is too high for any given level of income. What is particularly wrong in Britain—it has been wrong for many years but matters have become worse over the past four years—is the gap between the average rate of tax and the marginal rate of tax at every level, but especially for both the very low earlier and the very high earner. The gap is too great. It is the gap between the average rate and the marginal rate that makes for disincentive.
Any schemes that increase employment must make it worth while in money for people to work rather than to go on not working. They must make it worth while to learn a skill and to be rewarded for it—in other words, better differentials and differentials that are not eroded by the appallingly high level of marginal taxation at every level of income.
Another tax factor is the need to take measures to help turn earners into owners. We should have some sort of stock option scheme to enable clever, forceful and ambitious managers to save enough to start up in a small way on their own, if they want to, halfway through their career. We should have a tax structure that enables people to save to invest directly in industry.
The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to continue to nationalise more and more of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Does that include the land that is held by pension funds? Does it include the shares owned by investment trust companies and unit trusts on behalf of small shareholders? Does it include the land and funds of the union pension schemes? If it does, the right hon. Gentleman will make many enemies. Not all of them will be on the Conservative Benches by any means.
I should like to see people owning more directly as well as indirectly. Over half the total wealth of Britain is owned by pension funds. About 47 per cent. of the shares of quoted companies are owned by institutions on behalf of other people. I wish that we could find a way, through the tax system, to encourage a wider distribution of share ownership—at least a

283
way that would give some of a firm's capital growth to the employees as well as to the shareholders.
Finally, I suggest that we must take a new look at what is meant by productivity. There is overmanning, a high level of absenteeism—between 10 per cent. and 17 per cent.—and 5 million people work overtime. That is a curious way of arranging our affairs.
If we are to remain competitive in the world we must reduce the unit labour cost of our products. We must forget a few myths in so doing. We do not only need more investment, nor do we need harder and longer work. In spite of what the Secretary of State said, it is a myth that higher productivity necessarily means fewer jobs. The evidence is that the rate of productivity growth in some industries is related to the rate of growth in employment in that industry.
Even if the Secretary of State is right, we must have a more sensible arrangement to keep the machines working flat out. I believe that it is possible to negotiate shift work, associated with a shorter working year and a rearrangement of work periods to provide leisure at better times and for longer periods on end. There is little point in cutting the working day. There is not much point in reducing the working week in such a way that people are given marginally more time off at the weekend. That is particularly so for people who live in the conurbations.
People need more time off in periods which can be better used. I would go as far as to consolidate bank holidays, which, at the moment, simply put as many people as possible into traffic jams at the same time. These extra days off, with any shortening of working time being taken as extra days, rather than hours off, could be arranged to help our factories run more efficiently. All this should be part of collective bargaining and of the consultative processes in industry.
Provided that output is not interrupted by unnecessary and frivolous industrial disputes, provided that we can encourage the growth of real wealth by incentives to investors, entrepreneurs, managers and workers and not spend taxpayers' money rashly, it should be possible to turn this country into one in which real earnings increase, employment increases, and both
284
working hours and overmanning are reduced. If that happened Britain would be a better place in which to live.
I must admit that I do not see much hope of any such changes starting under this Government. But I am pretty certain that they will after the next General Election, under a Tory Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are 23 hon. Members who would like to catch the Chair's eye before 9 o'clock.
5.44 p.m.
Mr. Giles Radice: It is right that we should be discussing unemployment. The possession of a job defines a man and woman, whereas the lack of a job makes it hard to keep one's self respect. It is right that we should be concerned when the level of unemployment, despite the welcome improvements in the last nine months, is still running at well over 5 per cent. and when in areas such as the northern region and Merseyside it is at a much higher level. The difficulty is that there is no agreed diagnosis nor solution in the House, in the country, or in the world as a whole.
I was not impressed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). He said that we must cut industrial subsidies, when we all know that that would lead to higher unemployment. He said that we should cut public spending, when we all know that that would lead to higher unemployment. He said that we should return to a free market economy, when we all know that that world died 100 years ago.
The Labour Government has a more realistic and relevant approach. They have spent money on labour market policies. I hope that they spend more. They have spent public money on industrial support for old and new industries. I hope that they spend more. They have spent money on regional policies. I hope that they spend more. They have spent money on vital public services. I hope that they continue to do that. Indeed, without such expenditure the level of unemployment would be catastrophic.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East believes in a single cause of and a single solution to unemployment. I do not believe that there is a single

285
cause or a single solution. I shall examine some of the causes of unemployment.
Clearly, this country faces the longstanding problem of competitiveness and industrial performance. Many of the jobs that have been lost in the 1970s have been lost because we have failed to compete in some of our main markets.
In the last two or three years our share of world trade has improved marginally, yet our unemployment level remains high. It is significant that other countries—even strong countries such as West Germany—have high levels of unemployment. That was not mentioned by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East. I do not know where he has been for the last four years. It is difficult to know the exact levels of unemployment in other countries but it is clear that they are at an abnormally high level. That shows there are other influences at work.
A number of commentators have mentioned the increasing capital-intensive nature of manufacturing industry. There is something in that, particularly in the long term, and, in the short term, we cannot expect to create many new jobs in the manufacturing sector.
But one must admit that over the past four years the levels of investment in most countries have been lower than they have been in the past. That means that we have not become much more capital-intensive. We are well below the average of the last decade, so I do not believe that this is yet a significant factor.
Some people point to the impact of countries such as Japan, South Korea, Iran, India and Taiwan which have the capacity to produce low cost goods such as ships and cars. In the present conditions these countries present the older industrial countries with a formidable challenge to which, as the Secretary of State for Trade told the House last week, we are beginning to respond slowly. But we cannot claim that this situation is yet the major cause of unemployment.
It is fashionable, particularly in West Germany, to talk about the saturation of demand. But in a world in which two-thirds of the people live in extreme poverty we cannot talk about a saturation of demand. I believe that a major cause of unemployment, not only in Britain but in all the industrial countries, is a lack of
286
purchasing power on an international scale. The major industrial countries have failed to respond not only to the OPEC surpluses but to the amassing of surpluses by strong industrial countries such as Japan and Western Germany.
One of the assumptions of the postwar world and of the Bretton Woods Agreement was that both deficit and surplus countries should respond and adjust themselves to their circumstances. That was the idea behind the international system. Thanks to the way in which the Americans behaved after the war, thanks to the Marshall aid plan and thanks to the fact that the United States allowed our goods and those of European countries into their market, we were able to adjust and expand. Today we are simply playing the game of "shift the deficit", a game which has disastrous consequences for the world economy and for world unemployment.
Deflation obviously hits the weaker industrial countries and the developing countries worst, but inevitably it will also hit countries such as Japan and Western Germany, which depend so heavily upon their exports and therefore upon the level of demand in foreign markets. That is why the Prime Minister is right to attach such importance to the world summit economic conference which is opening this week. I wish that the Conservatives would attach a little more importance to it.
If that conference can help to create a more stable economic order and economic growth, it will make it far easier to tackle the problem of unemployment. If it fails, we are likely to slip further and further into protectionism. Even those who, like myself, have previously believed that free trade is, on the whole, to Britain's advantage will be forced to reconsider. If there is no move forward, protectionism may be the only alternative left to us.
As a northern region MP, I want to say a few words about regional policy. It is extremely difficult to run regional policy during a major international recession, although most fair-minded Opposition Members would accept that but for regional policy unemployment in regions such as mine would be far higher. We have to take another look at regional policy, but I do not advocate the sort of rethink proposed by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East. His rethink

287
would mean a reduction or removal of regional incentives. That is not my approach. Regional policy now needs a new ingredient. There is a strong case for a regional development agency such as Scotland and Wales now have to enable the English regions to take more of their own industrial decisions. Ultimately, alongside it we should have to have regional assemblies to exercise democratic control over the agencies. So I hope that the Government will take another look at regional policy.
In conclusion, although Ministers have not solved the problem of unemployment, and although much needs to be done in regional policy, in manpower planning, in industrial policy, in the next round of incomes policy and in economic policy, at least the Government have the necessary imagination to comprehend the nature of the difficulties. Unlike the Conservatives, they are not hampered by the blinkers of a totally outdated and irrelevant economic ideology.
5.54 p.m.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: In moving the Government amendment to the motion, the Secretary of State told us nothing about the number of jobs that he thought would be needed in trying to achieve
"full and stable employment in the long term".
It was remarkable that he sought to defend his policy without giving any of the figures and projections which he, the Treasury, or the Manpower Services Commission have about the size of the task that must be completed if we are to stand any chance of achieving whatever he or anyone else might mean by
"full and stable employment in the long term".
As the Secretary of State must know, dire forecasts are being made that unemployment could top 2 million or 2·5 million in the early 1980s. If one adds the number of registered unemployed who are being kept out of the unemployment figures by the various Government schemes, one can see that we have practically reached the 2 million mark already.
I must tell the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) that it is not sufficient for us to consider our position entirely in the light of what is happening in other countries. We should be
288
concerned to find remedies within our own context, not forgetting that there is a wider problem in western Europe.
The problem cannot be said to be solely one of world trade. There must be considerable scope, even at a time of depressed world trade, for British manufacturers to go for more import substitution and for higher exports. It would be pleasant to believe that one could hope for an early solution to the problem by an upturn in growth here and in the rest of the world. A decent level of growth would take the sting out of the present level of unemployment, but that would depend on so many conditions. We should have to wait many years before those who want jobs could get them if we rely only on a quickening of the pace of economic growth.
In Britain we must recognise that reducing unemployment depends not only on factors outside our control. We must consider those within our control. It is in that direction that a charge can fairly be made against the Government that it is they, perhaps, who are wearing the "doctrinaire blindfold" to which the Secretary of State referred, since they keep rejecting the points made from the Opposition Benches about blockages to employment opportunities.
Small businesses must play an important part in the development of the economy. It is likely that they are more labour-intensive than many of the medium-size and large companies. It is extraordinary that so much has been done by the Government which has been directly harmful to small businesses.
The inquiry by the Secretary of State into the effects of the Employment Protection Act, excluding from its results as it does so far companies with fewer than 50 employees, shows that the Government do not understand where the real constraints on job growth exist.
It is not easy to build up a national picture from a series of conversations with individual business men, but I have been given many examples by business people in my constituency where they have to decide whether to buy a machine to do work that perhaps two or three people might have done. If employers are being persuaded, rightly or wrongly, that it is to their disadvantage to take on extra

289
people, that is a situation that the Government should face squarely and decide whether their cherished legislation is not having a harmful effect on job creation.
Britain should not become a poor neighbour in terms of social and employment policy but the Government should consider whether we need a particular standard of legislation when there is also serious unemployment. If by driving up standards in this respect we ensure that the number of possible economic jobs is minimised, that seems the reverse of good sense.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the labour legislation of most European countries is better than that of Britain? How can he argue, therefore, that jobs are affected as he suggests?
Mr. Haselhurst: If the hon. Member will bear with me, he will see that I am not opposed to trying to ensure better protection for employees. However, if that reduces job opportunities, that consequence should be weighed carefully against the desired objectives. One should have some regard, therefore, to the timing of the legislation which the hon. Gentleman believes necessary if it has a deleterious effect on the number of jobs.
Labour Members may say that employers are being unfair, wrong or muddleheaded in their reaction to legislation such as the Employment Protection Act, but they should consider the facts rather than the motivation. If those things are disincentives, they should recognise the fact and try to deal with it.
We all want to maximise job opportunities, and we should consider all the ways in which they are being minimised.
Mr. Tom Litterick: I think that my hon. Friends and I are listening with great attention to the hon. Member's argument, but I hope that he will realise that, although we understand his assertion and might be alarmed if we knew that this was happening, he has not yet proved it. Perhaps he will now do so.
Mr. Haselhurst: There are examples in my constituency—and probably in many others—of employers facing practical problems like those that I have described. So far, the Secretary of State has not completed an inquiry into the
290
effects of the Employment Protection Act on businesses employing fewer than 50 people. When we have that evidence, it will be interesting to see whether the examples we know about are borne out.
There are other disincentives. One is this Government's taxation policy. Along with other members of the all-party committee on the chemical industry, I recently visited a number of chemical establishments on Teesside. We found direct examples of the extent to which the training of instrument fitters has been going on in various factories—not just the one which has been in the news—and that they have been losing 60 per cent. of them to the Middle East because of the disincentive effect of taxation. They cannot expect to continue in business, they say, if they go on losing trained people at that rate.
There are also problems of mobility, often caused by workers' inability to move to another area for fear of not getting a similar position on the housing list. There is also the question of making further improvements in skill training. Clearly, some blockages have not yet been removed by the Government. The number of forms of aid which the Government have produced, many in a great hurry, are now so numerous that they themselves confuse people about the opportunities to train for existing vacancies.
Even if all these constraints are remedied—it is hoping a great deal to expect this Government to look at them all as dispassionately as they might—we shall have a considerable numbers problem into the 1980s. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), I believe that some structural change in employment is needed to match the numbers who will be involved.
Early retirement is not a practical panacea. Apart from the public expenditure involved, many people in their early sixties are not so desirous of quitting all employment. They would like to work. Nor should the shorter working week be accepted too joyfully as a solution to unemployment. I fear that the pressure of collective bargaining will mean at least as much money being paid for no increase—and probably a loss—of production, if we too quickly adopt, for example, a 35-hour week. That

291
could create unemployment. If production is reduced in some sectors, manufacturers will reduce their orders to suppliers.
The key to the numbers question lies in a more comprehensive and systematised scheme for training young people. It is acknowledged that we do far too little training compared with many of our principal industrial competitors. We could use the time of many young people much more purposively in giving them better training not only in skills but in a knowledge of the world of work and of how to compete within it. That is the right, logical and constructive way of considering the present problem and it goes beyond removing the undoubted restraints on employment which this Government have done so little to remove.
If we do not tackle the problem in that constructive way, I fear that the alternative is a society dominated by the concept of the cash economy, in which regular work as a way of life is rejected—and I do not think that people favour that at the moment—and a society of great social division with many people unable to work regularly at all. Unless we face this challenge, our future problems will be immense. I fear that this Government are incapable of facing the challenge.
6.8 p.m.
Mr. John Evans: I will start by putting two facts on the record. First, I am a sponsored member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, engineering section, which has a tremendous interest in the general question of unemployment. Secondly, unlike the majority of hon. Members—certainly on the Tory side—I have known considerable spells of unemployment. Anyone who worked as a fitter in the shipyards and the ship repairing industry of Tyneside will know what unemployment means from first-hand experience.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) on a speech that was much better and more constructive than that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). I do not know whether that will do him any good with his leader. I hope that she will take note of his comments and possibly switch
292
the hon. Member round so that he occupies the position of his right hon. Friend.
I voted against the Ten-Minute Bill today which sought to televise our proceedings. I fear that I have made a grave mistake, which I shall not repeat. I should have liked to see the television cameras in here when the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East made that incredible speech. I hope that it is well reported in the media, because it was worth a substantial number of votes to the Labour Party.
I do not know whether trade union leaders will shudder at the thought of the right hon. Member becoming one of the economic leaders of this country if, by some mischance at the next election, the Conservatives are returned to power. I do not even know whether the people of this country will fear the consequences. I am quite sure that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) must have nightmares at the thought of becoming Secretary of State for Employment if the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East is in charge of the economy. Undoubtedly the job of Secretary of State for Employment will not be a bed of nails, as it has so often been described; it will become a bed of red-hot coals.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft knows as well as I do that the trade union movement and the organised working classes will not tolerate any or many of the suggestions made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, which he said he will impose if he becomes responsible for our economy. The House appreciates that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft gets on well with the TUC. I am sure that the TUC has a high regard for him as an individual and would be quite prepared to work with him as an individual.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft knows full well that it would not be his voice which would be the dominant voice in a Tory Cabinet discussing the economy; it would be the voice of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East and some of the other hard-line Right wingers who would dominate and dictate policy. It is beyond dispute that many of them are still longing for another go at the unions. They feel that

293
the only mistake they made in the period 1970–74 was in not finishing off the trade unions. Let me tell them that there is no danger that the trade union movement will lie down and allow people such as the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East to walk all over them.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East is potentially the economic overlord of this country. We have to remember the appalling mess that he made of the reorganisation of the Health Service. In view of that, one would assume that the Tory Party would have found him a whelk stall in Leeds, North-East rather than promote him from his position as Secretary of State for Social Services—when he was undoubtedly responsible for a disaster—to that of potential overlord of the economy.
One thing which always causes me grave concern during these unemployment debates is the sheer nonsense which so many Tory Members talk. On the one hand they blame the Government and suggest that it is Labour policies which have created so much unemployment. They say that they will put that right because they will scrap the various measures and schemes which the Labour Government have introduced. On the other hand—we had a little hint of this from the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East—there is the suspicion or suggestion that half the unemployed are simply layabouts living off the State, people who will not work, who are moonlighting and doing a wide variety of other things.
Mr. David Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) he would have been perfectly well aware that he said nothing at all about half the unemployed being in the state the hon. Member has described. Will the hon. Member stick to the accurate report of what was said by my right hon. Friend?
Mr. Evans: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present but I listened to his right hon. Friend's speech. I said that we had heard a hint, once again, from the Tory Party spokesman, that half the unemployed are layabouts and are doing various other things because they simply will not work.
Mr. Mitchell: Withdraw.
Mr. Evans: As a very young apprentice living in Jarrow I heard prominent Tories suggest that during the 1930s half the unemployed of Jarrow did not want work, that they were layabouts, that work was available for them. The fact is that there was no such thing as employment in the north-east at that time.
We listened to Tory Party spokesmen continually talking about slashing public expenditure. I wonder what level of public expenditure they are aiming for. I have read suggestions by certain commentators that the Conservative Party is looking for a further £4 billion cut in public expenditure. I would be grateful if Tory spokesmen could give us some idea of the level of further cuts for which they are looking. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft knows full well that a cut of that nature would increase unemployment substantially, probably taking it to around the 2½ million mark.
I should like to know whether there is any intention on the part of the Tory Party, if it is returned to power, to impose cuts on social security payments—on pensions, unemployment benefits and other such things. It would seem that if the Tories are to achieve the public expenditure cuts for which they are searching they will have to turn to this area. I would appreciate it if the right hon. Member for Lowestoft would give the House some undertakings in this respect and confirm that the Tory Party, if returned to power, would carry on with the Labour Government's policy of uprating annually the various social security payments and benefits on which a lot of people, unfortunately, have to rely for their incomes.
The truth is that Britain alone is not responsible for unemployment. With a world economic slump of the magnitude that we have had over the past three or four sears there is little that can be done to reduce the level of unemployment. I suspect that the Tory Party knows that full well, although it suggests that there are easy answers to difficult and complex problems. If the Tories intend to abolish the various schemes that the Labour Government have introduced, such as the youth employment schemes and the employment subsidy, if they intend to abandon subsidies to industry, particularly in development areas, if they intend

295
to smash the National Enterprise Board, and if they go ahead with their proposals to denationalise large sections of publicly owned industries, they know that they will substantially increase unemployment. I hope that we shall be given some assurances on these matters.
Even cutting the sums of money available to the NEB would have little effect upon public expenditure. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows that many Labour Members would like to see a substantial increase in the funds available to the NEB. All the evidence suggests that it is only through vehicles such as the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies that we can achieve any form of industrial progress.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East referred to the number of job vacancies and accepted that the position in the southern part of the country is different from that in the northern part. That is absolutely correct. This is why it is dangerous to talk about averages. The average period of unemployment for many people in the north-east and north-west of England, and in Scotland and Wales, is much longer than it is in the south. If we are to do away with the various vehicles that the Labour Government have introduced to help maintain employment, we shall be in an even worse position than we are now.
I know that some Tory Members believe that there is nothing to stop the skilled worker on Merseyside and Tyneside, in Scotland or in Wales, packing his bags and transporting his family to the south-east. I wonder whether it ever occurs to them that the skilled, or unskilled, worker in those areas does not want to leave that part of the world. He does not want to uproot his children and leave his friends and family. He wants to remain in that part of the world and he asks that employment should be brought to those parts, not that he be transported.
One of our problems in the past decade arises from overcrowding and undue reliance on public expenditure for the provision of schools, housing, hospitals, roads, and so on, in the south-east of England. We have suffered deprivation in the north of England in those
296
spheres. In Merseyside and throughout parts of the north of England there are still many Victorian schools which should have been removed years ago. Children are still being taught in them. That is only one aspect of the problem of removing one's family and onself from the area in which one has lived all one's life to another part of the country.
I want also to touch on the question of youth unemployment. There is no doubt that there is a serious crisis here. Conservative Members have made many points about the difficulties of small firms. They seem to say that the Employment Protection Act is a good Act provided it applies only to big companies and that it is a bad Act when it is applied to small companies. They seem to be saying that if only small companies had the right to sack their employees unfairly everything would be all right. That is the one constant theme that comes across.
I have a very large constituency, with more than 100,000 electors and with many firms, small and large, nationalised and private. I have asked many of the firms to give me some answers about the effect of the Act. All I get is generalisations. I obtain no facts upon the subject. No one will give me one instance where any aspect of the Act has been detrimental to him, except to say that he feels that if he wanted to take on workers he would not do so because he would not be able to dismiss them. That is nonsense, because the provisions of the Act do not come into operation until six months after the individual has become employed.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft will think again about his suggestion that the Act should not apply to young people under 21. As I have pointed out, the provisions of the Act do not come into operation until six months after a person has been employed. That applies to young people as well. If an employer cannot gauge the merits or demerits of a youngster within six months, he should not be looking after young people in the first instance.
The problem that must be tackled is that of getting more young people into training. Unfortunately, the small employers' record on employment and training of apprentices is, and was in the past, abysmal. They have always been

297
too ready to poach the skilled apprentices when they finish their apprenticeship, when they have been trained by the larger employers. That is a fact, and Conservative Members cannot deny it, because they agreed with the setting up of the industrial training boards, with their levies to share the burden of training.
Is it not time we took a much more radical view of the question of training young people? I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agrees that the problem will grow worse, not better. I am sure that when he looks at the numbers who will be coming on to the employment register in the next four years he must have nightmares wondering we shall get them all into employment and training schemes.
The problem is widespread throughout the Community. One of the tragedies is that despite the high hopes for the EEC it has taken no initiatives in this matter. Every conference ever held on the subject breaks down in acrimony and disagreements, yet we must get youngsters into training, because the country depends on skilled labour.
It is time we looked at the whole apprenticeship structure. There are many who, like me, left school at 14 and 15 with a view to starting an apprenticeship at 16. We had 12 to 18 months on the fringes of industry, doing various jobs, before we could look at the various crafts and trades and decide which we were best suited to. The employers also had the opportunity to look at us and assess our skills, aptitudes and abilities, and slot us into the various apprenticeships, generally with satisfaction to the apprentice and employer.
What happens now? The school leaving age has been raised to 16. Youngsters are leaving school at 16 and 17 and virtually have to obtain an apprenticeship based on their school report. Many of them are going into the wrong type of job, but there is no other way, because they have to obtain that apprenticeship immediately. If they do not, the next year's school leavers will have caught them up and their chance will have gone.
Many employers are dissatisfied with the results of the system, a system that they have done very little about, and they are complaining that the youngsters are not suited to the job. The employers
298
wrongly blame the education system, when they themselves are taking the view that they will not take on apprentices.
In discussions with the employers and trade unions, we should look again at the apprenticeship training system, with a view to raising the apprenticeship starting age to 18 and concluding it at 21. That would again give the period which used to apply in British industry.
I believe that the vast majority of youngsters leaving school now are far better educated than I was. They have a far better schooling, education and background than I had. The difference and the tragedy is that there are no apprenticeships for them.
One of the matters that are essential to working-class people in that their son secures a skilled apprenticeship which will turn him into a craftsman at the end of his time. I do not think that many hon. Members recognise the tragedy felt by many working people when their son fails to get that apprenticeship. It is almost a social stigma if their son has failed in this respect, yet it is no fault of the youngster.
We must fact the fact that with so many youngsters unemployed there is a danger that many of them will be attracted to extremist parties putting forward extremist solutions of the Right and of the Left. We must also accept that vandalism and petty crime are among the offshoots of so much youth unemployment. We should compare the amount that we are paying through the various schemes, which are important but are only palliatives, with the amount that vandalism and petty crime are costing the country.
We should even consider the State's accepting responsibility for the training of all youngsters. We accept that for those who are moving on to academic careers. Is it not time we accepted it completely for those who want skilled employment?
Both sides of the House, industry, and the trade union movement must give further and more detailed consideration to the question of youth unemployment than we have given in the past.
6.27 p.m.
Mr. Julian Ridsdale: The Secretary of State said that the Government were constantly trying to give encouragement to enterprise. I suggest that

299
he goes round to industry and asks people on the shop floor what they feel. When I meet them, they continually say "We are working three days for ourselves and two days for the Government". He should ask the managers in industry. If it were not for the thought of a change of Government, they would already be leaving to obtain far better remuneration on the Continent, in the United States or in some part of the Commonwealth.
I have been to two British industrial exhibitions in Asia in the past two years. The message I have had from each is "Tell the Government to get off our backs and reduce taxation, particularly on the managerial side". Surprisingly, at the last exhibition a representative of a big machine tool firm said "If it were not for the Employment Protection Act, we should be able to get far better delivery of our machine tools. Because of the Act, the smaller firms cannot expand."
The right hon. Gentleman said that the root cause of the problem was the slump in world trade. But Germany, Japan and the United States have weathered the storm much better than we have, because they have market economies which react much more quickly than a Socialist economy, a State economy. We find ourselves in our present grievous position because Socialism and a State economy do not have the flexibility of a market economy. That is why I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and our motion that profitability and competitiveness in industry are vital if we are to create the wealth that this country must have to pay for all the necessary things, such as welfare and hospitals. We badly need them, particularly in my part of the country.
My right hon. Friend went on to say that high spending, high taxation and high borrowing were the cause of our problem. I would add that it is such spending, taxation and borrowing by the Government. Investment through the market is now the only real way that we can get out of the vicious spiral into which high Government borrowing has brought us and pay for the £6,691 million of debt that we owe abroad and the £14,000 million debt that the Government have borrowed from the market here at high rates of interest—4 per cent.
300
more than at the time of the Budget. This is the difficulty that the Government have got us into, and it is only by encouraging investment in industry through the market that we shall get out of it.
But we all have a common objective. We must cure unemployment, which has gone up by 760,000 since 1974, an increase of 133 per cent. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) is right: by far the worst figures are for youth unemployment, which stood at 456,000 for teenagers in July 1977. It is all very well to talk about the necessity for technical skills and apprenticeships, but does the Secretary of State realise that the standard of education in Asia, Japan and Korea enables those countries to find the skilled technicians that we are not able to find because of the education standards in our schools? We have to look at the education in our schools as much as at other things that are going on.
It is a ghastly thought that another man has joined the dole queue every three minutes that the Government have been in office. We are a low-wage economy compared with Japan, the continent of Europe and the United States. I am sure that we all want to see a high-wage economy with high productivity. That can be achieved only if we encourage investment, and that is now being understood—investment not by the National Enterprise Board but by the market because it is profitable to invest.
It is appalling to compare the figures. Investment per man in industry per annum in Japan is £30,000, in West Germany £23,000 and in the United Kingdom only £6,000. This is why our industrial production has gone down and why we have such appalling unemployment. The rate of return on capital was 10·6 per cent. in 1974 and 2 per cent. in 1975, and I believe that the situation has deteriorated even more in the last few years. Our level of production in manufacturing industry is 1·5 per cent. below the level it was in the three-day working week because we have not got the kind of investment that we should have.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) said that our share of world trade has gone up in the past two years. In 1964 we had a 7 per cent. share of world trade. World trade has expanded threefold since then, but our share is now

301
between 5·4 per cent. and 5·6 per cent. If we had retained our 7 per cent. share of world trade, we should now be £14,000 million-plus better off in our balance of payments even without North Sea oil. The problem is investment in industry, and we have to see that we get it.
It has been suggested in the debate that we can get the money if we reflate. But it is wishful thinking that market economies will reflate and import inflation—Socialism—from this country. That is the way we got into our difficulties. I believe that at the economic summit the market economies will look realistically at us and say "If you want to borrow, you can do so through the market and not through State loans from one country to another."
When I was in Japan and the United States recently I saw a willingness to invest here, but only if there is profitability and not through Government-to-Government loans but through the market, with individuals and companies lending to other industries. That is the way it can be done. I know that the leaders of industry, including the unions, are beginning to realise that if we wish to cure unemployment we have to look to the market, at the way in which the Germans, the Americans and the Japanese are running their economies and not at the way in which the Government have been running our economy for the last four years or so.
The lesson since 1964 has been the lesson of Socialism. Despite what some hon. Members may say, certain trade unionists are going out to take a look at what is happening in the market economies. I welcome the fact that in October Mr. Hugh Scanlon is going to take a look at what is happening in Japan, because it is only by seeing these countries for themselves that our union leaders can see how they are succeeding, with good labour relations, based on consensus, enterprise and the encouragement of production.
If that could be done here we could succeed, but we can do it only if we get investment both from our own country through profitability and from other countries because they want to use their surpluses. But these countries abroad will not invest in a Socialist State which has brought us to this position. It is only by a change of Government and by
302
carrying out the terms of the motion that we shall succeed. I hope that we have a change of Government so that it can be done.
6.36 p.m.
Mr. Max Madden: Over recent weeks Granada Television has been presenting a programme called "Nuts and Bolts", analysing the industrial problems of Great Britain and other countries. Among the leading thinkers taking part are the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, various captains of industry, trade union leaders, and leading economists and consultants. Towards the end of one of the programmes, the chairman was moved to say that he wondered how a worker at home, worried about the future of his job, working on a machine probably 40 years old and worried about the prospects of cheap imports undermining his employment, had viewed the programme. He said that in all probability the worker had switched off 20 minutes before the end of the programme.
I share his view. But I must say that this debate so far will probably be treated to the same fate by those who begin to read it or hear some of it on the radio, because an extraordinary range of views has been expressed about what are the difficulties that we face in this country and how we are to get out of them.
From the programmes to which I have referred and from this debate, it is becoming clearer and clearer that there are no simple solutions, that there are no panaceas and that there are no recipes for instant regeneration of our industry, our economy or our lifestyle. If we start from that point, lots of other matters flow from it.
As an industrial nation, our task is to produce goods that people want, to produce them in terms of price, quality and delivery which match or beat those of our competitors, and to identify markets where we can sell those products. My great criticism of so many people, certainly in private industry, who endeavour to do these things is that they are not private, in the sense that they are becoming increasingly dependent upon public support to keep them in business, and that they do not seem to be very enterprising in identifying those products,

303
producing the goods or finding the markets. We must all take our share of national blame for the lack of success that we have had in recent years.
The problem goes back certainly to the end of the Second World War. Some would argue that it goes back to the beginning of the century inasmuch as our manufacturing base has been diminishing year by year, whether those who produced the goods had confidence in the Government or whether there were low or high levels of taxation. The world has moved on, and we have to adjust ourselves to the changing position. That is the fact of the matter. I do not think that we can peddle out excuses or other simple solutions about how we overcome the problems which surround us.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) that, in terms of trading, the world has certainly moved on from Bretton Woods and the benevolent American actions of post-war years. I look more to the reality of the emerging Asian and Latin American economies looking for expansion of 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. a year over the next 10 or 15 years. I look to those countries which have low-wage economies and access to high technology and which can compete with us on product after product and industrial sector after industrial sector. There is no way that we can live with their so-called competition. We must recognise that fact and try, within a world context, to do something to alleviate the worst excesses of the competition which those countries offer to Great Britain over the coming years.
If nothing else, we ought to insist, within the GATT round of negotiations, that countries which have the benefit of low-wage economies and also have labour practices which are much worse than those that prevail here or in other industrialised countries at least pay some account to the fact of the advantages which they enjoy. I certainly think that these advantages can be seen in countries such as Korea. Again, a recent television programme showed the Koreans producing consumer goods, cars and steel with workers working 50 and 60 hours per week on meagre wages with non-existent
304
health and safety standards and certainly no employment protection.
It is in that sort of situation that we cannot live with the competition which Korea offers, and we must insist, on a global basis, on some account being taken of the advantages which such countries enjoy.
Secondly, I think it is incontrovertible, and all the evidence points to the fact, that there will be no significant job growth in manufacturing industry, certainly in the coming 10 or 20 years. It is only in the public service area that we can foresee any significant job growth. I think that ideology must be put aside in recognising the realities of the job situation over the coming years. Both major parties must say that they recognise that fact and support it and will maintain relatively high levels of public expenditure in terms of not only improving local and national services but of offering significant job growth in the future.
It was interesting that on the "Nuts and Bolts" programme the right hon. Member for Lowestoft spoke of the wish that there would in future be more continuity of Government policies and legislation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see this area as one in which there is urgent need for continuity.
Thirdly, we must do far more in terms of exciting and radical social policies to try to maximise job opportunities. I am thinking in terms of earlier retirement, a shorter working week, more job sharing and resistance to excessive overtime working. I think we must also recognise the modern realities that technology and productivity usually mean job loss. Therefore, it is very important indeed that we support measures to increase the creation of wealth through automation, technology and productivity. At the same time, however, we must be expending more of that wealth on supporting industrial, economic and social policies that will maximise employment.
In this regard, we also obviously need agencies such as the National Enterprise Board channelling investment into growth areas. There is a lot of dismissive talk about the work of the NEB and the industrial strategy in trying to identify growth areas. It has been given the shorthand term of "spotting the

305
winners". But if we are to survive as an industrial nation we should be in the business of trying to spot winners in a very big way.
If one looks at our trade balances, one realises that there are some scandalous situations in which we have adverse trade balances in all sorts of industrial sectors. The most ludicrous which I have seen recently is the adverse trade balance that we have in Christmas decorations. In area after area there are things which we should and could be producing but we are buying them in as imports. I certainly think that far more should be done in terms of import substitution, and much of the energy we spend on exporting should be put into import substitution, defending jobs, defending our industrial base and doing something of great benefit in terms of providing jobs.
But—and this must be faced—I believe that we must introduce selective import controls, so that we can invest behind a shield which will be there for a temporary period, let me say, but one which I see lasting not much less than a decade, if we are to survive as an industrial nation. That has to be recognised. I expect that in the very near future, regardless of which party is in Government, there will be a definite shift towards selective import controls on a temporary basis if we are to survive as an industrial nation.
However, we do not need to abandon some other matters. I have been greatly distressed in this and in other debates about the glib claims which are made about the deterrent effects of employment and health and safety legislation. The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) told us something just now about the freedom which the market economies have in this respect. I do not know whether France constitutes a market economy, but I am told that in France it is impossible for anyone to be dismissed before the approval of the relevant Ministry of Labour in France has been secured. I should have thought that that was far more onerous and draconian than any of the employment legislation that prevails in this country.
My local chamber of commerce announced the results of a survey at the end of last week. It showed that nearly 30 firms were preparing to increase their recruitment over the next 12 months. Those
306
firms were asked whether employment legislation was a deterrent. Of those 30 firms, 11 said that it was and nine said that it was not—hardly a conclusive claim one way or the other. I would certainly put much more store by the survey which the Department of Employment has recently commissioned, which showed that managers welcome that legislation because it gives them the right to manage and that workers welcome it because, for the very first time, they have clear guidelines by which to operate and which they have found of great assistance.
Mr. David Mitchell: Did the hon. Gentleman indicate that his local chamber of commerce survey showed that over 50 per cent. of the firms which replied indicated that the employment protection legislation was a deterrent to jobs? Is that the figure he gave?
Mr. Madden: No. I am sorry if I have misled the House. I am speaking from memory, but I think that 28 firms indicated that they planned to increase recruitment, and of those 28 I believe that 11 said that they felt that the legislation had created some difficulties and nine said it had not. Presumably the others had no comment to make at all. However, as I said, I do not think that that was in any way conclusive evidence for the claim that that legislation was a deterrent to recruitment. Indeed, the recently published national survey exposes that as a complete fallacy and bears out the experience of most Labour Members.
Finally, I should like to comment on a subject which seems to have been slipped under the carpet in this debate. I hope that it will be pulled out from underneath that carpet before this debate is concluded. I refer, of course, to incomes policy and the position of low-paid workers under an incomes policy. If substantial salaries for so-called top people can be justified on the ground of equity, I think that equity commands that there should be a clear, coherent and comprehensive policy for dealing with and combating the scandal of low pay which has prevailed in this country for many years.
I suspect that if we did something radical and positive about combating low pay, it might at the same time just do something about the creation of new jobs and a thriving private sector. I believe that much of our unsatisfactory industrial

307
performance relates very directly to the scandalous rates of pay which so many hundreds of thousands of our people receive for doing a full week's work in industry and in many other occupations throughout the country.
At the present time there are about 200,000 people in full-time employment for which they get less than supplementary benefit level. Another 5 million are at or just below the TUC low-pay target. These are scandalous figures, and it is highly necessary for us to make a positive attack on low pay. I think it would have a dynamic effect on atmosphere, morale and productivity in industry and do a great deal about transforming many other aspects of the industrial scene.
We are told that the Opposition's view of incomes policy is that it should be a policy for the public sector but that in private industry there should be a complete free-for-all. To me, that would be a recipe for industrial conflict and confrontation and for a return directly to the Selwyn Lloyd incomes policy of 1962.
I believe that we must conclude that there is no single solution and no single panacea. What we are saying in the debate is that many of our very deep-seated problems go back many years and there are no ways of remedying them completely. But I am certain that the simplistic solutions posed in the Opposition's motion, if enacted, would not result in any improvement. I am not saying that I endorse every comma and full stop of the Government's policy. They have done something to alleviate the problems, but what I wish to see are developments of policies geared to recognise and deal with the central economic and industrial problems that we have in this country. We have begun that task. I hope that in a very short while we shall be given a further mandate to continue to tackle those tasks, in the knowledge that they are modern and not easily resolved and that we are the only people equipped to deal with them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. As hon. Members will have observed, a procession of hon. Members have been anxious to know—and rightly so—whether they are likely to
308
be called during the debate. Beyond making an appeal for brevity, which I do most earnestly—it has already been made by my predecessor—there is nothing that the Chair can do. I imagine that approximately two hours remain before the winding-up speeches, and no fewer than 19 hon. Members are anxious to take part in the debate. By a simple process of arithmetic, each Member can work out how much time he ought to take if he wishes to show any interest in any other hon. Members taking part in the debate.
6.53 p.m.
Mr. David Knox: I hope that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) will not mind that, in view of your request for brevity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not propose to take up any of his points.
I welcome the fact that the debate is taking place. The last debate in the House on unemployment took place at the end of January. With unemployment at record post-war levels, it is a sorry reflection on our priorities in the House that we should have allowed six months to elapse before having this debate.
We have very serious unemployment in Britain today, with levels of unemployment higher than they have been since the 1930s. Within 16 months of the present Government coming to power, unemployment exceeded the 1 million mark and it has been there ever since. In my view, if present policies are continued it will not be very long before unemployment exceeds the 2 million mark.
The situation is therefore serious, and I wish that some people would realise just how serious it is. So far, the Government, the media and other parts of the establishment in this country have viewed the terrifying increase in unemployment with a smug complacency. I take the view that the great majority of the people wish to work and that only a very small minority of the people do not want to work. The fact that twice since the end of the war—in 1955 and again in 1965—unemployment was down to just over 1 per cent. seems to prove this to me. We have therefore to face the fact today that there is a very large number of people without jobs, probably over 1

309
million, who want to work. It is important that something should be done about this, and done very quickly.
Apart from the economic waste involved, unemployment is an affront to human dignity. The feeling of not being wanted or needed undoubtedly causes alienation from society. This problem is particularly alarming as it affects young people, too high a proportion of whom are out of work today, and particularly young blacks. In some areas as many as 40 per cent. of them are out of work.
Great social damage was done to this country in the 1930s as a result of the high level of unemployment then, and it will be a sorry indictment of us if, less than 50 years later, we allow the same thing to happen again. It does not say much for us if twice within a century we allow a high level of unemployment to do the sort of social damage that was done as a result of the unemployment in the 1930s.
If we are to deal with the problem of unemployment, it is very important to be clear why we have it today. The reasons are economic and political rather than technological. I believe that unemployment in Britain today is due in part to a deficiency in demand and in part to the manner in which the economy has been managed during the past four years.
I should like to look briefly at the economic reasons. The deficiency in demand arises, in my view, in part from external factors and in part from internal factors. As for the external factors, the Government can to a large extent be excused. They had no responsibility for the OPEC oil price increases, with the consequent enormous transfer of monetary resources across the exchanges. While it is true that there has been a substantial transfer of real resources to the OPEC countries, which in part compensates for this, there is still a gap, in excess of £40 billion a year, between the transfer of monetary resources and the transfer of real resources, which represents a massive deflation in demand in the west. The Government are responsible for this situation only to the extent that they have failed to work out with our friends—and particularly our friends in the EEC—a scheme to balance that deflation. However, the effects on jobs in
310
the United Kingdom from this should not be underestimated.
If the Government have only limited responsibility for the deficiency in demand due to external factors, they have entire responsibility for the deficiency due to internal factors. The savage rise in unemployment since the February 1974 general election was the direct consequence of an attempt by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to control inflation by deflating demand rather than by an incomes policy It failed, as many of us said it would.
No one should be under any illusion. That was what the Chancellor was doing He did it quite deliberately. However much the Labour Party may deny this, a study of the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman in Opposition, prior to March 1974, shows clearly that that was what he intended to do if he became Chancellor of the Exchequer. He intended to do it then, and he did it in office. He used unemployment as a deliberate instrument of economic policy. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) drew the attention of the House, in the January debate, to remarks to that effect in The Guardian by Mr. Peter Jenkin, a gentleman not very well known for his support of the Conservative Party.
Of course, the Government's policy pursued at that time failed. Inflation escalated rather than fell, and eventually the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to introduce an incomes policy, which has worked rather better. But the tragedy is that as long as inflation has remained at a high level—and it still is at a high level—with the fragile nature of confidence in this country, the Chancellor dare not abandon his high unemployment policy. The insufficiency of domestic demand and the consequent high level of unemployment are therefore entirely the responsibility of the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were the intended results of the Government's policy, and there is no getting away from this.
The situation has been greatly worsened by certain other aspects of the economic policies of the Government. I do not want to go into this in any detail at all, but there is no doubt that the general lack of economic confidence

311
which has marked this period of Labour Government, the constant changes in economic policy, often forced on the Government by external factors, the high rate of company taxation, the effect on the private sector of Government-induced inflation, the attack on small businesses by the application of legislation appropriate to large firms but not to small firms, the burden of direct personal taxation and, above all, the imbalance between the private and the public sectors have all accentuated our economic difficulties and worsened our unemployment problems.
Lest anyone thinks that I am being unfair to the Government and that they have not been as bad as that, it is worth while spending a second or two examining their record on unemployment. When the Tory Government left office in 1964 on a seasonally adjusted basis 340,300 people were out of work in Great Britain. Six years later, in June 1970, when Labour left office, the figure was 567,600. In February 1974, when the Tories left office, the figure was 554,300 people out of work. Last month, under Labour, the figure was 1,304,600. In other words, whereas unemployment rose by 1 per cent. of the working population under the 1964–70 Labour Government and has risen by 3·2 per cent. of the working population under Labour since 1974, unemployment fell marginally under the last Conservative Government.
It is, therefore, a fact that both the present and the last Labour Governments have presided over rising unemployment. Instead of howling slogans across this House and elsewhere, I ask the Labour Party to examine its policies in an objective manner to try to find out what has gone wrong. If it does so, I think it will find that at least some of the arguments that are from time to time advanced by the Opposition have a certain degree of validity. After all, it has gone wrong twice for the Labour Party. If I were a member of the Labour Party, I would be beginning to worry about the situation.
Perhaps I can conclude briefly by summarising a threefold strategy as I see it in order to deal with the problem of unemployment. First, there must be a restoration of economic confidence and we need a steadier hand in charge of the
312
Exchequer than we have had these last four years from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Secondly, there must be a sure but steady increase in demand from both home and export markets in order to increase the number of jobs. Thirdly, there must be a substantial reduction in direct taxation which will encourage individual and corporate initiative and enterprise, redress the balance betwen the public and private sectors and leave more money in people's pockets which they can either spend, and so increase demand, or save and so provide funds for investment.
In my view, those are the keys to an expanding economy and a reduction in unemployment. I hope that we shall see those keys being turned by a new Conservative Government before this year is out.
7.3 p.m.
Mr. Gerry Fowler: The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) suggested that the cause of our present level of unemployment was Socialism and that the solution was industrial investment from private sources, which was impeded by Socialism. I find both elements in that analysis quite extraordinary.
In the two and a quarter years that I was Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Technology, dealing with the shipbuilding industry, I toured every yard in the country. I was horrified at the antiquity of the equipment that was in use and the antiquity of the very fabric of the buildings. I saw a crane in use in a shipyard in Aberdeen with the date of its manufacture stamped on its side—1888. Was it a Socialist Government who impeded the replacement of that crane, which had already been there for 80 years? I saw equipment of similar antiquity in the textile industry.
The level of industrial investment in this country has been too low year after year, whatever the incentives provided by Governments of different political persuasions and however much money was available for investment. Today adequate money is available on the private market for a much higher level of investment. Therefore, I find the analysis that it is Socialism which has caused a low level of industrial investment and, hence, our

313
present unemployment difficulties quite extraordinary.
I find it equally extraordinary to suggest that a high level of industrial investment will solve our problems of unemployment. It is necessary to get a much higher level of industrial investment, because we must get higher productivity and increase the amount that we produce as a nation. But we shall not necessarily thereby increase employment. We should not deceive ourselves. Certainly, without Socialism we should not reduce the total level of unemployment by higher industrial investment, because what happens in an unplanned economy with a high level of industrial investment today is that in many industries productivity rises, the level of production rises, the amount of wealth creation rises and the number of jobs sharply declines.
In the chemical industry, which is a model of that, I heard last year of the plan of one major company to invest £300 million in new plant in order to produce in the short term a quite substantial number of jobs both in construction as well as in the chemical industry. In the long term, 300 jobs would have been created at a cost of £300 million— £1 million a job. That is what happens with a capital-intensive industry, and that is exactly what we want if we want to maximise wealth creation.
But we must not deceive ourselves that that is job creation. It is not. What we sorely need in this country is not only an industrial strategy based on a much higher level of investment—for reasons which I shall demonstrate in a moment, much of that investment will have to come from the National Enterprise Board and from public sources—but side by side with it we need an employment strategy which increases employment and uses the new wealth which is created in the social sector—that is to say, in services, which may be partly in the private sector and, of course, in the social sector, which will largely be public sector jobs. One cannot have a lower level of unemployment if one has a lower evel of public expenditure overall. We ought to begin to understand that at long last.
I said a moment ago that we had had a historically low level of industrial investment in this country and that the cause
314
was not Socialism. What are the causes? I think there are perhaps three to which one can point. Undoubtedly, one was the existence of empire over a long period. I would refer hon. Members, if I may do so in this somewhat biased House, to a work by a man called V. I. Lenin, published in the early years of this century and called "Imperialism", in which he analysed the effect of empire. The House knows that I am very far from being a Marxist, but that is a nice piece of economic analysis.
Lenin demonstrated how, in the case of this country above all, it was already more profitable in the nineteenth century to invest money overseas than it was to invest it domestically, because the rate of return was higher. Therefore, our level of domestic industrial investment fell steadily behind that of other major industrial countries which had got into the industrial game rather later than we had but had also got into the imperial game rather less successively than we had. The most notable was Germany.
Of course, from that date onwards we fell behind Germany in terms of industrial performance. It had nothing to do with the post-war period. Let us not deceive ourselves that it was merely because German industry—this is an old British myth—was destroyed in the war and was replaced free, gratis and for nothing at the end of the war and, therefore, Germany was more successful. In terms of productivity and industrial performance, Germany was more successful than we were for a very long time before the last war and, indeed, before the First World War. That was one reason.
The second reason was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden). For far too long we have been a low-wage economy. What is the effect? Partly, the effect is that it produces what the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) rightly described as a deficiency in demand. It is a deficiency in demand which has nothing to do with the incomes policies of the last few years. It has been there for a very long time.
The second fact is even more important. It has always been preferable in this country for an employer to take on two or three extra work people than to invest in a machine that would do the job more efficiently and, in the long run,

315
at lower cost. The effect of that over many years has been that it has kicked up employment levels, because we took on more people than we should have employed by virtue of using people rather than machines to do the job. Suddenly it caught up with us. The long-term effect of that policy is that we are pricing ourselves out of world markets. It also makes us so inefficient that we cannot even sell in our own market in competition with foreign companies which have for many years made the investment that we have failed to make.
The third reason is also very familiar. It relates to one of our most successful institutions—the City. For a long time it has been more profitable for people to put their money into certain financial transactions in the City—not least in recent years in property—than it has been to put it into investment in industrial plant and equipment.
That is why we have had a low level of investment in industry. It is not because of lack of incentives that have been offered by both Labour and Conservative Governments to private industry. There has been no dissent on political philosophy in that respect. There has been argument about whether it is done better by investment allowances or by investment grants, but these are arguments on the margin. The incentives are there; it is simply that they have not been taken up.
What is the answer? We must get a higher level of investment and with it we must have a social strategy. However, we must also produce a labour force that is trained and educated, and retrained and re-educated for the needs of a highly automated economy. That is what we have failed to do. It is not the fault of school education. I notice that the hon. Member for Harwich went back on an old theme and said that we must change what happens in the schools, but we cannot do it by the age of 16. It is no good looking backwards at the 11 to 16 age group in education and saying that that is where the answer lies. It does not.
We must have a continuing education and training programme after the age of 16 in order to fit young people for the demands of modern industry. Along with industrial investment, we must have investment
316
in people. The two march hand in hand.
We must also look at the possibility of retraining and re-education throughout life. If we are to modernise our industry, it must be a continual process. This means that we must change the skills within the labour force if we are to remain efficient. That implies that we must look at the concept of paid educational leave as it is called internationally. I do not care whether it is called that or whether it is called paid training leave. It makes no difference. This is already on the statute book in France and has been so since 1971. It has been on the Swedish statute book since 1975. We have scarcely even begun to consider this. We have one research study on the subject.
We must look at the possibility of early retirement in order to take people off the labour market, particularly those who have reached an age at which they have no desire any longer to learn the skills to adapt to the requirements of changing industry. But at the moment we do not have—this is not a criticism of the present Government, because no western country has it—a strategy that draws together industrial investment policy, employment policy and social, educational and training policy. We do not have that strategy. Until we do, our problems will continue.
If we look at the youth unemployment problems we see, as the hon. Member for Harwich said, that there were 450,000 unemployed last July. Perhaps the figure will be even higher this July. Of course those numbers then rapidly decline, because that is the school leaver population.
Mr. Booth: The figure that my hon. Friend has quoted was not the school leaver population. It was only half the figure.
Mr. Fowler: Yes, indeed. I am sorry, the hon. Member for Harwich was referring to teenage unemployment, and the July figure includes a very high proportion of school leavers. For that reason, the figure then falls away rapidly. It still leaves a very substantial residue, however, and one of the things that worries me about the present youth opportunities programme—which I wholeheartedly support—is that it concentrates very heavily on the school leaver. I suspect that it

317
may make the problem of the 17- and 18year-old worse than it was under the old job creation and work experience programmes when they were separate, mainly because it is geared very heavily to the problems of the school leaver.
We are far from solving the problems of youth unemployment. There are some serious problems in the youth opportunities programme because it is partly composed of what we can only call palliatives. I go along with the notion that many young people cannot get jobs because they do not have the experience and skills, and, therefore, one must give them work experience. By giving them work experience alone without continued training, however, one is not giving them a basis on which they can not only hold down a first job but adapt to technological change and learn new skills at a later date.
I hope that we can begin to evolve the sort of strategy that I have described and that we will concentrate upon those early years after the statutory school leaving age. I hope that we shall seek for all young people work experience allied to continuing education and training so that they not only acquire the skills that they need in first employment but acquire the basis upon which they can cope with a rapidly changing society and rapidly changing industry. This is needed if the industrial strategy is to be successful and if we can get the level of investment required.
7.17 p.m.
Mr. David Penhaligon: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) made an interesting speech. To be honest, if we had 10 or 15 years, his strategy might solve our problems. Much of what he said we should do would solve the problem in a decade or so, but the problem is rather more immediate and pressing than that.
We have heard today every alternative policy suggested. Some hon. Members have called for more regional development, some for less. Some have called for more Government grants, income tax and general taxes on business, some for less. The possibilities of education and its difficulties have been raised. We have heard a call for a shorter working week and less overtime, and criticisms of our low-wage economy. We
318
have also heard the final philosophy of despair—the shutting out of imports—from the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden).
The only thing that we have not heard about is the policy of selling more products. I was amazed that in employment debates in this House we rarely hear anyone bring up the question of selling and marketing products and servicing them after they are sold.
It is my experience in industry—I worked in industry before I was elected to this House—that there is never a problem in persuading management to invest if there is a clear, obvious and virtually insatiable demand for one of the products that the company is manufacturing. When that occurs everything else slips into gear and people get on with the job.
All too often this country makes a really miserable attempt at marketing and selling many of the goods at our disposal. I do not know whether it is traditional British reserve or difficulties over languages. Only last week I was talking to a young man who runs a business employing 10 or 12 people, which is based on supplying spare parts for Triumph motor cars. Basically his business is to recondition gear boxes, back axles and engines. He told me that at a time when all these people are unemployed and British Leyland is in difficulties, he is totally unable—despite pleading, begging and offering cash—to get the necessary spare parts from the Triumph works to build his gear boxes, and so on.
If he cannot get them it means that other people cannot get them either. There is a good range of Triumph cars, but just imagine trying to market them in Germany, being faced with the prospect of a gear box or back axle going and being unable to get the spare parts. Just try to sell that German another Triumph car in five or six years' time. We cannot, and we do not deserve to do so.
The other great panacea that is often advanced is that of investment. No doubt long-term investment will solve our problems, but I have never thought that in the short term—say, in the next six to 12 months—it can make very much of a contribution to their solution. This country must settle down and recognise

319
that we must make the best of what we have got—and certainly that we must make more use of it than we are now doing.
Those in the media constantly harp on the effect of strikes. If people spent less time talking about strikes and more time dealing with the unbelievable number of restrictive practices and the lack of productivity in industry, I believe we could do something with what we have got. It is pathetic to visit an enterprise which has gone in for some investment and to be taken by management or unions to see brand-new machinery sitting unused in the corner of the firm. When one inquires one is told that it has been idle for 12, 15 or even 18 months because nobody has switched it on. It is hopeless to believe that anybody in his right mind would make investment in that kind of atmosphere.
We certainly must make more use of investment. I believe that Britain has a reasonable range of products to sell. One country's washing machines are no better or worse than those produced by another country. The same goes for cars and for a large number of standard products which have become part of civilisation today as we know it. I believe that on the broad front British products are competitive in sheer engineering content and capacity. But we must get out and sell them more effectively than we have done so far.
Many contributors to the debate mentioned Government investment and involvement in industry. I do not see why there is so much objection among many Opposition Members to such Government investment and involvement. Let me give an example. I am amused when I hear it said that the Employment Protection Act is making it difficult to sack people. Until a few months ago there were two mines in my constituency employing 700 people. However, those who owned the mines proceeded to close them in precisely 36 hours. There was no question of 90 days' notice. Therefore, to suggest that it is difficult to sack people in Britain is not a particularly saleable idea in my constituency.
As the local Member of Parliament concerned with the effects of mine closures, I approached the Government with considerable enthusiasm and dedication.
320
I do not believe that anything the Government are doing in this respect is wrong; indeed, their actions so far have been totally commendable. They have been looking for somebody to become involved in those mines and to continue to operate them. The company which the Government have interested in the mines has used its geologists to investigate the strata and to analyse exactly what tin they contain. The Government also have put in geologists to undertake the same operation. When both sets of geologists have finished the investigation, the two sides will meet and decide on the possibilities. If they come up with something that suggests that within a reasonable period of time the mines will become marginal or profitable the Government have clearly indicated their willingness to make a substantial contribution to their revival.
What is wrong with action of that type? I wish that the Tories in my constituency would be honest and state clearly the fact that they believe it to be wrong that such an exercise is being undertaken in those mines. I live in a county with 14 per cent. male unemployment, and mineral extraction is the just about only way out of our difficulties. Therefore, the kind of involvement which the Government have backed does nothing but good.
I believe that the Government should be prepared to run a laundering arrangement. They should examine companies, save some, discard others, and try to do something to put other companies back together. However, I believe that the Government should then get shot of those companies and take on other firms that find themselves in difficulties rather than continue like a broody hen to protect the original firms for the next 30 or 40 years.
We do not discuss our nation's total failure to become involved in the technologies of the present decade. We often hear the traditional arguments that our shipyards are failing and that many other industries are in enormous difficulty, but they have maintained their share of the world market fairly well. I am not saying that the situation is perfect, because we are in a competitive world and have to compete with all the other countries, but taking world trade as a whole, we have done fairly well on our traditional front.

