Sitting of 2 May 1978

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

  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.

  VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  As amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next.

  MILE END GARDENS (PORTSMOUTH) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Departmental Employees (Car Allowances)
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what rate per mile is paid to personnel of his Department when using their own cars on official business.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): The allowance paid depends upon the circumstances in which the private car is used. The standard rates are from 10·6p to 13·4p per mile, depending upon engine size. The standard rate is paid when the use of the private car is justified. Where the advantages lie with the journey being made by public transport, a rate of 6·3p per mile is paid.
    Mr. Brotherton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all these rates compare very favourably with the 4·1p per mile paid to Service men? Will he inform the Secretary of State for Defence of the differences paid in the mileage rate and invite him to take steps to put them right?
    Mr. Grant: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I think that the

    3
    hon. Gentleman should have tabled a Question to him. I cannot help but wonder whether the cost of the hon. Gentleman's travel to the House to ask this Question was really worth while.

    Birmingham
    Mr. Litterickasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of people currently registered as unemployed in the city of Birmingham; what was the number 12 months ago; and how many of these were and are under the age of 18 years.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): Between April 1977 and April 1978, the total numbers registered as unemployed in the city of Birmingham fell from 38,433 to 36,014. At January 1978, however, the latest date for which figures by age are available, there were 3,337 people under 18 years of age unemployed, compared with 3,216 a year earlier.
    Mr. Litterick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but can he tell us what contribution the various Government Departments operating in the City of Birmingham have made to the employment of young people, school-leavers, and so on, as trainees? Can he give an assurance that these Government Departments will respond to all the exhortations and injunctions issued by the Government to private employers in respect of the employment and training of young people?
    Mr. Golding: There have been difficulties with the trade unions in the public sector with regard to support for the work experience programme and, as Ministers, we appeal to them to give support.
    Mr. Eyre: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the skillcentres in Birmingham and the Midlands are not filling about 20 per cent. of their places despite heavy advertising? Will he take into account the fact that incentives to young people to acquire skills are not great enough to attract them to this necessary work, which is the basis for the expansion of business in due course?
    Mr. Golding: The skillcentres are for adults rather than young people. There is no shortage of young people wanting
    4
    to take up apprenticeships. The short answer is that the engineering industry, unfortunately, is not attractive enough at present to people in this country.

    Earnings
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest estimate of the annual percentage increase in aggregate earnings in the current pay round.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): The monthly index indicates that average earnings were about 10·4 per cent. higher in February this year than in February last year. This compares with an increase of about 10·3 per cent. in the previous 12 months.
    Mr. Neubert: How much evidence does the Minister of State have of bogus self-financing productivity deals, and what action does he intend to take in such cases?
    Mr. Walker: I am not sure how that issue arises under this Question, but we look very carefully at productivity proposals. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has noticed from the Press that we are making arrangements to vet them in the future.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Will the Minister of State indicate what is the rate of increase estimated for the public sector as opposed to the private sector, and give forecasts of how he sees the outturn during the present phase of pay policy?
    Mr. Walker: I do not think that we produce separate figures for the public sector as opposed to the private sector. As to any guesstimates about the outturn, some people have been making speculative forecasts. I prefer not to indulge in that game, because past experience has shown how misleading it can be. Those who have been using figures such as 14 per cent. should be aware of the damage that they are doing to the economy and to our national interests.
    Mr. Michael Latham: With regard to bogus productivity deals—this clearly arises out of my hon. Friend's question—will the Minister say how many civil servants are engaged in monitoring what would be a quite futile exercise?
    Mr. Walker: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures offhand. If he will table a Question I shall try to inform him of the numbers involved. I hope that he would want us to monitor and vet productivity deals to ensure that they are not bogus. We are satisfied that those that have been before my Department and have been approved so far are genuine self-financing productivity deals.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the aggregate earnings are dependent to a very great extent not just on productivity deals but on overtime, and a great deal of it? Does he not agree further that it is rather sad that so much overtime is being worked when so many people are out of work? Could not something be done about this?
    Mr. Walker: I think that we are at one in wishing to see a reduction in the volume of overtime being worked. I hope that my hon. Friend and all hon. Members will read the very informative article published in my Department's Gazette this month.

    Unemployed Persons
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest total of registered unemployed.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): At 13th April, 1,387,484 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain.
    While the seasonally adjusted level of unemployment has fallen for the seventh successive month, the prospects for a major improvement depend in large part on international co-operation on economic growth. The recent Budget measures show
    6
    the Government's willingness to aid concerted international economic expansion. At home, the special employment measures are playing an important part in keeping down the unemployment level.
    Mr. Rost: Instead of hiding the true unemployment figure of nearly 2 million with "phoney" job creation schemes, why do not the Government abandon their Socialist policies of job destruction and provide the real incentives which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has again failed to provide, so that we can have some jobs created?
    Mr. Booth: There is nothing "phoney" about measures that we introduce which enable people to provide services in this country and to do useful constructive work, as opposed to drawing unemployment benefit.
    As for the Budget measures, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be among the first to appreciate that an increase in purchasing power of about £2·5 billion would stimulate some activity, leading to employment. The direct Government expenditure in construction and in the National Health Service arising from the Budget will certainly feed into additional employment.
    Mr. Skinner: Will not the Minister confirm that his listening, together with his colleagues, to the cries from the Opposition about curbing the money supply and cutting back the public sector borrowing requirement, and having cuts in social services and so on, resulted in a large part of the unemployment total? In order to get out of this position, does he agree that he should now turn his attention to restoring those cuts in public spending and to reducing the number of hours that people have to work? As Socialists, my right hon. Friend and his colleagues should be planning the dole queue out of existence and not listening to the Opposition.
    Mr. Booth: One of the major factors in the limitation of public expenditure, as I recall it, was the decision that arose from listening not to Opposition Members but to the International Monetary Fund.
    Mr. Arnold: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the Manpower Services

    7
    Commission can comply with the obligation imposed on it to offer a job opportunity to each young person leaving school between now and next Easter?
    Mr. Booth: That obligation, which we have laid upon the Manpower Services Commission, requires an extremely ambitious programme to be developed very quickly indeed. It is my belief that, given the co-operation of trade unions, employers, local authorities, and a number of other bodies which have a very important contribution to make, we can achieve that aim and in doing so play a major part in reducing the problem of youth unemployment.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Minister use this opportunity to describe Cornwall's unemployment figures? Will he indicate what would be the effect in the area of Chacewater, in my constituency, of the closure of Wheal Jane mine? Will he by 12 noon tomorrow tell the Secretary of State for Industry how much it will cost the Department if that mine, in the final analysis, is not rescued?
    Mr. Booth: I cannot give a detailed answer to that question without notice, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State for Industry works very closely with me in examining the employment effects of decisions which either he or I can implement by aid from our Departments.
    Mr. Watkinson: My right hon. Friend mentioned the need for international co-operation. Will he recall that at the recent Heads of Government Summit there was discussion about programmes of work sharing? Is his Department engaged on any programmes in this area? If so, will he bring to the House any suggestions on this matter?
    Mr. Booth: I have had discussions with the CBI and the TUC about ways in which work sharing might be brought about, including ways that might arise from a reduction in overtime working or a shortening of the working week. I very much hope that we shall have the co-operation of employers and unions in achieving changes along those lines.
    Mr. Prior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very deep and growing concern in the whole nation about the high and sustained level of unemployment? Is he aware that the
    8
    policy of the Government has been optimistic, totally unjustified and totally ineffective in reducing unemployment? Is he further aware that, given the record of the Conservative Government on unemployment, compared with the present Government's record, the remarks of the Prime Minister at the weekend were contemptible, to say the least?
    Mr. Booth: I can only imagine that the right hon. Gentleman has not studied the unemployment statistics over the past six months. There has not been a steady level of unemployment. There has been a falling level of unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman invites the House to make a comparison between the record of the Government and that of the last Conservative Government. It behoves him to recall that in 1971, 1972 and 1973 there were fewer people employed in this country than there are today.
    Mr. Prior: But is it not a fact that for every day the Government have been in office, 600 people have joined the dole queues?
    Mr. Booth: There have been considerable redundancies in this country. These have been offset as a direct result of actions taken by the Government. But anyone imagining that it is possible to run the economy of this country in a way which will totally avoid redundancies, on the basis of policies advocated by the Opposition, can in no way have examined objectively what is happening in our economy.
    Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Has my right hon. Friend been able to make an estimate of the numbers of job opportunities which should be created by the aid given by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to small businesses?
    Mr. Booth: No, we have not been able to make a precise calculation, because that depends very much on the uptake. But I hope that the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and those which I announced in March this year, will be used to the utmost by those concerned to bring down the levels of unemployment. It is the case now that we are not short of schemes to deal with unemployment, or of offers of aid, but we must make a more serious attempt to ensure that such

    9
    measures as are available to reduce unemployment are used to the hilt.
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were unemployed in the United Kingdom at the most recent count; and how this figure compares with the figure in the comparable month in 1974.
    Mr. Booth: At 13th April 1978, 1,451,758 people were registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom, compared with 607,602 in April 1974.
    Mr. Knox: In view of the fact that unemployment has more than doubled since this Government came into office, and since there was a big increase in unemployment under the last Labour Government, how can the Labour Party claim to care about unemployment?
    Mr. Booth: The number of people in employment is now at a higher level than on average under the last Government. The factors which have led to the increase in unemployment—these are matters of very grave concern to government—take into account the vastly greater number of people now seeking work and the larger numbers leaving school. These are problems which have to be dealt with against the background of a world trading slump of enormous proportions.
    Mr. Radice: Does my right hon. Friend accept that although the decrease this month is welcome, the unemployment level in the Northern Region is still far too high? Does he also agree that if, by any misfortune, the Conservative Party gets to power and does as it has promised—cuts out temporary employment subsidy, and gets rid of regional incentives—the level will be far worse?
    Mr. Booth: I certainly agree that the unemployment level in the Northern Region is very worrying. The measures that we have introduced there are certainly none too ambitious. I hope that we shall see them used to the hilt. If some of the policies advocated by the Conservatives had been adopted, the situation would be totally intolerable.
    Mr. Prior: What work is going on within the Department and within the Government to look at the long-term implications of microvalve work, greater technology, and so on, which is, of course,
    10
    at the root of many of our unemployment problems?
    Mr. Booth: I have taken individual responsibility for directing work on this matter. In the long term I think that the effect of much more capital-intensive processing in manufacturing industry will be a major factor which may reduce the number of people who can be employed in manufacturing in this country to possibly as few as 25 per cent. of our present working population. We are examining this in various areas. It is one of the factors that we are feeding into discussions at NEDC. It is also one of the factors that will help us analyse the effect of the sector working party reports.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will not my right hon. Friend deplore with me the partisan attitude that has been adopted by the Conservative Opposition on this serious problem of unemployment, which is an international problem where international and national attitudes should be adopted?
    Mr. Booth: It is not unknown for partisan attitudes to be adopted in various parts of the House. But those who wish to criticise adversely measures adopted to deal with unemployment are under some obligation to propose measures which they think will be more effective. It is certainly the case that this is an international problem. On standards of reliable international comparison, this country is tackling the problem much more successfully than are many others.
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give in the Official Report a breakdown of the March estimate in the Department of Employment Gazette showing that unemployment could be reduced by 600,000 at a cost of £1,000 million by reducing the pension age of men to 60 years.
    Mr. John Grant: Yes, Sir. I am arranging to publish in the Official Report details of the estimates and the assumptions on which they are based.
    Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that we are in a very dangerous employment position, with an estimated increase in the potential labour force of about 1 million in the next seven years and in the same period probably

    11
    the loss of the equivalent of 1 million jobs due to advancing technology if we are to see the sort of national growth that we all hope to see? In those circumstances, does my hon. Friend feel that there is now urgency to move towards earlier retirement, as this has a considerable contribution to make?
    Mr. Grant: I am aware of my hon. Friend's long-standing concern about this problem. Indeed, I read his interesting article about in in Labour Weekly at the weekend. As my right hon. Friend has already said, however, he has been having discussions with both the CBI and the TUC on work-sharing measures generally. Obviously, early retirement must figure in discussions of that sort. But, however socially desirable it is to do that—and indeed. I accept the kind of analysis that my hon. Friend has broadly made—inevitably it would add very substantially to net costs at present.
    Mr. Bulmer: In view of the Government's poor record of forecasting future trends in employment, what steps has the Department taken to improve its forecasting techniques, and how far ahead does it now feel that it can predict levels of employment with confidence?
    Mr. Grant: I think that our forecasting has been quite accurate in the past. Indeed, I think that the forecasts that we have given for at least the next five years are all on the record and they can be tested in due course. However, we have already made it clear that we can expect the net increase in the labour force to be about 170,000 a year for probably the next four or five years.
    Following is the information:
    The March Department of Employment Gazette gave estimates of the employment and financial effects of lowering the national insurance retirement age for men to 60, derived as follows.
    There are 1·4 million men aged 60–64; over 1 million in employment, about 130,000 registered as unemployed. If the same proportion of the economically active retired at 60 as at present retires at 65, after adjustment to the new retirement age fewer than 450,000 would still be working, the majority working part-time.
    This would release 750,000 full-time jobs. Assuming a replacement rate of 75 per cent., with 80 per cent. of the replacements coming from the unemployment register, 450,000 of the registered unemployed would find work. Assuming also that almost all the unemployed aged over 60 retired, the unemployed register
    12
    would fall by nearly 600,000. The costs would be:
    Pensions*: over £1,800 million.
    +Loss of income tax and national insurance revenue (net): over £300 million.
    -Savings in unemployment benefit and social security payments (net): nearly £1,000 million.
    Net cost: nearly £1,200 million per year.
    * At present pension levels, assuming the deferment age limit was lowered by five years.
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Employment what further action is proposed to reduce the number of working people who are unemployed.
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what further measures he intends to introduce to reduce unemployment.
    Mr. Booth: I announced in the House on 15th March details of the expanded programme of special employment and training measures with which we shall be seeking to mitigate the effects of high unemployment over the coming year. The special measures are still developing. We shall keep under review their scope and effectiveness and shall continue to provide special support for job and training opportunities so long as unemployment remains high. At the international level, the Government are engaged in discussions on a concerted strategy to stimulate economic growth.
    Mr. Evans: I recognise the good work that the Government have done, but will my right hon. Friend encourage his Cabinet colleagues to make the reduction of unemployment the Government's main priority in the months ahead, as it is causing deep anxiety to young people leaving school who go straight on to the dole queue?
    Mr. Booth: I shall give my hon. Friend that undertaking, not merely because of the anxiety that unemployment is causing young people but because I believe that it is the only way, in the long run, of enabling all people who wish to work to provide the goods and services that will enable he and I to achieve the social objectives for which we have campaigned.
    Mr. Haselhurst: In view of the demands of the micro-electronic revolution

    13
    and of the need, which presumably the Government accept, to improve productivity to the best international standards, is it not clear that further and drastic measures will be necessary to alleviate unemployment in the next 10 years or more?
    Mr. Booth: We shall need to have a dynamic manpower policy to cope with the new phase of the technological revolution. That means that we have to find ways of enabling more people to work in service industries in relation to those who work in manufacturing industry. That means findings ways of transferring some of the wealth that is being created by modern capital-intensive manufacturing industry into an effective demand for services.
    Mr. Gerry Fowler: Bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's earlier replies about technology and industrial change, does he agree that it is imperative that the Government begin to examine a strategy including continued education, training and work experience for young people, paid education and training leave for those in employment and the possibility of early retirement and work sharing, as well as the other measures that he mentioned?
    Mr. Booth: I accept that all those factors have a part to play, but that is especially so of training measures for young people. A changing manpower situation will mean a requirement for many people to retrain to obtain employment and, therefore, a far greater flexibility of approach.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Is not the best way of transferring the wealth created by capital-intensive industries into a demand for services a reduction in direct taxation?
    Mr. Booth: No, not at all. One area that I believe has a major part to play is that of public services. If direct taxation contributes to improving hospital and school services and other public services, it will contribute to greater employment in those areas.

    Special Temporary Employment Programme
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied that the special temporary employment
    14
    programme involves less paperwork and administration that the job creation scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Golding: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that although paperwork and administration involved in the running of the special temporary employment programme will be slightly more than for the job creation programme, they will be kept to the minimum consistent with both making a success of the programme, and accounting properly for the use of public funds.
    Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware that that is a disappointing answer? Is he further aware that more than three months elapsed between the application of the Christchurch Council for job creation scheme assistance for work on the restoration of Highcliffe Castle, in my constituency, and the actual start of the scheme? As the Council has now applied to the Manpower Services Commission for an extension of that scheme from the original 13 weeks, will the Minister do his best to ensure that this is expedited as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Golding: I shall certainly draw the attention of the Manpower Services Commission to that example.
    Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend refute the suggestion that the job creation programme was top-heavy with either administration or paper work? Is it not the case that, on average, no more than 3 per cent. was spent on administration and a most marvellous job was done? Will he encourage those responsible, both for STEP and the youth opportunities programme, to do their best to ensure maximum local involvement in the running of these schemes under the area boards that have been set up?
    Mr. Golding: I confirm that the cost of administration was only 2 per cent. It has been increased to only 2·2 per cent. That is a very good record. Certainly, we as a Government want as much local involvement as possible both in the youth opportunities programme and STEP.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that certain East Anglian firms have been sent mimeographed letters saying that their applications for temporary employment help cannot be dealt with for at least 10 weeks? Since this means

    15
    that in many cases the jobs have disappeared before the Department gets round to trying to save them, will he do something about it? Does he realise that if he does not do so it will be a case of trying to deal with the disease after the patient has died?
    Mr. Golding: It appears that there is a plea from the Conservative Benches for additions to the number of public servants dealing with this problem.

    Manpower Services Commission
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.
    Mr. Booth: I last met the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission on 24th April 1978.
    Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much as the youth opportunities scheme is welcome, there is very great fear that the complete insensitivity of the Manpower Services Commission to local needs is jeopardising the Government's objective of giving every young person some opportunity this year? Can he tell us when the MSC will issue specific guidelines to local authorities and voluntary organisations about how to set up co-operative schemes and when every local area in the country will have a local committee so that local needs can be taken into consideration?
    Mr. Booth: I can tell my hon. Friend that guidelines and handbooks covering all parts of the youth opportunities programme are now available from the MSC's area offices. Many local authorities have already taken the initiative—which we welcome—in setting up local committees to assess needs and plan projects. It has always been our intention, in dealing with the Manpower Services Commission, that the area boards should be guided and should work in close co-operation with local area committees, since although there is a wide scope within the youth opportunities programme to institute various elements of the programme, it should be done in a way that is highly sensitive to local needs.
    Mr. Madel: Has the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission
    16
    explained to the Government how the Commission will overcome the shortage of trainers and instructors in order that the youth opportunities programme can get off the ground fully in September? Can he say how much information the Government have about the way in which the Commission is approaching employers for the use of their premises for training purposes?
    Mr. Booth: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the MSC is funded to employ about 8,000 adults—preferably recruited from the ranks of the unemployed—to instruct and supervise in the youth opportunities programme. This relates to the second part of the question, because in trying to develop certain of the projects within employers' premises—particularly the work experience schemes—we have worked out with the MSC a number of direct approaches to employers as well as a general advertising campaign. We are hoping for a response that will enable the doubling of the present work experience element of the programme.
    Dr. McDonald: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the MSC, will he ask him why the television advertising and leaflets for the engineering training schemes depict only men, thereby giving the impression that only men may apply?
    Mr. Booth: I certainly shall. It was not my intention that any advertising by the MSC should give the impression that there is a bias in favour of men.

    Journalists
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for protecting journalists from the imposition of a closed shop.
    Mr. Harold Walker: The application of closed shop agreements to journalists is one of the matters which under the terms of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 must be covered in the draft charter of Press freedom which my right hon. Friend is required by that Act to prepare and submit to Parliament. However, I cannot yet say when it will be possible to lay a draft before Parliament.
    Mr. Silvester: Does the Minister recognise the need for protection of this kind and that this need is growing? When does he propose to introduce his draft Press charter, which has been hanging on for a very long time?
    Mr. Walker: As regards the time, I think the House will recognise that it made sense to wait until the Royal Commission reported. It reported in June, since when I have personally conducted a very long series of consultations with the many representatives of both sides of the industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to give full consideration to all the views that have been expressed to me. I still wait to have consultations with the TUC, the CBI and the Press Council before the consultations can be concluded and before, therefore, we can propose a draft to Parliament.
    Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the best protection that journalists had was when the present Government and this House repealed the stupid attempts by the Conservative Party to put the trade union movement in shackles? However, in the context of the talks on the charter, will my hon. Friend say whether the Newspaper Publishers Association has yet been able to speak with one voice on this important topic?
    Mr. Walker: With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is certainly true that what we have done is basically to restore the law to what it was before 1971. Attempts in the 1971 Act to outlaw the closed shop had the opposite effect and resulted in the loss, in 1972, of 24 million working days due to disputes.
    On the second part of the question, no, the Newspaper Publishers Association has not been able to speak with one voice. One of the difficulties that we have experienced has been that instead of listening to one voice from Fleet Street, we have had to listen to another.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Minister satisfied that there is no restriction on bona fide journalists gaining entry to an appropriate trade union?
    Mr. Walker: I am not aware of any.
    Mr. Prior: Will the Minister confirm that any charter laid before this House will contain complete freedom of access
    18
    for all people to the Press at all times and, secondly, that there will be an undertaking that a journalist can join a union or not join a union according to his choice? When will this be laid before the House, because no other charter will have a majority here?
    Mr. Walker: I think that I have indicated the difficulties with which we are faced with regard to timing. My right hon. Friend is anxious that we should come before the House with the draft charter as soon as practicable.
    On the two specific points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, yes, access to the Press will be one of the matters that will be covered and is required by the Act to be covered by the charter. It would be rather premature for me to reflect now on precisely what the charter will say. On the second point—the proposal that the charter should contain a right for every journalist to belong or not to belong to a trade union—again, obviously that will have to await the charter, but I would personally find it very difficult to reconcile that with the debate in both Houses that led to the concept of a Press charter and, indeed, the terms of the parent Act itself.

    London
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent studies have been made by his Department into the incidence and scope, as well as the numbers involved, in unemployment lasting more than six months in the outer boroughs of the Greater London area; and how many people were in this category at the latest date for which official figures are available.
    Mr. John Grant: At January 1978, 25,059 people who had been unemployed for over six months were registered at those employment offices corresponding most closely with the Outer London boroughs. No special studies have recently been made into the features of long-term unemployment in the outer London boroughs.
    Mr. Dykes: Although Greater London has never had to endure the terrible unemployment figures of the North-East and North-West, is it not a colossal indictment of the present complacent and incompetent Government that for the first

    19
    time deep-seated, long-lasting structural unemployment is actually now a feature in the outer London boroughs, including my own area of Harrow, as well as inner London? When will the Government really tackle this problem as well as national unemployment?
    Mr. Grant: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating very considerably the problems of the outer London boroughs. I accept, of course, that there are pockets of high unemployment and that there are structural problems, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating very considerably.
    Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask his friends at County Hall, who now control that place, whether they think that their suggestion of axing about 10,000 public sector jobs will help employment prospects in London.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that much of the responsibility for stripping London of its employment lies with the Opposition and the policies that they carried out when in power, including the sort of asset stripping that went on left, right and centre within London? Can my hon. Friend guarantee that none of the policies of his Department will inhibit the attempts of local authorities in London to bring industry back?
    Mr. Grant: I certainly would not dissent from my hon. Friend's opening remarks. As for guaranteeing the future, I think that most of the efforts of my Department in this respect have been very helpful to London.

    Closed Shop Agreements (Public Sector)
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Employment in which industries in the public sector there are closed shop agreements; and whether he will make a statement about the policy of the Government towards the closed shop.
    Mr. Harold Walker: The information is not readily available. The Government have consistently maintained a position of neutrality on the subject of closed shop agreements. We believe that whether they should be introduced—and, if so, in what form—is a matter to be determined by agreement between the employers and trade unions concerned.
    Mr. Gow: Is the Minister aware that in the publicly owned British Railways 40 employees have been dismissed for refusing to join a trade union and that two more were dismissed when they resigned from their trade unions? How does he reconcile the Government's policy of neutrality towards these matters with Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that each worker shall have the right to free choice of employment?
    Mr. Walker: I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Gentleman listens, because we have been having this dialogue over many months now and I have repeatedly pointed out to him that these are matters on which it would be quite inappropriate for the Government to interfere. I have said repeatedly that we would hope that where union membership agreements were entered into they would be handled in a flexible and tolerant manner—[Interruption.] It would be quite inappropriate for the Government to be dictating to any employer or trade union, in a way that the Opposition tried to do and failed, about whether or not they should enter into union membership agreements.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: With regard to the operation of the closed shop, has my hon. Friend looked into the situation at Thomson Regional Newspapers, where the journalists are at present subject to a lock-out? Would it not seem that the militant tendencies in this industry at least belong essentially to the employers?
    Mr. Walker: Of course, it should be recognised that there are difficulties with employers as well as with trade unions in this respect. But, in the particular case that my hon. Friend has mentioned, I think that it would be equally inappropriate for me to comment or to seek to intervene in that situation. If the services of ACAS can be helpful, they are available to be called upon.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Will the Minister say how the neutrality which he and the Government say they have towards a closed shop differers from the neutrality of Pontius Pilate washing his hands?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman ought to try to think of something original. I think that that is at least the second time that he has tried that. The

    21
    Government's position, in accordance with our General Election manifesto commitment, was that we would revert the law to that which applied before the Industrial Relations Act 1971, and that is the law which has applied for many years in this country, and that is the law now. I have pointed out—and I regret that I have to do it again—that when the Opposition tried to outlaw closed shops, closed shops flourished in spite of that. The only result was that the Conservatives produced the most massive loss of working days due to industrial disputes that we have suffered since the General Strike.

    Employment Protection Act
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he remains satisfied with the operation of the Employment Protection Act.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Yes, but I am continuing to keep the working of the Act under review.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is not one of the most worrying aspects of the Act the difficulty that small employers have in meeting its maternity requirements? Does the Minister agree that there is a case for relaxing the requirements, especially for small employers who engage principally female clerical labour?
    Mr. Walker: This was one of the matters that was fully discussed when the Bill, as it then was, was before the House. In response to various moves made by hon. Members and the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) we tried to help smaller employers by making significant changes in the scheme to arrange for central funding rather than for individual employers to have to carry their own burden.
    Mr. Flannery: How can my hon. Friend be satisfied with the working of the Act when we have had two Bills frustrated by the Opposition—Bills that are destined to try to put the Act right and to have workers consulted on what is happening in a factory? Is my right hon. Friend aware that although the Conservative Party is always talking about law and order it is conniving at producing more Grunwicks and preventing the two Bills to which I have referred passing through the House?
    Mr. Walker: It would be unfortunate if our satisfaction with the Act misled the House into thinking that we do not think that some reforms are necessary. I believe that the reforms that have been put before the House would be a significant strengthening of the Act to enable it to deal with the sort of problems of which we have had experience in recent months. I regret that the Opposition have deliberately obstructed the passage of those Bills.
    Mr. Prior: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the answer to the Question about the Act, together with the answers that have been given throughout the afternoon by his fellow Ministers, shows that the Government are completely bankrupt of ideas of how to deal with the unemployment situation? Does he realise that even those on his own side of the Chamber, let alone the TUC, are reduced to silence on this issue? The only person who can say anything is the Prime Minister, and he seeks to mislead everyone.
    Mr. Walker: I am sure that that wild, generalised statement will not be much help to the House. It might have been a little more constructive if the right hon. Gentleman had told the House, as we have repeatedly asked him to do, what changes in the Act he and his party would consider necessary. At some time he may care to tell us.

  MAIDSTONE
  Mr. Wellsasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Maidstone.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I have at present no plans to visit Maidstone.
  Mr. Wells: Is the Prime Minister aware of the sharp deterioration in the quality of life in Maidstone and in Kent in the past five years, due to the fact that the present Government have not given Kent its fair share of Government expenditure? Is he aware that our hospitals are delayed, our motorways are delayed, north-south roads are delayed and environmental matters, such as the production of TDI and other chemicals, are not producing new jobs but are spoiling people's lives?
  The Prime Minister: I note that the hon. Gentleman, in contradistinction to the Opposition Front Bench, seems to believe that we should be spending more public money on hospitals and on roads. Having listened to him, I feel rather like the British general who, in Singapore, found that his guns were facing the wrong way.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will list his public engagements for 2nd May.
  The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
  Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people will welcome the Government's decision to send the Chief of Defence Staff to Peking to try to forge closer defence links with that country? Is he aware that many will also welcome the forthright statement made by the Chief of Defence Staff, appropriately enough on May Day? Will he take this opportunity to make it clear to those in his party who echo the Kremlin line that he approves of the way in which Sir Neil Cameron is doing his job and that he will do nothing to prevent his continuing to do his job?
  The Prime Minister: It is true that the Government seek to improve relations with China. That has been why a number of Ministers and others have visited that great country in recent years. We shall continue to improve relations with China, but I emphasise that that will not be at the expense of our relations with any of the other major countries in the world. I do not believe that that will be the policy of either party.
  Mr. Sever: When taking an Audience of Her Majesty this evening, will my right hon. Friend ask Her Majesty whether it is possible for her to give more favourable consideration to attending more often the Football Association Cup Final?
  The Prime Minister: The discussions that take place between the Prime Minister and the Queen are, by all the
  24
  usual conventions, kept confidential. The answer to my hon. Friend's supplementary question is "No, Sir".
  Mrs. Thatcher: Why does the Prime Minister not stand up for what Sir Neil Cameron said this week? Why did he not stand up for the defence chiefs last week? Why does he not do more to sort out the pro-Soviet grout, on his side of the House? Are not those hon. Members the real mischief-makers in defence affairs?
  The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure what the right hon. Lady is intending concerning relations with the Soviet Union, but a year ago, after her visit to China, I understood her to say that she did not wish to see relations with the Soviet Union impaired. No more do I. I hope that that is still her view.
  As for standing up for what has been said, I gather that Sir Neil Cameron was responding to a spontaneous toast by the local comander of the unit that he was visiting, and that he made an unscripted and impromptu reply.
  In case there is any misunderstanding, or in case the Conservative Party wishes to change the constitutional conventions, I repeat that the formulation of British foreign policy is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Ministers. The remarks made by Sir Neil Cameron on this occasion should not be regarded as altering, extending, modifying or changing in any way the present relationships between Britain and China or between Britain and the Soviet Union.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister, therefore, say whether he supports Sir Neil Cameron or not?
  The Prime Minister: This is a matter in which there is a constitutional relationship between the Chiefs of Staff and the British Government. I certainly should not enter into that kind of discussion with the right hon. Lady on this matter. What is important in our relations with the Soviet Union, which the Opposition do not seem to take very seriously, on occasion, is that we should continue to work for detente and for a measure of disarmament. If the Opposition do not wish that, they have changed their policy since the right hon. Lady put it forward as her policy a year ago.
  Mr. Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend think it coincidental that over the past few weeks there have been many attempts to drive a wedge between the Government and the Services? Will he say that, whatever his general views, the views expressed by the Defence Chief in Peking were unwise, to say the least?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the various things that have blown up over the last few weeks have been coincidental. I do not think that Sir Neil Cameron went out of his way, because he has made only one public speech on this matter, to which no one would take any exception at all. I think that he made one or two remarks which, as the Opposition spokesman on defence said on the radio at 1 0'clock, might have been phrased a little differently, but that is an entirely different matter. I do not think that the right hon. Lady is helping our relations with both these Powers by putting the kind of question that she has been putting this afternoon.
  Mr. Gowasked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 2nd May.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley).
  Mr. Gow: As the Prime Minister betrayed the Armed Forces of the Crown in his statement last week about their pay settlement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—will he now not betray their professional head and give a clear statement today—preferably now—that he gives unequivocal support to the views expressed in China by the Chief of the Defence Staff?
  The Prime Minister: The Chief of the Defence staff said that he was speaking on military matters, not on political questions. In so far as he was speaking on military matters, of course he would have the support of Her Majesty's Government. However, in so far as he was speaking on political matters, it is for him to support the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
  Mr. Skinner: Be careful what you say, Bob.
  Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend understand that, as a result of earlier exchanges, at the next election the Leader of the Opposition will jettison "The Right Approach" in favour of Mao Tse Tung's "Little Red Book"?
  The Prime Minister: I note that there is a difference in the right hon. Lady's attitude according to which Communist regime she happens to have visited. Both Yugoslavia and China are in her good books. She has visited both countries. The Soviet Union is not in her good books. She has not yet visited it. I do not know whether her opinion will change if she does, but I promise her that my opinion will change about neither of these States according to whether I visit them or not. Neither of them fits my concept of the way in which this country wants to go.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: If there is to be this burgeoning planned friendship with the Soviet Union about which the Prime Minister is talking, what does he have to say about the fact that there are three Russian tanks for every NATO tank at the door of Central Europe at the moment?
  The Prime Minister: I have as much to say about that, which is not related to my official engagements for today, as I have said on earlier occasions, namely, that I think that it is a source of considerable disquiet. I have often said that the Soviet Union, by building up its armed forces in this way, is undoubtedly adding to the tension that exists. But that is nothing to do with picking and choosing between various Communist regimes, which the right hon. Lady is seeking to do.
  Mr. MacFarquhar: Could my right hon. Friend leave aside for the moment the urgings of the Opposition and, in the light of what Sir Neil Cameron said, state the Government's overall position on the possibility of arms sales to China?
  The Prime Minister: I could not do that in reply to a question this afternoon. A number of considerations have to be borne in mind and they are being taken into account now. There has been no formal discussion on this matter with the Chinese.
  Mr. Fairbairn: For once, my question relates to the Prime Minister's engagements today. Could he fit in one further engagement today and listen to the regional election results tonight on the radio from Scotland and note the profound defeat that the Labour Party will have at the hands of the Conservatives?
  The Prime Minister: Unfortunately I cannot get Scotland on my set. When I tried to listen to the news on the set in my hotel in Glasgow early this morning, all I could get was punk rock music.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Mr. Moateasked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the EEC Heads of Government.
  The Prime Minister: I expect to meet the Heads of Government of some of the member States of the EEC at the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Washington on 30th and 31st May. I shall also be attending a meeting of the European Council in Bremen on 6th and 7th July.
  Mr. Moate: Does the Prime Minister remember his promise that there would be a fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy? As the British taxpayer will soon be paying about £1,000 million a year, net, into the Common Market budget, and with British food production at a lower level than it was five years ago, will he admit that he has totally broken that promise to the British people?
  The Prime Minister: The common agricultural policy has been changing throughout the lifetime of this Government, beginning with the original premiums in respect of beef which were introduced some time ago, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is fighting for further changes now. That ought to have the approval, not the censure, of the hon. Gentleman, especially as we are trying to keep down the structural surpluses which are disfiguring Continental agriculture at the present time.
  Mr. Hooley: When my right hon. Friend next meets the EEC Heads of State, will he discuss with them how they can bring pressure to bear to modify the hard-line stance of Israel on the Middle
  28
  East negotiations and give further support to President Sadat's initiative?
  The Prime Minister: I shall certainly see whether there is any desire to discuss this matter at the next meeting of the European Council, but it is rather a long way away—6th and 7th July. I hope that the discussions that President Carter is now about to have with Prime Minister Begin and the further discussions that may take place between Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat will lead to some movement and progress on this matter before we meet in July.
  Sir A. Meyer: If the Prime Minister is going to boast that he will prevent the Common Market from not allowing daily doorstep deliveries of milk, when he knows perfectly well that the Common Market has no intention of stopping them, will he be careful not to remind his Common Market colleagues of the way in which he once boasted that he would prevent British trawlers from being chased out of Icelandic waters?
  The Prime Minister: I was not aware that I had boasted about anything of that sort. As for the Milk Marketing Board—I hope that the Opposition are in agreement—we should not allow ourselves to be driven to make fundamental alterations to the Board. That is exactly what the Minister of Agriculture is trying to do now.
  Mr. Norman Atkinson: In regard to the Prime Minister's earlier answer, does he accept that all on the Government side of the House will warmly welcome the firm statement of good will towards the Soviet Union that he made, reaffirming that it is the intention of the Labour Party to pursue with the utmost vigour the whole question of nuclear disarmament—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This Question is about the EEC Heads of Government.

CHIEF OF DEFENCE STAFF (SPEECH)
Mr. Ryman(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he authorised the Chief of the Defence Staff to make a speech in Peking on 1st May; and whether he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Frederick Mulley): The Chief of the Defence Staff's visit to China is an official visit the object of which is a broad exchange of views on defence matters. It is being made in response to an invitation extended to his predecessor.
The remarks made by Sir Neil Cameron in Peking yesterday were in reply to a speech of welcome by the commander of the Chinese Sixth Tank Division whose units he was visiting. The question of my authorising what were impromptu remarks therefore did not arise.
Mr. Ryman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at a time when the Tory Party is deliberately seeking to incite disaffection amongst members of the Armed Forces for party political purposes, it is more important than ever that serving officers should adhere strictly to a constitutional convention whereby they do not announce changes in Government policy?
Mr. Mulley: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance. I am satisfied that Sir Neil Cameron had no intention of changing in any way Government defence or foreign policy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put the matter in the right perspective in his remarks to the House a short time ago.
Sir Frederic Bennett: Was Sir Neil Cameron incorrect in referring to the Soviet Union as the only potential enemy which our forces in Europe are facing at present? [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say 'potential'."] I am not interested in what Sir Neil said but in what I say. If Sir Neil Cameron was wrong in referring to the Soviet Union as the only aggressor—if that pleases hon. Members opposite rather than the phrase "potential aggressor"—which our forces are facing, could the Secretary of State remind us which other Power we have in mind as a reason for keeping the large number of forces presently in Europe?
Mr. Mulley: To the best of my information and knowledge, Sir Neil did not say what the hon. Member suggests that he said. Had I been able to advise him, I should have advised him not to use the word "enemy" because it gives rise to the type of misunderstandings that we have seen since then.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has long been secretly whispered by members of the senior council of NATO that they believe that the whole of our strategy should be based upon the military encirclement of the Soviet Union? Would it not therefore seem natural that our Chief of Staff, when visiting Peking, should put up one or two propositions for the sale of British military armaments in order to fulfil a function of that kind? Will my right hon. Friend dissociate himself totally from ideas leading to a strategy of that type? Will he give the House an assurance that it is not our purpose to sell these weapons to China in these circumstances?
Mr. Mulley: From my own experience my hon. Friend could not be further from the truth in supposing that NATO circles are contemplating a strategy of that kind. On the question of the sale of equipment, Sir Neil Cameron has made it clear that he has not, in any sense, gone there in the capacity of salesman. As the Prime Minister made clear, we have had no indications from the Chinese Government about whether they do or do not wish to purchase any, or any particular, equipment. If they do make requests, these will, of course, be considered in line with international obligations.
Mr. Churchill: On behalf of the Opposition I have three questions to put to the Secretary of State. First, will he say whether there is any country, other than the Soviet Union, that poses a conventional and nuclear threat to the peoples of Britain and Western Europe?
Secondly, will he confirm that nothing that the Chief of the Defence Staff said in his remarks in Peking was factually inaccurate? Thirdly, will he now give his public support to the remarks of the Chief of the Defence Staff and disavow the propaganda currently emanating from Moscow and from the Kremlin's fifth column in this country?
Mr. Mulley: The hon. Member had the fortune, or misfortune, to hear my views on defence strategy at substantial length in defence debates and in a White Paper. It would be impossible to summarise them in answer to a supplementary question. There is nothing in the impromptu remarks that Sir Neil made that suggests that I should diminish my

31
confidence in him as my chief military adviser as Chief of the Defence Staff.
Mr. Hooson: Would the Secretary of State take time off to explain to some of his Friends below the Gangway what the Warsaw Pact is all about? Does he agree that the Chief of the Defence Staff would have been better advised had he used the word "potential"?
Mr. Mulley: It is always difficult to correct speeches after they have been made. The House should see this matter in the proper and balanced perspective put to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Before further damage is done to disarmament, détente and peace, will the Secretary of State repudiate even more firmly and clearly than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just done this provocative war talk, and do that in the clearest way by dismissing this man who, like top civil servants, has no right to open his mouth in public on Government policy and to make new policy in this way?
Mr. Mulley: I should again make it clear that I am quite satisfied that Sir Neil Cameron had no intention of trying to change, modify or in any way alter Government policy. My hon. Friend has somewhat exaggerated his fears that he has about the damage that may or may not have been done to disarmament and other very important matters. I do not feel that that is so. It is not my desire in any way to embellish the considered views of the Prime Minister on this matter.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a Private Notice Question, I propose to call two more hon. Members from each side. This subject has had a good run, both now and during Prime Minister's Questions.
Mr. Goodhart: Does the Secretary of State recall that in his defence White Paper earlier this year he said:
"Theatre nuclear weapons are needed to deter the use of similar weapons by the Soviet Union."
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that realistic remark was at least as hostile in its implications for the Soviet Union as anything said by the Chief of the Defence Staff in China?
Mr. Mulley: It is only right that the House and the country should take the statement on the Defence Estimates as being the statement of Government defence policy.
Mr. Mikardo: Does it not always lead to trouble when politicians start to fancy themselves as military strategists and generals start to fancy themselves as world statesmen?
Mr. Mulley: As two general propositions, there is a lot to be said for both of those suggestions. I do not believe that Sir Neil sees himself in the latter category, and if that supplementary question is an indication on the part of my hon. Friend and his hon. Friends that they renounce the first category, I shall, of course, be very pleased.
Mr. Charles Morrison: In view of the recent remarks by two Labour Back-Bench Members, does the Secretary of State agree with those Labour Right wingers and moderates who state that it is time for the Left wing to say on which side it is? What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the Left wing does not get increasing control over his activities?
Mr. Mulley: I have no anxieties about being taken over by the Left wing or the Right wing of the party. I regard "Left" and "Right" as rather inexact and emotive terms.
Mr. Crawshaw: There are those like myself who feel that the air marshal was right, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it was unfortunate for Sir Neil to make a political speech on such an occasion? Contrary to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister says, is it not necessary sometimes to choose between different Communist countries depending on whether they have peaceful or aggressive intentions? Will my right hon. Friend advise any generals who make such visits to make such speeches before the toast rather than after?
Mr. Mulley: I should like to make one point absolutely clear. My knowledge of Sir Neil Cameron is such—and this would be borne out by everyone who has known him during a distinguished career—that I know that any suggestion that he was intoxicated could not be further from the truth.

NEW MEMBERS
The following Members took and subscribed the Oath: Raymond Whitney Esq., for Wycombe, Archibald Hamilton, Esq., for Epsom and Ewell.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of paragaph 2(c) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), the Motion relating to commercial agents may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Graham.]

BANK HOLIDAYS (AMENDMENT)
3.48 p.m.
Sir Anthony Meyer: I beg to move.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to alter the statutory dates for bank holidays.
The purpose of the Bill is to transfer one day of public holiday from Easter to the beginning of May. It is most emphatically not a Bill to provide for a fixed Easter. That is a matter for the Churches, in which politicians should not interfere. However, Easter Monday has no religious significance, and whether it comes early, as it did this year, or late, as it will next year, it comes too early for any likelihood of warm sunny weather, or any possibility of long evenings.
My Bill, therefore, would transfer the holiday to the new public holiday in early May which has proved such a disastrous flop this year. Quite apart from the filthy weather, all the attractions for which the Government are responsible were closed to the public, thereby providing a foretaste of the Socialist paradise to come.
I do not want to celebrate the Feast of Saint Karl Marx, the man whose teachings have been responsible for fastening tyranny on half the world. Like it or not, however, we have an extra day's holiday in early May. It is at present too short to be of much use, except to provide an opportunity to reflect on the horrors of Communism so well set out in the leader in The Times today. One extra day transferred from Easter would make it worth while for people to take a holiday away from home.
A long weekend in early May would be of real benefit to the hotel and tourist industry, the importance of which in our economy is growing rapidly, which is making a major contribution to our balance of payments and which is vital to employment in my constituency and others because it is very labour-intensive.
In my constituency the hotel and tourist industry is the only one that offers any hope whatever of reducing the horrifying level of unemployment. At present those operating tourist facilities and hotels have to open at Easter and then shut down again until the summer season begins in about mid-May. If we had a

35
worthwhile public holiday at the beginning of May that was long enough to tempt people away from home, the season might get off to an earlier start.
Lengthening the season in this way would spread the incidence of fixed costs. This, in turn, would lower prices and reduce congestion, which would be in the interests both of those who work in the tourist industry and of those who make use of its facilities.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Anthony Meyer, Mr. Robert Adley, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. Alan Lee Williams, and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

BANK HOLIDAYS (AMENDMENT)
Sir Anthony Meyer accordingly presented a Bill to alter the statutory dates for bank holidays; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th May and to be printed. [Bill 119.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [14TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

PRIVILEGES
3.53 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Lord President. I must remind the House that the sub judice rule applies to the cases that are still before the courts.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This debate arises out of an incident on 20th April and the ruling which you gave the following day, on 21st April. I have put down an Early-Day Motion, which is still on the Order Paper, that the ruling should not be cited or drawn into precedent. My understanding was that such a motion, having critical implications for you, Mr. Speaker—although we are discussing the reasons for the ruling rather than your personal conviction—should be debated.
I am now assured that this is not true, but it would be more convenient that this point should be discussed in the debate because it relates to this issue. If I am called, I should like to speak about the proposition that I have tabled. Because it is somewhat critical of you, Mr. Speaker, does this mean that I am in any way prevented from doing so?
Mr. Speaker: Not at all, not merely because it is critical of me. Nobody would ever be prevented from speaking in such circumstances. But no doubt I would remember it, because I am as human as anyone else.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is learned in the law and I am sure that he will keep within the sub judice rule. All I am asking is that everyone should observe the sub judice rule and not refer to the cases that are now before the courts for consideration.
3.55 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move,
That the matter of publication of the Proceedings of the House, other than by order of the House, in so far as the Privileges of this House are concerned and the matter of the application of the sub judice rule during

37
Business Questions on Thursday 20th April be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I shall be very brief in moving this motion. I believe that it would be desirable if we could proceed fairly rapidly, pass the motion and let all these matters be considered by the Committee of Privileges. This is the most orderly and fair way of dealing with the various matters that have been raised by motions upon the Order Paper.
It is certainly my belief that the motion we have tabled should and would enable the Committee of Privileges to discuss all the motions that have been put on the Order Paper, to make its comments on them and then report to the House. That also applies to the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon). It is the case that the only way in which the House can criticise the Speaker is when such a motion has been put down for debate. This is the right way to proceed. However, I do not believe that it would be possible for the Committee of Privileges to consider these matters without taking into account Mr. Speaker's ruling on that day and the motion on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York.
Having made clear to the House that this motion is intended to, and in fact does, secure a situation in which all these matters can be properly considered by the Committee, I suggest that the best course of action is for the House to pass the motion as speedily as possible, allow the Committee to look at all the questions and then report to the House.
No doubt when that report is made, there will have to be a debate because the matters raised in all the motions, and in my motion, too, are very important for the House. I am not minimising their importance, but precisely because of it, I believe that the best way to proceed is to enable the Committee of Privileges to review the whole situation.
3.57 p.m.
Mr. Francis Pym: We believe that it is the right and proper procedure to refer this whole matter to the Committee of Privileges. The events at business questions on 20th April and what was said on that occasion raise significant issues for the House. They gave rise to two rulings by you, Mr. Speaker, a number of Early-Day Motions and a
38
certain amount of speculation and uncertainty in the media and the Press.
At the time of these events, no hon. Member present was aware of any connection between the questions asked by four hon. Members of this House and a particular court case, because no objection was raised at the time and no attention was drawn to the matter.
Since then, several opinions have been expressed about the way in which those four hon. Members raised the question. It is not for me to comment on that, because in this case the reference to the Committee of Privileges is the right course.
However, there is some urgency here. A number of complex aspects of privilege and the reporting of our proceedings outside this House are raised and should be decided on with a minimum of delay. It is very important that there should be no repetition of what happened on 20th April.
Any breaching of our own rules is obviously an extremely serious matter which the Committee of Privileges will have to consider very carefully. But in the case of the sub judice rule, unless this is strictly observed the process of justice itself is in danger. That process is what the rule itself is designed to protect. It is the fundamental principle that we in this House should observe the orders of the court. I always understood that this was fully accepted by the House.
In addition to the application of the sub judice rule, there is also the important consideration of security—both personal and national. There may be, in some cases, very good reasons for a court to require anonymity in respect of some witness, apart from any consideration of protecting the judicial process. Even in the absence of any court case or legal proceedings, there are people in the security services whose identity should never be revealed for their own and their families' sake, for their own safety, and because it would be contrary to the public interest.
The House attaches much importance to the security of our country. It would be appropriate for the Committee of Privileges to consider the implications of this possibility which, in part, arises from the wider issue that we have to face of

39
the reporting of the proceedings of Parliament by live radio and the question whether the Official Report is to remain the only report exempt from a possible contempt of court.
I ask a question of the House, which I am sure will arise in the Committee of Privileges. Ought we not to consider the suggestion that was first made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in The Times last Thursday that if it transpires that something has been said which ought not to have been said, Mr. Speaker should have a right, a duty or a responsibility to order those words to be expunged from the record? That is one way of dealing with the matter.
Mr. John Mendelson: No.
Mr. Pym: At any rate, it should be considered whether some such procedure for protection may be desirable now that the proceedings of Parliament are broadcast.
Mr. Mendelson: That would be most dangerous.
Mr. Pym: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) is entitled to hold that view. The matter was raised originally by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, and I think that it is a matter for consideration.
The Lord President has assured us again, as he assured the House last Thursday, that the motion is drawn in the widest possible terms so that all the circumstances surrounding the events of that day can be considered by the Committee of Privileges, and I have no doubt that it will do so. The assurance of the Lord President was strong enough to enable my hon and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) to feel that it would be right and proper to withdraw the Early-Day Motion which he had placed on the Order Paper in relation to the four Labour Members.
All these matters should now be considered by the Committee of Privileges with urgency. Accordingly, we on the Conservative Benches believe that the motion should be accepted.
4.2 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is the custom of the House, when it
40
is found that a question of privilege should have precedence over the Orders of the Day, to commit the matter, usually without more ado, to the Committee of Privileges. I believe, however, that in a case such as the present one it is proper and advantageous that the House itself should have the opportunity of expressing a general view before it commits the question of privilege to the Committee of Privileges.
The origin of the matter was the issuing of a statement by the Director of Public Prosecutions which said:
"It is not accepted … that the publication of his name"—
that is, of something said in the House—
"would not be a contempt of court, even if it was part of a report of proceedings in the House."
I cannot imagine a more direct assault upon the essential privileges of the House than that proposition. It has from time immemorial been the privilege of the House to say in this place things that would lay the speaker open to proceedings if he said them elsewhere and to say them in this place without any danger of proceedings of any kind being brought on that account. If we did not have that privilege, we would be incapable of serving the purposes for which the House exists, either on behalf of the nation or on behalf of individual constituents, and our own personal responsibilities would be reduced to a very poor thing.
When this privilege was first established and defended, it was probably not primarily against proceedings of courts outside or against the consequences of what we said being reported outside that we sought protection. We sought it in the first instance for the security of debate and deliberation amongst ourselves and to secure entire candour in what was said amongst us. However, those days have long passed. Today it is impossible to distinguish between the privilege of hon. Members of the House to speak under privilege here and the right to have what they say here published. For if it were merely our privilege that we might say what we would in this place but what we said could not be reported outside, that would, in contemporary circumstances, serve very little purpose.
It seems to me, therefore, to follow that immunity from proceedings for the publication in any natural manner—

41
the reporting in any natural sense of that term—of anything said in the House is an essential part of the privileges of the House and that it cannot be infringed without infringing those privileges. The statement of the Director of Public Prosecutions did exactly that. He said that there would be liability to proceedings outside the House in respect of a publication
"even if it was part of a report of proceedings in the House."
There was nothing in those words which distinguished what is called the Official Report—or Hansard—from other reports. Nor, I submit with great respect, is there any such real distinction. The Official Report enjoys certain privileges—not privilege in the sense in which we are debating it this afternoon—it enjoys a special position by favour of the House. You, Mr. Speaker, have certain duties and responsibilities in regard to the Official Report. However, it is not official in the sense that it is the record of what is decided in the House. That record is the Journal of the House. I do not think, therefore, that it is possible to distinguish between a report in a newspaper of proceedings in the House and a report in the Official Report.
The Official Report, by its nature is or purports to be complete. But in no natural sense can a report of a debate which was less than complete, if it was clearly intended as a genuine report of what was said, not be regarded as attracting, logically and necessarily, the protection of privilege.
Before this matter goes to the Committee of Privileges, it ought to be said in this place that the threat of proceedings against the genuine publication of what is said in the House is a high and manifest breach of the House's essential privileges. If that breach became established, the value of our privilege of freedom of speech would be gravely impaired.
It is the counterpart of our immunity against the outside world that we are under our own discipline. It is the counterpart that we make our own rules, that we enforce our own rules and that we discipline those of our membership who infringe those rules. That is how the question of our rule against reference to proceedings that are sub judice came to be brought into this matter.
42
I say in passing—and I trust that in doing so I am neither infringing the rule nor offering the least degree of disrespect—that I am not clear whether what was said by the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) and other hon. Members conflicted with the sub judice rule.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he is getting dangerously near the case in which this very fact is a matter of dispute.
Mr. John Mendelson: How can we avoid it?
Mr. Speaker: By sending the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Powell: If I may continue my speech—and I shall not detain the House unavoidably—I hope that I may be allowed to refer to the case that is sub judice—not to refer to its content, but to identify the case. I understand it to be the question whether contempt of court was or was not committed by certain other persons, not being Members of this House. I understand that the matter that is sub judice concerns whether there was a contempt of court by other persons doing, saying or publishing certain things. I must confess I cannot see that for an hon. Member to make a statement that does not concern the merits of that case can be a breach of the sub judice rule.
However, Mr. Speaker, if I have said anything that offends in that respect, I apologise. My only intention was to indicate that, having the sub judice rule and being conscious of its importance, we must nevertheless be extremely nice in ensuring what does and does not constitute the mention or discussion of matters that are sub judice.
As regards the breach in debate of this, that or any other rule of our procedure, it is the duty of hon. Members, to the best of their ability and knowledge and as they are advised at the time, to speak in accordance with the rules of the House; and it is the duty of the Chair, similarly subject, to prevent them from proceeding if they are in breach of the rules.
For example, an hon. Member who quoted a speech made in another place, other than by a representative of the Government, would be pulled up by the Chair and reminded that he was out of order in doing so. There is no difference

43
in kind between that intervention in an hon. Member's speech and an intervention by you, Mr. Speaker, or another occupant of the Chair, to point out that he is in breach of the sub judice rule.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: It is a difference of degree.
Mr. Powell: I am not sure that it is easy to distinguish between the degrees of heinousness of a breach of one rule or another.
What is open to censure on the part of an hon. Member is not that he lays himself open to being reminded by the Chair that he is breaking one of our rules of debate. We all do that from time to time. He lays himself open to censure if he persists in it; and if he were to persist in it contumeliously, no doubt the House would proceed to disciplinary measures against him.
The point that I want to establish is that even if there is a rule of the House that may be broken in debate, that does not annul what has been said up to that point nor place what has been said in a different category, for the purpose of our privilege, from anything else that is said in the House.
That brings me to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), which I heard with a frisson of horror, that we might adopt a practice whereby if the rules of the House had been broken or—and I understood the right hon. Member to carry his suggestion further—where an hon. Member was thought by you, Mr. Speaker, or by the House to have mentioned matters that might be against the public interest, the order could be given that his words should be expunged from the record or that they should not attract the protection of privilege. I can think of nothing that would be more dangerous than this approach to our freedom of speech.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will acquit me of any suspicion of intending disrespect or criticism, but I should like to refer to something you said last Monday. You said:
"Our privilege is something that was dearly obtained by our predecessors, but if it is abused it will be endangered.—[Official Report, 21st April 1978, Vol. 948, c. 866.]
44
With the greatest respect, a privilege which cannot be abused is no privilege, for that which constitutes abuse is a matter of opinion and it is part of the privilege of this House and of individual Members to be able to say in this place not only what they could not say outside without risk of process but to be able to say that to which grave objection is taken by every other hon. Member. Unless an hon. Member could do that, or if it were possible for his doing of it somehow to be undone, we would have lost our power to serve those who sent us here.
It so happens that, though I did not catch the actual words of the hon. Member for Barking on the relevant occasion, I took some objection, as a matter of taste, to her decision to utilise what I regard as her undoubted privilege. I am not on the matter of sub judice now; I am on the matter of privilege. Speaking loosely, I might have said that the hon. Lady was abusing her privilege. But there is no real distinction in this context between using and abusing privilege, or, if there is, it is a subjective decision—a matter of taste and of no more than of taste.
Mr. Reginald Maudling: Is it not a fact that, whereas an accusation can be withdrawn, a disclosure cannot? If an accusation is made contrary to the rules of order, it can be withdrawn. What is to be done about a disclosure which is made contrary to the rules of order?
Mr. Powell: I am coming to the question of disclosure and retroactivity, but for the moment I am concerned with the non-existence of a real distinction between the use and abuse of our privilege. Indeed, the only distinction is that a use of privilege is that of which hon. Members generally approve and an abuse is a use of which hon. Members generally, or perhaps the organs out of doors, happen to disapprove.
Mr. Onslow: Would the right hon. Gentleman therefore say that he is unable to draw a distinction between an inadvertent breach of privilege, based on ignorance, and a deliberate breach for purposes and motives that may be generally taken exception to inside and outside the House for the very best of national reasons?
Mr. Powell: I am sure that the use that the hon. Member for Barking made of her privilege—and it was a use of privilege, not a breach of privilege—was intentional. It is of the essence of our privilege that we can use it intentionally and not accidentally. On other hand, I am prepared to believe, and I think it probable, that her breach, if it were a breach, of the sub judice rule was unintentional. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) will be aware that sometimes we in this House go as far as we can until the Chair draws our attention to the fact that we have strayed over the line. It is not unknown for the Chair to be slightly blind and slightly deaf.
I address myself now to the question put by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling): an hon. Member has said what, vis-à-vis the outside world, he undoubtedly has unqualified privilege to say; but though it appears that in doing so he has been in breach of the rules of the House, the words are said—nescit vox missa reverti—and they are reported. I maintain that those words said in this House up to the moment when the hon. Member, on the instruction of the Chair, resumed his seat are as much things said in this House as any others. They attract the same privilege in this House and, by parity of logic, must attract the same qualified privilege outside it. Any notion is to be dismissed that we can, as it were, retrospectively unsay that which has been found to have been said contrary to the internal rules of the House.
There is a final and recent aspect of this case which is interesting, although perhaps not fundamental. It is the fact that the reporting of this House, due to a decision of the House which I resisted and regret, is now taking place instantaneously as well as subsequently, or, at any rate, is sometimes taking place instantaneously as well as subsequently.
If we were to make a rule that the reporting of this House was somehow to be censored—that items which were in contravention of the rules of the House or, still more outrageously, items which if spoken elsewhere would attract proceedings were to be cut out—I shall tell the House what would follow. There would
46
have to be a switch in a certain place not far from here, and the question would be asked "Whose finger on the switch?" I shall describe, although I cannot identify, the individual whose finger would be on the switch. He must be an individual who has an even more profound knowledge of the rules of this House than yourself, Mr. Speaker; who has an encyclopaedic knowledge of what is in agitation in the courts of the land from Land's End to John o' Groats; and he must be a person of such swiftness of perception that he can anticipate the words that are about to issue from an hon. Member's mouth before he has spoken them.
This diverticulum of our difficulties we could excise, as I hope we shall excise it, by discontinuing what I regard as an undesirable practice. But we shall still be left with the necessity of defending, in the reporting outside as well as in the saying in this House, our undoubted and historic privilege and of distinguishing completely between the discipline which this House exercises over its Members and the privileges of this House.
The discipline which is exercised over Members is not in itself a matter of privilege. It becomes a matter of privilege, or, perhaps more accurately, of contempt, only if there is a breach of the rules of the House which is found to amount to contempt. But in themselves the rules of the House are not rules of privilege; they are internal rules of proceeding. Our maintenance of those rules can in no way impair either our privileges in this House or the implications for the reporting of our proceedings outside.
I hope that the Privileges Committee when it takes this matter in hand will be fully aware how profound are the matters upon which its advice is being sought. I hope that it will understand that it is the most objectionable uses of the privilege of this House which are the most vital to its functions. If we go back through the history of this House, we find that very often it was the possibility of things being said in this House which were detestable to those who heard them and to those outside which led to the broadening of our liberties. I would not wish this House, in this year, to be a party to the narrowing of those liberties again.
4.24 p.m.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I agree with almost every word that fell from the lips of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). We have absolute privilege in this place to say and do as we please. There can be no qualification about that if we are to do the work for which we are sent here. Any suggestion that that privilege is qualified in this House by some regard to taste or to objections about security, or any other cause, must be set aside in the general good that flows from the fact that we have this privilege to raise in this place whatever we wish in any way that we regard as responsible, even if that thought is opposed by every other person in the House.
We are today debating a matter of great moment. The mere fact that it arises out of what some people may regard as a trivial matter in relation to the disclosure of a particular name does not, in my view, mean that we should underestimate the momentousness of what we are about to discuss.
In the great case of Stockdale v. Hansard they discussed the description of a particular book as being obscene in respect of a Committee of this House which was described in the Report of the House as "— by —, printed by Stockdale". It was then printed in a blue book by Hansard out of which arose a libel action. It was out of such small beginnings that one of the greatest debates began in our history about the limits of the privilege of Parliament.
I wish to deal with the way in which that issue—an issue which was never finally settled in the nineteenth century and is still open in "Erskine May"—was perhaps settled, I think perhaps inadvertently, Mr. Speaker, by a remark in your ruling of 21st April. May I approach the matter gradually?
Mr. Speaker: I think that would be better for me.
Mr. Lyon: I hope that in the matters I wish to raise I shall not be in breach of any rule of the House or of any sense of your own conduct, Mr. Speaker.
What happened on 20th April was that some of my hon. Friends mentioned a particular name. That name was an issue not in the original proceedings—and I do not think that reference to those original
48
proceedings could conceivably be said to be sub judice, because the question is whether it was sub judice of the proceedings which are taking place today. On that matter you have made a ruling that the issue must go to the Committee of Privileges for discussion. I want to say nothing which in any way contravenes your view on that.
It must at least be arguable that in the circumstances of the case which is now before the Divisional Court there was a breach of the sub judice rule which we laid down for ourselves. But it is important to distinguish between the rule that we laid down, of which there may have been a breach, and the rule which is laid down by the courts outside for discussion of matters by the public of matters pending in the courts. The courts have a sub judice rule, and one can be in contempt of court by discussing matters which are then currently before the courts, but our rule is a different sub judice rule. If my hon. Friends were in breach of a rule, they were in breach of our rule and not of the rule of the courts. Our privilege is to say whatever we like within the rules of the House, and only within those rules.
What I objected to, Mr. Speaker, was that when you came to deal with this matter on Friday 21st April you said:
"were this warning to be followed by legal action"
—and you were referring to the warning given by the Director of Public Prosecutions—
"it would not be the first time that the reports of parliamentary debates in the Press had been the subject of proceedings in the courts. As it is stated on page 81 of "Erskine May":
'There is a distinction between the absolute privilege of Members speaking in the House … and the qualified privilege of a publisher reporting words spoken; in the latter case publication of parliamentary proceedings is protected, not specifically by privilege of Parliament, but on the analogy of the publication of proceedings in courts of justice.'
This principle was followed in the case of Wason v. Walter in 1868, and no claim has been made by Parliament, either at the time or since, that its privileges were infringed by this or any other similar action."—[Official Report, 21st April 1978; Vol. 948, c. 865–6.]
The correct impression of what happened in those days is contained on pages 200 and 201 of "Erskine May" which reads:
"The House of Commons claims that its admitted right to adjudicate on breaches of

49
privilege implies in theory the right to determine the existence and extent of the privileges themselves. It has never expressly abandoned its claim to treat as a breach of privilege the institution of proceedings for the purpose of bringing its privileges into discussion or decision before any court or tribunal elsewhere than in Parliament. In other words, it claims to be the absolute and exclusive judge of its own privileges, and that its judgments are not examinable by any other court or subject to appeal.
On the other hand, the courts regard the privileges of Parliament as part of the law of the land, of which they are bound to take judicial notice. They consider it their duty to decide any question of privilege arising directly or indirectly in a case which falls within their jurisdiction, and to decide it according to their own interpretation of the law."
It was the supreme issue in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard that we decided not only what are our privileges but what are the limits of our privileges. There is no contest that we are totally responsible for what goes on within this place. But the issue in Stockdale v. Hansard was how much of that lapped outside into reports, fair reports, of what had happened inside.
The House never had any doubt in its own mind about how the issue should be resolved. There were three separate Select Committee reports upon the issue whether privilege extended beyond the confines of the House to reports that were made out side. I entirely agree with what the right hon. Member for Down, South said about there being no difference between Hansard and a report in The Times or indeed on the BBC. The issue must be the same in both cases.
I quote from the Second Report of the Select Committee, in which it discussed the possible alternatives. One was that the House could take to itself the power to decide the limits of privilege for reports outside by passing an Act. The recommendation of the Select Committee was:
"The passing of an Act to enable the House for the future to publish its proceedings without having them questioned in a court of law, would, in the opinion of your Committee, be a virtual abandonment of the right which they have no doubt now belongs to this in common with the other House of Parliament, and which ought not, as they conceive, to be surrendered."
I quote, from the debate that followed that Select Committee report, from the speech of Sir Robert Peel, who at the time was Leader of the Opposition and I hope will be thought by those on the
50
Opposition Benches to be of some authority. He said:
"the result is, a firm conviction that the House of Commons has the right to institute free inquiry upon every matter of public concern,—to elicit every fact connected with the subject of inquiry—and to publish the evidence taken, and the conclusions drawn from that evidence, either for the use of its Members, or, if it shall so think fit, for the use and information of the community at large."
Later in his speech he said, in relation to the challenge to that right by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Denman, in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard:
"I wish to speak with the highest respect for the person as well as for the station of the Lord Chief Justice."
He said that he bowed to the Lord Chief Justice's knowledge of the law with deference, but added:
"but when his decisions impugn the privileges of Parliament, I have not only a right, but am bound by duty, to take cognizance of them. I do not believe that his judgment in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard, is maintainable. His direction to the jury, 'That the fact of the House of Commons having directed their printer to publish their Parliamentary Reports, is no justification for the publication, by them, of a Report containing a libel, upon any man.'—I believe to be erroneous."
Earlier he had said:
"If the right of publication be a privilege necessary for the performance of the functions of the House of Commons, then, like other privileges, it is not liable to question in a court of law. The House of Commons is the exclusive judge of the exercise of it."
My understanding, after reading through those debates and the reports that followed, was that the House never resiled from that position.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, as you pointed out in your ruling on 21st April, that subsequently in a case in the Queen's Bench, the case of Wason v. Walter, which decided that qualified privilege was attached to fair report of what happened in this place, the Lord Chief Justice said that the courts were entitled to decide what was the limit of privilege outside. He called in aid the decision of Lord Chief Justice Denman. But it is quite clear from our proceedings in this House that we never accepted that.
Apart from the historical antiquity of all that, does it really matter in these days? In my submission, it does. It is of grave importance to the proceedings of the House that we make it clear that we, and not the courts, decide what is the

51
limit of privilege. Is it to be said, for instance—and the point has been made by the right hon. Gentleman—that the BBC or the IBA were in contempt of the courts which are discussing this issue today by broadcasting the names that were spoken on Thursday, 20th April? That is a matter of the greatest moment to the broadcasting authorities.
It is true that the Attorney-General has said that he does not wish to proceed, but who can say whether an Attorney-General would always take that view? Who can say that he, and he alone, would have the right to prosecute in similar circumstances? It must be laid down that the courts cannot intervene.
But there is a wider aspect. We are progressing gradually, and I think unfortunately, to a conflict between the courts and Parliament. There is every evidence over recent years that the courts are bending their muscles in order to take on the Houses of Parliament, either corporately or individually, in deciding where the line must be drawn in determining who is responsible for the liberties of our people.
I think that it is absolutely right that the courts, within their proper sphere, should try to draw that line. But it is equally clear that we within our sphere should also know where to draw that line. I believe that it is more important that we should know than that the courts should know, because we are at any rate accountable to the people, as we are elected by them.
When we, if we, ever go to the stage of adopting a Bill of Rights—there are those who say that because we have adopted the European Convention we have already done so—what we shall really be saying is not that there is one source which is wiser than another but simply that the decision would be made in one place rather than another, that the decision about what are the limits of statutory authority or power should be made by the courts and not by this House or by Parliament generally. In that situation there are bound to be conflicts.
I would not have troubled the House with this discussion of what might be an esoteric point if it were simply a question of this particular issue. I think that the matter can be resolved sensibly and fairly
52
by the Committee of Privileges. What I am worried about, Mr. Speaker, is that the ruling you made on 21st April may prejudice the discussion of some momentous constitutional clash which may emerge in the future, because it will then be said that the whole issue was decided by the statement of Mr. Speaker Thomas on 21st April 1978 that the courts outside have the right to determine the extent of privilege outside, and that therefore it is a matter for the courts to decide.
I want to make the position plain by registering my protest now. I hope that in due course the House will have an opportunity of voting and expressing its view and that it will make it absolutely clear that we decide the extent of privilege not only here but outside.
If it is thought by any of those who listen to us or read about our discussions that we are asserting a claim to be above the law, I say that we are asserting that claim only to a limited extent, to the extent that it is necessary for us to perform our duties. There is no doubt about our right to that privilege here. The argument has been about that right outside.
I end with a statement I found in an account of all these matters called "Printer to the House":
"But observe, too, the consequence had Lord Denman's judgment been allowed to stand. The evolution of Parliament from 1840 to the present day would have been rendered impossible. What is the use of a Parliament whose activities cannot be reported?"
4.40 p.m.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: On various occasions in the past I have both spoken and voted against sending a motion to the Committee of Privileges because on the whole I take the view that Parliament is not normally at its most dignified when, rushing to the protection of its privileges, it seeks to refer to the Committee comments made by people outside the House. On this occasion I believe that the motion tabled by the Leader of the House is totally justified and one which I hope the House will pass.
Whatever our views on the merits of this issue, I do not think that anyone could suggest that there are other than vitally important principles at stake. There are in this one subject two separate issues. There is the issue of the right of the

53
Press to report accurately that which is said in this House, and there is the issue of the way in which hon. Members choose to make use of the privileges of this House. They are two important issues and to my mind they are totally separate.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that this matter started with the statement made by the Director of Public Prosecutions on the evening of 20th April with regard to his advice to the Press as to its right to publish what had been said in this House. With respect, I believe that that was not the commencement but the second stage. The commencement was the decision of hon. Members—their motives from my point of view are irrelevant—under the cloak of privilege to name someone to whom the courts had granted anonymity. These are two equally important but separate issues.
Mr. Christopher Price: Does the hon. and learned Member not think that to use the phrase "to whom the courts had granted anonymity." when that is the issue before the courts is a little injudicious?
Mr. Carlisle: I am using my words carefully. The decision of the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) was clear. It was to use the privileges of this House to name someone to whom she understood anonymity had been granted by the order of a court.
Both of these issues are vitally important. My only criticism of the motion would be that it has put the cart before the horse. It is really the question of the conduct on the Floor of the House on 20th April which comes to be considered before the question of publication of what happened. It was for that reason that I, on this first issue, tabled an Early-Day Motion asking that the conduct of the hon. Members during that Question Time be referred to the Committee of Privileges. It was on the assurance given by the Leader of the House last Thursday at Business Question Time that I withdrew that motion.
As the Leader of the House made clear, he had tabled a motion in the widest possible terms which, he assured the House, embraced all of the motions standing on the Order Paper. Naturally,
54
I was happy to withdraw my motion I believe that it is essential that the Committee of Privileges should give careful consideration to what happened on that occasion. Mr. Speaker has said in his statement that in his view it was a breach of the sub judice rule. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South that the rules of this House are something totally different from the privileges of this House.
The rules of this House are that by which we agree to abide in the conduct of our debates. The privileges of this House are something we claim to ourselves to prevent ourselves from being open to action from outside. Nevertheless, I do not believe that it was ever intended that we should use the cloak of privilege to name people who, for whatever reason, may not have been named in other proceedings in a court of law in this country.
It is important that the House, through the Committee of Privileges, should decide its attitude to matters of that kind. The right hon. Member for Down, South said that we cannot abuse privilege, we can only use it. I found it difficult to follow that part of his speech when he suggested that there is no difference here. I would have thought that the main difference must be in the motivation of the person who says the words concerned. For example, if I, by use of the privileges of this House, chose to make an attack on someone's integrity, believing my attack to be justified and to be in the public interest, I am clearly using the privilege which Parliament grants me. If, on the other hand, although I do not believe a word of an allegation that I have been told, I nevertheless choose to make use of the privileges of this House for the purpose of mounting that attack in the justification of which I do not believe and if I am motivated by malice against the individual, to my mind I am abusing the privileges of this House.
Mr. Powell: The hon. and learned Member is making the same distinction that I sought to make, namely, that the difference is a subjective difference. No hon. Member can know the motives of another hon. Member. We may feel that we know what these motives are and that we dislike the hon. Member and disapprove of his behaviour. But still the distinction between use and abuse remains

55
subjective. I do not think that there is any difference between us.
Mr. Carlisle: I accept that the subjective intention of the individual is the difference between abuse or use of privilege. But I think that other people can objectively assess what is the motivation and decide whether that has been an abuse or a use. This is one of the matters which the Committee will clearly have to consider.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The privilege is to say anything on the Floor of the House for whatever motivation one cares. It is obtainable by any hon. Member. Is the hon. and learned Member saying that the Committee of Privileges could rule that in some way the hon. Members who uttered that name were not covered by privilege at the time they did so? If that is not what he is saying, I do not understand what he is saying.
Mr. Carlisle: I am not saying that. Obviously the privilege is absolute of the individual. On the other hand, surely in any civilised debating chamber there must be some rules and some control over the abuse of that privilege. The point I am making is that it is a proper matter for the Committee of Privileges to consider whether, taking the right hon. Gentleman's terms, by making use of the privilege those hon. Members have abused that privilege and, if they have done so, what advice should be given to the House by the Committee.
Let me give a totally different example. The fact is that for many reasons of a different nature the courts do from time to time grant anonymity to people who appear before them whether they be children of a tender age or people involved in divorce or wardship cases. More recently, Parliament has legislated to give anonymity to both victims and defendants in rape cases.
I do not believe that any hon. Member opposite, particularly one of the four who made use of his privilege on this occasion, would for a moment suggest that, were a Member on the Floor of the House to use the privilege of the House for the purpose of announcing the name of either the complainant or the defendant in a rape case, other hon. Members should not make immediate complaint that he had
56
abused his privilege. Therefore, I believe that it is open and possible for the House, through the Committee of Privileges, to assess objectively whether it considers a privilege has been used or abused and, if it has been abused, whether it should make any recommendation to the House.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I do not want to engage in argument across the Floor, but the issue is of crucial importance to the Committee of Privileges. It cannot be said that, simply because we use privilege in a way that is discreditable to us personally, there is any breach of the rules of the House. The only purpose of the Committee of Privileges must be to decide whether there was a breach of the sub judice rule and whether that involves any sanction. That must be at issue when one recollects that, while in the case of the rape victim there is statutory power for the courts to make an order for anonymity, in this case there is no such power.
Mr. Carlisle: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding what I am saying. I thought that I was conceding that there was a distinction, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said, between the breach of the rules of this House, which in itself is clearly a matter which the Committee of Privileges can look at, and whether the way in which a person chooses to use the privilege of the House is in itself an abuse of that privilege such as would amount to a contempt of the House. It seems to me that both of those issues arise in this case.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the one may be deliberate, the other may be unintentional. All I am saying is that I felt it right to put my motion down on the Order Paper because I believe that there is a serious principle here, a dangerous precedent for the future, if the House does not come to a view as to what attitude it is taking to matters of this kind. I say that without attempting in any way to comment on the seriousness or unseriousness of this issue.
I turn to the second matter—the right to publish the proceedings of this House. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to suggest that what the Director of Public Prosecutions had done was clearly an intervening in the privileges of this House. With respect, I would have thought that,

57
while the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for York may well be right in arguing that immunity from all proceedings should take fair and accurate reporting of this House to the Press, it is highly questionable whether that is the legal position. It is therefore vital that this issue should be looked at by the Committee of Privileges.
A great deal has been said in the newspapers about the fact that the Press, it is clear, has qualified privilege in reporting the proceedings of the House. The Press seems to assume that to mean that, provided it is a fair and accurate report, no action of any kind can ever come about as a result of their publication.
I believe that that is a total misunderstanding of the defence of qualified privilege, which has always been a defence purely to an action by the individual for defamation against a paper. If it be a fact that the position of the Press vis-à-vis Parliament is the same as that of the Press vis-à-vis the courts—let us take that as a starting point—clearly, if the Press chooses to give a fair and accurate report, even if it turns out to be totally false and defamatory, no one can bring action against it.
But that does not mean that, by making that fair and accurate report, one may not be in oneself breaking an order of the court. I give the most obvious example. If a court of law in the course of a proceeding orders that the defendant Mark Carlisle shall hereafter be called "Mr. C", and a newspaper announces that evening that in court Mr. Justice So-and-So had announced that the defendant Mark Carlisle should be called "Mr. C", clearly that is a fair and accurate account of what happened. Equally clearly, it would not allow the person concerned to bring action for damages even if it were false. But equally it would be no defence of the order of the court banning the name to say "We have merely announced the order of the court banning the name."
Therefore, where we have an area in which there is considerable doubt how wide are the limitations of privilege outside this House, we should say, in fairness and without prejudging the issue in any way, that someone who is then appealed to by the Press for advice as to the legal situation is in a difficult position and may well be misleading the
58
Press if he gives advice different from that which in fact he gave.
I totally share the view of the hon. Member for York that not only the extent and limitation of the privilege within this House but also the privilege outside this House of the reporting of matters that go on inside this House should be a matter for Parliament and not for the courts. With that I agree, and it is for that reason and because this individual instance raises that issue in its clearest and starkest forms that I hope that the matter will go to the Committee of Privileges so that it can make its recommendations on the point.
4.56 p.m.
Mr. Michael English: I, too, hope that this matter goes to the Committee of Privileges, and I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) as far as he went. We all ought to be plain that the term "qualified privilege" only applies to the law of defamation and has nothing to do with this issue.
I myself was glad that Mr. Speaker gave two rulings, one on the Monday and one on the Friday. I do not blame Mr. Speaker, as a man not trained in the law, for including in his statement on the Friday the phrase "qualified privilege". I think that he was advised and misadvised by other people. I am grateful for and glad of the fact that on that relevant Monday he did not use the phrase. It is really utterly irrelevant to import this question of absolute and qualified privilege into this matter. That, as the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn said, has relevance to the law of defamation, as to whether a person can sue another person about whether he has been libelled or slandered, but it has nothing to do with this particular issue. It would be very helpful to everyone if we now forgot it.
I think that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and his predecessors from all parties have forgotten that the late Lord Donovan once chaired a Joint Committee of both Houses, consisting also of Lord Selkirk, Lord Stow Hill, formerly Sir Frank Soskice, QC, of this House House, a gentleman who at the time was described in the report concerned as Mr. Samuel Silkin, Sir John Foster, a QC formerly of this House and now retired,

59
Mr. Charles Pannell, formerly of this House and now a peer, and myself. That Committee produced reports that have never been dealt with. It would have saved an awful lot of trouble if they had been. It isued two reports, one on broad casting and one on the particular issues which are relevant to this case. I am not suggesting for a moment that every single recommendation of that Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament on the publication of proceedings should have been approved by both Houses of Parliament. I am suggesting that they should have been discussed.
If I may say so, my right hon. Friend—not alone but with his predecessors on both sides of the House—is responsible for ignoring this issue and forgetting it, hoping that it would never arise. Now it has turned up in a different form. We all expected it to turn up in the form of a private individual suing another private individual because he had been libelled or slandered. It did not turn up like that. If my right hon. Friend says that the late Lord Donovan's Joint Committee did not cover every point, he would be absolutely right. As a Member of that Committee, I would agree with him. It has turned up in the sense of contempt of court, and in that sense, of course, all the law about qualified privilege which relates to defamation has nothing to do with the issue.
If one court issues an order and another court issues an alternative order, or a different order, then the mere subject has a clear responsibility, and that is, if he can, to obey them both. If, for example, the High Court says "You must not write it", and this Court of Parliament says "You must not write it", the results are clear. It means "You must not write it or print it or put it on television or on radio." There is no real doubt about that. The problem arises when one court—it does not matter which—says "You must not do it" and the other court says "You shall do it", in effect, or "You may do it." That is where the problem really arises.
With what we usually call the courts of law there is no tremendous problem even in that, for ultimately the difficulty can be reconciled by going from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and then to the House of Lords sitting as a
60
court. In the end, it would be found—I notice that one of my lawyer hon. Friends is kindly nodding his head—that the House of Lords, sitting as a court, would say that it either agreed or did not agree with the order of the particular court.
That is fine. All the precedents on this matter go back to the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries, when the House of Lords, sitting as a court, was exactly the same as the House of Lords sitting as a legislative body. Nowadays, the House of Lords sitting as a court is a body of lawyers, and usually it is a very small number of them. It is usually about five, although it can theoretically be a larger number. It certainly could not be the 1,000 or more people who theoretically belong to the House of Lords sitting as a legislative body.
The arguments on this question go back well into the seventeenth century, and there is nothing at all which says that the House or Lords' rulings are privileged over those of the House of Commons. We do not really need to argue that particular point. No one would argue that the House of Commons, sitting as a court, can prevail over the House of Lords sitting as a court, or the House of Lords sitting as a legislative body.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) suggests something that I shall translate as meaning "That has"—something I will put in square brackets, as it were—"to do with it". He is entitled to his opinion, and that is actually what this particular bit of law is all about. If he wants to say something else, I have no doubt that he will in due course. But in the end this House of Commons must prevail. There is no question of any contempt of court. There is no question of any contempt by one court of another.
In the seventeenth century, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House well knows, Chief Justice Coke used to issue injunctions to prevent the Court of Common Pleas from interfering with his Court of King's Bench. That was decided in the seventeenth century. It was roughly decided—in many cases by force—that the courts of law had to obey the High Court of Parliament, and since the early part of this century the rest of the High Court of Parliament has had to obey this part of it.

61
If necessary, we could pass an Act of Parliament to say what we determined, and, if the House of Lords disagreed with it, this part of the High Court of Parliament, this House of Commons, could still pass it. There is no question as to which shall prevail. I think that is the essential point. It is not whether any other court, in its jurisdiction in this United Kingdom, can issue any order. It can issue any order it likes.
But if it is a puisne court, as the lawyers would call it—a court of first instance—it can be overruled by a court of appeal. A court of appeal can be overruled by another court of appeal, namely, the House of Lords sitting as a court of appeal, if it is a case of contempt of court. If it is the House of Lords sitting as a law court, then on a question of the privileges of Parliament it can be overruled by the House of Lords sitting as a House of Lords. If it is the House of Lords sitting as such, it can in the end be overruled by this House of Commons representing the people of the United Kingdom. If that principle does not prevail, then no principle other than that can prevail in a democracy.
5.7 p.m.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: It seems to me that there is a good deal of confusion about what is parliamentary privilege, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the defence of privilege in the law of defamation. The defence of privilege in the law of defamation, whether it is absolute or qualified, is a totally different matter from the privilege of the House of Commons. The privilege of the House of Commons is absolute, and it is absolute to this House.
I disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) when he says that it is absolute to the individual. It is not. It is absolute, surely, to the House. It is qualified in relation to the individual, because there are certain rules of the House which put a limit, to a certain extent, on the individual's use of it, in that there may be certain consequences from what the House regards as personal misuse of privilege. But it is very important for the Committee of Privilege to bear in mind this complete difference between the two senses in which we use the same word "privilege".
62
The second issue which appears to me to arise in the case is whether parliamentary privilege affords a defence to an action taken for contempt of court. That is the matter with which we are concerned here. If the newspapers had reported verbatim what was said in the House on a certain afternoon and those reports were not made by order of the House, would the fact that there was parliamentary privilege extend to those newspapers to give them, or their editors, a defence to an action for contempt of court?
I am bound to say that I cannot see the logic in the distinction between the privilege which attaches to a correct and verbatim report of the proceedings of this House by order of the House and a correct and verbatim report which is not by order of the House. Why should Hansard be privileged and The Times and The Guardian, reporting exactly the same thing, not be privileged? I think that it would be very difficult for any court to draw the line and to say that there is a distinction. If it were drawn it would certainly be an artificial distinction.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) mentioned the potential clash between the courts of this country and Parliament. The potential clash has always been there. At times it appears to be coming to the surface, and it is avoided, I think, by the good sense of the courts and the good sense of Parliament.
Clearly, when Members misuse privilege—I am using the term in its widest sense—it is difficult at the time to gauge whether it has been misused. For example, the late Colonel Marcus Lipton named Philby in this House when Philby was still a member of the Civil Service and living in this country. There were cries of "Disgraceful" and so on in this House. He was using parliamentary privilege. If at the time he had been challenged as to his motivation, I do not know how this House would have divided as to what it thought his motivation was.
Mr. Christopher Price: Is it not also true that Mr. Richard Crossman, Lord Wigg and the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) raised the whole Profumo affair in exactly the same way on the Floor of this House—in a way that might have been said by some people to be an abuse of privilege?
Mr. Hooson: I think that is right. The only point I wish to make is that it is terribly difficult to establish whether a person has a right or a wrong motivation at the time when he is using the privilege.
Mr. Powell: Or ever.
Mr. Hooson: I hear the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) say "Or ever". That may well be so. The further one gets away from the event, the easier it is to appreciate whether there was justification for using parliamentary privilege. It must be used very carefully, otherwise it can lead to an immediate clash with the courts.
The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn suggested that if any of the four hon. Members who named a person in the House had, for example, heard someone else mention the name of a complainant in a rape case, he or she would have been the very first to claim that privilege was being misused. In my view hon. Members must strike a delicate balance between the use of their absolute privilege and its abuse in such a way as to offend against the proceedings of the courts.
Mr. Edward Lyons: Is there not one distinction between the matters we are discussing now and the type of occurrence where Marcus Lipton named Philby? On that occasion, no prior order of the court was in existence or alleged to be in existence.
Mr. Hooson: I think that there are distinctions in this case.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk rose—
Mr. Hooson: I must deal with the intervention before it slips my mind. I think there is a distinction between each case. That distinction is there. But I do not think it alters the general principle of the matter. It seems to me that if we had a repetition of the kind of identification that was made in those Questions, we would be heading for a first-class collision with the courts. The courts could not stand by and, as it were, watch parliamentary privilege being used as a cloak to affect its own procedure.
That is why this House has to be so careful in the framing of the rules. Where the right hon. Member for Down, South
64
is right is to draw the clear distinction between the rules and privilege. If, in fact, there is the use of parliamentary privilege by an individual Member, and this House as a whole feels that he has misused it—whether it is used as a term of taste or otherwise—then it is up to the House to take action and use its own rules to discipline that Member. But that does not deal with the point at issue in this particular reference to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), and many other hon. Members, have today said that there was an order of the court. I think we ought to clarify this. This is a matter which is still largely in dispute and about which there is a great deal of doubt. For hon. Members constantly to reiterate—as if it were a fact—that there was an order of the court prohibiting the use of a particular name is prejudicing this debate and the proceedings that may follow from it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. That matter is sub judice at the moment.
Mr. Edward Lyons: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) cannot have been listening to me. I said "A court order or a court order alleged to be in existence". In my submission it does not make any difference whether it actually existed or whether the Crown at this stage simply alleges it to exist.
Mr. Hooson: In so far as the motion before the House deals with privilege, it is on a very narrow issue. It virtually asks what is the status of a correct report of the proceedings of Parliament which is published, but not by order of this House. That is the matter at issue. It seems to me that there is no dispute about the fact that the editors of Hansard are protected from an action for contempt of court. The only question at issue on the privilege of the matter is whether the editors of The Times or the Guardian are similarly afforded a defence in relation to an action for contempt of court.
Mr. English: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman ignored the question about whether a clearly subordinate court of law issued an order. That is not

65
really relevant. I am also glad that he ignored the question whether the law of defamation is involved. It clearly is not. Will he kindly address himself to this particular question: is it not possible that Members of this House are allowed to say something which may not be published outside the House?
Mr. Hooson: I only regret that the hon. Gentleman did not ignore the matters that I have ignored. If he will forgive me, I shall proceed to complete what I was saying. The second part of the reference concerns
"the application of the sub judice rule during Business Questions".
Again we have to draw the distinction between our own sub judice rule and the legal sub judice rule. There is a distinction between the two. I greatly regret that there was an identification of the officer. I often feel that Government are far too concerned with secrecy in these matters but, nevertheless, it was highly regrettable that the officer was named.
What we are concerned with—and this distinction has not been sufficiently drawn—is the operation of the sub judice rule of this House, which is very different from considering the position of the newspapers and their relations with the sub judice rule of the courts. I hope that the Committee of Privileges will draw that distinction.
5.18 p.m.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: I was interested in what the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said about the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). I tried to intervene at the time, but was unable to do so. That suggestion is interesting, but it has a great flaw. Assuming for the moment—without wishing to pass any strictures upon the suggestion—that it is desirable in the future to have Mr. Speaker say that a statement shall be expunged, that does not provide the real solution, because there is a Gallery to this House of Commons, and there are also the broadcasting media. It will already have gone both to the Gallery and to the broadcasting media even if Mr. Speaker says that it shall be expunged. Therefore, that is no solution to the problem.
66
However, this whole business could have been avoided. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to the privileges of this House but he also referred to its discipline. It is the undoubted privilege of a Member of this House to say anything he likes in this House, even if the matter is sub judice, were it not for the fact that the House, in its wisdom, has evolved a rule or a convention that when matters are awaiting adjudication by a court they shall not be mentioned by any Member of Parliament.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the hon. Gentleman really claiming that there is nothing that a Member may not say in this House? For instance, what if it is treasonable, insulting to the Sovereign or insulting to a Head of State of another country? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, under privilege, treason can be committed in this House with impunity?
Mr. Tuck: I was suggesting nothing of the kind. That is another matter entirely. But there is nothing to prevent a Member from saying what he pleases, because it is the undoubted privilege of this House. This liberty, however, is modified by a rule or convention of the House that when a matter is sub judice or awaiting adjudication nothing shall be said about it. If the House of Commons were to extend this rule to cases in which a judge has said in court that the name of some person or some matter shall not be disclosed, for any reason whatever—it may be for reasons of security, or for reasons of the safety of the person himself—the very disastrous situation that has occurred would not occur at all, because no one would be able in this House, by reason of the rule, to mention the name that has been prohibited by the court or about which the advice has been given by the court against mentioning it. I would suggest that Parliament amends its rules to include such a case where a judge has said that a name shall not be mentioned.
It must be recognised, in a situation such as the present one, that the media generally are in an invidious position. Assuming for the moment that it would be a criminal offence for newspapers or other media to publish any statement made against the wishes or order of a

67
court, that could apply not only to the newspapers but even to Hansard; but could it, or should it apply to the broadcasting media? The broadcasting of our proceedings is live broadcasting, and the broadcasting media have no redress whatever against a name's being mentioned and transmitted to the public.
I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that my suggested extension of the sub judice rule be adopted without delay.
5.21 p.m.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: I want to intervene briefly to put a point of view from someone who is not a lawyer and to suggest that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) was right when he tried—I think that he succeeded—to draw a distinction between the two issues that are at stake here. One affects the media and the other affects the House, although they interlock. It is very important that they should be resolved.
The Press and the radio must look to us to settle this matter as quickly as possible. I doubt very much whether they would regard the suggestion of some kind of sidelining or censoring procedure as a workable solution. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) has pointed out the complication of instantaneity, which would seem to rule it out entirely. So far as Hansard is concerned, I can see no way in which we can ask for asterisks to be inserted by the Editor without that leading to a certain lack of confidence in the proceedings at a very early date. However, the hon. Member for Watford is on a good point when he says that we may need to change our rules. We face a new situation. Perhaps we shall have to adjust to that and bring in new rules to cope with it.
What the motives and intentions of the Gang of Four may have been on the day in question, I do not know. I think that the Committee will have an interesting time inquiring into that.
However, leaving all that aside, we know—we have now had evidence—that it is possible, through the changed situation, for a serious situation to arise. I am not saying that the situation which has arisen is the most serious which can be conceived. For lawyers it clearly raises a serious point. Concerning the issue of
68
national security, the issues are not necessarily as serious as they might otherwise be. I can think of worse things that might have been said in this place and reported instantaneously over the air.
If such a situation can arise, we must be alive to it. If we cannot prevent its happening by any mechanical device, as seems extremely unlikely, the only thing we can hope to do is to frame some rule which will place upon each of us a known and precise discipline which we infringe at our peril.
It is impossible for the House ever to say what the consequences may be, because the House has an inglorious habit of breaking its own disciplines. I hesitate to say anything which might be thought to be a comment in any way upon the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr Powell), but he is evidence in our midst that it is possible for one Member to choose to disregard the collective decision of the House of Commons and not to be penalised as a result—in the matter of the Register of Members' Interests.
It is perfectly possible—and I dare say that the right hon. Member for Down South will be the first to agree with this—for there to be an infringement of the rule relating to the naming of names or the disclosing of information in this House, and it will always be for the House itself to decide in the light of each case what it does about it. That is no doubt right. But what is important is that those who make the conscious decision to challenge the rule—such as the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson)—should know what the penalties are to which they are laying themselves open.
I hope that when the Committee considers this matter it will bear very closely on that particular point and will consider that we may need to evolve some new process in this respect, so that the compulsion to challenge procedure is no longer felt.
As I have said, I do not know what the motives of the Gang of Four were, but the Lord President will know that I have challenged convention—at least, according to him—from time to time in recent months in an attempt to get some further inquiry into the question whether the previous Prime Minister accurately informed the House or was himself accurately informed about whether John

69
Stonehouse, who used to be a Member of this House, was or was not in the service of the Czechoslovak intelligence service. He has castigated me for that, but the fact that he has done so will not necessarily stop me. But the fact that I seem unable to get any further in this respect and the fact that the Gang of Four were driven to do what they did in their case suggest to me that we may be in need of some new procedure that will avoid conflict, confrontation and, most important of all, grave danger to the national interest being caused within this Chamber. It must be incumbent on us all to see that that does not happen I hope very much that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and other Members of the Committee will think very seriously about that particular aspect of the matter.
5.27 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Price: Perhaps I may comment on two things that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has said. He used the two phrases which have been mentioned from the Conservative Front Bench already—"as quickly as possible" and "some new processes." Anyone who has listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and then thinks that in some sort of way this very substantial issue can be dealt with as quickly as possible by the Committee of Privileges is trivialising what is a crucially important issue of the privileges of this House.
I feel that when the Committee gets down to work it may find that the speeches of the right hon. Member and of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) have highlighted points on which it will take the Committee a very long time indeed to come to some sort of agreement. The idea that the hon. Member for Woking has put forward, a sort of stated table of penalties for various misdemeanours, utterly misconceives what the centre of the whole issue is.
Mr. Onslow: The hon. Member must not put words into my mouth. I did not suggest a table of penalties. What I suggested was that hon. Members who chose a certain course of action should know what the ultimate consequences of that may be.
Mr. Price: That is a point of view, but subjects arise many times in this House
70
about which people feel very strongly. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) recently felt so strongly about something that happened that he was moved to grab the Mace and wave it around in the air. The House did not on that occasion see fit to produce some sort of penalty. I think that the House recognises strong feelings.
It is a pity that the Attorney-General did not decide that he could find time to listen to this debate. His opposite number on the Opposition Front Bench has come to the debate. I think that it is the sort of debate in the House of Commons in which either the Attorney-General or one of his Law Officers might have put in an appearance. It is a debate worth listening to, and I think that reading it in Hansard is not quite the same thing.
There are two ways in which I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South. In my view the broadcasting of the House is not central to the issue. For what it is worth—I do not put any weight on this—the decision was taken deliberately to mention the name at a time outside the hours when the broadcasts were being made in a simultaneous fashion so that the BBC and the ITN could take their decision in the same way as the papers about the use that they would make of it.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: That may not always be so.
Mr. Price: It may not be, and I did not want to lay great weight on the point. I mentioned it only in passing.
Various suggestions have been made by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and by other hon. Members about an erasure system, a system that exists in a sort of way in the courts of justice where something can be almost but not exactly struck from the record. That suggestion shows once again a lack of understanding of the crucial issues that are at the centre of the debate. Once we start creating somebody within the House who, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said, has the power to flick a switch or cross out a word, there is no point in having a parliament or carrying on as a democratic assembly.
My next argument stems from a comment made by my right hon. Friend the