321
However, where we have failed pathetically—we would have failed completely if it had not been for Mr. Sinclair, of St. Ives—is that we have not become involved in the technologies of the present decade, which is an electronic decade. This activity will provide massive new employment in the next 20 or 30 years. Some people talk as though we should ban some of the new technology; they argue that the new technology and electronics industries will lead to a reduction in the number employed. That may be the case, but that technology will come into this country whether we produce it for ourselves or import it from somewhere else. Therefore, we must get involved and at least obtain our fair share of the work in world markets.
We must not try to pretend that these technologies do not exist and push them away from our borders as though they represent some new science of which the United Kingdom cannot take advantage. Anyway, I doubt whether at the end of a couple of decades new technologies will result in a great reduction in labour. It is part of a world technological revolution, and this country must be part of it.
Having dealt with a new industry, I draw the Minister's attention to the prospects for the oldest industry of all, namely, agriculture. I am told that the productivity per man in agriculture in the United Kingdom is virtually the best in the world, and indeed that is very nearly the case, but if we analyse British agriculture in terms of the amount of production per acre it is anything but good.
I meet many farmers who farm 250 or 300 acres. In conversation with those farmers one finds out that the farms are run by father and son with subcontractors being brought in for a week or a fortnight to help with the harvest. Not many years ago those same farms were offering employment for 10 times as many people. I have no wish to return to that position, but I believe that one of the more unfortunate aspects of the common agriculture policy is that Britain is reducing its percentage of Europe's agricultural output. If that is the case, there is bound to be a reduction in the number of workers involved. It is suicidal that we do not recognise the fact that agriculture is in many ways a manufacturing industry. I do not see the difference
322
between growing turnips and manufacturing wheel nuts. I do not see why there should be such a great divide between the two activities.
My county council has recently added to the problem by deciding, in a county that revolves almost totally around milk production, not to have anything to do with the European scheme to increase milk consumption by giving it to the children. I hope that some of the county council members meet some of the farmers I talk to so that they can be told what the farmers think of that great vote of confidence in them.
Mr. John Evans: Is it a Tory council?
Mr. Penhaligon: It is not Tory, but in Cornwall it is difficult to tell the difference.
Regional development has not been a complete success. My part of the country is a regional development area and has been in that category for a long time. The unemployment figure in Cornwall this month is 10 per cent. Strangely enough, in Cornwall we regard a figure of 10 per cent. as a great improvement, but we are now in July, in the middle of the summer tourist season. Last Christmas the unemployment figure was 15 per cent., and I have no reason to doubt that it will rise to 15 per cent. again.
In addition, the wages in my county are 16 per cent. below the national average. I have always thought that the main justification for regional development programmes—indeed, the reason why I support them and believe that they should be stronger rather than weaker—is that the people in my part of the country and the people in the more remote parts of Scotland and Wales have as much right to share in the prosperity of this nation as have those who live in the south-east of the country and in Birmingham. That is why I support regional development policy. I do not believe that, overall, it necessarily helps the United Kingdom economy, but it is important because people in these areas have as much right to help as has anyone else.
The small firms employment subsidy has only just started and it is difficult to tell whether it will make an enormous contribution. I was extremely pleased when it was brought into operation and I

323
look forward to its making a useful contribution to increased job opportunity in Cornwall.
Most hon. Members regularly address sixth-form colleges. Perhaps I, as a Liberal Member, am asked to address such meetings more often than others because the schools like to invite one representative of each party and there are only 13 Liberal Members for them to choose from.
One of the topics regularly discussed at these meetings is the economy. We are told that these colleges contain the best brains and the most intelligent young people in the area. Certainly the questions are penetrating and demonstrate that, whatever some people may say, our education system is not a total failure. I always ask the young people how many of them wish to make something or farm something. The simple truth is that, at that level of potential academic attainment, no one wishes to become involved in making something. The basic reason is that our manufacturing sector, for reasons that have existed for many years, is not made socially attractive to enough people.
If we consider the composition of the House, we can see what people who think that they will become a great influence in the nation choose to do before becoming hon. Members. I am one of only eight chartered engineers in the House. There are a number of other hon. Members with an engineering industry background, but for a country which relies on that section of the economy for its survival it is a pathetic representation.
Unless this country makes engineering a more attractive industry to our better brains, all the grants, the tax rebates and the rest stand no chance of relieving the basic problem or of reducing the overall level of unemployment. In Germany, Japan and Korea, the best brains go into engineering. Unless we do the same, Britain will be left behind.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the House wishes the facts presented honestly. Unless we have speeches of less than 10 minutes, very few hon. Members will hear themselves on "Today in Parliament" this evening.
7.33 p.m.
Mr. Tom Litterick: I shall do my best to keep to that limit, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) emphasised time and again that, in his view, the reason for the persistence of large-scale unemployment had to do with the way society treats the people he called entrepreneurs. Other Tories call them creative people or some such description.
The debate is taking place against a background of all the highly developed industrial nations of the world, even the miracle economies, experiencing a sharp increase in unemployment during the last five years. We should notice that in Britain the process has been under way for a much longer period and that this is also the case for every other highly developed country except Germany and Japan. Since the mid-1950s, all the developed economies of the world, except Germany and Japan, have experienced unemployment which, at the top and the bottom of the trade cycle, has been higher than at the previous peak and trough.
We are now in the twenty-third or twenty-fourth year of what looks very much life a long-term contraction in the employment capabilities of the highly developed economies of the world, including, now, Germany and Japan because they are also experiencing the same problems. The only reason why they have entered this wretched drama later than others is that their history in the last 30 years has been so different. They had to rebuild their economies after a tremendous amount of destruction, and the act of rebuilding, in physical terms, their means of production gave them a longer boom than was enjoyed by the other participants in the Second World War. That helps to place the matter in perspective and suggests that there is far more to the explanation for unemployment than the simplistic reasons offered by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East.
The right hon. Member was careful to say at the beginning of his speech that he was attempting to adduce reasons for unemployment being higher in Britain than in all the other OECD countries except Canada, but his argument was very much a rerun of the Selsdon man show that we have heard so

325
often. It does not cut any ice with the British people.
Let me offer some specific examples. The right hon. Gentleman told us that all public expenditure is counter-productive. He said that, in net terms, public expenditure produces unemployment. He said that in more ways than one. I suggest that if the right hon. Member went to Birmingham and stood in the Bull Ring and tried to tell the people of Birmingham that the State's intervention in the affairs of British Leyland was counter-productive, the laughter would be heard all the way to Inverness.
The people of Birmingham know what the effect of State intervention—what the Tories regard as utterly reprehensible State subsidies—has been in their working lives. They know what private enterprise—the entrepreneurs that the right hon. Member talked about at such length—had done to British Leyland. They know the extent of the damage that was inflicted on the British Leyland organisation by the operation of the logic of capitalism.
It is no good Conservative Members shaking their heads and implying, I presume, that there was something peculiar about the way that British Governments behaved over the previous 20 years which damaged British Leyland but did not damage Ford and the other car companies. British Leyland had a peculiar history and, in the end, was obliged to pay out all its profits to shareholders in an attempt to convince the capital-raising market that it was a company worth putting money into. In the end, poor old Stokes had to confess and he accused British capitalism of placing a lower value on British Leyland than on one empty building in the middle of London. That is capitalists talking to one another about the way they behave towards one another. That was what happened in Birmingham, and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East would have one hell of a time trying to persuade the people of Birmingham that the present Government's set of State subsidies and this form of State intervention was counterproductive.
If the right hon. Member moved a few miles along the road to Solihull, he might find another reason for the British economy having performed so badly during the past 60 years. There is a factory in Solihull producing Land
326
Rovers. It is an extraordinary place, full of antique technology. It is virtually a museum, but it makes money because the people in that factory use what they have to produce a product which is unique. The Land Rover is a world-famous product which created an entirely new market for motor vehicles just after the Second World War. It has held its place because it is still a world-famous product which people admire. It is a high quality product, but it is made with technology that is laughable.
The factory is in the same state now as when Leyland, a private enterprise organisation, came to the end of its road. We are asking the workers to compete against the best in the world with the worst possible technology, and we accuse them if they do not do very well. As it happens, the Land Rover workers at Solihull do extremely well. It is a wonder to me how they manage that. I counsel Conservative Members to visit the Solihull factory and watch the workers in action. It is truly amazing.
It is unreasonable for us to ask British workers, using antique technology, to compete with workers elsewhere in the world who use the best technology. That is another partial explanation for there being greater unemployment in the British economy than in so many of the other developed economies.
It is easy to talk about the history that has led to that result. We have seen the decline of British industrial investment since the turn of the nineteenth century and twentieth century. Shortly before the First World War, in about 1912, our coal output was the highest that it has ever been. At that time our shipbuilding industry was the largest such industry in the world. My father and his brothers started their working lives in the industry, but not one of them finished his working life in it. They all lost their vocations. They were all dedicated shipyard workers.
The family firms that Opposition Members laud failed their own industries and failed in the simplest way possible. They did not invest in new technology. They refused to do so. The families became rich and powerful, but they did not invest sufficiently. Once they started to make their fortunes, they gutted industries of their vitality by failing to invest. They had their opportunities during the

327
First and Second World Wars and during the boom that followed the Second World War. They refused to take advantage of them. It was not taxation that stopped them. It was too easy for them to continue as before. Suddenly the competition of newly created shipbuilding industries hit them hard. They did not know what had hit them. British shipbuilding workers were rendered totally defenceless against the newly equipped shipbuilding industries in other parts of the world.
That is closer to the true reason for the British economy being so weak when compared with other economies. It is much closer to the truth that the explanation offered by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East.
I can think of a number of entrepreneurs who would not be influenced by the possibility of greater profit. That is because they already live with extremely large fortunes. They are not interested in money in terms of profit. The private sector is in receipt of grants or tax concessions totalling about £3,000 million. That is the sum that the taxpayers contribute every year. However, the sector still refuses to respond.
It seems that the only possible response of a responsible Government is directly to intervene in the economy. It is no good the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East saying that there is some hypothetical world that can be created if only the trend of events of the past 40 years is reversed and we leave everybody free of regulations so that everyone makes profits, becomes prosperous and brings about full employment. There is no historical evidence to show that that is ever likely to happen.
It was notable that the right hon. Gentleman did not choose to examine any of the other possible reasons for unemployment increasing so sharply in all the highly developed countries. It may be that the explanations—there are several—are embarrassing to his case. As we know, there are other highly developed economies that run their affairs differently from ours. They, too, have mass unemployment—for example, the United States. Some of them, too, have low growth rates, such as the United States. They have different tax laws and they have conservative Government, such
328
as Italy and France. There is nothing magical about a Tory Government that will produce full employment.
Another contribution to the differential level of unemployment in Britain might be inferred from the current statistics contained in the Department of Employment Gazette for June. The statistics are based on the length of the average working week in a number of British industries—for example, working weeks of 43 hours, 44·4, 43·5 and 43·3 hours. Also included are the current figures from Europe—for example, 41·8, 41·8, 40·9, 37·3 and 40·4 hours. In other words, the people and countries making up the Common Market work a shorter working week than workers in Great Britain but, as others have indicated, have proportionately fewer people working in their economic system. They also work a shorter working year.
The difference that might be made by a reduction in the British working week or year would not have the calamitous results that Opposition Members suggest, always assuming that we took the other action that is needed. The centre-piece should be a positive interventionist industrial strategy. I must tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I would wish to see compulsory planning agreements. The companies concerned should be held to the agreements. The agreements should be formulated jointly, not merely between State officials and high company officials but in conjunction with the workers employed in the companies.
Secondly, as my hon. Friends the Members for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) and for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) said, we must rethink entirely our ideas about industrial training, education and the link between the two. I emphasise the need to enforce a compulsory obligation on all employers to release young people from the age of 16 years to possibly 20 years for one day, two days, or block release. That should be enforced as an unavoidable responsibility.
Conservative Members will say that that would cost money. However, it costs us much more money not to take that approach. It is costing us a great deal in lack of skills within our labour force. That is a lack that even Conservative Members recognise, although it seems

329
that they have great difficulty in recognising where the solution lies.
We know that British employers are singularly unwilling to train their workers. As the logical response to their unwillingness to invest is for the public to intervene, I suggest that an equally logical response to the unwillingness to train is for the public to intervene to impose an obligation on all employers to provide systematic training for all young people up to the age of 20 years.
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin said about providing training that will enable workers to adapt. Another of the weaknesses in traditional technologies has been that workers have been too narrowly trained and committed to only one sort of technology. Subsequently they have been found to be functionally immobile and, later in life, much more difficult to train. We should get used to the idea that training must take place throughout a working life and not merely at the beginning.
I must apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for taking rather longer—
Mr. David Stoddart: Carry on.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) to encourage the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) to continue his speech simply because he feels like doing so. We have to show other hon. Members some consideration.
Mr. David Madel: Do not waste time.
Mr. Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that you chastised me in that way. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) was saying. It sounded good sense to me and I resented the remarks and barracking from the Opposition Benches. We are entitled to hear a good speech and to hear it through.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Selly Oak was not present when I made my two appeals for brevity because of the number of hon. Members who are anxious to take part in the
330
debate. It is the duty of the Chair to protect the interests of hon. Members. That is what I propose to do.
Mr. Litterick: We have all been struck by the way in which unemployment has hit young people. We should be frightened by the latent possibilities in that situation. If we are not prepared to act as a responsible State in an interventionist manner, inevitably we shall consign the coming generation of young people to the politics of despair. There is already evidence of that in the back streets of our large cities. I am sure that everybody knows what I mean by "politics of despair" and the politics of desperation when people seek violent solutions to obvious problems. If we do not intervene, we shall condemn the rising generation to those politics and we shall condemn ourselves.
7.52 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Henderson: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) ended his speech on a sombre note. It is prudent for us to pay attention to it. In the OECD countries youth unemployment is at a level of about 40 per cent. The Secretary of State today provided me with figures which showed that 592,000 young people will be leaving school this summer and will be available for employment.
In Italy, where the level of youth unemployment is about 60 per cent., there have been ugly and evil manifestations of the frustration that that situation is causing. We should not under estimate the inherent possibilities of the level of unemployment here if we do not find a way to tackle the problem.
The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) truthfully said that there are no easy answers to the problem. I should not have believed that when I first read the Opposition's motion arid the Government's amendment. If anything can be said about the two opening speeches, it is that they were more salvoes in an election campaign than speeches directed to the problem.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), in a somewhat Messianic and apocalyptic speech, said that if only the private sector could be set free everything would be all right. I

331
suspect the words in the Opposition's motion which read:
"instead of relying on measures which take no account of the root cause of the problem."
It has not been made clear whether that means that the Conservatives would discontinue temporary employment subsidies, the small firms employment subsidies, the job release scheme and other measures. I suspect that if they did that we would be in a serious situation and that the Conservatives would be forced to resort to similar measures. I do not believe that Leeds is the place where divine inspiration often strikes, but I shall delay my judgment.
The Government's amendment is equally complacent. It refers to supplementing
"the Industrial Strategy which is a necessary base for the regeneration of British industry and the achievement of full and stable employment in the long term."
I do not believe, and I do not think that the Secretary of State believes, that that proposition can be sustained. The Secretary of State admitted that the industrial strategy in the manufacturing sector will not solve the unemployment problem in the long term. I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends that we can support neither the Conservative Party's motion nor the Government's amendment. They are playing with words and politics.
The Secretary of State will not be surprised if I turn to discuss the Scottish problem. We have heard nothing about that today, and I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), who has attended the debate faithfully will catch the Chair's eye later. The Secretary of State will recognise that Scotland is vulnerable. The unemployment level of 187,000, were there any other complexion of Government, would have led to riots in Scotland's streets and to a large attendance in the House.
This week we have seen how further blows can be struck at the Scottish economy, incidentally and innocently. Yesterday the Government announced the conservation measures required to protect the long-term interests of the fishing industry. I support the Government fully in that, as does everyone in the industry. But the Secretary of State will understand the consequential problems
332
that those measures create for the industry and for the processing factories, where many thousands are employed. Several factories in my constituency are open today only because of the temporary employment subsidy. I pay tribute to the way in which officials and Ministers in the Department handled the applications.
What special measures can be considered for that industry, which is a victim of the Common Market policies? The industry is unique. We shall have a major problem until the common fisheries policy is renegotiated. I hope that the Government will be able to make an announcement soon about measures to secure the employment of people in the processing industry, who will now face a shortage of fish as a result of the establishment of conservation zones.
We are disappointed that Scottish industry has not had a larger share of the oil-related developments. An article in The Scotsman on Monday showed that the Norwegian Government have raised the Norwegian content of oil-related developments from 15 per cent. in the Ekofisk field to 20 per cent. in the Frigg gas field, and in the latest field, the Statfjord development, Norwegian domestic content is 60 per cent. We have challenged the Government about the Scottish content in the developments off our shores. We have not been given satisfactory answers. The Government have simply told us what is the British share. But that is not good enough for Scotland. We want to know the Scottish content.
Scotland has suffered a terrible blow through the Singer catastrophe. This company once employed 21,000 people and was the largest employer in Scotland. Now it has a labour force of 4,500, and it is to shrink further to 2,500 in the next two or three years. The reason which has been advanced is that of technological development.
The Government should be using oil revenues to create an oil development fund which is separate from anything else. If that fund were available to Scotland—and we have suggested that it should contain £250 million—the Government could go to the Singer management in the United States and say "You have technological developments coming in the

333
next three to five years and we are prepared to do a deal with you to ensure that these developments come to Scotland." Scotland is vulnerable because so much of its industry is controlled by people outwith its borders who can take decisions without paying attention to the social consequences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has been greatly troubled by the decisions by National Cash Register in Dundee. Only a few years ago it employed 7,000 people. It was one of the great post-war achievements, one of the tributes to the work done to attract overseas industry. The number of people employed there now is just about 1,000, and the fall is due to technological change. Scotland is extremely vulnerable in this respect.
We are disappointed that the Scottish Development Agency has not played a much more significant role in the Scottish economy. It has invested only about £25 million in industrial development, which is about one-third of the amount which the Scottish economy has lost by the withdrawal of REP. I have never yet had a satisfactory answer from the Government of why they withdrew REP, which was one of the few effective attractions to industry in terms of a labour subsidy as opposed to a capital subsidy. In dealing with unemployment, REP has a great deal more to commend it than some of the grants given for large capital-intensive projects which employ only a few people.
One Labour Member cited the example of a company which planned to spend £100 million on a chemical development which would provide very few new jobs. He failed to add that that development would have attracted Government grant at the rate of between 20 and 22 per cent. if it was located in a special development area. By such a scheme, the taxpayer would have been paying an enormous sum for a relatively small number of jobs. I hope that the Secretary of State recognises the need for the Government to reconsider the question of development grants and incentives and to look instead to labour-related grants instead of those promoting capital developments.
Most of the investment incentives and most of the Government's emphasis are
334
far too heavily weighted in favour of the manufacturing sector, with insufficient attention being given to the important service sector. The one scheme that seems to be working in the service industry is the service industry grants scheme, which in Scotland produced 71 jobs in 1974, 159 jobs in 1975, 343 jobs in 1976 and 15 jobs in 1977. I do not believe that the Government are taking effective steps to encourage further employment in the service sector, which, I believe, has the greatest potential for growth.
Employment in manufacturing is now less than employment in service industries in almost all industrial countries. That is certainly true of the United States, Sweden, France, Denmark, Norway, Holland and Belgium. In the United Kingdom, the proportion employed in manufacturing is now down to 30 per cent.
Mr. Hamish Watt: Does not my hon. Friend agree that in constituencies such as his and mine there is a delicate balance between manufacturing and service industries? In shipyards, for example, if more than 50 per cent. of the work consists of ship repairing no grants are available. If more than 50 per cent. of the work consists of shipbuilding, the company is eligible for grants.
Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend makes his point very well. The distinction between service and manufacturing is quite bogus in the modern world. It echoes back to the incredible taxation policy of the 1966–70 Labour Government. The selective employment tax was introduced as an attempt to convince people that service industry was somehow a disagreeable and nasty industry while manufacturing industry was a good, clean and wholesome activity.
We must move away from that hangover. The great projects of the future will not employ thousands of men in big factories in the manufacture of goods as they did in the past. The rate of mechanisation and technological change is such that the numbers employed in manufacturing in industrial societies over the long term are bound to fall.
The Government's whole strategy will fail totally unless they take much greater account of the service sector and end this

335
artificial distinction between manufacturing and service for the purposes of awarding Government grants and inducements and providing Government facilities. I should like to feel that the Secretary of State has given that matter some consideration and that he will tell us the Government's thinking.
My hon. Friends and I can see no virtue or benefit in voting for the Government or for the Opposition tonight. Neither of them have ever solved Scotland's problems. Only the Scottish people will do that.
8.5 p.m.
Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: In the interests of brevity as requested by Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not take up points made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), and I do not propose to give way to other hon. Members. I hope to make the briefest speech of the evening.
For two to three years now, unemployment in this country has been at an unacceptably high level. At some 1·5 million unemployed, it is far too high in its own right, and it is higher than unemployment in all of our main industrial competitors. Unfortunately, there is no sign of its falling substantially in the foreseeable future, and if this Government, or an incoming Tory Government, mean to do something positive in this respect, radical changes will have to be made.
One area that my party believes will help is changes in the whole sphere of taxation and incentives, but it is not this area that I wish to discuss tonight, since that aspect has been mentioned already, in this and other debates, by many of my hon. Friends.
The cure for unemployment cannot come from Government services, the nationalised industries, or large public companies. Many people would argue that there is already overmanning in these sectors if they are to become really competitive, but let us not worry too much about that tonight in the present state of unemployment. The only remaining area that can cure unemployment is that of the small business, which accounts for just under one-third of our gross national product. If every small business in the country took on just one
336
more person each we would have no serious unemployment situation. Why do they not do that? A survey has just been completed of over 800 small businesses to find why they will not expand. As we suspected, the answer lies in Government legislation. These companies were asked which Acts discouraged them most from taking on more people. Top of the tree at 80 per cent. was—hon. Members can guess it—the Employment Protection Act.
How often do Governments of all political parties pass legislation that has the opposite effect to that desired? Perhaps we should remember Newton's third law of motion, which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The survey went on to ask which parts of the Act were causing the most trouble. At the top of the tree came sections 70 to 80, which cover dismissal procedures, industrial tribunals and compensation payments. Now here comes the rub. If this genuinely humanitarianly motivated Act is causing unemployment, what are we to do about it?
I say to all hon. Members that if this point is now proved beyond all reasonable doubt we must do something. I suggest that, while leaving the Act as it stands, we should start making exemptions from parts of it for small businesses if they will take on more people. Before Labour Members start talking about going back to the bad old days, with people being summarily dismissed and chucked on to the unemployment heap in an inhuman way, let me say this. Would a person prefer to be 100 per cent. unemployed with no hope of a job, or be taken on by a firm that says "We want to expand and will take you on. We expect to take on more people, but there is the risk that, for reasons beyond our control, we may not be able to give a guarantee of permanent employment."
Again, before Labour Members start objecting, I say also that the exemptions from sections of the Act could be applied only to the extra people taken on from the exemption date, and that the exemptions would be applied only to firms employing below a certain number of people or with a turnover below a certain level, and that when a firm broke through either of these barriers the Act would apply in total.

337
If the Government are genuine in their desire to cure the curse of unemployment, here is one constructive suggestion that is worth serious consideration and speedy action. I hope that the Under-Secretary, in his reply, will agree to examine the idea in detail on behalf of those who go to bed tonight knowing that they will remain unemployed tomorrow.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: I will keep within the limits of time which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have laid down as appropriate.
Those who criticise the Employment Protection Act, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) did, are arguing from a weak standpoint. In an exchange earlier tonight, it was agreed that European labour and social legislation was of a higher standard than that in Britain. Yet the Tories conclude that the Act influences employers to take on fewer workers—in other words, that it creates major problems for employment. I doubt whether that is so. If it were, why would higher standards in European countries not have the same effect? The critics cannot have it both ways.
I am sure that the Secretary of State is fully aware how the Act has operated. Had employers behaved reasonably in this area over the years, there would probably have been no need for an Employment Protection Act, but in the small firms there is usually more exploitation and conditions are worse and wages lower than in larger industries. If the small employer says that he cannot meet these requirements, that argues against our going back to a system that encourages small businesses. Anyone who thinks that people will work in those inferior conditions is sadly mistaken. The Act was desperately needed, it is a good Act, and all those who want good conditions even in small industries should respond to it.
I want to deal with regional unemployment, which I accept cannot be seen in isolation. Some constructive arguments about causes and cures have been put forward from the Government Benches. We cannot wait another decade for some response, whether by more job creation or by its opposite, an acceptance that production and wealth creation are no longer the problem. The problem for the whole of the western world is now the
338
distribution of that wealth. That is the blocking mechanism that the Tory Party uses against progress. The naked truth is still that the motivation of this economy and therefore of individual capitalists is the maximisation of profit. If profit does not materialise, the blocking mechanism can slow down the economy in all sorts of ways.
We went through a period when there was positive evidence of a strike of capital. It did not reach the headlines of the press, as it would have done if it were news of a strike by miners, dockers or steel workers, but it existed. The consequences have been spelt out clearly by my hon. Friends.
Lack of investment has resulted in the retention of antiquated technology and methods. Many industries in my area date from the turn of the century. En Merseyside shipyards there are still machines that were installed in 1910 or 1912. That is the sort of equipment that British ship workers and ship repair workers are asked to use in competition with Japan and other major shipbuilding countries.
These examples spell out the lesson—that it is not just a question of investment in industry. Western Shiprepairers Ltd. has been forced to close because it followed the line described by my hon. Friends. Because of lack of investment, over a year, despite Government intervention from time to time, the whole thing has gone down the drain, with all the skills involved. On the other hand, the telecommunications industry is not declining, but investment there—to develop, for example, System X—will reduce jobs further on Merseyside.
That is the massive contradiction in the causes of unemployment. Investment, of itself, will not secure the employment levels that we want. There has to be an entirely different approach to the modern economy, so that people no longer have to work as they have ever since the first Industrial Revolution.
What can the Government do? Those who talk of reducing the working week, the working year and the working life are starting a process which will eventually achieve some balance in our efforts for production in a highly technical economy, while at the same time keeping down unemployment. No Government

339
can find the solutions in the direction that we are now taking. Unemployment on Merseyside remains unacceptably high. With the best will in the world, that will not be overcome by regional development agencies, more grants or any of the other Government instruments of the past. Nor will it be done by job creation.
When I left school in the 1930s, I went immediately to a dole queue. I see nothing different in the process today of retaining people in jobs by job creation, and so on. That merely removes them from the list of the unemployed. There is a benefit, but it is purely therapeutic. Unless people are trained for jobs that are being created, the problem will remain. At the end of the road, people who have worked for 12 months will be thrown back on the dole. Nothing is more demoralising than returning to the dole after being trained for a job that does not exist.
We must take a different approach. The tragedy of this debate is that it is largely academic. At the end of the day, nothing will change in employment policy. The Government should now turn their minds towards the long-term problem—that it is no longer necessary for people to work at the rate or for the hours that they did in the past. That means changing our attitude to work, recreation, leisure and education, and the creation of a better world for people to live in. We cannot plan that sort of system in the present situation. We cannot plan what we do not own and what we do not control.
8.20 p.m.
Mr. Timothy Raison: A number of points made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) have struck a sympathetic note on the Opposition side of the House. I believe that in the fullness of time we shall need, and happily accept, shorter working hours and all that goes with them. I believe that this will come through bargaining, through natural pressures and through all kinds of changes of that sort rather than as a result of a planned programme. I believe that that is what we shall see at the end of the century.
I disagree with the statement of the hon. Member for Garston that wealth production is no longer a problem. In using that phrase, he highlighted what
340
has been the fundamental issue throughout this interesting debate. The debate has thrown up points of controversy even though on many matters—such as the question of the incredibly damaging effect on people's morale of being unemployed—there has been widespread agreement.
The issue is whether we believe that the problem today is fundamentally to do with a lack of jobs or a lack of wealth. I firmly believe that our fundamental problem is a lack of wealth. The Government's view tends to be the other way. What Government policy has done over the past year or two has been very much to emphasise job preservation and creation. We have seen this done through a variety of job creation programmes produced by the Manpower Services Commission and in other ways.
We have seen this policy carried out by industrial strategies which, quite frankly, have had the task of propping up jobs. In many cases such strategies have not been contributing to a more effective use of industry. They have been contributing to keeping people in work. To a great extent Government policy has been directed towards keeping the unemployment figures down. In itself, that is not a criminal thing to do. It is perfectly understandable.
I admit that some of the job creation programmes have been effective in producing short-term instant jobs. We have to question the value of some of these short-term jobs. Nevertheless, I do not blame the Government for embarking upon this policy. Beneath all this lies a considerable worry, which is whether we are not failing to recognise that our true problem is not fundamentally a lack of jobs but a lack of the wealth with which, among other things, we would be able to pay for jobs in the service sector. I do not mind whether it is in the public or in the private sector.
There are endless things that we could be doing in our society. We have only to go through the streets of this city, of Liverpool or of my own constituency to see on every side all sorts of things that could be done better. Many of these things are in the public sector. That does not seem to be something about which we should become hung up. There are many other things that people would like to do in the service realm in the

341
private sector, but they do not have the money.
The essential point which must come out of this debate is a commitment to industrial efficiency and competitiveness. If we follow the present path we shall reinforce our already chronic competitive weakness. I shall not produce a lot of evidence about our productivity weakness. There was, as others have pointed out, a very good debate in the other place yesterday on the subject of productivity. The evidence put forward there by the Lord Privy Seal as well as by Conservative speakers, and the evidence put forward in a good article by the Chief Secretary in The Sunday Times on 25th June, shows incontrovertibly that as a country we suffer from poor productivity. I know that that is a trite saying, but it is something that we can never afford to leave out of our debates.
I shall not try to embarrass the Government by quoting exactly what has happened over the past four years except to say that the Government's own figures show that the productivity record of this period of Government has been much worse than that of any post-war Government.
Mr. Spriggs rose—
Mr. Raison: I am sorry, I cannot give way.
There is a temptation to ask why we are getting so steamed up about productivity. It is said that if we raise productivity we shall, in the process, raise unemployment. It may be that that was the point which the hon. Member for Garston had in mind. We have heard a Scottish National Party Member saying this evening that he believes that the right policy in Scotland is to go for subsidising labour-intensive jobs rather than subsidising the highly efficient industry which, apparently, money is meant to be supporting.
I detect a tendency to blame world demand for our troubles. Everyone knows that we are in a recession of sorts and that it would be nice to get out of it but that the signs are not terribly good that we shall get out of it. Before we start blaming the world situation, the Germans or anyone else, we have to ask whether we are confident that we are getting our share of the existing market. The
342
fact is that a great deal of unemployment is caused because of all of those Japanese motor cars, those television tubes, motor cycles and shoes which are constantly being referred to. We have lost all those markets through our own fault. I shall not try to allocate blame, but we have lost markets which we never should have lost. The true immediate answer to our problems is to become more efficient and regain those markets.
What should we be doing? I cannot go into this at length. We have to emphasise policies which would help to create wealth. That means incentives. We have got into an awful tangle about our wage structure. First of all, there is no doubt that we have made it just as easy for many people to be unemployed as to be at work. That is nonsense. Secondly, there are inadequate differentials between those who are at work. Labour Members say that they want a high-wage economy. That is rather paradoxical because they have been lamenting the enormous advantage which countries such as Korea have because they have a low-wage economy. That is an aside.
Labour Members say that there should be a high-wage economy. That would be very nice. What we have to say is that we must have an appropriate wage economy. That means that for highly skilled jobs, jobs which contribute greatly to our economy, high wages are appropriate. But we cannot hope to have high wages for jobs which do not contribute a great deal to our economy.
It is better to have rather moderate wages and to keep people in work than to drive them out of work by having excessively high wages. We must have some kind of hierarchy with high wages for those creating a lot of wealth, medium wages for those doing the routine jobs, and a bit below that, but at a humane level, enough money paid to those who are not working at all.
We have to look at the nature of our economy and in particular at the whole question of the unofficial economy which is growing up today. I was glad to see in The Daily Telegraph of 28th June a headline in the business section saying:
"Treasury to examine cash economy".
We all know that something very odd is going on in our economy, and it may

343
be that the unemployment figures are misleading in this sense. It may be that a lot of people are working happily and profitably and without too much interference by the tax authorities. They do not appear in the statistics. I was impressed over the weekend to see in my constituency at one of the several gipsy sites that we have in Buckinghamshire a nice Rolls-Royce—not an old one, but one of those rather smart new models. I have a suspicion that that was an indication that there is something called a cash economy which perhaps officialdom does not know much about.
We must get to grips with this matter, because I believe that many people who are working very hard in ordinary, conventional PAYE-type employment are beginning to be very resentful of what is going on in these other areas. Up to now, the Government, social scientists and so on have rather pooh-poohed it and have said that there is a great deal of "phoney" argument. But I do not think that one can go on dismissing it. It is time that the Government and the academic world addressed themselves to it and we tried to deal with it.
This brings me to my last point, that the only way to get out of the present position is by a commitment to work harder. There is a tendency—one hears it in debates here—for people from the depressed areas to say, understandably, "Give us jobs, bring us jobs." If only we could hear them saying "We in our part of the country are determined to create the jobs which will put us on the right footing once again". It is not impossible. It happens in many parts of the world, and it is something we desperately need here.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), I inform him that during his absence from the Chamber I made two appeals for brevity because of the large number of hon. Members who have been sitting here the whole afternoon anxious to take part in the debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respect that appeal.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Because of other parliamentary business, Mr.
344
Deputy Speaker, I was called away from the debate, but I shall take your advice and make only a brief intervention in the debate.
I was prompted to take part when I heard the official Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) speaking about unemployment and making an anaemic speech to an anaemic motion. The motion talks about "the root cause" of the problem of unemployment, but the right hon. Gentleman was speaking about the national climate in Britain as if it were the cause of the problem, without realising that the western world is going through special difficulties, that we have a problem of unemployment resulting not from a quantitative change but from a qualitative one.
I believe that the world is going through another industrial revolution. We are beginning to realise the implications of the development of automation on job prospects. But from the Opposition Benches we heard the plea that we must allow market forces to solve the problem. We were told that we should have fewer employment controls and that there should be across-the-board income tax cuts and a study of the working of the Employment Protection Act, as if that would provide the solution to our serious unemployment problem.
We must agree that we can no longer allow market forces to seek to solve the problem of unemployment. There is something fundamentally wrong with the economic system under which we live when we have bad housing and unemployed building workers; when we have waiting lists for hospitals and unemployed nurses; when we have overcrowded classes in schools and unemployed teachers.
The cry from the Conservatives is "Let's have cuts in public spending." What will a cut in public expenditure on health do to get nurses back into employment? What will a cut in public expenditure on education do to get teachers back into employment? If there is a cut-back in public spending on civil engineering, what will that do to get building workers back into employment?
Cutting public expenditure is no answer to the problem. Indeed, there

345
will have to be an increase in it, certainly in the public services, to meet the problem.
Since taking office, this Government have introduced a series of special job-saving measures, culminating in the youth opportunities programme, which will come into full effect at the end of the year. The Government have put forward a catalogue of schemes: the temporary employment subsidy; the job creation scheme, with its subsidy for school leavers; the work experience programme; the youth employment subsidy; the job relief scheme; the small firm subsidy; the job introduction scheme for disabled people; and the expanded community industry scheme—all involving public expenditure. Which of those schemes would the Conservatives cut? There is no answer from them. The Government have put forward those schemes, but the only cry from the Conservatives is "Let's cut back on public expenditure." That parrot cry will not answer the problem.
I want particularly to refer to the youth opportunities programme, which will come into full effect at the end of the year. It will provide 234,000 jobs for the 16-year-olds to 18-year-olds, with an opportunity for training and work experience, together with jobs for 8,000 unemployed adults.
The special temporary employment programme will provide 25,000 more temporary jobs in a full year. I believe that that will go a long way towards breaking the present vicious circle, which yearly traps many thousands of young people leaving school. They cannot obtain a job because they do not have the basic skills and cannot acquire those skills unless they get a job.
My appeal today is to the unions and the employers to give absolute backing to the Government's scheme. I hope that I carry the whole House with me in that appeal. I hope that we shall not get demands for cutting public expenditure on youth employment opportunities.
There are more fundamental reasons why we must try to tackle the long-term problem of unemployment, but we have to ensure that the young people leaving school have the opportunity of employment, and I believe that the youth opportunity scheme could go a long way towards achieving that objective.
346
The Conservative Party talks as though unemployment were due to the machinations of the Government, yet we know that the levels of unemployment in the United States, Canada and many other countries are far higher than here. The sorts of solution offered by the Conservative Party have been applied, for example, in the United States, but they have not solved the unemployment problem. One recalls the situation in the United States in the 1930s, when Wall Street collapsed and the whole economic system got into a critical state. It was President Franklin D. Roosevelt, with his New Deal, who got the economy going again with public expenditure scheme.
I hope that the Government will resist the blandishments of the Conservative Party to make the monetarist answer to our problems. The Government must continue to support the schemes that they have already initiated and develop them to provide employment for those out of work. They have to consider, with the trade union movement, the schemes that the trade unions are bringing forward, pointing out that if we are to move forward into a new industrial revolution, in which we will need fewer people in productive industry, we must move in a Socialist way to share the work available, and that there will be more leisure time, a shorter working week, and so on. For example, we shall have to consider giving teachers and others sabbatical years in which to enjoy their lives.
The Government are working in a constructive way. Although we all deplore the present level of unemployment, no answer to the problem has come from the Conservative Party. No one in his senses believes that a Tory Government would tackle the problem of unemployment better than a Labour Government can do. I do not think that anyone believes such nonsense. In this debate the Tories have had the opportunity to put forward their proposals, but they have offered no real solution. Instead, there has been the constant repetition of old dogma—the dogma that if we leave it all to market forces everything will be all right.
There is need for greater study of the problem. The Government are doing as much as they can, but I hope that they will be able to do more. We must get

347
back to full employment. The Government must carry the trade union movement with them. We must get greater productivity. We must see that the wealth created by the working people is shared by all the people, and that we do not return to a laissez-faire system, where market forces are allowed to operate, because when such forces are left to themselves they lead to the situation which brought about the collapse of Wall Street in the 1930s. That situation would return again to the western world if the monetarists were allowed to hold sway.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, perhaps I may say that I am sure all Members of the House would wish to be fair to each other. There are still a number of speakers desiring to be called. I think that five minutes each should be about sufficient, otherwise some will be disappointed.
8.41 p.m.
Mr. David Madel: This is a timely debate in view of the continuing recession we have and the high level of unemployment, but there are three headlines in the labour news section of today's edition of the Financial Times which encapsulate the sort of difficulties with which the Government and the country are grappling. The first headline says:
"Unions push harder for 35-hour week".
The story says:
"Like the GMWU, the Tansport and General Workers' Union has decided to pursue its similar 35-hour week claim after a pay settlement has been reached for 45,000 process workers in ICI."
It does not go on to say how we would move into this 35-hour week, and all the problems that it would entail. But it is pressure from the unions with which the Government have to grapple.
The second headline says:
"Coventry and Linwood disputes halt Chrysler car assembly".
The story goes on to say that industrial disputes brought all Chrysler UK car assembly to a halt last night.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) underline the serious situation that industry in this country is
348
facing through loss of export markets due to difficulties in production. It is a most serious situation with Chrysler. The Government say that they are almost at the end of the road in the amount of money which they are able to give to the company. I appealed 18 months ago to the Government to have ACAS set up a special unit constantly looking into, and trying to sort out, industrial troubles in the car industry. If Chrysler is not enough, we have the difficulties in British Leyland. But that problem with Chrysler is the second one to which the Financial Times refers, and it is a huge problem for the Government today.
The third headline in the newspaper says:
"Alfred Herbert to sack 700".
The story goes on to say:
"Herbert is the most notable victim of weak demand for machine tools…Export markets are particularly difficult because of the prolonged international recession and emergence of new competition from third world countries."
Thus, there are three great problems—hours of work, industrial disputes, and foreign competition. Indeed, in this debate the comments that have been made on productivity came out in debate in another place yesterday, when, as reported at column 633 of Hansard my noble Friend Lord Carr pointed out that in 20 years there has been a complete change-around in productivity. Twenty years ago we were 15 per cent. better than France and Germany. Twenty years on—that is, now—their productivity is 30 per cent. higher than ours. That is a disastrous turnaround, and something which we simply must change.
I turn now to the problem of the 35-hour week. What we must do, as was said yesterday, is to make our machines work longer and give our people less work to do. That presents two colossal challenges. First, it presents a challenge to the people who maintain the machines who will need altered hours of work, with all that that entails. Secondly, it will result in a big change in leisure facilities, in the work done by local authorities, a change in local transport use and a change in shop hours, to name but four matters.
This is something that cannot be undertaken lightly. The slogan "A 35-hour week and greater use of machines"

349
carries practical difficulties with it. It will need a long period of national adjustment if we are to do this properly. But I think that it is coming. What I hope is that we think it through on a national basis, particularly with regard to the effect that it will have at local level with the demand for more leisure facilities, different hours for people to drive buses to take people to work, and different shop opening hours.
I turn briefly to deal with two aspects of employment that I find particularly worrying in the present situation. The first is the future of skillcentres. Earlier today the Minister admitted that there was a shortage of instructors. He said that there would be a local publicity campaign. But time is very short, because by September 1978 the youth opportunities programme should be fully off the ground. I am really worried whether we shall find sufficient instructors for skill-centres. Some of the skillcentres that have been going for 30 years are not sited in the best positions. We have got to consider providing the courses that they provide on employers' premises and in other education establishments.
I make one comment regarding trade union attitudes towards people coming out of skillcentres. There is evidence that when a man has been on a skillcentre course he is not regarded by certain unions as skilled to begin with, but has to become a semi-skilled worker for a time, because the unions do not accept that a skillcentre course is the same as an apprenticeship. That attitude, in view of the investment that the Government are putting into skillcentres, is something that simply must be changed very quickly. It is serious, it is worrying and it must be overcome.
The second great change and difficulty in employment is the huge increase in the number of women who are now seeking work. Indeed, after remaining constant, as Management Today of June 1978 says in a survey by the Institute of Manpower Studies at Brighton:
"the proportion of married women going out to work has risen from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent."
What is more, as the survey shows, there is every sign that those women, if they do not get a job and remain unemployed, will remain on the labour market. The increase in the number of women going
350
out to work is a very big sea change in this country. What jobs shall we find for them? I hope that we shall be able to find more in engineering, and jobs as instructors and teachers. But most certainly the problem will not go away as it did 15 to 20 years ago, when there was a downturn in employment and when women tended to fade away from the labour market and not bother to continue to apply for jobs. Clean contrary is the case right now. Women remain on the employment registers, and we have to grapple with the problem of finding jobs.
I have two final points to make. The first concerns the shortage of mathematics and science teachers in schools. The Government admit that people teaching maths and science in schools include a number who are inadequately qualified and a number who have never been qualified at all in these subjects. They say that by the end of this year they will let us know the latest figures.
That is desperately serious, because many of the bottlenecks of skills and all the difficulties of getting into apprenticeship courses go back to the lack of good teaching in maths and science in schools. That must be put right by increasing the number of people who are properly trained for teaching maths and science in schools. The Government admit this problem, but they do not even know the figures. They must find out quickly if we are to grapple with the problem of skills.
Finally, I accept that there is room for increased employment in service industries, and particularly in the National Health Service—but it is not an increase in unskilled jobs. The NHS is short of jobs for skilled people, which will mean more training, and improved standards in schools, and so on.
Before we embark upon an expansion of employment in the NHS and the service industries, we must get business going. We must have an expansion of wealth, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said. We must not put the cart before the horse. The horse is to make private enterprise and business grow and provide more jobs. The cart is to do the expansion in the NHS and in the service industries. If we get that around the wrong way, this country will not get economic growth and an increase in the standard of living.
8.47 p.m.
Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) on packing so much into such a short space of time.
I shall be brief. I wish to address my remarks, first, to the question of employment for young people and, secondly, to employment in the coal mining industry.
The starting point for any discussion on this subject must be the creation of wealth—my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) referred to that—and a reduction in direct taxation, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) referred.
This is not a panacea; it is a precondition for the creation of the wealth that we want to see. That is all that it is. Some Opposition Members recognise that even if we achieve that we shall still be faced with an imbalance of jobs as compared with the size of the labour force.
A number of proposals have been made to deal with this problem. We have heard most of them during the debate. We have heard about reductions in overtime, in the working week, in the retirement age, and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) and I believe that perhaps the best way in which we can achieve this balance between job opportunities, on the one hand, and the size of the labour force, on the other, would be to encourage young people to take a different view about the start of their working life, and to follow the suggestion of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler)—that apprenticeships should start at the age of, perhaps, 18, rather than 16, and that we should see most young people adopting a new attitude towards the first couple of years after school, in that they would not wish to rush straight into a job but rather to go into some kind of training scheme.
While we may well welcome the youth opportunities programme, we feel that it has been put forward in a rather piecemeal way and that what we want is a different and rather more comprehensive approach to the whole matter. We want to see a really comprehensive programme, which would involve eventually the removal of well over 1 million people from the pool of potential employees.
352
There are all sorts of advantages to giving this programme a training bias. That is the most important thing. In the debate we have heard a lot about the importance of training. I shall not go into that matter, but that is the bias that it should be given.
The sort of universal training opportunities scheme that we have in mind would have a number of advantages. First, I think that it would give new hope to the middle-aged. One of the most depressing things at an advice bureau is to see people of 40, 45, 50 and 55 coming in and saying that they are unable to get a job. Obviously, one cannot tell people this, but they are almost unemployable at the present time. We see this scheme as a way of overcoming that.
Secondly, with a high degree of training, there would be a better equipped and more highly motivated work force. I think that is obvious.
Thirdly, we think that it would help young people to find out a bit more about what they want to do. I can remember people who went to university because they saw it as a good way of deferring for three years their decision on what to do. There must be others who would not be qualified to go to university or higher education but who would benefit from a period of trainng, and perhaus some experience of different industries, and commerce as well, to help them to decide exactly what they want to do in life.
Finally, I think that such a scheme would encourage people to adopt a different attitude to training. They might well be encouraged to take up further training at later stages in their life.
I am left with only about a minute in which to say something about employment in the coal mining industry. One recent suggestion is that profitable coal mines should be denationalised. This suggestion was touched upon yesterday by Joe Gormley, president of the National Union of Mineworkers, at the NUM conference. I assume that the object of the suggestion is, first, to shift ownership from the public to the private sector and, secondly, to weaken the NUM by dividing up the coal industry.

353
I think that the author of the suggestion is badly informed. First, individual pits are not quite like individual engineering companies. I do not think that they could be sold off in quite the way that has been suggested. Their profits and losses tend to fluctuate rather wildly, and it is difficult to make sensible forecasts about future developments.
Secondly, and rather more importantly, the NUM has already changed character over the last year as a consequence of the introduction of local productivity schemes. We are likely anyway to see more regional negotiation on the part of the NUM. It is significant that the demands at this year's conference is for £110 a weke. Last year it was for £135 a week.
The prospect for industrial relations in the coal industry is very good, as is the prospect for employment. Recruitment at present is running at the highest rate that it has been for many years. The only disconcerting thing is that some of the applicants in Nottinghamshire, at any rate, have not been able to meet the minimum educational requirements that the Coal Board requires.
Although the prospects in the coal industry are good, they are not so good in many other industries. That is why I come back to the point with which I started, and say that I hope that the Government will look carefully at the proposals that I have put forward for young people.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens): First, I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is a member of the Cabinet. I hope that when he attends the next meeting which will be discussing assistance to industries, in places such as Merseyside in general and St. Helens in particular, he will bear in mind what I have to say about a small clothing industry in St. Helens which requires assistance with liquidity. It has had problems for quite a long time. I am sure that my right hon. Friend's Department is fully aware of the fact, as this firm has received temporary employment subsidy.
The firm is still in trouble, and I am appealing to my right hon. Friend to do all in his power to help this industry, which is planning to increase its labour force by at least 50, which would take
354
the total labour force up to 200. Any small firm which employs or plans to employ an extra 50 people in an area of high unemployment must surely attract the attention of the Government, and in particular the Secretary of State for Employment.
I next refer to the bus and truck division of British Leyland. The staff in this small factory, dealing with buses and trucks, have for the last two or three years feared for their future. They realise that development has been taking place at Chorley, where there is a huge factory producing buses and trucks and dealing with the main maintenance and repair of this transport equipment.
For quite a long time my constituents have made efforts to find out whether the factory in St. Helens is to be kept in production. I have failed to obtain a reasonable answer from the management and directors. I have appealed to my right hon. Friend to help me, and in his reply he referred me to the trade unions. In this case the trade unions have failed to obtain a reasonable answer. Even as recently as the last few weeks my constituents in the St. Helens area have appealed for help to find out whether their jobs are to be retained.
In the main, the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) covered proposals for tax cuts and leaving the problems of industry and employment to the market forces. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman and all Conservative Members that some of us have lived long enough to remember the days when the lowest wage earners in the country had to pay taxes under Conservative rule. That applied to even the lowest of low wages paid by the private railway companies. It is on record that the lowest wage earners, with probably only half a week's wages to draw, found that a deduction for taxation was made from their very reduced wage packets.
Many of my colleagues have referred to earlier retirement. I believe that the Government of the day have to consider this very seriously. The sooner both sides of the House, industry and trade unions get together and hammer out a sensible policy, the sooner we shall come to a system whereby the labour required in this country will be shared by those who

355
are young and able enough to work. There are today in this country unemployed teachers, building workers, engineers—in fact, unemployment in almost every grade of work—yet in the parliamentary constituency of St. Helens people are living in houses which are unfit for human habitation and children are still being educated in buildings which were erected more than 100 years ago.
Had the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East paid attention to the needs of our community instead of referring to the need to reduce taxation and to leave the matter to market forces, and had he concentrated on doing something about providing decent housing and on building new schools and new hospitals where they are needed, he would have come much nearer the mark. I ask hon. Members who doubt whether there is a case for reducing the working day and the working week to examine the system operated by ICI and other industries which, without compulsion or statute, are able, and have been able for many years, to retire their workers in the manual, skilled and professional grades well before the age of 65.
If my right hon. Friend will take the message back to the Cabinet, especially in relation to the bus and truck division of British Leyland and the small clothing industry in St. Helens, and do all he can to retain that labour force and increase the number of jobs, he will be doing a service not only to St. Helens but to the country as a whole.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. David Mitchell: The constructive question to ask is, who will provide the jobs and how will they come about? When one looks at the scene, it is clear that these jobs will not come from the large businesses of this country. If one talks to any man from a large business, he will point out that one can go a long way up the trade cycle of increased demand before one will have to take on more than a few skilled workers. Consider the public sector, which has absorbed some 1 million people over the past four years. It cannot absorb many more, and if it could the taxpayers could not afford to keep them.
One is driven to the conclusion that the jobs will come from more businesses and
356
new businesses and that these will start as small businesses. Hon. Members cannot name more than half a dozen firms in this country which did not start life as small businesses. Therefore, it is in this area that we should examine how best we can create the conditions and the climate in which small firms can start and grow.
There are four things that are needed There is the motivation. Without that spark, nothing will happen. There is the market. There is the need for skilled manpower and there is a need for investment, both outside the business and retained within it.
One of the motivations of people starting up in business on their own is to be independent. These people find today that they are almost working for the Government. I do not mean solely in terms of time or cash. I mean in terms of the fact that they are not independent because all the time they are looking over their shoulders to see whether they are complying with endless numbers of Government regulations and controls.
I take as one example the Employment Protection Act, but there are many other pieces of legislation that are damaging to jobs. The Secretary of State this afternoon produced a survey from his Department which actually covered half the number of firms that the Small Business Bureau's survey covered. That survey covered the section that the Department's survey did not cover—largely the smaller business employing fewer than 50 people. With double the number of inquiries and responses that the Minister had to his survey, the Small Business Bureau has shown that 38 per cent. of small businesses thought that the Employment Protection Act was damaging to the jobs in their firms and 40·87 per cent. felt that it was a major deterrent. I am sorry that the Minister, having asked to see the SBB survey, did not produce it in the House this afternoon but produced instead a survey which supported his own point of view.
I have only two minutes left, unfortunately, to cover a massive area. But even with the Lever death-bed repentance of the present Government there has been a massive increase in the area of Government intervention which is an overwhelming problem to small businesses. This

357
is inevitable with this Government, because Socialism believes in concentrating power, wealth and decision making in the hands of the State. That can only be at the expense of the climate and conditions which are necessary for small businesses to start and to grow.
The trouble is that the Government want employment but they dislike and distrust employers, other than themselves. They want investment to create jobs but they dislike, distrust and penalise investors. They want a dynamic economy but they have destroyed incentive. As long as those policies are pursued, the right hon. Gentleman will be in charge as Secretary of State for unemployment presiding over unacceptable levels of people out of work.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. James Prior: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer). I wish that he could have had the opportunity to participate in the debate because I know that he has sat patiently throughout, but I promised the Chair to begin my remarks at 9.5 p.m.
This has been the most extraordinary debate. If we are to judge by speeches made by Labour Members, it is hard to realise that we have been debating, towards the end of a Parliament and after four and a half years of Labour Government, the fact that there are 1,446,000 unemployed in Britain. I include school leavers, because they are as much unemployed as the others. When I think of the performance of the Labour Party on the many occasions when, in the days of a Conservative Government, we debated unemployment figures far lower than the present figures, I wonder what has happened to the Labour Party's attitude to unemployment in the past four years.
I picked up a cutting recently from a Scottish newspaper in which Mr. James Airlie, the shop steward convenor at Govan Shipbuilders who master-minded the famous UCS work-in, when commenting on the proposed cut-back involving nearly 3,000 jobs at the Singer plant on Clydebank, said:
"If these jobs were being lost under a Tory Administration, all hell would be breaking loose."
358
We must get this matter in perspective. We have given the Labour Government the benefit of the doubt on many occasions, and we have not pushed them too hard. We have recognised their difficulties over the oil crisis, but the figure of 1·4 million unemployed has now been with us for two years. Nothing we have heard this afternoon from either the Labour Government or their Back Benchers, has given the country any idea how they expect to get us out of our difficulties. The whole attitude of Labour Members has been to defend the present position. They have given no idea of the action which the Government are to take to improve the situation.
The Secretary of State for Employment spoke in glowing terms of the small firms employment subsidy. I thought that had missed something. Therefore, I looked at the figures to see the take-up under the scheme. The figures show that for the latest available date 3,907 jobs have been provided. I do not decry that figure, but we are talking about an unemployment total of 1·4 million.
Mr. Booth: The scheme in its present form came in on 1st July. One can hardly expect the scheme to produce thousands of jobs in that time.
Mr. Prior: If the scheme came in on 1st July, it is remarkable that the figures for 1st June show that already 3,900 people were involved in it. I cannot believe that those figures are to be relied on.
The fact is that for years Labour Members have vented a great deal of their spleen and venom attacking Conservative Governments on unemployment figures when the Labour record in the periods 1966–70 and 1974–78 has been nothing short of shameful. I wonder whether they ever stop to think whether some of the unemployment problems have been caused by the actions of Socialist Governments and the problems caused thereby. If they stopped to think, they might also reflect on the fact that since 1945 the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have been in office for about the same amount of time—about 17 years each. During the 17 years of Conservative Government the standard of living, in real terms, rose by 60 per cent. In the

359
17 years of Labour rule, it has risen by only 6 per cent.
As I pointed out during Question Time today, for every one person who became unemployed under a Conservative Government in those 17 years, 11 people have become unemployed under Labour Governments in the same amount of time. That is a disgraceful record of unemployment from the Labour Party, by any standards.
What is the future for unemployment in Britain? The pessimists of the Cambridge school and Mr. Clive Jenkins believe that unemployment will rise to about 4 million or 5 million. Hon. Members have referred to overmanning, and micro-circuitry and all the problems that that might cause. Above all, there has been a narrowing of our industrial base over the past few years.
It might be of interest to take the example of France, which is not one of the great forward movers, such as Japan and others, but is a country in a position comparable with our own. The total output of cars in the United Kingdom in 1960 was 1,352,000. In France it was 1,175,000. We were well ahead. By 1977, we were producing 1,327,000 cars and the French were producing 3,092,000. Let us take crude steel. Output in the United Kingdom in 1960 was 24,695,000 tons. In 1977 it was 20,410,000 tons. We had come down by about 4 million tons. Output in France was 17 million tons in 1960 and by 1977 it had risen to 22 million tons.
It is not surprising that Lord Soames said in another place recently that General de Gaulle did not wish us to join the Common Market in 1961–62 because he feared the great economic strength of Britain. There is not much chance of the French fearing the great economic strength of Britain today. I say all this because it naturally governs a great deal of the debate that takes place in the House and demands that we should all ask ourselves what contribution we are making and what contribution we should make in government to try to stop the slide.
I did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), but his views have been echoed in a number of other speeches, particularly
360
that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, unless we can create wealth and obtain extra production, we shall not be in a position to provide for our hospitals, our old people, housing and the mending of holes in the roads that the road surveyors are complaining about. None of this can be done without a great improvement in our industrial base and our industrial production.
It is the method by which we produce the goods and the attitude that we adopt to that and to the creation of new jobs that is the deciding and widening gap that separates the two sides of the House.
It is against this background that we must judge the performance of the Government and their preparedness and policies for the future. We have a worse record of unemployment than practically any other nation. We started from a lower level of unemployment and we now have a higher level than practically any other country. That is after introducing job creation activities that are unrivalled in any other country and about which the Government rather boast.
During a period when other countries were pulling in their horns and getting their economies in order, we were borrowing massive sums from other countries. In addition, we have now started to receive the major benefits of North Sea oil and gas. The increased cost of debt from 1974 to 1978 amounts to about £4 billion a year. That is what we shall have to pay out year after year from now onwards. When we consider that we are getting a balance of payments advantage of about £5 billion a year from North Sea oil and gas, the Government's performance is seen to be pretty dismal.
By any test, it is clear that we have a short-lived boom ahead. I shall examine that for a short while because it shows how pointless the Government's policies have been. As a result of the IMF's dictation in 1976, and as a result of the cut-backs in public expenditure that we had been recommending for about two years before that, the country began to get back in order in 1977. Interest rates fell, the pound became stronger and there was more confidence in the pound. Private investment started

361
to increase and the indices started to increase.
It was felt that we were getting out of our problems, despite the fact that for two years before the Government took action on public expenditure countless Ministers and Labour Members had been saying that if the Government carried out the cut-backs in public expenditure that we said were necessary—incidentally, the cut-backs that in the end the IMF insisted were carried through—they would lead to an additional 1 million unemployed.
What happened? The cut-backs took place. It is true that unemployment went on increasing for about another year. From the time that the cut-backs took place to the time when unemployment peaked out, about another 100,000 people went on to the unemployment register. However, since that time the number of unemployed has started to ease again. It was fell that as long as there was greater confidence in private industry we could afford to expand and to maintain the investment, as long as interest rates were low enough to make investment worth while.
But what happened after that? The Government, as a result of pressures that were put upon them, started once more to increase public expenditure. They started increasing public expenditure before we had earned one extra penny to pay for it. As a result, our borrowing requirement increased. The Government have to get their money, so interest rates increase and the Government have to impose an additional national insurance surcharge. The surcharge is designed to hit industry and employment at the very moment when we are beginning to make some progress in reducing unemployment.
Government policies have failed to get on top of inflation. We now know that we are going back into double digit inflation next year. They have failed to get on top of employment, because unemployment is now likely to increase again. The same applies to investment, which will be hit by higher interest rates.
Lastly, the Government have resorted to saying that we have to have a tight wages policy again because that is the only way in which inflation can be defeated. That tight wages policy in itself is another cause of some of the unemployment
362
and certainly a cause of some of the lack of trained and skilled people from which we suffer.
The whole range of Government policies over the past two or three years has come crumbling around the Government's ears. They do not have a clue what to do, as has been perfectly clear throughout the whole afternoon and evening. There has not been the vestige of a new idea from within the Government directed to our future. All that the Government are doing is to rely upon old Socialist measures which have failed in the last four years and will continue to fail.
Mr. Madden: The right hon. Member has said that he is sorry that information from this side of the House is not forthcoming. Perhaps he can tell the House, industry and trade unionists what role incomes policy can play in overcoming the current economic difficulties and what type of incomes policy his party supports.
Mr. Prior: I have demolished the Government's case. I turn to the question of what I believe the Government should be doing. I shall complement what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East said this afternoon. I shall begin with the subject of training for skills. All our training for technical skills is in a mess. We are spending a great deal of money, but nobody has any idea whether we are receiving good results from that expenditure. Are we matching the training with the need for skills? Nobody knows.
Much of the training under the training opportunities programme does not involve training for the types of skills that are needed. A number of places are vacant. That should cause the Government more anxiety than it appears to do.
The Government's approach to training is more of the shotgun variety than the rifle variety. We must direct training more narrowly to those sectors of the economy where there is a need for skilled people. The sector working parties should be telling the Government more about what is needed. We should know more about how many trained people are required in each sector, and we must train them quickly. I am worried about the training programme.

363
I am not mesmerised by the daunting problem and scale of unemployment, nor am I deluded into believing that there is a quick answer. I agree with the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) that there are no simple solutions. There is no panacea for our problem. Britain's position is too serious and too bad in many respects to think that there is a simple solution which will suddenly turn everything back. It is clear, however, that there must be a change of approach.
It is equally clear that we must get the overall economic policy right and ensure that the Government's actions and words do not make things worse. We must examine Government action to see whether it is doing more harm than good in terms of short-term jobs created and long-term prospects. We should weigh up the pros and cons of the Government's job creation measures.
We gave a fair wind to the recent Employment Subsidies Bill. We fully accept the need for assistance to tide firms and their workers over temporary difficulties. But such assistance must be temporary. The problem about the temporary employment subsidy is that in many respects it is not temporary but permanent. When a subsidy is as permanent as this, it has a considerable effect on firms which do not receive it. As a result, one drags all the firms in a particular sector into the temporary employment subsidy because they cannot manage without it. We must, therefore, make it plain that such schemes are temporary.
Our policy is not suddenly to cut off the temporary employment subsidy or the other job subsidies. We recognise that this would lead to far too many people being thrown out of work at a time when the Government have done so little to see that they have other jobs to go to or that they can learn a new trade or skill. Therefore, the temporary employment subsidy and other subsidies will need to be looked at carefully on our return to office to find out exactly what they cost in terms of jobs lost elsewhere, to discover their full effects on other firms and industries, and to examine alternative schemes where this may be necessary.
I am sorry to disappoint Labour Members. I know that they long for my party to say that we will scrap the temporary
364
employment subsidy, but we do not believe that to be the right way to run the economy. We would not have got involved in the TES in the first place, but now that it exists it must be phased out rather than being ended suddenly. We will not do what the Labour Government did with the regional employment premium.
On the question of the special problems of youth unemployment, we welcome the Holland report's recommendations. It was largely on the basis of these that the Government set up the youth opportunities programme, which we understand will be in full operation by September. However, we see little merit in the so-called two-week induction course. It will be better for the schools to cover the ground covered by those courses. We should shift resources devoted to these induction courses to other more beneficial parts of the youth opportunities scheme.
One of the problems with Government-sponsored programmes of this kind is that the response from local authorities or private industry does not necessarily correspond with the areas of most acute need, and we should therefore seek to concentrate policies on high levels of youth unemployment. We should seek to be more selective than hitherto in the communities and localities assisted within the programmes' broad areas. We are thinking particularly of the problems of areas with a heavy concentration of immigrants, and of the problems of unemployed young girls who are perhaps suffering the most.
I come now to the Employment Protection Act. We must consider the impact of employment protection legislation on job opportunities for the young. There is no question of the next Conservative Government's repealing the Employment Protection Act. We would not introduce amendments to it without the fullest consultation with all involved. I do not follow the Government's argument when they dismiss as glibly as they do the question of young people and people working in small firms.
The Government have not carried out a survey into firms with fewer than 50 employees. Labour Members, however, must know of countless examples of small businesses in their constituencies that are

365
complaining about the Act. If they have not heard those complaints they must be deaf.
Many major firms with personnel departments have all the necessary facilities, and are quite capable of dealing with the employment protection legislation and have taken it in their stride. That is certainly not the case with small firms. Therefore, for the Government just to dismiss the view that I have proposed on behalf of my colleagues that we should examine the effects of the Employment Protection Act on job prospects for young people and people in small firms does not seem to me to be throwing the whole scheme out or dividing the country into first- and second-class employees. We would rather have people at work in the categories that I have mentioned rather than out of a job.
Mr. John Evans: The right hon. Gentleman has given us the problems. Now let him give us specific examples.
Mr. Prior: If the hon. Gentleman wants specific examples, let him go round his constituency and he will find them.
If time were not getting on, I could say more about training for young people, the importance of training workshops and careers guidance, and the important part that television and broadcasting could play both in attracting people to jobs and, perhaps, helping in training. I have before made the suggestion that we should consider an "open tech" for training people, and particularly for retraining adults. That idea is worth consideration by the Manpower Services Commission. We should certainly go back to full recruiting for the Police Cadet Corps, and I am sure that all of us would like to see young soldier training battalions in the British Army. That, too, would help with the employment package.
The other side of the picture is the creation of the right conditions for industry to flourish—a climate of confidence, a sense of stability. Without that, industry simply will not be able to get on with the job and create the extra wealth and new jobs that the country so desperately needs. We should bear in mind the effect, first, of the Bullock White Paper, and now what other people have said about the Government White Paper, which has been named "Son of
366
Bullock". As an agriculture expert, I do not find the term "Son of Bullock" very suitable, but it may describe the White Paper well.
In any event, I do not believe that the proposals in the Government White Paper will do anything to speed our economic recovery. In fact, I think that they will have precisely the opposite result.
Mr. John Evans: What would you do?
Mr. William Hamilton: Yes, tell us.
Mr. Prior: If the hon. Gentleman does not know what we would do on involvement. I will send him copies of countless speeches that I have made in the House and outside.
I believe that the Government could do much more than they are doing if they got their taxation policy right, and their approach to pay bargaining.
Mr. Evans: Is this it?
Mr. Prior: We must see that the burden of taxation is shifted from taxing people on what they earn, if necessary to taxing people on what they spend.
There is no better recipe for encouraging the emigration of our skilled and talented and for discouraging effort by all our people than to take so much from the pay packet. If the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) does not know that, he should go around some of the factories in his constituency.
Nor is anything so damaging for differentials over a period than a rigid pay policy. We have resorted to this under successive Governments and the chickens are now coming home to roost. Skilled shortages are arising during a time of unemployment. We need an approach on pay which enables us to break out of the damaging and destructive cycle of a rigid pay policy combined with excessive and leap frogging settlements.
Mr. Hamilton: How?
Mr. Prior: If the hon. Gentleman would give me another half an hour, I would explain it to him. In the meanwhile, I shall tell him how he can help. He can help by ceasing to bash British industry and by seeking to create a spirit of partnership and ambition. When I read

367
in the amendment that the Government believe in "the regeneration of British industry" I want to read out to the hon. Gentleman a little passage from the last Labour Party political broadcast.
Mr. Evans: Again?
Mr. Prior: I have read it once, and I shall read it again because I think that it is worth reading.
Mr. Evans: Tedious repetition.
Mr. Prior: It may be for some, but considering how many hon. Members have been here during the debate, it will not do them any harm.
That broadcast said:
"The real blame lies with the industrialists who in their drive for profits have cynically closed firms and thrown millions on the dole. The Labour Party's aim is the common ownership of the means of production so that control of these firms can be taken out of the hands of a few profiteers and tycoons."
Does anyone on the Labour Benches believe that?
Mr. Hamilton: No.
Mr. Prior: They do not believe it. One hon. Gentleman has the courage to say that he does not believe it. What about the others? I will tell them this. That is the sort of policy which has done more damage to this country than anything else in the past 20 years. It is because of those policies, because of the constant reiteration of the old Socialist beliefs, that we now have a 1·4 million unemployed, a stagnant economy, a rising cost of living and total disintegration of much of our industrial base. That is why we shall vote against the Government tonight, and that is why we tabled our motion.
9.35 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. You have missed some excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice), Newton (Mr. Evans), Sowerby (Mr. Madden), Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick), Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), Aberdare (Mr. Evans) and St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs).
This debate reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of a statement that your predecessor, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, once made to me. He said
368
that he saw the future as one in which fewer and fewer people could create more and more wealth. He said that our problem as a nation would be to use much of the wealth we created to provide useful employment for others. I still see that as the nub of the problem. Added to that is the increasing number of people still wanting work.
Our problem—and here we do not disagree in any way with the Opposition—is that as a nation we have to become more efficient, save our jobs and create wealth. Secondly, we have to find a way in which we can use that wealth for the benefit of all. Perhaps that is the difference between the two parties. We want to create wealth for the benefit of all. Certainly we want to create wealth to provide jobs for all our people. We intend to increase the national wealth and competitiveness.
Mr. Raison: How?
Mr. Golding: First of all we must do something which the capitalist system has failed to do—namely, provide an adequate level of investment. The business world has looked to the Government to help with investment. I make no apology to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) for reminding him and the House that under the accelerated project scheme up to 31st March 1977 there have been 118 projects involving £7,850,000 worth of investment and 12,800 new jobs. There have been other schemes to promote investment in selected sectors of industry such as the ferrous and non-ferrous foundries, the machine tool industry, clothing, paper and board, electronic components, printing machinery, textile machinery, poultry meat processing, slaughterhouses and wool textiles. Conservative Members may laugh, but the people who work in those industries are delighted with the assistance that has been given.
In those industries there have been 589 offers of assistance involving £272 million worth of investment. A total of £407 million worth of regional development aid was paid in 1976–77. In that year there were 939 offers of regional assistance involving £90 million. Opposition Members will groan on hearing it, but these safeguarded or created 91,000 jobs.

369
While we must invest, while we must provide more equipment, I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House that we must use that equipment more efficiently. That must involve training. I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East that as a nation we are not yet treating industrial training seriously enough. That is why the Government have maintained apprentice training and why there are more engineering apprentices now than in 1972.
I was very interested to hear the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) accuse the Government of creating a skill shortage. In 1972–73 the number of engineering apprentices was under 17,000 a year. During the recession during our administration, there has been an average of 24,000. Who was Secretary of State for Employment when there was a crash in the recruitment of apprentices? Who was Secretary of State in 1972–73, when the recruitment of apprentices was at its lowest ebb? It was the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I do not deny what the hon. Gentleman has said. I merely said that if the Manpower Services Commission, the Training Services Agency and the whole organisation which I had the honour to help to set up have not been properly used in the past four years, it is not my fault or that of the previous Tory Government.
Mr. Peter Mills: Answer that.
Mr. Golding: The answer is very simple. It is that one does not produce craftsmen overnight. The apprenticeship period is precisely of that length. It is hardly reasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to talk of the lack of skill in this country when he presided over the Department of Employment at the worst period for the recruitment of apprentices.
We understand the importance of skill training. Since 1975, over £180 million has been made available to industry to provide support to over 30,000 extra apprentices each year. We have been particularly pleased to help those on sandwich courses.
Dr. Keith Hampson rose—
Mr. Golding: I shall not give way. I have lost five minutes of the time allotted.
370
We are concerned to bring about fundamental changes in our apprentice, craft and technician training. Indeed, I was disappointed that employers rejected the principle of collective funding last year, but I am pleased that the Manpower Services Commission has now secured agreement to discuss the document on vital skills, a discussion that is taking place now. I have been discussing with industrial training boards the need to be more responsive to local needs in training. Too much of our thinking has been based on national generalisations rather than meeting the local needs of employers and trade unionists.
I also agree that we need to look very carefully now at the training opportunities scheme. We are all anxious to avoid there being unfilled vacancies—I think that the figure now is 200,000—in view of the number of unemployed. Training can help us there.
Training is not the only way to create efficiency. In saying that, I must add that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East displayed his own class prejudice when he referred to the debate in another place yesterday as being about overmanning and productivity. Viscount Amory took a far more balanced view. He blamed management and unions alike for the low level of productivity. I have been preaching productivity bargaining to trade union members for years, and I still believe that greater efficiency is crucial if our people are to enjoy a high standard of living, if we are to improve the Welfare State and if we are to maintain employment.
Mr. David Crouch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Golding: No, I have not the time.
Mr. Crouch rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Golding: I was assured by the Opposition that I could begin speaking by 9.30. I lost a lot of time because the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) went past his time.
The industrial strategy is about improving efficiency. That is why both the employers and the TUC are supporting it. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, firms often need

371
Government financial help to put their own house in order. They need financial help in areas of high technology.
Mr. Crouch rose—
Mr. Golding: When I listened to the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox)—
Mr. Crouch rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Golding: When I listened to the hon. Member for Leek, I was reminded of how successful has been ICL and, at a different level, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas. At Kidsgrove there is work for people in both our constituencies because of the intervention of the State, and in the countryside there is work for the hon. Gentleman's constituents at Leek because of COSIRA as there is work for mine at Market Drayton.
The truth is that the nineteenth century has gone, even in Leeds, North-East. Today we need a partnership of Government, employers and trade unions in order to survive and to prosper, and we need it not only to increase productivity but to solve the problems which arise. Private industry alone cannot solve those problems.
Let us look at the table from which the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East took the figures he quoted. There is only one conclusion. Between 1966 and 1970, the number employed in the private sector did not fall below 18,200,000. In no year between 1971 and 1974 did that number exceed 18,200,000. The right hon. Gentleman chose as his best year 1971—of course he did. But in 1971 employment in private industry slumped. Need I remind the House that that was the year of the Selsdon policies?
Of course, employment increased when the last Tory Administration abandoned the "lame duck" policy, when they showed that they were prepared to save jobs by nationalising Rolls-Royce, when they decided that they were going to intervene, when they introduced legislation which we have used since to save a considerable number of jobs. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the figures he produced because they demonstrate that the freedom he talked about as applying
372
under a Tory Administration led to fewer jobs and not more under the last Conservative Government.
Mr. Crouch: Would the hon. Gentlemon like to have a rest now?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must accept that the Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Golding: I take as a slight the suggestion that I would need a rest after about 10 minutes.
Through Government policy we shall regenerate manufacturing industry, despite the sneers of right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition. That is precisely what we are doing now. One has only to look at the list of firms which have won the Queen's Award for Industry to know that there are very many firms in this country which are managing very well indeed without the help of the Opposition but depend on the Government for support.
Modernisation and increasing productivity create for us a major problem. I refer back to a statement made by your right hon. predecessor, Mr. Speaker—Selwyn Lloyd—who once said that increasing modernisation, increasing mechanisation and increasing efficiency would create wealth, would save jobs and would help us in new world markets but could still produce a problem of unemployment.
Hon. Members will know the concern with which the Government are treating the introduction of micro-processors. We need to develop micro-processors in this country, but we have to deal with the consequences also, and the free market simply will not do that. There is no way in which we can stand back and look at the rapid development of technology in this country and overseas and expect the free market to deal with the consequent problems of unemployment.
Any Government would be totally irresponsible if they adopted the policies enunciated by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East. As a Government, we have several jobs to do and we shall continue to do them. We have to pave the way for the future. We have to take the long-term view asked for by Opposition Members. We have to continue to pursue an industrial strategy which

373
deals, problem by problem, with the bottlenecks that have occurred previously in British industry at every upturn.
I have stressed the need to continue training. We must also get firms through the international recession. It is not good enough for the right hon. Member for Lowestoft simply to say "We shall continue TES but we shall phase it out." We want to know at what point he considers support for industry should be phased out.
The Government's attitude is quite simple. It is that we regard it as most important to help firms which are in temporary difficulties to get through those difficulties without declaring people redundant. The temporary employment subsidy is—
Mr. Crouch rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are making me get up as often as the Minister has to do. The Minister is not going to give way. There is only six minutes left.
Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must ask for your help in this matter. The Minister has consistently been asking how the House and the Opposition can help him, and I have been trying to do so for the past half-hour.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that any answer is required yet.
Mr. Golding: We must continue to support firms which are at present in difficulties. But I believe that the Opposition would not readily abandon the TES; neither would they abandon the small firms employment subsidy. The figures with which the right hon. Member for Lowestoft opened his contribution were in themselves wrong. The number of jobs that were created in the special development areas alone by the small firms employment subsidy—up to the end of May, I think—was over 8,000. That was in firms of only up to 50 employees.
When my right hon. Friend intervened to say that the new scheme started only on 1st July, he was correct. Following representations from various quarters, we decided that we would extend the scheme to all the assisted areas and to firms of up to 200 people. I believe that the small firms employment subsidy will be
374
very successful indeed. It will certainly help the rural areas.
On a personal note, perhaps I may say that I had hoped to visit Cornwall and Somerset tomorrow and the day after. But the concern of the Opposition Front Bench for youth unemployment is so great that they have decided to deny me a pair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In the most petty way in which they behave, they have decided that they would rather keep me in this House than that I should visit Cornwall and Somerset and discuss with various responsible people the whole problem of youth unemployment and rural unemployment. That is the sort of Opposition that we face.
Mr. Fairgrieve rose—
Mr. Golding: The Opposition are very noisy.
Mr. Fairgrieve rose—
Mr. Anthony Grant: I am offering the hon. Member a pair.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that even that is not required at present.
Mr. Golding: I hope that it is on record that the hon. Gentleman offered me a pair. I hope that my Chief Whip will snap it up. I knew that some good would come out of the debate.
I turn to one other important measure that the House has not considered in sufficient detail tonight—the question of youth unemployment. Of course we have a very severe problem of youth unemployment and a particularly severe problem of unemployment among school leavers. I was interested to hear the Opposition spokesman say that the Opposition think that there is little merit in the two-week induction course. My right hon. Friend and I have an open mind on the details of this scheme. We shall certainly be interested to know why this criticism has been made, and why it is that the Opposition want to scrap the scheme. We shall certainly consider the details of the scheme.
What we cannot accept is the observation that the youth opportunities programme should be concentrated in certain areas for certain youngsters, because the one thing that the Government added to the Holland Committee's proposals

375
was a commitment on the part of the Manpower Services Commission that every youngster in Britain who has left school since last Easter shall have the opportunity of a place in a special programme by next Easter. I would not
want every youngster to be denied that opportunity by the Opposition's policies.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 267.

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Spearing, Nigel

Watkins, David

Robinson, Geoffrey

Spriggs, Leslie

Watkinson, John

Roderick, Caerwyn

Stallard, A. W.

Weetch, Ken

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Weitzman, David

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Stoddart, David

Wellbeloved, James

Rooker, J. W.

Stott, Roger

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Roper, John

Strang, Gavin

White, James (Pollok)

Rose, Paul B.

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Whitehead, Phillip

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Whitlock, William

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Swain, Thomas

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Rowlands, Ted

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Ryman, John

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Sandelson, Neville

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Sedgemore, Brian

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Selby, Harry

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Sever, John

Tierney, Sydney

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

Tiley, John

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Tinn, James

Woodall, Alec

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Tomlinson, John

Woof, Robert

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Torney, Tom

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Tuck, Raphael

Young, David (Bolton E)

Sillars, James

Urwin, T. W.

Silverman, Julius

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Skinner, Dennis

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Mr. James Hamilton and

Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Mr. Donald Coleman.

Snape, Peter

Ward, Michael

NOES

Adley, Robert

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Hodgson, Robin

Aitken, Jonathan

Dunlop, John

Holland, Philip

Alison, Michael

Durant, Tony

Hordern, Peter

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Dykes, Hugh

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Arnold, Tom

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Howell, David (Guildford)

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Elliott, Sir William

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Awdry, Daniel

Emery, Peter

Hurd, Douglas

Baker, Kenneth

Eyre Reginald

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Banks, Robert

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Bell, Ronald

Fairg eve, Russell

James, David

Bendall, Vivian

Farr, John

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

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Fell, Anthony

Jessel, Toby

Benyon, W.

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Bitten, John

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Jopling, Michael

Biggs-Davison, John

Fookes, Miss Janet

Joseph Rt Hon Sir Keith

Blaker, Peter

Forman. Nigel

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Body, Richard

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fox, Marcus

Kilfedder, James

Bottomley, Peter

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Kimball, Marcus

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Fry, Peter

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Bradford, Rev Robert

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Braine, Sir Bernard

Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)

Knight, Mrs Jill

Brittan, Leon

Gilmour, Pt Hon Sir Ian (chesham)

Knox, David

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Lamont, Norman

Brooke, Hon Peter

Glyn, Dr Alan

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Brotherton, Michael

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Goodhart, Philip

Lawrence, Ivan

Bryan, Sir Paul

Goodhew, Victor

Lawson, Nigel

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Goodlad, Alastair

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Buck, Antony

Gorst, John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Budgen, Nick

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Lloyd, Ian

Bulmer, Esmond

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Loveridge, John

Burden, F. A.

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Luce, Richard

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Gray, Hamish

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Carlisle, Mark

Griffiths, Eldon

McCrindle, Robert

Carson, John

Grist, Ian

McCusker, H.

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Grylls, Michael

Macfarlane, Neil

Churchill, W. S.

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

MacGregor, John

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hampson, Dr Keith

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Cockcroft, John

Hannam, John

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Madel, David

Cope, John

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Cormack, Patrick

Haselhurst, Alan

Mates, Michael

Costain, A. P.

Hastings, Stephen

Mather, Carol

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Maude, Angus

Crouch, David

Hawkins, Paul

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Crowder, F. P.

Hayhoe, Barney

Mawby, Ray

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Heseltine, Michael

Mayhew, Patrick

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Hicks, Robert

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Drayson, Burnaby

Higgins, Terence L.

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

378

379

Mills, Peter

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Stainton, Keith

Miscampbell, Norman

Raison, Timothy

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Rathbone, Tim

Stanley, John

Moate, Roger

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Molyneaux, James

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Monro, Hector

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Stokes, John

Montgomery, Fergus

Rhodes James, R.

Stradling Thomas, J.

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Tapsell, Peter

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Ridsdale, Julian

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Morgan, Geraint

Rifkind, Malcolm

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Morgan-Giles, Rear Admiral

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Tebbit, Norman

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Mudd, David

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Townsend, Cyril D.

Neave, Airey

Royle, Sir Anthony

Trotter, Neville

Nelson, Anthony

Sainsbury, Tim

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Neubert, Michael

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Newton, Tony

Scott, Nicholas

Viggers, Peter

Nott, John

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Wakeham, John

Onslow, Cranley

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Osborn, John

Shepherd, Colin

Wall, Patrick

Page, John (Harrow West)

Shersby, Michael

Weatherill, Bernard

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Silvester, Fred

Wells, John

Page, Richard (Workington)

Sims, Roger

Whitney, Raymond

Parkinson, Cecil

Sinclair, Sir George

Wiggin, Jerry

Pattie, Geoffrey

Skeet, T. H. H.

Winterton, Nicholas

Percival, Ian

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Smith, Timothy John (AshfieTd7

Younger, Hon George

Pink, R. Bonner

Speed, Keith

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Spence, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Mr. Spencer le Marchant and

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Sproat, Iain

Mr. Michael Roberts

Prior, Rt Hon James

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, recognising that this country's economy cannot be divorced from the effects of a major world-wide recession, supports the Government's special employment and training measures and its other measures to help small firms, and believes that these
380
supplement the Industrial Strategy which is a necessary base for the regeneration of British industry and the achievement of full and stable employment in the long term.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Motion relating to Scotland Bill (Allocation of Time) may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Bates.]

SCOTLAND BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
10.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move,
That the Order of 16th November 1977 he supplemented as follows:

TABLE

Proceedings

Allotted day

Lords Amendments

Time for conclusion

1st day

…

…

…

…

Nos. 1 to 23

…

…

7 p.m.

Nos. 24 to 40

…

…

9 p.m.

Nos. 41 to 54

…

…

10.30 p.m.

Nos. 55 to 62

…

…

midnight

2nd day

…

…

…

…

Nos. 63 to 80

…

…

6 p.m.

Nos. 81 to 84

…

…

7 p.m.

No. 85

…

…

9 p.m.

Nos. 86 to 96

…

…

11 p.m.

Nos. 97 to 108

…

…

midnight

3rd day

…

…

…

…

Nos. 109 to 129

…

…

5 p.m.

No. 130

…

…

6.30 p.m.

Nos. 131 to 138

…

…

8 p.m.

Nos. 139 to 236

…

…

10 p.m.

Nos. 237 to 239

…

…

midnight

2. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings for two hours after Ten o'clock.
3. For the purpose of bringing any Proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall then—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown. That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a

Lords Amendments
1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in three allotted days and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 16th November, each part of those Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table set out below.
separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.
Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
4. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.
5.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall then—

(a) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item in the lords Message; and

(b) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords on any of their Proposals, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Proposal.
Supplemental
6.—(1) In this paragraph 'the Proceedings ' means Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment

383
and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.
(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.
(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings.
(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(6) If the Proceedings were interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall he added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
The purpose of this motion is to provide a timetable for the consideration of amendments to the Scotland Bill which have been made in another place.
The House will ask two questions about the motion. First, is a timetable necessary in this case? Secondly, is the timetable proposed in the motion reasonable? On the first proposition, the House will be acutely familiar with the progress of the Bill. The Scotland Bill has been debated in this House for 97 hours and 55 minutes. It was presented to the House at the very beginning of the Session, on 4th November, and was given a Second Reading on almost the first available day on which it was possible to do so. Indeed, the Bill could not have been started a day earlier, but here we are bumping up against the Summer Recess and we still have to consider the Lords amendments to the Bill.
It is against this background that we must consider a timetable motion at this stage. Hon. Members who take some account of the facts can hardly complain that somehow or other we have been engaged in a rush job in getting the Scotland Bill through Parliament. In addition to the day given to the Bill on Second Reading, the Bill has had 14 days in Committee and three days on Report and Third Reading. At that time the Opposition said, as Oppositions usually do, that the time allowed was not enough, al-
384
though they never made clear what in their opinion would be a reasonable time.
As we went on, it became clear that some parts of the Bill would not be discussed, and it is a matter of regret that quite a number of clauses were not discussed before the Bill went to another place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that there might be that sort of cry from Conservative Members. It prompts me to ask, whose fault was that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yours."] I am not entirely surprised at that reply either, but I have evidence that the House should consider carefully because it goes to the heart of the dispute.
The Opposition say, and they confirm the view by their sedentary interruptions, that the guillotine was too fierce and that that is why we did not discuss some parts of the Bill. This side of the House said that the Opposition were quite irresponsible in the way that they approached the Bill.
Their Lordships do not have guillotines. It would be unthinkable to have such a procedure in another place, but without a guillotine, and having discussed the Bill fully, their Lordships covered the whole Bill in Committee in 13 days—one day fewer than the House of Commons had to consider the Bill in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Labour wants to abolish the Lords."] What happened in another place is more of an argument for abolishing the Conservative Opposition than for abolishing the House of Lords. It is no credit to the Conservative Party in this House to be compared unfavourably with Conservatives in another place.
We all know that their Lordships did not approach the Bill with any great presumptions in its favour, but they made a better job of discussing it than did the Conservative Opposition in this House. That simple fact proves beyond any reasonable doubt that a guillotine is necessary in this case.
Mr. David Price: The Minister is below his normal form. Will he not explain to the House that their Lordships rightly concentrated on the clauses in the Bill that were not discussed in this House?
Mr. Smith: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. They discussed every clause in the Bill.
Mr. Price: They concentrated on those that we had not discussed.
Mr. Smith: One could not fairly say that the Conservative Party concentrates on anything that is considered in this House, and the hon. Gentleman was not in the forefront of reasonable and rational consideration of the Bill, if I recollect correctly some of his speeches.
Mr. Price: They were admirable speeches.
Mr. Smith: That is very much a matter of opinion.
The other question that the House must consider—I am attempting to introduce some rationality into this matter—is whether the proposed guillotine is, in the circumstances, a reasonable one. The House will have noticed that there are a fairly large number of "knives" spaced at regular intervals throughout the days allotted for discussion. We have done this so that the debate will be conducted in various compartments. This is desirable and flows from the fact that parts of the Bill were discussed in another place but not in this House.
The Government took the contributions of their Lordships seriously and accepted a reasonably large number of amendments to the parts of the Bill that were not discussed in this House. However, there were other areas where their Lordships reached conclusions adverse to the Government and carried amendments against the Government. We believe that it is desirable that, as far as possible, we should discuss the amendments carried against the Government on parts of the Bill that were not discussed in this House. Our purpose in producing the slots that the regular knives provide is to create that opportunity. Of course, that could be frustrated if the Opposition indulge in a series of Divisions at the end of a particular period, but I have no reason to suppose that they will do that.
We believe that it would be wise to provide for regular compartments in the debate so that we may consider the matters on which their Lordships have carried amendments adverse to the Government in those parts of the Bill that were not discussed in the House.
We also believe that three days is a reasonable time to allot for the debate.
386
Some of my hon. Friends say that we may be on the generous side. However, given the number of amendments of a controversial character that we have to consider, the number of days likely to he available this Session and the amount of time that we have already spent discussing the Bill, let alone its predecessor, we believe that three days is generous and can be proved to be generous in terms of historical precedents.
We believe that the House should have reasonable time to discuss the amendments from another place. On the other hand, the House must remember its obligation to act as well as to argue. We hope, therefore, that it will carry the motion.
10.26 p.m.
Mr. Francis Pym: If I may say so, we have heard an uncharacteristically complacent and cantankerous speech from the Minister of State. Try as he may, the right hon. Gentleman cannot justify such a brutal guillotine. Even his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has always said that there has never been anything that could remotely be described as a filibuster when considering the Bill, and no one on either side of the House has behaved in an irresponsible manner in his or her desire to test and probe what is behind the Bill.
We all know that the Minister of State and the Government want the Bill. That is a legitimate aim, but it cannot be right to enter into an arrangement such as is contained in the motion, the effect of which is to silence the House on so many aspects of a major constitutional innovation.
The House cannot fulfil its legislative function and its proper legislative duty in respect of the Bill because it is not being allowed to do so. The Opposition think it is wrong of the Government even to try to impose so severe a constriction upon the debates on the amendments from another place. I think that there is a good deal of sympathy for that view among some Labour Members.
When the Bill left this place after Third Reading, there were 56 clauses and 11 schedules that had gone undebated. That is the official verdict contained in an answer given by the Lord Chancellor in another place. I refer to a list which no doubt right hon. and hon. Members

387
have seen. There were some clauses and schedules that received only scant attention.
The other place has sought at least to put right some of the defects and omissions that occurred as a result of the guillotine in this place. In other words, it has tried to do some of the work that we failed to do. Their Lordships debated matters that we never considered in this place, or never had the opportunity to consider, and made a number of important amendments. They took a constructive approach. The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that in his remarks this evening. There was no wrecking of any sort. There was no delay.
In our opinion, their Lordships greatly improved the Bill. I am bound to say that that was not very difficult. The Government accepted a number of amendments in another place and regarded them as improvements. More than that, the Government, under strong pressure in another place, moved some amendments to improve the Bill still further. What is the point of criticising my right hon. and hon. Friends for complaining about not having the opportunity to make those amendments ourselves? I am bound to say that, if we had tried to move some of the amendments that were moved and accepted in another place, I am not by any means sure that we would have received as sympathetic a response as did their Lordships.
However that may be, we now have 239 amendments from another place dealing with 25 or 30 main subjects. How will the Government react to that? Will they accept them? Will they accept all of them, or will they reject all of them? How many of them will they reject? We do not know, and I believe that we should have that information. I remind the Leader of the House, who, we note, is not taking part in the debate, that on Thursday last week he was challenged on that issue by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton).
My right hon. and learned Friend said:
"Will he"
—that is, the Leader of the House—
"let the House know…how many amendments the Government will accept so that we may form a proper judgment?"
388
That related to the number of days afforded to Lords amendments. The Leader of the House said
"That is a reasonable point of view…we are approaching the matter in that same reasonable spirit."—[Official Report, 29th June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 1576.]
But that is not so, because we do not know which amendments the Government are prepared to accept.
At 10.10 p.m. tonight I went to the Table Office, but no information about the Government's intentions had been lodged there. I do not believe that that is a reasonable approach. It is for the House to judge. The Leader of the House gave that indication. I am sure that most hon. Members believe that we cannot deal adequately and reasonably with the Lords amendments in the time allocated in the motion.
As an example, I invite the House to examine the first group of amendments. We are asked, the day after tomorrow, to consider Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 23 by 7 p.m. We shall probably embark on discussions at 4 o'clock. The issue raised in the first amendment is proportional voting, which we discussed in Committee. and the House rejected the proposal. The Lords debated the issue at length and by a large majority came down in favour of the proposal. I am certain that there will be considerable added interest in it in the Commons because of the way in which the vote went in another place. I am sure that there will be support for it.
The size of the Assembly is another issue which is in the first group of amendments. We discussed that issue in Committee, and those who considered that the size of the Assembly should be reduced lost the day. But the Government said that they were not wedded to size of the Assembly contained in the Bill. They said that they were open-minded about it and would consider alternative, practical possibilities. Now we have another alternative which should be debated.
In addition, there is Lords Amendment No. 11 about altering the system of voting. The question which will be in hon. Members' minds about that amendment is whether it leaves the initiative on any alteration in the voting system properly with the Commons. We took the view that it should be with the Commons. Subsection 7 of the amendment provides

389
that parliamentary approval should be required. The House will wish to debate whether that is an appropriate adjustment. There are also the issues of the variation of election dates and the cost of elections. All these are major matters.
Is it practical for the Commons to do justice to all those issues in about two and a half hours? I do not believe it is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] It might be too long to take for Government Members, who do not seem to care much about the consequences of what they are enacting. To most hon. Members, however, this matters a great deal. If it is not possible to debate all the issues in the first group, it will be difficult for hon. Members not to vote and record their views in the Lobbies.
I did not like the threat which the Minister of State issued. He suggested that we should not vote on the amendments because that would hold up the passage of the Bill. But, if we are not allowed to debate the issues, we are entitled to record our votes. The House expects us to do that. Voting might be the only way in which we can record our views.
If it is any comfort to the Government, we have no intention of wasting time on voting on consequential or minor amendments—obviously, we shall not do so—but we shall have to record our verdict on the main issues. That is our duty, and it would be most surprising if either the Minister of State or that great champion of the Back Benches, the Lord President, thought that we should do anything else. That would not be a satisfactory legislative process.
However extensive our good will, however generous or charitable we may be—the Government Front Bench might not think that we are, but, being dispassionate about it, one might conclude that we are—we do not see how this many-bladed device, this guillotine of many knives, to use the Minister of State's words—this souped-up guillotine—can enable this House to do its job properly. That is why we hope that the motion will not be passed. That is not a particularly revolutionary suggestion.
I invite the House to contemplate the consequences of not passing the motion. They are not startling or extraordinary. They will be that the Government will
390
come back with another guillotine motion with a much more generous allocation of time. Is not that what is required and what a lot of hon. Members would like? [AN. HON. MEMBER: "That would take us into August."] What is wrong with August? I want to draw the attention of hon. Members to paragraph 4 of the motion, which reads:
"The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings."
I am aware that there are precedents for that provision, but we object to it on this Bill because we are dealing with fundamental issues affecting the constitution, although we do not have the time to discuss them.
We do not know what will be the reaction of the House of Lords to decisions by this House on its amendments. What will the other place decide if we fail to discuss matters which it has amended but which we have never discussed and may not discuss? Would it not be justified in saying that it thinks that the Commons should debate these issues? The motion says that, no matter what the House of Lords says, whenever another message comes from the othe place, however extensive, it will have to be disposed of within three hours.
No one knows how the story of the Bill will end, except that it will not work, at any rate not to the advantage of the people of Scotland. To say that three hours is enough in all circumstances for further messages is unreasonable, unnecessary and wrong.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have not tabled an amendment to the motion because it seems to us impossible to ask the House to fulfil its responsibilities to the country and the electorate on the basis of three days only, even with a two-hour extension on each occasion. Labour Members, or, at least, some of them, may feel the same. I see no political damage for them in requiring that the Lords amendments are considered properly and carefully by this House. I ask the Government to withdraw the motion, or, failing that, I ask the House to vote it down.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call anyone, may I remind the House that this debate of one hour must finish at 11.17? I hope that we can have a series of very short speeches, so that the House may hear all representative points of view.
10.40 p.m.
Mr. Russell Johnston: As the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, the motion hardly comes as a great surprise to the House. Because of the nature of this legislation, which arouses opposition which almost goes beyond persuasion, it is clear that without a guillotine there is no prospect of the legislation being passed before the end of this Session. Therefore, if we do not pass this guillotine motion—or timetable motion, which is a more reasonable way of describing it—
Mr. Pym: More wishy-washy.
Mr. Johnston: "More reasonable", I said—we shall have no prospect of the Bill's passing.
The outcome of the Second Reading debate, allied to the known feeling in Scotland, which has been demonstrated many times, justifies the timetabling of the end of this legislation. I do not accept the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire's view that the motion is designed to silence the House. On the contrary, the Minister made a reasonable point when he compared the conduct in the other place with that in this House. I am not saying that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire himself made extended speeches, but it is a fact, as I know because I was here for most of the debates, that there was a remarkable concentration on the lesser issues during periods when more major issues were due for discussion but consequently were never reached.
Mr. Iain Sproat: Such as?
Mr. Johnston: That did not happen in the other place.
Mr. Sproat: As someone who was present at the debates as frequently as the hon. Gentleman, or more frequently, may I ask whether he can give one example of a serious and important subject which was deliberately not debated because the Conservative Opposition were concentrating on other matters?
Mr. Johnston: No, I do not think that I can, off the cuff—[Interruption.] On the contrary, the fact that one cannot instantaneously produce an example is no proof that examples do not exist. The Minister has said that practically all matters were dealt with in the Lords. That means that they were not dealt with here and that we did not space out our time as effectively as they did. It can only mean that.
Mr. Leon Brittan: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Johnston: That is exactly what I said, and I have repeated it in those words.
Mr. Timothy Raison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Johnston: Mr. Speaker has said that the debate ends at 11.17, but, if the hon. Gentleman insists, I will give way.
Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman is saying that in the House of Lords, where there was no guillotine, there was a better and more rational allocation of time for discussion than in the House of Commons, where there was a guillotine. Why, therefore, does he think that we ought to have a guillotine here?
Mr. Johnston: I confess that I do not quite understand that intervention. This guillotine is more specifically spaced out than the previous timetable motion with the object of ensuring that certain matters not previously debated will be debated. That is an argument in favour of it.
It is well known, and this applies to both sides of the House, that Oppositions are ferociously opposed to guillotines, as if they were entirely novel procedures and a total derogation of democracy. We all know that that is far from being the truth. If the past behaviour of the Opposition Front Bench on such matters had been different, we would have looked at what it had to say in a different light. That is not the case. We are dealing with a set of propositions which are not new. We are dealing with a Bill which the majority of people in Scotland wish to see on the statute book and with a set of proposals which have been discussed in Scotland for the best part of a decade. We are dealing not with a set of innovative proposals but with matters which

393
have been gone over many times. That justifies the introduction of the guillotine.
10.46 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: After standing at the Bar of the other place for some 80 hours, I feel obliged to say to hon Members that I observed men and women going about their task of examining the Bill on both sides of the argument in a serious, businesslike way and leaning over backwards to be constructive. If anyone wants to criticise the House of Lords, political values is not the kind of charge that will stick, at any rate not on this occasion.
If there is ground for criticism, it is, frankly, that certain peers were sadly conspicious by their absence. I feel bound to ask where, for example, was Lord Glenamara, who had so much to say in previous years on this matter? Where was Lord Norman Crowther Hunt, who did not even come down from Oxford to defend his creation? What happened in the Lords bore an uncanny resemblance to what has occurred in this House over the past two years. The Lords started off with a great deal of good will for the Bill—
Mr. William Ross: No.
Mr. Dalyell: Yes, they did. However. as the days went by, the more they learned about it, the less they liked it. It was the same process of self-education as we have seen here—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to both sides of the House that the tendency to shout from a sedentary position is increasing? It is unfair. It spoils debate. It is unparliamentary. This debate will finish at 11.17 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I thought that it was out of order to attack Members of another place by name. If some of us shouted at that, it was out of our respect for what we recognise as the rules of order of this House.
Mr. Speaker: I heard no attack on a Member of another place. All I heard was a question: the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked where a noble Lord was. That was not an attack.
Mr. Dalyell: The fact is that these 200-plus amendments represent a host of
394
unsolved, and probably insoluble, problem, in trying to set up a subordinate Parliament in part, though only part, of a unitary State.
r brevity's sake, may we take the third day—8 p.m. till 10 p.m.? Here we have schedule 10. The debate starts with museums, and I suspect that we may not get further than museums. We have local authorities, pollution and vessels, inland waterways, civil aviation regulations and payment of agricultural grants—a whole lot of subjects. Then we come—I give this as an example—to betting and gaming, a subject that went wholly undiscussed in this House. Yet this is what the Gaming Board said in evidence to the Royal Commission in 1976—and I checked this afternoon that this is the board's considered opinion. This evidence, of May 1976, stands at present:
"The Board see no substantial arguments specific to gambling in favour of devolution … and the Board would see no substantial advantage, but considerable danger, in departing from the concept of a single Gaming Board for Great Britain."
That is just an example of a subject that has been undiscussed: "considerable danger", the Board says. That was the considered opinion of Sir Stanley Raymond, who was chairman of the Board for nine years, and later of the present Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who was the permanent under-secretary, at the Home Office responsible for these matters.
Whatever conclusion one comes to, when these people with knowledge say that there is considerable danger involved in the devolution of betting and gaming—it is extremely unsatisfactory—I do not know whether the Government will accept the relevant amendment—that it is unlikely that the House will even discuss the matter.
I turn lastly to another timing that all of us must be a bit concerned about. On the second day, two hours, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.—and the time may well be an hour and a half, if that, because of voting—are to be devoted to the question of tax. In the House of Lords peer after peer, not least Lord Home, among many others, expressed grave doubts about setting up an Assembly without money-raising powers. The problems are well known to this House, and need not be rehearsed by me, of having an Assembly without financial, taxing powers.