71
Leader of the House in answer to me during business questions last Thursday. It concerns the scope of the matter that the Privileges Committee has to consider. We have seen the motion on the Order Paper, but my right hon. Friend referred us to what he called the Pickthorn motion, which appears in Hansard of 30th October 1947. At that time the House had considered a crucial issue that went to the Privileges Committee. The House passed a motion which to all intents and purposes said "Whatever motion is referred to the Privileges Committee the Committee has the right but not the duty to consider matters beyond that."
The motion read:
"That when a matter of complaint of breach of privilege is referred to a Committee, such Committee has, and always has had, power to inquire not only into the matter of the particular complaint, but also into facts surrounding and reasonably connected with the matter of the particular complaint, and into the principles of the law and custom of privilege that are concerned."
That motion arose out of the issue connected with Mr. W. J. Brown, the Member of Parliament for Rugby. Mr. Brown felt strongly that his case before the Privileges Committee had been gravely injured because the Attorney-General at that time, the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, had prevented the Privileges Committee from inquiring into a whole range of issues into which he felt it should have inquired.
I quote one sentence of Mr. Pickthorn, who moved the motion. He said:
"It is possible … to demonstrate that in recent Privilege cases"
—he meant the one then before the House—
"there has been a tendency on the part of some persons concerned "
—he meant the Attorney-General and then used a metaphor from hunting that I do not quite understand—
"to hunt their hares too tight, because, I suppose, they are a little afraid of slipping on to other scents".—[Official Report, 30th October 1947; Vol. 443, c. 1242.]
Although the remit of the Privileges Committee in the second half of the motion speaks about
"the sub judice rule … on … 20th April"
72
I should like to get it on record, as I tried to do last Thursday, that the Privileges Committee is at liberty to investigate the sub judice rule in toto. I hope that it will take that opportunity.
I have been raising the whole impact of the sub judice rule for 10 years. There was a short gap when I was thrown out of the House. It is on record that when the Enfield Grammar School case was before the courts I was rapidly silenced by one of your predecessors, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Lord Fletcher, for saying something about that case when I should not have been doing so. When the Tameside case came up, at a time when every national newspaper in the country was commenting on it and writing leading articles about the issue, I was ruled out of order for mentioning the case because the matter was before the Court of Appeal and then before the House of Lords. I submitted a long point of order to Mr. Speaker.
At times during the Gouriet case, when the Attorney-General had to face encroachment on the privilege of the House by the courts, the House was prevented from discussing an urgent matter of public importance, as many of us saw the case. It is fair to say that in the judgment on the thalidomide case—The Sunday Times case—Lord Justice Scarman in the Court of Appeal ventured to say—I suppose that technically it was a breach of privilege—that he felt that not only the courts but Parliament should tighten up their sub judice rules as they were completely out of phase. He said that something should be done about them.
I hope that the Privileges Committee—I am glad that the Chairman is in the Chamber—takes a wide view of his remit rather than the narrow and what I might call Shawcross view.
There is another matter that we have to take into account when we send these issues to the Privileges Committee. There are some lawyers on the Committee. When such a case arises the position of the lawyer is a difficult one. It is a position that is not absolutely straightforward. The lawyer has an allegiance both to the High Court of Justice and to Parliament. Once again, I make the appeal that when those on the Privileges Committee approach the matter they do so rigorously and on every occasion as

73
Members of the House and not as members of the High Court of Justice. When my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) made his interjection I had the feeling—I may have been wrong—that he was speaking as much as a lawyer as a Member of this place. I accept that I may be absolutely wrong.
It has been said at various times that we must get the matter cleared up so that we may know the legal position. The truth that we must face is that in terms of how the public would understand the legal position on these issues there is not and never can be a legal position. We want to defend our privileges to the utmost, and I am sure that the House wants to defend its privileges to the utmost. The situation is not static. It is one that will be continuous and dynamic. Any attempt that we might make to clear up the matter would introduce the danger of eroding our privileges in favour of those of the courts.
I am proud of being a Member of this place with the right to use my privilege. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South when he said that there is no point in having privilege if we do not use it. On the other hand, if I happened to take Lord Denning's place as Master of the Rolls—I suspect that I never shall—I shall be equally keen on defending the privileges of the courts. The House will recall that Lord Denning, unsuccessfully as it turned out, attempted to tell the Attorney-General that he was answerable in his discretion to the Appeal Court and not merely to Parliament.
What worries me is that many of the statements which have been made by Members of the House over the last 10 days appear to have come from those who put their membership of and respect for the courts of justice before their respect for Parliament.
Mr. Percy Grieve: The whole point is that the privileges of the courts are not for the benefit of the courts, but to enable courts to do justice. Similarly, the privileges of Parliament are to enable Members of Parliament to do their duty as Members of Parliament. To emphasise these as one right against another is to mislead the public, who are listening, as to the respective merits of the two cases.
Mr. Price: I do not think that if the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) had studied "Erskine May" with the minute attention that I have, really for the first time, over the last 10 days, he could possibly say that the privileges of the courts and of the House were not in conflict. As I understand it, not being a lawyer, we base our privilege on the fact that there is a law and custom of Parliament—Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti. The courts have always tried to say that Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti is part of the common law of Britain. We have always asserted from our point that it is not—what it is a law which is special to us and special to Parliament. In that situation, it is absolutely reasonable to expect Parliament to clash with the courts just as it has clashed with the monarch and other great institutions in Britain in the past.
The truth is that our sub judice rule has been changed in the past and is a developing rule. When the Conservative Government decided to bring the whole gamut of industrial relations into the ambit of the courts, it was immediately clear that, if they did that, they would gag Parliament to a totally unacceptable extent. Therefore, in 1972 the House, at the instance of the noble lord, Lord Carr, brought forward a motion to amend the sub judice rule so that, not only on the National Industrial Relations Court, but on both civil and criminal matters, Mr. Speaker could use his discretion to allow discussion to go on. From that point of view, I think that Members of Parliament must assume that, until the Chair intervenes, the Chair is using its discretion. Our sub judice rule is not an absolute rule. It is a rule within the discretion of Mr. Speaker, and he exercised it quite recently in the case of a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) arising out of the Grunwick issue.
I think that those who expect the Committee of Privileges to come out with some kind of cut-and-dried rule on which, with a few hours' debate, we can vote and get clarity for the future may be expecting too much. I think that those privileges for which we have fought for many years have been worth fighting for and that, as a House, whatever the Committee of Privileges eventually reports, we would be foolish to throw them away lightly.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) for emphasising so consistently the concept of privilege and of absolute privilege. Absolute privilege is given only to the High Court of Parliament and to the courts of law. The conjoinder of that privilege is that it is exercised with absolute responsibility and that it is exercised alone by and is granted alone to those in the courts who, first and foremost, are the servants of justice and to those in Parliament who, first and foremost, are the servants of the Crown and of Parliament. It must be exercised with absolute responsibility.
It is perhaps because the word "absolute" is given that it is assumed that it is some form of anarchistic rule which enables all bounds of behaviour and all concepts to be cast aside and gives to the Member who has absolute privilege, be it in this High Court or in any other court, some kind of immunity from responsibility for his behaviour and utterances. But that is not so. It is the absolute reverse. It imposes upon a Member the absolute duty of responsibility for his utterances.
There would be nothing easier than for a member of the legal profession to use his absolute privilege to defame another member of the legal profession or another member of the public in the exercise of his forensic practice. But that would not be tolerated by the court, and the high standards of the profession would prevent it.
The House must also have its high standards and ensure that, under the cloak of what is called absolute privilege—as far as I can understand from the Gang of Four, it means absolute anarchy; the absolute right to undermine any rule and to do any mischief if they consider that it serves their purpose—Parliament is protected against those who use that great privilege merely to do mischief to the very rights which that privilege guarantees.
I greatly regret the absence not only of the Attorney-General, but of the Lord Advocate. As Members of the House will appreciate, and certainly as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, appreciate, in recent times there have been different decisions
76
by the courts in Scotland about the rights of the media and of newspapers and newspaper editors. Certainly the name of the late Lord Justice General Clyde still stirs in the hearts of all news editors and newspaper editors the fear that they might be in contempt of court.
I think it very likely that the courts in Scotland will take a much stricter view of the effect of a publication by a newspaper or the media of a matter which had been raised in Parliament which had been deliberately forbidden by a court. For instance, if a court in Scotland said that the name of a witness was not to be revealed and, in order to defy that court, for whatever motive, a Member of the House were to utter it and a newspaper were then to publish it, as the law of Scotland stands I can say with certainty that there would be no defence for that editor if he were charged with contempt of court. He would have no defence whatever in the law of Scotland, whatever the law of England may be, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) will know what that is. There may be a very different situation in Scotland. Therefore, I think that it is unfortunate that the interests of the law of Scotland are not represented by the Lord Advocate this afternoon.
In Scotland we have looked at this matter more closely and with more clarity than in England. As has been said—and I think that it was misunderstood—it is important that hon. Members should know that they cannot use absolute privilege in a vacuum. It carries with it absolute responsibility. A breach of that responsibility must be known to constitute a grave contempt of the House and of any other court in whose contempt it is.
It is an important principle, whether in this House or in any other court, that if one has the absolute privilege that we have, with it goes an absolute responsibility not to abuse it. If in this case there has been such an abuse, for any motive, I trust that the Committee will make that plain.
5.51 p.m.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I agreed almost entirely with everything that the right hon. Member for Down, South

77
(Mr. Powell) said. I shall also quote the sentence that he quoted from Mr. Speaker who said:
"Our privilege is something that was dearly obtained by our predecessors, but if it is abused it will be endangered."—[Official Report, 21st April 1978; Vol. 948, c. 866.]
It was dearly obtained. As some of my hon. Friends have said, Parliament frequently has been in conflict with the Crown and the courts. The conflict with the courts still continues and will continue. That is part of a live, vital and thriving democracy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said, there has been a recent major constitutional issue between Parliament and the courts. The Court of Appeal asserted that the Attorney-General was responsible to the courts. The Attorney-General forcefully and correctly asserted that he was responsible to Parliament. That was a conflict between Parliament and the courts. Conflicts are a natural feature of our constitutional history. We should not hide them, nor should we assume that there is a settled, establishment ethos to which we all subscribe and with which we all agree.
The rights and privileges that Parliament possesses were won. But they were won as a result of many battles. They were not handed down. Indeed, all the worthwhile rights that any individual has ever possessed are those for which someone had to fight. The worthwhile rights are not those which the individual has been given or has had handed down to him but for which the individual, or Parliament, has had to fight aggressively.
In the course of establishing the privileges that we now have and the freedoms that are extended to individual Members of Parliament, were not many rules broken, many conventions destroyed, many customs overturned? Had they not been, the powers that we possess today would not exist and we should not have a democracy.
It is also true, as Mr. Speaker said on 21st January, that if that privilege is abused it will be endangered. But it is equally right to say that there is no point in having a privilege if it is not used and if it is simply something that adorns constitutional textbooks. If a privilege means anything, it is there to be used by Members of Parliament when they think fit, in the interests of their con-
78
stituents and in the performance of their duties and functions as Members. If it is not used, it will certainly be endangered. It will be in danger of being fossilised.
I do not agree that the occasion that led to today's proceedings, when I and three of my hon. Friends named a certain gentleman, was an abuse of privilege. It was not an abuse of parliamentary privilege. My hon. Friends and I were entitled—and we properly exercised our entitlement—to say what we said on that occasion. Perhaps some Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends found it regrettable and distasteful and did not agree with it. But by any stretch of the imagination that cannot be construed as an abuse of parliamentary privilege. That is a matter of taste.
As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, whether it is an abuse, whether it is discreditable or to be regretted, is a subjective matter. Of course it is a matter of judgment. Hon. Members must form their own opinions. It is for them to decide. But it is legitimate to point out that individual hon. Members have to make their own judgments about when to exercise—and I agree it must be responsibly and sensitively—the privileges, freedoms and rights that the House bestowed upon them. My contention is that the events of Thursday 20th April constituted such an occasion.
Many Opposition Members have referred to our motives and intentions. Since the allegations about our motives and intentions, in some quarters, particularly outside the House, have been hysterical and wild, it is not unreasonable for me to indicate what were our motives and intentions. Our intention was to draw attention to what we believe to be the widely discredited Official Secrets Act and the deplorable inability of my Government to introduce legislation, as they promised in their October 1974 manifesto, to repeal Section 2 of that Act. It was also our intention—and this is a part of our function—to draw the attention of the House and that of the wider public to certain proceedings which we believed were bringing the law into contempt. Many hon. Members might not share our belief, and I accept that. But it is our belief which was and is sincerely held. It is our belief that the proceedings that are now before

79
certain courts are bringing the law into contempt and are making a farce of it.
I shall not trespass upon your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The reasons for our belief are that a certain gentleman, appearing in a certain court, it is said, should not have been named. When you were not in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, reference was made to the sub judice rule. I shall not take issue with that now, but some hon. Members have asserted that there was an order of the court. That is a matter of dispute between the sides and I shall not take, that further. The gentleman in question appeared in open court. His identity was not considered to be sufficiently sensitive or secretive—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member is starting to discuss the case without mentioning it. We have been having a good debate. It was good when I was in the Chair. I hope that we can discuss whether the issue goes to the Committee of Privileges without arguing what is being argued before the courts.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: May I talk of the hypothetical case of an individual who might have appeared in court and the court had asked that he should not be named? Since he did appear in court one could assume that his identity was not sufficiently sensitive or secret to prevent appearing in court or to suggest that the court should sit in camera.
This morning I spoke to the Royal Signals Institute. I was told that not only are all the people working in a particular organisation listed in its house journal but so are their promotions, postings, hobbies and addresses. That house journal is distributed to every member of that association. It is freely available. If that is so, I cannot understand how I and my hon. Friends could have caused this major constitutional crisis and debate today. That same person is named in every single document issued by the old boys' association—which goes all the way round the world. Any spy worth his salt could get a copy of it.
In those kind of circumstances, therefore, I contend that Parliament should not stand idly by while a Minister, who is not here today, who is not properly answerable to Parliament for his actions, and whom we cannot adequately ques-
80
tion, nevertheless is a party to and is taking certain proceedings that we are not allowed to discuss. We believe that his actions are in the best traditions of a Whitehall farce, and that we therefore have a duty to bring them to the attention of Parliament and to debate them, as we are tonight.
Very well, Mr. Speaker, we broke the rule—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Which rule?
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The rule that the Opposition say we broke. If they wish to suggest that we have broken the rule, then let us accept that. I wish to submit, Mr. Speaker, though you have not yet allowed me to make my case, that there was no such rule, or that at least there was doubt about it. I believe that we would have been failing in our duty on the occasion in question if we had not done what we did. That was a proper and legitimate use of the privilege of which the right hon. Member for Down, South so eloquently spoke. That privilege is one of the reasons that we are here. I submit, too, that this is a matter of great national importance and that it demands debate and discussion. I cannot accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West cannot, that on all occasions the courts should in effect arrogate to themselves the power to determine what Parliament may or may not discuss. In effect, that is what we in this High Court of Parliament are being asked to accept. If you like, Mr. Speaker—and I say this without any intention of disrespect—we are being told in a hypothetical instance by a magistrates' court what we in this House may or may not debate or decide.
All we did was to mention a name. It is absurd to suggest, as Conservative Members have suggested, that in doing that we were undermining a court or its jurisdiction or the result of a case. In no way did we discuss the merits of the prosecution or defence cases, or any other matter that was before the court. We mentioned only the name. Contrary to what the Conservatives alleged while you were not here, Mr. Speaker, we have not told the enemies of this country something they did not already know.
Mr. Skinner: Who is the enemy?
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: That is the problem. I understand that they are all around us. I should be the first to condemn anyone who gave such information to our enemies, whoever those enemies might be.
There are occasions—and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West has made this submission to you in the past, Mr. Speaker—where the sub judice rule stifled discussion and debate in Parliament. In this case this issue transcended the confines of the court. It required attention to be drawn to it and it required to be debated.
On Thursday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister talked about leaks from the Ministry of Defence. Had there been a briefing on that occasion, everything would have been all right. As it was, civil servants were involved and there was therefore a leak. If those responsible are apprehended presumably they will be subject to all the paraphernalia of the Official Secrets Acts. They will be brought before the courts. In that case the matters before the courts will include Service men's pay, how far it has or has not fallen behind the pay of civilian occupations, allegations about manpower losses from the Services, and the further leak in The Times today about inadequacies in the equipment of the British Army of the Rhine.
Are we to say, if that happens, that this House cannot debate major issues concerning the effectiveness of our fighting forces, that we cannot talk about Service pay or the loss of manpower? The Conservatives would be in a state of apoplexy if that were suggested. They would say that this was a matter of great national importance that required to be debated in this House. Incidentally, I do not know what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is doing in attempting to find these people. He should have been publishing the information in the first place so that the House could properly debate these matters.
The rights and privileges which membership of this House bestows upon us must be exercised with discretion and judgment. I believe that that was how we exercised it and I believe that we were right.
I turn now to the motion that was tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). It comes
82
under the umbrella that covers all the things that will be going to the Committee of Privileges. I am at a loss to understand the intent behind that motion. It is fair to point out that five of its six sponsors are lawyers, and perhaps they see their duty as being to a different court from the High Court of Parliament. Perhaps, bearing in mind the way that the Criminal Law Bill timetable was carved up to suit the convenience of the lawyers, they believe that on many occasions they have a higher duty than their duty to this House.
It is also relevant to point out that all the signatories to that motion are Conservatives. In the references to the Gang of Four, in what had been an arcane and relaxed philosophical discussion, there suddenly emerged these allegations about national security. Clearly the whole motive behind that motion, which it is suggested should be part of the motion submitted to the Committee of Privileges, is one of quick and cheap party advantage. Those behind the motion have been driven on by the more extreme and hysterically wild statements of the Tory Press. They see the chance of making party capital.
Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member asked what my motive was in putting down the motion. I thought that I had made it clear that my motive was that I considered that the hon. Gentleman had behaved disgracefully. Having listened to him for the last 20 minutes, I have no reason to change my mind one iota.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: That is another party point. For that reason, and in view of the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments, I cannot see the value of referring this matter to the Committee of Privileges. Surely that is not the place for the party battle to be fought out. I cannot believe that it would be conducive to a dispassionate, objective and fair discussion of the conduct of hon. Members in this matter if the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion were to be referred to the Committee in the vindictive atmosphere which it has generated. Incidentally, it embodies many of the expressions that appeared in the Tory Press, which has been most wild and hysterical in this matter. The supporters of the motion were clearly motivated by the politics of the witch hunt.
Mr. Robin F. Cook: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is precisely the tone of the intervention by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and the references to the Gang of Four in the preceding speeches from the Opposition Benches which illustrate the grave danger of this House seeking to determine when the use of privilege is use or abuse of that privilege? In these circumstances, the matter inevitably becomes one of partisan relationships. At present every hon. Member enjoys absolute privilege, but the danger is that that will become a privilege which can be relied upon only by those who can command a majority in the House.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I accept what my hon. Friend said.
There is another aspect to this matter. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that you told the House that you were in ignorance of what was happening in the courts when three hon. Gentlemen and an hon. Lady made certain comments during supplementary questions to the Business Statement last Thursday week. The first of those hon. Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson)—as the right hon. Member for Down, South said, was not brought to book. Had she been so, I can say quite clearly that my hon. Friends and I would have accepted unequivocally the ruling of Mr. Speaker. But he did not intervene and, as he has rightly pointed out, nor did any other hon. Gentleman. It does not become the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) in opening the debate to say that they did not know about this. That is just not true. There were cries of that lovely Tory word "disgraceful" when my hon. Friend first mentioned the unmentionable name. There were the usual discreet tut-tuts, all of which were heard quite clearly and distinctly on the radio that evening.
Obviously, hon. Members opposite knew very well what was going on. They had the weapon in their hands to stop it then and there, had they wished to do so. But they chose not to. It was only when the hysteria generated by the newspapers on Saturday made them feel that suddenly they were on to a good thing, that there was party capital to be made
84
here, that they could talk about traitors and treason, that this whole thing became quite a different issue—and a party issue at that.
That is regrettable because it means that we cannot discuss the matter in the important and dispassionate way that it demands. It also prejudices very seriously the discussions of the Committee of Privileges.
I turn to the Committee of Privileges itself. If the conduct of myself and my hon. Friends is to be referred to that Committee, I submit that its proceedings, should be open. I have nothing to hide or to fear from open meetings of the Committee. These should be open to the Press and to the public so that there can be full public discussion and debate on the whole matter.
It is somewhat ironic that this should have arisen out of the secrets trial that is being held in the open. Yet this case will be held in secret. If we are to avoid the impression to those outside, and indeed to myself and my hon. Friends, that we are not being asked to go before a kangaroo court or something reminiscent of a Star Chamber, I suggest the meetings should be open.
An element of hypocrisy has bedeviled this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) requested an emergency debate on Press freedom recently. Nothing more illustrates the double standards and hypocrisy of the Press than the way in which it has treated this matter. The Daily Mail, The Sun, the Daily Express, the Daily Mirror, The Guardian and The Times all named the particular individual on Friday. Then on the Saturday when they had had time to think about it, and they found that they had got their knickers in a twist slightly, The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express ran highly censorious, hysterical, wild and critical admonitions of myself and my hon. Friends. I accept that. It is perfectly legitimate.
However Press freedom has two sides. Just as the freedom of the Press means that newspapers can print what happens in Parliament, it also means that they can exercise their own discretion and judgment and decide not to publish anything that they believe to be in bad taste, regrettable, unfortunate or even, perhaps, aiding and giving sustenance to our

85
enemies. Yet the papers used that name in the name of Press freedom one day and condemned myself and my hon. Friends the next.
One important thing has come out of this affair. My hon. Friends and I had, as our main objection, not the particular colonel, but the Government's refusal to legislate, as they promised this Session, to repeal Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and replace it with a freedom of information act. If we have succeeded in drawing attention to that, the whole exercise has been worth while.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: An element of the confusion which seems to have arisen concerning the events of Thursday 20th April is due to the fact that the word "privilege" is used in two completely different contexts. It has been used to refer to the privilege of Parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords on the one hand, and to the absolute privilege and qualified privilege in the context of civil law on defamation on the other. Because the same word has been used in totally different contexts, inferences have been drawn which are absurd and misleading rather than informative.
If we start from the accepted fact of doctrine that this House cannot, by auto-resolution, extend its own privilege, it becomes clear that this reference to the Committee of Privileges cannot have as its result the extension of the privilege of the House of Commons to an ambit in which it did not previously exist.
It is possible by legislation, by enactment, by statute law to extend the privilege of Parliament as a whole or of either or both of its Houses, but it does not lie within the competence and the power of the Committee of Privileges or the House of Commons to extend its privilege where it does not currently exist. On that we should be quite clear.
Therefore, the task falling to the Committee of Privileges, if this motion is carried, will be one of judging rules and judging conduct, but not one of deciding whether the privilege of this House should be declared to extend where Mr. Speaker has—in my opinion—so very rightly declared that it does not extend.
The only reason why anyone could have believed that the privilege of this
86
House extended into a territory where it clearly does not extend is that there has been the confusion to which I have already alluded. The fact that a newspaper or an individual outside this House can, in certain circumstances, plead absolute privilege or qualified privilege as a defence to a civil action for libel or slander has nothing whatever to do with the privilege of Parliament. It has a lot to do with the law of defamation, but nothing to do with the privilege of Parliament.
Similarly, if somebody commits treason within the House that does not lose the characteristic of treason because the same act is committed by repetition outside the House. What privilege does is something else. It was summed up rather well in the ninth article of the Bill of Rights. What privilege says about this House is not that there is absolute licence to say anything within its precincts—in the Chamber or in a Committee Room during a formal sitting; what privilege says is that a court exterior to this House shall not inquire into such acts within the Chamber. But it does not say that there is a licence to say anything within the Chamber. Indeed, the reverse is sometimes the case.
We are bound by our rules not to refer in debate to happenings in Committees of this House upstairs which have not yet reported to this House and to happenings in open sittings of such Committees, yet it is no breach of privilege for a newspaper to report such happenings.
This works both ways. There are breaches of our own rules in the House, which the House has customarily punished, which would not necessarily be offences if committed outside the House. It has been held that the privilege of the House does not extend to an hon. Member who has made a speech, under privilege, in this Chamber and has defamed a person in the course of doing so when that Member has sought to extend the frontier of the privilege of the House by reading his own speech outside the House. It has been held that that does not extend the umbrella of parliamentary privilege outside the House.
Certainly there are ambits in which the privilege of the House extends outside the House—and necessarily so. The House has always claimed, as part of its

87
privilege, the right to protect in a certain way witnesses who have given evidence before a Select Committee of the House or at the Bar of the House.
Many of us will recall a recent case in which an employee of the National Coal Board gave evidence to a Select Committee of the House and subsequently claimed that he had lost his job through victimisation by his employer because of the evidence that he had given to the Select Committee. The reason why the House did not punish that man's employer for breach of privilege was not that it decided that privilege did not exist in that context; it was that it decided that the complainant had not established the facts that he alleged, namely, that he had been punished for evidence given before a Select Committee. That is an example of the privilege of the House necessarily extending outside its precincts.
There are other occasions when the analogy is more that the precincts of the House extend themselves, as when, elsewhere in the United Kingdom, a Select Committee duly appointed by resolution of the House takes evidence in formal session. In that event, the privilege of the House extends outside the Palace of Westminster. The privilege of the House extends outside the Palace of Westminster when the Serjeant at Arms is sent with Mr. Speaker's warrant—or, in olden days, bearing the Mace to expose it as the authority of the House—to bring before the House a person whom the House has commanded to be brought. However, these are exceptions to the normal rule of the privilege of the House being something spacially, as well as contextually, limited to the House.
It has also been held that to report accurately outside the House one speech, without reporting the rest of the debate—not in terms of parliamentary privilege, but in terms of that entirely different kind of privilege, which is a defence to an action for defamation—is not a good defence.
The old law and constitution of Parliament have been mentioned. It is true not only that we cannot extend our privilege but that in certain contexts that privilege has atrophied. The House once claimed that to arrest a Member's servant
88
outside the House under conditions in which it would be a breach of privilege to arrest a Member constituted a breach of privilege and warranted punishment in the form of being summoned here and admonished by the House.
However, as to the motion before us, there is no real decision that the Committee of Privileges has to take on the question whether the privilege of the House has in any way been infringed by or is concerned with the events of Thursday 20th April. Clearly, it has not.
The Committee of Privileges must consider what goes with the privilege. The self-discipline of Parliament goes with the privilege of Parliament. It is an absurd view that such self-discipline ought not to act unless and until it is imposed by Mr. Speaker. That proposition was advanced earlier. It means that unless Mr. Speaker possesses precognition, no one is capable of saying any thing in the House that the House would wish to prevent or punish until it has been said and Mr. Speaker has intervened and declared that it should not have been said. That is a manifestly absurd proposition. After all, Mr. Speaker is a servant of the House and not its master. The rules of which Mr. Speaker has the duty to remind Members are not Mr. Speaker's rules; they are the rules of the House of Commons itself.
The question that often comes before the Committee of Privileges is not, therefore, whether there has been a breach of privilege, as such, but whether an hon. Member or a group of Members have so conducted themselves—this has not always to do with spoken words, but can have to do with actions taken—as to constitute in some cases an abuse of the privilege of the House, and in this case an abuse of the privilege not to have a court outside the House inquiring into words said within the House.
On other occasions the conduct that the Committee of Privileges is charged with assessing and on which it is charged with commenting and making a recommendation to the House can vary. There could be such conduct as deliberately delaying a Division so that the normal procedures of the House are frustrated. One such instance will be within the memory of many Members. That is the function of

89
the Committee of Privileges. When performing that function, it is not in any sense ruling or declaring; it is only advising the House which sets it up in the first place.
The question has been asked whether we mean to change any of our practices. That falls more naturally within the remit of the Committee on Procedure than within the remit of the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: I was not suggesting that the question of enlarging the rules about mentioning anybody's name should be sent to the Committee of Privileges. I was merely suggesting that it should be considered because it would have obviated the difficulties in which the House is now placed.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If we can agree that something should be considered, that does not necessarily mean that the most appropriate place for it to be considered is the Committee of Privileges rather than the Committee on Procedure.
There have been occasions when the House has wanted to debate a matter in private and has wished, at the same time, no record of the debate to be made. It has done this either by the technical device of spying strangers or by a concrete resolution of the House to go into secret session.
Whether such a device should be used when the House wishes to discuss a matter that is not of national security but is sub judice—although the one does not exclude the other—is surely a question that properly falls within the province not of the Committee of Privileges—it has nothing to do with privilege—but of the Committee on Procedure—it has everything to do with procedure.
That is why, out of the events that have led to the debate, we should disentangle the strands of judging the conduct of some of our colleagues, if we believe that this task needs to be performed, and of recommending any changes in procedure which may be necessary so that the House can legitimately debate matters that it is proper for it to debate but publication of which outside the House would frustrate another purpose, such as the high purpose of justice, so as to bring about an apparent collision of objective between Parliament and the
90
courts, both of whom have functions pro bono publico to perform.
I recommend the Leader of the House to refer to the Committee of Privileges the question of the conduct of the hon. Members who, on Thursday 20th April, mentioned the name of the officer—an action which some claim was in circumstances that were sub judice and others claim was not—and, quite separately, that there should be referred to the Committee on Procedure, as it has nothing to do with privilege, the question whether the House should devise means whereby both Parliament and the courts can, separately, perform functions, for example in the context of the sub judice rule, in such a manner that they do not impair each other's functions. This is an entirely necessary and sensible course of action.
As a sub-heading comes any problem that may arise within the context of instantaneous transmission. There is a possible solution to this problem. In the past hon. Members have been entitled to spy strangers. I have done so once myself, with the result that the Question is put, without debate, that strangers should be ordered to withdraw.
There is no reason why the Committee on Procedure should not recommend and the House adopt a Standing Order that an hon. Member may rise on a point of order and say that he wishes to raise a matter that is sub judice, of which he has given Mr. Speaker private notice—so that he knows what the hon. Member is talking about—and, if Mr. Speaker considers that it is a proper matter to put to the House, he may order that the Strangers Gallery and the Press Gallery should be cleared and that instantaneous transmission should be terminated. There is no reason why such a procedure should not be adopted for a sub judice matter, in the same way as it is adopted in a security matter when there is consensus in the House or when a majority of the House believes that such action is desirable.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise the irony implicit in his remarks, which seem to lead to the suggestion that in future we should make a practice of having secret sessions, as this debate arises out of the need to have our proceedings reported?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I do not recognise any irony at all. It is clear that some hon. Members feel that circumstances arise in which there are matters that they wish to discuss in the House, but that its rules do not allow to be raised.
There is no irony in suggesting means by which such desires can be accommodated without frustrating another process of the State pro bono publico, namely, the administration of justice in the courts. It would be ironic if the House were unable or unwilling to face and deal sensibly with such an obvious problem in a number of obvious ways, one of which I have spelled out. There is no irony in that.
It may be that if the Leader of the House agrees with the analysis that I have offered of the functions of the Committee of Privileges of judging conduct and the Committee on Procedure of regulating this aspect of our affairs, he will think it right to ask leave to withdraw this motion and table two separate motions that would give effect to the suggestions that I have thought it right and helpful to make to the House.
6.38 p.m.
Miss Jo Richardson: Until the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) I thought that he had not read the motion. He was not talking to the motion, but seemed, rather, to have put my colleagues and myself in the dock. As far as I could follow his tortuous, not to say hybrid, argument, that seemed to be its whole purport.
I welcome the debate and the opportunity to explore the situation that has arisen since 20th April and that is exercising the House. I have listened with great care to what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said and I must tell those who have been critical that I am entirely unrepentant of having taken the action that I did on 20th April.
I gather that the action taken by my hon. Friends and myself has been repeated by the counsel for the Attorney-General, who named the same gentleman in court today. While speaking about the Attorney-General, I welcome the appearance on the Government Front Bench of a representative from the Law Officers' Department. We have commented before that there has been no one
92
from the Department to listen to this important debate.
The action of my hon. Friends and myself was not taken in an irresponsible sense of mischief as some newspapers have suggested. Right hon. and hon. Members in this debate have implied that all four of us have been abusing the privilege given to Members of Parliament in this House. Others have already made the point that it was a hard-won privilege—a privilege that exists for each of us to use as we, in our judgment, feel necessary.
I decided to use that privilege because I felt that it was in the public interest to do so following the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is what originally caused me to do what I did. I also wanted to try to expose the difficulties of journalists in reporting details of court cases which are of wide interest to the public as well as to this House. We know that two newspapers and the National Union of Journalists are now in court in defence of the rights of newspapers to report facts to the public.
Our decision to broadcast parliamentary proceedings gives weight to this point. The media, by feeding in voices, can now add a bit of colur and bite to descriptions of what happens in this place. Part of our proceedings are broadcast live, and I understand that that is now happening to this debate.
Reference has been made to the difficulties that would arise if we ever thought of censoring the live part of the broadcasts. It has also been suggested that somebody would have to have his hand on the buzzer. I believe that in some live broadcasts—I am not referring to broadcasts of our proceedings—it is the practice for the broadcast to go out 10 seconds behind the actual spoken words. I understand that this enables the person in charge of the broadcast to have an opportunity to cut out a doubtful reference. I suppose that is done in order to try to cut out obscene language, which may be embarrassing if heard over the radio. That criterion does not apply to the House of Commons. We surely do not want to see censorship creeping in here.
It is obvious that live broadcasting will create new situations. The sooner we sit down and realise that we are into

93
a new ball game the better. I believe that we must now consider the matter on the basis of the question whether it is right that the people who sit in the Public Gallery should hear things which the wider public, when the broadcasting is edited, may not hear. That is one of the problems that we must consider.
Another reason why I took the action that I did on 20th April was that I was very keen to draw attention to what I believed was an absurd situation in the courts. If there is a contempt case in a court which hon. Members feel is deeply wrong and absurd, are we not to use our hard-won privilege to expose the absurdity of the situation? I am not suggesting that we should discuss the case itself. I do not believe that a court trying a contempt case would be particularly prejudiced one way or the other by what was said in the Press or in this House.
I am not a lawyer, but I understand that contempt cases are tried by judges rather than juries. In 1960, in the Court of Appeal, in the case of R. v. Duffey, Lord Chief Justice Parker commented that where experienced judges alone decided the issue they could be relied on to be completely uninfluenced by Press reports. That being so, it would seem to me that there is no reason why a Member of Parliament should not comment on a matter without influencing the court in any way.
There is one aspect of the sub judice matter that mystifies me. One of my hon. Friends reminded me that over a period of two years when the Clay Cross councillors were going through the courts, week after week and month after month, the subject of Clay Cross was often mentioned in this House by hon. Members on both sides. On those occasions there was no question of the sub judice rule being invoked. Since I am not a parliamentary expert, I wish somebody would explain how some cases may be commented upon whereas others may not.
I understand that in 1972 there was a resolution of the House that led Mr. Speaker to admit reference in debate to matters awaiting adjudication in court—matters of national importance. I believe—you will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Speaker—that in 1976 you confirmed this suggestion when you spoke of the deliber-
94
ate relaxation of the rule in matters of public policy.
The cases that gave rise to this debate this evening are certainly matters of public policy, but the principal reason why I took my decision was that I felt deeply that something should be done to draw the attention of the House and the public to the difficulties facing everybody in this country as a result of the continuing existence of our present Official Secrets Act, and the severe restrictions that it places on the freedom of information. That is a matter of public policy and one on which one was entitled to take action.
A reason for withholding the name of a witness in a case could be to protect him against enemy action. However, this could introduce into a trial an air of unnecessary secrecy which would be prejudicial to the defendants. If emotive phrases such as "national security" are used by the prosecution in the context of cases under the Official Secrets Act, they have a sinister air in the minds of the public in respect of the defendant.
The phrase "national security" was frequently used in the long arguments in the House about the Agee-Hosenball case—the case that started the whole saga that led to this debate. Justice was not done in that case, because the Secret Service cloak prevented a revelation of the charges against those concerned, and the Government found themselves in a ludicrous position. That is shown by the fact that one of the two gentlemen concerned, Mr. Mark Hosenball, who was finally deported and returned to the United States, in a matter of weeks became an accredited Press representative to the White House.
This House should be concerned with the law and should ensure that justice is done to investigative journalists whose only crime in this instance is to try to dig up material showing the stupidities of the Official Secrets Act. I remind the House and particularly my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that in our October 1974 manifesto Labour promised to replace the Official Secrets Acts. We are not nitwits. We all accept that genuine defence matters and matters of national security must have a cloak of secrecy around them. There is no question about that. But we must not

95
lose sight of the rights of the individual citizen to question and to know what the Government are doing.
We have been promised a White Paper on official secrets in a few weeks' time. From what we have heard, it will do little to help the situation. Unless we can expose the difficulties in which every citizen remains while we have the present Acts, we shall go on for years with the minimum revision of Official Secrets Acts, which will endanger every individual. We understand that all that will happen is a revision of Section 2. That is not enough. We should also have a revision certainly of Section 1 and possibly many other sections. Let us have a genuine debate about the whole matter while we are about it.
What the Government apparently intend to do in no way carries out the spirit and the message of our election manifesto commitment. Incidentally, I am glad to hear that the national executive of the Labour Party is producing far-reaching proposals for a freedom of information Act. Perhaps the next Labour Government can be persuaded to implement them.
This country has had enough of unnecessary secrecy, secrecy which frightens citizens into a blind acceptance of what "authority" wants them to know. A real democracy involves challenge to that authority. Full freedom of information, which would have made unnecessary this debate and the actions of my hon. Friends and myself, is fundamental to healthy and open government.
6.53 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) did not respond to an offer of an example of irony from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise). I make another suggestion to him, which perhaps will receive a better reception.
To some extent this debate is connected with the recent decision to broadcast the proceedings of the House. It does not centre solely upon that decision, but it is not wholly unconnected with it. Does it occur as a possible and acceptable irony to the hon. Gentleman that for the first time since the war, a few weeks after we decided to broadcast the proceedings
96
of the House, an hon. Member in all seriousness made the suggestion that we should go into secret session?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I suggested that we should go into secret session to enable us to discuss matters that we should not have been able to discuss even before broadcasting came, so there is no irony in it whatever. This would still have been the case in such circumstances, even without the advent of broadcasting.
Mr. Mendelson: There is no doubt about it. The House knows what the hon. Gentleman had in mind. None the less, even though it may not appeal to the hon. Gentleman, I think it worth while putting it on record that those many right hon. and hon. Members who foresaw a number of problems that might arise if it were once decided to broadcast the proceedings of the House, by television or by news radio and sound broad-casting, also foresaw that those problems would not be only of a technical character.
When he thinks the matter over at home, the hon. Gentleman may accept at least a smile of irony at the suggestion that it is at this early stage that the suggestion of a secret session has been seriously made. I hope that it will not be followed up by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in spite of the blandishments in the hon. Gentleman's speech. I know that my right hon. Friend is not a friend of secret sessions. I hope that the emergency that produced secret sessions in the middle of the war wilt not occur over the next hundred years, so that a future generation deals with this proposal.
This may be a day to say, when we are reminded that there are so many big problems of enemies at various doors, that we must take into account a number of matters when we discuss our proceedings and the decisions that we must make in this House. But although it will be agreed that broadcasting is an element in this debate, it is not the main element.
I am glad that, as is characteristic of him, the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) is still with us after making his speech. He is not in the habit of quite a number of others of producing a propaganda blast, making accusations against other hon. Members

97
and then absenting himself for the rest of the debate, as the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) has done. If he makes accusations against hon. Members the hon. and learned Gentleman should be here to face their replies and the replies of others, and not run away after he has made the attack.
The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn, as always, is taking his stand after making his speech and is ready to reply to responses to it, so I begin with him, because in many ways his was perhaps the key contribution from one side of the argument. I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider, first, that this is a rather peculiar debate in its origins. I completely reject any suggestion that if the motion were carried by the House there would be any instruction to the Committee of Privileges from the House that four Members, or any Member, should be indicted and any offence that they are alleged to have committed should be considered by the Committee. There is no such motion before the House. This point has not yet been made in the debate, and it is one of the main reasons why I was anxious to take part, even at this late stage.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, and as the House knows, if any suggestion is ever made that Members or a Member should be referred before the Committee of Privileges for an offence they are alleged to have committed, what is needed is a motion. Before that motion can be moved, Mr. Speaker, you must rule that a prima facie case exists. You have not so ruled. You have not been asked to rule, and therefore you could not rule. We do not know whether you would have done so if you had been asked.
Therefore, the situation is quite different from the normal cases of motions to refer the conduct of Members to the Committee of Privileges, and so the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong if he says that his main purpose is that this should be done by the Committee. He and his colleagues put down an Early-Day Motion. There are hundreds of Early-Day Motions on the Order Paper. But an Early-Day Motion does not have the force and power of an instruction to the Committee. Such a reference can come about only by resolution of the House. That is the first point that I wish to put
98
on record, and I think that it is relevant to the debate.
What we have is a motion. It is only because it is worded as it is that I, and I dare say many other hon. Members and right hon. Members, may be prepared to vote for it. The purpose is that all the matters involved in the problems that have been raised may be considered by an appropriate Committee of the House, to see where we stand, to make a general survey, to consider the principles and all the possibilities and consequences that might arise from changes such as the broadcasting of the House, and attitudes recently adopted in the courts which as a consequence might be introduced into the work of the House.
I say in passing that over the years I have been one of those—I am by no means alone—who have argued that if the House is to reform its procedure, it must do so by its own decisions, in order to serve the public better, not because of the introduction of mechanical instruments from outside. We have so far rejected, and I shall certainly continue to reject, the introduction of the television cameras into the Chamber, because we do not want the House to be reformed by outside cameras. If we need reform—and clearly the House must from time to time reform its procedure—it must be done by us in response to needs that arise because we want to serve the public better.
That brings me to the definition of privilege that has been used a good deal this afternoon. Of course, we are all agreed that it is a most unfortunate term. The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), briefly intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) to tell him very briefly, before also disappearing, that of course the courts were there only to serve the system. He did not make it clear to me what we are here for.
I have always understood that it was common ground that the term "privilege" is a misnomer. Privilege means that Members of Parliament are given such conditions of work as enable them to do their job for their constituents without their security being endangered. I am glad to see that I carry the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) with me in my remarks. In years gone by, in

99
its most primitive form, privilege meant that if a Member wanted to raise a matter affecting the interests of some of his constituents and there were powerful people in the constituency who might attack him, he would be protected and enabled to do his job properly without fear or favour.
To try to erect a contrast between the function of a court and the function of Parliament is absurd. It belittles the equally important functions of Parliament and the House of Commons. The creative tension between a system of justice that is divided into the courts and the High Court of Parliament is bound to be continuous. There can be no escaping that. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will agree that it need not be unhealthy, provided that all of those involved take their stand.
One of the things that has disturbed me today—I say this without rancour to hon. and learned Members—is that so many members of the legal profession have to some extent belittled the function of Parliament as compared with the function of the courts. That is a dangerous tendency which we must not allow to creep into our debates. The consequence of our debate ought to be that the Committee of Privileges must approach the problems that we refer to it in the broadest possible way. If my right hon. Friend is prepared to give that assurance, I shall be prepared to support the motion.
It ought to be clearly understood that it is completely unworthy of hon. Members to make accusations of a rather personal nature, either in the Press or in this House, against my hon. Friends. The House knows that I would say the same thing if all four Members sat on the Opposition side of the House, or belonged to any third or fourth party. It was quite clear—I was in my seat on the afternoon in question—that all the hon. Members involved were doing their job in the public interest. They were raising a matter on grounds of public policy. No other motivation was possible. That being so, they must be the judges of what they think right and of the methods they use.
We should allow no one, either you, Mr. Speaker, or any Committee of the House, to prevent what we say being published. To do that would be to embark
100
on the road to censorship. I do not believe that any hon. Members wish to censor the House of Commons. But the danger exists. It is easy to fall into the trap of saying that some hon. Members are more responsible than others. It is well known that some of the greatest parliamentary heroes in the history of this House were regarded as the most irresponsible at the time when they were doing their most famous parliamentary deeds. I need not rehearse their names or labour the point in an assembly as well-informed as this House.
Some of the most important points in today's debate were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The Opposition Front Bench and other right hon. and hon. Members ought to join with us in saying that the only proper instruction to the Committee of Privileges is that it should consider this problem in the broadest possible sense. There is no mandate to indict anyone. The Committee should give us an outline of the way in which it thinks we can best organise these matters in the future.
7.4 p.m.
Mr. Foot: May I intervene with one or two sentences? I am sure that everyone who has listened to the debate will agree that it is bound to be extremely helpful to the Committee of Privileges when it meets—from the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) who has just spoken. I am not even excluding the speech of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). Those speeches will have helped shape the way in which the Committee of Privileges can approach this matter.
I am glad to give my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone the assurance for which he has asked. Of course, I believe that the motion is framed so that all these matters can be considered in the widest context. The motion might be regarded as an Aaron's Rod of a motion, eating up all the other snakes in the other motions. I am not casting any aspersions on those other motions.
Mrs. Wise: Will my right hon. Friend also assure the House that there is no

101
implication that any changes are necessary? It may well be that the Committee of Privileges decides that the situation is perfectly adequate and that what we need to do is defend it.
Mr. Foot: The Committee of Privileges will be free to come to any conclusions that it wishes and to make recommendations to the House. It is the House that decides the matter eventually. The Committee of Privileges, like every other Committee of this House, is subordinate to the House. In some respects, it may be that when the House of Commons or the Committee of Privileges looks at what has happened it will see the reasons for some of the privileges that we have and why they should be sustained.
I believe that there are other matters that have arisen that need to be looked at and that the Committee of Privileges is the proper body to which these matters should be sent. As in all such cases, this House will retain the final authority to decide the matter when it comes back to it. I am sure that when the issue does come back we shall need to debate it again. On that basis, I hope that the House will be prepared to accept the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the matter of publication of the Proceedings of the House, other than by order of the House, in so far as the Privileges of this House are concerned and the matter of the application of the sub judice rule during Business Questions on Thursday 20th April be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (ENLARGEMENT)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]
[Commission documents: Nos. S/227/76, Com. (78) 120 Final and the Explanatory Memorandum 7th March 1978.]
7.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): The Government welcome this opportunity, provided by the Opposition, to debate the question of the enlargement of the European Community. We are convinced that the issue is of immense political significance and that it is right that the House should be able to monitor progress and to put its views on record. This evening's debate, although somewhat truncated, will prove to be part of an ongoing process of evaluation and comment by the House and its Committees.
In our view Ministers must be at least as accountable on this far-reaching issue as they are on Community affairs of considerably less importance. The timing of the debate has two or three snags. First, the so-called fresco prepared by the Commission was issued only in the past few days and there has not been much time to absorb it. To facilitate the debate I have taken exceptional steps to make available to the House the only text of this fresco that the Government have received, although it is an advance copy and not the definitive text.
Secondly, the Commission's case on Portugal, which will be highly relevant, is expected very soon. It is not yet available. Thirdly, the Secretary of State deeply regrets that his presence at the Council of Foreign Ministers in Brussels today—where Ministers will have had their first look, as a Council, at the scenarios set out in the fresco proposed by the Commission—makes it impossible for him to be present in the House, although I believe that he is trying to do everything possible to get back before the debate concludes.
It was because the Government had been anxious that the House should have at its disposal as much information as possible on this key topic that we provided, in March, a lengthy memorandum covering the various aspects of enlargement. It seemed to us that this would

103
be a better basis for debate than the only other document so far available directly related to the subject, namely, document S/227/76, on Greek accession. We are determined to go on making available as much background information as possible on this and on all other EEC matters.
At the start of our debate there is one point that I should like to make as clear as possible. Although the Government's general approach to enlargement is on record—I shall restate it this evening—in following this through the Government wish to take fully into account the views of Parliament. Therefore, from the Government's stand point, the most valuable part of the debate will be the opportunity it gives us to listen to Parliament. But it will also have considerable value, in my view, if it serves to stimulate at least some public awareness of the issue and of the importance as undoubtedly the biggest single issue now facing the Community.
The Government unequivocally support the concept of enlargement. This stand is based first and foremost on our strong political commitment to the support of democracy in Greece, Portugal and Spain. We believe that Community membership would, for these countries, be an important factor in stabilising and protecting their democracy. By encouraging their European vocation we would be stimulating the still fairly early growth of democratic tendencies. At the very least, we would be denying the weapon of having been rejected to those who might want to exploit it.
What is more, political and economic factors cannot be separated. The relation between the commitment to democracy and a sound economic base is extremely close. In helping the applicant countries to enjoy a share of the economic benefits of membership of the Common Market, the Community will be helping stability, which will be essential soil for democracy to grow in.
The Government believe it an overriding consideration to assist the consolidation of democracy in Southern Europe, for its advent in such a short space of time is surely one of the most encouraging developments in world politics of recent years. Even if it were not already expressly provided in the Treaty of Rome that each
104
European country has the right to seek membership of the Community, there can be no question about the need to bring the applicant countries back into the main stream of Western democratic development.
The political imperative is most clear when we consider the alternative. A rebuff to these tender democracies could cause incalculable harm not only domestically and for bilateral relations but to Western interests generally.
Linked with this view of the political imperative is the Government's attitude towards the timetable for negotiations, and the need for enlargement to 12 and not to 10 or to 11. The political imperative is urgent and applies equally to all three countries. Greece is first in the queue. Therefore it is only natural that Greece should be ahead in the negotiations. The Government are glad that substantive negotiations with the Greeks began in February and are committed to working with our partners towards breaking the back of the negotiations by the end of this year. But the urgency applies to all three, and all must be given equal priority. Delays could lead to frustration and to harming the very thing that the Community wishes to foster. The Government have therefore pressed consistently hard for greater urgency in preparation of the Commission's opinion on Portugal which, as I have reminded the House, is now imminent, and the opinion on Spain, which is due early next year.
It is particularly important to proceed swiftly with the Portuguese and Spanish applications so that there can be no question of pulling up the drawbridge after Greece enters. It is a cardinal point of the Government's thinking that enlargement must be to 12 and not to 10 or to 11. It would be disastrous for the applicants and for the Community itself were the Portuguese or Spanish negotiations to be delayed or stopped because the Community has begun to have doubts about the enlargement as the wider implications became apparent. While all the Nine have expressed general support for enlargement, it is for this reason that the Government consider that there must be a clear understanding in the Community that we are all aiming for a Community of 12.
It is clear that political arguments and pressures are the main driving force behind