395
In the other place Lord Kaldor said that he had come specially from his abode in order to make it clear to their Lordships that it was most important to him that a Scottish Assembly should have tax-raising powers. He ended his peroration by saying that he had no concrete proposals. It is understandable that non-economists, including Lord Home, cannot come up with a concrete form of taxation. But when I hear the most inventive, the most ingenious tax economist of our generation, a man who has positively spewed taxes over the face of the planet, saying in the House of Lords that of course he has no concrete proposals, may not one be forgiven for suspecting that there are no possible taxes that are acceptable?
I shall do everything and anything to obstruct an Assembly without tax-raising powers, because if it does not have them there is the certainty of endless conflict, which has been alluded to time and again in our debates over the past two years. If the Assembly is to have tax-raising powers, we should not have a truncated debate on a guillotine motion.
In the referendum, every man and woman in Scotland should know precisely what taxes he and she will have to pay, over and above what he and she pay at present, and roughly what will be the effect on his and her pocket. This kind of thing should be made known before and not after the Bill becomes an Act. Therefore, I say to my hon. Friends that until we are very much clearer about, for example, this question of tax and what proposals the Government may have and what the specific form of the tax will be, we should deny this motion.
10.55 p.m.
Mr. George Reid: I have a sad sense of déja vù about this debate: we have been here before. The remarks of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) remind me that he has an almost ecological obsession with devolution—with recycling waste material and using the same old rubbish time and again.
As far as the Scottish National Party is concerned, enough is enough. It is time to redeem the devolution pledges that all parties in this House freely gave to the people of Scotland in October 1974. Since
396
I am speaking in headline form, I give four brief reasons why the SNP is supporting the motion.
First, the time for talk is over and it is time now to deliver the goods; secondly, delivering the goods—the Assembly—is possible only through the guillotine; thirdly, the Bill is the most, in our view, that can be wrung out of this Parliament; lastly, we believe the Bill does not go far enough to meet the aspirations of the Scots people, but it is, as we have said time and again, a stepping stone to further self-government in the future. We are open and honest about that.
The time for talk is over. The debate in Scotland has gone on for well over 100 years, through the Home Rule movement in the 1880s, through the Home Rule Bills in the 1920s, through Labour commitments right up to 1945, through the "powerhouse" promised at the last election, through commitments from the devolution Minister at the Scottish Office promising that the Assembly would be set up by October 1976—all these super-stamped in Scotland with the imprimatur "Labour doesn't make promises that it cannot keep." The time to keep that promise to the Scots people is tonight.
In this House, too, we have waded through Kilbrandon, three White Papers, motions, debate after debate, the whole business of the moribund Scotland and Wales Bill, with 96 hours spent on it and only clause 3 reached, and in this Session the time spent on the Scotland Bill itself.
I turn to some of the objections raised by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). Some of the troubles the Tories complain of they brought on their own heads. If they had exercised, as the Minister of State said, a little self-discipline during the Scotland and Wales Bill and again during the Scotland Bill, as in the Lords they could have got much further forward in revisioning the respective measures which have been placed before this House.
The Tories' current proposal is for a constitutional convention, whereby all Members of this House—nationalists, socialists, Liberals, dissentient Tories, hardline Tories—would get together in a convention, and somehow by magic a common view would emerge. That, after all the years of debate, is clearly nonsense. In putting forward that proposal,

397
the Tories are simply begging for further time.
In any case, members of the Conservative Front Bench are no innocents at using the guillotine in constitutional matters. When the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire was the Tory Governments Chief Whip, he guillotined the European Communities Bill, pushing it through absolutely unchanged. It was the same with the Industrial Relations Bill. The Tories in Government are no strangers to the use of the guillotine.
As far as the SNP is concerned, the Bill is not satisfactory, but we take some comfort from the fact that the Government are in a "Catch 22" situation. If the guillotine goes forward and the Assembly is set up, that may represent a small electoral setback for us in the short term, but we can build on the new legislature. If the guillotine does not go through, watch the Scottish people go nationalist in a big way. The Government have been in that "Catch 22" situation ever since they made their commitment, freely, in the October 1974 General Election.
We have, of course, objections to the lack of financial powers in the Bill. We say simply that one cannot graft a bit of federalism on to a unitary State. We therefore say that the Assembly must be an evolutionary body, that we have not reached the end of the road when it is set up. There will be no imperial settlement of Scotland's future. The Assembly will continue to grow, and where that growing process stops will be decided not in this House but by the people of Scotland themselves.
The Bill as it comes back to this House from the Lords is something of a curate's egg. There are one or two good things that the Lords have done that we find acceptable. There is, for example, the option of the Assembly putting forward its own taxation proposals. There are the electoral reform arrangements advanced by the Lords, and the possibility of the Assembly devising its own scheme for elections.
But, at the same time, there has been much nihilism and much emasculation of the Bill in the other place. I am thinking of the grudging efforts to take out aerodromes, bus routes, forestry, doctors' pay, and so on. The stately
398
domes of England did their work there. We confidently hope that the Government Front Bench will put these back into the Bill during consideration of the amendments.
It is right to mention, finally, two matters which the SNP Bench may well take to avizandum. It will not be difficult to clear away about 90 per cent. of the Lords amendments, but there may well be two subjects of continuing concern which could ping-pong between the two Houses. The first is electoral reform itself. I say that we shall take that to avizandum, but we certainly would look for a good turnout in support of electoral reform, from this Bench, from the Liberal Bench, from some Labour Members and from some Conservatives.
Secondly, and quite rightly, we are concerned about the West Lothian question. We have every sympathy with English Members who may find that their country could in future have its destiny determined by Scots votes. We in the SNP practise a self-denying ordinance. We do not vote upon English measures. That is one way out of the problem. But we have to give notice now that if that is not acceptable the Ferrers amendment may well receive substantial support from the SNP.
In conclusion, it is clear that I am not claiming that all Scots support independence at this point. Probably the figures are about one in four or one in five. But we think that support is solid. We think that it will grow. What is clear tonight, is that 70 per cent. of the Scots people, in poll after poll have stated that they want some change from the status quo, and that the status quo is not an option. The Scottish TUC, the Scottish Council of the Labour Party, the Church, the Liberal Party and the SNP are all watching this House tonight. If the guillotine fails, I believe that there will be a harsh northern reaction to that decision.
Scotland is not a region. That is what is still misunderstood on the Labour Benches. Scotland is a nation in her own right.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call next the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), but the winding-up speeches

399
are due to begin at six minutes past 11, which means that there are only five minutes left for a speech from either side of the House.
11.1 p.m.
Mrs. Barbara Castle: Anyone who has been a Member of the House of Commons for as long as I have is bored with debates on the guillotine. Every Government in turn are responsible for it. When they introduce a guillotine, the Opposition jump up to attack them with spurious sanctity.
Of course it is absolutely right that the House of Commons should be given adequate opportunities to examine all major Bills. I understand the genuineness of the emotion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). but I remind him of the Parkinson's law of debates—that debates expand to fill the time available. I have seen this in decade after decade while I have been in the House of Commons.
I would have considered it a "phoney" argument that is being carried on tonight had it not been for the speech of major hypocrisy from the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). I remember previous debates which his Government guillotined. When I heard the right hon. Member say "It cannot be right to silence this House on so many aspects of this major constitutional Bill", I remembered a major constitutional debate in which I took a leading part from the Opposition Front Bench. That was on the Industrial Relations Bill introduced by the Conservative Government, a Bill which radically altered the legal status of trade unions in this country. Every clause was pregnant with peril for our industrial democracy.
I know that you are getting worried about the time, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be very brief. I cannot develop my argument but, by heavens, I shall leave the House with a few statistics for comparison.
We are told by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire how disgusting it is that 56 clauses in the Bill will not have been debated. Let me remind him of the Industrial Relations Bill, which caused such havoc to the industrial relations of this country, a Bill which even the Conservative Party has abandoned. Out of
400
150 clauses in that Bill, 111 remained undiscussed in the Committee stage in this House.
What time were we given on Report? Oh, yes, we had five days on Report, and three-quarters of that time was spent on 15 Government new clauses. By the time the Report stage had finished, only two Opposition amendments had been discussed.
What about the progress of the Bill in the Lords? There was a very different reception there.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs. Castle: I will not be interrupted, because I have been asked by Mr. Speaker to sit down in one minute. I will not give way.
Oh, yes, there were 341 amendments carried in their Lordships' House. I cannot say that they exactly struck at the heart of the Bill. Most of them were trivial. But what happened on the timetable motion on the Lords amendments to the Industrial Relations Bill? The Conservative Government allowed five days. In the first four days, 72 amendments were discussed out of 341, and the rest were rushed through in the last few hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) remembers because he fought side by side with me.
Do not let us not have any more of this Conservative hypocrisy in complaining about the guillotine, because it was they who railroaded through this House the most fundamental constitutional reform on the industrial side by means of a derisory timetable. I shall not attack guillotines in principle because the business of Government must get through, but to suggest that this Government have treated the House of Commons with disrespect in the allocation of time on this Bill compared with the allocation of time that we have had on previous major measures by a Conservative Government is just another piece of infantile hypocrisy.
11.7 p.m.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: If there is any infantile hypocrisy, it is on the part of the Leader of the House, who has not spoken tonight, and who should be ashamed of himself for not doing so.

401
What have been the arguments advanced? The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) mentioned the Industrial Relations Bill. There is a world of difference between a measure which can be amended by a future Parliament, on which five days were allowed for Lords amendments, and a measure dealing with a major constitutional change which is to be put to a referendum. I remember the present Leader of the House, in a wonderful speech in 1972, pointing out how different a constitutional Bill was, and that it was quite shameful and wrong, therefore, for the Government to move the guillotine motion which they were then moving.
Then we had the argument from the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), in one of his usual agreeable and wandering speeches, in which he suggested that we should have the guillotine tonight because we have had enough talking. When we asked him for one example of Opposition filibustering, he could not provide one. There is a world if difference between what he put forward and the facts of the situation.
Next, the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) put forward the argument that people want constitutional change, therefore we should have it quickly and get on with the referendum. We shall be doing a great disservice to the people of Scotland if we shove before them a Bill which is full of conflict and which will undoubtedly serve no other purposes except helping the nationalists.
A brief study of the Bill shows that, even with the maximum good will, and even with curtailed speeches, there is not a ghost of a chance of the House of Commons giving even superficial attention to the many important issues which the Lords have suggested we should consider.
We must consider four very brief and important points. First, the Bill has not been properly discussed in the House of Commons, and the House of Lords had a big job to do. Three-quarters of the Bill had not been discussed at all in the House of Commons, and that is why we need time for Lords amendments.
Secondly, many important issues were not resolved in the House of Commons, the most important one being the famous
402
West Lothian question. We shoved the Bill through to the House of Lords without any suggestion about how this might be resolved.
Thirdly, as the Minister well knows, there are many important Scottish special interests which were not discussed of even considered, such as forestry, waterways, museums and airports.
If we are considering the amount of time available, I ask the House to look at two examples—first, the two hours allowed for 100 separate amendments on the third day, and, secondly, for the advantage of the Liberals, the Orkney and Shetland amendment, for which one hour has been left under the timetable motion all of which may be taken up by important votes on a previous amendment. It is quite shameful, and an insult to Orkney and Shetland, that once again we shall perhaps allow only five minutes to decide about their special problems.
If we pass this motion tonight, the inevitable consequence will be that we shall be putting to the people of Scotland in a referendum a major constitutional Bill which Parliament itself will not have discussed properly, and parts of which will not have been discussed at all. Surely we as a House of Commons have a duty to ensure that any proposals in relation to changes in our constitution which we put to the people should have been carefully and cautiously considered. If we follow the Government's course tonight, all we shall succeed in doing will be to put before the Scottish voters a dog's breakfast of a Bill, with unresolved conflicts, ludicrous and unworkable demarcation, and with the seeds of the breakup of Britain. We must not make this mistake.
Therefore, we must reject the Government's motion and allow time for major constitutional issues, which will be with us for centuries to come, at least to be discussed where issues should be discussed.
11.11 p.m.
Mr. John Smith: One always looks to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) to liven up even dull debates. He did his best. If one were to have predicted two adjectives which the hon. Gentleman definitely would have used—and which he uses in every speech —they would have been "shameful" and

403
"insulting". [HON. MEMBERS: "And disgraceful".] And "disgraceful"; I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. As we know, the hon. Gentleman is not a master of understatement, and I am trying to be very generous to him. I hope Liberal Members will understand that, because only this week an anti-Taylor group was established within the Scottish Conservative Party. That shows that there is hope for even that dying body. However, the hon. Gentleman did his best to convince the House that there was some merit in opposing the guillotine.
But the truth is the truth as explained by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), that of all the parties to object to a timetable motion, the Conservative Party is the least able, and especially the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). He was the Chief Whip at the time of the European Communities Bill, on which we had no time at all to consider Lords amendments because there were no Lords amendments. Why? Because there were no Commons amendments. The House of Commons was not allowed to amend anything. Following its cue, the House of Lords did not make any amendments either. The only reason why the right hon. Gentleman's record does not include a timetable motion on Lords amendments to the European Communities Bill is that he took great care to make sure there were none to bother him.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) was quite right in saying that the question before the House is whether this Bill will pass in this Session of Parliament. It started right at the beginning and we are now fairly near the end of this Session. As the House well knows, we must get a Bill through all its stages within the one Session. We have already debated the Bill for 97 hours 55 minutes. Most of that time has been taken up by critics of the Bill. The restraint of the supporters of the Bill allowed the Opposition to raise all the points which they wanted to raise. If, as the hon. Member for Cathcart says, large areas of the Bill were not discussed—it is not quite as bad as he suggested, although there is a case —the fault lies not on the Labour side but on the Conservative side of the House, because the Conservatives in the House of Lords did a better job of allocating
404
time than did the Conservatives in this place.
It is unfortunate that the Conservatives in the Lords behaved in a way which is embarrassing to their friends in this House, but it was an object lesson in the way in which the Conservative Party obstructed the Bill. I do not say that the Conservative Front Bench did so. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire and the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) did not make long, filibustering speeches, but they know perfectly well what went on in the House of Commons, and so does every other hon. Member present.
This is an entirely reasonable motion. It allows reasonable time to debate a fairly large number of amendments, but many are technical in character and many have already been accepted by the Government in another place.
Mr. Graham Page: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but we are near the end of the debate.
Tonight we must take a decision to do two things. First, there ought to be a reasonable time for debate, and we are allowing three full days. Not only that, but they are days with extended periods at the end of them. We know from precedents that this is not ungenerous. If we look at the reality of the situation and the number of days available between now and the end of the Session, we see that it is not unreasonable to pass this motion.
Mr. Pym: The whole burden of my argument was that in relation to the issues on this Bill the time is unreasonably short. Will the Minister tell us the scale of the Lords amendments that the Government will accept? Will they accept most of them, half of them, or only a few of them?
Mr. Smith: The right hon. Member knows perfectly well, because he has been following the House of Lords debates closely, that a large number of the amendments on the Notice Paper have been moved or accepted by the Government in another place. The Government will make their position clear as the debates continue on the Lords amendments. I

405
find it preposterous that the right hon. Member should raise points of this sort when he made quite sure that there never were any Lords amendments to the most important Bill in which he was involved.
We know perfectly well that no guillotine motion could be put forward that would meet with the approval of the Conservatives. The right hon. Member said that he objects to a guillotine motion on this Bill—
Mr. Pym: I never said that.
Mr. Smith: We know perfectly well that those who put their hands to guillotines when in Government becomes tremendous opponents of them when in Opposition.
Mr. Britian rose—
Mr. Smith: No, I shall not give way.
I shall not make too much of a point of that because both sides of the House indulge in it. But there is a certain ritual hypocrisy about a great deal of the opposition to the timetable motion—this one and others that the House has discussed. The fact is that the House will be given a very fair opportunity to discuss these amendments. We hope—
It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER proceeded pursuant to Order [16 th November], to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them.
Question put accordingly:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Robert Rhodes James(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At 10 p.m. the House passed the motion,
That the Motion relating to Scotland Bill (Allocation of Time) may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.
Will you note that Standing Order No. 44 provides:
"If a motion be made by a Minister of the Crown providing for the allocation of time to

Division No. 244]

AYES

[11.18 p.m.

Allaun, Frank

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Bean, R. E.

Anderson, Donald

Atkinson, Norman (H'gey Tott'ham)

Belth, A. J.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Armstrong, Ernest

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Ashley, Jack

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Bidwell, Sydney

Ashton, Joe

Bates, All

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

any proceedings on a bill Mr. Speaker shall, not more than three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on such a motion, proceed to put any question necessary to dispose of those proceedings."
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Question on this motion is well covered by the Standing Orders. On 16th November last the House agreed to an order concerning the allocation of time to the Scotland Bill. Para 10 of that order provides that proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement the provisions of the order
"shall, if not previously concluded, he brought to a conclusion one hour after they had been commenced."
Para. 9 of the order provides that at the conclusion of the proceedings I shall proceed to put the Question on the motion.
The Business of the House motion on the Order Paper today enables debate on the motion for a supplemental allocation of time order to be proceeded with at any time after ten o'clock to the extent that it has not already been disposed of by that hour. Therefore, it is quite in order for the timetable motion to be put now.
Mr. Rhodes James: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the resolution of the House on the order cannot in any way supersede Standing Order No. 44, which refers specifically to a three-hour debate on any proceedings on allocation of time orders.
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman is mixing it up with the original motion. That was applicable to the original motion.
I must rule that we had similar circumstances to this on 20th July 1976 in relation to three allocation of time motions debated on that day. The same sort of business motion was tabled, but it allowed us only to debate after ten o'clock to make up the hour. I am very sorry, but it is in order. Indeed, I am glad that it is in order.
The House having divided: Ayes 292, Noes 274.

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Gould, Bryan

Noble, Mike

Boardman, H.

Gourlay, Harry

Oakes Gordon

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Graham, Ted

Ogden, Eric

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Grant, George (Morpeth)

O'Halloran, Michael

Bottomley Rt Hon Arthur

Grant, John (Islington C)

Orbach, Maurice

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Grocott, Bruce

Ovenden, John

Bradley, Tom

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Padley, Walter

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Palmer, Arthur

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Pardoe, John

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Park, George

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Parker, John

Buchan, Norman

Heffer, Eric S.

Parry, Robert

Buchanan, Richard

Henderson, Douglas

Pavitt, Laurie

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Hooley, Frank

Pendry, Tom

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Horam, John

Penhaligon, David

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

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

Perry, Ernest

Campbell, lan

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Canavan, Dennis

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Price, William (Rugby)

Cant, R. B.

Huckfield, Les

Radice, Giles

Carmichael, Neil

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Carter, Ray

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Reid, George

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Cartwright, John

Hunter, Adam

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Clemitson, Ivor

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Cohen, Stanley

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Janner, Greville

Roderick, Caerwyn

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Conlan, Bernard

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

John, Brynmor

Rooker, J. W.

Corbett, Robin

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Roper, John

Cowans, Harry

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Rose, Paul B.

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Crawford, Douglas

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Rowlands, Ted

Crawshaw, Richard

Judd, Frank

Ryman, John

Cronin, John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Sandelson, Neville

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Kelley, Richard

Sedgemore, Brian

Cryer, Bob

Kerr, Russell

Selby, Harry

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Kilfedder, James

Sever, John

Davidson, Arthur

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Lambie, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

Lamborn, Harry

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lamond, James

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Sillars, James

Deakins, Eric

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Silverman, Julius

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Skinner, Dennis

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Litterick, Tom

Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)

Dempsey, James

Loyden, Eddie

Snape, Peter

Dewar, Donald

Luard, Evan

Spriggs, Leslie

Doig, Peter

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Stallard, A. W.

Dormend.J D.

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

Duffy, A. E. P.

McCartney, Hugh

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Dunn, James A.

MacCormick, lain

Stoddart, David

Dunnett, Jack

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Stott, Roger

Eadie, Alex

McElhone, Frank

Strang, Gavin

Edge, Geoff

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

English, Michael

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Swain, Thomas

Maclennan, Robert

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Madden, Max

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Evans, John (Newton)

Magee, Bryan

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Mahon, Simon

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Fluids Andrew

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Thompson, George

Fernyhough Rt Hon E.

Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Flannery, Martin

Maynard, Miss Joan

Tierney, Sydney

Fetcher, L. R. (llkeston)

Meacher, Michael

Tilley, John

Fetcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Tinn, James

Foot. St Hon Michael

Mikardo, lan

Tomlinson, John

Ford, Ben

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Torney, Tom

Forrester, John

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Tuck, Raphael

Fowler. Gerald (The Wrekin)

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Urwin, T. W.

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

Molloy, William

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Freud, Clement

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Ward, Michael

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Watkins, David

George, Bruce

Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland

Watkinson, John

Gilbert. Rt Hon Dr John

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Watt, Hamish

Ginsburg, David

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Weetch, Ken

Golding, John

Newens, Stanley

Weitzman, David

408

409

Wellbeloved, James

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Woof, Robert

Welsh, Andrew

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Wrigglesworth, lan

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Young, David (Bolton E)

White, James (Pollok)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Whitehead, Phillip

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Whitlock, William

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Mr. Donald Coleman and

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Mr. James Hamilton.

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Woodall, Alec

NOES

Abse, Leo

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Lloyd, lan

Adley, Robert

Fookes, Miss Janet

Loveridge, John

Aitken, Jonathan

Forman, Nigel

Luce, Richard

Aiison, Michael

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Fox, Marcus

McCrindle, Robert

Arnold, Tom

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

McCusker, H.

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Fry, Peter

Macfarlane, Neil

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Galbraith. Hon T. G. D.

MacGregor, John

Awdry, Daniel

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Baker, Kenneth

Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Banks, Robert

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Bell, Ronald

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir lan (Chesham)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Bendall, Vivian

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Madel, David

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Benyon, W.

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Mates, Michael

Berry, Hon Anthony

Goodhart, Philip

Mather, Carol

Bitten, John

Goodhew, Victor

Maude, Angus

Biggs-Davison, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Blaker, Peter

Gorst, John

Mawby, Ray

Body, Richard

Gow, lan (Eastbourne)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Mayhew, Patrick

Bottomley, Peter

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Gray, Hamish

Miller Hal (Bromsgrove)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Griffiths, Eldon

Mills, Peter

Bradford, Rev Robert

Grist, lan

Miscampbell, Norman

Braine, Sir Bernard

Grylls, Michael

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Brittan, Leon

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Moate, Roger

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

Molyneaux, James

Brooke, Hon Peter

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Monro, Hector

Brotherton, Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Montgomery, Fergus

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hannam, John

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Buck, Antony

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Morgan, Geraint

Budgen, Nick

Haselhurst, Alan

Morgan-Giles, Rear Admiral

Bulmer, Esmond

Hastings, Stephen

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Burden, F. A.

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hawkins, Paul

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Carlisle, Mark

Hayhoe, Barney

Mudd, David

Carson, John

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Neave, Airey

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Heseltine, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Churchill, W. S.

Hicks, Robert

Neubert, Michael

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Higgins, Terence L.

Newton, Tony

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Hodgson, Robin

Nott, John

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Holland, Philip

Onslow, Cranley

Cockcroft, John

Hordern, Peter

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Osborn, John

Cope, John

Howell, David (Guildford)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Cormack, Patrick

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Costain, A. P.

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Page, Richard (Workington)

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Hurd, Douglas

Paisley, Rev lan

Crouch, David

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Parkinson, Cecil

Crowder, F. P.

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

James, David

Percival, lan

Dalyell, Tam

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

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Jessel, Toby

Phipps, Dr Colin

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Pink, R. Bonner

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Drayson, Burnaby

Jopling, Michael

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Dunlop, John

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Prior, Rt Hon James

Durant, Tony

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Dykes, Hugh

Kimball, Marcus

Raison, Timothy

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Rathbone, Tim

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Elliott, Sir William

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Emery, Peter

Knight, Mrs Jill

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Lamont, Norman

Rhodes James, R.

Eyre. Reginald

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Ridsdale, Julian

Fairgrieve Russell

Lawrence, Ivan

Rifkind, Malcolm

Farr, John

Lawson Nigel

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Fell, Anthony

Lee, John

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

410

411

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Sproat, lain

Viggers, Peter

Royle, Sir Anthony

Stainton, Keith

Wakeham, John

Sainsbury, Tim

Stanbrook, Ivor

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Stanley, John

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Scott, Nicholas

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Wall, Patrick

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Stewart, lan (Hitchin)

Weatherill, Bernard

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Stokes, John

Wells, John

Skelton, William (Streatham)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Whitney, Raymond

Shepherd, Colin

Tapsell, Peter

Wiggin, Jerry

Shersby, Michael

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Winterton, Nicholas

Silvester, Fred

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Sims, Roger

Tebbit, Norman

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Sinclair, Sir George

Temple-Morris, Peter

Younger, Hon George

Skeet, T. H. H.

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

Townsend, Cyril D.

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

Speed, Keith

Trotter, Neville

Mr. Michael Roberts.

Spence, John

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,

That the Order of 16th November 1977 be supplemented as follows:—

Lords Amendments

1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in three allotted days and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 16th November, each part of those Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table set out below.

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings Lords Amendments

Time for conclusion.

1st day

…

…

…

Nos. 1 to 23

…

…

7 p.m.

Nos. 24 to 40

…

…

9 p.m.

Nos. 41 to 54

…

…

10.30 p.m.

Nos. 55 to 62

…

…

midnight

2nd day

…

…

…

Nos. 63 to 80

…

…

6 p.m.

Nos. 81 to 84

…

…

7 p.m.

No. 85

…

…

9 p.m.

Nos. 86 to 96

…

…

11 p.m.

Nos. 97 to 108

…

…

midnight

3rd day

…

…

…

Nos. 109 to 129

…

…

5 p.m.

No. 130

…

…

6.30 p.m.

Nos. 131 to 138

…

…

8 p.m.

Nos. 139 to 236

…

…

10 p.m.

Nos. 237 to 239

…

…

midnight

2. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall
apply to the Proceedings for two hours after Ten o'clock.

3. For the purpose of bringing any Proceedings to a conclusion in
accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr Speaker shall put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that
Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House
doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended:
(b) Mr Speaker shall then—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a
Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the
Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be,
in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the
Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the
Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

MATERNITY HOSPITALS, HULL
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
11.37 p.m.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. An hon. Member is trying to raise a point of order. I hope that those who are leaving the Chamber will withdraw quietly, because we are taking the point of order out of the Adjournment time.
Mr. Rhodes James: The point of order that I seek to raise, Mr. Speaker, is the one that I was trying to raise during the Division. The ruling that you gave, Mr. Speaker, was that the order of the House of 16th November 1977 overrode Standing Order No. 44. That is the implication of what you said.
May I ask you to consider this matter again and to make a further statement
414
tomorrow? This is a serious implication, that a vote of the House may override a Standing Order of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I clearly followed the same precedent that my predecessor did, but if it will make the hon. Member feel happier, of course I shall repeat the statement tomorrow, with the greatest of pleasure. But I have followed the practice that has been followed hitherto with regard to the motion tonight. Of course I shall make a brief statement tomorrow, when we also have other business.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: It is a rare occasion, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member wait a moment? He was obviously speaking under difficulties. Will right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quietly?
Mr. McNamara: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is a rare occasion when

415
an hon. Member, even in an Adjournment debate, raises a subject that he knows has the full support of the community that he represents, fellow members from all parties, his local authority, and all the voluntary groups associated with the subject that he is raising. Yet this is the case in relation to the proposed closure of the Hull hospital for women and the Townend maternity home, both situated in my constituency but serving the needs of the constituencies of Kingston upon Hull, West Haltemprice, and parts of Kingston upon Hull, East, all of whose Members join me in their condemnation of this insensitive decision, indifferent to public opinion and, as I shall show, contrary to the best interests of the women patients and good medical practice. It has succeeded in uniting all shades of political opinion, right, left and centre.
To recap the proposals of the district management team, they are to close the Townend maternity home, so that all maternity cases are dealt with at the Hedon Road maternity hospital and to close the Hull hospital for women and transfer all gynaecological work to the south annexe of the Hull Royal infirmary, at a total estimated saving of no more than £100,000.
A busy group of general practitioners, in a practice covering both my constituency and that of my hon Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), said in a letter to the area health authority:
"At present our normal obstetric patients are sent to the GP obstetric unit at Townend. If this unit were removed to Hedon Road, our obstetric practice would necessarily have to be seriously curtailed because during busy times of the day traffic conditions in the City centre would render it impossible for us to journey to Hedon Road for emergencies occurring during surgery hours. In the event we should have to give up attending the delivery of most of our obstetric cases, which means, as you know, that eventually we would not he allowed to undertake obstetric care …
Furthermore, we cannot agree that the proposed five-bed unit is big enough to be an adequate alternative to Townend for GPs "—
and they then make an important and telling point:
"As the number of GPs practising obstetrics declines, the fewer opportunities there will be available for young doctors to gain general practice obstetric experience, which will in turn lead to less obstetric practice overall. The real
416
issue to be weighed is whether the suggested administrative/financial solution is worth it to the general public at the cost of the damage it will do to medical care. We do not think so."
My hon. Friends and I do not think so either.
In order to understand the enormity and strange character of this decision it is necessary to appreciate the geography of Hull. The city lies in a half circle on the north bank of the Humber and is dissected by the River Hull. The threatened hospitals lie in the centre of my constituency and are on convenient public transport routes. The Hull Royal maternity hospital is an old fever hospital and, as befits such an institution, is on the periphery of the city with difficult public transport access.
It is a nightmare to reach when the traffic is congested. The southern annexe, which is also in East Hull, is difficult to reach.
The Hull city council, in its representations to the area health authority, bitterly and pointedly said:
"It would appear that this move has been treated almost entirely as a financial exercise and has not taken account of the very considerable inconvenience, firstly, to the residents in the northern area of the City who have now much further to travel, and secondly to the City as a whole in view of the overall reduction in their facilities. In October 1977, the City Council resolved that the location of any new services provided by the Health Authority should be related to the natural lines of transport communications within the City. Clearly, the present proposals would be quite contrary to this suggestion for the more convenient location of hospital premises."
A unique decision has been taken by the management team. Not only are all the GPs against it but the medical committee and the community health council are against it. None of my hon. Friends has received representations in support of the decision.
The general practitioners' committee says, in its representation to the area health authority:
"General practitioners in Humberside are opposed to the proposed closure of the Hull Hospital for Women and the Townend Maternity Home, and have doubts that the estimated savings would be £100,000.
Patients are of primary importance, and they do not want the closure, they like continuity of treatment by their own doctor. The Townend Maternity Home is a good General Practitioner Hospital, and has been for a number of years … Closure could cause a

417
subsequent increase in home confinements, which many doctors consider a retrograde step."
Speaking of the Hull hospital for women, the committee states:
"Humberside General Practitioners are completely opposed to the idea of closing down a perfectly good, fully equipped and functioning hospital with operating facilities which only requires £10,000 expenditure in a town with a waiting, list as long as three years in some specialities, and two years for routine gynaeocology …The cost of a delivery at Townend is currently £246 per delivery as against £249 at Hedon Road."
There is some strange financial saving there. The committee breaks down the figures and suggests—and I agree—that there is no proof of a real saving. The committee also examines the question of bed occupancy and the decline in facilities. The details are contained in the document which I am sure the Minister has seen.
I wish to make one important point. A lot of the emotion and the reasoning behind this matter has concerned the cut-down at the maternity home. I urge my hon. Friend to consider the situation in the Hull hospital for women. A woman would have to wait 70 weeks there for general gynaecological treatment. At the Hull Royal infirmary, to which it is proposed the women should now go, the waiting times, depending upon the consultant, are 136 weeks, 330 weeks, 232 weeks or 160 weeks. So it is possible for a patient to wait six years. Is that the sort of progress that the district management team is considering when it talks about improving the facilities for patients in Hull? They cannot even clear a waiting list in six years.
Other problems have not been dealt with. They concern, among other things, what will happen to the community midwifery services. I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of State about this. He said:
"Humberside Area Health Authority plans to provide the appropriate level of community midwifery services which will become necessary."—[Official Report, 14th February 1978; Vol 944, c. 113.]
What is that level. There is no provision in any estimates put forward by the hospital management team. It is very poor on proposed capital expenditure, although it can wax lyrical about proposed savings. The case made out by the district management team is riddled with holes. No one is in favour of it.
418
I come now to an even more serious point. The area health authority is clue to meet next Thursday to consider the proposed closures and the representations that have been made. Yet already decisions have been taken which seek to pre-empt the scope of the decisions of the area health authority. In the case of conflict between the area health councils and the area health authority, should the authority agree to the closure, the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will have to adjudicate, are being tied. This is being done by sharp administrative practice which makes a mockery of the whole idea of consultation. The area health authority meets next Thursday. Decisions have already been taken on the proposals.
From Monday 19th June the Hull hospital for women has been made from a seven-day hospital to a five-day outpatient organisation. This decision was taken without reference to public representatives, to community health councils, or even to the trade unions representing the people who work at the hospital. I spoke only this evening with Mr. Martin of the National Union of Public Employees. He tells me that the first he heard about the proposal was in the middle of the week preceding the 191h. He learned about it when his members told him that they had new duty rosters and asked what they should do.
That is typical of the team's attitude to employees in the Health Service, and it is typical of the way in which it is riding roughshod over the representations made by my constituents, by numerous organisations, by Hull city council and by the community health council. It has gone out of its way to take decisions which are directly contrary to the best interests of my constituents. This is a shocking example of administrative procedures, and I trust that it will cause my hon. Friend to rap severely the knuckles of many of those who are involved in this exercise in the Hull area.
These people made this decision, not just the week before, which would have meant a shortage of time in which to inform the unions or other people, but on 6th April, more than two months earlier. The decision was made in a minute headed to the effect that the consultation period was over. What does consultation mean in that case? Does it

419
mean getting people to make representations, and no more? Certainly the area health authority had not considered anything about this. The decision was announced by these people to press ahead with their own previous decision, a decision which was minuted but not announced—they did not have the courage to do that.
They go on to say that the redevelopment of the maternity service on the Hull Royal infirmary site had been planned. I am assuming that that is not the Sutton annexe. So they are closing two good hospitals and are planning unexplained capital expenditure for three other institutions and then they decide to have a maternity service at a new hospital as well.
This is bureaucratic saving gone mad. These people represent no one. They are appointed to do a job by a non-democratic body. In Westminster Great Hall at the moment is an exhibition commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of women achieving the vote. But no matter how they voted, they would not get rid of this district management team. But if they could vote, they would sweep them and their proposals out of office.
11.51 p.m.
Mr. James Johnson: These beginnings of an attempt to eliminate—almost liquidate—these Hull hospitals is monstrous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) said, it is almost a sin against democracy. I support everything that he said.
All in Hull—save apparently two or three consultants on the district management team—are opposed to this measure. My own West Hull doctors are opposed to it. They will have to cross the city to Hedon, as will the women patients. When they get to the hospital, they will find it wedged between two cemeteries, opposite a large cargo docks.
The community health council is solidly against the proposal, but it cannot oppose it. It is merely invited to offer its suggestions for alternative uses for the hospital. Sir John Dunning and his colleagues on the district authority apparently cannot overrule the management team. The Hull city council is against closing the hospitals, as are the trade
420
unions and the family practitioner committee.
Who is for the closure? Who sits on the management team? I am told that it consists only of medicals and officials—in other words, consultants and administrators. There are perhaps four or five of them, including Dr. Dunlop, the district community physician—or, to give him the old-fashioned title, the medical officer of health. There are no lay members.
The unions have assured me that there will be no redundancies, so it is difficult to see where savings will be made. Wage packets, especially in the public sector, account for 60 or 70 per cent. and more of overheads. The unions are often attacked for desiring workers' control. I ask the Minister whether this is not a blatant case of two or three professional consultants and perhaps two administrators pushing about Hull city and the whole of North Humberside and its womenfolk. Hull people do not like it. I ask the Minister to institute a public inquiry.
11.54 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr McNamara), for giving me the opportunity to speak about the future of the Hull hospital for women and the Townend maternity home. I know there has been a good deal of local concern, some of it expressed here tonight, about the proposals to close these hospitals and in fact my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central has made a number of representations to the Minister of State about this matter. Moreover, he has written to my right hon. Friend recently about the decision by the Hull district management team to restrict the service at the Hull hospital for women on a five-day week basis with effect from 19th June. I appreciate that this concern is shared by both my hon. Friends and their constituents.
I want to make it quite clear at the outset that I have not and nor has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State been formally asked to act as arbiter on the future of these two hospitals. Indeed, I understand that the Humberside area health authority, which is responsible for

421
the administration of both the Hull hospital for women and the Townend maternity home, has not yet finally decided whether it wishes to adopt the proposals to close the two hospitals. I am told that the matter is to be fully considered at the area health authority's next meeting on 13th July and it would be quite wrong therefore to make any assumptions at this stage about the future of the two hospitals concerned. Indeed, I would emphasise that nothing I say today should he construed as prejudicing the issue in the case of Hull Hospital for women and the Townend maternity home and, in this context, I think it might be helpful if I describe the procedures for the closure or change of use of any National Health Service building.
Following the reorganisation of the NHS in 1974 and the introduction of new planning procedures, the procedures for the closure or change of use of health buildings were reviewed and my Department issued revised guidance in 1975. The aim of the new procedures is to enable scarce resources to be redeployed with the maximum speed and simplicity consistent with adequate, local and, where necessary, national consultation. The rightness of this approach seems especially relevant at a time of economic restraint, when it is absolutely essential that no unnecessary barriers should stand in the way of the cost-effective use of resources.
In general, responsibility for determining the closure or change of use of health buildings rests with the appropriate area health authority which, in the case of the Hull hospital for women and the Townend maternity home, is the Humberside area health authority, provided that the community health council is in agreement. Where there is general local agreement, it should be possible to effect a closure or change of use within a period of six months.
If, having discussed informally a particular closure or change of use with the interested organisations, an area health authority considered that such a measure would be beneficial, it would have to initiate formal consultations. In this event, the procedures require the authority to prepare a consultative document covering such matters as the reasons for its proposal an evaluation of the possibilities of using the facilities for other purposes, or the disposal of the site;
422
implications for the staff; the relationship between the closure or change of use and other developments and plans; and the transport facilities for those patients who might be affected by the proposals. The area health authority would invite comments on the proposals contained in the document, within a period of three months, from such bodies as the community health councils, local authorities, joint staff organisations, family practitioner committees and local advisory committees, including the local medical committees. Hon. Members whose constituents were affected would also be informed of the proposals.
The area health authority would then seek the community health council's views on the comments it received and on its own observations on those comments. The authorty would then review its original proposals in the light of the comments received and, unless there was strong local opposition, it could then implement its original proposals provided that the community health council agreed. The regional health authority and my Department would be informed of the decision.
However, if the community health council object to the authority's proposals, it is required to submit to the authority a constructive and detailed counter-proposal, paying full regard to the factors, including restraints on resources, which led the authority to make its original proposal. The matter must then be referred to the regional health authority. If the regional health authority is unable to accept the views of the council and wishes to proceed with the closure or change of use, it falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to act as arbiter. I must repeat, therefore, that nothing I say today should be construed as prejudging the issue, on which the consultative procedures I have described are still in progress.
Having outlined the consultative procedures generally, I should like to say a few words about the particular proposals contained in the Humberside area health authority's consultative document on the future of the Hull hospital for women and the Townend maternity home.
In January this year the Humberside area health authority issued its consultative document proposing that both the 24-bedded Hull hospital for women and

423
the Townend maternity home with its 17 GP beds be closed and that consideration be given to the possible alternative use of the buildings for health service purposes. The consultative document refers to two underlying reasons for the proposals. One is the need to make financial savings wherever possible in the district so that scarce resources might be redeployed more effectively elsewhere—and I will say a little more about this later. The second reason concerns the wish to rationalise under-used acute services and to concentrate them where there is a full range of back-up facilities available so that patients receive a better service.
The document suggests that both these objectives might be achieved by absorbing the gynaecological work currently carried out at the women's hospital into the Hull Royal infirmary, known as the Sutton, and by transferring the GP obstetric work from the Townend maternity home to the Hull maternity hospital, where a new GP unit would be established. The consultative document states that, while the proposals involve redeployment of services, there will be no actual cut in the level of services.
As for the Hull hospital for women, the area health authority's consultative document mentions two more immediate reasons for proposing its closure. One on which I shall be expanding later—this has a bearing on my hon. Friend's major point—is the retirement of the consultant gynaecologist who worked principally from the women's hospital, and the unlikelihood that his successor will wish to continue this commitment.
Mr. McNamara: I specifically put a question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on this point in order that the new terms and conditions should cover service from that. I received a very woolly, indecisive answer from him. My hon. Friend is going over procedures that we all know about. We have all read the documents. The point is that a material change of use in the maternity home has already been made.
Mr. Deakins: I shall be coming to my hon. Friend's point, if that is possible in the time that remains to me.
424
The second reason relates to the low bed occupancy rate at the hospital. As my hon. Friends may be aware, there has been a decline in the gynaecological work load at the hospital in recent years, and latest available figures—June 1977—show that the average daily bed occupation is some 51 per cent.
The view expressed in the consultative document is that it will be possible to meet on a more effective basis all the needs of the district's gynaecology service at the Sutton hospital, provided bed numbers are increased slightly and the outpatients' clinic is extended. Although it is considered that existing theatre facilities will be adequate, perhaps with some rearrangement if necessary, I understand that the district management team wants to develop twin operating theatres as soon as possible.
Like that at the women's hospital, the obstetric work load at the Townend maternity home has also been declining in recent years. a reflection on the general fall in the birth rate. Indeed, the AHA's consultative document shows that bed occupancy rates at the Hull maternity hospital and the Townend maternity home were 76.3 per cent. and 47.1 per cent. between January and June last year. The document suggests that the proposed closure of the Townend maternity home will not only mean that better use will be made of facilities at the maternity hospital but that patients will receive a better service. In this context I should mention that the maternity hospital has the advantage of full medical—including anaesthetic—cover readily available, as well as modern sophisticated equipment and a 24-bedded special care baby unit.
I understand that if the closure proposals are accepted it is intended to upgrade two wards at the maternity hospital at a cost of about £20,000. One of these would be used to provide a replacement unit for GPs and there would be 12 beds available to them. In the longer term the AHA's objective is to transfer the maternity hospital to the Hull Royal infirmary. Suitable space is not available at present, but the area health authority expects that further land will be acquired in due course.
As I mentioned earlier, one of the principal reasons for the proposals to close

425
these two hospitals is to make financial savings, and I think it might be appropriate to say something about the financial position of both the Humberside area health authority and the Hull district. The consultative document estimates that by absorbing the beds at the women's hospital into the Hull Royal infirmary and by transferring the beds at the Townend maternity home into the Hull maternity home it will eventually be possible to achieve net revenue savings of about £100,000 per annum.
As my hon Friends will be aware, the Humberside area health authority is an under-funded area within an under-funded region according to the criteria recommended by the Resource Allocation Working Party. In 1978–79 the area's revenue allocation is some £57.4 million. This amounts to 94.82 per cent. of the AHA's target allocation under the RAWP formula. It should be mentioned that over the next 10 years the AHA will have to find additional funds to meet the revenue consequences of four major capital schemes, including the new district general hospital at Grimsby, which is due to be completed in 1981.
The Hull district's revenue allocation for the current financial year totals some £21·9 million. This amounts to virtually 100 per cent. of the district's target allocation under the RAWP formula, and it is expected that the district will receive only about ½per cent. growth money over the next three years. I am told that the district is already in some financial difficulties because of slight overspending last year and it will need to find funds to meet the running costs of a new geriatric day hospital which is due to open within the next year, together with additional funds to meet the revenue consequences of four other small schemes. For these reasons, both the area and district are anxious to make savings wherever possible, without of course seriously affecting the level of service provided to patients.
I hope that what I have said has given my hon. Friend an indication of what the Humberside area health authority's proposals are. As I said earlier, the plans have been made public, and I understand that a number of local organisations have commented on them. In particular, the Hull community health council has raised objections, which have
426
been mentioned by both my hon. Friends tonight, and has submitted counter-proposals whereby patient services would be transferred to the Townend maternity home from the Woodgates maternity home, where bed occupancy rates are also low. The CHC's view is that this would ensure fuller use of the Townend maternity home, with any excess in patient demand being taken up by the Westwood hospital in the Beverley health district.
In the case of the Hull hospital for women, the CHC proposes that the hospital should operate on a five-day week basis for the treatment of gynaecology patients. In the longer term, the CHC accepts that once the new surgical facilities at the Hull Royal infirmary are completed gynaecology services would transfer there. It proposes that the women's hospital should then be used either as a home for the elderly or a convalescent home.
The CHC's views, together with all the other comments received on the proposals, are to be considered by the area health authority at its next meeting on 13th July, and it would certainly not be proper for me to comment further at this stage. However, I know that the particular concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central is the decision by the Hull district management team to restrict the service at the Hull hospital for women on a five-day week basis. I know he regards this decision as pre-empting the discussion by the AHA at its meeting on 13th July, and I want therefore to let him know the facts on this matter.
Two points that need to be clarified straightaway are that the hospital has not closed, nor is it being run as an outpatients department. As I explained earlier, one of the reasons behind the proposal to close the Hull hospital for women was the retirement of the consultant gynaecologist who worked principally from there. It was originally thought that he would retire at the end of this year, but he decided to do so at the end of May. This left the Hull district management team in difficulty over the question of consultant cover at the women's hospital.
What has happened is that ever since the retirement of the consultant was announced, the district management team

427
has been negotiating with the other gynaecology consultants to try to avoid a hiatus arising when he actually left. The point here is that the retiring consultant was the only consultant who would use the hospital for women; the others would not treat patients there in view of the level of facilities available, the fact that there is no house cover, and because of the distance from the main gynaecological department at Hull Royal infirmary, Sutton. However, they have now agreed
428
to run it on a five-day week basis, and this the district management team accepted as an interim measure pending the authority's decision about its future.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening 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 seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
    Members (Air Travel)
    Members (Air Travel)
    TOP SALARIES (REVIEW BODY'S REPORT)
    TOP SALARIES (REVIEW BODY'S REPORT)
    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    UNEMPLOYMENT (CPRS WORK)
    UNEMPLOYMENT (CPRS WORK)
  EMPLOYMENT
    Training and Job Creation
    Training and Job Creation
    Special Temporary Employment Programme
    Special Temporary Employment Programme
    Dock Work Regulation Act
    Dock Work Regulation Act
    Technological Change
    Technological Change
    Employment Legislation
    Employment Legislation
    Working Population
    Working Population
    School Leavers
    School Leavers
    Leicester
    Leicester
    Steel Redundancies
    Steel Redundancies
    Disabled Persons
    Disabled Persons
    Wrongful Dismissal Charges
    Wrongful Dismissal Charges
    Women Workers
    Women Workers
    Employment Protection Act
    Employment Protection Act
    Youth Opportunities Programme
    Youth Opportunities Programme
    Productivity Deals
    Productivity Deals
    Cutlery Workers (Sheffield)
    Cutlery Workers (Sheffield)
    Unemployed Persons
    Unemployed Persons
    Jobcentres
    Jobcentres
    Skillcentres
    Skillcentres
    Industrial Tribunals (Presidents)
    Industrial Tribunals (Presidents)
    Working Week
    Working Week
    Steel Plant Closures
    Steel Plant Closures
    Press Charter
    Press Charter
    Private Employment Agencies
    Private Employment Agencies
    Housing (Availability)
    Housing (Availability)
    Peterborough
    Peterborough
  TRANSPORT
    Drivers' Hours
    Drivers' Hours
    Seat Belts
    Seat Belts
    Motor Vehicles (Distracting Objects)
    Motor Vehicles (Distracting Objects)
    Vehicle Licensing Office, Isle of Wight
    Vehicle Licensing Office, Isle of Wight
  INDUSTRY
    Micro-Processors
    Micro-Processors
    Road Accidents
    Road Accidents
    Product and Process Development Scheme
    Product and Process Development Scheme
    Post Office (Dispute)
    Post Office (Dispute)
    Telephones (Northern Ireland)
    Telephones (Northern Ireland)
    British Shipbuilders
    British Shipbuilders
  SCOTLAND
    Agricultural Land
    Agricultural Land
    Greater Oriental Development Company Limited
    Greater Oriental Development Company Limited
  HOME DEPARTMENT
    Metropolitan Police
    Metropolitan Police
    Crime and Punishment
    Crime and Punishment
    Nicholas Prager
    Nicholas Prager
    Entry Applications
    Entry Applications
    Annika Pavel and James Sullivan
    Annika Pavel and James Sullivan
    Immigration (Hong Kong Citizens)
    Immigration (Hong Kong Citizens)
    St. Edmundsbury District, Suffolk
    St. Edmundsbury District, Suffolk
    Advisory Council on the Penal System
    Advisory Council on the Penal System
    Inner London Courts Service
    Inner London Courts Service
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
    Inshore Fishing (English Channel)
    Inshore Fishing (English Channel)
    Potatoes (Dehydration)
    Potatoes (Dehydration)
    Commodity Levies
    Commodity Levies
    Animals (Export)
    Animals (Export)
    Bees
    Bees
  TRADE
    Tourism
    Tourism
    USSR (Government Credit)
    USSR (Government Credit)
    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (SPEECH)
    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (SPEECH)
    GOVERNMENT POLICIES (PRIME MINISTER'S ADDRESS)
    GOVERNMENT POLICIES (PRIME MINISTER'S ADDRESS)
    TUC AND CBI
    TUC AND CBI
    AFRICA (SOVIET AND CUBAN PRESENCE)
    AFRICA (SOVIET AND CUBAN PRESENCE)
    LEICESTER
    LEICESTER
    NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
    NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
    CAERNARFON
    CAERNARFON
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
    FALKLAND ISLANDS
    FALKLAND ISLANDS
  ENVIRONMENT
    Local Authorities (Staff)
    Local Authorities (Staff)
    Domestic Premises (Rewiring)
    Domestic Premises (Rewiring)
    Rent Rebates
    Rent Rebates
    Rate Rebates
    Rate Rebates
    Housing (Design and Building)
    Housing (Design and Building)
    London Borough of Newham (Payment Applications)
    London Borough of Newham (Payment Applications)
    Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act
    Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act
    Licence Agreements
    Licence Agreements
    Camden
    Camden
  NATIONAL FINANCE
    National Insurance Surcharge
    National Insurance Surcharge
    Earnings (Rate of Increase)
    Earnings (Rate of Increase)
    Budget Proposals (Representations)
    Budget Proposals (Representations)
    Mobility Allowance
    Mobility Allowance
    Personal Taxation
    Personal Taxation
    Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise
    Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise
    Limited Liability Companies (Bank of England Intervention)
    Limited Liability Companies (Bank of England Intervention)
    Double Taxation Convention (United States of America)
    Double Taxation Convention (United States of America)
    Productivity
    Productivity
    Inland Revenue Accountants
    Inland Revenue Accountants
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
    Rhodesia (Sanctions)
    Rhodesia (Sanctions)
    Hong Kong
    Hong Kong
  SOCIAL SERVICES
    Supplementary Benefit Levels
    Supplementary Benefit Levels
    Hounslow Hospital
    Hounslow Hospital
    Pharmaceutical Services Negotiation Committee
    Pharmaceutical Services Negotiation Committee
    Orthopaedic Consultants
    Orthopaedic Consultants
    Brentford Hospital
    Brentford Hospital
    Pre-school Health Module
    Pre-school Health Module
    Community Homes
    Community Homes
    Poliomyelitis
    Poliomyelitis
    Rotherham District Hospital
    Rotherham District Hospital
    Hospital Consultants
    Hospital Consultants
    National Health Service Staff (Rotherham)
    National Health Service Staff (Rotherham)
    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Elderly Persons (Accommodation)
    Elderly Persons (Accommodation)
    Orpington Hospital
    Orpington Hospital
    National Insurance Contributions
    National Insurance Contributions
    Pension Arrears (Deceased Persons)
    Pension Arrears (Deceased Persons)
  EMPLOYMENT
    Youth Opportunities Programme
    Youth Opportunities Programme
    Training Opportunities Scheme
    Training Opportunities Scheme
    Collective Bargaining
    Collective Bargaining
    Unemployed Persons
    Unemployed Persons
    Engineering Industry (Training Schemes)
    Engineering Industry (Training Schemes)
    Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act
    Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act
    Unfair Dismissal Claims
    Unfair Dismissal Claims
    Building and Construction Industry
    Building and Construction Industry
    Jobcentres
    Jobcentres
    Small Firms Employment Subsidy
    Small Firms Employment Subsidy
    Staffordshire (Industrial Workers)
    Staffordshire (Industrial Workers)
    Lost Working Days
    Lost Working Days
    Disabled Workers
    Disabled Workers
    School Leavers
    School Leavers
    Council of Ministers (Meeting)
    Council of Ministers (Meeting)
  DEFENCE
    KC135 Tanker Aircraft (Base)
    KC135 Tanker Aircraft (Base)
    Civilian Employees
    Civilian Employees
    Diesel-powered Submarines
    Diesel-powered Submarines
    Dockyards (Industrial Democracy)
    Dockyards (Industrial Democracy)
    Armed Forces (Recruitment and Retirement)
    Armed Forces (Recruitment and Retirement)
    Courts Martial
    Courts Martial
    Defence Cuts
    Defence Cuts
    Local Overseas Allowance
    Local Overseas Allowance
    Rhodesia
    Rhodesia
  NORTHERN IRELAND
    Car Parks
    Car Parks
    Terrorist Activities
    Terrorist Activities
    Cereals
    Cereals
    Evictions
    Evictions
    Squatters
    Squatters
    Action-research Project (University of Ulster)
    Action-research Project (University of Ulster)
    Social Security Benefits
    Social Security Benefits
    Agricultural Produce
    Agricultural Produce
    Housing Executive (Tenants)
    Housing Executive (Tenants)
    Civil Servants (Air Travel)
    Civil Servants (Air Travel)
    Boundary Commission
    Boundary Commission
  CIVIL SERVICE
    Departmental Staff
    Departmental Staff
  WALES
    Employment (Cardiff)
    Employment (Cardiff)
    Bilingual Secondary Schools
    Bilingual Secondary Schools
    Chirk Castle, Clwyd
    Chirk Castle, Clwyd

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

MOTABILITY: PUBLICITY
2.38 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: 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 steps they have already taken to make the advantages of Motability known as widely as possible, and what further steps they propose to take in this direction.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, while Motability receives the full support of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and of the Minister for the Disabled, it is a voluntary organisation which is independent of Government. On this basis, and at Motability's request, my Department and the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland have advised all mobility allowance beneficiaries of what the new organisation has to offer. The organisation has produced two leaflets, one which describes its role and which is for general use, and a second one specifically intended for those who are both in receipt of mobility allowance and are in the age-groups from whom Motability is ready to consider applications for help under its new car leasing scheme. I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that the distribution of these two leaflets, to all who may be eligible to use Motability's car leasing scheme, is complete. Copies of the leaflets have been placed in the Library.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that very helpful and informative reply. Would
834
he not agree that this excellent plan for the leasing of motor cars to handicapped persons affects far more people than the Government's kidney transplant campaign, so warmly advocated by the late Lord Platt, whose untimely death we all deplore and who will be sadly missed in all parts of your Lordships' House?
If the Government do not wish the advantages of Motability to be taken up too rapidly, as happened with the attendance allowance in the case of the previous Government, could they seek to keep the general public fully informed of the progress of the scheme by issuing figures, either monthly or quarterly, of the numbers of disabled persons who have been able to benefit from Motability?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships would allow me to say that all your Lordships, I feel sure, would wish to be associated with my noble friend's comments about the late Lord Platt. I personally had a good deal to do with him on one thing and another, and I think that one had nothing but admiration for what he was trying to do.
With regard to Motability, it will be of interest, I am sure, for me to say that the present intention of Motability is to start with young adults, aged 16 to 19, and work through to those of pensionable age; that is, 65 for men and 60 for women. Then it proposes to deal with applications where a disabled child has a mobility allowance, and finally to invite applications from people of over-pensionable age. This is its method of procedure at the present moment. As I said, it is an independent body. It is made up of members drawn from a very wide field of finance and industry, the various professions, the trade union movement and voluntary organisations. Its priorities seem to be those which are rather urgent at the present moment.

RHODESIA: THE ANGLO-AMERICAN PLAN
2.41 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: 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 progress has been made with the Anglo-American plan for Rhodesia.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Mr. Graham and Ambassador Low are continuing their consultations in Africa. Our goal remains early round table talks involving all the parties. There is increasing recognition among them of the need for such talks.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he would accept that some of us, including prominent white leaders in Kenya, have been warning those who rebelled against the Crown and the authority of this Parliament of the dangers which now have arisen, unhappily, in that country for both black and white British citizens? Would he further agree that to support the shaky internal settlement and remove sanctions at this stage could only intensify the dangers and violence in that country and involve Britain in a Vietnam-like situation? Would he convey to his right honourable friend the support of many of us with long experience in Rhodesia, or Zimbabwe, and say that we admire his patience and courage in pursuing the Anglo-American plan, which alone can help to solve the problems of that country.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Naturally, my Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there are dire dangers for all concerned—not only those in Zimbabwe—from a continuation of a situation of escalating conflict and bloodshed. Secondly, the internal settlement to which he refers is seriously deficient; there is no lack of people in Zimbabwe itself and in Salisbury who agree on that point. Finally, I shall certainly convey to my right honourable friend the support of my noble friend for his policies and procedures.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the support for the internal settlement in Africa must vary in relation to, or as a ratio of, the extent to which it is seen in the country that support is being given by external sources
836
—such as Russia, Britain, the United States—to external elements? Does he also agree that this is associated with the fact that inevitably, as the African element will feel that they want to be on the winning side, they will support moves from one side of the balance to the other? Furthermore, would he care to make any comment on the view that the working of the "double-headed" departmental Ministers is effective, as I learn from latest information that black and white Ministers associate on the same platforms in making speeches throughout the country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the external influence on the internal progress of agreement and cooperation in Zimbabwe is very important indeed. I would add to the list of external influences which the noble Lord mentioned the Organisation of African Unity and the Front-Line Presidents. I am sure that he would not disagree that the list of external influences would be somewhat incomplete without those additions. As to the progress of the internal agreement, whatever its motivation and purpose, unfortunately it has not so far yielded results which have consolidated opinion in Rhodesia to the extent that a ceasefire is any nearer than it was before the agreement was concluded. One wishes that it were otherwise. Indeed, to the extent that the internal agreement approximates to the Anglo-American proposals it will become more attractive to the external influences which the noble Lord mentioned, as well as to the international community.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, to revert to my noble friend's original Question, I should like to ask the Minister whether he agrees that the simple answer is that there has been no progress with the Anglo-American plan, and that there will not be any progress with it; but that the only plan in existence is the internal settlement? Furthermore, does he agree that the alternative policy is support of the massacre of soft targets, which is what we have in fact been doing by flattering the so-called Popular Front?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend is not deficient in articulation, but he may be slightly deficient in hearing. I should like to repeat the original Answer I gave.

837
Mr. Graham and Ambassador Low are continuing their consultations in Africa. I went on to say that there is increasing recognition among them—that is, the parties in Africa—of the need for round table talks.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the Minister say whether Mr. Graham and Ambassador Low were able on their visit to take evidence as to the degree of support which the internal agreement has received? Has the Minister noted that only yesterday Mr. Chinamano, representing the Patriotic Front, urged that there should be all-Party talks to prevent a more horrible war? Is there not increasing support for this view both inside and outside Rhodesia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, of course it is a fact that the Patriotic Front indicated at Dar es Salaam in April its readiness to attend round table talks. It is equally a fact that Mr. Smith and his confreres have indicated that they, too, would attend such talks if they saw some prospect (as they say) of their being successful. It is precisely on that somewhat hopeful basis that Ambassador Low and Mr. John Graham are now working. We think that there is evidence of movement—small, but perceptible—and we must all hope that this movement is accentuated, with the result that we shall get an all-Party round table conference which will agree on the essentials of proceeding to independence on the basis of a ceasefire and a neutrally-controlled transitional arrangement.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, may I finally ask my noble friend to convey to the appropriate channels that there is some desire that this House should debate this most important and responsible issue before we rise for the Recess?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it would seem to me, and possibly to your Lordships, that this matter is being debated almost every day to one extent or another. I would say that, if there was a request through the normal channels for such a debate, we should not resist it. However, in this House we are able to look perhaps more frequently
838
than the other place at matters of continuing concern in this way, and no doubt noble Lords will consider carefully before they decide that a time is ripe in the near future for a full-dress debate.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, would the noble Lord say what happened—
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the horrible example of last night, when we rose after 12.30, noble Lords would perhaps like me to remind them that we have 33 speakers today. I am in the hands of the House, but I think we have had quite a good run on this Question.

FOOD INDUSTRY: GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.51 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: 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, if any, are their plans on the nationalisation of parts of the food manufacturing industry.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government have no plans to nationalise any part of the food manufacturing industry.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that there have been all sorts of rumours spreading about; and as, generally speaking, I always like to be fair to my own Party and to the Opposition, does the noble Lord not think that it would be a good thing if he could deal with the rumours that are circulating, as this matter is upsetting to everybody? A great many people in the food trade certainly do not want any nationalisation, and I agree with them.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I have not heard any rumours. Indeed, we have no record of any suggestion that I know

839
of from any Government source that the Government have any plans for nationalisation of the food industry.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. He may not have heard them and I may not have heard them, but undoubtedly they are there.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think one of the difficulties may be that the noble Baroness has been reading—and I am glad she has—the Labour Party's programme. If I may, I would suggest to her that if she were to read the foreword she would see the difference between a programme and a manifesto, where it is spelt out in Clause 5 of the Labour Party constitution. She might also like to read more of the programme; it might convert her to parts of it.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, from what the noble Lord has said, can we take it categorically that no plans for nationalising the food industry or any part of it will appear in the Labour Party manifesto for the next Election?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think we shall have to wait until the Prime Minister decides the date of the next Election and until the manifesto is drawn up; but I can say that at present, although no Government can commit their successors, the Government have no plans for nationalising any part of the food industry.

PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF PORTS
2.53 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: 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 is still their policy to take into national ownership all the major ports.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Government remain committed to ports reorganisation.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, may I ask her whether she is aware that at one time, at any rate, the Labour Party committed themselves, not only to reorganisation but to nationalisation? I am asking whether it is still their intention that the reorganisation should take the form of national ownership. May I further ask the noble Baroness whether she agrees that, if that is so, the sooner the Government make an announcement about this the better it will be for all those concerned with or dependent upon the ports?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord is under a misapprehension. We at no time said that we were going to nationalise the ports. We said that we would take them under a form of public ownership and control, which is different. As far as our policy is concerned at the moment, it would need major legislation to bring in any form of public control, and there is no Parliamentary time in this Session for it. What we have done is to issue two different consultative documents about ports reorganisation. The most recent of these was in April 1975. We pointed out then that there was perhaps a reason for establishing a strong National Ports Authority, that there might be some provision for the public ownership of private statutory port undertakings, and that there might be a retention or an extension of local rather than national public ownership. Those are the three basic features of that last consultative document, and they have been the subject of considerable and extensive consultation with the unions and with outside bodies. The Secretary of State for Transport has been looking at the various ways in which the desired reorganisation might be achieved, and is still working on the lines of those three major points of the last consultative document. But nothing will be done without considerably more consultation at all levels.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness this question, because I have become rather confused. Does that mean that any future Labour Government will or will not nationalise the ports?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it depends on the manifesto at the time when the Election is held. At the moment we have for consideration, for all sections of the industry and for the Party, the consultative document of 1975. Consultations are still proceeding on that. I am advised that anything on the lines suggested in the consultative document would mean major primary legislation and some secondary legislation, which might take up to two years to prepare. So I can safely say, with November of next year being the final date for this Government, that there will be no nationalisation within the lifetime of this Government.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, does that mean that the next Labour Government will or will not nationalise the ports?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I cannot speak at this time for what will be in the next manifesto.
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, has the noble Baroness any information whether the Conservative Party is about to denationalise the coal industry?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I only know of the rumours, referred to by the noble Baroness opposite, of various forms of policy; and the rumours are that the coal industry is going to be denationalised and that transport is going to be denationalised. All kinds of other horrific things have been put up for consultation, as this has.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that this Question is about port nationalisation and has nothing whatever to do with coal nationalisation?
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, did my noble friend observe that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Carrington, displayed remarkable optimism when, on two occasions, when he put his two questions, he referred to a future Labour Government?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I said "any" future Labour Government?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord meant the next Government.
Viscount ROCHDALE: My Lords, if the answer of the noble Baroness means that there might be nationalisation, and if that intention were to be based on the success of the British Transport Docks Board, which is a nationalised body—a success which no one will denigrate or deny—will they remember that, in the view of many of us who have studied this matter, the success of the Docks Board has been due to the very considerable degree of competition from other forms of ownership of docks, both trusts and other forms of private ownership; and that if that competition were removed it would be very unlikely that one could rely on the same degree of success of the Docks Board as we have had in the past?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I accept that the British Transport Docks Board has been an extremely successful organisation. What I said in my original Answer was that we were committed to port reorganisation. We are not committed to nationalisation: we are committed to public ownership and control. Noble Lords opposite do not accept that this is different, but there are different ways of getting public ownership and control, in which one may still be in competition with another.

EEC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: JULY BUSINESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, a Statement is being made today in another place about business to be taken during July in the EEC Council of Ministers. With the leave of the House, I will, as usual, arrange for the Statement to be made available in the Official Report.
Following is the Statement referred to:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about business to he taken by Ministers of the European Community during July. The monthly written forecast was deposited on Thursday 29th June.
"Heads of State and Government will meet in the European Council in Bremen on 6th and 7th July. At present six meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for that month. The Budget Council will meet on the 18th, the Finance Council on the 24th, a joint ACP/EEC Council

843
on the 24th, the Agriculture Council and the Fisheries Council on the 24th and 25th, and the Foreign Affairs Council on the 25th.
"The Budget Council is expected to establish the Preliminary Draft General Community Budget in 1979.
"The Finance Council is expected to discuss a draft Commission Decision adapting economic policy guidelines for 1978 and proposing guidelines for the preparation of public budgets in 1979. The Council is also expected to review the outcome of the European Council meeting in Bremen and the Western Economic Summit in Bonn and may discuss a draft life insurance directive.
"A joint ACP/EEC Council will be held to open the renegotiation of the Lome Convention.
"The Agriculture Council is expected to discuss proposals for the organisation of the market in potatoes and wine, and agricultural structural problems in the Community generally and in the Mediterranean area.
"The Fisheries Council is expected to consider the future of agreements with Norway, Sweden and the Faroes, conservation measures and possibly the other Commission proposals for revision of the Common Fisheries Policy.
"The Foreign Affairs Council will consider any necessary follow-up to the European Council meeting and will discuss issues raised at the joint ACP/EEC Council meeting. The Council will also consider EEC-Yugoslavia relations, review developments in the GATT multilateral trade negotiations, and receive a progress report on the negotiations for Greek accession to the Community. They will have a second discussion of the Commission's enlargement "fresco". They will review progress in the negotiations with Spain on the revision of the 1970 Agreement and may continue their discussion of structural policy in the iron and steel sector. The Council will also review progress made in the arrangements for direct elections to the European Assembly.
"Mr. Speaker, July marks the end of the Danish Presidency of the Council of Ministers and I would like in conclusion to express the Government's admiration for the capable and effective way in which Denmark has discharged the onerous duties of that office. In particular I wish to express our warm regard for the skilful manner in which Mr. K. B. Andersen, the Danish Foreign Minister—a statesman of great warmth, humanity and vision—has presided over the Council discussions and to wish him well for the future ".

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

ADOPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. It is a consolidation Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

INTERPRETATION BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on re-commitment of this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: It may be for the convenience of the Committee, as no Amendments have been put down until we reach the Schedules, if I propose the clauses en bloc.
Clauses 1 to 26 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Words and expressions defined]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 10, line 24, leave out ("under") and insert ("by").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor drafting Amendment substituting the word "by" for "under" in relation to the relevant Act. I beg to move.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: While accepting all that the noble and learned Lord has said, and is going to say. may I perhaps—and I hope that I am not wholly out of order—respectifully remind him that as long ago as 1969 the Law Commission recommended Amendments to the Interpretation Act whereas this is a purely consolidation Bill. Will the noble and learned Lord perhaps persuade his colleagues, should

845
there be another Session of Parliament, to consider that as a possible candidate for legislation?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not like the ominous words of the noble and learned Lord: "should there he another Session of Parliament". At any rate, no abolition of Parliament, so far as I know, is under immediate contemplation by any responsible party.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Read the Manifesto!
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I take note of what the noble and learned Lord has said. No doubt we will get round to reforming the Interpretation Acts in due course.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 10, line 25, at end insert ("[1st April 1974").
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be convenient for me to take the remaining Amendments, Nos. 2 to 6, together and en bloc. They all concern the definition in the Bill of the expression "England" and they are all prompted by a point raised in the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. The definitions of "England" and of "Wales" both operate by reference to the Local Government Act 1972, and a question was raised why the definition of "England" is applied to existing Acts of any date while that of "Wales" is applied only to existing Acts passed on or after 1st April 1974. It appears that the reason is that both "England" and "Wales" are defined by reference to the Local Government Act 1972 which came into force on 1st April 1974. However, until the Welsh Language Act 1967, England ", surprisingly, was defined by the Wales and Berwick Act 1746 to include Wales and, between 1967 and 1974, England included Monmouthshire.
So confusion has apparently arisen as to the definitions and it is now proposed that the definition of "England" shall, like that of "Wales", be applied to the Acts passed since 1st April 1974. In relation
846
to Acts passed before that date, the definition is modified to take account of the position prior to 1st April 1974 and also of that prior to the passing of the Welsh Language Act 1967. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall be the first Schedule to the Bill?
Lord AIREDALE: I should like to intervene briefly to point out that, although the definitions are marshalled in their alphabetical order, with few exceptions, the expression "Commonwealth citizen" is not defined in its proper alphabetical place but comes under "British subject". That, I think, means that the reader could be excused for missing it and supposing that "Commonwealth citizen" is not defined in the Bill. It would have been so easy to put an entry in the proper alphabetical place simply to say: "'Commonwealth citizen' has the same meaning as 'British subject'". I think it is a pity that that has not been done.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I think endeavour has been made to avoid repetition in the Schedule. It is right, as the noble Lord has said, that it is stated that "British subject" and "Commonwealth citizen" have the same meaning and then the meaning is defined. I venture to think that it was thought, perhaps, not necessary to have a repeat reference to "Commonwealth citizen". It might have been better, but I do not think the noble Lord is prepared to go to the stake on this minor point of criticism.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Application of Act to existing enactments]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 6:
Page 14, leave out lines 39 to 43.
Page 15, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) in any Act passed before 1st April 1974 a reference to England includes Berwick upon Tweed and Monmouthshire and, in the case of an Act passed before the Welsh Language Act 1967, Wales;")
Page 15, line 19, at end insert ("England") leave out lines 30 and 31.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: 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 Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WALES BILL
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order, vizt.:—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 9,

Schedules 2 and 3,

Clauses 10 to 35,

Schedules 4 and 5,

Clauses 36 to 55,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 56 to 58,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 59 to 61,

Schedule 8,

Clause 62,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 63 to 73,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 74 to 78,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 79 and 80,

Schedule 11.

—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EEC 22nd AND 35th REPORTS: APPROXIMATION OF LAWS
3.10 p.m.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON rose to call attention to the Approximation of Laws within the EEC with reference to the Twenty-second Report (H.L. 131) of the European Communities Committee on Approximation of Laws under Article 100 and the Thirty-fifth Report (H.L. 199) on the Approximation of Laws relating to Machine Tools and Portable Grinding Machines; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this debate is to call attention to the Twenty-second Report on the Select Committee on European Communities. The report and what I am going to say this afternoon is very largely devoted to criticisms of certain Directives and proposed Directives for approximation of laws under Article 100 of the Treaty. I want to try and put the criticisms in their proper perspective.
The Select Committee is of course in no way criticising the principle of approximation of laws. Approximation is provided for in the Treaty. It is fully accepted in principle, of course, by the Select Committee, provided—and this is the point of most of what the report has to say—that the approximation is carried out within the limits prescribed by the Treaty.
The Report sets out what we believe to be a complete list of the Directives and proposed Directives for approximation under Article 100 which have been issued since the Community began. There are about 500 of them, although I personally have not counted them. The vast majority of these Directives and proposed Directives appear to be within the limits of the Treaty and to be proper in their content. No criticism of them is made by the Select Committee in any way. They are mainly devoted to technical matters, to removing barriers to trade and setting common standards on technical matters; and they are entirely unexceptionable in the view of the Committee.
The criticism which is made in the report, and which I want to develop in the next few minutes, is made of only a small minority of the Directives. I should like to make that as clear as I can at the

849
beginning. The criticisms made by the Select Committee are mainly on two grounds. Some proposals for approximation are, in our view, defective in their substance—that is to say, they may be badly drafted or may set inappropriate standards. For example, the Thirty-fifth Report of the Select Committee, which is also the subject of this afternoon's debate, dealing with machine tools and, particularly with portable grinding machines, referred in one of its paragraphs to a proposed Directive for restricting the permitted noise level of power lawnmowers. The permitted level of noise which is proposed is such—or was at one time such—that, according to the evidence before the Select Committee, no lawnmower which conformed to that standard would ever be able to cut grass. That seemed to the Select Committee to show some defective arrangement in making the proposal. It may well be that the proposal was made after insufficient consultation with the industry and with people familiar with the technical problems.
Another example of a proposed Directive which has been severely criticised is the proposed Directive on selling on doorsteps, which was criticised in another place very severely the other day. Other examples can be cited of Directives which in some way are unsatisfactory in their contents. I do not propose to dwell on them or spend more of my time on them. I believe other speakers in the debate will be referring to some of them. I propose to concentrate so far as I can on the second type of criticism which is raised by the Committee: that is, a criticism of principle, that some recent proposals for Directives for approximation of laws seem to be going beyond the powers of the Community under the Treaty. They seem to be ultra vires. So far there has been only a very small number of proposals which fall into this class. I believe it is less than a dozen out of a total of 500 altogether. So quantitatively and numerically it is a small proportion.
However, the principle is important, because if it becomes established and accepted that Directives for approximation can be issued without regard to the limits imposed by the Treaty, or if it be accepted there are no limits imposed by
850
the Treaty, that will mean that the Community may take over fields of legislation within this country, and once taken over they are probably taken over for ever. The Community can remove them from the power of Parliament to legislate upon them. I do not dwell on the fact that this removal is permanent. My noble and learned friend Lord Diplock may be developing that point later. For the moment, all I wish to say is that if there are no limits to what the Community may do, it can take away from Parliament these fields of legislation.
The cases which come into this category have all arisen recently, within the past five years, and they have occurred mainly in two fields: partly in the field of environmental control, and partly under consumer protection. The proposals for the issue of Directives on environmental control seem to have originated from instructions issued at a summit conference of the heads of Government and heads of State in 1972. They were no doubt put forward on practical political grounds as being desirable objects to be pursued, without much consideration of the powers of the Treaty under which it was proposed to pursue those objectives.
It is fair to point out—and I should like to take this opportunity of doing so—that in so far as these proposals originated from the summit conference, the political conference, they are proposals for which the EEC Commission and their officials are not responsible in origin. The same is true of quite a number of other Directives and proposed Directives. There are requests made from all sorts of sources, industry, Members of the European Parliament and other sources, to have Directives on this, that and the other subject. To some extent, the permanent officials in Brussels simply have no alternative but to give effect to these. I take this opportunity of saying that because there is a popular belief that people in Brussels sit with their heads in wet towels wondering what new Directive they can dream up. I believe that to be an entirely unfair travesty of the truth. I should like to say that in defence of these people.
In their terms of reference the Select Committee are instructed to make reports on proposals which seems to raise important questions of policy or principle.

851
That is what this report is about. We think it raises an important question of principle. The question whether proposals are ultra vires has been generally recognised by your Lordships' House as being an important matter of principle, and the Maybray-King Report in 1973 thought that vires should be referred to and drawn attention to when there was doubt whether a particular proposal was ultra vires. The same remit is given to the sub-committee on legal matters.
One practical suggestion that I should like to make is that it may be useful, following upon what is done in the Select Committee, if Government departments, when making their comments on proposed Directives, were to express an opinion whether in their view a particular proposal was intra vires. It is the practice for Government departments to make comments on these proposals, directed entirely to their merits; if they could add a comment on the vires, that might be useful and helpful. I should remind the House that the machinery for the approximation of laws is laid down by Article 100 of the Treaty, which provides that the Council of the Community, acting on a proposal from the Commission, is to issue Directives for proposed approximations.
A Directive, under Article 189 of the Treaty, is
"binding as to the result to be achieved upon each Member State to which it is addressed but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods".
That is to say, a Directive tells the Member State what is the result to be achieved, but leaves the machinery, the form and method, to the particular State.
That means that once a Directive has been issued it is obligatory on Governments of Member States to which it is addressed to give effect to the Directive by their own legislation. So that if, for example, the Directive on doorstep selling were to be adopted and issued by the Council, the Government of the United Kingdom would be obliged to legislate to restrict doorstep selling in accordance with the Directive. If that is done, there is very little chance of challenging the resulting legislation. One can see that within the United Kingdom any person who was prosecuted or sued for damages for failing to give effect to the legislation
852
based upon the Directive would have no defence of saying that the legislation was ultra vires, because it was based on a Directive that was ultra vires, That is because once Parliament has passed a law, that is the law of this country and no court will listen to an argument that the law itself is ultra vires. The same thing would go for an order or delegated legislation, provided it was made by proper machinery and procedure.
There is one possible exception in the case of delegated legislation made under Section 2 of the European Communities Act, but it is rather a refined point which I will not develop for a moment. I merely mention it to show that it has not been overlooked. Subject to that one possible exception, there seems to be no hope of challenging United Kingdom legislation on the ground that it follows upon or is in obedience to a Directive from the Community which is itself ultra vires.
The European Court in theory could say no doubt that a Directive was ultra vires, but the matter has never yet been tested in that Court and there seems very little likelihood of its ever being tested, at least from this country, because a private individual could never get a litigation on its legs far enough to get the matter remitted from the United Kingdom courts to the European Court. The United Kingdom Government, whose consent would have been necessary before the Directive was issued in the first place, would be unlikely to want to say immediately afterwards that the Directive was ultra vires. Moroever, there is at least an argument that the United Kingdom Government, which is a Member of the Council of Europe, consented to issue a Directive, could not be heard to say afterwards that this very Directive was ultra vires, because it had agreed to it.
The fact that the Government may agree to a proposed Directive does not necessarily mean that the Directive is intra vires with the Community, or even necessarily that the Government think that it is intra vires, because one can see that for political reasons the United Kingdom Government might agree to a proposed Directive in order not to antagonise the Governments of other Member States, or because they had another proposal to put forward next

853
week for which they wished to prepare the way so they were not prepared to oppose a particular Directive this week, opposition to which might queer the pitch of their own proposal next week. Therefore, there might be an act of Government for political reasons which may not conform strictly to the legal position. That is why it is not satisfactory to leave this to the uncontrolled discretion of the Government of the United Kingdom. I refer, of course, to the Government of the day, to whatever Party it may belong.
I now come to the reasons why we say that some of the proposed Directives are beyond the powers of the Community. This depends on the construction of the EEC Treaty. It is really upon the construction of the Treaty that we find ourselves somewhat at odds with the view prevailing among the Commission and its staff in Brussels. Article 100 of the Treaty deals with approximation by Directives. It provides for the approximation of such provisions laid down by the law of a particular country as directly affects the establishment or functioning of the Common Market; so what is provided for is an approximation of such provisions as directly affect the functioning of the Common Market, reading it in short.
I suggest that two points emerge from that. One is that the approximation is limited to laws which directly affect the Common Market, and the second is that approximation of laws is not an objective of the Community for its own sake. It is merely an instrument for attaining the wider objectives of the Community. The Community was not set up for the purpose of approximating law in general; it merely directs approximation of laws which affect the functioning of the Common Market.
One looks to see what the objects of the Treaty are, and they are set out in Article 2. That details the objects in the following way. It says that:
"the Committee shall have as its task … to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it".
854
Those are the objects which are said to he the tasks of the Community, but—and this is the important "but"—the tasks are to be achieved in a certain way. They are to be achieved by establishing a Common Market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States. It is largely upon this that our argument is founded, because your Lordships will have observed that the object of promoting harmonious development and so on is tied to economic measures, approximating to economic policies of the countries. It is not left at large to the Community to pursue the objects by any means. In accordance with that, the White Paper issued in May 1967, just before we went into the Community, stated in paragraph 35, in reference to Article 100 and also to Article 99:
"Under both Articles the scope for the creation of Community law is therefore confined to the economic and financial field".
That is the text of my remarks today—that the scope for the creation of Community law is to be confined to the economic and financial fields. That exactly summarises the view that I am trying to put forward. As to whether that is the Government's view now—and for all I know it may not be—I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when he replies to this debate, will indicate whether it is their view or not, and, if not, I hope he will be able to explain why the Government have departed from the view expressed in the White Paper of 1967, if indeed they have done so.
In my submission, it is of the greatest importance that both Parliament and the public outside should know what is the position. It may be that what was stated in the White Paper is now out of date or for some reason has been found to be erroneous. If so, that ought to be made clear and we should at least know where we are. But at the moment the matter stands, I say, on the words of the Treaty; and if the words of the Treaty are not to be construed in what seems to me to be their natural construction, then, if that is the Government's view, we ought to be told so.
I referred to Article 100, which is the main Article, and indeed it is really the only Article with which the present report is directly concerned. There are a number

855
of other Articles which permit approximation of laws within the Treaty, but they are nearly all tied very directly to economic or financial objectives. Article 99 allows harmonisation of tax laws on indirect taxation and Article 101 allows taxation in order to eliminate the distortion of competition. Obviously those are economic or financial matters.
The only other Article which is at first sight rather wider than Article 100 is Article 235, which provides for approximation without any direct object in the way of these other Articles. But even Article 235, I may say, is limited to attaining the objects of the Community in the course of the operation of the Common Market. That seems to tie it again to the economic functioning of the Common Market. So there may not be any very easy way to get a wider power of approximation than there is under Article 100. If that is so, the answer may be that the Community will have to amend the Treaty if they wish for a wider power of approximation than is already in existence.
I referred to the two classes of recent proposed directives, which we think are vulnerable to the attack of being, in some cases, ultra vires. One of those concerns the environment, and the proposals are put forward and sought to be justified, as I understand it, as being necessary "to improve the quality of life". That is an expression which I have not invented; it is found in the preamble to some of the recent Directives. These proposals for improving the environment follow on a resolution adopted by the Council in 1977, and have led to a programme for improving the environment which was approved by the Council. The preamble to the resolution of the Council is interesting, because it seems to me, if I may put it in this way without being offensive, to give away the weakness of the case for this kind of Directive.
The preamble to the resolution approving of the environment programme sets out at length the objects of the Community from Article 2, which I have already quoted; that is, to promote a harmonious development of economic activities, and so on. But it omits the important words, which I mentioned earlier that the objects are to be achieved,
856
"by establishing a Common Market and progressively approximating the economic policies of member states".
So that in the preamble to the environment programme they leave out all reference to the economic policies of Member States. The inference seems to be that an attempt is being made to bury and forget about the economic limitations, which, after all, are in the Treaty, and to disregard them.
Having made that incomplete quotation from Article 2, the preamble goes on to state that,
"…improvement in the quality of life and the protection of the natural environment are among the fundamental tasks of the Community".
That is a proposition which I would dispute, and which I believe the Select Committee, as a whole, would dispute. I should say that I have no particular authority to speak for other Members of the Select Committee, but, in my view, that proposition is unsound. I would say that the fundamental tasks of the Community are those in Article 2 that I have already mentioned, and they are to be pursued only by the economic means that I have mentioned. No doubt, the improvement of the quality of life is a very desirable thing. But I would say that, except in so far as it can be related to economic matters and accompany them, it is not within the present objects of the Community. If the Community wish to bring it within their objects, then the Treaty should be amended to that end.
To some extent, it seems that the Commission accept this argument. They seem to recognise that proposals for improving the environment have to be related, to some extent, to economic matters, and attempts have been made to justify some of the environmental proposals on what I would regard as quasi-economic grounds. The argument is, I think, that if one member sets standards of cleanliness against pollution for, say, the air or the water, which require manufacturers in that State to incur expense, and if other Member States set lower standards or do not set any at all, then competition is distorted, because manufacturers in States with lower standards, or with no standards, have an advantage over manufacturers in States which have imposed higher standards, because the latter have to incur expense.
It is said that the functioning of the Common Market is directly affected in that way, unless all Member States have to comply with the same standards. I would not accept that argument for a moment, for several reasons, each of which is sufficient in itself. Let me assume that additional expense would be required to conform to a particular standard of purity. The cost of conforming to that standard would not be a cost which could be said to be directly affecting the functioning of the Common Market. It merely affects, and is one of many factors which affect, the cost of production of the commodity which is being considered.
However, there are many other factors that affect the cost of production. For instance, there are natural factors, of which the climate is one. If you want to grow tomatoes, you can grow them much more cheaply in the South of Italy than you can in the Northern part of the United Kingdom, because the climate is better. If you wish to grow the same article here, you must have artificial heating and glasshouses, whereas the people in the South do not need them. But it is not a distortion of competition to take advantage of one's natural circumstances.
Conversely, if your natural circumstances are such that you can put effluent into the sea, or into a fast-flowing river quite close to the sea, without doing any harm to the environment, why should you not take advantage of your natural surroundings to do that, even although another manufacturer, who is inland or in a built-up area, has to take expensive anti-pollution measures? In one case, that is merely using a natural advantage in one way, and in another case it is using it in another way.
It may be said that standards of purity are artificial standards, which impose artificial distortions of competition, but I do not think that that, either, is justified. After all, some Member States control wages within those States, either by law or by Government policy; others, perhaps, do not. Is it to be said that the control of wages is a distortion of competition? Some Member States may have higher taxes or higher local rates than others.
858
Is that a distortion of competition? How far is it to go?
I do not want to be thought to be treating this matter in any spirit of levity, but I can assure the House that, at a recent meeting with some officials of the EEC Commission, they were asked—I am not sure whether by me, or by one of the other persons present—how far they would press this argument. We said to them:
"Aren't there some subjects, at least, perhaps family law or the law of abortion, which you would not contend could be within the Treaty, limited as it is to economic matters?"
They solemnly replied that they would not think that that was a self-evident proposition. It was said that States which, for instance, encouraged abortion might really be said to be distorting competition by restricting the labour force; and, conversely, that States which by tax incentives encouraged large families might be doing it the other way around. I regard that as a reductio ad absurdum. But the fact that it was not obvious to some of those to whom we were talking was a little alarming.
One recognises that there are sometimes reasons why controls over the environment have to be extended beyond a single Member State; namely, for the practical reason that they would not be effective otherwise. If you have riparian States on the River Rhine, it is no good imposing pollution control on a State on one side of the Rhine, if the State on the other side allows effluent to pour out uncontrolled into the river. That is a reason why you must have an approximation of laws between those particular States. But the practical result to which that seems to point is that the Directive should apply to those States which are themselves directly involved. It should be addressed, perhaps, to the States which are riparian States along the Rhine, or possibly States which border the Mediterranean. But it is not a good argument for addressing the same Directive to all States, some of whom may have no need to control the effluent from factories. It seems to be contemplated by Article 189 of the Treaty, that Directives may be addressed only to certain States; it actually refers to the "States to which a Directive is addressed". So that there is no need for all Directives to be universal to the whole Community. So much for environmental protection.
The other line which, in some cases, seems to have gone beyond the powers in the Treaty is consumer protection. I think we all agree that consumer protection is a very desirable objective and, as a matter of fact, it is an objective which the United Kingdom has gone much nearer to achieving than some of the other Members within the Community. But it seems to me, and, I think, to the Select Committee as a whole, that consumer protection is really only suitable for action by the Community if there are problems across the frontiers between countries within the Community. If, for instance, you cannot effectively protect consumers by having laws in only one country, then it may be necessary to have a Directive for approximation of the laws of several Community countries.
In our view some of the recent proposals for consumer protection have gone ultra vires by not recognising this limitation. For instance, there is one at the moment that I do not think has yet been the subject of a report but probably shortly will be. That is a proposal for a Directive on misleading advertising. One criticism to which that proposal seems to be vulnerable is that there is not very much cross-frontier advertising—at any rate not as affecting the United Kingdom. One does not know, but it may be that there is cross-frontier advertising between Germany and the Netherlands perhaps or Belgium and France, or possibly some other pairs of Member States. In that case a Directive perhaps limited to those Member States might be called for, but as a general proposition to apply to all Member States, including this country, we do not think at the moment that there is a case for misleading advertising being made the subject of a Directive.
There are also some other objections to the particular proposal on misleading advertising, one of which is that it seems to lay down in some detail proposals for machinery by which misleading advertising is to be prevented. It would involve quite a substantial interference with the procedure and operation of our courts and it seems, to say the least of it, very doubtful whether major upheavals in our court procedure ought to be undertaken for the fairly limited purpose of imposing legal controls on misleading advertising, particularly when we already have a
860
fairly efficient system of controls of our own.
Another proposal within this field of consumer protection is for controlling home-study courses. Apparently home-study courses in some cases have been inefficient or they have been over-charging or there have been abuses of those sorts. Again, there is no evidence that we know of why that has to be dealt with in this country and again it seems rather unlikely that cross-frontier abuses of that sort are very extensive. It seems very doubtful, therefore, whether a directive addressed to several countries is really justified.
I am afraid I have strayed a little more into detail than I originally meant to, but if I may try to collect together what I have been trying to say. I seek to emphasise the point of principle as I see it. When the United Kingdom entered the Community it did so on the terms of the Treaty which is still in force and which permitted and instructed the Community to seek approximation of laws in certain areas which I have already mentioned. I have tried to explain why, in my view, those areas are limited to the economic and financial fields, but it is perfectly plain that that limitation is not accepted by the Commission, by the Council, I suppose, of the Community. The argument is that the Treaty should receive what is called a "dynamic interpretation". That means to say it should be construed more widely and in a changing way as the Community develops.
There may be something to be said for that. If this Treaty had been in force for 100 years, if we had had a really old-established Community with its affairs closely inter-knit, one can quite see that a greater degree of approximation might be necessary and might be appropriate than it is at the moment. But these are early days yet; we are only starting on the Community and if that sort of argument is to be presented, it must be limited to a very narrow field at the present stage. It is important in my submission that there should be some limit defined beyond which approximation of laws is not to be permitted because if there are no limits—and that seems to be almost the position that is being advocated in some quarters—to the field of law in which approximation may be pursued by the Community, that

861
means that the whole of our law, without exception, is open to be compulsorily approximated under the instructions of the Community. It means that Parliament has finally, and in principle, abandoned its sovereignty in the whole field of our law.
That is really a very sweeping proposition if that is the proposition which is seriously contended for. When we went into the Community under the Treaty we thought—at least I believe we all thought—that certain fields only of our law were open to approximation in terms of the Treaty. But, if this argument is right, it means that there is no limitation on the field of Community legislation at all and, conversely, there is no field which is exclusively reserved for legislation by our own Parliament. That means, if it is true, that our Parliament is in a weaker position than the Parliament of a State within a federation, because a State Parliament would normally have certain subjects, certain fields of legislation, reserved to it. But, if this argument is really pressed to its extreme, it means that there is no field reserved for our own Parliament, and once that principle is conceded, if it is conceded, it is only a matter of time before Parliament is reduced to the status of a local authority.
It may be that 100 years from now that would be a right and proper thing; I do not really know. But what f feel sure of is that at this moment if Parliament and the public realised that there was apparently a serious proposition that the Community had power over the whole field of law to issue Directives obliging Parliament to pass legislation for approximation of laws, neither Parliament nor the public would accept that as a proposition that they would welcome. It is certainly not what we were led to expect in the White Paper published in 1967, to which I referred. I do not believe it is something that would be acceptable to anybody in this country. That is why, in my view, it is so important to have from the Government some statement defining as clearly as possible what in their view is the limit of the legislative power of the Community by way of Directive. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, I beg to commend the Thirty-fifth Report on the approximation of laws relating to machine tools and portable grinding machines. The chairman and members of Sub-Committee C felt that it was appropriate for us to present our report in conjunction with the report of Sub-Committee E on the approximation of laws under Article 100 of the EEC Treaty, because it emphasises very much some of the problems inherent in the methods adopted to achieve approximation of laws. All of us, I think, are agreed that the aims of approximation should be the creation of a fair competitive climate within the EEC while at the same time safeguarding both quality and safety standards.
Your Lordships' Committee heard evidence from the BSI, the CBI and the Health and Safety Executive, as well as received written evidence from industrial federations and trade associations. In our view, no problems are expected to arise on the machine tools proposals. They are general and acceptable and would facilitate the breaking down of trade barriers whilst at the same time envisaging the control of safety. It is the special Directive on portable grinding machines, however, which raises several difficulties and we felt, therefore, that it was important to report our findings on this special Directive, as it may have—and almost certainly will have—important implications for future special directives.
Our objections to R49/73 are based on the following issues: first, the inclusion of what is known as EN 68 which is a voluntary standard arrived at in the European standard-making body known as CEN, and which the United Kingdom refused to accept on the basis of safety. In other words, that was a voluntary standard arrived at at CEN which is now included in the technical annex to the Directive and therefore makes this standard mandatory instead of voluntary. As that Directive relates to optional harmonisation rather than complete harmonisation, it would have the following effect in the United Kingdom: Optional harmonisation means that products conforming to this standard must be allowed to circulate freely throughout the Community, but it does not prohibit any

863
nation from having lower standards or no standards at all within their own boundaries. What it does, in fact, is to prohibit a nation with stricter standards, such as the United Kingdom in the case of portable grinding machines, from excluding articles conforming to the EEC standards.
Your Lordships may well agree with the Committee that this would make it almost impossible for this country to enforce standards from our own producers higher than those from the EEC, because that would create unfair competition so far as our own producers arc concerned. Therefore, the United Kingdom as a country is faced with either having two standards circulating within our own nation—that is if we could enforce the higher standard from our own producers, which would create dangers within the industry—or being forced to accept a lower standard than we are at present prepared to accept. It was made very clear to us by both the Health and Safety Executive and the industry itself that this would not be acceptable to them. I will not go into the details of the difference between the standards set by this country as against the EEC EN68 standards.
Another example which was brought to our attention has already been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton. That was the proposal of a Directive to restrict the noise of powered lawn mowers. Lord Fraser said that demands for Directives come from different sources. This particular Directive came from Germany where, no doubt with environmental aims in view, they were very keen to reduce the decibels of noise of lawn mowers. As a Committee we had the most marvellous evidence presented to us by a representative of the lawnmower industry in this country; and I must remind your Lordships that the lawnmower industry in this country is bigger than all the lawnmower industries of all the other EEC countries put together, so it should have something of a say in decisions of this kind and so should this country. The proposal which came from Germany was, according to the evidence that we heard, a quite impossible one. It was that by 1980 the noise should be reduced by five decibels. We would all love that,
864
but as a Committee we were convinced by the arguments of the industry—although we are not experts—that this would not be feasible by the year 1980, economically because it would price a lawnmower out of the reach of the average individual, and secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, has said, because in the end it would not cut grass.
It seems to me quite amazing that there should have been even a suggestion that a Directive of this kind should come up for serious consideration. I think it came to pass because the consultation with industry within the committees is not close enough. It was pointed out to us, for instance, by our witnesses that on this particular committee the three representatives from Holland were a representative from the Department of Health, a representative from industry and a third representative from the Department of Trade, but at the particular committee meeting when lawnmowers were being considered only the representative of the Department of Health was present and we could all guess what his vote would be. It seems wrong that there is not enough consultation with the actual producers in industry.
So there are two things which we should like to recommend to Her Majesty's Government to look into in relation to special Directives. First, if voluntary standards created in the European standard-making bodies such as CEN and CENELEC are to be used as a basis for technical annexes to Directives, which means that they become mandatory instead of voluntary, then it is desperately important that we should look at the voting systems in those bodies. They are quite different in the two bodies. In CEN there is one country, one vote, and an abstention is not counted. It was in CEN that the decision on the Directive on grinding machines was taken and the voting was six votes for (including coutries such as Sweden, which is not a member of the EEC), two votes against, and five abstentions, which means that in actual fact the decision was taken by a minority of the people entitled to vote. That seems wrong. In CENELEC, who have a slightly better voting system, the votes are weighted, depending on the size of the nations; abstentions count as positive votes. But the difference between

865
the two is that in the CENELEC voting system there is no appeal; in CEN there is an appeal. We would urge Her Majesty's Government to look into these two voting systems and attempt to bring them together and get the best out of both as an approach to governing the Directives which, after all, are going to influence all our lives.
Secondly, evidence was given to us by industry that they felt completely removed from influencing the decisions of the Commission's committees because of course they lie in the hands of Member Governments. It is true that industry has an influence on the decisions of CEN and CENELEC but they are voluntary standards. It has not got a chance to influence decisions when they become mandatory, and I think all the countries within the EEC will have to look very carefully to see how we can have much wider and deeper consultation, both with industry and with consumers, before we make a voluntary standard mandatory by including it in a Directive.
I would say that Committee C generally encourage the harmonisation of standards in so far as they remove technical barriers to trade, but we wish to voice a word of warning to Her Majesty's Government as regards Directives in particular cases. This is because they could militate against the main objective of harmonisation, particularly if the voice of industry is not properly represented and standards are created by default because the voting system does not give due weight either to the size of the Member State, and thus of their markets, or to their involvement in the particular industry. I know that my noble friend Lady Seear, the Chairman of Sub-Committee C, will be taking part in the debate later on the wider issues. In the meantime, I beg to commend the Thirty-fifth Report to your Lordships.
3.59 p.m.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is indebted both to the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for the way in which they have introduced this subject. If I may add a personal word, I feel greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, for the way in which he takes the chair at the Legal Committee
866
and allows those of us who have not got quite the same legal attainments and qualifications as himself to understand what it is all about. His clarity and his humour as he introduced this subject made what would be rather difficult extremely clear.
May I say that originally, before we entered the Community, I had certain worries about what the effect of joining the Community would be on our Parliamentary sovereignty. I felt that that sovereignty might shrink under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and the Treaty of Accession. After experience since we joined I do not think my fears have been exaggerated. Some of the work of harmonisation, as the Commission like to call it, has really shown a confirmation of the fears that some of us held on this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Fraser, defined the powers under Article 100 and I do not want to repeat them; they will be in the memory of all noble Lords. There has been, I think, a far greater rush towards harmonisation than the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, explained. He has talked about the need to harmonise the noise from lawnmowers, and the noble Baroness also explained that. How that can be anything to do with the establishment and functioning of a common market I fail to understand. But it has not gone just in that close limit. You have had an effort to harmonise the water that we bathe in, the habitat of shellfish, and recently, as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, mentioned, we have the effort to harmonise our senses of humour under advertising.
I want to spend just a moment or two on that, as Lord Fraser rather delicately kept away from it because no report has been published. It is all right for me because I merely read these; I do not make reports, I merely make observations upon them. This comes in R/511/78, under which all misleading and unfair advertising is to be punished under accelerated procedures and with condign penalties that would be far harsher than any British court of justice would impose. There are laid down specifically the actual maximum penalties. Quite unlike another Committee that has been reporting, these proposals are increasing the maximum penalties far beyond anything in our knowledge.

867
There is a clear definition of what is misleading. It has to be accurate in every respect and not to omit anything. I remember there was an advertisement, "Glaxo builds bonny babies", and yet I have met many noble Lords and others reared on Glaxo who have not very attractive physiognomies. There was an advertisement, "Put a tiger in your tank". Nobody could claim that was an accurate description of what you did when you filled your car, but under this Directive one would suffer at the hands of one's competitors very harsh penalties. That is all under "misleading". There come even stranger ones under "unfair advertising". I do not know if any noble Lords ever take a walk from this noble House towards Great Smith Street. I do every night, and when I get to that corner of Great Smith Street and Great Peter Street I see a large hoarding which says, "Heineken refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach". It is quite clear that is a very dangerous advertisement, which under this Directive would have attracted dire penalties under the accelerated procedures, because any competitor would be challenging that.
I was interested in what the noble Baroness said about the origin of the grinding machines Directive. I have tried to find out what was the origin of the advertising Directive, and they seem to have come from very nearly the same homes. It is rumoured to me that the reason for this advertising Directive was that the German traders objected to the sense of humour of the Dutch across their border, obviously not the English sense of humour, but the Dutch sense of humour. You will notice that the beer which was advertised at the Great Smith Street corner was a Dutch beer, so I have great sympathy with the Dutch. But let me leave the advertising question. It does illustrate some of the problems we are dealing with in this Twenty-second Report.
I agree with and support all the conclusions in this Twenty-second Report of the Select Committee, but in particular I would remind your Lordships of Conclusion (7), which says this:
"Since the exercise by the Council of the powers given by Article 100 of the Treaty causes an irreversible removal of legislative power from the United Kingdom Parliament, it is essential that the limits of the Article 100 powers should be
868
strictly defined and that the Government should undertake to keep within them".
I do hope, in view of this, that Her Majesty's Government will take the necessary attitude when they are discussing these matters in the Council of Ministers. May I remind noble Lords—I am sure I need not remind the noble and learned and Lord himself—of what the Lord Chancellor said in the debate in this House on 21st April (Col. 605 of Hansard). The noble and learned Lord said:
"The Government have been concerned to ensure that this transfer …"
—and he is talking about transfer of sovereignity—
"… should be within acceptable and known limits. The Community only has powers in the clearly defined fields that have been derogated to it by the Member States".
I am sure that at that time the noble and learned Lord never envisaged that the Community and the Commission would be acting so far outside the powers which we believed to be in the Treaty of Rome, and through that in the Treaty of Accession.
It seems to me very important at this stage of development of the Community that Britain should put her case clearly, strongly and definitely. What we have signed we will follow and obey, but we will not agree to the Community and the Commission exceeding the powers of the Treaty and thereby diminishing the sovereignity of Parliament. I believe that to be one of the most important acts we can take towards Europe at the present time. I do not believe that this habit they have of introducing Directives closely defining the procedure laid down is what we envisaged when we joined the Community.
I would far rather the procedure of Article 101 was used, although I know it is limited to cases of competition. Where they find the Common Market is being distorted, then there should be a process of consultation between the countries affected, and after that, if necessary, if there cannot be an agreement, Directives should follow. That seems to me to be a more harmonious way. I believe that if the Commission proceeds along its present lines it will destroy the harmony between Member States that is so essential.
Whatever views we took about joining the Community, I believe that today we

869
all have a duty to ensure that so long as we are Members of the Community, the Community works in harmony in the interests of Britain and all the other Member States.
4.11 p.m.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale): My Lords, I should like to begin by saying that I agree absolutely and entirely with the concluding remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire. Having for many years shared his fears, I now join him in sharing his appreciation of the reports which have been submitted to your Lordships' House this afternoon. I think that we would all wish to congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on the magnificent contribution that they have made.
I first met my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser when I was introduced to a club called the "Balliol Rooks" which was a small college discussion group which revelled in the motto, "No respecters of persons". I am glad that in a period of changing values my noble and learned friend is still showing his sturdy radical independence and refusal to compromise with things which he believes to be either craven or confused.
I shall speak very briefly this afternoon because, like the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, I want to put down simple markers about the political dangers that I think may lie ahead. I am worried by the issues of principle and practice which are raised in the Twenty-second Report and by the example of practice in the Thirty-fifth Report. Like all our reports, of course, these have been unanimously approved by the Select Committee, but individual noble Lords place different interpretations and different values upon them. Perhaps I may say that I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend's interpretation of the duties and powers of the Community.
What weighs very heavily with me is that we are still in the essentially formative stage of the Community. Therefore, I think that now we must be particularly insistent upon refusing to shirk fundamental
870
questions like that of vires. Like the noble and learned Lord, I am to some extent reassured by the fact that so far there is not all that much ground for complaint; but there is ground for complaint, and I believe that there should not be. Indeed, there is a heavy responsibility on the Government in the light of the assurances that were given at the time to the noble Lord and myself in another place that the sovereignty of Parliament would not be in any way affected. I hope that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack—I know of nobody better qualified to do this—will be able to give a robust, liberal-minded reply when he comes to define the Government's attitude in reply to my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Tullybelton. Unless we make the British Government's views and the British Parliament's views very clear at this stage I think that we shall be in danger of creating very great problems for our successors.
Noble Lords will perhaps not need to be reminded of the advice which was given by Junius two centuries ago:
"One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and become law".
There is the danger that the consequence of having these unfortunate precedents means that, instead of freedom broadening down from precedent to precedent, it may be narrowing down instead. I have not the slightest doubt that every Member of your Lordships' House would deplore that result as much as I do.
I should like to look just a little further afield. We are sometimes criticised in Community circles for the fact that Britain tends to speak very largely on the lines that something will be in Britain's interest. That, of course, is a perfectly respectable political stance to take, but it is not necessarily the best way of exercising influence. I believe that this is an issue where we are peculiarly well qualified to draw the attention of the Communities and their various organisations to these very real dangers that we see. I believe that advice coming from noble and learned Lords in this House can be especially valuable in that respect.
I should like to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, said. Paragraph 15 of the Twenty-second Report reminds us that the result of Article 100, as it is now interpreted,

871
"is to effect some transfer of legislative sovereignty from Member States to the Community".
Moreover, the additional warning that that transfer is irreversible is, I think, particularly disturbing. I am waiting with great interest to hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, who has made a unique contribution to our consideration of Community problems, has to say on this subject.
The Twenty-second Report also reminds us that Directives are not to be regarded as subordinate instruments. They can, indeed, be of equal status with the Acts of national Legislatures. I do not think that those of us who were apprehensive at the time were so wrong in our apprehension, despite the reassurance that we received. However, it is clear that scrutiny must be scrupulous and unsleeping and that we shall need it for many years. I hope that that scrutiny will be in the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, had to say.
I should like for a moment to descend to a lower level—if I can call public relations a lower level in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis—because I think that it would be foolish to think that at present the EEC stands all that high in public esteem and popularity in this country. If the Government really wish to mobilise support, they must discourage the flow of irrelevancies which do, from time to time, seem to come out of Brussels.
I read with very great interest the view that was expressed by Mr. Douglas Hurd, a Member of the other place, when he spoke to a conference last Saturday. The Sunday Telegraph concluded the report of his speech by saying that what Britain needed to do was to point the Community towards the big issues of world trade and foreign policy and away from the
"foolish zest for theoretical regulation".
Nobody would for a moment question the genuineness of Mr. Hurd's loyalty to the Community, and if Mr. Hurd makes that point it is one that I think we should all take seriously.
My final point really follows from the quotation from Mr. Hurd, it is, that when one looks at the kind of list that is published in this Report, one becomes a little worried, wondering whether there really is
872
a strategic plan behind the work of the Commission. The impression is given that from time to time its choice of subjects really is a little haphazard. It is surely a matter for comment that portable grinding machines should at any rate appear to be taking precedence over those major problems to which Mr. Hurd referred. I do not believe that this dissatisfaction with what is regarded as an interference in so many of our national customs and traditions, can be good unless it can be shown to serve some major advantage or provide some major benefit for the Members of the Community as a whole.
It is my most earnest hope that we shall be able to look back upon Mr. Jenkins' Presidency of the Commission as a time when strategic planning and consideration for vires came into their own. If that is the case, the Community will be much the better for it.
4.21 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, the first report that we are debating this afternoon is, in my view, the most important report that the Select Committee on European Communities has yet given to your Lordships to examine and debate. Perhaps I should explain why I am sitting on the Back-Benches. I have not yet been sacked from the Front Bench on this side of the House; I am merely exercising the traditional right of junior Opposition Whips to speak for themselves from the Back-Benches.
This report, and the pendant to it which has been introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, give us an opportunity for examining the precise line of demarcation between the control of the Commission and the Community, and our own Parliament. As we are now well into what will be, at the end of it, our sixth year of membership, this is no too early opportunity to take to judge how far we have progressed and how far those fears, as expressed by my noble friend Lord Tranmire, have been justified.
The precise powers under Articles 100, 235, 91 and 101, are not for me, a non-lawyer, to seek to explain or to elaborate. What I should like to do—and what I hope all your Lordships will be hoping that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will seek to answer—is to explore some of the anxieties that the

873
present uncertainty gives rise to. Foolish harmonisation is its own worst enemy. It is a gift to those who wish to destroy the Community. When I was in the European Parliament, with a Danish anarchist friend, I put down a Question to the Commission asking them when they were going to harmonise dog licences. I received the very serious reply that there were no proposals to harmonise dog licences yet. It is the fact that I had a serious reply to such an extremely silly Question that gives rise to some of the anxieties that have led your Lordships to take part in today's debate and to prepare the report which we are now debating.
I wish to take a slightly different line from previous speakers, and I wish to differ from some of the thrust which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, gave to his opening remarks. I agree with him completely as regards competition policy; I think that the Community is heading for difficulties on competition policy. We cannot have genuine competition policy without having the same currency, the same tax structure, the same rates of pay and the same health and safety at work legislation. I hope and plead with the noble Lord who chairs the Committee on the European Communities to take this danger on board, to look at this problem and to make some recommendations to the Commission before it is too late. Therefore, I am completely with the noble and learned Lord in what he said about the future of competition policy and its present dangers.
However, what concerned me was the attitude taken by the noble and learned Lord, which seemed to lead me—and I suspect other Members of your Lordships' House, and perhaps even those outside—to believe that the Community was only a creature of law. Of course it is a legal entity; it is a system based on the rule of law. I, for one, welcome that and applaud it as an international mechanism for keeping democracies stable and for advancing their economies. So nothing that I am trying to put forward dissents from the view that the legality of the Community is inherent to its nature. If we question its legality and its legal basis, we are questioning the way in which it works.
874
I am concerned that the Treaty of Rome is more than a legal treaty; in practice, it is a written constitution without an apparatus for updating it. Therefore, the Community, which was founded in 1958, is already grappling with problems that the politicians and lawyers who drafted its original provisions never dreamt of. The "environment" was a word in a dictionary, and "consumer protection" was a glint in the eye of the Consumers' Association in this country and hardly heard of in other Member States. That may be a little chauvinistic, but I think that, broadly speaking, it is true.
The problem to which the noble and learned Lord and the Legal Sub-Committee are addressing themselves is not merely a problem of law; it is a problem that the Community will continue to face because it has no way of equipping itself —because it has no updating procedure—to cope with changing situations. There is no mention of COREPER in the Treaty of Rome; there is no mention of the European Council in the Treaty of Rome. The day-to-day existence of the Community depends on a development of the Treaty of Rome, because if it did not function to some extent outside the Treaty, it would not function at all. Political co-operation—that is not in the Treaty; foreign policy co-operation—that is not in the Treaty.
Therefore, I should like to align myself with noble Lords who say to the Commission, "Stop this foolish zeal to harmonise everything and take a step backwards before you wish to approximate where approximation is unnecessary". I sat for some while under the tutelage of the noble Baroness, Lady White, on the Environment Sub-Committee of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities. I observed at first hand the lack of scientific backup and the inadequate technical detail that the Commission sometimes brings to its proposals. I agree with the criticisms that these Directives are sometimes inadequately based, particularly on scientific matters. There is only one answer to that: strengthen the Commission; reinforce it; equip it; make it less ignorant and make it more accessible to those who are interested, whether in grinding machines or any other aspect of industry which will be affected; open it up and provide

875
opportunities for those with expert knowledge to influence Directives before they are published.
I believe that in many ways the Commission is already more open than the Civil Service here to suggestions from outside. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tulleybelton, will not consider that I am being cheeky if I say that I detected in his comments on the source of some of the Directives a note of criticism that the Commission had listened to people outside its own doors. I am glad to see that he tells me that I was wrong, because I would take that as something deserving of praise, not as something deserving of criticism.
This occasion provides the Government with an opportunity to tell our friends across the Channel where we believe the door must be shut. It is inevitable that the two systems of law should fall foul of each other, or at least misunderstand each other from time to time. It is especially difficult for those trained in a British legal system, when interpreting the Treaty of Rome, to reach the same view as those trained in a Roman law system who are used to quite different methods of legislation. Thus, conflict and disagreement is to some extent inevitable.
Nevertheless, I believe that this debate will give the Government the opportunity of saying how they feel this protection of the rights that we retained to ourselves when we joined the Community is being secured, and I should like to add my voice in gratitude to all those on the Legal Sub-Committee who have studied this subject to such great profit of the House, and certainly of myself. One of the subjects that they have been studying is home study courses. Noble and learned Lords have plenty of work to do, and I think it is a special attribute of you Lordships' Select Committee on the EEC that they seek to do some home study on European draft legal instruments and then come and inform us about them. Speaking for myself, I am extremely grateful that we have this report as a fruit of their labours.
4.31 p.m.
Lord DIPLOCK: My Lords, the Report on the Approximation of Laws is not
876
concerned merely with a technical dispute between lawyers about the rival merits of dynamic or literal interpretation of the Treaty. In my view it raises the most important constitutional issue that we have debated since we debated the passing of the European Communities Act 1972. My only purpose in this debate is to emphasise, before it is too late, the danger of acquiescing in a creeping surrender of our national sovereignty in almost unlimited fields of law.
I want to see, as do many others, the Member States growing closer together in matters outside the purely economic field. I recognise that the Community institutions, particularly the Commission, can provide a useful instrument for doing this by promoting studies, giving opinions, promoting consultations. They can bring about a closer co-operation between Member States with a view to the assimilation of national policies on such matters outside the economic field as foreign affairs, the preservation and improvement of the environment, consumer protection, and indeed all activities which can improve the quality of life, to use a popular phrase which appears now in the preambles to Directives.
At the summit meetings—which, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, points out, are outside the Treaty itself—of October 1972 and November 1973, the heads of State invited the Commission (and so you cannot blame the Commission for following the invitation) to prepare action programmes for consumer and environmental protection. I suppose there is none of us who would not applaud the objectives. But I, as a constitutional lawyer, am deeply concerned about the methods by which the Commission seeks to achieve those objectives. I am concerned with the constitutional consequences of their useing one method rather than another.
The effect of using Directives under Article 100, the harmonisation of laws, or Article 235, the giving of fresh powers to the Community, is to pre-empt a field of law dealt with until now by national Parliaments, leaving the national Parliament unable to amend the law as laid down in the Directive, or to pass any future Act conflicting with that law. The law is not quite like that of the Medes and Persians; it is amendable,

877
but amendable only by the unanimous decision of every Member State upon the Council
When this nation entered the Common Market it accepted a transfer of sovereignty in matters clearly falling within the field of establishing a common market and approximating the economic policies of Member States. At that time we thought that we knew what the Common Market entailed: the customs union; removal of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital; free competition across national borders; common agricultural policy; common transport policy; common policy on iron and steel. As has been pointed out by many speakers, the White Paper issued before entry claimed that this limited field in which sovereignty was to be transferred so lone as we remained Members of the Common Market, left wide areas of law over which the legislative competence of the United Kingdom Parliament remained intact.
A great majority of the harmonisation Directives still fall squarely within those limits of promoting the Common Market and the economic policies of the State. They are clearly referable to the improvement of that country. There may be other grounds for objecting to them in that they are not sufficiently well thought out. With those I am not concerned. They are within the field in which we did transfer our right of sovereignty. What we can do about that is to make sure that when it is exercised by the Community it is exercised well.
However, there are disturbing signs recently of the use of Article 100 to make Directives which trespass far beyond these limits, and indeed the Commission, adopting a dynamic interpretation of the Treaty, claim that those limits have now ceased to exist, and any measure which claims to have as its objective improving the quality of life is within Article 100, however remote it is from the economic field.
It may be that the Commission is right. It may be that in putting that interpretation on the Treaty it will be upheld by the European Court, if ever it were to get to that Court. My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser has explained the unlikelihood of its doing so. But however that may be, the threatened erosion of
878
national sovereignty, to the first signs of which the report draws attention, can only proceed with the acquiescence of the United Kingdom representative on the Council, because any Directive under Article 100 requires the unanimous approval of all the Member States.
Acquiescing in this extension of directives outside the economic field is acquiescing in the beginning of the emergence of a federal Constitution for Europe under which all legislative power is potentially exercisable by the federation. Unlike the ordinary federal Constitution, there would no longer be any subjects of legislation reserved to Member States; all would be included in a common list of fields of law in which national Parliaments could legislate only so long as a Directive under Article 100 had not pre-empted that particular field of law. There have been only half a dozen Directives to which attention is drawn in the report up till now, but that there have been only a few is no ground for acquiescing in any of them because it is a characteristic of constitutional law—and must be, where there is no direct method of amending the Constitution—that the longer the erosion is allowed to continue, the harder it is to check.
One can understand the temptation of the British representative on the Council to acquiesce in a Directive outside the normal field, and there are two reasons why it is so tempting. The first is that, if its provisions accord with current departmental policy, it saves the trouble of going through the Parliamentary procedure and having the matter examined in the two Houses; by by-passing that and getting it made as a Directive. The second is the temptation that, if the Directive seems harmless so far as its application in this country is concerned, one can give way on it in the haggling that goes on in the Council in order to get approval of some other proposal which seems of more political importance.
That policy is short-sighted wherever the directive is based only on Article 100 or Article 235, and no convincing case has been made out that the differences between our law, and that of other Member States really prejudices the operation of the Common Market. It is short-sighted for two reasons, one of them practical and the more important, constitutional.