105
the wish to enlarge to 12, but we must not allow this political commitment to obscure other considerations. There must be no shirking the fact that there will be a price to pay. The Community in general, and Britain in particular, must face up to some very thorny problems to which solutions will simply have to be found.
Permit me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at this point to give a word of background about the three applicants. Greece was the first country to enter into an association agreement with the Community. This was signed in 1961. Although the agreement was in a sense put into cold storage during the period when the colonels were in power in Athens, it has, none the less, meant that Greece is already well on the way to harmonising her trade and other arrangements with those of the Community. This will mean that the adjustment which Greece will have to undergo on joining will be less extensive that it would otherwise have been.
Portugal has an economy whose industry is traditionally based on steel and textiles. Her future plans for diversification, based, as they are, on petrochemicals, motor vehicles and shipbuilding, will not diminish some of the current problems faced by the Community as a whole. As an EFTA country, she has a free trade agreement with the Community. There is already free trade between Portugal and the EEC for much of our own trade, although restraint arrangements are still maintained in certain particularly sensitive sectors, such as textiles.
Spain has had a trade agreement with the Community since 1970. Negotiations are at present under way to broaden the scope of that agreement. If agreement can be reached, this should serve as a useful stepping stone for Spain's entry to the EEC.
Details of the likely implications of enlargement are set out in the Government's memorandum and in the Commission fresco to which I have referred. There is no need for me to go over all this ground again, but I should like to draw attention to particular points that Britain and the Community will have to face up to.
Budgetary costs have been very much present in the Government's mind. As I
106
fear is perhaps too often overlooked. Britain is already a net contributor to the Community budget in no modest sense—£377 million last year—and we obviously have to look very carefully at expenditure which will increase the United Kingdom's net contribution.
In so far as the Government have been able to estimate budgetary costs to the United Kingdom, it would seem that the total would be between £90 million and £115 million a year on the basis of present policies. This is certainly not a meagre amount, but it has to be weighed in the political balance. I must stress that the estimate is extremely tentative and that in any case present policies are bound to change under the impact of enlargement.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Would it not also be proper to say that in addition to that budgetary cost there would be additional capital cost in respect of Portugal, so that the total bill for this country would be substantially higher?
Mr. Judd: I was hoping to deal with that point, if I might, in a moment.
In addition, it is impossible to estimate the amount of special financial aid that the Community may give. The Government note that in the fresco the Commission seems to envisage special assistance for Portugal alone of the three, in the form of expenditure through the International Monetary Fund and the European Investment Bank. We think that the emphasis here should be on using existing institutions and that, particularly in the short term, member States of the Community should continue to play their part in supporting Portugal's balance of payments through the IMF, and that development of investment should be facilitated particularly by loans from the EIB.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Why does the Minister say that? Am I not right that all the IMF is prepared to do is to give a loan of up to $50 million, with disciplines attached? If that is successful, there will be a European line of credit, but there is no question of the IMF backing it up to the extent that Portugal requires.
Mr. Judd: That is a very important point. There can always be discussion about the extent to which we should be supporting Portugal, and there can be a

107
debate among IMF members on this point, but our view remains unchanged that support should go through the IMF.
Mr. Thorpe: This is a very important point. It is all very well for the Minister to say what he would like the IMF to do. My point is that the IMF is prepared only to extend a line of credit to the tune of $50 million, plus certain disciplines about cutting back public expenditure, bank rate and so forth, so that it is no good the Minister saying that he would like to see it. We must deal with reality. What he has said, therefore, is unwittingly misleading the House, because the IMF is not prepared to go beyond a very limited amount of loan. Therefore we have to consider that the rest of the Community will have to chip in with very much more.
Mr. Judd: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and he can no doubt pursue it in his contribution. I remain committed to the point that we believe that, while there can be a real debate about the level of support that should be available through the IMF, and indeed the conditions on which it should be available, basically that support should go through wider international institutions of that kind, rather than through the Community.
We should also bear in mind the obligation that we would anyway feel to help the democratic Government in Portugal, whether or not that country was a candidate for membership of the Community. The Community has already since 1974 decided to extend EIB loans to Portugal worth about £275 million. Bilaterally, we in Britain have allocated aid to Portugal worth over £5 million, as well as contributing $20 million to the multilateral balance of payments facility organised by the IMF. In addition, of course, we help Portugal considerably through the World Bank.
As to the implications for industry, we must face up to the fact that the applicants are low-cost producers in areas of industry which are currently acutely sensitive within the Community—for example, textiles, steel and shipbuilding.
Negotiations will be very difficult in these areas and special arrangements will need to be made for the transitional
108
periods. These periods will, of course, take us up to the mid-1980's and beyond. It is impossible to foresee what will be the state of the world economy by then.
The Government have noted with interest the suggestion in the fresco that common disciplines in these sensitive areas of industry should be concerted with the applicants. We see advantage in some concertation, but we shall obviously want to look very carefully at any suggestions for establishing new Community-wide policies for industry or in other sectors to take account of enlargement. A plus point to bear in mind in our case is that the United Kingdom has a favourable trade balance with all three applicants, and most United Kingdom exports are industrial products.
As for agriculture, there is a danger that the inclusion of three new countries growing Mediterranean produce may lead to surpluses in Mediterranean products to add to the already existing surpluses in northern products. The Government are watching this and trying to see that in current discussions on Mediterranean agriculture within the existing Community the disturbing mistakes made over northern products are not repeated. Other northern States share, of course, our interest in holding down the costs of Mediterranean agriculture. Fishing will also present complications to be overcome, although a lot will depend upon what emerges as the common fisheries policy of the Nine.
A point I wish to stress in relation to regional policy is that enlargement will inevitably add another layer to the already existing problem of increasing divergence within the Community. The Community must in any case face up to the fact that much more must be done on regional and social policy to remedy this. Enlargement makes it all the more vital for the Community to get to grips with this problem.
It is difficult to predict the effects of enlargement on free movement of labour Much will depend on levels of demand and economic activity in the existing member States and the applicant countries. The Government welcome the reference in the fresco to the likelihood of transitional arrangements. However, there was no flood of workers from the poor Italian South to this country when the

109
United Kingdom joined the Community. There was, and will quite likely still be, a greater tendency for these workers to travel to Germany and France.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that in recent times the TUC has asked the Department of Employment—and it has agreed—to cut back on work vouchers as they apply to workers from these States? That does not lead me on to saying that during a long transitional period we cannot accommodate them. But it does lead me to ask whether the CBI and TUC are being fully consulted about the whole question of the movement of unskilled labour from these other countries into Britain in future.
Mr. Judd: I can assure my hon. Friend that just as we shall want to listen attentively to the views expressed in the House, so we shall also want to take into account the views of other important sectors in social, industrial and economic life.
Some of the implications of enlargement for external economic relations will need close attention, particularly relations with developing countries not least in the Mediterranean. This was brought home forcibly to me during a recent visit to Algeria and Tunisia. It certainly came across to me that there already, without enlargement, there is a good deal of anxiety about the consequences of the Community's present consideration of proposals for Mediterranean agriculture. The Community's partners in the overall Mediterranean approach are likely to feel quite a draught from enlargement, and the Community must work hard to find a solution to the problem.
Mr. John Lee (Birmingham, Handsworth)rose—
Mr. Judd: Time is short and I think I should proceed. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of contributing during the debate.
Trade relations are not likely to be greatly affected, but we cannot rule out that aid generally may be. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, enlargement should make little difference because aid funds are allocated quite separately from EEC funds. Other countries, however, who do not attribute
110
EEC aid to the national aid programme may find that there is a smaller share of funds left for EEC aid after the new commitments arising from enlargement have been met. We must not be complacent about this danger of possible diversion of resources from the Third World to Southern Europe. But we must all recognise that in rejecting—in my view rightly—the selfish goal of being an exclusive "rich man's club", the Community may face a greater dichotomy between the calls for internal and external expenditure.
What is now recognised by us all as beyond doubt is that the gigantic economic problems facing all of us are far, far bigger than the Community itself. An enlarged Community—although undoubtedly still more significant—will be no more able to overcome these problems on its own than is the present Community of Nine. What will matter is the line which the Community as a whole will collectively take in wider economic negotiations within the industrialised world and between the industrialised world and the developing world. I fervently hope that Britain will play its part in keeping an indispensable outward-looking perspective of the policies of the Community.
Enlargement will clearly add to the political strength of the Community, but here, too, there are important problems to be solved. One that particularly concerns the United Kingdom, of course, is the problem with Spain over Gibraltar. The Government are firmly opposed to setting conditions on Spanish membership. Nevertheless, as I have already emphasised to the House, it would be unthinkable for the present restrictions to continue after Spanish entry We believe that it must prove possible to resolve this question of restrictions as between partners and friends.
A second problem concerns Greece and Turkey. As I know from my own visit last autumn to Turkey, the Turks are deeply concerned about the possibility that the Community will take Greece's side in Eastern Mediterranean questions. Some way must be found of reassuring Turkey. Effective political links between the Community and Turkey will be more important than ever after Greek accession.
A third more general problem concerns the political relationship between the

111
Community and all those Western European democratic countries which are not part of the EEC. The level of political co-operation within the EEC is impressive. We shall want to strengthen it in the context of enlargement. But this must not be at the expense of political co-operation between the EEC collectively, or individual member States of the EEC, on the one hand, and their other friends in Western Europe on the other.
In an interesting ministerial discussion at the Council of Europe last week, it became clear that with the advent of enlargement the role of the Council of Europe—bringing, as it does, the whole of democratic Western Europe together—would become more significant than it has perhaps been for some time. As for the institutional implications of enlargement, I believe two main elements can be distinguished. First, the Treaties will need to be amended to give the new member States fair and proportionate representation in the various Community institutions. Secondly, there is the general problem of ensuring that the Community machinery can work effectively, without undue bureaucracy or expense, once the number of its members is increased.
The first aspect is fairly straightforward, although it would be realistic to reckon with some pretty lengthy discussions on the numbers game. It will also provide us all with an opportunity to review the size of the Commission. There are strong arguments which need to be carefully weighed for suggesting that that body should, after enlargement, be confined to 12 members with only one commissioner from each member State. There will also be other practical problems such as how to avoid the danger of hung judgments in the Court of Justice if, after enlargement, it has an equal number of judges with one from each member State; or simply, how delegations will physically be fitted into the space available together with all the necessary extra facilities for interpretation.
On the second aspect, the British Government cannot agree with those who see the answer in rigid application of procedural devices such as the increased use of majority voting. The Government are absolutely committed to the present principle of consensus, with retention of the right of veto.
112
It cannot be underlined too heavily that the Community's institutions must not be seen as an end in themselves. They are merely the vehicle of European development and collaboration at any given time, and development and collaboration are not ends in themselves either. Their real worth can be measured only by the degree to which they improve the lives of ordinary men, women and children in all the member countries, not least our own.
Improvements in development and collaboration will be pursued after enlargement, but I suggest that we shall all have to be more selective than in the past. The institutions will have to work flexibly to assist this process, responding to political pressures and possibilities. It would be getting the whole thing the wrong way round to imagine that they could ever produce the desired results on their own.
There are plenty of means open to us for keeping the machinery efficient and flexible, provided we steer our course by realities rather than abstract principles. It is already the Council's practice to seek to solve problems by consensus, with States who find themselves in the clear minority informally deferring to the majority view on less important questions.
During the time of the British presidency last year steps were taken to improve the efficiency of the work of the Council. These have proved successful with the Council of Permanent Representatives playing a key role in preparing the ground for full Council meetings in such a way that Ministers can concentrate on what really matters—as in the CAP.
The Commission—which, as I have just suggested, might be reconstituted on a more compact basis after enlargement—already carries a considerable share of the Community's routine management tasks within the lines already agreed by Ministers, and we can look at proposals for setting up similar arrangements in further specific areas.
But in saying this I should stress the basic point—to which we are deeply committed—that political decisions and policy making must be seen as the responsibility of Ministers—Ministers who must remain firmly accountable to their own domestic Parliaments. Any arrangements will be most useful if used flexibly

113
and with sensitivity to differing circumstances. The opposite approach of tailoring a procedural straitjacket, within which even the Nine would feel themselves cramped, seems to us frankly on practical grounds to be a non-starter.
I now come to the question of transition periods. The Government welcome the Commission's recognition that there may be a need for flexibility here, and a case for not necessarily following the classical pattern. The Government agree with the suggested minimum and maximum recommended in the fresco of five years and 10 years respectively. As to the Commission's idea of two stages, we shall have to study this carefully, at least as far as Greece and Spain are concerned.
As far as the fresco as a whole is concerned, the Government welcome the tabling of a document which will facilitate consideration in the round of the implications of enlargement. It should help the Community avoid the pitfalls of, on the one hand, a piecemeal approach, and on the other hand, trying to bunch the negotiations into one. I hope that the fresco will lead to decisions that will facilitate and speed up the individual negotiations, especially a decision of principle that all concerned are aiming at a Community of Twelve.
Having said this, I hasten to add that the Government have various reservations on the suggested approach. The sections on economic and monetary union in particular appear to be putting the cart before the horse. I have already mentioned our reservations about more majority voting. There are others. Various points also need clarifying—for example, the suggestion for pre-accession sectoral measures, and the question of languages.
The Secretary of State has registered these points in Brussels today, I believe, and he has stressed that these are our preliminary views. The Government views on the fresco are frankly still crystallising and that is why we shall take particular note of the views of hon. Members in this debate. In the meantime, I have noted the strength of feeling in the House that we should have constructive interim policies towards the applicant States.
Before closing, I must deal with the view expressed by some that the United Kingdom is supporting enlargement out
114
of a wish to weaken the Community because it sees widening as a way of avoiding deepening. The Government reject that criticism. But it will plainly be impossible to deepen across the whole range of Community activity after increasing to twelve. The Community must be prepared to be more selective about areas in which it seeks harmonisation. Of course, enlargement from nine to 12 will change the Community, just as enlargement from six to nine changed it. The Community enlarged to nine because of its limitations, especially political limitations. It must have been recognised then that the future shape of the Community would be affected. Similarly now, political arguments and pressures are the stimulus for a further adjustment of horizons.
What is clear is that the question of enlargement is about far more than the narrowly defined economic and financial niceties of the Treaty of Rome. It is about the political future of Western Europe and, as the Declaration on Democracy adopted at the most recent European Council re-emphasised, it is about the cause of democracy itself. It is closely related to the Government's objective of a Community of sovereign nations co-operating together for the common good. There will be costs. But costs will be worth paying. Freedom is indivisible. History will judge the Community not so much by its wealth or administrative structure as by whether it enhanced the dignity and self-respect of individual men and women within it and beyond it. That is every bit as much the test by which to assess the value of the chapter on enlargement which we are about to write as any other aspects of Community life.
7.36 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Hurd (Mid-Oxon): The House is grateful to the Minister for covering the ground so succinctly. He was right to be apologetic about the nature of the debate this evening. After all, we are debating the most important project before the Community. It affects millions of people. It affects the future shape and prospects of democracy in Europe. It affects three countries with which for centuries we have been concerned in the closest possible way. Our trade, military strategy and political emotions have all been deeply involved in

115
Greece, Spain and Portugal from time to time, and the future of these countries is still clearly vital to us. Therefore, it is not satisfactory to have a tiny mouse of a debate squeezed between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock this evening. Frankly, that is not what we had in mind when we made available a Supply Day for this purpose. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate he can give a clear undertaking that this debate, on a vital matter, will be resumed within Government time, with proper space available, before we rise for the Summer Recess.
Mr. Judd: I should like to give an immediate assurance on that matter. I well understand the sense of disappointment in the House, and I shall personally bring that disappointment to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in the hope that more time will be found before too long.
Mr. Hurd: We should like to push for a slightly more forthcoming phrase. I am sure that the Minister will do his best, but we shall press the Leader of the House, on the right occasion, for a definite undertaking that he will provide time for a further and proper debate.
The Opposition strongly support the enlargement of the Community to include Greece, Spain and Portugal. Five years ago all three countries were under authoritarian regimes of the Right and there was a clear risk, when those regimes collapsed, that a Left-wing authoritarian regime in each case might be the natural heir, because of the way in which the countries had been governed. If anyone had said in this House five years ago that all three of these countries would dispose of their authoritarian regimes almost without bloodshed, and then fend off in free elections the inevitable Communist threat and elect of their own free will moderate Governments, any such Member would have been dismissed as a hopeless optimist. Yet that is what has happened.
There are major economic problems remaining. In the case of Portugal, as the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has already emphasised, those problems are frightening. Nevertheless, the achievement of all three countries has been remarkable, and it is very much in the interests of Britain that they should
116
continue to succeed. Now they have applied to us to join the Community to buttress their achievements.
That is a complication, but it is also a compliment. They want to join. It is sometimes useful for us in the House to see the Community as others see it from outside. They want to join the Community because they see it as the partnership of European democracies on which the future of Europe essentially depends. They regard it as imperfect, but a great deal better than anything that has gone before it. They want to be a part of it. That seems to be a powerful political reason.
In economic terms they see—perhaps more clearly than we in the House—the growing power and importance of the Community in establishing trading relations with the outside world. Rather than national Governments, it is now the Community that uses its influence to negotiate conditions in which our industries trade. The applicant countries recognise that power and prefer to see it used on their behalf once they are in the Community than to feel the brunt of it as outsiders. Anyone who has heard the leaders of the applicant countries press their case for full membership as soon as possible cannot fail to be impressed by that case.
Many hon. Members will have arguments, causes or interests with which they are especially concerned. Some are con cerned with the increased budgetary cost, with which the Minister dealt. Some are concerned with greater access being given into the hands of willing British consumers of such things as Portuguese textiles. Others will be more impressed by better prospects for our exports, especially into the large and still rather highly protected Spanish market.
These are all complicated and legitimate considerations that have to be balanced. It seems to me that they must take their place behind the main argument. No one can guarantee that membership of the European Communities will secure for ever the political stability of Greece, Spain and Portugal. However, we can be sure that if we deny them their applications it will be a cruel and perhaps mortal blow to their hopes and to what they have been trying to do.
Some support enlargement—the Minister was rightly sensitive about this—for

117
reasons that I consider to be misguided. They believe that enlargement will throw up so many problems and complications that it will check, perhaps for ever, the progress of the Community and perhaps force it back into a simpler and much more primitive form. They believe that the whole house of cards is so flimsy that three more cards could bring it down.
Mr. Neil Marten: That is right.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is naturally attracted by that argument. There was a hint of it, of course, in the Prime Minister's famous letter to Mr. Hayward, which caused so much trouble and damage. According to the argument, we would be left with a simple political alliance of sovereign States and there would be no attempt to arrive at common policies in trade, commerce and economics. That is a possible outcome, but I am sure that it would be much against Britain's interests.
If we were to abandon efforts to arrive at common policies where there are clearly common needs, we would go back into bad old ways. I do not doubt that there would be much more protectionism and much more unemployment. If we took that course we could so easily become engaged in, or fall through inadvertence and incident by incident into, little farm wars, fish wars, steel wars and then energy wars with our partners. It is impossible to imagine that the over-arching political alliance could continue for long if that happened.
It is essential that we preserve what we have achieved in the Community and make further progress. The Minister is right to say that we cannot progress everywhere all the time, but we should continue to make progress where we can and where it is sensible to do so. That is the wish of those who are applying to join. We may find before long that they are pressing us to make speed. The idea that we are proposing to admit slow and reluctant partners is the opposite of the truth. In surmounting the complications that exist the Community and the British Government will need to show a good deal more energy and imagination than has been shown hitherto.
I turn now to the specifics. The whole question of enlargement raises questions in relation to the institutions. The only
118
one to which I shall refer—I mention it briefly—is that of majority voting. The Community is sluggish. The Council of Ministers is sluggish in taking decisions. It is slow, for example, in approving mandates for important negotiations with other countries. Other countries become, reasonably, exasperated. It is slow, as we have seen this month, in fixing farm prices year by year. Farmers are understandably exasperated. That is the price that we pay for insisting on the veto. It has to be accepted that that is the price we pay. I doubt whether it is possible or wise to attack head on the existence of the veto, or even to try to whittle it away by fixing in advance formal categories of decision to which it does not apply.
The document that we are discussing may be nudging us into a cul-de-sac on that point. If the Community is to work, it seems essential that there should be a greater readiness to accept a consensus, which means in effect, accepting the President's summing up at the end of a full discussion. I think that the Minister has not served in a British Cabinet—certainly I have not done so. I believe that this is how, essentially, the British Cabinet works. There is discussion, and at a certain time the Prime Minister, with his eye on the clock, sums up. There is then a short silence, in which members of the Cabinet may object, although they usually do not do so.
A recent President of the Council of Ministers—not the Foreign Secretary—told me that in his experience that system was beginning to evolve inside the Council of Ministers. I notice that the Foreign Secretary made a similar point in his evidence to the House of Lords' Scrutiny Committee. It is happening very slowly, but it is a desirable development. It will be essential as a habit of working once we get to a Community of Twelve.
We are talking about the discipline of working together and the discipline which that imposes upon national Governments trying to argue a case which for them is relatively secondary.
Mr. Lee: Am I to understand from what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say in a roundabout way that he would forgo the right of veto? Is he asking the Government more or less to give an undertaking that there are no circumstances in which it would be operated,

119
bearing in mind that ominously enough it has never formally been used?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands what I have said. I have said that we cannot attack the power of veto head-on, or whittle it away by formal changes, and that member States should pay more attention to the need for agreement. The veto is like a pistol that a man carries in his holster. Everyone knows that it is there and no one will succeed in taking it away from him. What matters is how often that man draws his gun, or threatens to draw it. It is in that sense that I think that the Council of Ministers has gone astray. There is a need to look again at the discipline of working together.
I turn next to agriculture. It should be emphasised, as some discussion seems to go astray on the matter, that we cannot have special provision for the new members after the transitional arrangements are over. Any agricultural arrangements for Mediterranean products must apply to the French and Italian farmers as well as to the farmers of Spain, Greece and Portugal when the transition is over.
It is natural that Mediterranean States, whether they are in the Community now or applying to join, should feel that the CAP is biased at present towards Northern products, and mainly dairy products. However, it would be a great mistake for them to try to push the Community into repeating the mistakes which it made over dairy products and to produce again the combination of surpluses and high prices that does so much damage to the Community and from which the Commission is trying to rescue us, with scant recognition in some parts of the House.
That is what the Commission's proposals in the current price review mean. The Commission is trying to rescue us from the damage that has been done by the initial setting up of that policy. Fortunately many of the Mediterranean products are unsuitable for intervention. We cannot store them, and that is a blessing.
It is a much better use of the Community's resources to concentrate on guidance rather than guarantee. That is an argument which is often advanced by my hon. Friends in the European Parliament. It makes more sense to improve a port,
120
to improve a railhead and to better a marketing co-operative than to finance or dump the surpluses created through artificially high prices.
I should like to mention two specific countries and hope that the Minister, in reply, will tell us more about them. The right hon. Member for Devon, North rightly lost no time in introducing the problem of Portugal, with an economy that is so fragile that it is obviously on the brink, and has been for some time.
Portugal is engaged in tense and difficult negotiations with the IMF. I think that we need more clarity about this matter. If the IMF facility, whatever it is, is agreed that is, as it were, a key that should, and the Portuguese understand will, unlock further help, particularly from European sources. It is not enough for the Minister of State to rehearse what has been done by the EIB and other institutions in the past. In view of the crucial importance of Portugal, we need to know more about the plans that the Community or Her Majesty's Government have for moving into this room, once the IMF has unlocked the door.
Mention was made of Turkey. I think that it would be wrong not to include some discussion of Turkey in a debate on the enlargement of the Community as at present envisaged. Turkey, like Greece, has an association agreement with the Community which looks forward to full membership. The situation here should not be allowed to drift. The future of Turkey is of great importance to the West. The problems facing Turkey are so serious that they would not be solved by full membership of the EEC if she were to decide that was what she wanted. The GDP per head of the Turkish people is only 60 per cent. of that of Portugal—and we are worried about Portugal—and Turkey's population is four times the size. I fear that membership of the EEC by Turkey might overburden the EEC without solving the problems with which the Turks are wrestling.
It seems that a wider approach is needed—an approach that must include the Americans as well as ourselves. It is fortunate that both Greece and Turkey now have wise and experienced leaders. Perhaps there is a chance here—I should like the Minister to say something about this matter in winding up—a chance that

121
may not last very long, for the Community and the Americans to show a bit of imagination and to work out a joint political and economic approach, including an updated agreement between the EEC and Turkey. That would show the Turks that the West regards them, in practice, as well as in words, as essential and valued friends and allies. We should consider the problem and future of Turkey in a more energetic and sympathetic way than we have up to now in the Community.
Finally, enlargement is a mixture of problems and opportunities. It is easy to harp on the problems, and it is right to do so as long as we remember that in the end the opportunities are the more important. It is a test of statesmanship, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said in a speech at Strasbourg not long ago. It is not really open to us to say "We are sorry, but we are so fussed and bothered with our own problems in the Community that we have to slam the door in your faces, and damn the consequences for yourselves." We have to be a little brave and imaginative over this matter and show some of the courage and imagination that these countries have shown in tackling their own problems. With that courage and imagination there is a good chance that in, say, 10 years we shall find ourselves with three new members who will add substantial strength to our Community.
7.55 p.m.
Mr. Donald Anderson: A Back Bencher is able to take a somewhat less "responsible" attitude to the question of enlargement than the two Front Benchers who have spoken.
I shall try to deal with two essential issues—the effect of enlargement on the nature of the EEC and on the policies of Her Majesty's Government towards the EEC.
In my view, the starting point is that, unless fundamental changes are made within the decision-making process the EEC, the cohesion of the Community will inevitably be weakened by enlargement. We should not delude ourselves the Community of Twelve will be fundamentally different from the Community of Nine. It will be qualitatively different. In the enlargement from Six to Nine the
122
additional three countries were roughly similar in economic progress. However, there is a fundamental difference between the Nine and the proposed additional three because of the geographic, economic and political divergences which will be imported into the EEC. An already cumbersome decision-making process, such as we have seen of late in the debates about farm prices and fisheries policy, will be made even more cumbersome because of the new divergences in the attempt to find some degree of cohesion within the new Community of Twelve. It is clear beyond doubt that the energies of the Community over the next three or four years will be almost totally absorbed in the attempt to enlarge the Community to twelve.
Economic and Monetary Union and the vision of the founding fathers of an "ever-closer union" will be forced to an ever-distant future. That will be highly acceptable and welcome to many hon. Members and will come to pass unless there is a major feat of imagination on the part of existing members and a major transfer of resources towards the poor applicant States. That will require a measure of political will which I doubt whether anyone in the House seriously expects from existing members over the next few years, particularly in respect of the Regional Fund and the Social Fund.
It will be even more difficult to obtain decisions from the Community which will come into being than from the existing Community unless there are changes, such as those adumbrated within the Commission document, of majority voting and agreement possibly to change the Luxembourg compromise. The habit of consensus, mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), is a habit of consensus on relatively secondary matters. It is straining credulity to imagine that this will extend to the fundamental decisions which will face the Community in respect of enlargement.
Another possible change in the structure of the Community is some plan of an inner council on the lines of the Tindemans' report. But that equally, given the present view of the member States, is unrealistic in the situation today—This new change in the structure was, it appears from the weekend Press, discussed in a recent Community report.

123
Save on secondary issues, can anyone see the political will in the current EEC to make such changes? If there is no such will power, must we resign ourselves to an even more tardy decision-making process within the EEC so that anti-federalists can rejoin, rejoice at the prospect of enlargement?
It is said that the benefits will be political. As the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon said, who would have imagined five years ago that these fledgling democracies would have emerged from their long travail of Right-wing dictatorship to the position that we see today, having survived for some time after free elections? It is put as an investment in democracy.
We must accept that the treaty says that the Community is open to new members. To deny entry to the three applicant States at this late stage would be seen as a snub. There is no going back. We must accept the inevitable political process. One cannot help feeling that to some extent the members of the existing Community have sleep-walked into the present position to the point of no return and that a political decision has been made before the economic bill has been calculated.
Perhaps some of the existing members, having viewed the economic cost to themselves, are now considering that it is better to travel than to arrive. To them the current process of negotiation is, perhaps, preferable to the end of the road—1980 for Greece and 1983 or thereabouts for Spain and Portugal.
The case based on political advantages can be put in question because on the other side of the coin are many likely political disadvantages. I shall instance one or two of them. One is the attitude of the West Germans who are still the paymasters of the Community and who are willing to make sacrifices because of their vision of a European Union. There is a constant tension in the policies of the Federal Republic caused by the pull of their traditional partners in central Europe and the pull to the West.
As the ideal of European Union becomes increasingly incapable of realisation this might lead to a fundamental rethink among West German policy makers of their attitude to the Community. One might envisage, towards
124
the end of the process of enlargement, a new uncertainty in West German policy towards the Community.
The position of Turkey has already been mentioned by both Front-Bench speakers, particularly in relation to Cyprus. It is a particularly sensitive area because of the Turkish position in NATO. One hopes that the Community will accept that the new initiatives are needed to allay the fears of Turkey following enlargement.
Apart from the danger of Turkey and other areas losing markets, one sees the possibility of a new protectionism arising against the existing suppliers to the Community of Mediterranean produce—Morocco, Cyprus, Maghreb, the Mashraq countries and Israel. I concede that this is a point of detail but it is important and must be dealt with in negotiations.
I turn to the effect on United Kingdom policy towards the Community. Clear economic disadvantages are likely for us, particularly since by 1980 the transition phase for the budgetary arrangement comes to an end. Our contribution to the budget will then be higher than it is now. We are already second in the order of net contributors towards the Community and yet we are towards the bottom in the Community in terms of GDP per head.
A further substantial net increase in the amount spent by the EEC budget on agriculture is likely, to our detriment. As regimes are established for Mediterranean produce there is a real danger that the excesses of the common agricultural produce will be repeated—those of high guarantee prices, surpluses and protectionism. Given the higher proportion of the work forces in the applicant countries engaged in agriculture, one can see serious social dislocation in those countries if there were an attempt by the EEC structurally to drive people from agriculture. There will be a rise of 55 per cent. in the number of people employed on EEC farms as a result of enlargement.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend suggests that he is not too sure whether it would be good for the EEC for Greece to join. If the EEC is the great international organisation to the benefit of all that he and others believe,

125
why cannot it assimilate and deal with the problems that he is outlining?
Mr. Anderson: I am outlining the problems. My hon. Friend must wait with expectancy for my conclusions when I shall deal with the matter, having first outlined the difficulties. If my hon. Friend will contain his impatience I shall deal with that problem in my peroration.
Clearly, France and Italy will be on the side of the applicant countries in seeking to have guarantees and preferences for Mediterranean produce, on the lines of those for the temperate foodstuffs which currently benefit the northern members of the EEC. But even the new States will bring a greater element of temperate foodstuffs into the EEC.
Our job is to see that, as far as possible, the EEC realises that excesses of the CAP and takes them into consideration when dealing with any new régime for Mediterranean produce. But this alone might lead to the dashing of the expectations of the applicant countries which have had the EEC sold to them by their Governments as a means of solving their own gross economic problems.
One fears that there could be disillusion within the applicant countries because the present lack of political willpower creates an unwillingness among the present member States to transfer resources to the new countries. The fear is that they will not gain that which they have been led to expect. This disillusion can lead only to a period of increased tension within the EEC and further retard the decision-making process. This disillusion will affect Portugal in particular because it might reject proudly any attempt to impose conditions upon economic aid which might be funnelled to them through the EEC.
As a result of enlargement, instead of being the bottom of the poverty league in the EEC the United Kingdom will be somewhere in the middle. We shall therefore have to reassess our attitudes. We shall need to think again about our present posture, for example, of pressing for increased expenditure on social and regional policies—that is, unless we can envisage altruistic policies on behalf of this Government and a willingness to transfer substantial resources to the new and weaker countries. How realistic is it to expect such altruistic policies?
126
There is also a danger of a diversion of investment from institutions external to the EEC to the low-labour-most manufacturers in the applicant countries.
I imagine that the Ford decision to invest substantially in Spain in the last few years might have been influenced in part by Spain's access to the wider EEC market. If that were not so, that investment might have gone elsewhere in the EEC. I shall not deal with the particular United Kingdom industries—steel, textiles and footwear—which could be affected by the entry of Portugal. But few of our domestic industries stand to gain much from access to the three countries. I concede that the Spanish market is where the likely gains are greatest yet there is no great demand by United Kingdom industry for enlargement.
I have asked many questions and not given many answers. The conventional wisdom is that enlargement is justified for political reasons and that there are certain economic disadvantages. The budgetary cost to the EEC has been estimated at between £90 million and £115 million, in addition to any further sums which we shall have to pay to Portugal.
Unless we face the need for political decisions on the transfer of resources, and the need for a serious appraisal of changes in the institutional structure of the EEC, there is a real danger that there could be a major weakening of the Community as a result of enlargement. I concede—and I say this in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South—that enlargement is a fact of life. But we must accept it with our eyes open to the real dangers as well as to the possible advantages. A Back Bencher can say certain things about those dangers that Front Benchers dare not say.
I am reminded of the advice given to me once by a wise old counsellor who stated that if one has to do something one should do it as enthusiastically as possible. My hon. Friend the Minister has attempted perhaps for that reason to speak as enthusiastically as possible on the subject of enlargement.
8.11 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I welcome the debate. The Minister, as a good parliamentarian, assured us, with the modesty that we always expect from

127
the Front Benches, that the sole object of the exercise, with the exception of a few introductory and explanatory remarks from himself, was to enable the Government to listen to the spirit of the House of Commons on this issue. If that is the Government's object they could hardly have chosen a worse time than to coincide the debate with the very moment when the Council of Ministers is meeting, when it would be impossible to speak to the Foreign Secretary. The Minister is most unlikely to pick up the telephone to tell him that he must get back to the House of Commons because it had taken a very firm view, and that thereafter the Council members should get back round the table to discuss the matter.
There was a case for having the debate before the Council of Ministers met so that the Council could hear what the House said. There was also a case for having the debate afterwards, when we would then have had a full analysis and a proper translation of the proceedings.
Mr. Judd: The Government were at some pains to try to arrange an alternative timetable, but pressure from elsewhere in the House, which we were most anxious to accommodate, led us to pick this time today.
Mr. Thorpe: I thank the Minister for that explanation, but many of us would have been much happier to have met yesterday. That might have made a greater impact on the Government. That would have been better than sitting in the rain, declaring solidarity with other countries with which some of us do not feel quite so solid.
I welcome the fact that three friendly West European countries have returned to democratic forms of Government—two of them after roughly 40 years of dictatorship—and have applied to join as full members. I hope that the House will bear with me if I quote again a short passage which puts into perspective the view of the Commission. These are the remarks of Mr. Ortoli in January 1976 on the Commission's feelings towards the application for membership by Greece. He said
"the Commission has been deeply conscious of the obligation that lies on the Community to find a fitting and appropriate response to the Greek request for membership. This request,
128
coming a few months only after the restoration of democracy in Greece and enjoying the support of almost every shade of Greek political opinion, represents a remarkable affirmation by the Greek people and their leaders of the overriding importance they attach to their country being committed to the cause of European integration. It is clear that the consolidation of Greece's democracy which is a fundamental concern not only of the Greek people but also of the Community and its Member States, is intimately related to the evolution of Greece's relationship with the Community. It is in the light of these considerations that the Commission recommends that a clear affirmative reply be given to the Greek request and that negotiations for Greek accession be opened."
During the Easter Recess I had the privilege of visiting Portugal and Spain—from one of which I had previously been banned and in the other of which I was not particularly popular at an earlier stage. There I was privileged to meet the Minister of State and the Foreign Minister, respectively, who are in charge of their countries' negotiations to join. I say unequivocally that both those countries regard it as no less important than do the Government of Greece that they should join as full members of the Community, and join what they regard as the mainstream of Western Europe.
I am glad that the opinion in regard to Greece, which by implication obtains also in regard to the applications by Spain and Portugal, has ruled out the idea of a pre-accession period. If they are to be full members they should sign the Treaty, ratify it in their Parliaments and become full members subject to derogations of between five and 10 years. This is a political decision by them, just as it is a political decision for the Nine. Mr. Natali said that it was a political "yes" with an economic and institutional "but". But whatever the difficulties, we should remember that they will be greater for the applicants than for us.
The political will for enlargement is there, however, and there is, fortunately, on this occasion no de Gaulle waiting in the wings with a veto to use at the last moment. The Commission was right to point out the impact on the institution—on the European Assembly which will be greatly enlarged, on the Council of Ministers which will likewise grow, on the Commission itself where there is the suggestion that there might be a reduction with each country having only one Commissioner, on the Court of Justice, and on the question of majority voting.

129
We have gone much further with majority voting. In the fresco of the three applicants there is reference, on page 18, to the Paris Summit of 1974, at which the opinion was expressed that it was necessary, in order to improve the functioning of the Council,
"to renounce the practice which consists of making agreement on all questions conditional on the unanimous consent of the Member States".
There is no doubt that this has been pragmatically extended to a political code in which there is far more flexibility. I see nothing wrong in that concept and I hope that it will be extended.
I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) that one cannot meet the veto head-on. But I believe that as the Community evolves we must hope for greater flexibility and a greater readiness by members to reach a consensus without necessarily exercising the veto.
The Commission is right to point out that there will be adaptations to the European Investment Bank, the European Coal and Steel Communities, and the Monetary Committee, and to energy, social, regional, agricultural, trade and financial policies.
There is a new development of some significance which is that the applicants have been told in advance to reduce their national aid to those industries which are already in surplus in the Nine. Basically, these will be steel and shipbuilding in Spain, textiles in Greece, and new investment in all three in Portugal. There will, of course, be the problem of Mediterranean agricultural products. The planning of new industry and the phasing out of old industries that are in surplus in both the Nine and, subsequently, the Twelve will produce a formidable task given the background of unemployment of 7½ million people.
In Portugal the unemployment rate is already 14 per cent. The per capita income is $1,650 per annum, compared with Denmark, where it is $7,600. The credit lines from the rest of Europe—I gather that our Government, like the West Germans, have already committed themselves, to a figure—are dependent on the $50 million loan from the IMF and the disciplines which the IMF placed upon the Portuguese economy in terms of bank rate and public expenditure. Those
130
are disciplines with which Her Majesty's Government are familiar.
If these IMF disciplines are too harsh and if Europe refuses to give any help unless Portgual agrees to abide by them we may put at risk the very fragile plant of democracy in that country. There was a perceptive article in the New York Herald Tribune over Easter which was widely read by the Portuguese Government, which asked how many democracies had been destroyed by the IMF. If the terms are too stringent, the next 25th April-type revolution will not lead to social democratic Government. If one wants to assess the refined, but perhaps fragile nature of Government in Portugal at the moment, it is pertinent to consider that it is based on a Labour-Conservative agreement, a permutation that has not yet been evolved in this country.
I believe that whether Portugal joins or not—I hope it does—we should take a close interest in the terms that the IMF is putting forward. These are the key so far to European credit, but they should not be such as to turn the key too far and break the lock itself.
The cost of joining was put forward in a helpful document by the Government in their evidence to the Select Committee. Basically, on a budget of 10,200 MEUAs, it would be about an additional 1,000 MEUAs, or under 10 per cent. of the cost, or £650 million.
When one talks of the cost one should compare it with the aid which we are giving to the Lomé countries, which is about 3,000 MUAs in aid and 400 MUAs in EIB loans. For a lesser investment we are enlarging the Community and underpinning democracy in Greece, Spain and Portugal.
The cost to the United Kingdom is about £90 million at the lowest estimate or about £115 million at the top end of the scale. This investment is well worth making in democracy in Europe. I hope that after 10 years it will have transformed the economies of the three joining countries and possibly of the 12 EEC Member States collectively.
There will be long, hard-headed negotiations and many all-night sittings. I hope that if this happens there will not be a tendency on the part of the three applicants to believe that this reflects any diminution of the genuineness of the wish,

131
of the Nine for the three to join, and of the welcome there will be for them as full members. I am not as pessimistic as the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) I believe that this will lead to the necessity for greater co-operation in economic and monetary union, and I shall welcome that.
The fact that the Council of Ministers will number 12—and there is a suggestion that the Commission should be strengthened—is another reason why the European Assembly itself will ask for greater control over the Executive. That, too, I welcome.
Although this is not the first time that European countries have come together in economic and political union—there was the Holy Roman Empire and the Napoleonic Empire—it is the first time that 12 countries which can claim in different ways to have contributed uniquely to Western culture and civilisation over the centuries have voluntarily tried to achieve co-operation politically and economically through peaceful negotiation and agreement. In all the previous examples, co-operation came as a result of war or conquest. This is an exciting concept and a dramatic political evolution, whether one is for or against the Common Market. It is of immense value to the future of Western civilisation. For me, it is a very exciting prospect. It poses immense difficulties, but provided the political will is there, the outcome is not in doubt.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. Jim Spicer: I welcome and support the positive views expressed throughout the Community in sup port of the applications by Greece, Portugal and Spain for membership.
As has been pointed out by the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) it is quite clear that there will be major economic stresses placed on the present Community as a result of these three countries joining us. We know that it will also add considerably to our financial burden. However, I do not trust all the financial forecasts for the future. One can toss around figures of £300 million or £400 million and add or subtract a million here or there. But undoubtedly there will be a major financial burden.
132
We should remind ourselves that exactly the same debate took place when the Community of Six was being enlarged to a Community of Nine. But far more than that, we face the political aspect of enlargement of the Community which is of overriding importance in relation to the three applicant countries. Almost every speaker in the debate has stressed that unless we give our full support to the applicants there is a distinct possibility that they could move away from the West and from their new-found democracy.
I was very fortunate in that I spent some time in both Spain and Portugal watching the evolution of their political parties. Greece has also moved wholeheartedly into democracy. The EEC gave these countries a firm assurance that once they were firmly established as democracies, the Community would live up to its pledge to invite them and welcome them into membership. The time has come for us to redeem that pledge that we gave so freely when those countries were not democratic. In so doing, however, we should not underestimate the effects on the whole Mediterranean policy of the Community in both economic and political terms.
I am certain that the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon will not be surprised if I turn my attention to one aspect of Mediterranean policy which is at risk as a result of the accession of Greece. We must all deplore the present very poor state of the unhappy relations between Greece and Turkey.
Although Greece became a member of the Community through association as far back as 1962, it was only 18 months later in 1964 that Turkey also became a close partner through association. That link gave Turkey undoubted trade and other advantages which at the time were substantial. Obviously in the case of migrant workers—and preferential treatment was given for textile workers—Turkey was helped by its privileged position.
Over the years since the association agreement was signed we have seen the erosion of this privilege as the Community has entered into other agreements with other countries around the Mediterranean. The mere fact of these agreements being signed with other countries

133
has eroded the privileges and caused a great deal of resentment in Turkey. To the initial resentment is added the fear of the accession of Greece to the Community. The Turks will see a country with whom they have strained relations being within the Community and in a position to bring unfair pressure to bear upon them.
The Prime Minister of Turkey said a few weeks ago:
"At the moment there is no hope for the resuscitation of the relations between Turkey and the EEC which have stagnated for nearly 2 years. What is more, the fact that Greece has declared that she will join the EEC at the latest within two years shows that time is running out to the detriment of Turkey. The Greek Prime Minister, Mr. Karamanlis, has just paid two visits to the countries of the EEC, and he seemed pleased with the outcome. The complaints which we have made up to now because of the few concessions accorded so far to our exports will lose all their significance after Greece has joined the Community. In economic and political spheres Greece will come into conflict with Turkey, since both have the support of the Western powers. Turkey has made it known that she will not ask to join the Community before the year 2000. According to certain observers the best thing Turkey could do, should Greece's application to join be approved, is to ask to benefit from the right of being able to speak on certain issues."
I can assure the House that there is a strong body of opinion within Turkey, the pro-Western opinion, which believes that the only hope for Turkey in relation to the Community is to move more quickly towards membership and to ask for that right to be represented more fully in our councils.
However, I hope that the fears expressed in that quotation by the Prime Minister of Turkey will be unfounded. That they are unfounded can be proved only by a complete reassessment of Turkey's association with the Community, combined with positive help and pledges to Turkey for the future.
June will see the first meeting for nearly two years of the joint EEC-Turkish Parliamentary Association Committee. We had a very happy and friendly relationship with our Turkish colleagues on that committee before this long gap. It is our intention to re-establish that close working relationship as quickly as possible. However, doing this will have no effect on the Community's relationship with Turkey unless, at the same time, the Council and the Commission make clear, as
134
has been made clear in many speeches tonight, that we understand the desperate state of Turkey's economy and her vital relationship to the Community and to the United Kingdom in defence terms. We should then take positive action in the months ahead to make certain that Turkey is aware that we shall do everything possible to help her in her time of need.
8.31 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I think that the whole House is in agreement in welcoming the three applicant nations into the family of democratic nations in Europe. That is central to the considerations before us. We all want to see these fledgling democracies sustained as much as possible.
I was struck by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) about the pressures of the IMF. What he said may, alas, be partly true—that fledgling governments facing all the economic and social problems of a modern State may have pressure put upon them from outside. However, if they become members of the EEC, it will not be only the IMF which is putting pressures upon the internal economies and the social structures of the applicant States. It wil also be the EEC itself.
I am not confident that the present structure of the EEC and the assumptions on which it is based will avoid making those pressures apparent. Therefore, though I wish to see these countries remain democratic, I am not convinced that the EEC as an instiution will help them to do so.
Part of the problem of the accession of these new members, and the doubts that have overcome some of my hon. Friends who are otherwise enthusiasts for the EEC, is that the objects, purposes and modus operandi of the EEC operate on two levels or more. On the surface, theer is an attractive landscape with many details painted of luxuriant vegetation and plenty of pleasant places on which to rest one's weary head. That is the public presentation of the EEC. It is presented as a great international organisation. Phrases such as "peace in our time" and "peace for our grand children" roll out over the debates and in the propaganda. We have heard some of it today.