879
The practical reason is that our own legislative experience shows that Acts of Parliament meant to deal with new problems in practice tend to need amendment in the not too distant future in the light of experience of how they work. That is even more likely in a Directive which is made applicable to nine States; it will prove in some respects unsuitable for Great Britain, though suitable for Continental States where natural conditions, social habits, traditions and legal systems and procedure are different. Other Member States may, for that reason, not experience the same difficulties as we do. They may be satisfied with the Directive as it stands, and any amendment to suit our different conditions would be to disharmonise law that has already been harmonised, and that is politically impossible in the Council. A harmonisation Directive is a one-way street down which there is no way to return.
The constitutional reason is more important because it involves, as I have pointed out, an irreversible surrender of sovereignty over the subject matter of the Directive. It may be it is right to do so; but, if it is, let us do so with our eyes open. I see no signs that the representatives of this country in the Council are not doing it with their eyes shut. They look to see whether the contents accord with current policy on the topic, not whether the topic falls within the powers that were understood to be transferred to the Common Market when we entered it.
My purpose tonight is not to debate who is right about how the Treaty should be interpretated; the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, speaking modestly as a layman, put the case for the dynamic interpretation. Only the Court can ultimately tell us which school is right. My purpose and only purpose tonight is to warn the House of the constitutional implications of what is beginning to happen if it is allowed to continue unprotested and unchecked. I invite the House to urge on Ministers, before they enter this one-way street from which there is no return, to make very sure that the Commission have made out a convincing case that divergence of our law from that of other Member States which the Directive seeks to harmonise really does prejudice the functioning of the Common Market, for unless we do that the creeping irreversible surrender of our sovereignty will go on.
4.48 p.m.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, I have listened to this debate and, as I hoped, have become more and more instructed in the matter. Noble Lords owe a considerable debt of gratitude more particularly to the two noble and learned Lords, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton and Lord Diplock, for the tremendous amount of work they have put into the study of a most profound and fundamental problem which I think is now becoming more apparent than it was when we originally decided to enter the Common Market.
I am particularly concerned of course with the environmental aspects of this problem and I wish at the outset to apologise on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Ashby. the Chairman of the Environmental Sub-Committee of the Select Committee; he is carrying out his duty as Chancellor of Queen's University, Belfast, and is unable to be here. I think it important that at least one voice should be heard on this topic; the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, is a sort of half voice because he was on the Environmental Sub-Committee but unfortunately found he had other preoccupations and is no longer a constant attender.
Those of us who are profoundly concerned about environmental matters cannot but be disturbed by the general trend of the debate so far. Much play has been made of the diminution in our sovereignty which was potentially a consequence of the various Directives, many of which, quite frankly, I disagree with or find very difficult fully to accept. But I should have thought we were fairly naive if we imagined that we could enter into the European Common Market without some diminution of sovereignty.
Much has been made of a passage in the White Paper of 1967 which suggested, I think erroneously, that changes in our own legislation would be confined to the economic and financial fields. I do not think that anyone who had thought with any thoroughness in the matter could have accepted that simpliciter. Quite frankly, I would be much less interested in a European Community that did not concern itself with environmental matters. This positive side has hardly been touched on so far in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, did, as one would expect, bring it into his speech, but other noble Lords

881
seem to take it for granted that it is desirable that we should continue indefinitely to confine our concern and responsibilities in relation to Europe exclusively to economic and financial matters. That does not seem to me to be the right attitude, whatever the historical basis for it may be. Therefore, personally, at least, I am sympathetic with the expanding view which is now rather taken as common form in the Commission in Brussels. I am sympathetic with it, but I appreciate the very serious caveats that our noble and learned friends have put forward, that at least we should be sure what we are doing.
I think it is only recently that we have woken up to the nature of the path we have taken which fills some noble Lords perhaps with greater apprehension than it does others. We have done so because hitherto we have relied upon our ministerial representatives on the Council of Ministers to fight our battles for us, and on the environment field they have had to fight some very sharp battles on our behalf. But the result of their prowess has been this. Of the 16 matters contained in the appendix to the 22nd report referring to environment, seven have become full Directives and nine still have the status only of Commission proposals. They have the status of Commission proposals because we have not yet acquiesced in them in their present form. In other words, so far, whatever has been done has been done by the United Kingdom consenting. We have a power of veto if we were not prepared, for one reason or another, to go along.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, put her finger on a real danger, which is that the unanimity rule which applies in the Council of Ministers does not extend to technical committees of various kinds. As she rightly pointed out, matters of considerable importance could be decided without our full consent even, as she illustrated, on a minority vote, as a result of abstentions or people being absent. That is very dangerous. If those who are of the same turn of mind as I am wish matters of environmental protection and consumer interest to be included in the activities of the Community, then surely the remedy is to extend the legal basis so as to legitimate them.
882
I was a little surprised that neither of the noble and learned Lords—to whom we are most deeply indebted—seems to have given much attention to this aspect. It may take a very long time indeed, I would suspect, in the politics of Brussels. Nevertheless it is not impossible, as I understand it, to amend the Treaty, even though no adequate provision has been made for amendment. It is surely not impossible somehow to find a way of amending or extending the legal basis on which our activities proceed.
Lord DIPLOCK: My Lords, the Treaty does contain in itself an article providing provisions for amendment.
Baroness WHITE: I am delighted to hear that. I had supposed, obviously erroneously, from the remarks of the noble and learned Lord that this was not provided for. However, he has now reassured me that it is.
It seems to me that a legitimation is a more constructive and progressive attitude than suggesting that one should simply stand by provisions which were originally enunciated at a time—as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, reminded us—when neither consumer protection nor environmental protection were matters of as keen public interest as they have since become. We are clearly in a difficulty here because of these two different approaches—the constitutional lawyers' approach and the approach of some of us who are not necessarily at all starry-eyed about the Community but who nevertheless feel that if we are in it at all, it should engage in matters which to some of us are of very great importance.
The more extreme view, perhaps, of the expanding nature of Community action has been expressed as recently as 15th June this year in a memorandum entitled Some Principles of Approximation of Laws, issued by the Directorate-General for internal market and industrial affairs in Brussels. Paragraph 11 of this memorandum adduces the proposition that:
"approximation of laws has to take into account in each case the interests of today's industrial society and must make its contribution to the improved quality of life which people rightly expect from the Community. Such orientation of the respective policies of approximation flows and can be derived from the economic, social and political goals of the Community".

883
It goes on in paragraph 13 to propose that
"the concept of approximation of laws is not rigid but flexible by definition ".
Paragraph 14 suggests:
"the Commission will proceed in an open-minded and pragmatic fashion. … Approximation of laws is not done at once and once for all, but it is a pragmatic, continuous, dynamic process in a constantly changing society ".
Obviously such sentiments must keep the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, awake at night, but nevertheless there is something in them.
I should like to remind your Lordships that there is in Brussels an Economic Environmental Bureau, which is the co-ordinating body for the voluntary environmental societies and organisations within the different Member States of the Community, and in which the United Kingdom voluntary bodies with which I am associated play a lively part. It has prepared a most interesting statement, One Europe One Environment—A Manifesto, which it hopes will be presented in the various Member States to all those who are standing as candidates in the elections next year for the European Parliament.
The manifesto quotes the declaration of policy on the environment by the Heads of Governments made in 1972, which was further formulated in 1973, and to which reference has already been made. It proceeds to point out what has already been recognised; namely, that these environmental matters are not covered adequately—at any rate in the opinion of the European Environmental Bureau—in the existing Treaty. Several different points are covered in questions which it is suggested should be put by those interested in environmental wellbeing to candidates for the Parliament, but I propose to take only those which are relevant to our particular concern today. The second of the key questions for candidates reads:
"The powers of the European Parliament to reduce the environmental impact of human activities are severely constrained by Article 2 of the Treaty of Rome with its commitment to a 'continuous expansion' [that is a continuous economic expansion] and Article 1 of the Euratom Treaty which calls for a speedy establishment of nuclear industries'. The EEB has called for amendment of these treaties. Would you support such a move?"
If we are to express very properly our concern at the course on which we now
884
seem to be embarked, we should at least positively and constructively try to consider how we can remedy the situation by an alteration in the Treaty. I must admit that I have very serious apprehensions as to the way in which one can do this, and, quite frankly, I hope that any such amendment would be confined to a general statement, presumably in Article 2. I say this because I think that many Members of the Select Committee and the subcommittees may be aware that numerous legal pundits in various parts of the world have already begun to turn their minds to this problem. I have here a copy of a study published in three languages (but emanating from Germany, on the Competence of the European Communities for Environmental Policy. Looking at the various detailed amendments to the Treaty which are being proposed in this document, I should think that it would be at least another 50 years before we have any agreed alterations that would cover environmental matters.
It is difficult to conic to firm conclusions today on the validity of the conclusions put forward in the 22nd Report. However, I would find Conclusion (7), in particular, extremely difficult if it were to be followed without at least some intention to attempt to amend the Treaty at some future date. The conclusion states:
"Since the exercise by the Council of the powers given by Article 100 of the Treaty causes an irreversible removal of legislative power from the United Kingdom Parliament, it is essential that the limits of the Article 100 powers should be strictly defined and that the Government should undertake to keep within them".
If I were a lawyer I suppose that I could swallow that without any trouble at all. However, as I am not, I find it difficult to be told that one must stay within the strait-jacket when one thinks that the strait-jacket ought to be expanded. I would hope that the legal Members of the Select Committee could help some of us who are in this difficulty by producing in due course a further report, as good in quality as the 22nd Report, suggesting ways in which we could meet this situation, not negatively, but positively.
Lord DIPLOCK: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I wish to suggest that the way to do it is to amend the Treaty. The difference is that the amendment of the Treaty would require ratifi

885
cation by Parliament, while at present this is being done by Government without the ratification of Parliament.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, I entirely appreciate that the noble and learned Lord is right in what he says. All I am suggesting is that we should consider even more thoroughly the way which we should take.
5.5 p.m.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, when I read the Twenty-Second Report I found that I was suffering from a mild attack of schizophrenia, and listening to the debate has not helped me very much in resolving my problem. I find myself fully in agreement with the basic submission of the report that Article 100 is being misused. I believe that this is without a doubt. However, I am in some difficulty in then moving to the conclusion that the European Community has no function other than that which is strictly economic. I have a feeling that, if that strict interpretation is applied—with the greater growing power of China and, in the longer term, the United African Continent—the voice of Britain in the affairs of the world will be little more than a whisper. Thus, I have much sympathy with the view which the noble Baroness, Lady White, has expressed.
I come to the report merely because of Paragraph 10, which relates to proposals on home study courses—what we would call correspondence courses. This matter came before Sub-Committee C of the Select Committee, and we found it very difficult to see how it possibly came under the provisions of Article 100. We could not believe that correspondence courses would make such a dramatic impact upon the economy of Europe. Indeed, we had some difficulty in seeing a European element at all, due to the fact that there is very little trans-border activity because of language itself.
However, we also recognised that the purpose of the proposals was a good one. Indeed, I recall that 10 years ago in this country we recognised the same purpose, and we took steps to provide for it. We set up a council for the accreditation of colleges which dealt with correspondence courses in order to secure the establishment
886
of effective standards, and to safeguard the students involved. That council has operated for these 10 years with much success. Of the 500,000 students involved in correspondence courses, 95 per cent. are dealing with accredited colleges where their interests are secured and the standards are guaranteed.
Therefore we reached the conclusion that this was entirely inappropriate to be the subject of a Directive, but we thought that it was a perfectly valid matter to be the subject of a recommendation. This is where I found difficulty with the report. It dealt with this matter very crisply in two sentences:
"The Committee are, on the information before them, of the opinion that this proposal is ultra vires".
I quite agree.
"They consider general as opposed to vocational education to be outside the scope of the Treaty …".
If the Select Committee can distinguish between general and vocational education, I should learn something which I have failed to learn in the 40 years in which I have been engaged in the service of education. I think that that is neither practicable nor desirable. Let us deal with the practicability, first of all.
When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor studied law, I have no doubt that that was vocational, since it is his vocation. I am equally certain that, when I studied law to a very limited extent, it was general education. I have no doubt that most courses in carpentry and machine minding, machine operations, are vocational courses; but when my son was at Arundel and every pupil, including those in the classical sixth, was required to spend a week in the machine shops, I thought it was general education. When the thousands of young married men, drawn from all the professions—the law, medicine, teaching, banking—attend courses to learn how to paint and hang wallpaper so that they can decorate their homes without incurring the very high costs which would otherwise be involved, is that general education or is it vocational education?
Frankly, I think this is an impossible distinction. More important, I think it is a most undesirable distinction. Only a few weeks ago your Lordships had a debate on engineering. One thing that

887
emerged beyond doubt from that debate was that, because of this distinction between so-called vocational education and so-called general education, because of the esteem in which this country has held academic values and academic education as compared with technical education, we had suffered a very great deal—because there is little doubt that it is still true. Therefore, any distinction of this kind will merely tend to create a situation in which the forms of education most likely to produce wealth in this nation rank as second-rate when compared with those forms of education which consume rather than create the wealth of the nation, leading in most cases to the public service.
I have been engaged for most of my life in trying to find the right balance between the activities of central Government and those of local government in this country so far as the education service is concerned. I believe that what we are debating today is a precisely similar problem in the relationship between this country—indeed, between each of the countries in the Community—and the Community itself. I walk wholly with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, on the legal issue and on the constitutional issue, but surely there must be a means whereby the Community, while accepting that interpretation in terms of Directives, can make recommendations which each of the countries can carry into effect, so that the purposes which are sought can be very largely fulfilled. Certainly this would be true in the sphere with which I am concerned. I think there would be every possible advantage in much closer co-operation in the field of education throughout the European Community. I have no doubt about that at all. But I do not think it needs a Directive; I think it can be secured on a recommendation.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, I apologise, but may I interrupt the noble Lord for just one moment? I think he will appreciate that in the field which he is discussing, education, a recommendation would probably be valid. It might be more difficult, possibly, in the environmental field, where you are dealing with scientific standards.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, I think this is probably
888
true, and this is one of the problems: to determine those areas or activities where a Directive is necessary; where (as I would put it) unity requires uniformity, as distinct from the areas in which, in my judgment, unity could be achieved with diversity. This seems to me to be the essential difference; but I believe that unity and diversity can make just as great a contribution to the development of the concept of a European Community and its influence upon the world as unity and uniformity. Therefore, I very much hope that this House will not merely approve the narrow interpretation, though I accept that it must as a matter of law, but will rather indicate the Government's readiness, while acting legally on that basis and taking great safeguards to protect the constitutional position, to support recommendations which would lead to a strengthening of the European Community and its influence in the world.
5.16 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, this debate, as has already been said, is of enormous importance, and for that we must certainly thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton. To argue or dispute, as a layman, with Law Lords on the interpretation of treaties is not only foolhardy but a forlorn hope. Forlorn hopes have on rare occasions succeeded, and I would attempt to try. The Treaty of Rome—and we should and could all have read this before we joined the Community—begins (and I quote verbatim):
"His Majesty The King of the Belgians, The President of The Federal Republic of Germany, The President of The French Republic, The President of The Italian Republic, Her Royal Highness the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands,
Determined to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,
Resolved to ensure by common action the economic and social progress of their countries by eliminating the barriers which divide Europe, …".
Those are the first ten lines of the Treaty of Rome. In my humble opinion, that is not the preamble to a zollverein, like that of Germany after 1815; it is not the preamble to a Customs union: it is the preamble to a treaty embodying something greater. To say, as does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, that the Treaty of Rome is an economic treaty only is contradicted, I suggest to your Lordships, in those opening ten lines.

889
Furthermore, my Lords, it must be impossible to separate economics from social progress, as it is totally impossible to separate economics from politics. Politics arc the affairs of a city or polis. The affairs of a city, using "city" in its earlier Greek sense and not its modern sense, are the provision of the wherewithal and the welfare for the people of that city to obtain a prosperous social and economic existence. Both are interchangeable, and both are indivisible. The other day I bought a new tractor. This has now had to have an expensive, sound-proofed safety cab on top of it. The cab is so quiet you can sleep in it, so it has a wireless. That tractor would be £2,000 cheaper if it did not have that cab. On account of its greater height, extra expense is involved in lopping trees. There is an EEC standard for tractor cabs, and that is why I had to have a new tractor cab. It is a very sensible attempt by the European Community, agreed by our own Government, to protect farm-workers from accidental damage and from social damage to their ears by the noise, and so on. That is a social law. If there had not been that, those who have to add £2,000 to the cost of their tractor would suffer an economic disadvantage to those who did not.
A further point, my Lords. The trade unions in this country have a long, honourable and very successful history of pressing for the advancement of safety measures for their members. At the moment it could be said, reasonably fairly, I think, that the trade union movement is lukewarm in its support for the European Community. If safety and social welfare were taken out of it, I suggest they would become vociferous opponents to it. I think the grinding machine Directive has been so excellently dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and there is such a great deal more business to deal with today that it would be silly of me to continue any further on that point.
Your Committee has produced its opinion which has stated concisely in paragraph 23 of the 35th Report. It suggests that this Directive has got its social and economic mixture unbalanced. To say, as do the noble and learned Lords, Lord Fraser and Lord Diplock, that the
890
Treaty is an economic one and not a social and political one, surely flies in the face of English legal history. They know better than I that Chancery Law was invented to by-pass and make fairer common law. Lord Justice Cooke who, incidentally, tied his daughter to a bedpost and beat her into marrying someone who would advance his career at court knew his law backwards; even though he thought that Parliament started in the reign of King Arthur. He used this encyclopaedic knowledge of the law to invent the triune doctrine of Parliament. Some of this was made up; but we have all benefited quite enormously through that. This has been called the English genius of constructive hyprocrisy. This has come into our dealings with the EEC. The political Parties have been playing down the first 10 lines of the Treaty of Rome because it has not accorded with what they think are the political principles or prejudices (call them what you will) of the voters of this country.
To call in doubt the social and political content of the Treaty of Rome is, in my view, to reopen the whole of the EEC argument. That I hesitate to do; that I am not qualified to do. I do, however, suggest that no treaty can stand still. I suggest that all treaties, and especially this one, will benefit by a liberal dose of the English genius for constructive hypocrisy. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who seems to be an inventive judge—and I say that in admiration and not criticism—might come to a different conclusion from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Fraser and Lord Diplock. I hesitate perhaps even more to put words into the mouth of a judge than to argue with a judge. That is probably even more dangerous. This does not mean that we should lower our standards of scrutiny but, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, said today, we should point out very hardly to the Commission when they commit foolish irrelevancies which, sometimes, they unfortunately do.
5.22 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, the main contribution to this debate of Sub-Committee C, of which I have the honour to be chairman, is the report on machine tools and on grinding machines, on which, I am relieved to say, my noble friend

891
Lady Robson has so distinguishedly contributed this afternoon, relieving me of the duty of dealing with technical detail which I am incapable of understanding. Both the grinding machine issue and the other points so powerfully raised by the noble and learned Lords who have spoken raise matters of the very greatest seriousness. On the grinding machine issue, I would wish merely to re-emphasise one point which the noble Baroness has made. This was to urge the Government as strongly as I can to consider ways in which we can get a greater technical competence among those who are making these regulations. This is not a new issue to be discussed in this House. When debating Directives and proposed Directives from the EEC, we have on previous occasions raised the issue of the lack of scientific and technical knowledge which goes into the formulation of those Directives and, particularly, the technical anneexes of the directors.
May we ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who is to reply at the end of the debate to tell us whether there are any steps which can be taken so that what we do not yet again have to come to your Lordships asking that these highly important technical matters should not be left to such a large extent in the hands of lawyers—whose brilliance in their own field has been demonstrated this afternoon; but, with great respect, that is not a brilliance which qualifies them to deal with lawn mowers and grinding machines—if a way can be found, by taking practical action, to see that this does not go on.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Baroness, there is only one answer to this problem; and that is to reinforce the Commission. That is something that the Finance Ministers turn down year after year. Unless the Commission can be given powers to make itself better informed, it can never improve the quality of the Directives. Is that the matter on which the noble Baroness is addressing the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor?
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I am asking the Lord Chancellor to reassure us that this time some action will he taken and that the Government will throw their weight behind getting a better level of
892
technical competence in the making of these Directives.
Leaving that aside, we in Sub-Committee C went a long way with a great many of the points so brilliantly put forward by the Law Lords. In particular, we would reinforce the criticism of the present use being made of Directives. I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, is entirely correct in saying that the trouble is that it should not have been a Directive that was being used in a number of these circumstances, but that it should have been a recommendation. There are a number of occasions on which that is the right distinction to make, because a recommendation, unlike a Directive, leaves it open for the Member States to decide whether or not they are going to follow the line of policy indicated. But, surely, one of the points, about which we have complained previously in debates arising out of documents from the EEC, is that Directives, as laid down in the Treaty, are not intended to go into great detail as to what should be done by the Member-States. Directives, unlike regulations, as I understand it, indicate where Member States are to arrive by a process which they themselves can determine, provided that they achieve the policy objective which is laid down.
This is a complaint which can be made again and again about the proposed Directives which have been coming before Sub-Committee C—and the case of the correspondence courses, the home study courses, was a good example. Whether or not we needed anything from the EEC on home study courses, we certainly did not need a Directive. We needed to be told that there are perhaps certain objectives to be reached. We already in this country in that regard had taken steps which met the policy objectives which the Directive was trying to establish; but in a way different from that proposed in the draft Directive from the EEC.
There is a second important point. It is not only whether we need to have a Directive but whether it is not the case—and I am sure it is in a number of the proposals coming before us that, in fact, Directives are going to into a degree of detail which is quite inappropriate and which is appropriate only to regulations and which make it far more difficult for a

893
Member State to be willing to consider conforming with the proposals that come before them. I would ask also that the misuse of Directives by making them far too detailed, instead of following the line of saying that a Directive is there when it has been decided that there is a common policy objective that the Nine should achieve; but that they are free to achieve it, travelling their own path and using their own methods, provided they arrive at the required end as the result of the steps they have taken.
Certainly that was the case in the home study Directive that came before us where it appeared to all the Members of Committee C that the steps we had already taken in advance of the proposals of the EEC met the requirements perfectly adequately. The same could be said of some of the Directives in the field of environment, which is not my subject, but I remember very well the noble Baroness, Lady White, pointing out that requirements were being laid down in Directives, the objective of which was to see that fish did not die. Our fish did not die anyway, because the waters were different. Surely all that mattered was that the fish did not die until we chose to kill them. That is the important issue. We do not have to save their lives in a way prescribed in the greatest possible detail by the Commissioners in Brussels, with or without expert knowledge of the way in which fish live and die.
It is the abuse of the Directive as well as the use of the Directive which is one of the problems that we are up against. Perhaps the fact that this abuse has taken place has served a useful purpose in that it has drawn our attention to the whole issue which we are discussing this afternoon. It has also roused the Law Lords to look with the greatest possible detail at the question of ultra vires. Looking—as lawyers obviously must—at the Treaty of Rome line by line, comma by comma, alarmed that the Commission is doing good by stealth or ill by stealth—according to one's point of view—and disapproving of anything being done by stealth, surely it is right that we should at least know what we are doing and do it with our eyes open, rather than being blindfolded by Directives the implications of which we do not totally appreciate when we sign on the dotted line.
894
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, suggested, in the inevitable process of "horse trading" which goes on in Brussels, as in all other political centres, it is easy to give away far more than one is aware in the longer run in order to obtain an immediate advantage. In examining the vires of actions under the Treaty, is it not true that the Law Lords are attempting to limit the purposes of the Treaty very narrowly indeed to its economic objectives? The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred to the preamble to the Treaty. I should like to argue that we want to look very carefully at the possibilities of development of social policy inside the European Community.
Many of us would be extremely reluctant to err on the side of a very rigidly narrow economic interpretation of the Treaty. In wishing to extend the Treaty to broader areas of social policy, not covering the whole of British law as has been suggested by some speakers today, recognising that there are many areas of social policy of great importance which can best be handled if they are approached on a Community basis rather than on a national basis, we have been encouraged by a number of statements coming from high places. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, referred to statements which have been made by the Council of Ministers going so far back as 1972. I quote from a statement made in 1972:
"The heads of State or heads of Government emphasised that they attached as much importance to rigorous action in the social field as to the achievement of the economic and monetary union. They thought it essential to ensure the increasing involvement of labour and management in the economic and social decisions of the Community. They invited the institutions, after consulting labour and management, to draw up between then and 1st January 1974 a programme of action providing for concrete measures and the corresponding resources particularly in the framework of the social fund".
In the preamble drawn up by the Commission for the social programme in 1973 it was said:
"…from now on both the whole approach and scale of social action must be changed".
When the social action programme was launched in 1974 the Council asserted its belief that
"…economic expansion is not an end in itself but should result in an improvement of the quality of life…".
That is a rather overworked phrase, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, commented—

895
"…as well as of the standard of living".
So we go on. I can even quote in aid the lawyers themselves. In the European Court in the Defrenne case the judgment said, referring to Article 119:
"Secondly, this provision forms part of the social objectives of the Community, which is not merely an economic union, but is at the same time intended, by common action, to ensure social progress and seek the constant improvement of the living and the working conditions of their peoples, as is emphasised by the preamble to the Treaty".
That presumably was the judges' comment and interpretation of the Treaty which they saw, in making that judgment, in a Community developing its social as well as economic purposes. It may well be that the noble Lords, Lord Fraser and Lord Diplock, will say that we have been misled by these statements that it is the result of leadership such as this through the Council of Ministers that we have proceeded along this dangerous path which they see as being ultra vires. Clearly, this matter has to be thought out very carefully indeed.
I wish to make only three more points. First—and this matter has already been raised—to draw the distinction between what is economic and what is social is in practice far more difficult than at first sight might seem to be the case. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, has already illustrated this very powerfully in discussing what to me, as to him, is the entirely invalid distinction between education and training, vocational and non-vocational education. It was only yesterday in your Lordships' House that we discussed the issue of productivity. Surely that is an economic issue if ever there was one. But unless the highly social question of unemployment and provision for unemployment is taken into account, what hope in practice is there of any real raising of levels of productivity? The social issues involved in moving to a situation in which one can get the desired increase of productivity calls for social action. Social and economic matters are closely intertwined.
It is surely all too apparent to those of us who from the very beginnings of the Treaty of Rome have been strong supporters of this country's entry into Europe that there is no great ground swell of enthusiasm for the European idea in this country today. But if we want a
896
real response and support for the development of Europe, if we are to maintain support for it in this country, the action taken by the Commission and the Council must be seen to ordinary men and women to be relevant to them in their ordinary lives. This means that the social aspects of their life as well as the economic aspects must be taken into account. If it is not seen by ordinary people that the Community has something to say through their ordinary social needs, then the support that we need to keep alive and develop the idea of Europe will not be forthcoming. It is surely the idea of Europe about which we are talking.
Europe was a great political idea; some people have said that it was the greatest political idea of the 20th century. As we all know, it was born out of hideous travail. Nobody imagines that the founders of Europe thought that it was intended to be confined within the limits of the Treaty. It is an idea which must either grow or die: it is a political idea. Of course you have to have the Treaty to give it a legal base, but we must surely find a way—and we are immensely grateful to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Fraser and Lord Diplock, for having made it so clear to us this afternoon that we have not yet thought through adequately the way in which this problem should be solved—while abiding by the Treaty and not abusing it, to see that this great political idea can grow and express itself in new forms and in new ways.
5.41 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and the Select Committee have rendered a valuable service by producing this report which considers the approximation of laws under Article 100 of the Treaty. The debate has provided your Lordships, or some of them who are perhaps less than enthusiastic about our membership of the European Community, with the opportunity to voice their fears. It has, at least to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, given an opportunity to voice fears about our decreasing sovereignty in the future.
The whole world of the Community seems to be somewhat unreal, and the lack of enthusiasm which was mentioned a few minutes ago by the noble Baroness,

897
Lady Seear—and I agree with her that there is a noticeable lack of enthusiasm in this country—arises from the extraordinary nature of the subject which we debate. Who would consider that two Law Lords and a whole host of other noble Lords with vast experience in many fields would embrace a debate which would encompass portable grinding machines the noise levels of lawn-mowers and doorstep selling. These, if I may say so, are postules on the body politic of Europe; but what we are considering goes a great deal deeper than that.
At grave risk to myself and to my reputation, I should like to come back to the report of the Committee and refer to some aspects of that, because so many of your Lordships have ranged much wider in the debate; that is indeed natural. The Committee has chosen to consider in this Report the whole field of approximation of laws under Article 100, and it is unusual in that it normally considers and reports on a much narrower field. It seems to me that the Committee expresses its dissatisfaction, so far as this form of Community legislation is concerned, on three main fronts.
First, it is said that the text of Article 100 should be construed strictly and that where it states in the latter part of the first paragraph that—
"the proposed provisions shall directly affect the establishment or functioning of the Common Market",
the word "directly" must be given a narrow meaning. Furthermore, the dominant purpose must be economic, and other purposes, if included, must be clearly incidental to the economic purpose.
Secondly, it is said that the Commission, when preparing draft proposals, should do a great deal more research into the law of the various Member States, and where divergencies are capable of affecting the functioning of the Common Market the causation should be made plain. I do not suppose anybody would quarrel with that point of view. In passing, in a number of instances it is claimed that the Commission's drafting is bad and poorly thought out. I should like to return to that point a little later.
Thirdly, the Committee is concerned that by virtue of the Commission's
898
proposals under Article 100 some transfer of legislative sovereignty from the Member State to the Community takes place, and that this process is irreversible. It recommends in terms that the limits of powers under Article 100 should be strictly defined and that the Government should be asked to undertake to keep within them.
If I touch briefly on these three points, it is because—speaking purely for myself—I should not like it to be thought that there is no case at all against the findings of the Committee; because I believe there is one. I do not say that it is a strong case and, still less, that it is an overwhelming one; but there is a case and I believe that it ought to be put.
The first matter I should like to consider is the scope of Article 100. The Committee rightly points out that the Article needs to be read in the context of the Treaty, particularly having regard to Article 2, which I would define as the "purposes" article. Also, although the Committee appears perhaps less strong on this matter, they consider that it should be read in accordance with Article 3, which I would call the "activities" article of the Treaty.
I would say that there is at least an argument for saying that Article 100 is merely the machinery by which the purposes of the Community are carried out, and that the last part of the first paragraph of Article 100 indicates, generally speaking, the fields of approximation. It could be—I say this with great diffidence and respect to the Committee—that too much stress has been put on the word "directly". In any event, I would submit that approximation can be justified by looking at Articles 2 and 3 and perhaps, in particular, Article 3(f), which I would have thought that in certain circumstances could bring in the machinery provided for by Article 235.
This is technical stuff, and I apologise. As to the argument whether approximation should be confined, the Committee recommends cases where the purpose is dominantly economic or at any rate clearly incidental to some economic purpose. I should have thought that approximation would be justified, and would fulfil the last part of the first para-

899
graph of Article 100, if the object of the Directive is to prevent the distortion of competition.
I should like to pass to a rather different subject, about which quite a lot has been said this afternoon. That concerns the protection of the environment. As has been said, a Community environmental policy was adopted by the Council in, I think, November, 1973. Assuming that the policy exists, which it does, even if it is right that Article 100 is to be read in a narrow fashion by the interpretation given to the words "Common Market" at the end of the Article, I would have thought that provision for such social matters exists, or at any rate is inherent, in Article 235. If one substitutes the word "Community" for the words "Common Market" in paragraph 1 of Article 100, then I submit it would be right for approximation to take place under that Article.
The Committee's Report deals with a number of environmental proposals, some of which it criticises and at least two of which it considers to be ultra vires. I shall not go into the arguments which have already been rehearsed today, but I wonder whether it is fair to say in effect to the Committee that, for instance, when it criticises the Directive on Water Pollution it bases its criticism on the ground that the principle of variable limits within the United Kingdom is preferable to uniform limits of discharge. That may be good sense from the environmental point of view, but I wonder whether it is so sound from the point of view of establishing fairer competition. I bear in mind the noble and learned Lord's point about his tomato houses, but I am not sure that the two go exactly hand in hand.
Summing up this part of the argument, there is a fundamental difference of approach here. One is the, perhaps, narrower legalistic argument, between those who believe that the Treaty provides a framework of rules and that it is wrong to go beyond them—for instance, to use the framework as a basis on which to carry out an environmental policy—and, on the other hand, those who believe that the Community is a changing, evolving entity, and that Article 235, for instance, exists for just this kind of purposes. Several noble Lords have commented on this. A number of remarks have been
900
directed at the way in which the Commission sets about its work. That has come in for quite a lot of criticism from time to time, and not only from the legal point of view. In the past, industry found that the Commission tended to waste its resources on proposals for Directives for which there was no need, and that, in consequence, there has been inadequate consultation and poor quality draftsmanship. I do not suppose that anybody would quarrel with that analysis. The point was well made by the Committee. I believe that the CBI has, since 1976, with its sister organisations within the Community, made a number of representations, and I think I am right in saying that some worth while improvements are taking place. Some of the low priority projects have been dropped and more consultation now takes place.
Having said that, I do not believe that the situation is in any way satisfactory, as yet, but at least the Commission now understands the criticisms that are levelled at it. We should not forget that the Commission is, after all, a creature of the Community, and it is up to the Governments of the Member States to mould the Commission, in so far as it is within their power to do so, to produce proposals which make sense and commend themselves to the members.
I come now to the question of sovereignty, which is probably the most emotive part of the Committee's report. The accession of the United Kingdom to the Community has resulted in a loss of sovereignty, and that is beyond argument. But the Committee recommend that the limits of the powers under Article 100 should be strictly defined, and this recommendation follows on from the view that the Community cannot exercise any authority, except to the extent that authority has been conferred upon it.
Here we come to a problem which has been exercising your Lordships' House for some weeks, particularly over the Scotland Bill. How does one lay down the limits of power for a devolved authority, when the area in which it is expected to legislate is so wide and so constantly shifting, as life and commercial practices in the Community evolve? So that even if the limits of powers under Article 100 were capable of satisfactory definition—

901
and I do not believe that they are—it is difficult to see how the Commission, and indeed Government, could be kept within them.
One comes back to this, which is the central part of the whole argument. This is really a matter of what I might describe as mixed law and politics. The Committee is right to enjoin the Government and Parliament to be vigilant and, where appropriate, to take effective steps to stop erosion of our Parliamentary sovereignty, unless it is legal and proper that some sovereignty should be given up. But, as has been said by a number of noble Lords, the real protection lies in the Council of Ministers, and it lies within the power of the Government of the day to examine each proposal which is put before it, and to veto—as some Governments are not slow to do—anything which it considers improper, ultra vires or against the proper interests of this country.
That, I hope, is what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will tell us this evening; that the Government are alive to their responsibilities in this field and to the fact that there is a certain concern—I will not say alarm—at the way in which some of these new proposals come from the Commission, and that the Government are thinking of ways in which we can be alerted, as we are, in good time, and that measures, where appropriate, can be taken.
5.56 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for so admirably summarising the reply which I was proposing to make on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to this fascinating debate. We are most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, for having introduced it, and of course, above all, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Select Committee of your Lordships' House for the excellent report which they have produced, which has not only been an admirable basis for this distinguished debate, but represents what I regard as a major contribution to our appreciation of what is going on in the law-making activities of the Community, and provides a most valuable
902
analysis of the trends of the proposals that are so far put forward.
The report is both critical and constructive. There is a great deal in its conclusions to which I readily subscribe, but I have my reservations about some of them. I certainly favour the suggestions which the Committee make on the preparation of the Commission's proposals. I welcome the suggestion in paragraph 22(2) of the report, that the Commission should, when preparing a draft proposal, demonstrate how and to what extent the differences between national laws are affecting the functioning of the Common Market. I, too, should like to see their proposals supported by evidence of the consultations they have undertaken and by some reference to existing national laws. I particularly endorse the suggestion that, where the proposals concern matters of major importance, papers similar to our own Green or White Papers should be published for discussion and comments, before draft proposals are submitted to the Council.
Whether a great deal of technical detail is desirable in a Directive—and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has questioned that—must to some extent depend upon the subject. But where it is desirable, it clearly must be set out with competence as to both the drafting and the technical basis of the proposal. It may well be that, in regard to the limitations of technical competence, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, was right in pinpointing that it is largely a matter of funds. But I will certainly draw to the attention of my ministerial colleagues the suggestions that have been made in this field.
I certainly accept the suggestion in paragraph 22, that alternative means of obtaining the desired result should be examined before the method of a Directive is necessarily chosen. Indeed, there may well be on occasion a greater benefit by the use of a recommendation, and the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, gave a good illustration of that in relation to home study courses. Also, in regard to other matters it may be far better to achieve what is sought not in a Community instrument at all, but in an inter-State convention. But I assure the House that, on a number of occasions, our representatives in Brussels have urged an examination of the alternative methods

903
available to deal with what is proposed to be done.
My Lords, these are all matters concerned with the working methods of the Commission and the preparation and form of the Directives. When one comes to consider their content and the subject matters to which they should apply, I do not think it is possible to generalise quite so readily. Article 100, about which we have heard much today, has been used for a wide variety of purposes. The Directives issued so far fall into three main categories—eliminating technical barriers to trade, including the fiscal elements attached to trading like customs and taxation; then harmonising laws which safeguard public health, protect working conditions or preserve the amenities of the environment; and, lastly, approximating the conditions in which work or trade takes place and the consequences which flow from those activities.
The Government welcome wholeheartedly the removal of trade barriers—so, I venture to think, would most Members of your Lordships' House. The great majority of Directives in that area have been acknowledged to be of benefit to us. It was estimated by British industry in 1975 that about two-thirds of the Directives brought forward by that time had been or would be of direct advantage to them. There can be no question I think that Article 100 is the right means for bringing about the removal of technical barriers and that its use for that purpose is to be encouraged. But I think even in that area there needs to be caution. The programme should not become overloaded as the conclusions of the report suggest, nor should it concern itself with minor technical harmonisation. I agree again with much that was said by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, about the need to avoid needless subjects for action.
Harmonisation may be costly, particularly in the short term while industry has to adapt its products to any new specifications. The long-term advantages may outweigh this, but the phasing has to be carefully considered and the process must not be hurried. There must be time for my colleagues responsible for trade or industry or energy to have full consultations with industry. I am informed that in fact those consultations, have been taking place in the past, but
904
certainly they are essential—in particular the right method of harmonisation needs to be closely examined.
I believe that the desire to concentrate on the quality rather than the quantity of Directives is shared by the Commission, and it may be significant to note that in 1974 they proposed 33 new Directives for the removal of technical barriers to trade, in 1975, 15, in 1976, 13, and last year only six. So there is not an excess of zeal continuing in this field.
I do not think I need say much about the Select Committee's 35th Report on the proposals for draft Directives concerning machine tools in general and portable grinding machines in particular, about which both noble Baronesses have spoken with such abundant clear authority—a field of female expertise I had not previously suspected to exist. As regards the proposed special Directive on portable grinding machines, the Government shares the Select Committee's concern about the technical standard prescribed by the Directive which is substantially inferior in safety to existing United Kingdom controls. However, negotiations are far from complete and we shall certainly seek to secure a more acceptable standard to be substituted for the standard at present found in the Directive which bears the technical name of EN68. I agree that the circumstances in which that standard came to be adopted by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, indicated, not satisfactory and certainly do not make EN68 a satisfactory measure for a Community Directive which will set a standard which must be accepted by all Member States.
The case for harmonising under Article 100 matters concerned with public health, working conditions or a wholesome environment—the second category of Directives I mentioned—is plainly not so clear-cut as is the case for eliminating barriers to trade. Where it is a question of ensuring appropriate standards of safety, health and hygiene, few I think would question that these must directly affect the operation of the Common Market. One cannot expect one Member State to allow the free importation of articles of food or drink or pharmaceutical products which fall below its own accepted standards of safety or health or hygiene,

905
but that does not mean that it is necessary to introduce uniformity into the things we eat and drink. There has been little enthusiasm in this country for "Eurobeer" or "Euro-bread", but whether those matters have been seriously put forward I do not really know.
It is the case that the United Kingdom has resisted, and will continue to resist, any suggestions of harmonisation which do not meet a genuine need for overcoming barriers to trade or discrepancies between the rules of Member States designed to safeguard public health or protect other important welfare interests of the Member States. But in arguing against such suggestions I venture to think that it will often be more productive to rely on their inadequate merit and dispute the need for the particular harmonisation, rather than to lean too heavily on a possible challenge on grounds of vires.
Another group of Directives related, like the food Directives, primarily to public health are those which have been much discussed and which form part of the programme for the protection of the environment. The Select Committee's report is very critical of the legal justification for using Article 100 for this purpose. I think it is the case that that Article has sometimes been given a somewhat strained interpretation to justify Directives dealing for instance with pollution of water, the sea or the atmosphere. It is in practice not infrequently cited as an empowering provision along with Article 235. That Article, as noble Lords will remember, authorises any measures
"…necesary to attain in the course of the operation of the Common Market one of the objectives of the Community"
where the Treaty has not provided the necessary powers.
With respect, I doubt whether an analysis of the powers would serve much purpose in this context. It certainly is not an approach which finds any response among other Member States and probably—though of course I would not be sure—I do not think it would be heard with much sympathy by the European Court if a relevant Directive ever came to be challenged in that court on grounds of vires. The fact is that a programme for the protection of the environment was en
906
dorsed as an important part of Community policy by the Heads of State of the EEC at their Paris meeting in October 1972, and an environmental action programme was adopted by the Council in November 1973, by which time of course the United Kingdom was a Member. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, pointed that out. That was renewed in a Resolution of the Council and of representatives of the Governments of Member States in May of last year, and it is now generally accepted, as the Resolution states, that
"…improvement in the quality of life and the protection of the natural environment"
are among the fundamental tasks of the Community.
It is, I think, the case that the Community is not a static organisation. It has a certain dynamism of its own, and I doubt whether it needs "constructive hypocrisy"—to use the notable phrase of the noble Lord who spoke—to justify that. Its objectives are capable of development in accordance with the policies desired by the Member States. There are those who argue—and from a strictly constitutional point of view this would no doubt be the model solution—that the Treaty should be amended so as expressly to embody the protection of the environment. Indeed, I think my noble friend Lady White was thinking on those lines. There has been pressure for such an amendment, but I understand that there is no intention at present of seeking to make one. But I believe that even as it stands Article 100 is clearly relevant to certain environmental Directives like those relating to the lead content of petrol or to the noise levels emitted by different types of vehicles.
In such cases environmental objectives can easily be obtained through our harmonisation of product standards. In many others Article 235 can properly be invoked. Where the particular harmonisation itself is open to serious objection—and I agree with the Select Committee that there have been quite a few cases—we would wish to resist the proposal on substantive grounds rather than by making vires the main ground of objection. The difficulty about the vires approach is that the objectives stated in the Treaty of Rome are very wide indeed. I would certainly not accept that the EEC can operate under Article 100 or Article 235

907
in fields outside the stated objectives of the Treaties. But when we look at those objectives, and, for instance, at Articles 2 and 3—I will not read them out in view of the lateness of the hour—it will be seen that they are capable of very wide interpretation or a narrow interpretation, depending upon how sympathetic one is to the objectives that are sought.
Furthermore, greater emphasis might be given to any particular objective or to some aspects by the expressed consensus of the Member States and their representatives, for instance, as a result of summit resolutions. I would certainly not share the Commission's view—if this indeed is the Commission's view—that any branch of the law is potentially a subject for approximation. But this is a field where I think the indications of the problems that arise, pointed to by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, are real.
I come briefly to another area where concern has been expressed about the harmonisation of Community law; namely, the miscellaneous Directives which are aimed at approximating the conditions in which work or trade takes place and the consequences which flow from those activities. Criticism has been expressed at the impact which inflexible Community Directives of this type can have on the development of our own civil law. The report cites as an example the draft Directives on liability for defective products, on doorstep selling, on commercial agents and home study courses, and I think there is real ground for concern in this direction. I share the concern that was pointed to in regard to draft Directives like that on unfair and misleading advertising which the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, dealt with so effectively.
All these proposals have already received a critical examination in reports of the Select Committee and debates both in this House and in another place, and I assure the House that the Government share the Committee's concern that piecemeal changes in small areas of our general civil law on contract or the sale of goods, agency or civil liability for wrong, and similar areas of long established general rules, can do a great deal of damage.
The Law Commission has warned of the distortion of the common law of agency and of other areas of commercial
908
law which may result from some of these Directives. Another area in which any projects of approximation should be viewed with the greatest caution is of course the criminal law. Our own criminal law and procedures have developed in their particular ways over the centuries, often differently from that of other Members of the Community, and any incursion on our criminal law in some limited area for the purposes of harmonising it with the laws of other States could well produce anomalies and distortions. If, for the sake of greater uniformity, it is necessary to have criminal sanctions for breaches of some uniform law, it is generally better to leave it to each Member State through its own legislation to apply its own sanctions and its own method of imposing them.
Time is going on and there are many other serious matters for debate this evening. Although I agree with so many of the reservations that have been expressed by the Select Committee about the use of approximation Directives, especially in relation to matters appertaining to our general civil law, I repeat my own hesitation in subscribing totally to the weight which the Committee puts on arguments on vires. As I have said, these matters of strictness of interpretation give rise to different views within the Community itself.
There is, of course, room for further negotiation in which elements of a Directive which seem to be ultra vires can be altered or deleted, or the basis of the instrument can be deflected from Article 100 to Article 235. Where we think that approximation is inappropriate we have in the past resisted it and, as has been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, in the last resort there is the important safeguard of a requirement of unanimity for all relevant Directives, whether under Article 100 or under Article 235. This does not mean that, if at any time the Government were convinced that it is not within the power of the Council to make a particular Directive, we would nevertheless acquiese in such an instrument.
In this connection I must repudiate the suggestion that is made in paragraph 15 of the report, that the issue of Directives under Article 100 might deliberately be used as an easy alternative to securing

909
corresponding legislation by the normal Parliamentary procedures. At no time has such a consideration entered into the Government's attitude to any Article 100 proposal. Equally, there is no justification for the suggestion also made in that paragraph that the Government might be willing to agree to something it considered ultra vires simply in return for a concession on another matter. It is of course the case that the process of negotiation in the Community involves a certain amount of bargaining, but I do not think that includes a deliberate adoption of invalid instruments.
I end by underlining the value of the report and of this debate, and I shall draw the attention of my colleagues who have to deal with these matters in Brussels to the important points that have been made. We shall certainly see that full account is taken of the warnings that have been sounded in the House today. Certainly we do not want to see happening what has been described by the noble and learned Lork, Lord Diplock, as "creeping irreversible surrender of our sovereignty". That is something about which we have been alerted and about which we have been most watchful. This debate will strengthen the resolve of the Government not to allow such an improper transfer of legislative powers to take place, which might do damage to both the substance and the coherence of our own law.
6.20 p.m.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: My Lords, I believe this debate has been a useful and interesting one and, I hope, possibly helpful to the Government. I must say, with the greatest respect, that I cannot regard the reply of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as entirely satisfactory, although there were certain crumbs of comfort I was glad to pick up.
I do not propose to make any sort of elaborate reply. One of the troubles of speaking at the beginning of a debate like this is that one finds that later speakers say what one had meant to say oneself and say it much better; I have been suffering from that all afternoon. Several speakers really agreed in substance with what I tried to say. It would be a waste of time for me to go over and reiterate what they have said. I believe I may have failed to make
910
myself quite clear, and I noticed that particularly in what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said. If I gave any impression that I thought the Commission were wrong to consult outside interests, I certainly did not mean to; the more consultation that goes on the better. What I did suggest was that they do not always consult the right people. I think they are a little inclined to go to academic people and lawyers, when they really ought to go to engineers or people who know about the particular problem.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, referred to the fact that some diminution of sovereignty was implied when we entered the Community, and of course I fully accept that that must be so; otherwise there would be no point in going into it. What I do find difficult is that having entered a Community which involved certain, as one would have thought, fairly well-defined limitations on our sovereignty, we should find those limits forever expanding. If I could be satisfied that we knew where the limits were, then I would not have so much anxiety, and I do not believe my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock would either. What we find a little alarming is that it seems to be impossible ever to find where the limits are. If you regard the Community as a growing thing, something to be treated and construed in a pragmatic and dynamic way, it is difficult to know where you do draw the line. Unless you can draw the line in some way, then we shall be in the position of having lost the whole of our sovereignty.
The Treaty is, of course, quite capable of being amended by agreement of all the parties. Article 236 actually provides for amendment by a suitable machinery involving agreement of all countries and involving ratification of the agreement. That in the case of the United Kingdom would involve ratification by Parliament, and the result would he that the definition would be published and approved by Parliament and not merely done ad hoc by the Government in particular cases.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred to the fact that the preamble to the Treaty is wider than a merely economic one. That is true in a way but, after all, the title of the Treaty is the European Economic Community. He referred to the fact that it holds up social progress

911
as one of the purposes of the Community. That is quite true, but I think "social" is used in the Treaty in a rather narrow sense. If he looks at Article 118 he will see that the social field is said to refer particularly to employment, labour law, social security and things of that sort. They are social, in a way, but they are very nearly economic, too. So it does not really allow a very wide range of social legislation, I would have thought.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, raised a really fundamental issue on the construction of Article 100. It would not be useful to me or tolerable to your Lordships if I were to enter into an elaborate argument about that now. I noted carefully what he said. I do not entirely agree, but this is a fundamental issue on which we have each put the argument on opposite sides, and I do not think it would be useful to go over it again now.
Finally, if I may refer again to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I noted with pleasure that he accepted several of the conclusions of the report, and I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, will be glad to note that he accepted the view of the Committee on the grinding machines. I understood what the noble and learned Lord said that it is better to rely on criticising the merits of proposed Directives than to fight them on vires. I can quite see that; if there are good grounds for criticising it on merits it may be easier and better to go for that. All the same, I would repeat that it seems to me important to keep an open eye for proposals which go ultra vires; otherwise if we always allow them to go through it will become impossible to criticise them.
I did welcome particularly his reference to the criminal law as being a field of law which is unsuitable for approximation in Community arrangements. I am particularly glad to hear that, because I have seen a book written by one of the Community lawyers in which he says that approximation is necessary and appropriate in all fields, including criminal law. I have read that with some alarm. I am sorry I do not have the reference immediately available, but that has been said by a responsible person on this matter. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. D. C. ANDERSON, Q.C.
6.26 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN rose to move That this House calls on the Secretary of State for Scotland to reconsider the case of Mr. D. C. Anderson, Q.C., in the light of the Third Report of the Committee on Criminal Appeals in Scotland (Cmnd. 7005), the Report of the Bryden Working Group on Identification, and the Report of the British Section of the International Commission of Jurists ("Justice"); and to take early appropriate action either by advising Her Majesty to exercise the Royal Prerogative in favour of Mr. Anderson or by instituting an independent inquiry as to whether substantial grounds exist for believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is a long Motion, and I am sorry to have to tell your Lordships that I am going to inflict on your Lordships a fairly long speech. I only hope that I can make it reasonably interesting and that I shall carry conviction, if that is the right word to use.
This is the third time this case has come before Parliament. It has already been debated both in the House of Commons and in this House, and there have been a number of Questions asked in the House of Commons about it. But I hope to show that there are good reasons for bringing it before your Lordships again this afternoon. It is a most unusual case. The trial of Mr. Anderson took place over five years ago under summary procedure without a jury, for in Scotland the accused has no right in summary trials to require a jury. Under summary procedure no official written record of the proceedings is made, but in this case a certified written record was made, unofficially but with court consent, by the senior shorthand writer of a firm which acts for the court officially in High Court trials. I believe that record was ignored both by the sheriff and by the Crown until after the debates in Parliament.
The justification for bringing this case before your Lordships again is to he found on page 4 of the Justice Report:
"The summary discloses strong possibility that an innocent man has been convicted without adequate appellate means of review or redress

913
and with the consequence as a practical matter of dismissal from his career as a senior civil servant and total destruction of his reputation".
A Petition was submitted, along with the written record, to the Secretary of State. It was signed by well over 1,000 people, including 80 Members of both Houses of Parliament, ministers of religion, 100 members of the legal profession, doctors and many other people. There has also been considerable interest in the Press; there have been letters to the Press and there have been editorials in the Press, particularly in Scotland, of course, and widespread comment.
What caused the concern? Here was a man of proven ability and reliability, with a distinguished War service and an exemplary family life—a man who had just been appointed to a position of responsibility as Chief Reporter in Public Inquiries. That man was convicted of an offence which almost certainly would, and in fact did, mean the loss of everything except his devoted family and his closest friends who knew him best. He was convicted on the judgment of one man without having any right of appeal on the facts as found by that one man; for in Scotland the law still allows a right of appeal from summary conviction on points of law only. All the Appeal Court can do as regards the facts is to look at the Stated Case submitted to it by the sheriff and say whether, on the facts as stated, the sheriff was entitled to convict.
The defence has a right to see the draft Stated Case and to propose adjustments to it reflecting evidence which the defence believes the sheriff has not taken into account or not taken fully into account. But the sheriff has, in theory at least, complete discretion whether to incorporate the proposed adjustments, or any of them, in his Stated Case or to reject them. Before deciding, the sheriff may allow the defence a hearing, but again that is discretionary.
In this case the procurator fiscal opposed all the adjustments except one of a minor technical nature. The defence referred the proposed adjustments to the Crown Office, but the fiscal confirmed total opposition, presumably on the advice of the Crown. The sheriff deferred to this Crown pressure and exercised his discretion accordingly.
Pages 12 and 13 of the Justice Report summarise the adjustments that were thus rejected. The Justice Committee, whose excellent report many of your Lordships will have read, criticised the Crown very severely for what it called, their "blanket opposition"
"This",
they said
"was tantamount to suppression of facts from the Appeal Court".
I should like to refer again to the Report of the Justice Committee. It said:
"In the absence of reasonable explanation, the inference is inescapable that the Crown's blanket opposition was not based on a selective and proper examination of the merits of each adjustment, but was a policy decision to oppose them in toto whatsoever their contents and irrespective of their merits".
That being so, the Minister of State owes the House and the public an explanation for this blanket opposition.
I now come to the three reports to which I refer in my Motion. First, the Committee on Criminal Appeals, chaired by Lord Thomson, presented its Third Report last December. That report deals with summary jurisdiction appeals. Should there be a right in Scotland to a re-trial as in England and Wales?—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, at an earlier stage thought was essential for the protection of the citizen. The Committee thought not. Scottish criminal proceedure differs considerably from that in England because there is no middle tier to hear the appeals. It considered a right to re-trial unnecessary in Scotland. But did it consider satisfactory the present procedure in summary jurisdiction? Emphatically, no!
The Committee gives its recommendations in Paragraphs 8.18, 8.19 and 8.21 of its report in the following terms:
"We consider therefore that a hearing on adjustments, at which both parties should have a right to attend, should be mandatory, unless both parties intimate formally that they have no adjustments to propose and the judge does not himself wish to make any alterations to his draft".
It then goes on:
"Where, however, the adjustments incorporate new findings in fact or other matters not covered in the draft and the judge proposes to reject them, we consider that he should state not only the fact of his rejection but his reasons therefor. Similarly, if a particular finding in fact is challenged as being unsupported by the evidence, the judge should he obliged to state the evidence upon which the finding is based. We recommend accordingly".