135
I suggest that the operation of the EEC does not depend on these more publicly advertised virtues. It is as though the EEC is constructed on piles which go deep down not into the subsoil but into the substructure. The bedrock is deep beneath and partly, if not entirely, hidden. It has entirely different contours and is of a different nature from the surface which is so clearly painted by those who advocate the EEC and by the literature which the EEC sends to us frequently.
That is the central fact which creates the problems of possible enlargement. We have been through the enlargement process and had our problems about fish and the milk marketing boards. Even now, there is the problem of the so-called veto to which the Minister referred. That has not been resolved and will not necessarily be resolved by enlargement.
The EEC is essentially Procrustean in its operation. Those who say that we must come to agreements, maybe not by the veto but by common consent, as the Cabinet does, will say that it all comes out in the wash because in the end everyone will benefit. But that assumes that we agree that the assumptions underlying the EEC and the way in which it works are correct. Many of us do not believe that they are correct. We believe that the economic assumptions that underly the idea of a better life for all do not necessarily work in the way that the rather crude economics of the Treaty of Rome imply.
I wish to put this test to the accession of Greece. Document S/227/76, the Commission's opinion on the Greek application for membership, deals only with Greece, but many of that country's characteristics are shared by Spain and Portugal.
We know that Greece is not an industrial country, but it has a small and active industrial sector. The Commission's assessment says that Greek industry has:
"an extensive system of aids."
Clearly that system will have to be dismantled or modified over the period of the accession treaty.
It appears that the Procrustean table is at work and the structure of Greek industry will be in for some shocks. No longer
136
will the Greek Parliament or Cabinet be able to decide what is appropriate for Greek industry. This is one of the examples of the sub-structure and its operations.
I do not believe that this is essentially democratic. It may be that, through international negotiations, the Greeks may agree to do certain things on their own volition about their own industry, but that is another matter. That is not how the EEC works. Greek agriculture is paramount in the economy of the country, maybe not in terms of figures—though it is a much higher proportion of GNP than in the rest of the EEC States—but certainly in terms of people.
The Foreign Office document and the Commission document describe agriculture almost entirely in terms of units of account and abstract figures. One figure stands out. The Commission's document points out that 35·7 per cent. of the Greek population is engaged in agriculture. That compares with an average of 9·6 per cent. of the populations in the rest of the EEC. Clearly that figure of 35·7 per cent. means that between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the population works in agriculture or agriculture-based industries in villages or in jobs related closely to the land. That is a very big proportion.
The document spells out clearly that these agriculture holdings, which are, on average, only 20 acres, are very fragmented—no doubt through inheritance—and there is a great deal of what is called hidden unemployment. That is true of Southern Italy as well though not of Northern Italy, and it is true of parts of Spain and parts of Portugal.
What is the EEC policy for agriculture? We turn to Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome where the objectives of the common agriculture policy are spelt out. The first objective is set out in paragraph (a) as follows:
"to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production".
We know something of the effects of the common agricultural policy in this country, but if that is the policy to be pursued as a first objective, what will happen to the 35·7 per cent. of people on the land? If one is to increase productivity in terms of output per person,

137
theoretically the food in production or land in cultivation remains the same and the ends can be achieved with fewer people.
That may be possible, but we have heard that there is already a good deal of hidden unemployment, as though that is a bad thing. It may be a bad thing purely from the point of view of the economy, but I suggest that in certain countries, particularly Greece, if there is to be unemployment it will be much better related to land, where leisure and work can take their proper part in a socially coherent community, based on land ownership and perhaps in a reasonably stable rural environment. If one shakes out that system and sends people to the towns where they cannot find work and become unemployed, large numbers of people who notionally in economist terms would be available for industrial production would be kicking their heels, as indeed they are in many countries of the West today. Therefore, I suspect that the objectives of the CAP, including productivity, would not help in that respect either, nor would it necessarily help if it means productivity in terms of increased agricultural production. We know of the surpluses that already exist, and there will be problems of surpluses, including tobacco, because Greece grows some tobacco. Additional support will be necessary.
I believe, as do many of my hon. Friends, that the real objectives of CAP are other than those spelt out in Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome. There is no mention in that article of intervention buying, or of dumping surplus food on world markets, yet these are the hallmarks of the CAP. All that Article 39 1(c) refers to is the stabilisation of markets. I do not think that the EEC has benefited a great many people in the EEC as it is, and I suggest that it would not necessarily be of very much help to the Greek people.
I wish to make some quotations from the document on the Greek application for membership. Page 8 of the document reads:
"Greek agricultural prices to the producer are in many cases (in particular for fruit and vegetables …) considerably lower than in the Community."
Therefore, if Greece is now producing fruit and vegetables at a much lower price
138
than in the rest of the Community, does that mean that Greek fruit and vegetables will come on to our market? That may be a good thing, but it also provides something of a problem.
On that same page, we see the following statement:
"Given the considerable difference between the structure of agriculture in Greece and the EEC, abrupt modifications of the prices paid to Greek producers which are not accompanied by changes in the structure of Greek agriculture could create imbalance as regards incomes of different categories of agricultural producers."
What a way of putting it! That is typical EEC-ese. It is saying that if Greece joins and there is not a reasonable—indeed, a fairly lengthy—period of accession, there can be sudden changes in the incomes of Greek farmers. Clearly, if there are those sudden changes there will be structural and social tensions in society. We know that sudden changes lead to difficulties, grievances, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, people perhaps pocketing large sums suddenly, as though they had experienced a windfall.
I do not think that the EEC as it is will therefore be of the benefit that some of my hon. Friends would like to think that it will be. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) what was the answer to the dilemma, and he said that it would be in his peroration. His peroration was "enthusiasm". Enthusiasm would apparently drive away the sort of problems that we have.
I should like to put to the House another possible solution. I hope that the negotiations for the accession of Greece, Portugal and Spain will throw new light on the actual operation of the EEC. We have already had a lecture about the possibilities of a new-style Cabinet Government, the problems that there will be for the Council. I have suggested some of the problems that there will be for the agricultural policy and the internal anomalies that exist and have not been analysed as much they might.
I hope that in the negotiations for the accession of these three countries the EEC will begin to sort itself out, that it will see that its only future is not as a supranational organisation heading towards economic and monetary union, or

139
political union, but that in truth it will become a community of nations co-operating for a common purpose. It is only by that means that the real aims and purposes of democracy can be established. I believe that that is the only way in which the EEC, reformed, can properly assist the democracy of these three applicant States.
8.48 p.m.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Hon. Members will not be too surprised if I tell them that as a member of the Scottish National Party I find that the word "enlargement" has a slightly different connotation from that which it perhaps has for any other hon. Member present.
It appears to my party that we are on the road to self-government for Scotland. I should like to mention another of the West Lothian questions, not the one that has bogged down this House but one that we have in the European Parliament. The West Lothian question there, from time to time, is "What would the Commission and the Council do if part of a member State simply hived off?" The member State part is thinly disguised as Scotland, so thinly that immediately on the West Lothian question's being asked the whole Parliament looks round at me to see my response.
My response there, as here, on possible enlargement to include a self-governing Scotland is simply this: if we can achieve self-government through the democratic process, which is our aim, the question is not whether we have any worry or fear that the EEC would woo an independent Scotland; rather, it is whether an independent Scotland, with the richest fishpond in the world, with our stocks of energy and oil, with our other wealth, and our growth rate of 10 per cent. projected this year, compared with 4½ per cent. for the United Kingdom, would graciously allow the suit of courtship towards us. That would depend on the view of the people of Scotland. There would be a number of rocks on which that idea would perish, one of two of which I hope to tell the Minister about.
My party welcomes the enlargement of the EEC, for reasons rather along the lines of what the hon. Member for New-
140
ham, South (Mr. Spearing) has just said. I shall refrain from making some of his points, which I had noted.
We are opposed to the CAP in its rigid and non-flexible form. We do not think that it can work. We hope that it will break down. I would rather see whatever moneys are contributed by member States to an organisation of co-operation spent on a much more generous dollop of funds to the regional policy and the social policy. Under the word "social" there are the broadest implications for the cultural and educational aspects. That is what I hope will happen with the accession of these applicant States. I echo all that has been said about the greatest event, perhaps, of the last decade being the achievement of democratic forms of Government in these States. That is a most exciting event.
We indulge in these self-congratulatory epithets suggesting that everything in the garden of Europe is lovely. We are told that we are so democratic. Perhaps the applicant States ought to consider whether the EEC is sufficiently democratic. It appears to me that it is singularly undemocratic. That is another of the reservations that my party has always had about our entry to and our remaining in the Community.
For instance, the European Parliament is a democratic institution. I am a Member of that Parliament and I wish it to work as well as possible. That is why I welcome direct elections—in the hope that they will give the Parliament more direct control over the two-headed monster which is the Commission. This is a well-entrenched Executive, different from any national Parliament. It initiates legislation. It decides what the legislative programme will be. One wonders whether, even if the Parliament is directly elected, the Commission will give up any of its powers.
The Council of Ministers has also behaved badly and will not allow any of its deliberations, even its legislative ones, to be open, even to members of the appropriate Committees of the Parliament, let alone to public scrutiny. I have a letter here from the Minister of State sympathising with the view that I have frequently expressed in the European Parliament, saying that the United Kingdom is hoping to persuade the Council

141
to become more open. There are many other examples that I could give.
As a woman Member of the European Parliament I cannot take very much satisfaction in the status of women in the Parliament and within the set of institutions. There is hardly one woman in a senior post. All the women representing the various countries and parties have expressed this viewpoint. It does not augur too well for an organisation claiming to be democratic and representing a community in which half the population is female.
Is the EEC as highly motivated as we are told? I reiterate the remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, South. I remember, when the debates about entry to the Community took place in this House, that the reasons for entry narrowed down to two. The two Front Benches at that time were putting forward the same arguments. One argument was that by entering the Community we would acquire a better growth rate, in some way never quite explained. The other concerned a political motivation. It was said that Britain would be great again. I remember hearing both sides of the House saying that in my earlier term as a Member of Parliament.
It is perhaps understandable that Britain is mourning its lost empire and would like to be in a big pond again. I have a reservation about the essential motivation of the EEC because so often one hears expression being given to the idea that it is some kind of supranational power bloc with a military purpose, to a great extent, perhaps, built on fear.
On the other hand, as a Member of the European Parliament, I am aware that many Members of that institution are genuinely idealistic about it. Many of them, elderly men who are the products of a war-torn Europe, see in it the hope that there will never be another European war. There are two ways of looking at the set of institutions. As we are in the EEC the best thing to do is to hope that we can make it more democratic and lead it away from undesirable tendencies such as economic and monetary union.
I hope that the enlargement, to include the three new States, will make economic and monetary union less likely. I have never been successful in getting a
142
satisfactory answer from the Government Front Bench about their policy towards economic and monetary union. The answers that I have had have shown that the Government's policy is not in favour of such a union. Perhaps the Minister will comment on what effect, if any, he thinks enlargement would have on the attitude towards economic and monetary union adopted by so many Members of this House and other member States.
My last point is really a series of worries about certain industries, and I ask the Minister to comment on at least some of them. We have had a good discussion on the common agricultural policy, so I will say little about it. I have already said that I do not think that, basically, it can work. I hope that it will go away and that we can get back to some degree of rationality.
For example, there is the attitude towards our milk deliveries. It is an example of the absurd. If we interfered with our excellent form of milk distribution, we should be interfering with something that works. Indeed, we would actually be putting at risk the health of our citizens, because, I have no doubt, after considerable study, that the consumption of milk has played a part in improving the health of our children. What the other member States should be aiming at is emulating our milk distribution system and drinking more of the stuff than they do at present. That would be to their advantage.
Again, we are told that one of the applicant countries has considerable interests in textiles. Our textile industry is very important to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. It takes a sizeable share of the economy. In terms of population, it employs in the United Kingdom about 800,000 people. Thus, it is one of our most important industries. A huge amount of money goes into the Exchequer from its balance of payments earnings. Will there be protection in this case? Will there be further risk that the industry will suffer by the accession of these new member States?
What about our steel industry, which is being further decimated by Community requirements? What effect will the accession of these three countries have on that industry?

143
In considering regional policy, one can hope, on the periphery, as Scotland is that the accession of other countries on the periphery will make for a better understanding of pressure for better regional policies. There seems to me to be often a failure on the part of some of the member States—for example, Germany—to understand what, for example, rural roads and rural haulage entail. They do not understand what it is like in the North and in rural parts of Scotland. Hence, we had the difficulty over drivers' hours regulations, which, if they had been immediately enforceable, would have put most small hauliers in such areas out of business.
Perhaps, therefore, the accession of periphery countries with remote areas and definite regional problems will mean a better understanding all round of the very grave regional imbalances of a country like Scotland. A more enlightened view must be taken of regional policy.
No one will be surprised if I express my considerable fears about the effect of the accession of these three countries on the fishpond and the fish stocks. The Minister of State wrote to me on 24th April saying that he agreed about the serious state of a number of the fish stocks. He did not rule out, at the end of his letter, non-discriminatory measures to conserve stocks around our coasts. This is a matter of grave concern, because the fishing industry covers many areas where there is no alternative employment.
In the EEC, I find that often Britain is lectured for being very nationalistic—just as this House lectures me for being nationalistic. It is rather the same, but carried a step further forward. In the fishing debate a compromise solution was nearly reached—it came from the rapporteur of the time, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). It was at least acceptable to the United Kingdom, across the spectrum of parties. It was also acceptable to quite a number of other member States.
In the event, the proposal was beaten by two votes, with the Germans coming in and lecturing us about how we could fish to their beaches and they could fish to ours. They said that we were being nationalistic. It made me wonder where
144
the sense of it was, as the Germans have no beaches with fish at them.
This is the kind of thing that is happening in the EEC. There is a great deal there which one can admire, but Rome was not built in a day. The Parliament has existed for only 20 years, and it could be improved. I think that the best improvement would be to make it looser than it would be under the proposed economic and monetary union. If these three countries—Greece, Spain and Portugal—accede, I hope that they will not find themselves and their industries worse off. I certainly see advantages for the present member States by the accession of those three States, for the reasons that I have given.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Neil Marten: The Minister was very courteous in his opening when he said that there were some who wanted enlargement so that this would dilute the Common Market. He recognised that argument, and it is one that I have always supported, purely on the ground that, being a very European-minded person, as the Minister knows, my objection is just to the Treaty of Rome. If the Treaty of Rome can be broken down by the entry of these three countries, I think that at last Europe will be moving along on the right road, which is one of co-operation between countries in Europe and not just co-operation between a limited number of countries in Europe.
I say that although I am, as the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) said, a product of war-torn Europe. I think that is the right way in which we should all approach unity in Europe and that we should drop the idea of economic, monetary and political union in Europe. I think it does great damage to the cause of European unity.
I was very glad to hear the Minister say that the Government would stick firm and maintain the veto. I was not absolutely certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) was quite as firm. I hope that I was wrong. I will read Hansard tomorrow. I think it is very necessary that the Opposition should take exactly the same view as the Government on their firmness about the veto.

145
In The Times of 29th April there is an article about majority voting which I think is rather disturbing. It states:
"Britain and the other three big EEC countries—France, West Germany and Italy—will have to accept a greater use of majority voting in the Council of Ministers if unacceptably long delays in reaching decisions are to be avoided in an enlarged Community of 12 States. This is one of the most sensitive of the recommendations recently unveiled by the European Commission for coping with Spanish, Greek and Portuguese membership in the 1980s. More details of what Mr. Roy Jenkins and his fellow commissioners have in mind have now been released."
Later in the article it is stated:
"But the Commission argues that majority voting should be used not only where the treaty provides but also where there is 'no imperious reason' for insisting on unanimity."
I think that that goes much too far. I am not sure who is to judge whether there is an imperious reason. I think that each side of the House should be absolutely clear that the veto will remain, as described earlier, as the pistol in the holster which is not used but which can be used and which is the deterrent against majority voting.
I believe that the entry of these three countries will illustrate the classic nonsense of the common agricultural policy. Therefore, I think it will encourage the Common Market to accept at last that the countries of the Common Market should move over to a national agricultural policy. The percentage of the work force in agriculture in Spain is 22. In Portugal the figure is 28 per cent., in Greece 35 per cent., and in the EEC as a whole 8·7 per cent. In the United Kingdom it is less than 3 per cent.
We seem to be taking into the Community countries which have a great number of small farmers, and the one thing that the Community has been trying to do over the past years is to get rid of small farmers. Now it will be having once again the same problem, and it will be very costly. Resources will have to be drained off if these countries are to achieve their aims.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to prices and so on. I believe that the entry of these countries, and putting them under the common agricultural policy, will increase enormously the surpluses in Europe. For example, cereal prices in the three countries are much lower than they are in the
146
Common Market. The same can be said of wine and olive oil. If those commodities go up to Common Market prices there will be enormous extra production. That, I believe, will encourage enormous surpluses as well as a diversion of trade from the other Mediterranean countries. That is something which the Commission ought to watch.
We had that experience when we entered. For example, Australia was told that it could diversify. It tried to, but what happened? Where Australia tries to sell its produce now, it is met by competition from heavily subsidised EEC exports. I do not think we would want the same situation to occur when these three countries join, because as Mr. Fraser said,
"The Common Market has now become a narrow, self-interested trading group trying to make the world dance to its tune."
I do not think anyone would like that to occur.
In addition, if food prices rise to the current Common Market prices I believe that there will be political trouble with the peoples of those countries. They will not like the rise in the price of food. Under the terms of the Treaty of Rome, the Common Market must ensure a fair standard of living for poor farmers and farm workers. This will all take a great amount of money. It will fall back on to the British taxpayer. That is something we have to consider very carefully. If we want these countries in, the solution would be to abandon the CAP. This may be the very moment to choose to abandon this ridiculous and wasteful agricultural policy.
I should also like to support what was said about Turkey. We must pay great attention in that regard.
I hope, too, that the Spanish people will open the frontier with Gibraltar as a condition of negotiating their way in. They should not wait until they have finally joined. They ought to open the frontier with Gibraltar before the negotiations actually start. I hope that the Government will make that absolutely clear.
With regard to immigration, we should also recognise that the addition of these three countries will allow in quite a number of people who at the moment the Conservative Party would be trying to keep out. Available to come into this

147
country will be the Arabs from Spain and the Angolans who fled from Angola and are now in Portugal. It will not be open to this country to stop those people coming in should we wish to do so.
I am terrified of the increase in the languages that will be used. For example, in the Commission itself there are 1,050 interpreter-translators. An additional three more languages will mean increasing the number of interpreters and translators not only in the Commission but also in the European Assembly.
I am in favour of the entry of these three countries because I believe it will break down the Common Market into something which is far more sensible and which is along the road which we should have gone in the beginning. I am sure that these countries will not want to surrender their sovereignty or take part in any form of federal organisation. I hope that when they come in they will make that absolutely clear. In that case they will have my full support.
9.8 p.m.
Mr. John Roper: For the first time in any of these debates on the European Community—debates that go back over a number of years—I find myself in total agreement with the conclusion of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), but not necessarily with the supporting argument that he used in coming to it. I also support the enlargement of the Community by adding these three further members, because I believe that it will provide a full basis for developing a European economic and political union.
The most exciting thing to me over the past year—in talking to Portuguese and Spanish Socialists who have come and joined in the parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe—is that they have said "We want to come into the Community as soon as possible. This is something that we wish to be a member of". That is one of the best advertisements for the European Community that I know of. Countries which have escaped from a period of totalitarian rule now want to join in our Community, not to dilute it or water it down but in order to build it up and to achieve the objectives which they and I wish to see achieved in a European Community which is able to move forward to the Social Democratic objectives which they and I share.
148
That is why this debate is of such importance. I think that it is important that the Government prepared for us the useful memorandum to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State has referred. I am also glad that at rather short notice they have also made available to us the fresco document from the Commission, although unfortunately that is incomplete, as the detailed analyses on the economic and institutional aspects of enlargement which are referred to in its preface were not available in the Vote Office when I went to seek them. That is yet another argument why we should have a further debate when those further documents are available.
I want to refer to two or three specific items. First, reference has been made to the problem of the textile industry—by, among others, the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing). Coming from Lancashire, I must point out, as was made clear by the CBI when it gave evidence to the House of Lords Committee on this matter, that the Portuguese textile industry is this country's third largest source of low-cost textiles. Quite clearly, considerable care would have to be devoted to watching the position of that textile industry and its impact upon the rest of Europe's textiles.
This is not just a plea for Lancashire's textiles. I am convinced that all the members of Comitextil, representing the whole of the Community, would want to see proper arrangements made for the place of Portuguese textiles in any process of enlargement. That is where the fresco document's proposal for a two-stage process, perhaps extending over 10 years, would be appropriate.
The question of languages was referred to by the hon. Member for Banbury, among others. I think that we have to accept that inevitably all of the languages of the new members will have to be official languages of the Community. Given that Community regulations become immediately applicable in member States, it is impossible for the law not to be available in the language of each of those countries. I also believe that in the European Parliament it is imperative that Members should be able to speak in their own languages and should not be restricted or inhibited by having to speak in some other language, and that it should not be a qualification for membership

149
that one should be able to speak in another language.
However, having said that, I believe that in the working practices of the Commission and the European Parliament there ought to be a restricted number of working languages. I very much hope that the Government will, in the discussions that will take place from now on, be able to work out very clearly what those working languages can be. I very much hope that they can be as few as possible.
I come to the point which is perhaps one of the major arguments that have run through the debate—the question whether, on the one hand, widening of the Community equals loosening of the Community, leading to the dilute organisation that the hon. Member for Banbury supports, or whether, on the other hand, as is argued in some parts of the Commission's fresco document—perhaps overenthusiastically—one cannot have widening without a turn of the screw, an increase in central decision-making. It seems to me that one has to try to strike a balance between these and say that at present, as is put forward in the Government's memorandum, we should attempt to follow the sort of pattern that has occurred before.
It is worth quoting the paragraph in the memorandum that my hon. Friend submitted to the House on 7th March dealing with the question of the veto, Paragraph 3, dealing with institutions, says that
"In dealing with routine business the Council already operates by establishing where the majority view lies, in the expectation that a Member State will not block a decision which commands general support; this is in effect an informal majority decision-taking system."
I think that it is a system which in other terms was described by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd).
There is already at work a process which goes quite a long way towards an informal majority decision-taking process. I believe that it would be a great mistake to reopen all the theological arguments about the Luxembourg compromise at this stage. I believe that we should enable that process, which has developed very happily, particularly under the British presidency, to continue. As the Commission suggests in its own paper, this might evolve in other direc-
150
tions, as people begin to have confidence in it. It is not something than can be rushed; it is something that will come as people gain confidence in the Community as an institution.
I promised to speak briefly, and I come to a close now. I conclude by saying that I believe that that which is before us is a step forward. It is a step not towards a dilution, to a form of inter-governmental co-operation, but a step towards creating a wider and fuller base on which the economic and political union of Europe may be built.
9.16 p.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome the opportunity to speak for a short time in the debate. I welcome the enlargement of the Community to 12 member countries. I must make it clear that I am no expert on foreign affairs or on defence. I wish to make a few remarks on agriculture.
I do not think that those who have spoken so far have exaggerated the problems of agriculture and the CAP. However, what I deplore about some of the interventions and speeches is the defeatist attitude that is shown towards the CAP and agriculture in Europe. I believe that it is a challenge. It is a matter that we should seek to do something about and to change in the light of experience. Therefore, I wish to bring to the attention of the House some of my fears about enlargement and the effect on agriculture within the Community as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) talked about the CAP being "a classic nonsense". I think that that was the phrase.
Mr. Marten: That is right.
Mr. Mills: I do not think that that is so. In the light of experience we have seen that some mistakes have been made and that some changes are necessary. That is why I am keen to see the enlargement of the Community.
What will enlargement do? It will give the Community as a whole the opportunity of making the fundamental radical changes that are necessary. From my short experience of politics—a great deal less than many who are present tonight—I believe that it is necessary for politicians to get off the hook. Certainly that is true

151
of the politicians of the Community. Enlargement offers the chance. That is why I welcome the opportunity of enlargement. However, before we have enlargement we must make the necessary changes in the CAP that I consider essential. That is my main point.
For goodness sake let us get things right now. Let us start pressing within the Community to ensure that we make the fundamental changes that are necessary in the light of experience of agriculture in Europe.
Let us consider the problems of enlargement. Paragraph 10 of the consultative document clearly states that:
"Agriculture plays a far less important role in the Community than in the applicant countries."
That is true. That suggests to me that there will be greater needs in the three new member countries. They will be applying for more help and more aid for amalgamations, more help and more aid for support and more help and more aid for farm improvements. That is a very good thing.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is good for them.
Mr. Mills: Although it is important that we move into this area slowly and carefully, learning from the mistakes that we have made in the CAP, I welcome enlargement. I do not agree with those who say that we should literally keep the peoples of the three applicant countries in peasant conditions. I want to see an improvement in agriculture in Greece, Portugal and Spain.
Mr. Powell: Why?
Mr. Mills: I believe it is right that we should help them to improve their position to take advantage of modern methods and generally to assist them in the production of food in their countries.
Mr. Powell: Why?
Mr. Spearing rose—
Mr. Mills: I shall not give way, as others want to speak.
It is important that we should watch that point carefully. I do not believe that we should deny these three countries the improvement and advantages which are so necessary.
152
There is another point that is made in document—the whole problem of surpluses. It is important to be fair about this matter. It would be a very serious matter if Spain were producing a surplus of dairy products, but she is not. It would be very serious if Spain were producing a surplus of meat and adding to the so-called mountain—I do not agree that there is a mountain—but she is not. I look on this matter from a positive point of view. Spain is a country to which a certain amount of our surpluses can be diverted. I know that farmers in the South-West of England are looking forward to the opportunity of sending some of their beef and mutton on a deadweight basis to these countries. It may be of great advantage to the Community as a whole to divert some of the surpluses of dairy products and of meat to these three applicant countries.
Let us look at these matters from a more positive point of view rather than constantly to seek to make the worst of them all. Basically, we believe in the Community and what it does from a defence and, indeed, political point of view. Let us try to seize the opportunities that these three applicant countries will give us to make the changes and to deal with the problems that we have.
9.22 p.m.
Mr. Nick Budgen: I suppose that all who take part in these debates should start by declaring their prejudices. I declare my prejudices as having been in favour of going into and of remaining within the EEC. But, unlike some of those who fought those battles with me, I do not believe that the EEC is here for ever. I do not believe in a federal Europe. I do not believe in economic and monetary union. I see the EEC as only a temporary alliance of nation States. I hoped, most of all, that the EEC would be a method by which France and Germany would at least be temporarily locked together in an alliance which would prevent them from causing a Third World War in this century.
Therefore, I believed that it was vital that the EEC should concentrate not on peripheral things, such as bureaucratic proposals for regulating the operations of self-employed commercial agents, but on foreign affairs and perhaps ultimately on

153
defence, particularly in the event of America moving towards a more isolationist posture.
I also hoped—this was a secondary but important aim—that perhaps the EEC might become a free trade area, even a free market area, and that it might perhaps become an alliance of rich men who would be able to become richer by their alliance.
As I said, I saw it as a temporary alliance. I did not see it as lasting for ever, any more than other alliances do. But tonight perhaps we are taking one further step towards its death. I believe that the EEC, if we allow Greece, Portugal and Spain to enter, will die just that little bit more quickly than perhaps it would otherwise, for they will add to the multiplicity of objectives which have been foisted upon the EEC ideal—more and more contrasting and impossible objectives. In the end, the whole bureaucracy of the EEC will be so grossly overladen that it will break up.
It is strange that the Tory Party, which I understand is said to be the party of Europe—which I suppose means that none of us has any doubts about any of the objectives of those who now support the European ideal—should be allied to those whose avowed intention is to smash up the EEC. Surely we should look with scepticism at some of the arguments that are being advanced for allowing Greece to come in.
I turn to the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd). The most important of his arguments was that the EEC should progress. I do not know what he means by progress. He sounded rather like the chairman of a large conglomerate company explaining how advantageous it would be to take in a few more companies and how much more profit there would be as a result. I do not believe that progress in an alliance can be judged by the number of people who join it, nor can it be judged by the multiplicity of the objectives of the alliance. My hon. Friend went on to say that we have to allow Greece, Portugal and Spain in—he was also nodding in the direction of Turkey—because if we denied them their application it would be a cruel blow to their stability.
That is a wholly fallacious argument. The idea that an external country can
154
give to the internal events of another nation State any element of stability is entirely wrong. I shall give the House a crude example. I refer to the interesting argument by Lord Paget in relation to Rhodesia. He said that he hoped that the internal settlement would stick and that the best way to ensure that was by having to defend Rhodesia and its settlement against external forces. The single most cohesive thing that can be appied to the internal events of a nation is not external interference with a desire to help. It is probably external aggression. The same argument is being used today.
Mr. Peter Rees: Could my hon. Friend develop that argument? Does he feel that Marshall Aid had a stabilising effect on Western Europe? Does he think that Russian intervention in 1947–48 would have made for stability in Europe?
Mr. Budgen: I say that every now and then temporary intervention by another State is helpful for a limited aim. I say that where a country wishes to give itself economic or constitutional stability it does so by its own efforts. Those who are for ever looking for a cure for our economic and social ills to countries abroad are crying for something which is impossible.
Just as our salvation will be created by ourselves so, if there be a salvation for the people of Greece, it will be achieved by the Greeks themselves. I do not know what are their objectives. It should not be assumed, for instance, that because we have 200-acre farms they will want 200-acre farms. It should not be assumed that because we are a highly materialistic society they will wish to make the same mistake. They wish to achieve their own salvation. We shall not assist their stability by taking them into the EEC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon also said that we must accept them because they have not gone Communist. Here I take up the argument put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). In desperation we have often allied ourselves to countries with internal regimes which we have wholly deplored. We were most grateful for the alliance with Russia in the last war, and perhaps in the next war

155
we would be most grateful for an alliance with China. That does not mean that we would approve of China's internal arrangements. Nor does it mean that its internal arrangements would be in any way a condition precedent to the alliance. If we were to say that we must accept the applicant countries because they had not gone Communist, would that mean in the event of the Italians or the French going Communist they must be expelled from the EEC?
Mr. Marten: Yes.
Mr. Budgen: I conclude by saying that the proposals being put forward tonight are making sure that this temporary alliance of the EEC will die sooner rather than later.
9.32 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I very much welcome, as I am sure most hon. Members will have done, the speech of the Minister of State in opening this short and stimulating debate. I understand that the Government are to provide another day before the Summer Recess for this topic. I am sure that that is right because, as the Minister of State said, this is the most important subject before the European Community.
It has been said that the duty of a politician is not just to be partisan. We need to have a mission, a sense of purpose, and I think that the goal of a truly united Europe, as we have found so often before in the past, transcends our traditional party divisions. In Britain the concept of a united Europe has always gone beyond the idea of a Europe of the Six, the Nine or even the Twelve. When the Community was established and we unfortunately failed to join, we assisted in the foundation of EFTA. EFTA was created not as a barrier but as a bridge until such time as we could succeed in building the wider Europe that we wanted.
We all know that the Treaty of Rome provides that any European State may apply to become a member of the Community. Our purpose, as I see it, has always been that it should ultimately embrace all the members of the Western European family. Wherever possible these members should be full members of the Community, or associated as closely as possible where traditional neutrality,
156
in the case of Switzerland or Sweden, or treaty-imposed neutrality, in the case of Austria or Finland, makes full membership not desired or impossible. Against that background we should welcome and facilitate in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Treaty of Rome the accession to the EEC of Greece, Spain and Portugal. I share entirely the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) in trusting that in due course Turkey, whose association agreement, like that of Greece, expressly provided for the possibility of full membership, will join too.
I have always shared the view that was expressed by the late Mr. Anthony Crosland who as Foreign Secretary said on 12th January last year:
"The political benefits of enlargement outweigh all the practical difficulties".
I also share his view that enlargement will give a new strength to European democracy.
I agree with the Minister of State about the timing. We should not delay enlargement, because delay can serve no useful purpose and much might be lost. If we keep the applicants waiting in the wings for too long they may well leave the stage altogether. For years we have been assuring the peoples of Greece, Spain and Portugal that if only they became democracies they would have the opportunity to join the European Community. Here again I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West.
The new generation of political leaders in these countries have relied firmly upon these assurances and we have now the clear obligation in the Community to give effect to them. If we were to betray the hopes that we ourselves have aroused we would reap a terrible harvest of disillusion in those countries—a harvest which might well destroy the new democracies that have turned to us for the support they need and deserve. If we were to do that we would undermine our own prosperity and security.
Of course there are problems, just as there were when we joined. These problems will require special transitional and other measures. But these problems should not be exaggerated. I think that the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) was right in saying that there should be no question whatever of

157
pre-accession transitional arrangements. These countries must be full members from the outset, whatever transitional arrangements may be made.
There is already a considerable volume of trade between the existing Community and the new applicants. A great quantity of Greek wine already goes to France even though there might be some difficulty in finding a bottle there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) was gloomy about olive oil. Are we to believe that the future of Western Europe turns on controlling the future supply of olive oil? My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) was much more constructive. No one has to defend every aspect of the CAP, and we never have done so. But the object must be to improve it in the interests of existing and new members.
Spain is already largely dependent upon its trade with the Community. About one-third of Spain's imports come from the Community, which takes almost half of Spanish exports. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) was wrong when he said that industry is not concerned about these matters. I chaired a conference on business in Spain which was organised by the Financial Times and I can assure him that there was great interest in expanding trade with Spain.
Again, almost half of Portugal's external trade is already with the Community. This is a measure of the EEC's existing importance to the Portuguese economy. We in the United Kingdom always have been particularly concerned about this because we take 50 per cent. of Portuguese exports and we had a great deal to do with the association agreement which Portgual negotiated when we joined the EEC. We had then to deal with the provision of tomato puree, which is so essential to the can of British baked beans.
Apart from these matters, which can be dealt with at an official level—they do not raise very great political issues—the main anxieties about enlargement have centred on cost. The Commission has estimated that if the three applicants had been members of the Community this year the net extra budgetary cost to the
158
Nine would have been about £650 million.
We already give some aid to these countries. We are rightly proud about the aid we give to the developing world as a whole. Surely we can give some priority to those who dwell in our continent and who wish to continue to be our friends and allies.
In or out of the Community, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Turkey will continue to need aid if they are to succeed in bridging the development gap separating them from us. Here again I agree with what the right hon. Member for Devon, North said about the IMF initiative being totally inadequate in present circumstances. At the most it is a key which opens opportunities for further aid from the Community as a whole.
We must face the fact that in our own interests, as much as in theirs, sweeping measures, as the Commission have indicated, should be taken to lay down new guidelines for their development and at the same time to ensure markets for their products. On the one hand, we have the Europe of the Nine with an over-capacity in production and a loss of confidence that the wheels will ever start turning again. On the other hand, there are these new applicant States plus Turkey, all with a large trade deficit with the Community and with an urgent and enormous need for industrial equipment and development which we can supply.
To take up the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) in his intervention, I suggest that only an action on the scale of the Marshall Plan can give the necessary injection of demand which the industries of the Nine require, restore a general confidence in the future and, at the same time, match the needs of developing the economies of the applicant countries so that they can accept the treaty obligations and participate fully in inter-European and world trade.
President Truman and General Marshall rescued Europe in 1948. They believed in the values of our European society, in our capacity and in our future. We in the Nine, the richer countries of Europe, have obligations to the poorer ones and we must show the same faith

159
and determination in saving ourselves as the Marshall Plan did for Europe.
9.42 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. John Tomlinson): Hon. Members have today shown that there is an encouragingly wide recognition, common to both sides of the House, of the significance of enlargement. As a number of speakers have said, in this useful and well-informed debate this is one of the most important issues facing the Community today.
Hon. Members—perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), with his idiosyncratic views—have shown that there is overwhelming agreement that we must respond positively to the desire of Greece, Portugal and Spain to join the Community. The debate has demonstrated, however, that there is a legitimate concern about the consequences of enlargement for Britain, the Community and the applicants. It is particularly valuable to air this concern at a moment when the Community is at last settling down to serious thinking about the way in which it is to cope with enlargement and when substantive negotiations with the first applicant are beginning. The Government will bear in mind all that has been said by hon. Members as they frame their policy and as the individual negotiations and discussions unfold.
I should like to reply to some of the questions raised in the debate. I reiterate the words of my hon. Friend the Minister of State in his apologies and regrets about the circumstances of the curtailment of the debate. I am sure that hon. Members will be satisfied that further consideration will be given to this important subject.
I say one thing to the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd). I cannot agree that the Prime Minister's letter to Mr. Hayward, the General Secretary of the Labour Party, could be described as a letter which caused much comment and trouble. It might have caused comment, but "trouble" is a wrong description. It has achieved an understanding which we should not denigrate, not only in the Labour Party but amongst a number of other people in the country, of precisely
160
where the Government stand on a number of important issues. It is churlish to denigrate that letter as having caused trouble. It has been of fundamental significance and is welcomed by the majority of Members on both sides of the House because of its clarity of purpose.
A question that has figured prominently in the debate is whether efficiency can be improved by greater use of majority voting. It was referred to by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). We cannot see that greater use of formal majority voting will speed up the work of the Council either before or after enlargement. An informal system already exists and is working all the time to resolve routine matters by establishing where the majority preference lies.
On all routine matters, States that find themselves in a minority are under a certain degree of pressure to fall in with the consensus and allow a decision to be taken. This system has worked and has preserved Community solidarity through some very difficult times, precisely because it is informal and is not based on dogmatic rules.
All countries, even those that demonstrate a fetish for majority voting, have some issues that are so important to them that they would not, in practice, want to be outvoted. That is why the practice of the Council since the Luxembourg compromise is to allow any State to ask for discussion to be continued without a vote where it feels that very important interests are at stake. But this is not something that can be rigidly defined. What a State perceives to be important interests at any particular time depends on all sorts of factors, especially political views at home.
Another matter that was raised by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), Mid-Oxon and Banbury, is the implications of enlargement for Turkey. Obviously the Turks are concerned about the economic and political advantages that Greece may gain vis-à-vis Turkey.

161
On the economic side, the Turks have said that they wish to revise their association agreement with the EEC. There is no reason for the Greek accession to affect consideration of this end, on the political side, Greek accession need not and should not have any negative impact on the Community's relations with Turkey. Ways will have to be found of ensuring that a mutually satisfactory relationship is maintained after enlargement, and that is already under substantial consideration with our partners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East explained what he perceived as the political disadvantages in enlargement and raised some of the problems that undoubtedly exist. The nine member States have expressed themselves in favour of enlargement. Our partners accept, as we do, the overriding political argument in favour of accepting the applications of the three applicant countries.
There is, of course, concern about the problems and potential costs that will be caused by enlargement. These anxieties vary in emphasis from country to country. For example, some member States are worried that expansion from nine to 12 will lead to a further weakening of the Community. I shall have something to say about that later. Others are concerned about the competition that their agriculture will have to face from the new members.
These are points that will obviously have to be thrashed out in individual negotiations. The overriding consideraation is that this thrashing out will occur against a background belief that enlargement is crucially important in order to buttress the newly established democracies in Southern Europe.
As has been said time and again in the debate, that political consideration is one which the vast majority of hon. Members and, I believe, people outside will accept as being of overriding importance and fundamental significance.
Mr. Budgen: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Tomlinson: No. I shall not give way at this stage because a number of important questions were asked by hon. Members to which I wish to reply.
162
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East also asked about the sensitive points that he thinks will emerge during the negotiations with the three applicant countries. It is clear that the negotiations will be between the Community as a whole and the individual applicant States.
As the Community position is formulated on various aspects of the negotiations, we shall ensure that full regard is taken of British interests. We shall want to examine closely the implications of the terms offered to the applicant States in all areas. The transitional arrangements, which will cover a period of several years, will need to strike a balance between obligations and benefits for existing member States and applicants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) and the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) asked about textiles. A voluntary undertaking has been given by the Greek textile industry to respect certain levels for EEC member States in 1978. Although no agreement has been reached with Spain and Portugal on voluntary restraint, their Governments have been informed of levels that should not be exceeded. At the Council of Ministers' meeting last December the EEC Commission undertook to ensure that these limits are observed, and the level of imports is being closely monitored and details of categories which are causing concern are reported to the Commission.
The important subject of Portugal was raised by the right hon. Member for Devon, North, the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. They all asked whether the IMF was doing enough on Portugal. I understand that negotiations with the IMF are well advanced, and I hope that they will be brought to a successful conclusion soon. The conclusion of the negotiations will not unlock more Community aid funds, but it will release funds which some Community countries have said they are ready to provide. The United Kingdom has already released its funds under this multilateral facility in advance of agreement, and I believe that our position should be abundantly clear from that action.
The Community, as such, has already provided about £275 million worth of

163
loans since 1974, and it may provide more in the future. This remains to be decided. It is clearly one of the matters raised in the fresco, and no doubt proposals will come forward in due course.
As for the United Kingdom, we have already provided, or undertaken to provide, over £5 million since 1974, as well as putting up $20 million as our share of the multilateral facility. In addition, there is a considerable United Kingdom input via the World Bank, and we are keeping the situation under review in terms of further aid.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South mentioned the subject of institutional development. There are always choices to be made in that respect, and the need to maintain efficiency and cohesion, limit bureaucracy, and ensure democratic debate and a full hearing for national interests is very much with us today in a Community of Nine. We are already exploring ways of speeding up the machinery by trimming Council agendas, by giving Coreper a greater role in preparing decisions and many of the matters referred to by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in his opening remarks.
Our objectives will not change in a Community of Twelve. I accept that new problems may arise, but since institutions are not an end in themselves but must reflect the actual needs of the Community, these problems will very much depend on the general terms for enlargement. Put crudely, where States are content with policies, I do not believe that they will be particularly obstructive on procedures.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn mentioned the implications of enlargement for economic and monetary union. Economic and monetary union is a long-term ideal which will not of itself solve our present problems in the Community. The most immediate and pressing task confronting all member States is to decide on common action on growth, currency stability, energy, trade and flows of capital. Considerable headway was made at the European Council meeting in Copenhagen on 7th and 8th April in identifying the problems and establishing guidelines for a joint assessment of action needed.
164
We are actively following up these discussions in the Community so that decisions on practical measures can be taken within a common strategy at the July meeting of the European Council which will be followed by the Bonn summit. We must concentrate our efforts on these practical tasks, and a successful solution of those problems will in turn facilitate consideration of the possibilities of economic and monetary union.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the subject of fisheries. The Government's firm line on the basic requirements for a common fisheries policy is well known, as are our views on the conservation of fish stocks. The Spanish fishing industry is the largest in Western Europe. The accession of Spain to the Community would place an immense new strain on fish stocks, which are already overexploited, unless the present common fisheries policy were amended along the lines consistently pursued by Her Majesty's Government. These are the lines that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be taking in Brussels, as he already has been.
The hon. Member for Banbury seemed impatient that I should turn to the question of Gibraltar. I say to him that, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in opening the debate, the British Government have welcomed the Spanish application to join the EEC but have expressly not linked this to progress over Gibraltar. However, we have made it clear that we look to Spain for a readiness to co-operate in the search for solutions to the Gibraltar problem. As Spain moves closer to the rest of Europe, exemplified by her accession to the Council of Europe in 1977, it should be possible as between partners and friends to resolve these questions.
Mr. Marten: Should not the Spanish show a bit of good intention right now? The Government might even suggest to them that before they open negotiations they should open the frontier as a gesture of good will and sincerity, to show that they really mean that joining the Community is important to them.
Mr. Tomlinson: I welcome gestures of good will and good intention, from whatever source they come. I am sure that such a gesture would be welcome.
Mr. Marten: Then suggest it.
Mr. Tomlinson: My hon. Friend the Minister of State has made it quite clear that we believe that as Spain moves closer to the rest of Europe it should be possible to resolve these questions.
In the last few minutes I want to turn to an important theme that has run through this debate. A number of hon. Members have referred to the philosophy behind enlargement. Some clearly see enlargement as a chance to water down the Community. The Government's position should be quite clear by now. Britain is not and never has been committed to federalist goals or to rigid models for economic and monetary union, in the absence of genuine economic convergence. But we do not see the Community as static. Indeed, we have many ideas for developing it. It may be that after enlargement, development will have to be worked at more selectively, and our energies concentrated on deepening Community co-operation in particular areas. But to see this approach as a devious attempt to undermine the Community, using enlargement as a front, is a patent and unreasonable distortion.
We have said that after enlargement we should be able to guard against an over-bureaucratised Community. This is an aim to which we have been committed ever since we acceded. We want methods of decision-taking which will be effective, as economic of time as possible at the highest levels, representative, and based on proper standards of openness and
166
information. We shall pursue these aims in the context of enlargement as we pursue them in all other contexts.
This approach is far more likely to give us the flexibility and sensitivity needed for a healthy Community than is the doctrinaire application of purely procedural rules. The Twelve will be different from the Nine, and anyone who tries to force the Twelve into the mould of the Six will fail.
We have had a very useful debate. Perhaps the curtailment of time has assisted it, in the sense that every hon. Member has been more concise in making his or her observations.
There are clearly economic difficulties for the applicant countries, for the individual States of the Nine and for the Nine as a body, but I join the many other hon. Members who have expressed a firm belief that we must go ahead to enlargement to a Community of Twelve as a demonstration of our political faith in the future of a wider democratic Europe and as our gesture of solidarity in buttressing the important fledgling or re-emerging democracies of Southern Europe.
In that task, we shall be failing not only ourselves but the future of European democracy unless we proceed with all due speed to make sure that as quickly as possible we have a Community of 12 member States.
Mr. Frank R. White: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COMMERCIAL AGENTS)
10.0 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/3/77 on Commercial Agents.
The Commission document is a proposal for a Council directive to co-ordinate the laws of the member States relating to self-employed commercial agents.
I should explain that "commercial agents" is a concept recognised and provided for in Continental legal codes, but they are not identified or specially provided for in our law. They are, broadly, people and firms that carry out the business of what in the United Kingdom we would probably call a manufacturer's agent, or with more precision, a manufacturer's selling agent. They are engaged by a principal to sell his goods on his behalf and in his name and generally remunerated by the payment of a commission. Such agents are widely used in international trade, particularly by small firms and when the size of the market does not justify a firm setting up its own sales network. They are also used in internal trade. Some agencies are handled by major international business houses, but it is thought that well over 50 per cent. of agents are individuals or proprietors of very small concerns. Estimates suggest a total of about 20,000 in the United Kingdom.
The proposal is based on Articles 57 and 100 of the treaty. It has two main objectives. One is to harmonise the commercial agency laws of the member States. Differences between these laws are, in the Commission's view, detrimental to the functioning of the Common Market, affecting conditions of competition and creating legal uncertainties. The other objective is to strengthen the position of the commercial agent, who is assumed to be the weaker party in negotiating with his principal. The proposal does this by setting out detailed, mandatory rules, regulating the main aspects of the contract between them.
I shall not take up the time of the House by going in detail over the contents
168
of the proposed directive which are surveyed both in the explanatory memorandum and in the Select Committee's report. In brief, the proposed directive is derived from the provisions of the German commercial legal code, but it is, in general, both more comprehensive and more protective to the agent that the existing legal provisions in the individual member States. For the United Kingdom such legislation would be highly novel both in form and content.
Four main issues can, I think, be identified as arising from the proposal. The first is the case, in principle, for a directive on this issue. The second is the question of the implications for the structure of our law of agency. Third, the drafting of the proposed directive is criticised as being inadequate and, arising from this, is the fourth issue, namely that the scope of application of the directive is unclear.
On the first of these questions, hon. Members will see from the report that there are differing opinions—not surprisingly. The manufacturers' agents, represented primarily by the United Commercial Travellers Association section of ASTMS—UCTA—and the Manufacturers' Agents' Association, have long pressed for protection of the sort that the Commission wishes to introduce and welcome and strongly support the proposal. Their principals, represented by such organisations as the CBI and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce are unimpressed by the Commission's arguments and query the basic premise that the agent is in the weaker bargaining position. The regard the detail and complexity of the proposed directive as removing a useful measure of existing flexibility and as making insufficient allowance for developments in commercial practice. Although they are unhappy with the proposal, however, I think that I should mention that they have not indicated that they would be unable to live with it and, indeed, they are probably already dealing with provisions of a similar nature when they use agents on the Continent, although probably not as comprehensive as those proposed here.
Against this we have to set the case of the manufacturers' agents. They have put forward to us specific examples of

169
the problems faced by the smaller agent—agents who have been unable to obtain written confirmation of the terms of their contracts, with consequent difficulties and disagreements over rates and payments of commission or notice of termination. They have complained that agents can be used to build up sales in an unpromising market and then put aside, without compensation, when the business has reached a level where the principal can set up his own sales organisation.
The absence of a legal requirement for a formal contract incorporating basic safeguards has, they feel, led to uncertainty and insecurity for a group of people who are doing a useful and valuable job and who deserve better treatment. They point out that this view has been recognised in the commercial agency laws or most other European countries. The present proposal, in whose formulation their international representative bodies have played a significant part, contains the provisions which they regard as necessary for establishing a reasonable level of security for their members.
I turn now to the legal issues arising from the present proposal. They spring partly from the implications of introducing codified Continental forms into a part of our law of agency, partly from the novelty of some of the provisions, and partly because of the drafting and uncertain coverage of the proposal.
The drafting of the proposal has been widely criticised. It gives rise not only to legal objections, but also to considerable uncertainty as to what the Commission is trying to do in detail, and where the Commission has explained what it is trying to do, it is not clear that the text will always achieve it. If the principle of a directive on this subject is to be accepted, there would appear to be a substantial amount of drafting work to be done if the present text is to be used as a basis.
The fourth issue, which has been the basis of much of the critical comment we have received, is the apparently very broad coverage of the directive. This can be interpreted as extending well beyond manufacturers' selling agents to include agencies involved in the buying of goods and a wide range of service agencies, possibly including, in certain circum-
170
stances, solicitors, estate agents and stockbrokers. This appears primarily to arise from inadequacies of definition.
Even the exemptions are not free from this criticism. As the Select Committee says in its report, the tenor of the proposal
"as a whole is directed to a much narrower concept of a commerial agent".
Organisations representing both agents and principals involved in other fields of agency are anxious about the possible application of any directive to their activities. They do not consider the Commission's proposals are intended or designed to apply to them, and they wish to be either clearly excluded from its scope or for radical changes to be made in the provisions.
One particular problem is the mail order agent—generally a housewife operating from home and selling goods from a catalogue. There are some 3 million or 4 million such part-time agents in the United Kingdom. Here, the Commission has made an attempt to allow them to be excluded from some of the provisions of the directive, but it is doubtful how effective this would be, and the Mail Order Traders' Association considers that it would be impossible to apply the proposed directive to its members' use of agents.
I think that it will be agreed from what I have said that there are obviously major shortcomings in the definition which would have to be cleared up should it be decided to go ahead with a directive on this topic.
These, then, are the issues to be dealt with by the member States when the proposal comes to be considered in the Council working party, and I should remind hon. Members that, although proposals for Community legislation on these questions have been under discussion within the EEC since well before its enlargement, the working party will be the first opportunity we shall have had to discuss the topic of other member States à neuf.
When these discussions will start, I cannot yet say. The Economic and Social Committee has already advised in favour of a directive along the lines suggested by the Commission, but the European Parliament has not yet given its view and the

171
proposal will not be referred to a Council working party before the report from the Parliament has been received.
As far as the Government's attitude is concerned, we have already indicated in another place—and this has been noted by the Select Committee—that, in view of the conflicting and often critical reactions to the proposal in the United Kingdom, we are reserving our position until there has been an opportunity to explore with the other member States in the Council working party the value of the directive on this topic.
In the light of these discussions we shall be in a better position to decide on the practical benefits of such an instrument. If these were found to be worth while, we could take a view whether the form and content of the directive as proposed by the Commission are those most appropriate to meet the needs which it has identified. It may well be that something with narrower and more explicit definitions, yet with broader provisions, should be sought.
The Select Committee urged that this proposal should be considered by the House before our policy was finalised, and I am glad that an opportunity for an early debate has arisen tonight. We are anxious to have the views of the House, and I assure hon. Members that the Government will take particular notice of what they have to say on this deailed and complex document.
10.10 p.m.
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The House will, I am sure, realise that this directive, if it is adopted, will in almost all its articles be mandatory on all member States. That will mean that the whole of our law of commercial agency will have to be rewritten in detail on what is fundamentally a German basis.
The draftsmen have taken the German code and tightened it up in various forms, as the Minister said, but it is wholly different—I nearly used the pejorative or disparaging word "alien"—from the concepts of the common law concerning commercial agency. We shall not be allowed, as the draft is at present, to opt out of almost any of its provisions.
It covers the most enormous field of activity. It does not affect only selling agents. In spite of criticisms and attempts in the Legal Committee of the European
172
Parliament to get it amended—and such amendments were bitterly resisted by the Commission's representative—it covers also theatrical agents, estate agents, travel agents, literary agents and pop group agents. These are all people who are supposed to be able to make or break their so-called principals in their careers. It is said in another breath that these agents are in a poor and weak bargaining position, unable to stand up to their principals, although the vast majority of those included in the present definition are far stronger than their principals.
The straitjacket of the proposals is quite remarkable. For some reason which I do not understand—I shall take only two or three examples—the Commission seems to dislike very much the well-established practice of the del credere agent. The del credere agent—I refer to Article 21—is a commercial agent who guarantees the solvency and the performance of the third party whom he introduces. He guarantees payment himself. It has been a well-known practice in the United Kingdom over many centuries. It is not very popular on the Continent, because the same reputations for honesty have not always existed there.
The del credere agency system is of enormous benefit commercially, but it is to be "cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd" in the most extraordinary way, and we cannot opt out of that. But what is the purpose of that sort of harmonisation? The del credere agency system, as at present constituted, cannot possibly cause any sort of distortion of competition. It is so minimal and marginal as not to be a reality in that sense. We have here an example, throughout this type of directive, of a desire to produce a uniformity of law which is, I think, in the wrong direction.
It seems to me that the del credere system is an excellent one, and that if there is to be uniformity it should be uniformity in favour of the British system rather than the German system. I should be quite happy with the present variety. On the whole, I think that this country gets commercial advantage from the fact that agents here are prepared to undertake long-term del credere positions even on the telephone, without any signature or any written evidence. Under Article 21 that will no longer be allowed, because the limitations require the most tremendous paraphernalia.