915
At paragraph 8.19 the report says:
"We recommend that any proposed adjustments which are not withdrawn by a party but are rejected by the judge, should be included in the minute of proceedings",
and it then proposes a possible style for that. At paragraph 8.21 it says:
"We consider that the present power of the High Court under Section 452(1) of the 1975 Act to remit a case back to the inferior court for amendment should be retained".
The second report is that of the Bryden Working Party. It was set up jointly by the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate to consider how far the findings of the Devlin Committee on Identification in England and Wales were applicable in Scotland. The Working Party agrees with Devlin that eye-witness identification is fallable, but recommends that for Scotland it is preferable to improve identification procedure rather than to strengthen requirements of evidence. The Working Party recommends in Paragraph 4.41:
"… there will continue to be occasions where informal identifications will be necessary, and we are concerned that the evidence resulting from such informal identifications should be as valuable and as fair as possible. We have agreed that the Rules should state explicitly that witnesses should not be together at informal identification".
In the Anderson case the witnesses were two young girls and they were placed together in the back of a police car. The inference is that the informal identification procedure in the Anderson case was neither valuable nor fair. Yet, the procurator fiscal told the sheriff in his final address that the case turned on the identification of the girls. I shall come back to that matter for I must now come to the trial itself as recorded in the transcript of evidence, and I shall not go beyond the evidence there recorded.
The third report mentioned in the Motion is that of the Justice Committee, which is the United Kingdom Branch of the International Commission of Jurists. The report was prepared by a working party of five experienced Scottish lawyers and was approved by the full Committee nemine dissentiente. The group included two distinguished former sheriffs, one now a professor of law, and three solicitors. The Committee is too well known and too highly respected to need any introduction from me in this debate. It is sufficient to say three things. First, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who is to speak
916
in this debate, is an officer of the Justice Committee. Secondly, the Justice Committee very rarely inquires in depth into individual cases. Thirdly, I understand that it was moved to do so in the Anderson case because of the existence of the transcript of evidence, and it based its conclusions largely upon it.
Before I deal with the trial itself, let me say that nothing in my speech is intended in any way to impugn the integrity of anybody. I am sure that everyone concerned acted as they believed was right in the circumstances. But anybody can make mistakes, and mistakes have certainly been made in this case on both sides.
Your Lordships may recall that on t he night of Monday, 18th December, two girls, both 14 years of age, were walking along the Prestwick/Ayr road, in the direction of Ayr, when a man got out of a car which was parked practically under a street light in a reasonably well lit road. He came up from behind them and said, "Excuse me". He then asked the way to Troon. He said that he was from Edinburgh and was staying at an hotel in Troon. According to the girls, the man was polite, well-spoken and sober. He invited them to take part in a "rag"—a very clean rag, he said. He wanted them to jump on him, kick him and walk on him. He said that a woman at Edinburgh University had bet that she could "lay" him at judo, and he wanted training for this encounter. One girl said "What! Here?" He offered to take them somewhere quieter and invited them into his car to talk it over. The girls said that they would rather stand on the pavement and talk to him there. He then offered them £1 each to take part in the "rag". Each girl, in turn, said "No", one adding that she was only 14 years of age. At that the man said:
" That's all right then; it was really older girls I wanted".
The girls then turned and walked off laughing. One of the girls later told her parents that she thought he was a hit of a crank.
There is no evidence that the girls were at all alarmed. Yet Mr. Anderson was charged with conducting himself in a disorderly manner and alarming the girls. On the evidence of a boy who the girls talked to immediately afterwards, they were "not unduly excited". Certainly

917
their respective parents thought that they were not excited enough, and they soon put that right by the time the police arrived.
In his final address to the court the procurator fiscal said:
"This is basically a very simple case of breach of the peace, and is utterly dependent on the evidence of the two girls … If your Lordship takes the girls as credible witnesses, in my submission this charge has been made out".
The credibility of the witnesses is not in question. In his Stated Case to the High Court the sheriff said that he accepted the evidence of the girls "in its entirety". However, when compared with the trans-script of evidence his Stated Case shows otherwise. In particular, he did not accept their evidence on what proved to be the most vital point of all; namely, the alleged identification of the car; nor did he accept the girls' own description of the man.
Two nights later the girls were taken by a police sergeant and a policewoman to look at cars. After visiting two other hotels, they went to the car park at the Tower Hotel where Mr. Anderson was staying. They were taken to the car park by the policewoman only, while the police sergeant went into the hotel. There they saw an estate car which, according to the policewoman's evidence, each girl said was "like" the car that they had seen at the place of the incident —"like" the car they had seen. One of the girls who was more interested than the other in cars, and who had thought that the car at the incident was a saloon car, said:
"Actually, it would have been more like it if it hadn't been an estate car".
But she added:
"I never really got a good look at the back of it",
meaning the car at the incident. But she did have a good look at the front of it, and in particular at the number plate, while she was talking to the man. As soon as she returned home—within half an hour or so—she wrote down the number. It was BCS or BSC, then three figures one of which was a five, another a four and the third she could not remember; then there was the letter L. The number of Anderson's car was BSC 555L. She thought that the car at the incident was
918
a blue Chrysler saloon, whereas the car in the car park was a Triumph estate car, which the same girl described as dark green.
The girl testified that she was able to see the car "quite distinctly". There was a street lamp just in front of the car. The sheriff, however, wrote in his Stated Case that the girl had:
"no clear view of the number".
Justice described this error as "inexcusable and prejudicial". Conclusion 7 in the Justice Report says:
"It is conclusively established from the transcript that the sheriff did misdirect himself in holding that Jill had no clear view of the car number. This misdirection was on a critically relevant point, as but for it there would have been no explanation to account for the witness having remembered a number different from Mr. Anderson's 555".
One cannot make a mistake about three fives any more than about three nines—999. But the girl seems to have remembered that there were three different figures.
After leaving the car park, the policewoman and the girls rejoined the police sergeant. Questioned by the police sergeant, the girls seem to have given him the impression that they did think the car in the car park was the same car as they had seen at the incident, not just one very like it. This was not what they said at the car park, and it was not what they said in court. No further search for a car even more like the car at the incident was made. It stopped at that.
This muddle about the identification of the car had a serious effect on the subsequent purported identification of the man. The next day but one the scene was set for identification. A car, with two policemen in the front and the two girls on the back seat, was parked some 40 yards or more from the Prestwick Police Office, at which arrangements had already been made for Mr. Anderson to call and hand in a photograph of himself on his way to the inquiry over which he was presiding in Kilmarnock.
Before long the girls saw the car which they had seen in the car park draw up at the police station. They saw a man get out and go into the police station. A minute or so later he came out and went towards the car. The girls looked at him and then looked at each other. That alone vitiates

919
the identification. Justice, on page 9 of the report, finds:
"Influence of one witness on the other did take place".
Defence counsel asked Jill, one of the girls, if she took anything from the fact that her friend turned and looked at her. Jill answered:
"Well, I thought it meant we both had the same sort of idea that that was the man".
Counsel also asked:
"Were you expecting a car to come to the police station with the man you had seen before in it?"
The witness replied:
"We hadn't been told it would be. But I thought myself that is how he would come".
The sheriff wrote in his Stated Case that the police had acted "very ably and discreetly". The Justice Committee, on the other hand, found that the police had acted:
"in breach of the Official Instruction Book for the Scottish Police".
The report goes on:
"There was no justification for the breach—no factor or emergency or urgency".
I have already referred to the recommendation of the Bryden Working Party on Identification. Unlike the Devlin Committee, the Bryden Working Party was not required in its remit to inquire into the merits of particular convictions based on identification. None the less, it plainly had in mind the Anderson case, among others—including that of Oscar Slater—when making its recommendations. Indeed, Sheriff Bryden was quoted in the Press as saying, presumably at a Press conference:
"We would consider that the Police were wrong in taking the two principal witnesses along to identify Anderson together in a police car. We have indicated that witnesses should he kept apart as far as possible".
He added very properly:
"That is not to say that Mr. Anderson did not do what he is alleged to have done".
Very properly for that was not within the remit of his working party. What it quite plainly means is that the purported identification is of no use at all to prove that he did do it. Yet the procurator fiscal told the sheriff that the case turned on the identification by the girls.
Add to this the fact that the description given by each of the girls of the man at the incident differed markedly from the
920
physical features of Mr. Anderson in height, build, shape of face, eyebrows, shape of eyes and in colour of hair. The two girls each separately gave much the same description. The man at the incident wore a greatcoat and a cloth cap. Mrs. Anderson testified that her husband had not taken either a greatcoat or cloth cap with him, and the prosecution did not challenge her evidence.
On identification let me read a brief extract from page 15 of the transcript of evidence. Bear in mind, my Lords, that the purported identification at Prestwick Police Station was made at 40 yards range or more.
"Procurator fiscal: Although the man was dressed differently from what he had been on Monday night, had you any difficulty in recognishim?
Witness:"
That was the first girl to give evidence.
"No.

Procurator Fiscal: Do you see him in court this morning?

Witness: Yes.

Procurator Fiscal: Where is he?

Witness: There behind you.

Procurator Fiscal: There are a lot of people behind me?

Witness: The one at the end.

Procurator Fiscal: The one who is writing?

Shorthand writer's note:—the witness pointed to me".

She was then asked to try again and she pointed to the man in the dock—Mr. Anderson.
The point is that the features and build of the shorthand writer corresponded closely with the description given by the girls both on the night of the incident and the following morning, and were quite different from those of M r. Anderson. I should add that the sheriff duly recorded this incident in his stated case. No adjustment needed there. That concludes my summary of the trial. I should only add what Justice said in paragraph 6 of their conclusions:
"The cumulative weight of the positive indications coupled with the unreliability factors is so great that no judge properly directing himself, weighing these against the identification, could have failed to hold that reasonable doubt existed".
That, I would remind you, was a working group which included two ex-sheriffs.
There is one further matter I must mention before I conclude, if only because, if I did not, the noble Lord would be tempted to say that I had passed over it deliberately. This matter falls outside the

921
evidence. He may attach more importance to it than I do. After the policeman had called on Mr. Anderson and told him of the incident and that his car had been identified as having been involved in it—which proved to be false, though no doubt the policeman believed it to be true—he wrote to the police denying any involvement.
Later, following a visit to the Crown Agent, he wrote a letter to him admitting that he had taken his car out and met two girls. This was something that the police had mentioned to him. He was not aware at the time that any offensive suggestion had been made to the girls, and he was relying on the police sergeant's remarks to him that it was a very minor matter. He also made some kind of admission to the Permanent Under-Secretary of State. These admissions he withdrew when he learned that the charge was of a more serious character. The Justice Report deals convincingly, in my view, with this unwise action in Appendix 3. The purported letter of admission was not produced in evidence by the Crown, so it has never been examined in court.
Let me come to the prerogative side. The Motion calls on the Secretary of State either to exercise the prerogative of mercy or to set up an inquiry. A letter written on behalf of the Secretary of State on 6th September 1976, explaining why the Secretary of State in the circumstances of this case would be taking no action on the petition signed by over 1,000 people, said this about the exercise of the prerogative:
"His"—
that is, the Secretary of State—
"only function is to consider whether there are extraordinary circumstances in the case before him in recommending to Her Majesty the exercise of the prerogative for a free pardon or remission".
Is it not an extraordinary circumstance that a sheriff should use his discretion to reject 10 pages of adjustments to his stated case, or even to discuss them with senior counsel, and so to deprive the Appeal Court of an opportunity to take into account the facts and considerations omitted in the stated case? That is surely a "factor of substance", of such considerable substance that Lord Thomson's Committee has recommended that this
922
should never again be allowed. Surely the glaring gap in the present law ought not to be ignored in this case—a gap exploited by the Crown to procure what Justice calls this act of maladministration in discretion; that is to say, the rejection of the adjustments. Justice points out that the defects in the law do not excuse the conduct of the Crown. They aggravate it. The gap may be said to have created a duty on the Crown to be more careful to be fair.
Surely, in these circumstances, the Minister of State cannot rest on the statement that he made in the debate on 21st January 1976, at column 555 of Hansard, that
"… there is no doubt that Mr. Anderson was duly convicted in accordance with the criminal law of Scotland".
He cannot justly maintain that a power of discretion in a lower court is utterly unchallengeable however it is used or misused. Discretion must itself be discreetly used. Even if he were to do so, he must also take into account the definition of the purpose and exercise of the Royal Prerogative which the Secretary of State gave in the House of Commons on the 8th December 1976 at column 455 in connection with the Meehan case when he said:
"The existence of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy is an integral part of the constitutional system which exists to protect the citizen against a possible miscarriage of justice".
Note the word, "possible".
"The Secretary of State should not hesitate to recommend the exercise of that power if he has substantial grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred for which there is no remedy available in the courts".
Note that this definition does not contain the limitation which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, referred to in the last debate that there must be new factors which were not before the sheriff. That is absent from that definition.
Mr. Anderson had only one possible remedy. That was to have the case remitted back by the Appeal Court. That remedy was denied to him by the Crown which, for reasons not disclosed, opposed defence counsel's motion for the case to be referred back. Now he has no remedy in the courts at all. He can rely only on the Secretary of State to exercise the Royal Prerogative to protect the citizen against a possible miscarriage

923
of justice. If the Secretary of State accepts as, the Justice committee so unequivocally have accepted in their final conclusion, that there are substantial grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, surely the Secretary of State should exercise the prerogative of mercy in this case and rescind the conviction which has ruined the career and blighted the life of Mr. Anderson. If he wants further elucidation of any matters at issue, he can set up a public inquiry. To do so, we have been told in the course of debates on the Scotland Bill, is part of the prerogative. Then he can decide, in the light of the inquiry's findings, whether or not to exercise the Royal Prerogative. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House calls on the Secretary of State for Scotland to reconsider the case of Mr. D. C. Anderson, Q.C., in the light of the Third Report of the Committee on Criminal Appeals in Scotland (Cmnd. 7005), the Report of the Bryden Working Group on Identification, and the Report of the British Section of the International Commission of Jurists ("Justice"); and to take early appropriate action either by advising Her Majesty to exercise the Royal Prerogative in favour of Mr. Anderson or by instituting an independent inquiry as to whether substantial grounds exist for bellying that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
7 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, as we know, this House discussed the case of Mr. David Anderson on 21st January 1976, following a debate in another place on 11th April 1974. I told the House then that, as in all prerogative cases, the Secretary of State for Scotland was always willing to consider any new information that might become available about the case. I assured the House that he would carefully consider the petition then circulating and certain matters raised in that debate. But I also explained why, on the information available at that time to him, the then Secretary of State took the view, like the previous Secretary of State who had considered the matter in 1973, that no action on his part was justified. Perhaps it would be of assistance to the House if I referred to subsequent events.
924
The Petition I have mentioned was sent to the Prime Minister, and to the Secretary of State, some time afterwards, in 1976. I should perhaps mention, because prerogative cases have always received the very personal attention of the Secretary of State, that in the meantime there had been a change of Secretary of State, so that reponsibility for consideration of the Petition fell to a different person. Nevertheless, after a full consideration of the case, the present Secretary of State came to the conclusion that there were no grounds, either in the case itself or revealed by the Petition, for departing from his predecessor's decision.
The case was then the subject of a report prepared for the organisation Justice by a group of Scots lawyers, and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. That report was submitted to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in March this year. It was suggested that the report contained additional information about Mr. Anderson's case, in the light of which my right honourable friend should consider the report. He also received further representations from Mr. Anderson himself. The Secretary of State carefully examined the report and Mr. Anderson's representations, but came to the conclusion that he had no grounds for departing from his previous decision. If I may say so, his reasons for that conclusion were entirely consonant with the assurances I gave the House in 1976. A careful examination of the report, and indeed the Petition of 1976, shows that, in the words of the letter which my right honourable friend sent on 24th May 1978 to the solicitors who submitted the report, they
"do not provide any further information relevant to the offence"
—that is, to the events which resulted in Mr. Anderson being tried and found guilty.
I have no desire to repeat my own speeches, but, particularly on account of the suggestions that there have been discrepancies in the criteria used by the Secretary of State in different prerogative cases, I feel that I must repeat the very full explanation of the Secretary of State's constitutional position in cases of this kind which I gave to your Lordships in the 1976 debate. I said:
"His"—

925
that is, the Secretary of State's—
"prime function is to uphold the rule of law. What has been done by a court of law must be presumed to be duly done and its orders upheld. unless there is reason to doubt its correctness. His second function, and one that the Secretary of State, like his predecessors"—
and, if I may interject, his successor—
"finds one of his heaviest responsibilities, is to consider whether there are any reasons to doubt the correctness of a verdict. If information comes to his attention that the court's verdict appears to have been in error—that a person who was innocent may have been convicted—then it is his duty to investigate the case and weigh up the fresh issues carefully against the court's decision and, if there are sufficient grounds, to provide a remedy. For this purpose, he has been given the extraordinary power to make recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy.
I have referred to it as an extraordinary power because such it is. The Secretary of State is not empowered to re-try a case and decide on the merits of a conviction on the evidence at the trial. Leaving aside his lack of powers for the moment, even a Court of Appeal armed with a transcript is in no happy position to do that … for it has not heard the witnesses under oath and examination and observed their demeanour. What is required, if he is to exercise his powers in a case of this kind, is some additional information —sonie further factor—not before the court, which points towards a miscarriage of justice. It cannot be some fanciful or unconfirmed doubt or possible alternative explantion. It must be a factor of substance."—[Official Report, 21/1/76; cols. 552–3.)
I must remind the House that Mr. Anderson was convicted by a court of law and, whatever may be the limitations of the appeal system—a matter to which I will proceed—any impropriety of law or procedure would have been dealt with by the Appeal Court. Apart from the evidence before the court when it convicted, the only additional items of information of substance regarding the case against Mr. Anderson are the two separate admissions he made about his involvement in an incident with two girls which are in conflict with his alibi defence, and his subsequent explanations of why these admissions were made.
I have repeated a passage from my speech in the 1976 debate at some length, because the Justice report makes much of an alleged discrepancy between the criteria adopted by my right honourable friend in the case of Mr. Anderson on the one hand and Mr. Patrick Meehan on the other. In Mr. Anderson's case, the letter conveying my right honourable friend's
926
decision on the petition described his responsibility as follows, and Lord Drumalbyn referred to this:
"His only function is to consider whether there are extraordinary circumstances in the case before him which would justify him in recommending to Her Majesty the exercise of the Royal Prerogative for a free pardon or remission".
The Justice Report contrasts this with what my right honourable friend said in another place on 8th December 1976 following Lord Robertson's criticism of the granting of a free pardon to Mr. Patrick Meehan:
"The Secretary of State should not hesitate to recommend the exercise of the power if he has substantial grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred for which there is no remedy available in the courts".
Thus, Lord Robertson. I am sure your Lordships will see, from the full statement I have made, that there is no conflict between those two statements, each made in its own different context and in particular between the phrase "extraordinary circumstances" used in relation to the Anderson case and the phrase "substantial grounds for believing" used in the Meehan case There is no question of a stricter standard being applied in one case than in the other. Quite simply, the phrase "extraordinary circumstances" denotes the fact that prerogative intervention in the decisions of a court of law is an extraordinary and, rightly, a rare occurrence which requires very special features to be established in the case. But it is a power and a responsibility in the Secretary of State and it is right that he should exercise it by making a recommendation to Her Majesty when he has
"substantial grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred for which there is no remedy available in the courts".
The case against Mr. Anderson turned largely on evidence of visual identification and it has been argued his appeal, heard under the Scottish law on summary appeals, was an inadequate review of the case against him. It is natural that those who are concerned about the case should direct attention to these aspects of the criminal process. Indeed, the possibility that it might disclose the need for legal reform on those issues is one of the main arguments given by the Justice Committee for their suggestion for some further form of inquiry. May I say three things about what the Justice Report says on these issues?

927
First, may I reply to certain comments on my speech in the 1976 debate. It was suggested that I had said to your Lordships that everything was satisfactory in Scottish criminal procedure and that I had subsequently been contradicted by the Lord Advocate. In fact, while I suggested general confidence in the summary criminal courts and their procedures—a suggestion borne out by Lord Thomson's Committee in its Second Report—I specifically made reservations about the right of appeal from those courts. I said "The criticism might well be justified", and referred to the further work of the Thomson Committee. I see no conflict with the Lord Advocate's subsequent remarks. Similarly, what I said in the 1976 debate, when I am alleged to have condoned a breach of identification procedures by the police, is contrasted with the remarks of my right honourable friend, the former Secretary of State, in the debate in another place in April 1974. I should like to make it clear, however, that I did not say that the police were entitled to make the specific arrangements they did for the identification of Mr. Anderson. I accept that these arrangements are not those provided for in the recommended rules for police procedure, which, I must emphasise, have no formal binding status. What I said was that, Mr. Anderson having refused an identification parade, the police were entitled to make other arrangements than an identification parade for possible identification.
Secondly, on the issues of identification evidence and appeal I must point out that both those issues have been the subject of recent extensive inquiries by strong Departmental Committees—the Bryden Working Group and the Thomson Committee—and cases such as Mr. Anderson's have loomed large in their inquiries. These bodies have recently reported. Whether their recommendations are right or wrong I do not know—I am not an expert in these fields. But we can be confident that such extensive inquiries will have brought out all the considerations relevant to those issues. In accordance with normal practice, the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate, on the publication of these reports, asked for advice and opinion on them and approached the main Scottish legal bodies for comment. If Justice or any of your Lordships have any views to express, I
928
am confident that the Secretary of State and Lord Advocate would very much welcome them to assist them in reaching conclusions on the Committee's recommendations.
For my third point I must revert to what I have already said about the constitutional position. Mr. Anderson was convicted by a court of law after the hearing of the evidence in the case, and it was a conviction according to law, as the Appeal Court held. That is the machinery under our constitution for the resolution of disputed facts in criminal cases, and that would be the end of it, but for the Secretary of State's long-stop powers. I am sure it is right that matters of this kind should, so far as possible, be the subject of judicial rather than executive determination.
I appreciate that there are some who believe that Mr. Anderson was not party to the incident with the two girls, and that others are concerned that there may have been a miscarriage of justice. The Secretary of State has, on two occasions, personally examined this case in the light of representations made to him. He has read the unofficial transcript of the Ayr trial, from which the Justice report draws much material in dealing at length with the acquisition and sufficiency of identification evidence. He has also carefully read the Justice Report itself. He concluded, however, as I have said, that that report did not bring out any fresh factor relating to the charge against Mr. Anderson. I think the House will accept that suggestions of doubt about the evidence at the trial or the inadequacy of the appeal procedure, while matters to be taken into account, are matters which arise in many criminal cases, and do not as such constitute grounds for Executive interference in the decisions of courts of law.
I must repeat that the Secretary of State's mind is never closed in a prerogative case. If there were reason to believe that some further inquiry or investigation would reveal facts or factors bearing on the events on the night of 18th December 1972 which would assist him in his decision, then the Secretary of State would willingly make arrangements for inquiry to be made. But he has identified no such line of inquiry, nor is one revealed by the analysis in the Justice Report.

929
I regret therefore that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, little satisfaction—perhaps only that, insofar as the case may raise anxieties about the possibility of miscarriages of justice under our law on visual identification and summary appeal, these are matters which are already under examination and on which reports have been published. My right honorable friends would welcome any comments any of your Lordships might wish to make on these reports.
7.16 p.m.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, may I begin by expressing the thanks of the House—I am sure it will be the thanks of the House—to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for having raised this matter. That expression of gratitude to him is no formality. It was necessary, if this was to be an intelligible and intelligent debate, that somebody should start off by putting before the House the basic facts of the Anderson case. That was no easy task. The way in which the noble Lord was able to bring the essential facts of this case within the ambit of only 30 minutes is something for which we should all be indebted. Some of the things that I had planned to say arc now unnecessary. However, I shall seek in what I have to say to underline and emphasise some of the points which the noble Lord brought out.
The second thing that I should like to say by way of preliminaries is this. Some of your Lordships may have felt until they heard the noble Lord speak that it was scarcely justifiable to bring the Anderson case—which in essence, at any rate originally, was a simple little matter of a summary trial—before this House on a second occasion in a full-scale debate. I hope that that is a view which few of your Lordships will share. In the history of this country some of the most important legal cases, and some of the cases that have had the most profound influence upon our history, have been those which in essence appeared at first to be matters of trifle. One thinks of course of John Hampden and his resistance to ship money. That in itself appeared to be a very small issue. It involved great constitutional questions. One thinks of the case of the Archer-Shee boy, which concerned the theft of a five-shilling postal order—a case which divided the nation for a period of something like
930
two years and resulted in the vindication of the reputation of that boy. Therefore I hope that this debate will not be dismissed because this was a minor summary offence committed by somebody and not suitable for your Lordships' consideration.
Indeed, one of the most striking facts about this case, it seemed to me, as I pondered over what I might say, is the original apparent simplicity of it. One may state what the issue was in a couple of sentences. As Lord Drumalbyn explained more extensively, what happened in this case was that on one evening in December 1972 there were two girls in the neighbourhood of Prestwick. A man came up to them driving a motor car, and made an improper suggestion to them. Subsequently Mr. Anderson, who on that particular evening had been staying in a hotel at Troon, about seven miles away, was charged with the offence. In his subsequent trial the only evidence that was produced against him leading to a conviction was the evidence of identification by the two girls. There was no other corroborating evidence of any kind. He was convicted by the sheriff. He appealed to the Appeal Court in Scotland, and his appeal was rejected. What could be simpler than that? It is the kind of case which I suppose comes up in the magistrates' court in this country and in the sheriff court in Scotland probably every day of the week. The only significant feature of it was perhaps the character and the personality of the defendant who was charged.
Contrast that, my Lords, with what has happened since. I do not suppose that there has ever been a case tried summarily in a magistrates' court or in a sheriff court which has subsequently been the subject of so much scrutiny, examination and re-examination as the case of Mr. Anderson. There may be comparable cases—I do not know—but it would be difficult to believe that any similar case has been subjected to so close an examination as this case. At the end of the day, and in the course of subsequent years, a great number of people—individuals and committees—have come to the conclusion which was expressed by Justice when it said that there was reason to believe, and that it was led to the conclusion, that substantial grounds exist for believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.

931
I want to deal almost exclusively with the question of what is the function of the Secretary of State in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, but first I wish to make one or two preliminary observations. When we speak of a miscarriage of justice, what do we mean? We—and I speak now for myself, and I think, also for Justice—do not mean that it has been in any way proved that Mr. Anderson was innocent. Short of a miracle no one will ever know whether or not he was innocent. Short of a miracle, or short of discovering the person who actually committed the offence, there is no way in which it can be positively proved that he was innocent. That is not conceivable. What we mean by a miscarriage of justice is that when one looks at the case as a whole it has not been demonstrated —indeed, we are miles from having it demonstrated—that Mr. Anderson's guilt was proved beyond that reasonable doubt that the law requires.
I turn now to my second preliminary point. I would concede that a belief, however well founded, that there was a miscarriage of justice in this case would not, in isolation, justify a call for the Secretary of State to invoke the Royal Prerogative. That is not sufficient in itself. However, consider the position when one finds that the matter goes very much further than the belief of an individual or of a committee, and when one finds, as one does in this case—as I hope to be able to demonstrate in a few moments—that if there was a miscarriage of justice, it was not mere human fallibility. It was not the fault of the sheriff who may have misdirected himself. After all, in cases of this kind, and in more important cases, we are all fallible, and from time to time in isolated cases there must be miscarriages of justice. The contrast, and the difference in this case, is that it has been demonstrated—as indeed I shall demonstrate—that the conviction of Mr. Anderson in the court in Scotland was directly attributable to, if it did not positively result from, grave defects in the whole of the Scottish criminal procedure.
I shall draw attention to only two of these major defects. Let us consider the first one. In this case Mr. Anderson was convicted on identification evidence which was not corroborated in the court by evidence of any other kind. I do not
932
think that is challenged. Since the time he was convicted in 1973 there have been two Government-appointed committees, or working parties, which have reported on this very problem of identification. The first was the Devlin Committee which produced the Devlin Report of 1976. That report concerned only England and Wales, but its relevance to the case of Mr. Anderson is, I suggest, that its main finding and recommendation was that eye-witness identification is insufficiently reliable to convict, unless corroborated by evidence of another sort, or unless exceptional circumstances are present.
I say without fear of being contradicted that in this case there was no evidence of another sort to corroborate the evidence of the two girls about identification. If one looks for exceptional circumstances one finds—and these may be exceptional; I do not know, but I should have thought that they might be—-that the exceptional circumstance of the case was that the girls' evidence describing the offender and the car which he used bore no relation to Mr. Anderson or to the car which he was driving. That was the only exceptional circumstance in the case. Because of the Devlin Report, and the fact that it has been accepted and acted upon by the Government, and cases where there was some doubt about whether the identification evidence was sufficient have been referred back by the Home Secretary to the Court of Appeal, am I not justified in saying that if Mr. Anderson had had the good fortune to have been tried in England after the Devlin Report there is no possibility that he would have been convicted?
The second report on this question was the Bryden Report, which was produced by a committee, or working party, set up in September 1976 for the specific purpose of considering the law in Scotland of identification by eye-witnesses as it might be affected by the recommendations of Devlin. As we have been told, that committee did not accept in toto the principle which Devlin had recommended; that is to say, that you ought to have evidence of another kind, or there ought to be exceptional circumstances, before a person can be convicted on eye-witness evidence alone. What that committee said was that different circumstances prevailed in Scotland, and they recom

933
mended that there should be a change in the procedures. But when they came to deal with what are called informal identifications—that is to say, identifications which do not take place on an identification parade—the one recommendation they made was that what had happened in the Anderson case was wrong. That was the whole of their comment upon that aspect of the matter. So we had those two reports.
May I put two simple propositions for your Lordships' consideration? If the Bryden Committee reported, as they did, that the method which had been used in this case to try to identify the offender was wrong, and if, as I say, had Mr. Anderson been tried in England under the English procedure after Devlin he would almost certainly have been acquitted, are we to say that the Secretary of State is impotent to take those two matters into consideration? If we are told by these Government committees that the procedures were wrong, that the evidence was inadequate, and that if Mr. Anderson had been tried today, at any rate in England, he would have been acquitted, is that not something which the Secretary of State ought to be prepared to take into consideration? Are we impotent to try to put that matter right?
The second major defect in the procedures is the other one to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has referred: that in Scotland there is no appeal against a summary conviction except by way of stated case. I do not want to cite to your Lordships again—certainly not to the Scotsmen—what that procedure consists of, but what it amounts to is this. If a person is convicted in a summary trial by a sheriff and he then appeals, the form that the appeal takes is that the sheriff who dealt with the case draws up a stated case setting out the facts that he found and the reasons for his decision. That then goes up to the Court of Appeal, and all that the Court of Appeal can consider is that doucment and any legal argument that may be addressed to them. The result is that, under that procedure, the only material before the Appeal Court is what the sheriff has thought fit to give them. The second thing is that they do not see the witnesses, which of course applies in this country too; and the third thing,
934
which does not apply in this country, is that under that procedure there is no method by which you can check the accuracy of the sheriff's report against the transcript, because there is not one. It is a recipe for error, is it not?
One contrasts with that the situation in England—the situation as it has been for a very long time. If a person is convicted before a summary court in this country, he has a right of appeal to the Crown Court, and when it gets to the Crown Court there is a trial de novo. There is a complete rehearing; all the witnesses are called as before, and indeed any others that may be available. On the occasion of the last debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—and the noble Lord reminded us of this—who intervened for only a brief moment said (Hansard, 21st January, col. 559) that after his long experience he considered that a completely new trial on appeal to the Crown Court was
"an absolute necessity for the protection of the subject".
Mr. Anderson's case is a cautionary tale illustrating all the risks of the Scottish appeal procedure. There is first of all the fact that in the ordinary way there is no transcript. In this case—and it must be one case in a thousand—permission was given for a transcript to be made; and as a result of that transcript having been made we are today in a position to make a comparison between the stated case and the evidence which was actually given. What does this comparison disclose? It discloses two things, in particular, which my noble friend, if I may call him that, dealt with in greater detail. It shows, first of all, that the stated case omitted factors and facts of crucial importance, and that in at least one instance there was a grave misrepresentation of the evidence which had been given in court on a crucial issue; that is to say, the sheriff said that the girl who said that she had seen the number of the car had had no clear view, which was a complete distortion of what the girl had said, because she had replied that she had had a view which was quite distinct.
The other part of the defect in the Scottish appeal system is this matter of proposed adjustments to the stated case. Much the same thing goes on in this country when you have a case stated to

935
the Divisional Court, where only a matter of law is involved. In that event, what happens is that, if there is an appeal against, say, a magistrates' court's finding, the clerk to the justices draws up a draft of the case which is to be sent to the High Court; the defence and the prosecution are then called in to see whether they want to make any suggestions as to its amendment; and then, when it has been agreed by all parties as being a correct record of what happened, it goes up to the Divisional Court.
In this case application was made to the sheriff for ten pages of adjustments to be made. The Crown, as the noble Lord has said, refused to agree to any amendment whatever, except on one matter of small procedural importance. The sheriff accepted the representations of the Crown en bloc, and refused to make any amendment except on the matter of procedure. So his stated case, which was a travesty of what had happened in the court, went up to the Court of Appeal for their consideration.
Those, then, are the two grave defects in the Scottish procedure to which I wanted to draw attention. But, just as in the case of identification evidence there have been two committees—three committees if you include the report of Justice—which have considered this case, so there has been the Thomson Committee, which was charged with the duty of examining the Scottish appeals procedures to see whether any changes were required. They made their report on the 17th December of last year, as we have already been told. I can most simply summarise what they said by quoting from the Scotsman on the day the report was produced. They said, and said quite rightly, that the Committee had recommended sweeping changes in the appeal procedures.
By way of keeping the thing short, in their summary of the relevant recommendations of that committee, they said:
"The Committee say that the stated case has been the subject of much criticism over the years. This was mainly on the grounds that cases were often badly stated. Sheriffs and district court judges might make findings in fact which were not justified by the evidence or omit relevant facts or incorporate deductions as if they were proved or admitted facts".
You might think that the Committee were writing about the Anderson case. The report goes on to say:
936
"They"—
the Committee—
"propose that appellants should state their grounds when making an appeal and could add further grounds later".
They also recommended a mandatory hearing with both parties to adjust a stated case. Even though a judge rejected adjustments, they would he included in the appeal with the judge's reasons. All that was recommended by the Thomson Committee and there you have the same condemnation of the Scottish appeals procedure as you had in the Devlin Report and the Bryden Report on the matter of identification.
What is the resulting position? The resulting position is that the outcome of Mr. Anderson's case would certainly have been one of "not guilty" if he had had the good fortune to be tried in England for that offence after Devlin. The second conclusion which I suggest can be unquestionably drawn is that the result of this case might well have been different in Scotland if the recommendations of the Bryden Committee had then been available and had then been implemented and/or if the recommendations of the Thomson Committee about the appeal procedures had been in existence and had been implemented.
So the resulting situation is this: that a man has been convicted upon the sort of evidence and according to certain procedures which three Government Committtees have condemned as being wrong. That is the situation. There is no escaping from it by the noble Lord or by the Secretary of State.
Can I turn now to what the noble Lord was telling us about the prerogative? The noble Lord—and I am bound to say that it must have come as an enormous disappointment to all those interested in this case—appeared to be satisfied to rehash and repeat what he had told us in the earlier debate on 21st January 1976. That is extremely disappointing and, in my submission, is entirely wrong because all four reports—Devlin, Bryden, Thomson and "Justice"—have all appeared since the noble Lord told us on that occasion what were the functions of the Secretary of State in the exercise of the prerogative. I do not need to remind the House of what the noble Lord said then, for he has repeated it. He said, quite

937
rightly, that it is not the business of the Secretary of State to re-try a case; that is not his function. He said, quite rightly, that the primary duty of the Secretary of State is to uphold the law; that is, that in the vast majority of cases it is not for the Executive to interfere with the decisions of the Judiciary.
However, the very existence of the prerogative of Parliament obviously implies that there must be cases where the judicial system breaks down. The noble Lord on that occasion when he went on to define what was the function of the Secretary of State put it in this way. This was where he placed his emphasis. He said:
"What is wanted is some new substantial information of a kind which was not available to the court".
That was the test he put forward. He emphasised it more than once. Towards the conclusion of his speech he emphasised it again and said that this was what was so important. He said:
"I turn now to the relevance of these points"—
that is, some points about the history of the case—
"to the Secretary of State's functions"—
and this is very important.
"It might be suggested that they are factors"—
the things that he had been talking about previously—
"to be weighed in the scale, as there are factors of this kind in many criminal cases but they are issues already before the court".
Later on, when the Secretary of State was dealing with the criticism of Lord Robertson of his decision in the Patrick Meehan case, he adopted different criteria. Perhaps I may quote to the House the words which he used about the duties and function of the Secretary of State in exercising that prerogative. Lord Robertson, as the House will remember, had criticised the fact that he granted a pardon at all to Patrick Meehan. In his reply in the House of Commons on 8th December 1976, the Secretary of State said:
"The existence of the Royal Prerogative of mercy is an integral part of the constitutional system which exists to protect the citizen against possible miscarriages of justice. The Secretary of State should not hesitate to recommend the exercise of the power if he has substantial grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred for which there is no remedy available in the courts".
938
There is no mention there whatever of there being a necessity or a need for new information which was not available to the court.
I have kept the House for too long. I will finish in this way. Supposing that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is right about this and that the essential test is: is there new evidence which was not before the court? I would contend—and, I suggest, contend with some reason—that if that was the state of the law and of the constitutional convention, even then in this case there was information which was not before the court. The use of the word "court" in the Scottish context is ambiguous. Are you talking about the court of first instance or are you talking about the Court of Appeal; or, when you speak of there being information which was not available to the court, are you talking about both courts? If it means that there is new information in the sense that it was information which was not available to the Court of Appeal then, unquestionably in this case there is new information.
However, I would prefer to accept the criteria which were laid down by the Secretary of State in the quotation that I have just made. It seems to me that is what the convention is and that that is what the convention ought to be: that is to say, the Secretary of State in considering these matters shall consider all matters of fundamental or serious import and their bearing on the question as to whether there has been a miscarriage of justice. Let me finish in this way. If that is the correct criteria—that the Secretary of State should look at everything that has happened—how can be fail, when he finds (as we all find) that three Government committees and the unofficial committee of Justice have all pointed to the grave faults in the procedures and the laws under which Mr. Anderson was convicted, to find also that there are not in this case extraordinary circumstances which would justify the exercise of the prerogative?
7.50 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I have the feeling—I may of course be wrong—that this is one of those cases which are simply not going to lie down. I have had some experience of those cases, as has Scotland since the Oscar Slater case.

939
We first considered this case in 1974, when I was chairman of Justice. Ordinarily, we do not concern ourselves much with Scottish cases, not that we do not have Scottish Members but because most of us are not Scottish lawyers, and because English lawyers as a whole are brought up to believe that Scottish law and procedure is, on the whole, better than ours. But, being introduced to the case, in 1974 we appointed a sub-committee which had the advantage of reading the transcript—which of course the Court of Appeal did not—and they reported and went into the matter very fully.
The council resolved that the conviction was unsatisfactory and that a public inquiry was needed. By that time there had been a Petition; there had also been discussions in Parliament. We had our debate in this House, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and, as I understood my noble friend Lord Kirkhill on that occasion, he was saying that the Secretary of State's mind was not closed, that of course we had still to await the reports of the Thomson Committee and the Bryden Committee when the matter could be considered again.
The three things which have happened since then are: the report of the Thomson Committee; the report of the Bryden Committee, and the report of the Justice Working Party. This working party, it will be observed, is all-Scottish. It included Sheriff Prain, CBE, of the Scottish Bar, a sheriff and a past-president of the Association of Sheriffs; Professor Wilkin-son of the Scottish Bar and Dean of the Faculty of Law, Dundee University, and a former full-time sheriff; magistrates, and so on. Their unanimous first conclusion is this: there are substantial grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred for which there is no remedy available in the courts. I still do not quite understand the difference regarding the Royal Prerogative between the Secretary of State—for whom, if I may say so, I have a high regard—and my noble friend Lord Kirkhill. But they have said entirely different things. What the Secretary of State said in the other place on the 8th December 1976 at (column 455 of Hansard) was this:
"The existence of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy is an integral part of the constitutional system which exists to protect the citizen against a possible miscarriage of justice. The Secretary of State should not hesitate to recommend the
940
exercise of that power if he has substantial grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred for which there is no remedy available in the courts".
Not a word about the necessity for new evidence or the qualifications to which my noble friend referred in that last debate, and again today.
So far as the Scottish procedure as a whole is concerned, what my noble friend said when we discussed it on the 21st January 1976 (at column 554 of Hansard) was this:
"I am not aware of any general feeling of disquiet in Scotland about these courts and their procedures".
I cannot help feeling that he must have been surprised when he read the report of Lord Thomson's Committee. One of the first things that they said, in paragraph 1.08, was:
"The procedure has been the subject of much criticism, including Parliamentary criticism, over the years, …".
If, as I suspect, he read the next day's leading article in the Scotsman, he must have been even more surprised. It said this in the editorial:
"The findings of the final Thomson Report will be widely welcomed as going a long way to curing one of the glaring defects in Scots law, the quite unjustifiably restrictive rights of appeal in summary cases. So far in Scotland such appeals have been possible only on points of law, and the facts of a case have been absolutely excluded from further consideration after the initial hearing. The implicit assumption was that the judge who presided then must have got his interpretation of the facts indisputably right—an absurdity, for humans, even legal humans, are after all fallible. This archaic proceeding was further distinguished by being one area where Scots law was clearly inferior to English law, which allows not just an appeal on fact but in the most extreme instances even a complete retrial".
The article concluded:
"It would be no exaggeration to say that the case of the unfortunate Mr. D. C. Anderson has done more than anything else to expose the unsatisfactory state of the law on this point: no doubt it was that which set the Thomson Committee on to the problem in the first place. If the law had been different three years ago, Mr. Anderson would at least have had the right to a thorough examination of the grounds on which he claims his innocence; as the law stands, he has no such right. The Thomson Committee has in effect admitted that Mr. Anderson was hard-done-by, in the way the procedural conventions restricted his position as an appellant if in nothing else. Any remaining reasons why a public inquiry should not he conducted into his conviction have now disappeared. If the authorities are so sure of their facts, they have nothing to fear, and a great deal of public disquiet would he stilled".

941
The Justice report is very full. I am particularly anxious to be very short. I am not going to read any part of it—I have only read the first conclusion. I should have thought that on any view of the case there must either be a public inquiry or an exercise of the Royal Prerogative, unless in some respect the Justice report can be shown to be wrong. My noble friend Lord Kirkhill has not pointed to anything in it which he thinks is inaccurate. He has not pointed to any conclusion reached in it which he thinks is not justified by the facts they found.
As I am anxious to be very short I have neglected the Bryden Report. The Police Manual is not an Act of Parliament; but it is accepted by all the chief constables of Scotland, and the Bryden Committee clearly found—contrary to what my noble friend told us last time—that the police did wrong in not following the only rule in the Manual which applied where there was not to be an identification parade and the accused was not in custody.
I would only say that if the Justice report is right, it falls four-square within what the Secretary of State said about the exercise of the prerogative and when it should be exercised. I ask my noble friend when replying to do three things: first of all, could he tell us of any point in the Justice report which he thinks is not justified? Secondly, will he give us his legal authority for the view which he takes of the Royal Prerogative as distinct from that expressed by the Secretary of State about new matters, and so on? I should have thought that it was difficult for any Minister to put fetters on the exercise of a Royal Prerogative.
Thirdly, would he make some reply to the charge which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has made that one of the things which went wrong here, and went wrong in the appeal, is that the Crown, for whom my noble friend is speaking, opposed all the suggested adjustments to the record? Anybody looking at the suggested adjustments could see they obviously ought to have been included. The sheriff apparently merely accepted the blanket opposition of the Crown. This is not an allegation of bad faith; but it is a serious allegation to make that it was the Crown which was responsible
942
for so much that went wrong on the appeal and that so far, despite hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, my noble friend has made no reply at all. I would venture most respectfully to hope that at the end of this debate he may be able to deal with those three points.
8 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I intervene in this debate because I think that probably a lay Scotsman's view should be heard, and certainly that justice should be seen to be done in the eyes of the layman as well as in the eyes of the lawyer. I feel strongly that Mr. Anderson has not had a fair trial in this case. The procedure to which learned lawyers have referred time and again, in this debate and elsewhere, for an appeal against a summary trial is well known in Scotland by any intelligent layman to be absolute nonsense. I have had it summed up to me in non-legal language when a man who had lost his appeal said: "It's a piece of nonsense. How can you appeal when you are appealing against a judgment by a fellow who states the case to the superior court?"
Of course, it is wrong, and has been seen to be wrong by the ordinary citizens of Scotland for a long time. I find it very difficult to understand why the Secretary of State has not given way to the many appeals made to him by extremely distinguished bodies before this time. That in itself, I think, is grossly unfair. How much does he want? This present debate has already pulled out categorical statements by three very distinguished lawyers, saying that they believe an injustice has been done. He is being asked to exercise the Royal Prerogative and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, also says that an alternative would be to hold an independent inquiry. In my view, this is the very least he can do.
There is no question to a layman, on reading the evidence, that Mr. Anderson did not get a fair trial. There is no question at all about that to the layman. This is backed up by the lawyers. I think the opinion of this House will be very strongly against the attitude of the Secretary of State, and I appeal to the Minister to consider whether or not these deep considerations of the Secretary of

943
State might not be wrong. Certainly, the lawyers are against him, and I think I can say that, looking at the evidence, the laymen in Scotland who are interested also against the attitude of the Secretary of State and believe the least he could do would be to hold an independent inquiry.
8.3 p.m.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I am no lawyer; I am a layman, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, but I cannot avoid the feeling that an injustice has been done in this case. I can only hope that, after the course this debate has taken, and considering the very eminent people who have spoken in it, further consideration may be given to the case by the Secretary of State. I think that is what we would all like to see. I am sure that, when I say that, I am speaking for very many people in Scotland, who feel exactly as I do about this matter.
8.4 p.m.
Lord MACLEOD of FUINARY: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. The essence of the Motion before us is that the Secretary of State for Scotland should reconsider the position of Mr. D. C. Anderson in light of fuller information and that he should take appropriate action either by advising Her Majesty to consider exercising the Royal Prerogative or by instituting an independent inquiry as to whether substantial grounds exist for believing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
This is essentially a legal issue which has been presented to us in no fewer than 27 closely-printed pages of foolscap. Those pages speak for themselves—indeed, I would say they shout for themselves—as to the immediate need for at least an inquiry, Indeed, if I am honest, I am personally tempted to hope that in the light of the Justice report alone steps should be taken at once to approach Her Majesty regarding the possibility of exercising the Royal Prerogative.
As I am not a lawyer, I do not propose to enlarge on the legal issue which has been so well represented on both sides of the House. Why, then, do I intervene? It is, in terms of the last noble Lord who spoke, to represent the growing concern among the people in Scotland over both the legal and personal aspects. At an
944
earlier stage of the on-going inquiry it was stated on behalf of the Government that there was little evidence of public concern. There has been much discussion about that. It might well have been true at the actual date, but since then, as we have also been told, the up-to-date papers in the case prove that at least 1,000 persons have expressed their concern. I doubt whether there is any other legal issue on which 1,000 persons have expressed their concern.
Those people include judges, in their personal capacities, a panel of lawyers, including a professor of Scottish law, a sheriff and no fewer than 100 members of the legal profession in Scotland; solicitors and advocates, some drawn together as a working group indeed by the appointment of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate to examine:
"… identification procedure under Scottish law, as aroused by this and other cases".
That was in April of this year. Presumably that was set in motion by such things as leaders in the Scotsman and comments by Press correspondents in December of last year regarding the inadequacy of Scottish law as compared with English law, as has been so strongly stated, and rightly so, here.
There is little doubt that Scottish law will soon be amended by the inadequacy of its present terms; but I am certain there will be nationwide comment if the matter is left to a defect in the law alone: that is, if no parallel action is taken regarding the plight of the person whose particular case has given us the possibility of discussing the inadequacy of the law. This personal aspect is becoming very much a matter of public concern in Scotland.
This leads me to the only other point I wish to make. Could I, to give it edge, put it this way: let us suppose that you or I found ourselves involved with an alleged blot on our character and involved publicity. I care not whether it be labelled as some psychological disorder or moral depravity. Might not our first reaction, if we found ourselves in that position, be for the good name of our family or the fair name of our profession? Might not our first reaction, justified or not, be to resist the accusation openly and to battle on?
However, supposing that resistance bore no fruit? Supposing you or I were

945
guilty. Then, I ask you, would any of us go on and on and on through the years, if in fact we were guilty and inwardly feared the ultimate revelation of a public inquiry? Would we not, again for the sake of our family and for the reputation of our profession, after the first flurry begin to retreat from our protest, begin to pack in and let things take their dismal course to their inevitably sad conclusion without further inquiry?
What impresses me under this heading is the unswerving insistence of Mr. Anderson, who can get neither reprieve nor public inquiry—his unswerving insistence to go right on through the years because he knows it is not to the bitter end but to the ultimate restoration of his place in his profession and in the sight of the public if an official public inquiry is instituted. It is this unswerving determination through the years to go right on that convinced me of the justice of his case. If it is not fully inquired into officially, the public outcry in Scotland will not be just about the inadequacy of the Scottish law in these regards. But it will be about a man who, in a public position, has been publicly discarded, without having been given the chance of a public and official hearing. It is for this reason that I plead with your Lordships to vote either that the Royal Prerogative be sought now, or that the fullest and most public inquiry be instituted now.
8.10 p.m.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I start by what I intended to end with, and that is by endorsing the plea in the last sentence of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Macleod of Fuinary. But I have some experience of occasions when the House has been acting in a quasi-judicial capacity on a matter of private rights, which is how your Lordships have been asked to act on this Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. For Private Bills always raise these questions of private rights, and they are decided by Committees of your Lordships' House, which of course sit in a quasi-judicial capacity. It has been my duty on such occasions to make sure that your Lordships are provided with the relevant evidence submitted by the Promoters and the Petitioners, and presented in the way
946
they choose, whether by counsel or in person. That is the way in which we have decided in this House that evidence must be considered, in order to give a fair hearing to the Promoters of Private Bills, and to Petitioners against them, when your Lordships have to decide these matters in a judicial capacity.
Bearing in mind our own procedure for ensuring that all relevant evidence to give such a fair hearing is available to Committees of the House, I have studied the procedure followed for the submission of evidence in the Anderson case, and it has caused me serious concern—concern I share with the three noble Lords who have deduced this Motion, and with all noble Lords who have spoken in the course of this debate, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I should like briefly to explain my reasons for this concern.
It appears, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has explained clearly, that in Scotland evidence on appeal from a summary court is limited to a stated case prepared by the judge of first instance—in this case, the sheriff. The Appeal Court can take into account only the sheriff's statement and the legal argument made on it by the parties. The Court has no power to take into account evidence submitted by the appellant alone. This procedure excluded from the cognisance of the appeal judge important evidence of fact that Mr. Anderson regarded as essential to his case, for the sheriff—as he was entitled to do—refused to include this evidence in his statement.
The sheriff went on to refuse a hearing on the rejected adjustments, so that none of this evidence was argued in either court. These facts, in Mr. Anderson's view vital to his case—although he had no choice in the matter—were contained in 10 pages of additions to the sheriff's statement, the so-called adjustments, which Mr. Anderson had asked the sheriff to include but which he rejected without a hearing. I cannot conceive that any noble Lord, hearing a description of this kind, would say that this was a fair way of presenting evidence, or a way in which we would present evidence in the conduct of our own affairs in this House.
It was made clear in the Report of the Thomson Committee, to which reference has already been made, that that Com-

947
mittee regarded the procedure I have described as unsatisfactory. Lord Thomson has recommended that the High Court should be given "specific power to look at rejected adjustments", as well, of course, as at the sheriff's reasons for their rejection. That Committee also recommended a mandatory hearing for disputed adjustments. So there is no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, pointed out, that the Thomson Committee had criticised very severely, and wishes to alter, the present procedure and the procedure that applied in the Anderson case.
Whether this unsatisfactory procedure results in a miscarriage of justice depends on the circumstances of a particular case. I take the view that the importance of the facts was not available to the Appeal Court in the Anderson case. Facts relating to the identification of Mr. Anderson and a possible alibi cast considerable doubt upon the verdict. I am no less concerned about the evidence of eye-witness identification by two 14-year old children. Mr. Anderson was convicted on this evidence alone, as has already been said, and it has not been contradicted by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, or by any other speaker in this debate.
It will be remembered that, in his report—and this report has been accepted by the Government—Lord Devlin would not allow conviction on eye-witness identification alone. He said that there also had to be
"exceptional circumstances or substantial evidence of another sort".
Again, no one denies that in the Anderson case there were neither exceptional circumstances, nor substantial evidence of another sort, to corroborate the eye-witness evidence of identification. Is it really possible for anyone to say that the case against Mr. Anderson has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt? That, may I remind your Lordships, is the question before you this evening; not the question of whether Mr. Anderson was guilty or innocent.
Since the last debate in January 1976, four reports by great authorities on the law have been published, and their findings increase the doubt about the verdict in the Anderson case. There was the Devlin Report, to which I have
948
already alluded. Then there was the Thomson Report of December 1977, recommending changes in appeal procedure from the summary courts to remedy the defects in present procedure, defects which I believe prevented a fair hearing for vital evidence in the Anderson case. There was also the Bryden Report of April 1978. After that Report, there was a sharp reference by Sheriff Bryden, which has been mentioned, to the breach of police convention—it was not a police rule—by the identification of Mr. Anderson by two witnesses when they were taken together.
Finally, there appeared this year the report of the four distinguished Scots lawyers who examined the Anderson case on behalf of Justice. Here I must say that the House owes a debt to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and to those distinguished lawyers for bringing their minds to bear on this case, and for producing such a very interesting and valuable Report. It was their conclusion that:
"substantial grounds exist for believing a miscarriage of justice may have occurred".
In view of all these new developments, which favour Mr. Anderson, since our last debate in 1976, and of the increasing concern of public opinion in Scotland, as shown by responsible articles in the Scottish Press—and the noble Lord, Lord Macleod of Fuinary, has referred to public opinion in Scotland—I am sure that there are many noble Lords, in all quarters of the House, who wish the Government to reconsider their decision not to reopen the case. I hope that they will now be willing, at least, to set up an independent inquiry which would finally remove the doubt that hangs over this case by disclosing grounds which would justify a free pardon or confirm the verdict of the courts. There is a great cloud of doubt that hangs over the whole case, and I am sure that that is the only way in which this great cloud of doubt can be removed.
8.19 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I intervene for only a moment to say a word about the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, which is one of the remedies asked for in this debate. The Royal Prerogative is usually exercised by what is called a free

949
pardon. "Pardon", in ordinary language, denotes forgiveness for a sin actually committed. But the effect of a free pardon is quite different from that. The effect of a free pardon is beautifully stated in a single sentence by Sir Frank Newsam, who was a Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in his book entitled The Home Office. On page 114, Sir Frank wrote:
"A Free Pardon wipes out not only the sentence or penalty, but the conviction and all its consequences, and from the time it is granted leaves the person pardoned in exactly the same position as if he had never been convicted".
This curious expression "free pardon" comes down to us from the days when it was thought to be unwise to admit to the uneducated masses that the High Court was capable of a miscarriage of justice. But in these more sophisticated times I suggest that it is time to get rid of this unfortunate expression "free pardon" and replace it by a happier and more accurate expression which denotes exoneration.
8.21 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, one preliminary observation and it is this: there is no indictment against the Minister of State. He is not in the dock. It is the Secretary of State whom we indict, for he is vested with authority and if he is short of the necessary authority he can obtain it from his colleagues in the Cabinet. I have not the least doubt that if we had a full House tonight in your Lordships' House, and after listening to the speeches of eminent lawyers like my noble friend Lord Gardiner and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and eminent Members of the House like the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and so on, if a Division were taken the Government would find itself on the other side of the political fence.
I heard my noble friend Lord Kirkhill announce in such familiar language— how often have I heard it—"if only new evidence could be produced, then we might reconsider the matter". How often has that been said? I have heard it over the years. Let me tell my noble friend Lord Kirkhill that, almost before he was born—although perhaps I am not correct in that description—when the famous Oscar Slater case came before the country I was not involved but I happened to be
950
living in the area where the murder was committed, right across from where I was living. I recall that the accused produced the alibi that he was engaged in a gambling venture with a number of his colleagues, perhaps disreputable colleagues, because there was no doubt about it that he was an inveterate gambler and, although not a gangster, was a notorious kind of person. But none of that was taken into account.
What happened? He served 18 years in that Scottish prison. During those 18 years—and I recall it so vividly—the late Conan Doyle initiated, or pursued with agitation, a plea on Oscar Slater's behalf, and many of us living in Scotland at the time joined in. I remember that time and again when the matter came before the legal gentlemen associated with the Governments that were in existence, we had the same, the familiar, conventional language, "if only new evidence was submitted". I repeat that I have heard it so often I am sick and tired of hearing it, and my noble friend Lord Kirkhill must find some other kind of language. Even if he cannot find better arguments he must find some rather more suitable language in order to produce what is regarded as the defence—I am sorry to say, regretfully—on the part of the Government.
Moreover, what is this about? I do not know and have have never met Mr. Anderson, but I have been interested in the case from the very beginning. We talk about human rights. If perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, who is very philosophic on matters of that sort and very realistic also, initiated a debate on human rights, the House would be full and we would all be glorying in it because we want freedom for everybody. Human rights must be established without any reservations or qualifications. We would glory in that. But here is an example of human rights to be vested in a person who has been convicted on the evidence of two young persons.
I do not impute any wrong motives to those young persons, but they were two young persons who, apparently under the direction of the police at the time, identified the person who is accused of committing an act which, if Mr. Anderson had been accused on this side of the border, would have led at least to a not proven decision. Incidentally, in the Scottish courts when

951
the case came before the sheriff, if there had been a verdict of not proven, it might not have been entirely satisfactory but it would have been better leaving it as it is than to bring about the ruin of a man who, so far as the evidence enables us to judge—and particularly because of the discussions that have taken place all along the line, and the arguments against the conviction and all the rest of it—should not continue to suffer as he is doing.
I am not concerned about the emotional side of it as the noble Lord, Lord Macleod of Fuinary was, although I understand his sentiments and perhaps on some other occasion would applaud them, but I regard this matter objectively. If only the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, could prove to me that the evidence that was presented by the police and by the procurator fiscal—who by the way was as stubborn as a procurator fiscal in Scotland can be, and I have had some experience of them myself, as noble Lords know—was so overwhelming on the part of the procurator fiscal that the sheriff, with such a mass of evidence, so abundant, so overwhelming, had no alternative but to convict Mr. Anderson, I could understand it. There must be general agreement in the House at the present time and in Scotland too—although perhaps with some exceptions—that the question of Mr. Anderson's conviction on the offence of which he was accused admits of reasonable doubt. Surely that could be agreed. There is some reasonable doubt as to whether he should have been convicted, and in those circumstances I do not care very much and am not sure about the prerogative of mercy, about a pardon, but I think there ought to he another inquiry.
The Justice Report that has been referred to, with all its legal subtleties and legal arguments, and the forensic presentation of the case should all be taken into account. Then, although Mr. Anderson would not be the happiest man in the world, at any rate he would have a sense of freedom, the high moral principle of human rights would have been established and we could claim that we were to some extent responsible.
I just want to say one thing further. If the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, wants to divide the House tonight, I shall be
952
right by his side. That would not mean that I was seeking to indict the Government or that I wished to prevent the Government winning the next Election. Nothing of the sort; dismiss all those political suggestions because they have nothing to do with the case. But I should like this House to demonstrate by a Division that it believes that here we are presented with a miscarriage of justice; that there has been something wrong—whoever may be responsible—and that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, should be asked, deliberately, objectively, but wisely, to go back to the Secretary of State and tell him that, whatever they may think about the House of Lords, threatened with extinction and all the rest of it, when it comes to a question of human rights we have as good an understanding of the matter as the Secretary of State or even the Members of another place, although I believe they might be on our side.
So I am on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and indeed I am on the side of everybody else who has spoken. By the way, nobody has spoken in support of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. Has he noted that? There is nobody on his side. I shall challenge the House: is there anybody who would like to speak on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill? Is there any Member of your Lordships' House who will raise his hand and say: "I am on the side of Lord Kirkhill"? Nobody! So let it go forth from your Lordships' House tonight after this debate, to the country and to Scotland and to everybody concerned—and particularly to Mr. Anderson—that your Lordships' House is on the side of Mr. Anderson and wants to re-establish his reputation, so that he can face the world and that he and his family can glory in the fact. Let us do that; it is the least that can be expected of us.
8.32 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, after the ringing declaration of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, your Lordships may well conclude that there is little, if anything, more to be said, and partly because of his speech and partly because of the overwhelming expression of dismay by your Lordships from all parts of the House at what has happened in this case of Mr. Anderson, I can keep my remarks

953
brief and, I hope, truncated. May I make it clear that, although I speak from this position geographically in your Lordships' House, this is no Party matter and I speak for myself. I speak as a member of the English Bar who happily for many years earned his living prosecuting and defending in many cases similar to that of Mr. Anderson, and it was only because of the death of my father which transferred my earning capacity to other fields and my advocacy, such as it is, to your Lordships' House, that I find myself here this evening.
This has been a fascinating debate, not least because it shows that our Parliamentary institution, at a time of considerable pressure, when perhaps there is little time to debate things which many folk think should be debated, still finds time to conduct a Parliamentary inquiry in the form of a debate into the affairs of one single individual who is no doubt aggrieved by what has happened to him.
When my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn asked me to interest myself in his Motion I am bound to say that I did so and found it disturbing in more senses than one. I found a number of features about the whole matter which troubled me considerably, and quite obviously have equally troubled many Members of your Lordships' House. One has to ask the question: has Mr. Anderson been treated in this case in the manner in which we pride ourselves in the United Kingdom that every person is treated before the law, and should expect to be so treated? And I believe the answer must be "no".
I will not go through the case because it has been done extensively by other noble Lords, but there are three matters in the conduct of the prosecution before, during and after the trial which to me at any rate are specially worrying. By now your Lordships are more than familiar with the evidence, but putting it in a few sentences, two teenage girls made allegations about Mr. Anderson—or rather his behaviour—to the effect that he made some sort of overtures to them of an indecent nature. It is right to point out that at the trial there was no corroboration of their evidence at all, and the whole case depended on the identification of the accused man by these two girls. Quite apart from the inherently unsatisfactory
954
nature of the case for the prosecution, the pre-trial conduct of the police, in retrospect, made a conviction even more unsafe.
Why do I say that? The two girls were placed together in a police car in circumstances in which they knew that the accused—the suspect—would come along and that they were expected to identify him. They were both together in the police car, and I suggest that the result is that any possible evidential value of that confrontation—because that is what it amounted to—would be minimal. Taking the evidence of the girls as a whole, I would say without hesitation that it would be quite unsafe to convict on their evidence. I will not weary your Lordships with the details, but the evidence was inconsistent as to details of the car, the appearance of the man who accosted them—one of them identified the shorthand writer in court as the man who had accosted them—and I think that if one had been conducting the case oneself, or putting oneself in the position of somebody in that court, one would have said that there was no case to answer and the matter could have been disposed of at the end of the case for the prosecution.
In the event Mr. Anderson was convicted, and we come to the second disturbing feature. There was no appeal on fact from the judge of first instance, sitting alone and without a jury. I am not going to criticise the sheriff; I have no reason to do so and it would be improper, but if the sheriff asked himself at the end of the case for the prosecution whether it was proved beyond reasonable doubt, it is difficult to see how he came to the conclusion which he undoubtedly reached. If I differ at all from the very erudite and powerful arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I should have said that the evidence as it was at the end of the case for the Crown would have rendered a conviction unjustifiable, even before the conclusions of Lord Devlin, for the reasons which I have given.
At any rate no appeal lies, nor did it lie, against the facts. A restricted appeal lies in matters of law, but the sheriff refused to allow 10 pages of proposed adjustments to go forward as part of the stated case; he even refused to grant counsel a hearing to argue the matter

955
and this, let us remember, was in a case of the greatest importance, bearing in mind the character of the accused and the nature of the evidence. It is fair to say—and these are hard words but I think they should be said—that the sheriff acted according to the wishes of the prosecution, and it is difficult to see that the Crown was acting in the manner that it should, ensuring that justice was done and that the case was being conducted on the basis of prosecution and not persecution. It is difficult to reach the conclusion that the Crown was acting fairly.
Not altogether surprisingly—and it goes without saying—the appeal was dismissed, if only because the court was not properly seized of the facts, and no doubt the argument could not be mounted in an effective way. I am not concerned with debating the merits of the defence case; what I am concerned with is the fact that to my way of thinking justice must be seen to be done and appear to be done.
I can put this in another way—and I am coming now to the end of my remarks and the question of the prerogative. If it is shown that a subject of the Crown has been tried and convicted and a miscarriage of justice has taken place, and that this miscarriage has taken place in very large part due to acts of those whose duty it was to ensure that the trial was fair, and where the legal premises in at least two aspects have been shown to be out of date and unjust and unfair, does it then lie in the mouths of those who speak on behalf of the Crown—in other words, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill—to claim that the Crown cannot now remedy the injustice which has been perpetrated in the name of the Crown in the first place? I do not believe that it is so. If it were, the safety net, as I call it, which we believe to exist in the use of the Royal Prerogative would have a gaping hole in it.
Since the case was heard not one but two official bodies have concluded that the bases upon which the conviction was obtained, and the basis upon which the appeal went forward, are condemned, and we are now informed that the Secretary of State does not feel empowered to act. As has been said by other noble Lords, so often in the annals of our criminal history the Executive is extraordinarily reluctant to admit mistakes in criminal proceedings,
956
and also reluctant to put matters right, to right a wrong. If the Secretary of State acted in the way that this Motion of my noble friend suggests, could I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that it would not be a confession of weakness, it would not even be a precedent which could be used by others who are aggrieved by virtue of the handling or mishandling of their own cases. I urge the noble Lord even at this late stage to accept my noble friend's Motion and agree to it, so that the matter can go forward from this House as an expression of concern at what has happened, and determination that if possible the wrong should be righted.
If the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, does not accede to the Motion, I do not at present know what my noble friend will do about it. It is not a Party matter, and certainly it is not a matter of whipping. Can I just say this. If my noble friend was minded to divide the House I should follow him into the Lobby, and I should do it on this basis: that those of us who are privileged to have a say in the conduct of affairs in this country cannot rest easy in our consciences if we allow a manifest injustice of this nature to pass unchallenged.
8.44 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, if I have the leave of your Lordships, I might respond briefly to a number of points which have arisen. Perhaps I might just say at the outset of my remarks that those of your Lordships who sat, as I certainly did, through many hours of debate on the Scotland Bill will at least accord me this, that I attempt to respond to the relevant points made with as good grace as I can and with as much judgment as I can bring to bear on issues as they arise. But in this particular situation I am, of course, sensitive to realities. I am sensitive to Mr. Anderson's personal position. I am sensitive to the position of my Secretary of State, and I must keep that very clearly before me.
However, there were one or two direct points put to me. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, asked me to which court I referred in my earlier remarks, and I should say that I was referring to the court of first instance which heard the evidence. My noble friend, Lord Gardiner, asked of me what is wrong

957
with the Justice report. The Justice report is a careful analysis of the case which brings out, as happens in many criminal cases, arguments that the verdict might be wrong. The question, however, is whether, taking account of the other information, such as the two admissions, this shows such substantial grounds for believing that a miscarriage of justice has occurred as to justify the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. That must be a matter of judgment for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and to that extent he must be seen to differ from the Justice members.
My noble friend, Lord Gardiner, asked of me how there were, as he saw it, differences between my interpretation of Royal Prerogative and that of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think your Lordships might agree that in the speech I made earlier I made it clear that there was no difference between the criteria I set out in my speech in 1976 and the Secretary of State's in the case of Mr. Patrick Meehan. It is no new statement of law or limitation on the exercise of the Prerogative to say that factors of substance must be present before the Secretary of State can be justified in intervening in decisions of courts of law.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and my noble friend Lord Gardiner asked about the Crown's objections to proposed adjustments of the stated case, and there has been some suggestion made that I, as a representative of the Government, must share some responsibility for the objections by the Crown to the proposed amendments to the stated case. There has been some suggestion that these objections were the result of some policy decision. I can assure your Lordships' and I believe your Lordships will accept this assurance, that the Crown, as prosecutor—that is, the Lord Advocate and his staff—are entirely independent of the Government in their actions. The Crown's decision to object was not an attempt improperly to influence the court, which could accept or reject the amendments as it chose.
If I could turn my attention very briefly to the terms of Lord Drumalbyn's Motion, I must remind your Lordships that we are speaking here of a prerogative decision,
958
an action by Her Majesty on the recommendation of one of her Principal Secretaries of State. This has always been accepted as a personal decision to be taken by the Secretary of State alone, and, while there is no objection to such cases being debated in your Lordships' House, it is reasonable for me to remind your Lordships that our discussions must be taken against just such a background. The Secretary of State makes his recommendation entirely upon his personal responsibility, and it is improper, in my view, to intervene in that area of his entirely personal responsibility.
Were the Motion to be carried, if we go to a Division, then the responsibility still remains with the Secretary of State, and he must personally justify his decision. I must make it clear to your Lordships that he does not consider himself so justified. In this he is not acting on the advice of his officials; it is his personal decision based on his very careful examination of all the aspects of the case.
8.50 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, first I should like to thank all noble Lords from all quarters of the House who have taken part in this debate. I should also like to acknowledge the care with which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has dealt with the matter even though, as he quite rightly said, he could not give me very much comfort.
I should like to deal with the matters which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has just raised. Of course, in tabling this Motion I recognised that the personal decision of the Secretary of State was involved and that was why I said, very unusually;
"That this House calls on the Secretary of State for Scotland to reconsider the case of Mr. D. C. Anderson, QC …".
Normally Motions are tabled to call on Her Majesty's Government. The Motion was deliberately directed towards the Secretary of State for Scotland as, indeed, the House is surely entitled to do. It is right that the House should make its opinion quite clear to the Secretary of State for Scotland. None of us envies the Secretary of State for Scotland as regards the responsibilities that he has to exercise concerning the Royal Prerogative, but surely in the course of this debate enough

959
has been put forward for the Secretary of State for Scotland to reconsider the attitude that he has so far taken. That is the point.
The hour is late and I am sure that noble Lords will not wish me to speak at length. However, there is one matter which I should like to dispose of as a question of fact. It has repeatedly been said in the past that Mr. Anderson refused to attend an identification parade. I must put the record right on this matter, and I do so by reference to the evidence of Mrs. Armstrong, the policewoman who was present when the police sergeant was dealing with Mr. Anderson. The questions to which I shall refer were put in cross-examination. She was asked:
"Could you just describe to his Lordship in a little more detail what happened?"
She replied:
"Well, Sergeant Pringle was obtaining his name and address"—
that is, Mr. Anderson's name and address—
"and he offered to give a photograph if this would do in place of the identification parade as he did not want to be involved in a public police office et cetera with the public".
She was then asked:
"What happened after that? What did Sergeant Pringle say?"
She replied:
"Well, he agreed to accept the photograph".
I think that it is fair to add that he did not agree to accept it in substitution for an identification parade. Two or three questions later she was asked:
"So, as a result of that, was the question of an identification parade postponed?"—
not refused, but postponed. The witness replied:
"It was".
Do not let us hear any more about the refusal of Mr. Anderson to attend an identification parade.
The noble Lord has so far signally failed to give any reason whatsoever for the Crown opposing the adjustments. That is surely the core of the case. That is what prevented the Appeal Court from
960
considering the matter in its entirety. Whatever the reason or reasons may be, the Secretary of State should decide in his own mind as between those reasons and the manifest failure of the system to provide a satisfactory examination of the evidence in this case.
We must bear in mind that whatever the reasons the Secretary of State may have they have never, at any stage, been tested in the courts. The noble Lord referred to the two admissions. They were never tested in any court. Therefore, the Secretary of State should either exercise the prerogative, as I think most speakers have advocated, or hold an inquiry so as to test the reason on which he was advised. As we have discussed this matter in such a non-political atmosphere tonight, and as I do not want to cloud the issue in any way, I think that I should point out that, of course, it was not the present Secretary of State or the previous Secretary of State who was involved. What is more, the noble Lord is quite right in saying that the Crown Office is independent in the action that it takes here. But what has to be justified if the Secretary of State still demurs from exercising the prerogative of mercy is the reason why the Crown Office opposed with what was called "blanket opposition"—and pretty wet blanket opposition—all the adjustments, not only in the first instance but when the case came on appeal, when they opposed the motion that it be referred back.
That is the core of the matter, and I believe that your Lordships ought to be given the opportunity to express your views. I am grateful for all the support that I have been given in this debate and I hope that we shall, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said see that human rights are observed in this case.
8.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 8.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hampton, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Baker, L.

Harrowby, E.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Barrington, V.

Kimberley, E.

Segal, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Listowel, E.

Simon, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigavon, V.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Craigmyle, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Vivian, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wade, L.

Denham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Walston, L.

Drumalbyn, L. [Teller.]

Mansfield, E.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

White, B.

Foot, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gainford, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gardiner, L.

Rankeillour, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Elton, L. [Teller.]

Milford, L.

Trefgarne, L. [Teller.]

Glenkinglas, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Swinton, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

KC135 TANKER AIRCRAFT AND FAIRFORD
9.5 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the strategic concept which determines the possible locating of the American KC135 tanker aircraft at Fairford. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is perhaps appropriate that this Question should be raised today, on Independence Day. Although America and England may have parted company a long time ago, perhaps they are closer today than they have ever been. The other aspect that gives me pleasure is that my noble friend—I like to call him my noble friend—Lord Jeffreys is about to make his maiden speech; we were old Grenadiers together. Therefore, it is with somewhat mixed feelings that I raise this Question tonight in your Lordships' House.
All concerned with the defence of our country and with NATO realise that we need to have these KC135 aircraft, as they will, supposedly, make a vital contribution to NATO. When the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, answers for the Government, I should be very grateful if he would confirm that they are strategically vital to NATO.
So we have the problem of where these aircraft should go. The inhabitants of the Cotswolds are quite justifiably con
962
cerned—as the Ministry of Defence will know only too well from the spirited action that the Fairford Action Committee has already taken—about the environmental pollution which these aircraft cause, as well as the hazard of a possible disaster if one should crash. It is no good saying that their safety record is very high. The possibility of a disaster must be taken fully into account, however unlikely it may be.
Many of the inhabitants around Fair-ford are ex-employees of BAC or are still employed by British Aerospace, and as such know a thing or two about aeroplanes. I think that it will be of interest to your Lordships to note that at one stage during Concorde's flight-testing, one of the overseas venues where the Concorde was tested was the old American SAC base at Torrejon in Spain. I believe that KC135s still operate from there. While Concorde was there there was a stock joke among the employees of BAC who used to say that the KC135 relied on the curvature of the earth to lift off and climb out. At the same time the crash-barriers at the end of the runway were removed to avoid the undercarriage hitting them and there was a considerable delay between take-offs in order to allow the smoke to clear from the engine pollution of the previous aircraft. I would also add that the noise generated was considerably higher than that made by the prototype Concorde.
So this is why the people of the Cotswolds are worried and concerned. Your Lordships must bear in mind though that they are pro-British and pro-NATO.

963
But we must also bear in mind that these aircraft were developed 25 years ago, and since then we have had engine development, take-off performance improvement, noise abatement techniques improved. But alas none of these things has happened with this particular aeroplane. So perhaps a very brief comparison would not go amiss. A Super VC 10 maximum take-off weight of about 335,000 lb., on four engines, will achieve a 6·7 degree rate of climb. AKC 135, fully laden with 26,000 gallons of kerosene, all-up weight round about 300,000 lb., on four engines achieves a three degree climb out—less than half.
I could go into atmospheric conditions and everything else but we would get too technical, and time is pressing. When these aircraft have theoretically reached Cirencester, the VC 10 would be at a height of 3,900 ft., and the KC 135 would be at 2,000 ft. If either of these should lose an engine the story is radically different. The VC 10 climbs out on three engines at 1·8 degrees, and the 135 at half a degree. This means that the VC 10 will have reached 2,000 ft. on three engines, which is what the KC 135 does on full power, but the KC 135 will be approximately 300 ft. up. The highest church spire in Cirencester is 162 ft. high, so all things being equal the American aeroplane would clear the spire by 138 ft. Your Lordships' House from the Prince's Chamber to the Peers' Lobby is about 138 ft., which is not very much for an aeroplane with 26,000 gallons of fuel on board to miss a church spire by. These figures have been checked by a qualified aerodynamacist.
So, I should like to ask the Government the following questions. First, will the United States Air Force operate these aircraft to the same standard as the RAF does in peacetime; that is, to British Civil Airworthiness Requirements, which specify a 3 per cent. rate of climb for one engine out on the WAT limit? WAT meaning weight, altitude, and temperature. In this instance 3 per cent. is about 1·8 degrees, which is what I have already said the VC 10 can do. Secondly, what noise abatement techniques will be used, if any? Thirdly, if the United States Air Force does not operate to BCAR, then to what standards will they operate? Fourthly, will the Minister confirm my figures for the 135s rate of
964
climb on three engines? Fifthly, what is the distance to unstick on three engines with a failure marginally after VI (the safety take off speed)? Sixthly, what does the United States Air Force intend to do to improve the jet efflux from the dirty engines? Seventhly, should fuel have to be jettisoned, at what height could this be done, and what effects would this have on farmland, homesteads, towns and villages in the surrounding countryside?
It has been stated on several occasions that these 135s will only be used for training. But in peacetime surely training is the main function of all military aircraft. It has been stated that among the reasons for not chosing Greenham Common is the proximity of Aldermaston, the poor performance of the 135 making the probability or possibility of an accident to the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment an unacceptable hazard. Why then, when Greenham was originally considered in April 1977, was it not immediately ruled out by the Ministry of Defence? This statement regarding the possibility of a disaster at Aldermarston does not make the inhabitants of the Cotswolds feel any happier or more secure. If anything, it does the reverse. The other reason that was given for rejecting Greenham Common was environmental. To be fair, therefore, a similar consideration must be given to the people in the Cotswolds. If cost is to come into the consideration, the Ministry of Defence must take account of the cost of the disruption of life in the Cotswolds, not only domestically but also with tourists.
I end up by asking: will Her Majesty's Government, if they have not already made up their minds, issue a clear statement regarding consultation with planning authorities relative to the area finally chosen? Will there be a public inquiry? In what circumstances could objections from the planning authority concerned lead to the abandonment of a base chosen by the Ministry of Defence? The KC135s we must have, but I hope that my few words this evening will help in some small way to persuade the Ministry of Defence that Fairford is not the place for these aircraft, and that there are other bases which have equally good, if not better, strategic criteria.
9.14 p.m.
Lord JEFFREYS: My Lords, in venturing to address the House for the first time, I can assure your Lordships that I shall be brief, certainly bearing in mind the hour at night to which the House has been made to sit, and I trust that I shall be non-controversial, albeit that we are discussing a subject which has caused considerable controversy in North Wiltshire and South Gloucestershire. At the outset I should say that I fully support and accept our national commitment to NATO and recognise the essential role that air-to-air refuelling plays in the strategic air defence of the Western World. That this capability is to be stepped up is something I fully support and for which we should all be very grateful. However, I find a certain irony that we should be discussing the imposition of additional, and locally unwelcome, forces from another country on this date of all; that is, 4th July. It is, however, important to question the Government to ensure that any decision as to the siting of the new base for the KC135 is in the best interests of as many of the interested parties as possible; in the best interests of safety, of the local community adjacent to the base, of the United States Service personnel who will have to man the base and in the best interests of this nation and NATO.
I shall not attempt to get involved in the technical aspects of this or any alternative aircraft, as was so ably done by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley. This aircraft has a reputation, which I am not personally capable of judging, of being extremely noisy and dirty, and potentially lethal. I think your Lordships would agree that any chance of an accident over land involving one of these aircraft when fully laden with fuel is one that is totally unacceptable. Should that accident take place over a remote rural area, the resulting destruction and pollution would be appalling; should it take place over a built-up area, the potential destruction and danger to life defies description.
Thus, if the Government are considering Fairford as a potential base, I would ask them in the interests of safety to consider certain matters. First, are they satisfied that the risks of an accident in the vicinity of the neighbouring towns of Swindon, Highworth, Lechlade, Cirencester and the Stroud Valley are so
966
negligible as to be not worth considering? Secondly, are they satisfied that the air traffic control arrangements involving the already quite busy air base at nearby Lineham are sufficiently foolproof to preclude any chance of any such accident taking place; and if they are in any doubt, what would be the cost of either improving the air traffic control system or of reducing the amount of use made of Lineham and of the consequent disruption of Service life at that base? Thirdly, are they satisfied that the activities of the Red Arrow squadron of the RAF currently stationed at Kemble, nine or 10 miles from Fairford and directly on the flight path of the KC135, would not constitute a hazard to aviation? I remind your Lordships that the activities of this squadron are acrobatic to an extreme. I cannot believe their presence would really be considered safe; and if it were not, and if the Government should consider that a hazard does exist, what would be the cost and the disturbance involved in removing this squadron to another base?
I turn to what I call the local emotional feeling against any decision to base these aircraft at Fairford. The feeling could not be described as either political or anti-NATO, although there may be some people, of vastly differing views, who would object either because they were opposed to the Government or because they were opposed to NATO. In general, however, local objections are based on fear; fear of noise, fear of pollution, fear of an accident and fear of the effect on the community of fairly large numbers of additional personnel, both temporarily during the conversion of the site to NATO requirements, and subsequently by the permanent garrison needed to man and maintain the base. These objections based on fear would doubtless be raised to a greater or lesser extent according to whatever site the Government and NATO eventually decide on.
However, in the case of Fairford, there is a reason, which your Lordships may or may not consider to be valid, and which—if the decision to base these aircraft on Fairford were taken—might locally be considered to be somewhat wanting in tact. Fairford was, and to a limited extent still is—but it may not be for very much longer—the home of Concorde during all its proving flights in this

967
country. It was a daily spectacle. Whether or not local people were personally involved in its future—were not we all to a greater or lesser extent?—nearly everyone admired it as the ultimate in grace and beauty that had yet been produced by Anglo-French aeronautical engineering.
Although it was an international project, local people in South Gloucestershire and North Wiltshire felt it to be particularly theirs. They were proud of it. And pride in national achievement is not a sentiment which is totally dead in that part of the world. They wished it well. They therefore felt, perhaps more strongly than others in the country, a sense of frustration and anger at the campaign of delay, some would say a pernicious campaign, waged against their Concorde by certain sections—I assure your Lordships that I mean certain very limited sections—of American opinion which, in the end, resulted in the end of the Concorde programme.
What are they offered now? Should those same people who admired that aircraft so much be offered, in its place, the KC135? Should they welcome this vast, obsolete, noisy, dirty and potentially dangerous piece of machinery as a welcome guest in their own neighbourhood, where once they had a child of their own, a child of grace and beauty and of their own breeding? I fear that they will not accept any decision to make Fairford a base for the KC135 with a good grace; I fear, too, that the traditional friendship and hospitality with which we like to treat everyone, and perhaps especially our guests from the United States who visit that part of England in large numbers, will not be forthcoming, and that the two communities might exist in a state of less friendship than we should like. I should therefore like to ask the Government to consider very carefully whether there is no suitable alternative site to Fairford which will both satisfy our obligations to the NATO Alliance and meet with the approval of the local community.
9.24 p.m.
Lord MILFORD: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, on his maiden speech, which was terrifically fluid. and strong. We look forward, I am sure, to hearing him speak many times in the future.
968
I wish to state emphatically that I share the consternation of all the people living in or near Fairford and in the Cotswolds. It was with great regret and frustration that I found myself unable to take part in their demonstrations and deputations to Ministers in the House of Commons. Many of us remember how, not so many years ago, at the height of the cold war, American bomber aircraft were flying day and night high over our heads, and we were told that they were loaded with H-bombs. Thus it was with a great sigh of relief that most of us living with our families in the neighbourhood learnt that the American Air Force had decided that it could evacuate Fairford aerodrome. Now it may be coming back with heavier, dirtier, and noisier planes. Life is going to be grim, and I would join any campaign to stop this. But I will take no part in any campaign which attempts to impose this nightmare on any other community elsewhere so that we around Fairford can go free. I think that it is absolutely immoral to try to put it on to other people when we thoroughly disagree with it ourselves.
If the arms race continues and more and more bombers, tankers, and missiles have to be placed in Britain, more and more English communities will be engulfed; and even if Fairford escapes now, it will be a full blast American base before long if the cold war continues. In fact England will become an expendable American aircraft carrier. If that happens, Fairford, along with many other English communities, will be priority missile targets for the enemy. We and our Government must face up to that when the increase in the number of military air bases takes place.
Your Lordships may accuse me of talking off course, away from the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley. However, it is difficult to discuss location, pollution, and noise without saying something about more basic questions leading up to them. First, I want to refer to the absolute madness of the armaments race for both sides—East and West. When, and where, are any of us going to stop this crazy race? Being unable to take part in the delegations and deputations, it was arranged for me, as a Member of this House, to meet a Member of Her Majesty's Government to discuss the issue contained in the Question. To my amazement this

969
important person asked me which would I prefer, to be fried or polluted? Are we, in this debate on this vital question, for which we are seeking a solution, to discuss the matter on such a low, infantile level?
Is not the whole of humanity—at least outside those in the arms industry—crying out for this madness to stop; for the arms race to be halted, reversed? Enough arms and bases already exist to blow mankind to smithereens. It seems to me that we are adding to this madness by introducing these American tanker planes around our village communities in our unique countryside; and at a time when there may be just a glimmer of hope—a small spark—which on no account should be ignored or stamped upon. I am referring to recent events in the world.
First, there has been Brezhnev's speech in West Germany—which the Germans thought very important indeed—in which he said that both sides were crazily heading for self-destruction; that neither side can negotiate from superiority of arms; that both sides must get around the table and discuss, discuss, discuss how to stop this madness.
Secondly, another very important event has been the getting together of so many nations at the United Nations to seek a way out of this madness. I remember talking, on the day it was assembling, to one or two Members of the Government Front Bench in this House. They had the excited air of optimism, hinting that Britain was going to play a leading part in discussing how to halt this crazy arms race. We have not yet heard fully what happened at the United Nations. A third hopeful event is that the Soviet Union has agreed that the forces of both sides could be reduced in Europe. Surely these three very important recent events constitute a chink of light in the dark curtain. I hope that Her Majesty's Government—all Governments, of whatever ideology—will push and push to make that chink wider and wider. The world has been treading down a very dangerous road, but I believe we can still turn back. Is this not a more realistic approach to take away the threat to Fairford, or any other English community, of being essential as a war base, torn by noise, smeared with pollution and perhaps faced with extinction?
9.31 p.m.
Lord MANCROFT: My Lords, may I, with respect, bring your Lordships' House back from the chink of the noble Lord, Lord Milford, to Fairford? I live two miles from the end of the Fairford runway and four miles from the end of the Brize Norton runway, which is also a candidate for the KC135. I therefore clearly have an interest to declare. It is not upon this interest that I wish to speak in any way this evening; nor I think, my Lords, would all my neighbours in the Cotswolds area. We all of us realise that defence has to be a major priority; we are all of us aware of those people who say that we have not paid enough money for defence or done enough for defence but who then, when somebody suggests that our airfield should become the home of the KC135, say, "Any airfield except ours".
This is the old story that we have heard so often in politics. People say, "Government expenditure must be cut to the bone, but not my bone". How often have we heard Members of Parliament say, "Government expenditure must be greatly reduced, but not in my constituency"? So we all say that we want these extra KCl35s to help us, but not if they are anywhere near our back yard. Of course, this is natural. All aircraft are dangerous, smelly, beastly things, as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has emphasised, and all airfields contain potential danger. We know this; so what we are asking the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, to do tonight is to say that he accepts that but, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, also to say that there is an overriding strategic reason why this airfield rather than any others should be chosen for this particular aircraft. We understand completely the need for these aircraft—those of us, particularly, who are interested in defence—but we want to know why this particular airfield is better, more suitable, strategically more acceptable, than any other.
My Lords, our local newspaper, the Wiltshire and Gloucestershire Standard, in which is incorporated the Swindon Express and Echo and the Malmesbury Mercury, has recently conducted a ballot. For what it is worth, 183 voted in favour and 356 against. All the usual arguments were paraded, and they are all good ones:

971
jobs that were lost when the Concorde was taken away and might well come back if the KC135 comes back, noise, pollution, traffic troubles—all these are rightly exercised. But there are two arguments to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, which I think are a little less obvious. One is obviously that a newspaper ballot is not the ideal way of settling a nation's higher defence structure. The second is that our planning procedure, out of which all this arises, is still unsatisfactorily chaotic.
Your Lordships have heard it all often before—over Maplin, over the fourth terminal at Heathrow, over the A3 road past Winchester, and over the Archway. This will go on interminably as it is today over this Fairford row, unless we try to get our planning procedure into slightly more civilised and practical methods. Within bicycling distance of Fairford are three Roman roads: Fosse Way, Akerman Street and Ermine Street. They were built 2,000 years ago and you can see them plainly both from the air and from the ground. If the Romans had to follow the planning procedure that we have to follow nowadays those roads would never have been built let alone lasted 2.000 years. Can you imagine what would happen if we had from this House formed a deputation, an "aggro" to go off to the headquarters of the 20th Roman Legion in Cirencester? Do you think that the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, would be allowed to put down an Unstarred Question to Julius Ceasar and to the Senate at Rome? No, not at all! This has been the trouble.
With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Milford, I should like to quote to him one remark in a letter in our local paper. It reads:
"Personally I would rather have the Americans fuelling their planes here than the Russians. After all, one would not be able to protest at all if the nationalities were reversed".
Therefore I come back to endorse the Unstarred Question of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, on behalf of the Government this. We all know about the pollution and the noise, particularly if we are a baby or an invalid. Any aircraft on any airfield is bound to be a nuisance and a potential danger. All that the noble Lord, on behalf of the Government, has to convince us is that
972
this is the only place strategically where these aircraft can be placed; and we, believing in the necessity of defence, will put up with and accept the noise, the nuisance and the potential danger. We shall certainly accept the Americans if we are going to have these aircraft here; and I shall be the first person to give them a very warm welcome, provided I can be heard above the din.
9.37 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we are doubly fortunate this evening, first, that the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has seen fit to raise this important matter; and, secondly, that the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, has chosen this occasion to make his maiden speech. What a pleasure it was to listen to him. The noble Lord's command and style are very much in line with the highest standards of your Lordships' House, and I hope that he will intervene in our proceedings regularly in the future.
The noble Earl's Unstarred Question refers to the strategic concept governing the use of these tankers. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, when he replies, may not be in a position to reveal this to us precisely. I have no doubt that this is a classified matter which may not even be revealed to the Government at all. But it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine the burning issue of where to base these aircraft without at least some knowledge of the location and scale of their proposed operations. Of course there have been some leaks. Having said that, the United Kingdom is by American standards a small place, so that if the area of operations was, for example, the North Atlantic, the different locations of possible sites in England, Wales or even Scotland is of no particular consequence.
That being so, I wonder if I can put to the noble Lord the possibility that these aircraft could be based in Northern Ireland. That Province is, for the most part, much less densely populated, and the extra 200 or so jobs which would result would be even more welcome there, I fancy, than here. There are a number of now derelict aerodromes in Northern Ireland. These could be restored and adapted for this purpose, again providing some very welcome short-term employment while the work is in progress.

973
The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, dwelt at some length on the inadaquacies, as he put it, of the performance of the KC135. I do not want to follow him along that road because although I would agree that most of what he said was, so far as I know, accurate, none the less, I believe that he is a little misleading if he chooses to compare the KC135 with the VC 10 or the Super VC 10. It would be more accurate to compare the KC135 with the Victor tankers which the Royal Air Force now operate. Although I understand that there are some plans to convert VC l0s to tankers, there are no such aircraft at present. The VC 10 was a second generation jet transport, and both the KC135 and the Victor could be described as first generation transports, and therefore are more directly comparable.
Your Lordships know that I have often spoken in your Lordships' House on aviation matters. I suppose I am a wholly dedicated aviation person; and, indeed, earn my living in the industry. I believe, none the less, that aviation, whether civil or military, can no longer plant its noisy footprints with impunity—to use the modern jargon—over local communities without accepting strict controls. Of course, if war were imminent or happened, the situation would change dramatically. In peacetime I believe that there must be some regulation even on these military aircraft.
What then are we to say to our American allies who need quite justifiably to operate the somewhat elderly and noisy aircraft hereabouts? First, we must select an aerodrome which will cause the least possible annoyance to the population. Because of the technical requirements of the runway and the copious fuel supplies necessary for these operations, the choice is clearly somewhat limited. I believe that the environmental considerations so eloquently put in particular by my noble friend Lord Jeffreys are such that would rule out places like Fairford and Brize-Norton. Indeed, I believe that the people who live around Brize-Norton have enough to put up with already.
The choice is thus narrowed to an existing coastal site, of which the RAF have a number, or to redevelop an old and remote aerodrome, perhaps in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Secondly,
974
we should say to our friends that we insist that the KC135s are replaced by the newer, quieter and more efficient DC10 tankers now on order just as soon as maybe. They are, I believe, expected in service in a couple of years. It might be reasonable to insist that the first place they base them is at the point decided for what I hope will be the short-term operation of the KC135s. This will no doubt require some replanning of the USAF tanker deployment; after all, they have an enormous fleet of tankers and there are nearly 1,000 KC135s still in service. I believe that our friends will realise that we have unique problems here and will he willing to do this for us.
If the Americans grow impatient at the very detailed and careful consideration which the Government must give to this matter, or if they start to read the fine-print of the NATO Treaty, they may care to ponder on the two years or more that it took—and this was mentioned also by my noble friend Lord Jeffreys—to secure the landing rights for Concorde in New York. The situations arc not perhaps exactly parallel, but the Government do have a duty to provide these new facilities only after the most careful thought.
9.45 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for putting this Question because, first, it encouraged the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, to make his maiden speech, on which I congratulate him and quite sincerely say that I hope we shall hear him again soon, and possibly on matters of defence. It also enables me to explain why the requirement to base extra KC135 tanker aircraft in this country has arisen and to try to allay the fears of the more nervous brethren among us.
I think it will be generally accepted that we owe the long period of peace and stability we have enjoyed in Europe to the North Atlantic Alliance. As noble Lords will recall from the interesting debate we had on defence strategy in July last year, the North Atlantic Alliance practices a strategy of deterrence. For effective deterrence the Alliance needs to convince any potential aggressor that

975
the use of force, or the threat of force for political ends, carries risks far outweighing any likely advantage.
NATO's deterrent strategy is based on forward defence and the capability of flexible response. Forward defence means that NATO is committed to defend the full territorial integrity of its members and to halt any attack at the earliest possible point. Flexible response means that NATO must have a range of military options wide enough to ensure that whatever form agression took NATO would have the ability to meet it. For the deterrence to be effective in all circumstances, sufficient forces must be stationed forward in Europe to defend Alliance territory at all times against any attack the Warsaw Pact could mount until reinforcements could arrive and to support these forces on arrival.
As part of its commitment to this NATO strategy and in response to the continuing build-up in Warsaw Pact military forces, the United States has recently increased the number of its fighter and strike/attack aircraft based in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe. For that, we shall be grateful to them. As a result, the small number of KC 135 tankers currently stationed at RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk can no longer provide sufficient air-to-air refuelling capacity to get the maximum combat effectiveness out of these tactical aircraft and others which would cross the Atlantic to reinforce them in time of tension or war. The noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, mentioned "fear". Are the inhabitants of the Cotswolds of softer tissue than the inhabitants of Suffolk? I do not believe it. If Suffolk can take KC 135 aircraft then I think the Cotswolds—if it should be the Cotswolds—might also be able to stand up to the challenge.
Tankers have been aptly described as "force multipliers": by topping up combat aircraft with fuel in the air, they enable them to fly further or carry a heavier weapon load, or both, than is possible without flight refuelling. Indeed, tankers increase significantly the operational effectiveness of the combat aircraft they support, and thereby make a major and cost effective contribution to deterrence and peace; this is why Her Majesty's Government have recently decided to purchase extra VC 10s to add to the RAF's own tanker force.
976
It is important that the KC 135s, which would operate in Europe in war should train regularly in the theatre to provide practice for their own crews in a European environment and training for the tactical aircraft pilots stationed here. Only in this way can they maintain the operational readiness and effectiveness that is so essential for deterrence and the efficient defence of Europe. The United States Government has accordingly decided that it must increase the number of KC 135 tankers deployed in Europe as quickly as possible to match its increased commitment of combat aircraft. For military reasons, it is not sensible to base them in the forward area of the NATO Central Region, where they would be vulnerable to attack by tactical aircraft of the Warsaw Pact. We would not put them on the Russian border. Nor is there room for them at airfields in the central region.
NATO greatly needs the increased air refuelling capability represented by these KC135s, and Her Majesty's Government fully accept the urgent operational case presented by the United States Government, and supported by the NATO military authorities, to deploy extra tankers to Europe. We wholeheartedly welcome this addition to allied deterrent and defensive strength. We also agree that, given established NATO strategy and planning, the United Kingdom is the most suitable country in Europe for them to operate from. We are, after all, an unsinkable aircraft carrier. I believe that noble Lords will not dissent from that either.
The question of where in the United Kingdom they should be based is, however, as we have heard this evening, a much more difficult matter to resolve. There are many factors that the Government have to take into account in reaching a decision. Fortunately, strategy is not one, since almost anywhere in these islands would be within range of the tankers' operational rendezvous areas. I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, about Northern Ireland. Remembering one great airfield there which has been closed, it might be an excellent idea, but that is not for us to discuss this evening.
Lord TREFGARNE: Why not?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Because I have simply said that the actual placing is not determined by strategy; it is determined by other matters. I shall come to the point later. However, the pattern of our other aircraft deployments, the availability and suitability of airfields, cost and environmental considerations are all matters that have to be studied and balanced one against the other. But apart from repeating what was said in another place on 26th May about the reasons for ruling out Greenham Common, I regret that I am not able to say anything tonight about the Government's choice of airfield as the base for these tankers, or even about the list of airfields which has been considered. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence hopes to make an announcement in the very near future. I cannot anticipate this, and until then I must ask noble Lords to be patient on this point. This is, to some extent, an answer to the Question about Fairford, which was the main focus of the noble Earl's attention. But, as I said, it is not strategy; it is a complex of considerations upon which the Government must base their decision.
May I now turn to some points which, I hope, will allay the fears of noble Lords. First, the United States Government has asked Her Majesty's Government for a base in the United Kingdom for 15 extra KC135 tankers in peacetime. That answers the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, about the scale of the operation. The deployment of these aircraft would take place over a period of two years. When complete, the force would generate an average total of about eight sorties a day. Initially, it would be proportionately less. Flying would normally take place only in daylight hours and on weekdays, although there would be occasional exercise periods involving night and weekend flying. Reports of flying round-the-clock on seven days a week are, therefore, totally untrue. In addition, the nature of the aircraft's role means that its sorties take it away from base for several hours at a time. Many of the reports of noise and pollution levels have, therefore, been considerably overstated, and so has the degree of nuisance which the deployment of these aircraft would cause.
Local opinion has also been concerned about the quantity and type of fuel
978
carried by the aircraft. The KC135 normally carries somewhat less than 26,000 US gallons of fuel. The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, painted an awful picture of one of these 'planes flying on three engines and staggering up towards the local church tower. But it does not have to aim at the church tower; it can aim to avoid it. Furthermore, it does not have to take off with a full load. The basic point is that if you paint a black enough picture you can frighten yourself in any situation, if you really wish to do so.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for one moment? If it does not have to take off with a full load, there really is not much point in having it.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: It is one thing to operate an aircraft in peacetime and another to operate it in war. Come hostilities, we would be just waving the boys goodbye and saying, "Take off with an extra gallon if you can fit it in". The basic point is that in peacetime you adjust to peacetime considerations. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, knows that the Red Arrows would be warned that the thing is taking off before they start doing aerobatics.
We have a pretty competent system of air traffic control in this country. When we go hack to the 26,000 US gallons of fuel—I am glad to say they are not British gallons but US gallons of fuel—that is considerably less than the amount carried by a modern jumbo-jet airliner of the kind which fly every day to and from civil airports in this country. The Cotswolds can have a jumbo jet crashing in their back garden quite easily. There is no greater risk with a KC135 than there is with a jumbo. The additional KC135s would carry fuel identical to that used by the RAF, known to NATO as F34 and similar to civil aviation JP8 fuel. The United States Air Force in this country is converting to this fuel from the more volatile F40 fuel, in accordance with a NATO decision to adopt F34 as the standard fuel for all land-based jet aircraft. Contrary to reports, the safety record of the KC135 since it entered service has been excellent, and is several times better than the average for all United States Air Force or indeed Royal Air Force aircraft.

979
I hope that will steady people's nerves. I want to make one more point. I have read my brief with a few amendments and am now going to speak my own mind. I want to know where noble Lords stand. We know where the noble Lord, Lord Milford, stands. He wants us to lower our guard and take whatever risks are likely to come as a result of lowering our guard.
Lord MILFORD: My Lords, I want to get rid of this madness of the arms race so that we can get down to a sensible, decent peacetime again.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, will the noble Lord please tell his Russian friends about that. It would be very helpful perhaps. The other point is that I have stood here for the last 3½ years—in fact, many years before that—and have been told that the Party which I represent is betraying this country, cutting defence, and so on; yet noble Lords opposite who claim to be the defenders of the Realm have the effrontery to say that because some rather noisy and smoky aircraft which we need desperately for the defence of NATO are going to land somewhere near them—not even in their back garden, but somewhere within 20 or 30 miles—they must go somewhere, anywhere else, but "not in God's name in my back garden". The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, made the point. I have a long memory and when noble Lords get up to speak on defence in the future, if they are going to take this line, I shall have to remind them of it. My Lords, that is my attempt to answer the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley.

SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
THEFT BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
  BRITISH AIRWAYS: AIRCREW EXPENSES AND TAX
  BRITISH AIRWAYS: AIRCREW EXPENSES AND TAX
  STERLING PURCHASING POWER
  STERLING PURCHASING POWER