173
Every individual transaction must be signed, be in writing and so on. It cannot be right that there should be that straitjacket imposed upon us.
There are other things. Article 9 states that commercial agents shall have
"authority to negotiate commercial transactions for account of the principal".
That rather goes without saying. It also states that he shall have authority to conclude agreementts in respect thereof only where the principal empowers him to do so. That seems to strike at the doctrine of ostensible authority—a well-known doctrine in the English law of agency by which, if an agent does conclude an agreement for which he has no existing authority, his principal may well be bound subsequently if, in fact, he has held himself out as having the authority and the doctrine of ostensible authority applies.
That may or may not be a desirable state of affairs. But it is the sort of state of affairs to which each individual country's law ought to apply its own traditional rules, even if they vary. There again, there can be no question of the distortion of competition or the distortion of the European market.
I only instance those two examples to show the rigid detail with which this class of directive is drafted and the tenacity with which the Commission guards and preserves its drafting—certainly in the Legal Committee, which is the committee of the European Parliament that I know.
Mr. John Roper: My understanding of the directive was that it was to provide guidelines within which member States would be able to adapt and develop it as appropriate to their own law. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this from of mandatory directive is a distortion of what are generally accepted to be the Community's law-making processes?
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I would agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I think this is a distortion. I think that the tenacity with which the Commission defends it is even more sinister than the development itself.
The theory upon which this directive is based is that the agent is a poor, weak fellow and needs a great deal of protection. It may be—although one makes no
174
admissions about this—that with regard to goodwill, remuneration, terminal payments and things like that, the law should be altered in this country. I am not denying that there is perhaps a case for that. If it is to be altered there is no particular reason why it should not be altered in conformity with the spirit of this directive.
But for the rest of the law of agency to be pushed out in this detail is, to my mind, quite intolerable. Even with regard to the small, weak man with only one principal—which is the example always given by the Commission—I have grave doubts about that. In the Legal Committee of the European Parliament we knocked out Article 22—it may come back again—which equates the position of the self-employed agent with the employee in the case of bankruptcy. That is quite wrong. As hon. Members know, in a winding up or bankruptcy the employee has very great preference over trade creditors and people of that sort, and quite rightly so. If the self-employed man is to be equated with his position, it may well be that the self-employed commercial agent gets a preference in the liquidation of a principal, which defeats the claim of another self-employed trade creditor who may be a much smaller man than he is.
Furthermore, if the self-employed small man with only one principal—which is always held up to us as the object to be protected—is equated with the employee, it considerably dilutes, or may do so, the employee's privilege. There will be less for the proper employee. If there is a small man who has only one principal, why is he not an employee in the first place? Everyone knows that the reason is perfectly simple. It is that for tax purposes it suits him to be self-employed, as often as not, and good luck to him—but he cannot have it both ways. That is the strongest objection.
I know that I have been much attacked by ASTMS, or whatever the union is in this matter, but that is the reason why, in my amendment, we knocked out Article 22. It seemed to me that the self-employed agent was trying to have it both ways. Far be it from me, from this Box, to cast any slur of any sort upon the self-employed. Nevertheless, when the self-employed refuse to take the kicks as well as the ha'pence, when they want to have

175
all the privileges of the self-employed and all the privileges of the employee, I am bound to say that my enthusiasm for their cause is moderated.
Mr. Ron Thomas: I have listened as closely as I can to what the hon. and learned Member has said. Is it not the case that really all the dice are loaded in favour of the principal, and that, for example, an agent can become responsible for the bad debts of a principal in an insolvency or bankruptcy situation?
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: He cannot become responsible for the principal's debts, but his own claims may be deferred to those of the employees and, indeed, may be reduced because he is at present a trade creditor to the other trade creditors. The idea of his being preferred into the privileged position of an employee is what Article 22 suggested, which we, in the Legal Committee—although this is not final—have knocked out, and with the support of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. It is the only occasion on which the Socialist Group voted in favour of the reduction of the mandatory qualities of this directive. In all other matters it has preserved the full straitjacket quality of this directive in its votes.
Therefore, I view this directive with a good deal of sadness. I say sadness because, as is well known, I think, I am a supporter of the directives and regulations which seek to prevent distortion of competition within the Community. But when the articles, particularly Article 100, are misused, as I think Article 100 is, for this purpose, for a harmonisation for harmonisation's sake, for a destruction of legal principles upon which the commercial life of the United Kingdom has been based for many years, I view such developments in the Commission and in the Community with a good deal of sorrow.
10.24 p.m.
Mr. Julius Silverman: I hope that the Government will support the broad principles of this directive. In saying that I am not dissenting from some of the criticisms made of the directive itself.
176
As the Minister has said, this matter came before the Select Committee on European Legislation. We heard evidence from the Board of Trade. We had evidence also from the UCTA section of ASTMS and written evidence from the Manufacturers' Agents Association in favour of the directive. We had evidence from the Confederation of British Industry against the directive. We had evidence from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which took a rather intermediate line and suggested that something was necessary to protect agents but not this particular directive. We also had evidence from the Mail Order Traders Association, which was anxious, as the Minister said, that it should be excluded. We received a letter from that association today. Articles 2 and 4 make it reasonably clear, as far as anything is clear in the directive, that the Mail Order Traders Association would not be included.
In the light of these views the Select Committee felt that there was no purpose in taking any other verbal evidence. It decided, as it was bound to do, that the matter was important, controversial and necessitated debate on the Floor of the House. Therefore, it has come to the Chamber for debate.
I am not an enthusiast for harmonisation by the Community and I ask whether the directive is necessary in general terms. Is it necessary to protect commercial agents or manufacturers' agents, call them what we will? We have had the evidence of both the UCTA Section of the ASTMS and the manufacturers' agents, which say clearly that it is. They defined some of the problems that are faced. They referred to commission that is earned, overdue and unpaid, which is not uncommon. I do not say that it is general but it is not uncommon among a significant minority of principals. There is the refusal of principals to reduce the contract of agency to writing, or inadequate written contracts. I understand that almost 50 per cent. of agents do not have written agreements. Therefore, it is difficult for them to enforce any contract in a court of law.
Mr. Ron Thomas: And very expensive.
Mr. Silverman: Yes, and expensive. There are principals who change

177
the terms of an agency agreement in an arbitrary manner—for example, altering the percentage of commission payment and stoppage of an agent's retainer. There is unsatisfactorily defined territory and territory changes. There is the taking as "house accounts" those accounts that agents have built up, often with no compensatory payments for doing so. There is no goodwill compensation on termination of agency, and inadequate notice of arbitrary termination of agency. Quite often termination takes place with only one month's notice after several years. I have had experience in the courts of agents who have built up a considerable goodwill and who have been fired by their principal, who inherits the goodwill. There is no compensation and no redress because the matter is not able to be dealt with under the terms of the contract or else there is no written contract.
There are problems that arise from the insolvency and winding up of principals. Agents are made responsible for bad debts, for example. The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has said that the del credere agent is in a different position, but it often happens that agents are made responsible for bad debts who are not in business as del crèdere agents.
There is no doubt that there is plenty of evidence to show that these evils exist. That has been recognised by other countries. They have taken the view that it is not merely an EEC matter and of importance only to members of the EEC. Germany was the first country to introduce such a law. I understand that French protection goes further than the directive. There is similar legislation in Italy and the Benelux countries. Such legislation is not confined by any means to Community member States. I understand that there is legislation in Austria, Finland, Norway, Sweden and other countries that protects the agent. That is because it is recognised that he is in a weaker position.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has questioned that weakness. He referred to the number of agents who deal with one principal. I am told that about 60 per cent. of British agents—I am not including theatrical agents, insurance agents who are excluded under the draft directive, or mail order traders—have one
178
principal. This applies to people who are mainly selling agents for manufacturers' goods. About 60 per cent. of them have one principal, or a few may do just a little business apart from that which they do for one principal upon whom they are dependent. If they lose their agency or their principal goes out of business, they are finished.
There is no doubt that they are in a weak position and they are conscious of their weakness. The majority of companies and firms treat them fairly. But the object of the directive—I shall not say whether it achieves it correctly—is that the principle of fairness and some kind of code of conduct should apply generally.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the question of compensation for what in another sphere is called unjust dismissal, or something on those lines, although not in the case of the self-employed, and that goodwill should be preserved. I think that in those areas there are legitimate causes for complaint in the present state of our law and that on that matter the hon. Gentleman will find unanimity.
Mr. Silverman: The point is that in the great majority of cases the agent is in a weak bargaining position. I know that the objection of the Law Commission, of the House of Lords Committee which considered this matter and of the CBI is that this interferes with the freedom of contract. The freedom of contract is important, but it is not a fetish that we must always continue to worship.
When I studied law, I read Dicey's constitutional law. He was the great man on constitutional law. He set out the principles of the historical development of the law from "status to contract"; that is, from fixed relationships to relationships decided by free contract between free people. That sounded very nice. The history of the law in this country and in other countries has been precisely the opposite to that.
In employment it used to be called master and servant. There is now a vast body of legislation, introduced by Governments of both major parties, to protect the employee because of his weak bargaining position. There is a body of law on landlord and tenant to protect the tenant against the bad landlord. More

179
recently we have had consumer legislation to protect the consumer against the unfair and immoral practices of certain unscrupulous dealers.
After all, freedom of contract can be applied only where the relations between the parties are equal and both have equal strength. I suggest that in this instance they do not have equal strength. Therefore, these people, and the unions representing them, feel that they should have legislative protection. I refer to legislative protection for a man who in many instances is no stronger in his bargaining power than an employee. He has not, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, always chosen to be in that position rather than to be an employee. Frequently it suits the manufacturer to have an agent who is paid upon a commission basis rather than to have an employee to whom he has the responsibilities of an employer. Therefore, it is wrong to say that these people have chosen to be what they are and that they must take the rough with the smooth. I think that they are entitled, at any rate, to some of the protection accorded to employees because they are in fact quasi-employees.
I agree with the Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Darwen that much of the draftsmanship in the directive is obscure, imprecise and uncertain. A major job of draftsmanship and negotiation will have to be done. But one must bear in mind that the ensuing legislation must be passed by this Parliament, in our own terms. Then we can consider further the question of precision and certainty.
These people serve a useful purpose in the Community. In may cases they are suffering hardship and legal injustice because of the inadequacy of the present law. Some method of protecting them should be found and we should deal with the main matters about which they complain.
I do not support every detail of the directive. It is imprecise in the definition of a commercial agent. But some leglislation is necessary, irrespective of the Common Market or harmonisation. The precise form of legislation will be negotiated in the Common Market organisations. This deserves support. I hope that the Government will support such legislation in principle. I hope that
180
they will work out in negotiations the principles around which the legislation can be made practicable, just and fair to both sides.
10.37 p.m.
Sir Stephen McAdden: Experience has taught me that when an hon. Member says that he will make a brief speech he rarely does so. I shall make a brief speech. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) and his Committee for their excellent report. On page 10 of the House of Commons Sixth Report from the Select Committee on European Legislation. &c. it is said in trenchant terms:
"From the view of the evidence summarised above, the Committee conclude that bodies representing the principals consider the draft Directive one-sided, detrimental to the interests of their members, unnecessary and in any case unworkable, while bodies representing commercial agents see it as offering protection to members whose business relationships are beset by uncertainty and insecurity …
This strong conflict of opinion, together with the trenchant criticism by the Law Commission leave the Committee with no choice but to recommend the draft Directive for further consideration by the House … at an early date; and, in their view, the earlier the date, the better."
I am glad that we are considering this today.
I refer to only one aspect of this matter—that of mail order traders. The hon. Member for Farnworth will know better than most that in the early days of this century working-class people bought their clothes through the tally man or club man. He used to come round each week and collect 3d or 6d to assist the working-class family to clothe their children.
There has been an explosion since then. Mail order traders have developed. They carry on the task of providing the working-class and others with clothing which can be selected from catalogues which are produced twice a year in order to carry on this pretty extensive business, which provides 13 million people, or probably more, with the opportunity to replenish their household stocks.
Total sales in 1976 by members of the Mail Order Traders Association were about £1,100 million, a vast trade. That was accomplished by about 4 million agents. They are not highly trained commercial people, but ordinary working-class housewives whose customers derive

181
mainly from their immediate families and neighbours. Their average turnover was about £250 a year, of which they made a modest commission of £25. That may not be wealth beyond the dreams of avarice, but it represents a modest contribution to their economic circumstances.
Why should this highly personal and domestic organisation of sales be constricted into these regulations which are meant to apply to extensive businesses? Does anyone seriously pretend that the local agent with a £250 turnover is running a substantial business which must come within the directive? That is utter nonsense. While we might appreciate the principle of harmonisation on certain matters, we must remember that we have here an individualistic organisation which provides an enjoyable service.
I am told that the credit prices are, with very few exceptions, the same as the cash prices. All goods are sold with an unconditional guarantee. A directive which seeks to harmonise the law relating to self-employed agents is much too gigantic an instrument to operate in this limited sphere.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider the arguments advanced by the mail order traders in favour of their exclusion from the directive. Some means of excluding them should be found—if not in the way that they advocate, then in some other way. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the representations that have been made to him and will afford relief to these organisations.
Mr. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman consider two points? Even as drafted I do not think that the directive is likely to include mail order traders, but I agree that it should be made clear that that is the case.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to mislead the House with his quotation. The quotation that he made was not the view of the Committee but was a quotation from the Law Commission. In what I considered to be a very one-sided report, the Commission made a strong attack on the directive. Without necessarily accepting the Commission's view, the Committee said that if such views existed, clearly the matter should be debated by the House.
Sir S. McAdden: I do not want to delay the House any further. If the hon. Member assures me that mail order houses are excluded and the Minister confirms this, I shall be very happy.
10.46 p.m.
Mr. John Roper: I want to return later to the question of the Mail Order Traders' Association because it is obviously important. But first of all I wish to deal with other areas of importance.
The Confederation of British Industry said in evidence to the Select Committee:
"The draft directive is another example of new law being made in the guise of harmonisation."
It may well be that one of the things we expect from the EEC is that on some occasions, when there is an attempt to harmonise the law, some member States will have inadequate law—as appears to be the case with the United Kingdom in this instance. In such cases the creation of new law will be necessary in those member States. The harmonisation process will mean introducing into our legal system a new area of law. That is why we are in difficulty.
As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) said, the Select Committee, in taking evidence, found that, on the one hand, the principals were critical of the directive while, on the other, those who represented the commercial agents saw considerable advantages in it. We were not attempting in the Select Committee to strike a balance between the two interests. This is a matter for the House, not the Select Committee.
We were also concerned about the points made by the Law Commission. I quote what may be a one-sided remark, but there can be no doubt that the Law Commission's report must be taken seriously. It said of this directive:
"Its defects of substance, presentation and drafting are such that it fails even to provide a basis for negotiation."
That is very strong criticism from the Law Commission about an EEC directive, and it was provoked by the possibility of increased uncertainty in English law, which might arise from the introduction of this directive.
We are faced with the rather peculiar nature of this directive. The problem is that the term "commercial agent" has no precise connotation in English law as

183
it stands. It was said to us by the representatives of the Lord Chancellor's Department who came before the Select Committee that the introduction of this directive into English law would probably increase uncertainty in certain circumstances, rather than reduce it. Therefore, we were particularly concerned that Community law would have this effect on our legal system, as distinct from the arguments about whether it is desirable for commercial agents.
We are delighted that the Government have given us an opportunity to discuss this matter. We feel very strongly that in the Community's discussions considerable attempts are made to put it into a format compatible with the rest of British law. Otherwise we will have a whole series of difficulties. Although we might deal with very real problems for commercial agents, we might create certain other considerable legal problems going much wider than that. It was thought that it was by no means clear that the directive would not apply to travel agents, literary and theatrical agents, stockbrokers and forwarding agents. Clearly the tenor of the directive is intended to cover a much narrower range.
The Mail Order Traders' Association has a particular problem because the directive appeared to its legal advisers to include mail order traders' agents—the housewives who do this work on a part-time basis—when clearly this was not the original intention of the Commission in drafting the directive. The problem may arise because outside the United Kingdom the concept of the mail order trader is not known and therefore the Commission was not aware of our problems.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that Article 4 probably deals with this matter? It says:
"It is left to the member States to decide whether the directive is to apply in whole or in part to persons who carry on business as commercial agents but by way of secondary activity only".
Mr. Roper: One of the problems is whether, when a housewife has only one employment, as a mail order agent, that would be a secondary activity. This is the ambiguity of the directive which is causing considerable concern to the Mail Order Traders' Association. A solicitor's work as a commercial agent would be a
184
secondary activity, but it might be construed that the part-time mail order work of a housewife with no other gainful employment was her primary activity rather than her secondary activity. But I do not wish to get involved further in the complexities of women's liberation.
I return to the question of the quasi-direct applicability of directives. The Select Committee was concerned about this and I asked the representative of the Lord Chancellor about this problem. He replied:
"In a sense this is another of the difficulties we see because it"—
that is the directive—
"contains a degree of detail which makes it very difficult to implement it other than by using its language or something very close to its language. It is in a sense a directive drafted in the terms of a regulation."
It is this character of a directive that becomes virtually mandatory and does not give freedom to member States to adapt and develop within the general context of their own law which concerned us particularly. I asked the Lord Chancellor's Department why it thought the Commission was moving in this direction. The reply was:
"They are drafting with an increasing degree of detail possibly because the member States have expressed some dissatisfaction with diverse interpretation of directives that were not so detailed."
That is one possible interpretation. There are others. It may be that the Commission is dissatisfied with the way in which some member States have acted on rather more loosely drafted directives.
There are here important and fundamental questions about Community law and about the nature and concept of a directive within Community law. They require much more fundamental examination than can be done solely on the example of this instrument, though I hope that the Minister will bring it to the attention of the Lord Chancellor and other Law Officers because the House wants this matter to be sorted out with a great deal more clarity.
I hope that we shall make satisfactory progress. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) the concern that there should be a proper code of law dealing with commercial agents, but I do not think that the directive as drafted is the ideal way to achieve that end.

185
I hope that the Minister and his officials will be able in the working group to make considerable changes to these proposals. However, if what we have heard from the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) about the obstinacy of the Commission is anything to go by, we may be charging them with a difficult task. But the House will want to see this instrument in its revised form so that we may give our opinion on the matter when it comes before us in a significantly changed form, and before it finally goes to the Council of Ministers for approval.
10.56 p.m.
Mr. Roger Moate: There are two parliamentary virtues to which I do not normally lay claim. One is humility and the other is brevity. But faced with a complex legal document, in the presence of some well-trained legal minds, I shall take refuge in both. This is a highly complex matter, and the possible introduction of complex statute law of this kind in an area which has previously largely been dealt with by the common law is a highly unsatisfactory way of proceeding. In a thinly attended House, despite some excellent work carried out by the Select Committee, this hardly seems to be the best way to proceed. With the best will in the world, it is hard to grasp the full and intricate details of a complex document of this kind.
The draft directive is based on two principles, one of which is that the activities of commercial agents
"play a very important part in interpenetration of markets and for that reason in the growth of intra-Community trade".
The other principle is that commercial agents need protection because they are commercially weak vis-à-vis their principles.
These are two principles which to a certain extent conflict. If these agents represent such a powerful economic force, I find it hard to believe that as a generality they are as commercially weak as has been suggested in this debate. I emphasise "as a generality" because I have no doubt that there are exceptions. I find it hard to accept that the differences in the legal sphere in individual members of the Community pose a major problem and that this represents a powerful and significant barrier to intra-Community trade.
186
It is incumbent on those who support this draft directive, or even upon the Commission, to prove that this is a barrier to trade. If it is not a barrier to international trade, I do not feel we need to embark upon this significant course of changing the whole basis of agency law in the United Kingdom.
Despite the points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) about the problems faced by certain commercial agents, we have had no specific example of how intra-Community trade is hindered in any way by these differences in legal rules. If there is no such evidence, surely we should be looking not to EEC directives, which in this case will have a quasi-mandatory effect, but to our own law to consider whether there are any areas where we should be taking certain steps to protect certain individuals who are at a disadvantage.
I believe that the case has not been made out by the Community for a draft directive with this wide-ranging effect and great significance. Evidence should be put before the House that laws of this kind are necessary. There is nothing in the draft directive to persuade us that we should take into consideration a proposal of this kind.
I turn to the question of the commercial weakness of the agent. The vast majority of agents choose to be commercial agents and prefer to have the commercial freedom of being an agent without being shackled by the detailed contractual terms that migh be imposed upon them if the draft directive were to come into force.
As I understand it, the directive could well apply to people such as selling agents, estate agents, pop group agents and theatrical agents. I have not often heard it suggested that the estate agent is commercially weak vis-à-vis his principal. I have not often heard it suggested that the pop artists's agent is commercially weak vis-à-vis his principals. We are generally talking about a smaller number of commercial agents. I accept that there might be cases involving a small number of individuals, but no one from my constituency has ever written to me complaining that he has been badly treated by his principal, though there might be such people. Their contract could be terminated unfairly, commissions might not

187
be paid to them, they might receive no goodwill payment on the termination of their contract. I accept that that could happen.
Mr. Silverman: It does.
Mr. Moate: I very much respected the hon. Gentleman's speech. He advanced concrete examples, which are often lacking in these theoretical debates on EEC matters. He gave solid examples, and that is important.
Perhaps there are points that we should consider in terms of United Kingdom law, but I do not accept that simply because some commercial agents get a bad deal we should change the whole basis of United Kingdom agency law as proposed. Nor do I accept that we should therefore apply the agency changes to the whole wide-ranging field of all the other principals who are by no means in a weak position; they are in a strong position.
But, pursuing the hon. Gentleman's point, I wonder whether the organisation which presumably made representations to him is really speaking in the long-term interests of its members. Presumably it is in the interests of the manufacturer and many agents that there is a great deal of flexibility and freedom in the arrangements between them. Might not it be detrimental in the long run if one forced them in effect to have proper contracts of engagement, specific commission terms, termination agreements and the like? Would not many organisations say "It is far better to have an employee rather than this flexible arrangement with an agent"?
I suspect that the net result would be that the agent would lose, because there would be fewer agency agreements available, and that the consumers would lose, because there would be less choice for them to buy from a variety of agents. That point has been well made by the discussion we have had about the impact of the draft directive on the mail order business through catalogues, which undoubtedly plays a significant part in consumer sales in this country.
The hon. Gentleman sought to assure us that the draft directive would exclude mail order activities. But the Minister was precise in his statement that as drafted it did not exclude them. Whether
188
it is intended in principle to exclude them, I do not know, but in practice we have a ministerial statement that it does not do so at present.
This is a wide-ranging proposal, touching on an enormous range of activities that offer a wide choice of outlets to the British consumer and, generally speaking, work satisfactorily. I have heard no evidence to show why we should introduce this major change into our law. Until we have such evidence, we should not go further in this matter. If there are specific cases of injustice, let us make not major changes in the law but minor alterations that will allow us to close the loopholes and then proceed with a greater degree of certainty about what the law is.
In new legislation introduced in this House, as with the directives, we often go for the wide-ranging changes that leave the law in a greater state of uncertainty, steamroller legislation that changes pretty well everything. Then for decades ahead we are not quite sure what the law is. It is far better to close the small loopholes in response to specific evidence of specific injustice than to have wide-ranging changes of this nature. The hon. Member for Erdington has made the case only so far. It goes only a tiny part of the way. There is no overwhelming case for the change that is proposed.
11.5 p.m.
Mr. Ron Thomas: I begin by declaring an interest as a sponsored member of ASTMS. It is well know that it was the United Commercial Travellers Association section, of ASTMS which made certain important references to the often weak position that the agent is in. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said that he did not accept that in general terms the agent was in a weak position but that, where evidence could be brought to show that agents were in a weak position, he would be happy to see legislation introduced in this country, quite separate from any harmonisation of EEC regulations.
I start from the premise that I very much regret that we have to look to the European Community or to the Commission to try to deal with this problem which is faced by many commercial agents. It the hon. Member for Faversham and others feel that the agents are

189
not in a weak position, and that is not a very good argument, may I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman), draw attention to some of the points that UCTA members of ASTMS have made?
They have referred to the question of commission earned being overdue and unpaid. Surely it does not matter whether they are in a weak or a strong position. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs. These people have told of principals refusing to reduce contracts of agency to writing. I seem to remember that under the Tory Industrial Relations Act everything had to be put into writing. The Tories were very much in favour of written contracts and goodness knows what. I should not have thought that we could complain about people having a contract in writing.
The agents speak of principals changing the terms of the agency agreement. They talk of goodwill compensation. Many agents may well establish a good-will and then the principal will decide to get rid of that agent, appoint someone else and establish an enlarged area of goodwill. I would have thought that this was likely to happen too often with arbitrary terminations. There is also the question of bad debts, winding-up, insolvency and so on. Whether people are in a weak or a strong position, these matters need to be cleared up. I would prefer to see the Government doing something about them rather than waiting for harmonisation proposals.
Hon. Members have spoken of equality in terms of contracts. I doubt whether we can say that the contracts entered into are between two equal and consenting parties. This is the kind of nonsense we had throughout the nineteenth century to attempt to stop the development of trade unions. Something that the hon. Member for Faversham said reminded me of some of the utterances made during the nineteenth century. He said that the commercial agents may find that in the long run this move is not to their advantage.
There were entrepreneurs in the nineteenth century who said that if they stopped young children from going down the mines or reduced the working day from 16 hours to 12 hours, in the long run it would be to the disadvantage of the workers. It was said that it would
190
not be to the advantage of workers to combine and form trade unions. We have been told that the Employment Protection Act will not be to the advantage of working people. More and more working people are demanding that they, too, should have these protections. Either they fight for them through their unions, or this Government and other Governments establish them in law. It is wrong that commercial agents should be left out completely. Many of them are in a weak position.
I think, however, that it is a fair criticism that the directive covers far too many areas. But I still thin that Article 4, read right through to the end, makes it clear that mail order establishments, married women and so on will not be covered, although there is a good deal of exploitation in that area. Perhaps that problem should be looked at just as the whole problem of home work is now being looked at by the TUC.
I welcome proposals of this kind, although I can see that there are some contradictory provisions which would need to be ironed out. But I hope that the Labour Government will bring forward some legislation so that the interests of commercial agents may be much more protected than they are at the moment without having to wait for harmonisation or, indeed, any edict from the Commission.
11.11 p.m.
Mr. Meacher: We have had a rather unusual debate in that a number of hon. Members who are not well known for their support of the EEC have found merit in at least supporting the general thrust of the directive, although being critical of many of its detailed points, whilst three Conservative Members who are normally in support of the Common Market have been universally critical.
I think, despite this, that there has been, broad agreement on both sides of the House as to the merits of the directive in terms of its alleged intentions, about its weaknesses, particularly in terms of its over-extended scope and the uncertainty of tis range of application, about the undesirability of over-extending its application, and about the problems of poor drafting.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said that he felt

191
that the directive represented a very undesirable straitjacket in a number of ways that he indicated. Certainly one way is over the question of definition. It is true that the definition is very broad. In addition to covering manufacturers' selling agents, it could be held to cover a very wide range of commercial intermediary services, including buying agents and many types of agent in the service sector, such as travel agents, freight forwarders; and, in certain of their activities, it might embrace stockbrokers and estate agents. It also appears to apply to the 3 to 4 million housewives mail order agents, although, as I have said, the Commission's intention here is not altogether clear.
There is, additionally, a wide-ranging group of individuals from whom there is no specific legal provision in United Kingdom law who engage in what can be classified as peripheral undertakings, mainly by way of secondary activity, who would not recognise themselves as manufacturers' agents but who could nevertheless well be covered by the scope of the directive as drafted.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Gentleman said that the intention of the Commission is not clear. Unfortunately, it is very clear according to its words. In the Legal Committee we sought on many occasions to exclude such people as estate agents, theatrical agents, and literary agents, and the Commission resisted such proposals. So its intention is clear.
Mr. Meacher: I stated that the intention of the Commission in respect of mail order agents was unclear, and certainly it needs clarification. We feel that it needs clarification in one particular way only, namely, that they should be excluded. I was not saying that it was unclear in respect of all the other categories of occupation that I have mentioned.
The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about the apparent proposal to limit del credere agents. It has been put to us that the provisions could have the effect of making del credere agency impossible, but certainly the directive is supposed to protect del credere agents. Their agreements would have to be in writing, and the directive limits the scope of agreements which can be entered into. Indeed, it is all part of the general scheme to cover all commercial agents. But I accept
192
the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to the mandatory rules of the directive. This was also referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper), the Chairman of the Select Committee. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Select Committee for an elucidating, valuable and balanced report. My hon. Friend made the point that the mandatory rules of the directive are a distortion of normal EEC lawmaking procedures. He quoted the statement in evidence before the Select Committee that the directive was drafted more as a regulation. There is a lot of justification for that comment.
The hon. and learned Gentleman. I am glad to say accepted the desirability of making certain changes in the United Kingdom law. This was a case that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) also strongly pressed. I think there is general agreement about the desirability for changes where there is manifest weakness in the position of the agent—for example, over the question of what were called terminal payments, and over goodwill or clientele allowances, that is lump-sum payments on the termination of an agency if increased and continuing business is brought to the principal. There is, I believe, on each side of the House agreement about the desirability of extending this right which is lacking under existing practice or in existing contracts for the agent.
The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to make a comment about the question of preferred creditor status. I think he made the point that it was unreasonable for the commercial agent to derive both the benefits of self-employment for tax purposes and the benefit of being at the same time, as it were, an employee in terms of protection in the event of bankruptcy. This is one of the points which we shall be considering further. It involves a significant change in the laws relating to bankruptcy and company insolvency. It certainly adds to the already long list of preferred creditors who pro-cede ordinary trade creditors. Therefore, the question of the precise status of the commercial agent, whether self-employed

193
or a quasi-employee, is a relevant consideration here, together with the question of how to balance the rights of the different classes of person.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington listed the disadvantages of commercial agents. He rightly drew attention to the fact that it is certainly possible to document—and it has been documented—that in particular cases there is hardship. He drew attention to the example of commission being earned and then being either overdue or unpaid, to the refusal of principals to reduce the contract of agency to writing, and to inadequate written contracts. He also referred to principals changing the terms of any agency agreement in an arbitrary manner, and to the problems arising from the insolvency or winding up of principles in terms of agents being made responsible for bad debts. Those are specific complaints. Certainly in terms of this specific drafting—directed towards the target at which we believe the directive should be directed—they are proper complaints. They are injustices which should be reversed.
I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West that it is perhaps regrettable that we have to wait for a harmonisation measure from the Commission for this purpose. I take the point, which I think he was making, that we should not look a gift horse in the mouth in this case and that we should take advantage of this opportunity to ensure that the justice of the case of the agent is secured by this means.
Mr. Moate: Must we wait for a draft directive of this kind, or are there means whereby the Minister's Department, through recommended codes of conduct or the like, can bring about better agency arrangements which would apply effectively to the vast majority of cases?
Mr. Meacher: It is certainly possible for us to consider the introduction of a code of practice. However, we are already in the middle of 1978. It is proposed that this directive should be adopted—whether the timetable is kept to is another matter—by 1st January 1980 and would apply from 1st July 1980. Whether, given the well understood problems of the parliamentary timetable and the immediate uncertainties over the period
194
ahead, it would be possible to secure this within United Kingdom law is a matter which the Government have to consider. But, in the absence of progress being made via this route, certainly we would consider achieving the same objective in the way in which the hon. Gentleman suggested.
Mr. Ron Thomas: I am happy to hear those last few words from my hon. Friend. As the Conservative Party managed to nationalise Rolls-Royce in a matter of hours, I should not have thought it was too difficult to get a small Bill dealing with this matter through. I do not think it would strain the Lib-Lab pact that much.
Mr. Meacher: I take my hon. Friend's point. Certainly a real opportunity is afforded by this directive. I hope that the European Parliament will bring forward its report soon for consideration by the Council working party. Although I can give no indication of how long it will be, I hope that we do not have to wait long in order to engage in the discussions within the council working party—which we believe are right—to make progress on this measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington drew attention to the problems of the general law of agency. As was said, there is little statute law here, but common law rules exist which apply in the absence of—it may, indeed, sometimes override—the expressed stipulation of the parties. As was said on both sides of the House the present situation is not satisfactory. There is a need for a proper code of practice, or code of law, beyond that which exists to protect the position of commercial agents.
Perhaps I may refer specifically to the position of mail order agents. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) devoted his speech to the desirability of excluding them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West said, the arangements in Article 4(1) for agencies carried on as a secondary activity were designed—the word is "designed"—to allow mail order agents to be excluded from some provisions of the proposed directive. But this does not, however, adequately cover the situation. We are in touch with the Mail Order Traders' Association and have indicated that we share its aim in seeking to exclude

195
mail order traders from the scope of any directive. We have explored with the association possible methods for more clearly and completely excluding mail order selling. I can give an assurance that we share the view that they should be excluded and that we are certainly making a determined effort to ensure that that is achieved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth drew particular attention to the problem of definition and to the fact that there is a danger that it could increase uncertainty. I share his sentiment. I agree that there is a need to ensure that the directive is cast in a format which is acceptable in English law. I can certainly give an assurance that we shall aim for this in the Council of Europe working party. I take note also of the fact that my hon. Friend says that the House will wish to see the directive in its revised form. In view of the manifest inadequacies of the directive as draft at present, I certainly take full note of that request.
Most of the other member States, I think, are unlikely to oppose the idea of a directive in principle, though they may well have their preferences in terms of a less detailed and restrictive formulation, as has been expressed here tonight. It may be that some form of EEC legislation will result eventually. In these circumstances, the most sensible course for us may be to work for a better drafted directive, limited to manufacturers' selling agents and with mandatory provisions confined to a few which most justifiably protect their negotiating position vis-à-vis principals who are often but by no means always economically stronger. It seems to us that that is one way, and perhaps the best way, to approach this proposed directive.
However, I can give an assurance that all the comments that have been made tonight about this very difficult, complex and rather unclear and badly drafted directive, yet one which nevertheless has a valuable purpose, will be taken fully into account in the Government's discussions and input into the council working party in due course, which I hope will be shortly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/3/77 on Commercial Agents.

SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM BILL [LORDS]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

CRIME (BRISTOL)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper]
11.28 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Palmer: I wish to raise the subject of rising crime in Bristol—the figure for the police area as a whole was a 27 per cent. increase on that for last year—not because there are no other large provincial cities that have similar problems in respect of crime but because a few weeks ago the chief constable responsible for public safety in the city made an alarming statement. Mr. Kenneth Steele is the chief constable for Avon and Somerset. He is a vastly experienced police officer. He said on 30th March, according to the Bristol Evening Post:
"I had hopes that the Avon and Somerset police would have made the streets of Bristol safe for anyone to walk in day or night; sadly we have failed."
I think that it would be said in the ordinary course of events that if any public official, paid to perform a task, states that he has failed, the public who pay are bound to ask whether there is something wrong with the maker of such a statement, or the organisation that he controls? However, it would be unfair to blame the police administration of Avon and Somerset for the serious state of affairs as reported by the chief constable in circumstances in which the police force itself, and the resources that it commands, are stretched beyond reasonable limits. Mr. Steele states that he needs at least 600 more men and women adequately to do the job for which he has

197
responsibility. That means an increase of approximately 500 on the present establishment of about 2,850, and the present establishment is 100 short of that figure.
Public alarm at the chief constable's frank remarks have been heightened in Bristol by a series of especially unpleasant and degrading rapes of women and girls in the Clifton and Redland area of the city. The perpetrator or perpetrators of the crimes has or have not yet been brought to book. In his statement the chief constable pointed out that which is undoubtedly true, that the reduction of crime, even with the largest and most effective force, needs not only police action but the full practical co-operation of the public in detecting crime and general community awareness of the situation.
In the outstanding need to make the public as a whole more crime conscious the local Press can obviously play a part. One Bristol newspaper, the Bristol Evening Post, has run a vigorous campaign towards that end. I have in my possession, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may be interested to know, some copies of the correspondence that has passed between Mr. Gordon Farnsworth, the editor of the Bristol Evening Post, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I shall not quote directly from that correspondence. I merely say that it is understandable that my right hon. Friend should resent any suggestion that he and the Government are complacent in these matters. It is equally understandable that a local newspaper editor should sharply reflect the worries and anxieties of the citizens. I shall leave that correspondence there, having put the two points of view as fairly as I can.
The truth is that the increase in crime in Bristol and in the country generally cannot and should not be a party issue. Those politicians who succumb to the temptation to treat it as a party issue for the sake of easy votes are accumulating much future trouble for themselves should any of them be called on to undertake the heavy responsibilities carried by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other Ministers in his Department.
I am aware that my right hon. Friend has no full responsibility for provincial police forces, although I believe that the
198
1962 Act modified that state of affairs to some extent. However, it is clear that in a highly centralised country for government purposes such as the United Kingdom the public look to the Home Secretary and to the Government for a lead at least.
There was a day's debate on law and order in the House on 27th February. It was initiated by the Opposition; I believe that it was a Supply Day. I have read carefully the remarks of my right hon. Friend on that occasion. Much of his speech was most impressive in terms of figures. He said, for instance, that as a proportion of total expenditure the police service was doing far better than it was four years ago, even allowing for the effect of inflation. Also, he said that there were altogether 7,500 more police officers in 1977 than there were in 1974.
I accept those figures, as I must, but there is a paradox here. The chief constable of the Avon and Somerset Constabulary, in his 1977 annual report, refers to financial restraints. If there are these restraints locally, in spite of more money being spent nationally, surely there is something wrong with the system. It appears that at the top more money is being allocated and that locally less is spent.
Mr. Terry Walker: Too many paper pushers.
Mr. Palmer: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As he suggests, is it true that once again too much goes on administration and not enough on policemen on the streets?
I want to raise a point about public involvement in the work of provincial police forces. It is true that the 1962 Act—I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm this—gave rather greater direct powers to the Home Secretary. I think that in the House he now answers for provincial police forces. Nevertheless, the system has still much local autonomy in its make-up and I can say that on the whole I like that; we do not necessarily want a national police force, on the lines of that of the French Republic. But need there be this extraordinary excessive secrecy about the membership of police authorities?
No doubt I can find out who is a member of the Avon and Somerset police authority if I make the effort. Probably

199
my hon. Friend would send the information to me if I asked her. But the national handbook on our constabularies does not give the names of members of local police authorities. We get the name of the lord lieutenant—I do not regard him as a very active practitioner in these matters—and we have that of the chief constable, and usually the name of the chairman of the police authority, but no one else. The report of the Avon and Somerset chief constable does not give other names. He pays a tribute to his superiors and thanks them for their co-operation and help, but if one looks through the whole book one does not get the names of the members of the police authority to whom he is responsible.
Surely, if the public, locally and nationally, have to find the money for the police forces, and if they want a much better service—it may not be the fault of the police that they are not getting that service—they have the right to know locally who is accountable. I should have thought that it would be a very much overdue reform if the police authority made the report to the public rather than that the chief constable did. We could let the chief constable report to the members of the authority, as their principal officer, and let those members, who are indirectly elected to serve on the authority, report in turn to the public.
Locally, there could be far more interest in what is happening with the police than is the case at the moment, when it is often left to members of Parliament—none of us shrinks from the duty, of course—to raise these matters in this House. Given a decentralised system, much of this should be surely dealt with locally.
As I said, the House had a full day's debate on 27th February. I cannot hope and would not make the attempt in 15 or so minutes to go over the whole of that ground. Therefore, I shall put forward a few short points with which I hope my hon. Friend who is to reply will be able to deal.
First, when is it expected that the Edmund Davies Committee will report on improved police pay and conditions? May I also have confirmation that its recommendations will be speedily implemented? I am sure that it is a matter of great
200
interest to the public and certainly to the hard pressed members of the force.
Secondly, if it is proposed that the country should allocate much more money to the maintenance of law and order—I think that is the first duty of any Government—what guarantee has the taxpayer and the ratepayer that that money will be used effectively?
Thirdly, what mechanism has been developed to ensure that the best police brains and skills for certain classes of crime are available to every local force? I think that the Bristol rapes are a case in point.
Fourthly, have the Government any set policy to guide the courts on sentencing? I favour the short sever sentence for the confirmed offender. I am not talking of the genuine first offender, the prisons being as overcrowded as they are. I think that there should be more of a national policy on this matter.
Fifthly, and perhaps most interesting of all in a way, what studies are being undertaken to understand the paradox of our times which applies to all advanced industrial societies—that the reduction of the worst poverty, rightly by public welfare and organised social concern has apparently been accompanied by a rise, not a fall, in crime? I should have thought that this subject was of major interest to the Home Office and that it would merit much more national investigation than it has so far received.
11.42 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has raised an extremely serious subject which naturally concerns his constituents and those of other right hon. and hon. Members who sit for the city of Bristol.
As my hon. Friend said, the number of crimes recorded by the Avon and Somerset police, in whose area Bristol falls, rose by 28 per cent. in 1977. We do not have figures for the city of Bristol as such, but I understand that the increase in the central police division was higher still— namely, 34 per cent. This acceleration is a depressing fact after the smaller rise of 3 per cent. recorded in 1976. The first indications this year are that the increase has slowed down considerably. A particularly melancholy aspect of the crime

201
figures is that nearly a third of arrests in 1977 were of young persons under the age of 17.
I recognise the concern which the people of Bristol feel, especially about the increase in serious crimes, such as rape which doubled from 14 to 29 in 1977. While the number of homicides has remained constant at 13, I recognise the anxiety to which the increase in offences involving violence against the person give rise. That was an increase of 10 per cent. in 1977, which was significantly above the national trend.
As a Minister in the Home Office, I certainly do not minimise the problem of crime which we in this country are facing and which, as my hon. Friend recognised, the whole of the Western industrialised world is facing. The problem is not unique to Bristol. Throughout the country, last year showed a depressing upsurge of crime after a more or less stationary situation in 1976.
With just over 32 crimes per thousand of population, the situation facing the Avon and Somerset police is not as grim as that facing some other forces. The average for England and Wales is 43 per thousand. The Avon and Somerset area comes half way up the scale, although that is no consolation to the citizens of Bristol who are concerned about the local problem.
What can we do about this problem? The Government are anxious to secure a decent and ordered society in which civilised life can be enjoyed without fear of attack on property or person. This I know is what the great majority of the population want. The Government's role is important. But, of course, crime cannot be eradicated by legislation or indeed by public expenditure alone. Ultimately society is as civilised as the individuals who make it up. The role of the community in securing the sort of society it wants is fundamental.
The response to crime is indeed a joint one, involving the local community and their representatives as well as central Government. It is no doubt right that this House should be devoting attention to so important a local matter as crime in Bristol. But I must emphasise that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does not have specific responsibilities for measures to tackle crime in Bristol or
202
inded elsewhere. It is to the police that we look for action against crime.
The Secretary of State has the fundamental responsibility of promoting the efficiency of the police and the measures that he is taking to fulfil this responsibility as it effects Bristol will be the main aspect with which I shall deal. But I should emphasise that the responsibility for maintaining, in the words of the Police Act, an
"adequate and efficient police force"
rests with the local police authority constituted by the local county councils and magistrates.
My hon. Friend asked about the local police authority. In the Avon and Somerset authority it is constituted by the two county councils. Its members are two-thirds county councillors appointed by the two county councils and one-third magistrates appointed by the magistrates of the area. Perhaps my hon. Friend can suggest to the chief constable that in his next report he includes the members as well as the chairman of the police authority.
Mr. Palmer: Is it the normal practice not to give the names of the members of the police authority?
Dr. Summerskill: I cannot give my hon. Friend a categorical answer to that. I doubt whether it is laid down that the names of members should not be given in chief constables' reports. I should imagine that it is left to each chief constable to decide what he wants to put in his report.
The operational responsibility for the force rests solely with the chief constable. This tripartite division of responsibility for policing is of the essence of our system. It has the inestimable advantage that politics play no part in police operations. I must keep carefully in mind this division of responsibilities between my right hon. Friend, the Avon and Somerset police authority and its constabulary.
Through Her Majesty's inspector and his officials the Home Secretary takes a great interest in the problems facing the Avon and Somerset police and keeps himself fully informed of the local situation. The Minister of State responsible for policing Home Office matters, Lord Harris, attended a police function in Bristol last week.

203
A healthy police service is society's first defence against crime. I am glad to reaffirm the Government's commitment to supporting the police. For the first time for many years the strength of the police forces of England and Wales, regrettably, declined in 1977. We have discussed this situation on many occasions in the House. Suffice it to say that, while recruitment last year at over 8,000 remained good after two exceptional years, the great increase in wastage hit the police badly.
The experience of the Avon and Somerset police is not untypical. The strength of the force fell last year by 53 despite an intake of 174. In other words, the force suffered a wastage of 227. Wastage naturally tends to be high after good years of recruitment as probationers find that the police service is not for them. It may help to put the wastage in perspective to note that of the 227 officers who left the Avon and Somerset police about half—112—resigned prematurely. One-third retired on pension. It is the premature wastage which is of major concern. The majority—62—had less than two years' service. The number of experienced officers, with five years' or more service, who left the Avon and Somerset police last year was 36—in other words, about a sixth of the wastage. It is the experienced officers who, above all, we must seek to retain in the police service.
I am glad to say that, like other forces outside London, Avon and Somerset seems at least to be holding its own this year. In the first quarter the force recorded a net increase of six officers. At the end of March the force strength stood at 2,755. Despite the losses last year, the force has grown by 206 in the four years since it was constituted following local government reorganisation on 1st April 1974.
The force has been conducting its own programme of recruitment publicity. It has, for example, advertised in the local Press. Its local activities are supported centrally by the police national recruitment campaign which we run from the Home Office for the benefit of all forces in England and Wales. In the last financial year over £500,000 was spent on police recruitment publicity through the national campaign and, subject to the approval of Parliament, the figure will be
204
nearer £800,000 this year. One aspect of the national campaign is Press advertising designed to attract recruits particularly to the forces covering the larger cities like Bristol. The Avon and Somerset police are specifically mentioned in some of the advertisements. My hon. Friend mentioned police pay, which is an extremely important factor.
Agreement was reached with the police service last year on an immediate increase in pay of 10 per cent. together with an independent inquiry into pay and other matters. The committee is now engaged urgently in this task. The Government have made it clear that we will accept the recommendations of the inquiry on pay, reserving only the right to consider the phasing of their implementation. The committee under Lord Edmund Davies is giving priority to this subject. It has now finished taking evidence and will, I am sure, report as soon as it can. It is essential that the committee should take adequate time to give the difficult issues involved full consideration. The Government are confident that the committee's report will pave the way for the health of the police service for years to come.
On the question of establishment, I have said that the strength of the Avon and Somerset police now stands at 2,755. This represents a deficiency of 96 below the authorised establishment of 2,851. Though this deficiency of 3·39 per cent. compares favourably with the national level of nearly 9 per cent., it is, of course, a matter of concern to the people of Bristol. As I have said, the force is holding its own this year. I look forward to good progress following the Edmund Davies report.
The appropriate level of establishment of the Avon and Somerset police is a matter in the first place for the police authority. But this is a responsibility which it shares with the Secretary of State. Under Section 4 of the Police Act the police authority has to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State for the level of establishment which it sets. I know that there is strong local feeling that the present level seriously underestimates the number of police officers needed to give adequate police cover. It is part of our standing arrangements between the Home Office and police authorities that establishment levels should be reviewed at regular intervals.

205
The chief constable has, I know, conducted a review of his establishment and is discussing his proposals with Her Majesty's inspector. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has, however, not yet received any proposals for an increase in establishment from the police authority.
I am not, therefore, in a position to comment on the question of an increase in force establishment at this stage. Suffice to say that my right hon. Friend will consider any proposals the police authority submits in due course with great care and sympathy in the light of the problems and the needs of the area and its police force. I should like to emphasise one point, however. The present level of establishment is not at this stage a restraint on increasing the strength of the Avon and Somerset police. As I have said, the force has—regrettably—scope for growth within its present establishment in view of the deficiency of nearly 100 on the present level.
I turn to the question of public expenditure. Everyone agrees that increased public expenditure is desirable. Accordingly, the Government have exempted the recruitment of police officers up to authorised establishment from the public expenditure restrictions which the economic situation has made necessary in recent years. There is nothing to stop Avon and Somerset police from recruiting up to establishment.
The police service could not, however, be entirely exempt from these restrictions. It was generally agreed that the lesser evil was to concentrate the necessary cuts on the various categories of civilian support staff and on other expenditure like goods and services. The Government recognised that this would inevitably have an effect on the ability of forces to respond to the challenges facing them. We regretted that it was necessary to cut back in the recruitment of police cadets and police civilians. I know that Avon and Somerset has been particularly affected by these public ex-
206
penditure cuts. Representations were made to the Home Secretary last year. My right hon. Friend was therefore very glad to be able to relax the restrictions. The extra expenditure which he announced last November is of tangible benefit to the Avon and Somerset police. It will enable them to recruit some 25 cadets and about 20 new civilian staff. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget speech, the Government have now been able to relax the restrictions further. We shall be getting in touch with the Avon and Somerset police authority along with the other police authorities shortly about the details.
On the specific question that my hon. Friend asked about co-operation and co-ordination between forces, this is possible and it is done. Where there are particular problems, such as the incidents of rape in Bristol, it is open to neighbouring forces to co-operate with each other.
There is a great deal of research about the causes of crime, and its link with the affluent society, going on in many universities, and perhaps even in Bristol University itself. There is no lack of effort being made to try to find the causes of rising crime, and what it is linked to. There is no easy answer to the problem.
I have dwelt on the general considerations affecting the strength of the Avon and Somerset police. Without wishing to encroach on the responsibilities of the chief constable, I should, however, end with some reference to the action which the force has been taking to deal with the situation which my hon. Friend has described. To counter the problem of street crime at night the chief constable has increased the police cover in Bristol—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
  FAMILY COURT
  FAMILY COURT
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Senator Arthur Lewis
  Senator Arthur Lewis
  Metropolitan Police (Manpower)
  Metropolitan Police (Manpower)
  Summer Time
  Summer Time
  Cruelty to Animals Act 1876
  Cruelty to Animals Act 1876
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Juvenile Offenders
  Juvenile Offenders
  Care Proceedings
  Care Proceedings
  National Marriage Guidance Council (Grant)
  National Marriage Guidance Council (Grant)
  Bail
  Bail
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
  Juveniles (Remands in Custody)
  Juveniles (Remands in Custody)
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Taiwan
  Taiwan
INDUSTRY
  Aerospace Industry (Government Aid)
  Aerospace Industry (Government Aid)
  St. Ives, Cornwall
  St. Ives, Cornwall
  Petrochemicals and Plastics
  Petrochemicals and Plastics
  State Corporations and Boards
  State Corporations and Boards
  Spartan Steel and Alloys Ltd.
  Spartan Steel and Alloys Ltd.
  Advance Factory Building
  Advance Factory Building
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Polish Shipping Contract
  Polish Shipping Contract
  Expenditure (North-West Region)
  Expenditure (North-West Region)
  Spillers French Bakery (Plymouth)
  Spillers French Bakery (Plymouth)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Places (Local Authority Purchases)
  School Places (Local Authority Purchases)
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Primary Schools (Oldham and Kirklees)
  Primary Schools (Oldham and Kirklees)
  Educational Administrators
  Educational Administrators
  Sixth Form Units
  Sixth Form Units
  Sixth Form Pupils (Kirklees)
  Sixth Form Pupils (Kirklees)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Expenditure (North-West Region)
  Expenditure (North-West Region)
  MR. DAVID ANDERSON
  MR. DAVID ANDERSON
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
TRANSPORT
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  National Freight Corporation
  National Freight Corporation
  Driving Test (Cancellations)
  Driving Test (Cancellations)
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Motor Cycles (Accidents)
  Motor Cycles (Accidents)
ENVIRONMENT
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Desalination
  Desalination
  House Renovation Grants
  House Renovation Grants
  Housing (Pensioners)
  Housing (Pensioners)
  Rights of Way
  Rights of Way
  Zoos (Animal Imports)
  Zoos (Animal Imports)
  Sporting Activities (Deaths)
  Sporting Activities (Deaths)
  Stonehenge
  Stonehenge
  Departmental Organisations (Running Costs)
  Departmental Organisations (Running Costs)
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Wild Animals (Import Licences)
  Wild Animals (Import Licences)
  Local Government Officers (Pensions)
  Local Government Officers (Pensions)
  Land Reclamation (Finance)
  Land Reclamation (Finance)
  Water Act
  Water Act
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  Community Land (Resale)
  Community Land (Resale)
  Rates
  Rates
  Land Acquisition
  Land Acquisition
  North-West Region (Expenditure)
  North-West Region (Expenditure)
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
  HIGH COURT JUDGES
  HIGH COURT JUDGES
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  NORTHUMBRIA
  NORTHUMBRIA
  TUC and CBI
  TUC and CBI
  "BUY BRITISH"
  "BUY BRITISH"
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  CHADWELL HEATH
  CHADWELL HEATH
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (SPEECH)
  CLEVELAND
  CLEVELAND
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
  WANDSWORTH
  WANDSWORTH
  FRANCE (PRESIDENT)
  FRANCE (PRESIDENT)
  RADIATION HAZARDS
  RADIATION HAZARDS
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Kew Gardens
  Kew Gardens
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Potatoes (Scotland)
  Potatoes (Scotland)
  Aid Programmes
  Aid Programmes
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Breweries
  Breweries
  Metrication
  Metrication
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Spillers French
  Spillers French
  Competition Policy
  Competition Policy
ENERGY
  Minerals (Electricity Generation)
  Minerals (Electricity Generation)
  Electricity Demand
  Electricity Demand
  Oil Equipment (Procurement Policy)
  Oil Equipment (Procurement Policy)
  State Corporations and Boards
  State Corporations and Boards
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Highway Inquiry Procedures (Report)
  Highway Inquiry Procedures (Report)
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
EMPLOYMENT
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Direct Works Departments
  Direct Works Departments
  Dock Work Regulation Act
  Dock Work Regulation Act
  Employment Protection Act
  Employment Protection Act
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Central Arbitration Committee (Pay Awards)
  Central Arbitration Committee (Pay Awards)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Working Week
  Working Week
  Mexborough and Wombwell
  Mexborough and Wombwell
  Apprentices
  Apprentices
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Uxbridge Jobcentre
  Uxbridge Jobcentre
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Industrial Disputes (Trade Union Immunities)
  Industrial Disputes (Trade Union Immunities)
  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  North-West Region
  North-West Region
  Telephone Installation (Industrial Dispute)
  Telephone Installation (Industrial Dispute)
  Trade Unions (Certificates of Independence)
  Trade Unions (Certificates of Independence)
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Southampton Docks (Dispute)
  Southampton Docks (Dispute)
  Health and Safety Commission
  Health and Safety Commission
  National Dock Labour Board
  National Dock Labour Board
  Royal Commission on the Distribution of Incomes and Wealth
  Royal Commission on the Distribution of Incomes and Wealth
  St. Ives, Cornwall
  St. Ives, Cornwall
  Sleeman Smith Ltd.
  Sleeman Smith Ltd.
  Road Transport Industry Training Board
  Road Transport Industry Training Board
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Redundancy Pay
  Redundancy Pay
  Central Arbitration Committee
  Central Arbitration Committee
  Health and Safety Executive (Major Hazards Branch)
  Health and Safety Executive (Major Hazards Branch)
  Slate Workers (Pneumoconiosis)
  Slate Workers (Pneumoconiosis)
  Women Workers (Retraining)
  Women Workers (Retraining)
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Businesses (Assistance)
  Businesses (Assistance)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Booth Hall Hospital, Manchester
  Booth Hall Hospital, Manchester
  Doctors (Private Sector)
  Doctors (Private Sector)
  Circulars HN (77) 190 and LASSL (77) 27
  Circulars HN (77) 190 and LASSL (77) 27
  Mental Patients (Part III Accommodation)
  Mental Patients (Part III Accommodation)
  Hospital Patients
  Hospital Patients
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Asbestosis
  Asbestosis
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Invalidity Pension (Married Women)
  Invalidity Pension (Married Women)
  Neonatal Mortality (Wolverhampton)
  Neonatal Mortality (Wolverhampton)
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Hospitals (Ancillary Personnel)
  Hospitals (Ancillary Personnel)
  North-West Region (Expenditure)
  North-West Region (Expenditure)
  Rubella
  Rubella
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Incontinence
  Incontinence
TRADE
  Taiwan (Textile Imports)
  Taiwan (Textile Imports)
  Manufactured Goods
  Manufactured Goods
  Crop Spraying (Aircraft Accidents)
  Crop Spraying (Aircraft Accidents)
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Oil Pollution (Rathlin Islands)
  Oil Pollution (Rathlin Islands)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
  Certificates and Licences (Fees)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  New Kilroot Power Station
  New Kilroot Power Station
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
CIVIL SERVICE
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Pay Research Unit Board
  Pay Research Unit Board
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Company Taxation
  Company Taxation
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Development Land Tax
  Development Land Tax
  Liquor Duty
  Liquor Duty
  Indirect Taxation
  Indirect Taxation
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Business Profits
  Business Profits
  European Community
  European Community
  Divers
  Divers
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Cigarettes
  Cigarettes
DEFENCE
  Army Benefit Fund
  Army Benefit Fund
  Royal Ordnance Factories (Board Costs)
  Royal Ordnance Factories (Board Costs)
  Service Men (Deaths)
  Service Men (Deaths)
  Animal Experiments
  Animal Experiments
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Local Overseas Allowances
  Local Overseas Allowances
  Director of Information
  Director of Information
SCOTLAND
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Mr. David Anderson
  Mr. David Anderson
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Motor Cycles (Accidents)
  Motor Cycles (Accidents)
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
WALES
  Employment
  Employment
  Llanrwst (Bypass)
  Llanrwst (Bypass)
  A5, Llangollen, Clwyd
  A5, Llangollen, Clwyd
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Development Agency

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

GREENHAM COMMON AIR BASE
Lord SELSDON: 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 alternatives to RAF Greenham Common are being considered as the site for the proposed new United States air base in the United Kingdom.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in late January this year the United States authorities requested permission to reactivate RAF Greenham Common, which is currently a United States Air Force standby base, for peacetime use by up to 15 KC-135 tanker aircraft. This request is now being carefully considered and all the relevant factors will be taken into account including the examination of possible alternative locations to Greenham Common. This examination will be com-
2
prehensive and it would lead to unnecessary speculation to mention particular alternatives at this stage.
Lord SELSDON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for hat fairly unhelpful reply. But may I ask him whether he will take into account the considerations of local residents, and whether it is true that those who live in the area of Greenham Common are totally opposed to this base while those in some of the alternative areas are very much in favour of it?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot be more helpful than I have already been. I said that the examination will be comprehensive and at this moment speculation is premature.

VACCINES AND SERA SUPPLIES TO NHS
2.37 p.m.
Lord AMULREE: My Lord>, 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 arrangements are being made to continue the supply of vaccines and sera to the National Health Service when the laboratories of the Lister Institute at Elstree close as reported in The Times of 19th April.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Lister Institute is currently one of three major enterprises which manufacture in the United Kingdom vaccines and sera for use in the National Health Service. Many of the products supplied by the Lister Institute are also supplied by one or both of the other manufacturers. Discussions have already taken place with these other manufacturers with a view to arranging for them to increase production or to take on production of the products which the National Health Service obtains from the Lister Institute. My Department is also examining the possibility of obtaining supplies from other sources of those vaccines which are used only in small quantities. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are pursuing these initiatives with vigour and will take all steps necessary to ensure continuity of supply.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that quite helpful reply and to ask a minor supplementary question. Can he be quite sure that the supplies of these vaccines et cetera will not be cut down or reduced because of some economy drive which may take place in the foreseeable future?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can give that assurance because there are considerable stocks of the various vaccines and sera. I explained to your Lordships that there are two other firms—namely, the Wellcome Foundation and Evans Biologicals Limited—who also manufacture these particular vaccines and sera, and there are quite considerable stocks of some of them. In the case of one particular vaccine there are stocks which will last for between five and 10 years. We are not expecting any difficulty whatsoever.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will my noble friend say what proposals the Government have for continuing the existence of the Lister Institute? The Institute had a building at the bottom of Chelsea Bridge Road, which I understand has now been closed down, and with the present threat to the further part of the Lister Institute at Elstree would it not appear that the whole of the Lister Institute may go and that the name of one of the most distinguished people of the last century in the medical field will
4
disappear from this country in terms of an institute? Is it not as serious as if, in France, the Pasteur Institute were to disappear?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think there can be any comparisons between the two institutions. My understanding of the situation is that the Government have no plans for financially assisting the Lister Institute. It applied to the Government for a grant of something like £500.000, but on inquiry it was found that £500,000 would not be nearly enough; something like £4 million would be necessary to enable it to continue with the manufacture of vaccines and sera. We must bear in mind that the only part of the Lister Institute which is to be closed is that dealing with vaccines and sera. The Lister Institute, which over a long period of time has rendered magnificent service not only to this country but to the rest of the world, is really a biomedical research body and that side of it will not be touched at all.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I would reiterate my supplementary question. I wanted to be quite sure that the amount of money which is going to be available to be spent on the vaccines and sera by the Government, or by the noble Lord's Department, will not be cut down by any new drive for economy.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is certainly not my understanding that the Government intend to do anything of the kind.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, if the existing Lister Institute is closing and cannot make a profit from producing these drugs, how do the Government expect to be able to get them from other firms at the same price?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with very great respect, that is not really a matter for the Government at all. Prices are fixed in open competition and they are not fixed by the National Health Service. We put out tenders for certain types of drugs in bulk purchase; the firms who manufacture them tender, and we accept the most appropriate tender.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, my noble friend said that the Lister

5
Institute will continue in existence, but is it not true that the actual physical basis of the Lister Institute has now closed down, that the Lister Institute for Medical Research which was in Chelsea Bridge Road no longer exists? Does he, therefore, mean that the so-called Lister Institute will merely be a body for making relatively small grants for research work around the country, and not a true medical research institute?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my understanding is that when part of the Lister Institute closed at Chelsea it moved to Elstree, and the Lister Institute is now in Elstree. The part that was in Chelsea is up for sale. At the moment nobody has offered to buy it. Its future and planning is a matter of discussion between the Lister Institute and the local authority. But the Lister Institute will continue at Elstree the biochemical research which it has been undertaking as an institute for a good many years.

BRITISH AIRWAYS: REPLACEMENT AIRCRAFT
2.45 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider British Airways' request to purchase £200 million worth of replacement aircraft from the U.S.A. has national repercussion far outside any short-term commercial advantage; and whether they will make a Statement.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, there are a number of different aspects of the national interest to be taken into account in this matter, and the Government will give proper weight to each of them in considering their decision.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for that short reply, is she aware that in the view of many people the technical arguments for the choice of the Boeing by British Airways, including the odd science of the forecasting of traffic growth over the next 15 years, is somewhat thin; and is the noble Baroness aware that the BAC 1–11
6
has proved since the war to be one of the most successful aircraft throughout the world? Is she aware that there are over 220 aircraft flying on world airlines, and that it has proved well designed and, indeed, has passenger appeal?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, British Airways' present interest in the Boeing has nothing to do with any aspersions they might be thinking of casting on the BAC 1–11. They are very proud of what the BAC 1–11 has achieved, and we hope to continue sales of those aircraft. At this point of time they are considering the two different machines, and the Government have yet to make up their mind which one to support.
The EARL of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the Government will be any nearer a decision by next Monday, when there is an Unstarred Question on this subject?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I should have thought it extremely unlikely.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that in 1963–64 BOAC wanted to buy Boeing 707s and Parliament forced them to buy the British VCIO, which was both very profitable and very popular? As the argument between buying Boeing 737s or BAC 1–11s is narrowly balanced and takes in many factors, would it not be a good idea for the Government to set up a Joint Select Committee to report on this issue and make recommendations?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that is certainly a point I will bring to the notice of my right honourable friend, but I think it is a question of trying to get a decision fairly quickly in order to have the replacement machines available by 1980.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Baroness; accept that the charm and urbanity of her first Answer were not matched by its informativeness? Can she perhaps enlarge on her charming and urbane reply and tell us what are the relevant considerations and in what order of priority a ad scale of importance the Government will consider them?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, these are matters which are now being considered by the various Departments concerned. I am afraid I cannot give any more information as to the relevant priorities of all the Departments concerned; there is more than one Department involved in this. What we need, of course, is a short-haul aircraft, mainly for European journeys. We have to start the replacement of those aircraft by 1980 in order to complete it by 1985. My information is that it means pulling out pilots for training on any new aeroplane that comes in, and the replacement has to be spread over this period because there is a limit to the number of staff who can be pulled out for training before we take delivery of the new machines.
So far as the Boeing and the BAC 1–11 are concerned, there is the question of the noise factor, which we have to take into account by 1986. There is the question of delivery. All these things have to be weighed up. The Government have power under Section 4 of the British Airways Board Act to give the Board directions of a general character, but they have not the power to say: "You will buy this machine or that machine"
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, if the matter is of such urgency, is not the appointment of a Joint Select Committee, as suggested by my noble friend, therefore a matter of great urgency?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords. I said that I would bring it to the notice of my right honourable friend.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that on all sides of the House there is considerable disquiet about the possibility of this order going to the firm of Boeing?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords. I am aware of the disquiet, and so are all the Departments that are dealing with the matter. We are trying to make the proper assessment now in order to come to the right conclusion in the end.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us whether British Aerospace have advised the Government of the likely effect on jobs should the order go to Boeing, and
8
secondly, the likely effect on their design leadership?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my information is that there might be problems on design leadership so far as British Aerospace is concerned, if the order did not go for the BAC 1–11. So far as jobs on the shop floor are concerned, I am also advised that there would be a lot of what I suppose we would term subcontracting available if the Boeings were ordered. There would be plenty of work on the shop floor. One of the difficulties if we go for Boeing and not BAC 1–11 is that British Aerospace feel that there is a real danger in losing some of their design teams.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, would the Minister agree that this is not a question short-term until 1980, but takes us far into the 1980s as regards British civil aviation future policy? Would she agree that it embraces not merely a short-term commercial advantage, but also the question whether our national carrier is to have, in a highly competitive world, the best possible aircraft which it considers most suitable? Secondly, following that, will the Government not have to consider the policy for the 1980s—whether it is a British-USA proposition, using Rolls-Royce engines, or the possibility of a European project which will use foreign engines? Those are grave and difficult issues. May we hope for a fairly early and positive decision?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the decision that is before the Government at the moment for the current proposal relates to an immediate British Airways requirement which is quite separate and distinct from the question of further aircraft replacements in the medium-long term and the long term. The acquisition of the 19 Boeing 737s now would not commit British Airways to American suppliers for further aircraft. That is something that would have to be considered when the time came. There is no commitment to any further orders for the larger planes as and when they become necessary. The airline will be free to consider which of all the aircraft that are then available, be they American, British or European, are the ones that best fit their needs, and make the necessary submission to the Government.

FALKLAND ISLANDS: FISHING BASE
2.53 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how far negotiations with Russia over the establishment of a fishing base in the Falkland Islands have proceeded.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not holding negotiations with the Soviet Government on the establishment of a fishing base in the Falkland Islands, nor have we received any such proposal from the Soviet Government.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he would not agree with me that sometimes it is impossible to have smoke without fire? Would he confirm that there have not been informal talks between Russia, perhaps, and the Falkland Islands? Would he not agree with me that around the Falkland Islands not only are there fish but there is a vast supply of oil? Would he agree that, should the Soviet Union in future enter negotiations for the purpose of having a fishing port there, they would be gone over with a very fine tooth-comb?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the first point, I can only repeat the terms of my substantive Answer. There have been no negotiations. I am not aware of any informal or formal negotiations, and we have not received any such proposal from the Soviet Government. On the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary, I cannot answer for the future, but I can say this: We are now engaged in what I hope are promising negotiations with the Argentine Government as to the general future, economic and otherwise, of the Falkland Islands. It would seem to me to be the height of impropriety, if not of hazard, to introduce any third party at this time into these bilateral negotiations. Therefore, I do not see any likelihood of our negotiating with the Russians about
10
anything appertaining to the South-West Atlantic while we are talking, fruitfully I hope, with the Argentines.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that not only are there no proper fishing port facilities in the rich fishing grounds of the whole South Atlantic, but also that the Poles recently advertised for a bulk freezer transport to ship 3,000 tons of fish from South Georgia? Furthermore, would not Her Majesty's Government agree that there is considerable international demand for proper fishing port facilities in the South Atlantic which, if implemented by the United Kingdom, would benefit not only the economy of the Falkland Islands but also that of the United Kingdom?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would certainly agree. The whole point of our diplomacy is to come to a constructive agreement with the Argentine Government which will be of benefit to that country and to us. We have a longstanding and friendly tradition of cooperation with the Argentine Government which thereby benefits the Falkland Islands. I am hopeful that the present negotiations may in due course arrive at such a result with the effects mentioned in the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, while welcoming the Minister's statement about having friendly relations with the Argentine, may I ask whether he w II inform the House when an ambassador will be appointed there to deal with this very delicate and difficult diplomatic matter?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as soon as possible, and as soon as it is mutually agreeable to the Argentine Government and the Government of the United Kingdom.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether Russian fishing vessels use the Falkland Islands on a casual basis on any occasions, either for refuelling or for supplies?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have no information on that point. I do not think so, but I shall look into the point the noble Lord has raised.
Viscount MONTGOMERY of ALA-MEIN: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that there is merit in accelerating the talks with Argentina to prevent the other third party countries taking advantage of the rich fishing activities in the area?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly; one is tempted to add—and especially certain third parties.

CHIEF OF THE DEFENCE STAFF: PEKING SPEECH
2.57 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement arising from the reference in Peking by the Chief of the Defence Staff to the need to co-operate with China because we both have an enemy at our door—namely, the Soviet Union?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, the remarks of the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Neil Cameron, were made in an impromptu reply to a speech of welcome by the Commander of the Chinese Sixth Tank Division, whose units he was visiting, He was not advocating any form of military alliance between this country and China, nor did he say, or imply, that the Soviet Union had the intention of attacking either China or the Western Alliance. He did, however, draw attention to the growing strength of the Soviet tank armies.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this: Is it not the case that it is an important object of our foreign policy to secure détente and disarmament and that the British Government have this month put forward to the United Nations Assembly radical proposals to that effect?
Lord PEART: My Lords, yes, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that détente is our aim. That is our policy. We are committed to having talks with the Soviet Union. I hope that there will be a successful outcome.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the Leader of the House will tell your Lordships whether he thinks that the Soviet Union will be surprised to learn that Britain, and the other NATO countries, generally, are seriously concerned at the continuing and increasing build-up of Soviet forces in Europe, and whether they will be astonished to learn that we are seeking to make plans to defend ourselves? Will he be careful not to allow some members on the extreme Left of his Party—I exclude the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who is a law unto himself—to undermine, or seek to undermine, the confidence which all of us feel in Sir Neil Cameron and the Chiefs of Staff?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am anxious that this should not be built up into some great crisis story. I believe that the Soviet Union is now well aware of our policy. However, at the same time I think that we are committed to détente and we want good relations. I see no reason why we cannot have good relations with both the Soviet Union and China.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, situations like this are extremely difficult to get into perspective, particularly at this distance from Peking. I would only express the hope that this incident will not adversely affect SALT or détente on which we have not been making particular progress up to now as regards the Russians. I hope that the noble Lord will accept from these Benches that we want to have, and to maintain, proper, positive relations with the People's Republic of China.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House. We want good relations with China and quite recently we had a very good debate on Anglo-Chinese matters.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does my noble friend regard it as remarkable, outstanding, exceptional, and all the rest of it, for the Chief of Staff to have expressed even in an impromptu fashion that we must be very careful about countries like Russia, especially when we in the United Kingdom are spending £7,000 million a year? What for? Is it because we are friendly with Russia and do not expect any trouble from Russia? Are we

13
to understand that Russia is a dear friend and we ought to send her love and kisses? Finally, I should like to ask my noble friend whether the allegation in the Press, if it happens to he true—I cannot say that it is true and I would not care to vouch for everything that appears in the Press—that Sir Neil Cameron was drunk when he made the statement, was because he drank too much vodka? Is he aware that, if somebody cares to provide me with plenty of drink, I shall say something much worse than he said?
Lord PEART: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shinwell has made a characteristic intervention. However, as regards the argument about whether the Chief of the Defence Staff was drunk, I cannot vouch for anything like that—why should I? In the sense that it is reported that Russia has said that, I think that people can make too much of it and that we should play it in a much lower key.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that we cannot have sensible strategic planning without a potential enemy, and that in NATO the potential enemy is Russia? In Chinese planning the potential enemy is Russia. In Russia's planning the potential enemies are China and NATO. To make a fuss because that is stated makes very great nonsense.
Lord PEART: My Lords, it may well be, but on the other hand remarks must he judged in the context of the political situation. As I have said, we want good relations with China as well as with the Soviet Union. I cannot go beyond that.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether he approves of policy statements being made by functionaries rather than Ministers?
Lord PEART: No, my Lords; I believe that Ministers should make major statements on policy—of course I do.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating the personal reference made to me by the Leader of the Opposition, may I ask, with reference to his statement, whether it is not the case that both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have recognised the sincerity of Mr. Brezhnev in his disarmament proposals?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not think that I should add to what I have said already. We are anxious to have détente. We have entered into talks with the Soviet Union and I want those talks io succeed, as we all do. So, I do not think that playing off China against the Soviet Union, or vice versa, will do anyone any good. We want peace all round.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord take this oppertunity to remind Russia that we may want détente, but détente is a two-way street and, until we see some approach from Russia, talks such as the ones Sir Neil Cameron is carrying out must logically go ahead?
Lord PEART: My Lords, we are not denying that talks should not be held. I think that it is right that they should be held, and even going to China to speak to Chinese leaders is a correct policy and a correct approach. However, at the same time we do have talks with the Soviet Union and we are committed to have talks about arms limitation policy, which we wish to be successful.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I should like to ask a question on a Flatter of procedure. According to the Press, I understood that the Prime Minister was to make a statement in another place this afternoon. If there is any truth in that, is it in accordance with the traditions of the House—with great respect to ny noble friend who has a perfect right to ask a Question whenever he likes—that a Private Notice Question should be accepted?
Lord PEART: Yes. Actually, the Answer in the other place was made by the Secretary of State for Defence.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, has any effort been made to obtain a verbatim report of the speech that was made by the Chief of Defence Staff, because it is well known to anybody who has anything to do with newspapers that a sub-editor picks out a juicy sentence or two and ignores all the rest.
Lord PEART: My Lords, my noble friend has had experience of the Press as a working editor. All I can say is, Yes, we have taken care.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 47; read 1a
SHIPBUILDING (REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS) BILL
Returned from the Commons on Friday last with certain of the Lords Amendments agreed to and with the remaining Lords Amendments disagreed to with a Reason for such disagreement: the said Reason printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 47.
CHRIST CHURCH WOBURN SQUARE AND SAINT MATTHEW OAKLEY SQUARE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
KENDAL MARKET BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE FAMILY
3.8 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS Baroness PHILLIPS rose to call attention to the steps taken by the Government in support of the family; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I think that it is very appropriate that we begin our May session with what we might call a positive Motion. On this occasion I am sure that no noble Lord will contravene the Standing Orders by not calling attention to what is good about the Government. This is the opportunity for noble Lords who are members of the Opposition to say all the really good things that they have been dying to say for a long time. I am giving them a splendid opportunity!
May I say in passing that I was a little astonished to see some references to the fact that May Day was a new idea. Surely May Day is the oldest holiday that rural England has enjoyed, otherwise how
16
did people dance round the maypole and indulge in other jollities? May is the beginning, the bursting of spring and the time when we begin to look back on a dreary winter and look forward to what is to come. That is the spirit in which I hope we shall approach this debate.
Your Lordships will be glad to know that I feel in a suitable frame of mind, having this morning made a broadcast on honesty and having just addressed a catholic women's luncheon on prayer, to say that the family is the next move in the chain of events. The changes and the various Acts of Parliament which have been passed by the Government were of such volume that I am bound to say that I was unable to enjoy my own family this weekend as I had to spend some time doing my homework. It seemed to me a slightly ironic touch, but they are still there.
This is a vast subject set against a backcloth which none of us likes to seethe backcloth of juvenile crime, unemployment, the breakdown of marriages and so on. However, having set it against this backcloth, the players—the perrfomers—are, as they always will be, the vast majority of our population, who are kind, hardworking, honest, good husbands and wives who love their children. That we must never forget. There are moments when one feels that one is constantly talking about those who fall by the wayside.
I referred—as I am sure many of your Lordships also did—to the previous debate on the family, which was opened by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in June 1976. In his very inspiring introduction to the Motion he said:
"If, then, the family must be regarded as the bulwark of a stable society, we should do well to do two things: first, we should ask what are the factors in our society which constitute a major menace to its continuing; and, secondly, we should ask what action is called for in the strengthening of family life".—[Official Report, 16/6/76; col. 1260.]
I think that today we would prefer to look at the second question, as we constantly look at the first. Human beings have very basic needs, whatever their colour or whatever the land of their birth may be. They need love, and the support of the loyalty of a group. There has never been a better group unit than the

17
family. This is true of whichever culture we have known throughout history or whichever culture appertains in various countries of the world.
No Government, even at their best, can be a substitute for this group. A Government should he called upon to provide only the support and back-up for maintaining the good family, while helping the family, or the individual members of it, who may need care and assistance. I think that we must examine how much Her Majesty's Government are doing to answer the question posed by the most reverend Primate. I noted that in that debate one noble Baroness referred to the suggestion that the State had taken over the rôle of the family provider. That is not true and can never be true; the State can never take over the rÔle of the family provider. At best the State can support, help and pick up the pieces. The State must seek to do all that will enable a family to remain as a unit, but it must assist individual members of the family where, for some reason or another, the unit falls apart.
The most reverend Primate referred specifically to housing, education and health. With such an impressive array of speakers, I shall not presume to attempt to cover all that the Government have done in these different areas. I shall merely select one or two, and hope that the rest will be filled in by future speakers. With two Government speakers as well, whom we know to have great compassion and concern for the family, I believe that we shall be given all the answers.
In his reference to housing, the most reverend Primate said that we saw the result of the kind of housing we are building—the high-rise blocks—in the separation of families. We all know that so often in life we cure one problem and create another. But it is good to know that in recent years—indeed, since our last debate—no more of those horrific high-rise blocks of flats have been built. Indeed, the trend, at the Government's suggestion, is totally in the other direction.
Of course, there are always special needs within housing. There is the one-parent family, particularly if one parent has died or if one partner has been deserted; there are the elderly and there are the disabled. All these people will need
18
special housing. What have the Government done in this direction? First, I should like to refer your Lordships to the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, which had my particular affection and, indeed, certainly the affection of all noble Baronesses in the House; I am sure that although noble Lords did not figure in the debate quite so prominently, it also had their affection. That Act placed very clear responsibility on the local housing authority to secure accommodation for homeless families with dependent children, and couples where the wife is pregnant. Never again must it be necessary for families to walk the streets or for children to be taken into care merely because the parents are homeless. It is a very inspiring and remarkable Act.
On the matter of housing for the disabled I fear that my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton, who is not present this afternoon, will certainly say that we have not done enough; no one would suggest that enough has been done. I would be the first to encourage her and other noble Lords to continue to raise this question. However, I think noble Lords will recall that in 1975 the Minister launched a drive for mobility housing and for wheelchair housing. The housing subsidy system was adapted so that the housing subsidy of 66 percent. is payable by the Government towards the extra cost.
Your Lordships will recall that mobility housing—which was merely the adaption of houses that could be readapted if people, who were not disabled, returned to them—was first advocated in 1974. We see—and these are quite impressive figures—that in 1975 there were just over 700 adaptions, but that in 1977 that figure had risen to nearly 7,000. That is a record of which the Government can well be proud. In wheelchair housing there has been another move forward. It has improved "10 times". We often use that phrase when we refer to money; so why not quote in that way when we refer to a movement for those who are disabled?
On the matter of housing for the elderly, I received a letter—as many of your Lordships will have—from my old friend Hugh Faulkner of Help the Aged, in which he urged me to commend various things to the Government.I do not propose to commend things to the Government during this debate, but I shall slip in the

19
reference that I hope he will continue, as he always has, to draw the attention of the Government and other authorities to what is needed for the elderly.
How have the Government helped in relation to the very thing which he wants? The housing of the elderly has always been something which different Ministers have examined in different ways, each trying to get the best out of a difficult situation. I suppose that ideally the elderly should live with the younger members of the family. But with the changing pattern of social conditions there has been a great movement of young people to the new towns and new estates, thus leaving elderly mothers and fathers on their own, and therefore creating a problem. Once I recall an Indian telling me that in India they have no problem with the elderly because they all live together. I thought that that was rather overrated and I am not sure whether we would all wish to share a small dwelling with our mother-in-law. However, no doubt it has advantages when people become elderly.
How have the Government helped? First, they have funded research to provide the local authorities with material on the particular point on which Help the Aged are keen; namely, the granny flat. We never seem to assume that there are any grandfathers living on their own, but there are. The granny flat is an attempt to bring the unit of the elderly into contact with the young couple, while at the same time preserving the independence of the elderly. This is a new move which has stemmed directly from some enlightened directives from the Government.
I turn to the White Paper entitled Policy for the Inner Cities. How better has the family been helped than by that? It is one of the most exciting White Papers to be issued by any Government. I am a city dweller and I have watched with sadness what has been happening to my London. I want to raise the matter of the partnerships with the authorities of certain cities; there are only seven. If it is asked why there are only seven, the answer is simple—because, if it is to achieve a real impact, the effort must be concentrated. There are others that are had, but these seven were selected as standing out to a marked degree. These projects in the inner cities are not only
20
inspiring but practical, and they are on the move. This, again, is surely something for which we must be truly thankful.
In education, I again come first of all —and I rather selected the ones I myself felt strongly about—to the under-fives. I seem to recall that when a certain prominent lady, not in this House, was Minister of Education, we were promised that the under-fives would have priority, and to her great credit she did a great deal towards it. But, subsequently, I think that other Ministers who followed her in that particular Government were not so enthusiastic. Now, under the present Minister, we are seeing a great move forward for the three and four-year-olds to attend nursery schools and classes, and the number is increasing—not enough for somebody like me or, I suspect, for some of your Lordships, but nevertheless it is increasing. This is the only way we can set this against a situation where the money has to be very carefully thought about, and divided, and spaced out.
School meals are very important. Those of us who have taught know that many children would not have a main meal if it were not for the school meals. The rate support grant has been given to the school meal so that it can be maintained at the present rate. I am sure that this compassionate Government will see that that continues. Then, we remember the great debate on milk. If I may again refer to this very good lady, she was at one time described as the lady who took away the school milk. We have maintained the milk situation for the small children, and it is possible to have it for children in primary and in special schools. I mention this because the Government have been under some pressure to take this particular thing out. There was a suggestion that one could save here, and I am happy to say that the Government have resisted it.
In connection with the children, what about the increase in child benefit? I have worked with young mothers and know what this means to them. Contrary to the suggestion that they spend it on gin and cigarettes, I can assure your Lordships that they wait for it in order to buy clothing and other things for the children. The increase is giving great joy. The retirement pension has been increased; the earnings limit increased. I shall just

21
slip in a question here, my Lords: can we one day get rid of this stupid earnings rule, which applies only to retirement pensioners? I suppose that we shall have to be satisfied with the fact that the level has been increased. The short term benefits have been increased.
I remember listening to the Minister telling us recently about all the different things that were happening. I thought that he was getting very little praise for these increases, and we know that he has had a great part in them. This is the sixth occasion, he said, on which we have increased pensions. Surely that is worth mentioning. The mobility allowances have been increased, and indeed all those allowances which come under the heading of the social services have been quite notably increased—again, against a climate of pressure to cut them back. This is the important point. It is easy to spend money if you have plenty of it. If you are having to husband the money you have, it is not so simple.
There is the Domestic Proceedings Bill, now sent by your Lordships to another place. This provides for an importance reform in the law, and it relates to the custody and maintenance of children. It will eliminate the unnecessary differences between legislation relating to matrimonial proceedings and that relating to guardianship. The Domestic Violence Act concerned the group—again in the family—of battered wives, of whom I have had a great deal of experience (not personally as a battered wife; probably my husband was the battered one!) in connection with some terribly tragic stories. This was an inspired Act which, you will remember, enabled the other spouse to be excluded from the matrimonial home without having to go through the ritual. Then there was the Children's Act 1975, which amended the adoption law so that those who actually love the children and care for them are now able to apply to adopt them. This was something that the women's organisations have been pressing for for a long time. Who has brought this in? The present Government.
I am not mentioning the National Health Service because I feel that perhaps there may be some criticism of certain things that are going on. I would only say that it was not this Government that set up the reorganisation. I am sure
22
that we shall hear a great deal about the splendid work of the Health Service from others of your Lordships who will he speaking. The Government, as if they were a separate entity, are expected to have the answer to all problems.I sometimes feel that even criticism of the weather is levelled at the Government. During the last debate, there were references to divorces, deserted wives, and a general change in the marriage pattern. It is hardly fair to blame the Government for that, or indeed to assume that, before separation was simpler, all parties were held together for happiness and contentment. Even if we do not accept the Christian philosophy, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says,
"The family is the natural and fundamental group-unit of society and it is entitles to protection".
St. Francis de Sales said:
"The test of a preacher is that his congregation goes away saying not What a lovely sermon' but 'I will do something about it'."
Dare I suggest to your Lordships that, following the right reverend Prelate's sermon, the Government did do something about it? I beg to move for Papers.
3.26 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for giving the House an opportunity to debate yet again this important topic, the family. That said, she will not be surprised if I do not accept all the arguments that she has put forward this afternoon. I am, however, not only glad but really touched that the Government should be supporting the family. It was my right honourable friend in another place, Mrs. Thatcher, who said not so long ago that "but for The Right Approach the Labour Party would have no policies at all ", and to have this debate here today on a topic debated at length at the Conservative Party Conference, and barely two months after the publication of a Conservative Research Department Paper on Family Policy, is touching indeed.
I speak on behalf of a Party that believes in the importance of the family, and in the need for the support of it. For at a time of increasing change the family stands at the centre of our society for four great principles: for stability, for continuity, for individual responsibility, and for self-help.

23
Furthermore, at a time when most jobs are, and always will be, repetitive the family becomes increasingly a living expression of human individuality and dignity. The desire to own a home, to "do it up" oneself, to have a garden or an allotment, to go shopping as a family.to cook the meals that the family likes, are all expressions of this desire. At a time when institutions are often thought of as being too large and too remote, and frequently unresponsive to people's wishes, the family can withdraw to all its members for encouragement, comfort and strength at a moment of crisis. And by helping itself the family that cares for all its members is able to help others in the wider network of the community. We need always to encourage the family: to encourage the family to help itself, and to encourage it as a counterbalance to the ever-increasing power of the State and as a real devolution of power to the individual. The country needs the family and cannot afford the cost of doing without it.
It seems to me that one of the most dangerous trends of the times in which we live has been the endless knocking at the fabric of society, and the family has come in for its fair share as well. No family, because it is human, is perfect; but there is no real substitute for the family, and those that enjoy a happy family life are blessed indeed. It is surely better to put before the young the ideal for which they should aim and for which they should work, rather than to offer only a very drab second best which so much of trendy, modern thought seems to put in front of them.
But the role that I have described for the family does not always fit in well, if I may say so with all respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, with all the ideals that this Government have put before us: the very high levels of taxation for everyone; the increased State control and State interference in our lives: and housing policies that have made life exceptionally difficult for young couples at the start of their married life. After all, for young people today, with the ever-shrinking private rented market, there is only a choice between being a council house tenant and an owner-occupier; and I can assure the noble Baroness and those who believe I am exaggerating the problem, that the one topic of conversation among young people is where they are going to
24
live. They cannot get into a council house and they cannot afford to buy. It is a serious matter indeed, and it is one that deserves most serious study. There must, of course, always be a safety net below which no one should be allowed to fall, but I believe that our policy should be designed to help the family—not just the individual member within the family, but the family as a whole.
On looking at that matter, I should like to look at four policies to see how they have affected the family. The first one to which I should like to refer is that of tax and child benefits, for what matters to most families is how much money they actually have to spend. As the background to this let me give one statistic: when family allowances, as they were then called, were first introduced in 1946, the child allowance available for the second child was 25p per week; the old age pension for the single person was 50p per week. Today the same figures are £2.30 for the first and the second child, and £17.50 for the single pensioner. It will be seen therefore that the rate of family allowance or child benefit has not increased at anything like the rate of the pensions.
In the intervening years since 1946 families as a whole have not done well, and, despite the increase in the child benefit in the last Budget, families with children are still worse off under this Government than they were under the last Conservative Government. Between 1970–71 and 1973–74 the weekly net income on average earnings of a family man with two children rose by £6 per week in real value. Between 1973–74 and 1977–78 the weekly net income of the same family man with two children fell by £5.70 per week. The Treasury Tables published on 11th April in reply to a Question for Written Answer show that, as a result of the last Budget, a family man with two children under 11, and earning £80 per week, will be £2.24 per week better off. It will therefore be seen that he is still not as well off as he would have been in 1973–74 and that his real income has fallen. Of course it is true that he will get an increased child benefit in November 1978. This benefit will be 70p per week per child on five-twelfths of the year, so the net gain will be 60p per week over a full year for two children. At today's prices this will buy two large loaves of

25
bread a week. This is certainly better than no bread—I am not saying it is not—but it is a measure of how much money is needed and how expensive it is to live.
Furthermore, according to the Low Pay Unit, as reported in The Times on 17th April, the effect of the Budget will be to actually aggravate the poverty trap, and the complexity of lowering the threshold as well as taking some people out of the tax will also mean that they will lose other social security benefits. The net result is that more people may find themselves in the poverty trap; more people when they have children may find themselves in this frightful dilemma as to whether they will be better off in work or out of it. If there is one thing that is bad for a family it is surely that the man of the family should have this choice before him, because it is surely better that he should be working than that he should be supported by the State.
Nor indeed has the Budget given any help to the wife in the very difficult decision that she has to take as to whether or not to work. The tax system still gives a tax incentive for wives to work, and they do this at times when the wife has small children and at a time when there are not facilities all over the country to help mothers who wish to do so. It is not my intention to comment on the issue of whether or not wives with small children should work. That, I believe, is a decision for the wife and the husband, and certainly not one for me or, I believe, for politicians to make. The merits should not be decided by the tax system either. The tax system should surely be neutral in this respect and should help neither the wife who goes out to work nor the wife who stays at home. It seems to me quite absurd that in the tax system we have this anomaly whereby it is better for a wife with young children to work, and that she is financially better off; and at a time when she has her first child and has to give up her job and face extra responsibilities, there is every tax incentive for her to go back to work and not for her to stay at home. This seems to me in principle to be wrong and is something which I believe ought to be looked at.
Almost every policy, when one comes to look at it, affects the family. There are three spheres particularly. Nothing is more demoralising for the family than for
26
one of its members to be unemployed. Not only is there the loss of earnings but there is the depression of being neither wanted nor needed by society. Not only does the unemployment figure today (in March 1978) stand at 1,340,000, but it has not been less than 1 million since April 1975. What is even more depressing is that the Government actually have been instructed, as I understand it, and I quote from Cmnd. 7036—
"to assume for the purposes of illustration that the number of unemployed, excluding school-leavers, will average 1,370,000 in 1977–78 and 1,470,000 in 1978–79. There is therefore no expected early relief in sight, and indeed the Government actually also assumes that unemployed school-leavers, adult students and those whose employment has temporarily stopped will rise over the same period by 20,000 to 180,000 in 1978–79 ".
I am sure we are all deeply disturbed by these figures and, speaking entirely on my own behalf, I should therefore like to make one suggestion about unemployment. There exist a large number of small firms, and if all of them took on one unemployed person it would make a very great difference to the figure of those who are unemployed. From talking to a number of people in that position I am led to believe that one of the things which prevents them from taking on any additional person is the effect of the Employment Protection Act. I think this needs to be taken very seriously by the Government. The situation is made very difficult because after six months, no matter what the circumstances of the person or of the firm, almost any dismissal is deemed to be unfair dismissal. The effect of this situation, whatever may have been intended by the Government, is that everybody is very reluctant indeed to employ one extra person. I believe that this is having a very real effect on unemployment.
I would say to the Government that I believe the working of this Act would be worth considering very seriously, together with its effect, particularly on young people. It is so terrible if young people cannot get a first job. I offer that as something constructive which I believe is worth looking at. It is generally estimated that there exist about 800,000 small businesses, and if each one was prepared to take on one extra person it would certainly make a great difference to unemployment in this country.

27
The second great issue—and I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, referred to it—is the question of housing. I go absolutely with her in what she said about high-rise flats and the terrible effect they have had on family life. It is certainly a matter for rejoicing that no more high-rise flats are being built. I should like to make two comments on housing: first, I would reiterate my plea for young couples. It is so very difficult for young couples starting married life. I have heard of a number of cases where young couples have no alternative but to live with their parents, and I do not think that is the best way to begin married life.I think it is very difficult for them when they cannot possibly get a council house and they cannot afford to buy. I would ask the Government when they expect their housing review to be published. It has long been promised following upon their Green Paper. More flexibility in housing is needed and a real effort to bring back into use some of the empty houses, to the encouragement of the private rented sector, would give more flexibility.
I have a suggestion to make on the subject of enabling elderly relatives and families to live near one another. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, touched on the whole aspect of "granny annexes", which are valuable and much to be encouraged; but the other day one problem was brought home to me clearly when I was visiting Portsmouth. I met an elderly lady who was anxious to live near her daugther who lived in the North. She could not move there because the daughter was in a council house and she too was in a council fiat, quite adequately housed; the move could not be made because it is almost impossible to transfer from one housing authority to another. It is a completely static situation. I believe we should devise some way of having some kind of pool of houses to enable people to move, so that elderly relatives could live near younger ones. They could help with the younger children and the children could help their relatives. Often it is not so much a matter of wanting to live in the same house as wanting to live near one another which makes all the difference. At present this is almost an impossibility, and in my view it would be well worth looking into the present policy.
28
I should like to be able to say that I think the Homeless Persons Act will have the effect that Lady Phillips hoped it would. I feel certain that my noble friend Lord Elton will refer to this when he winds up, and at this point I would only say that I never feel that an Act of Parliament of that sort, which has no extra money to go with it to enable local authorities to build any more accommodation, is likely to have a great deal of effect. It may be a very good idea, but Lady Phillips will recall that when we had the long debates about this Act last summer, in the Financial Memorandum which went with the Act it was made quite clear that the Government were not giving any extra money for the provision of any other accommodation. The effect, of course, will be that some people currently on housing lists will not be housed in order that others may be. It is a kind of shuffling of the pack and it does not get to the root of the matter.
Education is the last point to which I wish to refer in relation to its effect on family life. I would say—I am sure this will not be a controversial statement—that everybody, every good parent, wants two things for his or her children, a happy home and a good education. All the evidence goes to show that where a home supports a child the child will do better in school than where it is not supported. I believe we need to encourage a much closer relationship between parents, teachers and schools. It begins almost by not allowing parents to go through the school gate when they go to collect their children, but it is much deeper and more important than that.
On the matter of truancy, I am certain that if only head teachers would talk to the parents whose children are truanting, if necessary visiting the parents in their own homes and not waiting for them to come to school, they might get to the root of some of the problems, and the effect on the child's education would be considerable. It would mean that all the adults who are in an influential position in its life would be speaking with one voice. As a generalisation which I think everybody would accept to be true, where the school and the home stand together the child does better and the child knows that everybody cares for it. I think that our educational policies and our social service policies should be

29
designed, both at a national and a local level, to have much closer co-operation between home and school.
I have already indicated that I believe that a great deal of the troubles of our society today are due to the neglect of the family and frequently to the denigration of the family as an ideal. This is not the time to go into all the many social questions connected with the family, and I do not intend to comment on any of the matters connected with abortion or contraception, important as they are, because in my view they are largely matters for individual conscience. However, I welcome in advance the Protection of Children Bill that is to be debated in your Lordships' House on Friday. It will give protection from exploitation to a number of children and I am glad the Government are now giving support to that measure.
Many, like myself, will have had to go to the oculist to have their eyes tested. When they go to the oculist he puts on a pair of spectacles and adjusts the lenses until the focus is clear. I believe that as a society we should do just that and put on the lenses that focus on the family as a whole. That is why I believe that every piece of legislation should have with it a family impact statement saying how that legislation will affect the family, what will be the effects, for good or for bad. I am not a supporter of the idea of a Minister for the Family, because it seems to me that that would simply lead to more State intervention and bureaucracy. However, I believe that a family council that would exert continuous pressure on Governments would be valuable and could be set up now.
These proposals would bring us in line with much of European thinking and practice and would, I believe, be very much in line with what most people in this country want. Every survey that has been taken among young people indicates that they still wish to marry and have families. I believe that one of the great facts that came out of the Jubilee celebrations was the knowledge that we were looking at a very special family, doing a very special job very well. It is an ideal which I believe is still before us, and we should all work to see that we can maintain the family as the centre of our society.
3.46 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, noble Lords in all parts of the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for giving us the opportunity this afternoon to discuss the Government's record in the field of support for the family. In the course of her vigorous speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, made some bold claims for that record and I am certainly in favour of giving credit where credit is due. However, perhaps in regard to the Homeless Persons Act, to which she referred, some credit should be given to my honourable friend Mr. Stephen Ross who introduced that measure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, referred to six different increases in pensions. While those increases are welcome, we must bear in mind that there is now a statutory obligation on the Government each year to raise pensions in accordance with prices or earnings, whichever has risen the most. We can give the Government credit for having put that into the 1975 Act, but when they fulfil their statutory duties in subsequent years they cannot claim that credit all over again. They are now obliged to do it; it is the formula which has been chosen and it has much to commend it. But in some ways it might have been chosen because it suits the system of two-Party confrontation politics, of which we have so much in this country, because if prices rise more than earnings, the pension will increase as a percentage of national earnings, but if earnings rise more than prices, then there will be an increase in the real value of the pension. Thus, there is always something for the Government to claim as a credit and always something for the Opposition to complain about.
Talking about giving credit where credit is due, I would certainly give credit to the Government for the introduction of child benefit, although it was after many hesitations which we criticised strongly from these Benches.I would give them credit, too, for the introduction of the married woman's invalidity benefit, though that again followed postponement and some doubts. But even allowing for the positive things the Government have done and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, referred, I hope she will not mind when I say that my overall reaction to what she said was one of

31
modified rapture because she seemed to paint the scene a little too brightly for it to he an accurate reflection of reality.
We all agree on the importance of the family; it is the unit around which the lives of the majority of the population revolve. Even though the divorce rate may rise, marriage, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, remains a very popular institution, judging by the numbers who each year embark upon it. However, the nature of the family is changing. At one time, married life was a question of separate responsibilities. Nowadays it is more a question of shared responsibilities, and we live in a mobile society where there is greater dispersal. This disrupts the extended family and separates the generations; and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, referred to that.
Nevertheless, a recent survey carried out for Age Concern, revealed that, of those over 75 with surviving children, almost three-quarters saw one of those children at least once a week during the four-day survey, and one in six lived in the same dwelling as one of their children, and another two in six had a child living near. Help the Aged has expressed the opinion that the State does not give sufficient support to families caring for older relatives, and certainly one way in which this could be assisted would be to provide the invalid care allowance for married women. But there is a need for more day centres and day care hospitals, and a need for a greater provision of domiciliary services. We must bear in mind that the over-75s form an increasing proportion of the community.
It was stated to be part of the Government's strategy for the personal social services, as set out in The Way Forward, and the consultative document on priorities in the personal social services in England published the previous year, to regard the elderly as a priority group. The question I want to ask is whether that strategy is being maintained. In January, the officers of the Personal Social Services Council expressed some doubts about that. They said:
"We are prompted to ask how local authorities are to achieve the objective of maintaining standards of care in a situation where the number of very elderly people is increasing rapidly, the real level of residential provision and of hospital in-patient services is going down, the development
32
of community hospitals is likely to be slower than previously envisaged, there is no compensating increase in the rates of growth proposed for the community health services, and the proposed increase in projected expenditure on the field and domiciliary services seems not to be happening".
That was the view in the early part of this year of these people who have a direct interest in this particular field. Incidentally, the Government also identify the mentally handicapped as a priority group, and there appears to be a need for more sympathetic support for the parents of mentally ill and mentally handicapped children, so that they can bring up the child in a normal, family atmosphere in their own home.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, support for the family covers many aspects of Government policy. Education is one important area, and I know that my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley intends to refer to that, among other matters, in his speech later. I should like to concentrate for a minute on the financial position of families, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has already made some reference. The Child Poverty Action Group has argued with much statistical evidence that the relative position of married couples with children, as against that of married couples with no children and of single people, has deteriorated in recent years. The Group pointed out that the tax threshold for a married couple has risen by over 68 per cent. over the four years up to the Budget, whereas it has risen by less than 51 per cent. for a two-child family. The Group has argued that inflation has a differential effect; the cost of necessities such as food and heating has increased faster than the general rise in prices. Households with children tend to spend a higher proportion of income on necessities, and this is even more true in the case of the poorest families.
There has been the failure, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, of successive Governments to raise family allowances. At last we have the child benefit scheme, and it gives us the opportunity to offset this imbalance. The noble Baroness referred to the extent of that imbalance and the very small additional disposable income with which people with families have to cope with their extra responsibilities. It was last summer when the Minister of Social Security pointed out that at that time a couple

33
with two children, on average earnings of between £70 and £80 a week, were left, after tax and benefits, with only £5 per week more than a childless couple. So I welcome the increase in child benefit which took place last month, raising it to £2.30 for each child, which is to go up to £3 in November and to £4 next April. I give the Government credit for that.
I am glad, too, that the single-parent family's extra £1 for the first child will become £2 in November. Thus, in November the single-parent family will get, for the first child the child benefit of £3 plus £2 extra, making a total of £5. But the supplementary benefit for a child of five will be £4.40, and if the single parent is on supplementary benefit, he will not, as I understand it, get that extra 60p. Next April, when the total amount available would, in the ordinary course of events, be £6, he will not be allowed that extra £1.60. Yet, if the single parent—he or she—were on unemployment benefit, sickness benefit or maternity allowance, he could, where the rate is £4.85, get the extra 15p, and will, next April, be able to get the £1.15 extra. I wonder why that should be so? It seems unfair, on the face of it.
I should like to say just a few words about the effect of the 1978 Budget. The increase in child benefit will mean that the net disposable income of families is increased even after the loss of part of the income tax child allowance. The severity of the poverty trap will be reduced but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, more will be drawn into the poverty trap, and the Low Pay Unit has estimated that, last November, 78,000 families with children receiving family income supplement were then subject to a marginal tax rate of 90 per cent. for an extra £1 per week in earnings. This was made up of 34p income tax, 5.75p National Insurance contribution, and 50p loss in family income supplement, which comes to 89.75p, but those receiving rent rebates also lost part of them. So there is a marginal rate of tax for these people, right at the bottom of the scale, of 90 per cent.
As a result of the Budget, more will be drawn into the poverty trap, but its severity will be reduced; more will be drawn in because the tax threshold for families has been lowered. The higher personal tax allowance for a married man
34
is not high enough to compensate for the withdrawal of child tax allowances. So some 86,000 families will be subject to a marginal tax rate of 80 per cent. and over for an extra £1 a week in earnings. That is made up of 25p—the new income tax rate on the reduced band; 6.5p—the increased rate of National Insurance contributions; and 50p for the loss of family income supplement. Again, those receiving rent rebates will alsc lose part of them.
That situation remains unsatisfactory. There is an appalling lack of incentive at that point and, in the long term, the solution must, I am convinced, be a tax credit system where the tax credits are sufficient to replace family income supplement. Such a scheme would inevitably be redistributory. A start has been made with child benefit, which has been paid for in part by the withdrawal of the child income tax allowances. Th. Government should now plan to begin converting the single person's and married couples' personal allowances into a personal benefit, which, like child benefit, would be a positive credit. Other National Insurance and supplementary benefits would be replaced, at least in part, by the same operation. A start would have been made in the process of simplifying our exceedingly complicated, though well-intentioned, welfare system; and in converting the personal tax allowances there would not be the same problem of transfer from the father's pay packet to the mother's purse, which has caused the Government to go slow over the conversion from child income tax allowance to child benefit.
May I say, in conclusion, just a word about the suggestion that there should be a Minister for the Family. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I am not convinced that this would help. It seems to me that it would be too diverse a remit. The interests of the family cover so many aspects of policy that the Minister, I should have thought, would not have any executive responsibility; he would just be another, additional Minister. But the idea to which the noble Baroness referred of the family impact statement seems to have considerable possibilities. If the Government were compelled, whenever they introduced some new proposal, to indicate the impact it would have on the family, this, I am sure, would be an

35
advantage; and if there were also set up, outside Parliament, a council representing the interests of the family—and discussions about this are going on at the moment—then the interplay between the impact statement and the views of the council would keep the interests of the family well to the fore. It will be important that this should be so, because, whatever we may think of what the Government have already done—and I, for one, am prepared to give them credit for much that they have done—there clearly is much more which needs doing.
4.3 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, we have had a most interesting opening to this debate. I thought that the preamble by my noble friend Lady Phillips to a long afternoon was one of the best I had heard for a very long time. I also thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, behaved in a splendidly non-Party way. I could perhaps pick out one or two small phrases which I would have put otherwise; but, generally speaking, the object of a debate of this kind is that the House should look soberly and quietly at the problems, see what we in Government are trying to do—and I think my noble friend Lady Phillips made it quite clear that we are trying to do quite a lot—and make suggestions as a result of this debate which can be considered by my colleagues and the colleagues of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, too.
My noble friend Lady Phillips began by making a statement which governs what I think everybody in this Chamber feels: that the State cannot take over the role of the family, and should not try to do so. I do not think there is anybody who differs from this. Certainly the Government do not. My noble friend also said that the subject we were discussing embraced housing, education and health—the three great spending Ministries, my Lords. We have already had, from three reasonably brief speeches, so many points raised on all sides that I am not going to attempt to answer, point by point, those which have already been made; nor, I think, will my noble friend
36
be able to do so at the end of the day. I should like to take up just one or two of them.
My noble friend Lady Phillips spoke about the Inner Cities White Paper. I think this is very exciting and, in travelling around, I have seen a number of things happening in relation to families as a result of it. One in particular was the building, with particular reference to children and the family in general, of a very large and important library where there would never before have been one. Secondly, my noble friend spoke about the under-fives and said that something was being done but that it was not yet enough. I agree with this: something is being done, but it is not yet enough. We have got to do more and we will do more.
Then the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made one or two comments to which I want to refer. First of all, she talked about youth unemployment. I am not going to deal with that today; it is a subject in its own right. I can only say that it is one of the greatest worries to everybody in Government at the moment. It is more or less a world-wide phenomenon; it is not peculiar to this country. It is a matter of the utmost seriousness, and my colleagues are working as hard as they can in a number of ways to put this right, or to do something about it. Everybody in the House will have read of various things that have been done recently, but I am not going to go into the matter in detail because it takes us too far away from the family itself.
The noble Baroness spoke about the importance of parents, teachers and schools being brought more closely together. She will remember that we had long debates about this on the Education Bill, which we discussed between ourselves in this House at great length. The Government agreed that they would do something quite specific about this, and we have in fact issued a directive, Circular 15/77, which asks local authorities to see that all schools provide detailed information for parents. This is the first time this has been done, and it shows that we are thinking on the same lines, at least so far as this goes. I was interested, too, in what the noble Baroness said about a pool of houses so that relatives can live nearer to one another. I do not know

37
the implications of this, but, as an idea, it is one which I can promise my colleagues will look at.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for modified rapture—I did not expect total rapture, I might say—and, in particular, for his recognition of the importance of child benefit. I am glad that nobody thinks we ought to have a Minister for the Family. I am sure it would simply be a paper solution which would produce nothing. I would not say we have enough Ministers—perhaps we have not—but I do not think that a specific one for the family would do it much good, for, as I have already said, the family covers all the Ministries.
I must disclose an interest as I have been married to the same wife for 43 years and have 11 grand-children, so I can in no way disguise my obvious bias on this subject. I have believed for many years, ever since I worked at the Pioneer Health Centre at Peckham in 1935, that the family is the key unit, the biological unit of society, and, as I think the noble noble Baroness (or it may have been my noble friend) said, it is the bulwark of a stable society. We found out then what everybody knew already: that there were three crucially difficult periods in a family's development.
The first stage, put crudely, is the breeding period. This is difficult because the young couple, in love and newly married, have the freedom to enjoy themselves only for a very short time. Then the young wife finds that she is confined to barracks with one baby, then with two, and finally, perhaps with three or more; and is left alone to cope while the husband is out at work and often, nowadays, away for a night or so, too. Having two young babies and no one to help you can be a traumatic experience, and this is where the family can come in so handy. The mother or the mother-in-law, perhaps widowed, can step in here and bear sufficient of the burden to make life tolerable. One must never forget that a family is a three-generation affair.
The next stage is the weaning stage, where the fledglings leave the nest. All sorts of difficult situations can arise out of this—the spoilt child, the clinging mother—but, basically, the most essential part of any solution, as has already been
38
said, is good schools. There comes a time when the child is due to get out from under its parents' influence, and when parents would be happier if they worried less about their children. If the child can go off each day to school with confidence, then we are a long way towards solving the problems of this stage. But if the school fails to build up this confidence there can be much trouble. The last problem stage is where the grandparent is bereaved and needs to be looked after by the family, and in too many cases becomes senile or impossible to live with, and has to be provided for elsewhere.
Now I want to look at what the.Government have done with these three problems in mind. First, the provision of homes; secondly, steps to support children in the family, before school, at school and in other ways; and thirdly, care for the elderly. The Government have sought to provide better housing for the family in all its forms—whether the ordinary nuclear two-generation family, the extended family (less in evidence today), the one-parent family, the family with one or more disabled members, or the elderly family.
In the first four years of this Government, more than l·2 million homes have been completed in Great Britain; more than 160,000 dwellings demolished or closed under slum clearance; more than 3 million mortgages have been granted by building societies and local authorities (more than 1 million of which hive gone to people buying their first homes); and some 800,000 homes have been approved for improvement with the aid of grant. Labour's Home Purchase Bill will mean that eligible first time buyers will arrive at the starting gate for house purchase with up to £700 more in their pockets than they would otherwise have had—a £600 interest free loan for five years plus a bonus of up to £100 or so, depending on how much they themselves can save.
My noble friend went into details over the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act and over the steps which the Minister for Housing has taken over wheelchair housing and mobility housing. I am not going over them again; but the figures are remarkable and I shall repeat them. For wheelchair housing (for those confined to wheelchairs) there were 1,854 completions in the three years 1975–77; compared

39
to 579 on the previous three years. For mobility housing (basically ordinary housing but without steps) which was first advocated in 1974, there were 172 completions in 1976 and 970 in 1977. We must not pretend that .this is enough but it is not a bad beginning; and I think we can all be pleased about that.
The last point on housing that I want to make—and it has already been mentioned by most speakers today—is that the Minister for Housing and Construction has insisted on all possible occasions that new public sector housing should be at densities which permit all homes for families with young children to be at ground level. This is a step forward. We have all had to learn painfully from the time when "high-rise" was the answer of the modern architect to our problem. It was completely wrong. We all think so now. Between us we have come to better sense.
My Lords, let me turn to children specifically: first, nursery education. Our aim is, basically, the Plowden Report; but we are a good way off that. Only about 15 per cent. of three year olds and four year olds are able to attend nursery schools and classes. But progress is being made. In the last four years the numbers of children receiving nursery education have increased at the rate of 20 per cent. a year. This admittedly, is starting from a not very high base; but it is something that we need not be ashamed of. Since the nursery building programme was started in 1974, more than £50 million of loan sanction has been made available to local authorities.
Services for pre-school children are specially important for children whose mothers go out to work; they also help the children of mothers who stay at home to look after them; and help the mothers, too, by giving them time off, as it were. It is well known, of course, that the mere provision of nursery schools or classes is of little use by itself to mothers who do full-time or nearly full-time jobs, for they only take the children for a limited time each day. The provision of day-care services, which is my noble friend's responsibility, is, therefore, no less important than the provision of nursery education. There has been some criticism that the development of services for the under-fives has
40
been hampered by the division of responsibility between these Departments. But I can assure noble Lords that there is the closest liaison at the present time. Things are beginning to move.
The same joint circular encourages local education authorities to support playgroups with premises, equipment and material and praises the co-operation which many school heads and staff are extending to playgroups on their premises. It also has something to say about child-minders, by whom many of the under-fives are looked after. A growing number of authorities provide training and support of various kinds for childminders and the circular suggests that minders should be linked with nursery schools, with the child health services and with voluntary services like toy libraries. In this context, I have personal experience of the excellent results of such co-operation between local authorities and voluntary bodies. My latest grandson, a little under three, has eased the tension in his home to a marked degree by going four mornings a week to a voluntary playgroup. His mother pays 30p a visit—the local authority makes up the deficit. I think the family is lucky in having such a group in the immediate neighbourhood, but it must be, and, I think, is, everybody's hope and intention to make such enormously helpful assistance available to all families.
I spoke a minute ago of toy libraries. This reminds me of the great importance of the local authority libraries across the country as family centres. Nearly every library has a children's room with a professionally-trained adviser to help the children in their choice of books, and to arrange story-telling sessions and other ways of interesting them. Modern libraries are increasingly being built upon the open-plan system so that children and parents no longer have to separate to different departments when they enter the building, but can share the experience and excitement of finding attractive books on the shelves; and, where space permits, it is quite usual for pushchairs to be allowed to be taken to the library shelves; so that mothers can choose books while their children are still there.
More than this—and this is a very important and stimulating point—some local authorities have adopted the system of a joint school and community library

41
where one library serves both school and public. I have been very much impressed seeing some of those in action. They are most genuinely family centres where each member of the family, old and young, has a reason to use the premises. The combination allows the appointment of a trained librarian, which few schools could afford on their own. In addition to libraries, we are extending arts centres, sports centres and community centres, each of which can become family centres in the true sense. I learned to believe that those opportunities for families to use the same building, and to see other members of the family going about their business, were really valuable factors in keeping the family together when I worked, 40 years ago, at the Pioneer Health Centre at Peckham. Nothing has changed since, except the need, which is even greater today than it was then.
In the realm of social security, pride of place must go to the introduction of the child benefit scheme. This scheme is, I think, one of the cornerstones of family support. But I will leave that major development—and other improvements in the social security field—to my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell. I turn now, briefly, to two matters which directly affect children at school; namely, school meals and school milk. Noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget statement that the Government had decided that the planned increase in the charge for school meals this autumn should not now take place. Whatever our financial worries and fears, this must be a thing which we can all welcome.
This will be of substantial benefit to the parents of almost 4 million children who now pay for a school meal. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science attaches great importance to maintaining the quality and availability of the school dinner so that as many children as want to can have a properly balanced meal at school. In England and Wales about two-thirds of the children at school stay for dinner—a total of 5 million, including those who are eligible for and take free meals. The numbers are extraordinarily high when one reads them out, and something very vital is going on for every family in
42
this way. We have also decided to empower local education authorities to provide free milk for seven to 11-year-olds. I must say, as a retired farmer this gives me special satisfaction—
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, if I may just intervene on that point, have the Government any evidence that when children did not receive free school milk between the ages of seven and their health declined at all?—because under the previous arrangement those who required milk on medical grounds were able to get it. Is there any evidence that they suffered?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I cannot answer that off the cuff, but I will try to get an answer for the noble Baroness by the end of the debate. I, as a farmer, require no evidence; I am fully convinced of the necessity of it. If all local authorities in England and Wales were to make use of this new power, then more than 2 million additional children could be getting free milk from the beginning of the next school year. That would mean about 4 million in all, as about 2 million children are getting it already. Local education authorities will be fully reimbursed for the cost of free milk for seven to 11-year-olds, and they will be fully reimbursed also for the loss of income they might otherwise have expected from the school meal charge. So there will be no oomsion for them to seek savings elsewhere to compensate for these measures.
What goes on within the schools is clearly relevant to our debate, for if parents are dissatisfied or unhappy about the education their children are receiving then there will be extra stresses on the family. No one can be wholly satisfied that all our schools are as good as they might be—indeed, so far as I can discover, nobody ever has been wholly satisfied throughout this century, and before that. In 1904 the Secretary to the Board of Education reported that:
"… there are millions of children in this country who, from their babyhood up to the age of 14, are drilled in reading, writing and arithmetic upon a system, the result of which is that when they attain the age of 13 or 14 and are finally dismissed from school, they can neither read, nor write, nor cipher".
That is very much what some of the noble Baroness's colleagues were saying

43
to me during the last long debates we had on the Education Bill. Education is a very difficult subject and the problems are not yet wholly solved. I think we can agree on that at least.
I could provide many similar quotations at regular intervals, but I have not looked backwards in order to be able to assert that since there has always been concern about standards in our schools, there is no need to be concerned today. There is need to be concerned today, not because standards are falling but because they may not be improving fast enough to keep pace with the needs of the modern world. We are living through a period of revolutionary change in the needs of our industries, and it is important that children who leave school should be equipped to face the demands of the modern world.
I was going to give your Lordships some statistics which my noble friend Lady Gaitskell quoted in our last debate, but I think I am speaking for too long. There are some very interesting statistics coming from the East Sussex County Council and I think those who are specialists in education will have seen them. They show that the comprehensive results in that particular case are somewhat better than in any others. I do not deduce from that that this is true always, but it does mean that the extreme attack on the success of comprehensive schools will not do. Examination results should not be the only criterion for judging schools, but the results do provide us with evidence that some of the general assumptions are somewhat wide of the mark. I could produce results from other surveys in Leicestershire and Sheffield but I am trying to get on.
The key to better education is more and better teachers. I am happy to say that, throughout the period of this Government, there have been small but steady improvements in the ratio of pupils to teachers, and the latest Public Expenditure White Paper makes it clear that this improvement will continue. This year we have provided for more teachers, for better trained teachers and for more teachers in shortage subjects. This Government have provided for in-service training; young teachers are to be given extra help in their first critical year of teaching, and
44
we are requiring maths and English qualifications for would-be teachers from next year—an obvious step, one might think, but one which has not previously been taken by anybody.
In conclusion, my Lords, let us never forget that in most of the areas I have spoken about, Central Government Departments work in close conjunction with local authorities, and can only so work. Progress depends on the closest possible co-operation between them. It is important, therefore, that the two parties agree in their intentions. I believe, and I wish it to be the result of this debate that other people believe, that agreement does generally exist. That belief makes me hopeful that we will together, Government and local authorities, continue to act in support of the family.
4.26 p.m.
The Marquess of LOTHIAN: My Lords, may I, too, begin by congratulating and thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for introducing this very important debate today. Also, I should like to feel, with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and others, that fundamentally the subject of the family is not one for Party politics. Indeed, I am certain that the whole House is agreed that a stable and happy family unit is an essential element in a stable national society. The family, as has often been said, is the basic social unit in Western society and, indeed, in many others as well.
The strength of the family must come primarily from within the family itself, being based on mutual respect and love. I think we must also remember, as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, pointed out, the number of very happy and well-integrated families that there are in this country. At the same time, the Churches and the State have a duty and an obligation to assess the development of family life; and today's debate is concerned with the role of the Government.
This seems to fall into three parts: preventive, supportive and remedial. In my opinion, one reason why this debate is important is because of the disturbing increase in family breakdowns. Governments, as I have said, have a duty to relieve hardship to children and parents and, indeed, to the elderly, which are so often the results of broken marriages. I know that much support, financial and

45
otherwise, has been given in the way of increased pensions, better educational facilities, assistance to working mothers and so on. All these are very welcome and important. Yet it is sad to reflect that over many years Governments, while trying to overcome the hardships resulting from marriage failures, have at the same time allowed a situation to develop where social pressures are orientated towards a weakening of family life and responsibility.
There are two obvious examples of this. One is the matter of easy divorce. The divorce figures, to which I shall return in a few moments, are, I suggest, alarming but not altogether unexpected; for once marriage is given the aspect of a temporary arrangement, terminable more or less at will, it is hardly surprising that people enter into it on that basis.
Another example lies in the field of family planning. I do not wish to go into the arguments about this, but what disturbs me is that, frequently against the wishes of parents, so much family planning propaganda is directed at an age group which is hardly contemplating marriage, let alone planning a family. The result of this is an inevitable increase in promiscuity and the consequent downgrading of the ideal of a very special and permanent physical relationship and responsibility within marriage.
I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lady Young and others urging the Government to do more to assist families to look after their older members, be they grandparents or disabled relations. I am certain that, if acted upon by the Government, the suggestions made will be of great assistance. I am also certain that there are many families who would look after their old people at home, if they had the facilities, and equally important, better financial assistance; thus, incidentally, one hopes, easing the pressures on residential old people's homes.
But it is much easier to diagnose the diseases than to prescribe the cure. For instance, it is frightening to learn that one in 10 of all families have only one parent; that only just over half of all new marriages do not experience some kind of break-up. We are surely witnessing an unprecedented upheaval in the traditional concepts of family stability.
46
But there are a number of ways in which I believe the Government could extend their influence in favour or stable families, and in this connection may I for a brief moment consider what we mean by a "family".
My dictionary defines a "family" as "members of a household" which I rather like because it implies a bringing-in of dependent relatives. The Christian family ideal is, I suggest, based to a large extent on the Commandments, "Honour thy father and thy mother" and, "Thou shalt not commit adultery"; and, indeed, the command to love. The social definition of a "family" would perhaps point to an interdependent unit, whose members acknowledge permanent responsibility towards each other. This would, I believe, include the concept of the alternative family, such as is practised by people like Dr. Barnardo and Ms. Erin Pizzey.
All these definitions have a great deal in common when one comes to think about them. But what a family can never be is individuals, so separated by circumstances that there is no cohesion, permanence or security; and that, unfortunately, appears to be the condition of many broken homes here in Britain today. I believe that the Government appreciate this fact and are convinced of the need, for the nation's sake, to help re-create stable family conditions—not least, if one may add a small incentive, because presumably family care is cheaper than instititional care and the burden on the taxpayer must be lightened when families themselves can provide the most necessary, and free, supportivo system of all.
In my view, one of the factors that need facing frankly is the continuing challenge to the parent's right of personal influence by choice in the upbringing of his children. Lip-service is paid to this by social theorists and indeed politicians, but in fact, when things go wrong, parents are quite frequently blamed for the failure. In practice today parents are coming to feel increasingly that their wishes are no longer a right. In other word:, unless they can pay for independence, they must accept decisions made for them by a bureaucracy, possibly holding different views from their own on, for example, schooling. It is important to remember

47
this when framing policies for the family, and particularly I should like to feel that in matters of conscience parents' wishes will always be ascertained.
We have today heard some comments on the suggestion of a Minister for the Family, and a certain amount of cold water was poured on this idea. I should like to say that there is a case for the appointment of a Government watchdog, be he a Minister or not, to scrutinise, before its publication, and indeed before its implementation, legislation which could have a bearing upon family life and which might, if considered necessary, be altered to assist family situations. Another alternative might be the setting up of a standing council of concerned family organisations, which should include representatives of all such organisations and representatives of the relevant Government Departments. I say "all organisations", because to leave any out could result in a disproportionate influence by too few organisations. My example of this is the British refugee organisations which have a standing council, on which they are all represented, and of which I was once chairman, and which we found to be a very satisfactory and indeed influential body. So I put that forward as a suggestion to the noble Lord.
I should like to turn for a few minutes to the subject of divorce and to make two suggestions. From whatever angle we view this problem, I think everyone is agreed that the 1971 Act on divorce has accelerated the growth in the number of divorces. Indeed, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, winding up the very interesting family debate in another place on 17th March, quoted some startling figures. In 1940, the number of divorces was barely 10,000; by 1970, it had risen to 58,000, and by 1975 to 120,000. I do not know whether the noble Lord who is to reply has any later figures, but those figures must surely give cause for concern. I wonder how much is really known about the degree of physical and psychological deprivation that lies behind the statistics. If laws are amended or reformed to take account of changed or disquieting circumstances, or to alleviate suffering, I should have thought that if harmful results again appeared and developed and the law was still found to cause suffering and hardship, or perhaps not even to be
48
working sufficiently well, it should just be looked at again and, if necessary, revised.
The 1971 Act on divorce accepted irretrievable marriage breakdown, after positive attempts at reconciliation had been made, as grounds for divorce. I suggest that such attempts at reconciliation have now frequently become a formality and marriages can legally break down for extremely trivial reasons, or so it would appear. So may I urge strongly upon the Government that they set up an inquiry into the workings of the Act on divorce, because the situation is again serious enough, and urgent enough, to warrant their doing so, and, if necessary, to make recommendations.
My final point is concerned with the effect of divorce upon children. I believe that there is a great lack of knowledge in this field, but certain facts are clear. Because divorce is now quick and easy, there are now, I understand, some 18,000 children in caring centres. This may not sound an enormous figure, but when one thinks that in 1970 there were only 6,000 one can see how the rise has rocketed in these last five or six years. This must surely represent a large cost to the taxpayer, but I feel that that is secondary in importance to the cost in human terms of the lack of security in the family. The hard facts behind these figures upon which to base parental counselling are badly needed.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS BRIDGE: My Lords, would the noble Marquess allow me to make this point? I am following his speech with the greatest interest, but one must compare any increase of the kind he is speaking of with the miserable life of children who are living with constantly quarrelling parents. I do not wish to oppose what the noble Marquess is saying but I think that the other side must be mentioned.
The Marquess of LOTHIAN: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says, but I thought that it was worth drawing the attention of the House to these figures. It would indeed be a foolish person who, in the present climate, underestimated the pressures on people to seek divorce, but again there seems to be one step which can be taken which is supportive and which might be remedial. May I suggest an inquiry which could lead to improved

49
and extended counselling after having assessed the effects of divorce on children. The aim would be to inform parents of what the effects of their divorce might be, both emotionally and psychologically, on their families; but to succeed this must be backed up with facts and knowledge. That is why I am in agreement with the recently passed resolution by the Interdenominational Order of Christian Unity. In passing, may I mention a contingent interest. My wife is chairman of this organisation although I myself am not a member.
I believe that such an inquiry—there is a precedent in the Committee of Inquiry into Violence in Marriage—can provide a good picture of the situation. It should, I suggest, take evidence from people who are closely involved with these problems —doctors, school teachers, clergymen and lawyers—in an endeavour to establish priorities of need which would enable it therefore to recommend which supportive services can best help in particular areas and particular instances.
As I have said, the real need is for good counselling to help parents to help their children, as frequently they are desperately uncertain about what to do in their own particular circumstances. I believe that many marriages which are breaking up would welcome this type of guidance in trying to solve their children's problems. Therefore, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who is to wind up the debate, to look upon this suggestion with his usual kindly and sympathetic eye. I hope that he will give the House some indication of the Government's views on this matter and, indeed, on the many other points which have been made today.
Family life in Britain is, I believe, in danger in many instances of taking the wrong road. While appreciating to the full the measures which Governments have taken and are taking to do their best to alleviate suffering and hardship, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will follow up constructively today's debate and not leave it in the pending tray. If this is done, then I believe that there is a chance that we might stabilise marriage in this country and get British family life on the right road.
4.44 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the
50
noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, on producing what I find to be the most intriguing Motion that has been put on our Order Paper for some time. When I addressed myself to it, naturally I asked myself, as doubtless other noble Lords did, what the noble Baroness had in mind. Was this an answer to critical statements which had been made about the Government's attitude to family policy, or was the noble Baroness going to offer a "sweetener" to the Government before she gave them one or two words from the heart about things that they have not done? I think that the noble Baroness has steered a middle course between those two possibilities.
I felt that I ought to try to take some little part in this debate as I supported the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Motion of not quite two years ago. I am sure that he will be gratified to read some of the references to his debate. The concluding voids of the noble Baroness might have suggested that all of these wonderful achievements by Her Majesty's Government were the direct result of the Archbishop's speech, but I think that he has a little more common sense than to be taken in by that suggestion.
The debate initiated today by the noble Baroness gives us an opportunity, in a sense, to carry on with that debate almost where we left off. And where we left off was with a very full, competent and impressive speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in which he revealed once more his life-long devotion to social and moral questions. But, of course, like all Government Ministers, he had to put the best face on everything. I have sat on these Benches for 20 years, and it has been a matter of interest to me to see how, whichever Party happens to be in power, those on the Government side always take the view that things really are not too bad, while those on the other side always stress the fact that they might be a great deal better. This is our dialectic; this is our way of seeking Truth and no doubt it has a great deal to be said for it.
I should be the first to want to recognise the many measures that have been taken by Her Majesty's Government which have been of benefit to families. Of course, in one sense all beneficial social legislation benefits families, because most people are members of families—just as, if one

51
member of a family suffers all the members of that family suffer with him, so, if one member rejoices all the members rejoice with him. There is, therefore, a great deal of legislation that can be adduced in support of this Motion that, if I may say so, is not intended primarily to benefit families but to benefit individual groups from all families that have common features: whether they are the under-fives or the over-85s, or whether they are handicapped, or whether there is something particular or special about them. All of those measures percolate down into the life of families.
However, what we were particularly interested in during the last debate and what I think was primarily in the mind of the noble Baroness in moving this Motion was that attention should be concentrated on those matters which had in mind the family as a unit. The noble Baroness was able to adduce, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, was also able to adduce, a number of measures which are of particular benefit to families. All of us should want to recognise the advantages which have come to families in that way, whether we think of measures for the handicapped and housing for the handicapped, or whether we think of the child benefit scheme, or of the plans for the homeless and the adaptations of housing to meet family needs. All of these measures have certainly been of benefit to the family as a unit.
Things have not stood still since 1976 when we had our last debate. There have been opportunities for further thought and study. In the last debate I felt it right to support my master, the most reverend Primate, in his proposal that there should be a Minister for Family Welfare. I am not prepared to press that very strongly. For one thing it is quite clear that we shall not get anywhere with it, so why waste time?
It may well be that in 10 to 15 years' time some of your Lordships may see this brought up as a vital insight into necessary social welfare—things often work like that—but the need for co-ordination and for seeing the family as a unit instead of just a group of individuals with particular characteristics is, I think, recognised by all. In the last debate the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that if he had all his advisers who were in any way
52
concerned in this matter he would have had eleven Departments (or something of that sort) represented in the Box.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate would be prepared to give way, I am sorry to interrupt him but I think it might be of some help to the House if I say that the Government took quite seriously the suggestion made by the most reverend Primate that there should be a Minister of the Family. I think I may say that I was in correspondence with the Archbishop for something like 12 months, with long letters passing between us. After the Government had considered it on the first occasion I wrote accordingly, setting out very fully the views of the Government, and it was as a result of a further letter from the Archbishop that the Government considered it a second time. I should like the right reverend Prelate and the House to know that very real consideration extending over something like a year was given to this matter.
The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER: My Lords, I appreciate very much that intervention, although I cannot say that the information contained in it was entirely new to me personally, although it would be to most of your Lordships. I think, in my case—what is it that Hamlet says?—
"the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought".
We must think about the recognition of families as units, and the idea of a family impact comment on legislation is one that I should like to consider further.
I have been impressed by the report on The Family and State by Robert Moroney and I have learned a lot from it. Some of the assumptions that I, and I think other noble Lords, made in the last debate have proved to be open to question. I had accepted the fact that through the removal of nuclear families, as it were, to new housing areas there had been a very widespread separation of one generation from another and I was surprised to find from this report that only 3 per cent. of the elderly are now in institutions or homes of any kind other than those of their own or their friends' families. I also find that the extended family, which we thought was almost disappearing from the scene, is really still there and it may

53
well be that the coming of the motor-car and the telephone has considerably reduced the impact of what in earlier days would have been a very serious geographical separation. Four or five miles or even 10 miles is nothing nowadays. So we have to keep a sense of proportion.
There has lately been a slight increase in the institutional element of the elderly, but this is explained by an increasing length of life. In 1901 only 5 per cent. of the population lived to be over 65; now there are 5 per cent. who are over 85. That shows clearly the enormous change that has come over the scene.
The study by Robert Moroney brings out the subtle difference between the State acting as a substitute for the family and acting in support of the family. The general message of the book suggests that the practical bias has been in favour of substitute action rather than supportive action; not in words, because the words of our Government spokesmen have pointed in the other direction. They have always said, as has been said several times this afternoon, that the task of the Government is not to replace the family but to support it. But in times of stress there is such a concentration on what one might call the extreme needs of different groups within families that it tends to place the emphasis very much on the institutional, on what I might call the substitute rather than on the supportive. This is all ranged in the final sentence in the book, where the author ends by saying:
"The State is fortunate to have families who care".
If I had been writing the last sentence of that book I should have said:
"Our families are fortunate to live in a State which cares".
There is a subtle difference between those two statements.
One source of trouble that was in no way exaggerated in the last debate and has been highlighted by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, is the increase in the divorce rate. We can soon get tired of figures but it is important to have figures that can be absorbed in a moment. Ten years ago there was one divorce in our country to every ten marriages; now there is one divorce to every two or three marriages. That raises the most serious questions for the future. One
54
incidental result of it, only, in a sense, a spin-off, is that there are so many divorced people about the place that the chance of young men and women falling in love with non-divorced people is becoming a 50/50 chance, and that creates a number of social problems, not to mention religious problems which I will not worry about here.
A quarter of a million children live in one-parent families. Two hundred thousand children every year face the trauma of a breaking home. I do not know whether any of your Lordships heard this morning a little extract on the radio by one of the leaders of the Samaritans, who was talking about little children who are fearing suicide, or even hopefully looking forward to it, and who get into touch with the Samaritans. The first explanation he gave to the reporter who was asking, "Why do they do it?" was that it may be that their homes are breaking up. I thought it was interesting that he threw that into an obviously unprepared statement as the first and most natural explanation of this terrible experience.
Pornography, in the sense of the abuse of children, I hope has been checked, but teenage magazines, although not illegal, present to masses of our younger people a very unbalanced view of life. Even at that age they have to learn that life is not all romance and pop stars and that astrology is not the only religion. That is the one that is emphasised in almost all the teenage magazines of our time, and I may be forgiven for saying that if sound and sensible religion is in decline, superstitutious nonsense is bound to be in the van or in advance.
If I may say one word about schools I say it in no critical sense but only in an inquiring sense. I sometimes wonder whether our schools are almost too good for family welfare, in the sense that they provide not only all the milk and the meals —I am not thinking of that level of life at all—but every conceivable outing, every conceivable foreign tour that it is possible to imagine, so that it literally becomes extremely difficult for parents, unless they are very rich or very imaginative, to be able to think of anything to do with their children that the children have not been able to do at school. I would not go so far as to say that the school

55
should not do it, but I raise the question because it is just this kind of thing that in a subtle, entirely accidental way brings the family into a different position in the whole scale of our human values.
After my last contribution to a debate of this sort I received a good mark from the noble Lord—and so did the noble Baroness, Lady Young—for admitting that in some of these matters Governments are very limited in what they can do. I am quite certain that many of these things cannot be controlled by Government legislation, but in the last resort they depend on the climate of opinion in our country. And I am going to throw out this thought which is against all the best social practice of the time: have we carried what is called the non-judgmental attitude to life a little too far?
In order to be able to deal fairly and helpfully with every situation we have thought it necessary almost to convey the idea that there is no difference between right and wrong unless you step right over the line into criminality. I believe that leaders of opinion—and by that I have specially in mind leaders of Government and leaders of Opposition parties—might very helpfully speak a little more openly about the moral results of behaviour, including, for instance, the effect on children of divorce, in a way that would influence people's subconscious attitudes to these things. We know all about the reconciliation clause; that clause is absolutely worthless; I do not believe it is worth the paper it is printed on, because, by the time couples reach the solicitor to arrange a divorce, it is no good saying, "You know there are some reconciliation agencies that you could apply to". It is too late. We are nearly all too late—clergy, bishops—when we come into these situations. The only thing that could possibly have prevented the break-up would have been a settled purpose in the minds of both the parties that break-up was unthinkable.
In the last debate, I differed a little, I think, from something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I do not suppose he was giving an ex-cathedra statement, but he did say that the reason for the increase in divorce today was that people would not stand unhappiness in their marriages. "Why should they?,
56
he asked: "there is nothing wrong in that, and we have had to give easier divorce in order to meet it". I just ask myself whether that is quite all that we can say. Are not the statesmen of our country in a real sense like the guardians in Plato's republic? The days are past when people will take very much notice of bishops, or even schoolmasters, but, in spite of all the jibes about politicians, they still have a vague feeling that those who wield the power in the country probably ought to be heeded. I commend the thought in all humility to those who carry the immense responsibility for government that they should not be too afraid to speak plainly about moral matters.
5.13 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I should also like to start by thanking my noble friend Lady Phillips for initiating this debate today. As we have already discovered, the debate enables us to examine the family from many different aspects. I particularly wanted to concentrate upon the aspect of housing and the family, although this has been touched upon already by a number of noble Lords this afternoon. As time goes on we live in a more open and in a more changing society. Nevertheless, stability in family life remains something of great importance. Certainly the lack of adequate housing is something which can undermine a stable family life. Bearing in mind the comments which have been made by the right reverend Prelate and by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, concerning the question of divorce, I tried to find out whether in fact there was any correlation between poor housing and the increase in the divorce rate. In fact, there does not seem to be any correlation between those two factors at all. It was not my task or indeed my intention this afternoon to talk about divorce; I have only been persuaded to make those few remarks by the remarks of the last two speakers.
It is 20 years since I first became a member of a local authority housing committee. At that time we thought of all-embracing solutions to the housing problem, mainly that we should build as many flats as possible, that most of those flats should be 3-roomed flats, that we should get as many people to the acre as we could, and the best way of doing

57
this was to build them high. With regard to the private sector, a policy followed at that time, with which I disagreed very much, was that the only way to improve the private sector of the housing field was that rents should be increased, so that a substantial improvement in housing conditions in the private field would follow.
That was 20 years ago, and we have now become very much more selective in the tackling of our housing problems. In particular we have concentrated on trying to solve the housing problems of those with special needs. I date this change of attitude—and perhaps I am prejudiced here—by a very remarkable Fabian pamphlet, by Audrey Harvey, entitled Casualties of the Welfare State, which came out in 1960 and highlighted the problems of those who fell outside the net of the Welfare State. The theme of her pamphlet was taken up very shortly afterwards and was seen by a much wider audience in the TV documentary "Cathy come Home". This highlighted a number of problems which the family felt, and I think the progress we have made since then is very remarkable indeed.
One of the aspects of the breakdown of family life of which we are much more aware today is increased public awareness of the plight of battered women. Since the Report from the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage was issued in September 1975, which found less than 30 women's refuges in Great Britain, the number has increased to around 130. This is a total that has been reached by the combined efforts of Government, local authorities and voluntary bodies. So far as the Government are concerned, funds allocated to projects for battered women, under the Urban Aid Programme, total almost three-quarters of a million pounds.
More needs to be done, for the Government undoubtedly hope that all local authorities will work with local women's aid groups to ensure that local refuges are available for immediate help. There needs to be a sufficient spread of refuges for there to be one within easy reach of every battered woman. Refuges come into their own as providers of immediate help at that moment when a battered woman flees from her home in the face
58
of violence from her partner. However, of course the problem does not end there. From there, we have to move to the question of rehousing by the local authority, or to the question of the matrimonial problems being solved, or to the question of the married woman gaining possession of her own home. Those ate matters that we debated some months ago in a different context.
Another aspect that seems to have disappeared from the headlines in recent months is the question of squatting. I think the fact that the headlines of the Press are no longer filled with question of squatting indicates that we are now using short-life property more sensibly. Inevitably, in the vast redevelopment schemes of the past, there were some parts of a proposed scheme where housing remained empty for many years. This seemed particularly wrong to those with very great housing needs. Therefore, in the climate of the late 1960s, those in desperate need took matters into their own hands. A considerable amount of squatting took place. At that time, it was undertaken primarily by families in particular need. Subsequently, I admit, the squatting movement got slightly out of land, as one might say. The people who became involved in squatting tended to be young and single, not families. However, the point I wish to make is that the result of this particular movement is that we are now much more sensible and alive to the use of short-life property and to the possibility of forming housing associations which can use this short-life property for a period of five or 10 years until it is needed for redevelopment.
Those are ways in which some of the homelessness has been solved. The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 took positive steps to support and keep together families unfortunate enough to become homeless. The Act places a clear duty on local housing authorities to secure accommodation for homeless families with dependent children and for families where the wife is pregnant. I hope that, as a result of the Act, it will never again be necessary for families to walk the streets, or for children to have to be received into care solely because their parents are unable to find a roof. It may not always be possible for an authority to find an ordinary council house straight away.

59
Sometimes interim accommodation will be needed, but at least shelter of some kind will be available.
The Act also confirms the principle that the practice of splitting up families is not acceptable, even for short periods. The accommodation secured must be adequate, to enable all members of a family to live together. I remember years ago, as a Parliamentary candidate, visiting various homes and families who had been split up by the Acts that were then in force, and seeing the misery in which those families were forced to live until new accommodation could be found. This Act is a great step forward.
In a sense we are not concerned only about those who face special difficulties. In the general trend of things, of course, the vast majority of people do not have some of the special problems about which I have spoken. Some years ago, the Government introduced the option mortgage scheme, which enabled house purchase to be very much easier than it had been in the past. Also, I think one should comment on the rôle of the housing associations. Those of your Lordships who read The Observer will have seen a very informative article on this subject last weekend; it dealt with the role of the housing associations and how the third arm of the housing movement, as it is, now accounts for 25 per cent. of all rented accommodation. Considerable extra money has been pumped by the Government into housing associations via the housing corporations. Without the expansion in the role of the housing associations, that would not have been possible. The point that I should like to bring to mind here concerns the particularly useful work that the housing associations do, in that they have enabled us to keep much basically sound accommodation from the past which had suffered from neglect. The local authorities saw that the only way to do something about it was to clear it, because to deal in penny lots would be too difficult for a local authority. The housing associations, many of them small, have been able to make a very great contribution towards modernising and bringing into useful life a number of houses.
I should like to deal, briefly, with the different types of accommodation which
60
tend to be offered. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the fact that high-rise buildings were now almost a thing of the past. As Lord Donaldson said, the Ministry has now asked that all new public sector housing should be at such densities as to permit all homes for families with children to be at ground floor level. I am sure that we all welcome this move.
Viscount AMORY: I understood the noble Lord to say that high-rise buildings were things of the past. But there are a great number of them that, I imagine, will be with us for a very long time. Is that not so?
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I think that the noble Viscount may not have caught the exact inflexion of my voice. I said that new high-rise schemes are now a thing of the past.
Viscount AMORY: I apologise.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: Of course, the noble Lord is absolutely right. There are many high-rise blocks that will be with us for many years to come. Therefore the desire of the Department to see local authorities transfer families living in the upper reaches of high-rise blocks to ground floor accommodation as quickly as possible, is to be commended.
In opening, I commented that we were now considering the special needs of different types of families, the needs of the old whose numbers are increasing, the disabled, the one-parent families, and the battered wives. I should like to make a few remarks, as chairman of Age Concern, Greater London, about the problems of the old. There has been a growth of sheltered housing during the past few years. We all welcome that. But, regrettably, only a very small percentage of old people will be able to have access to it.
A great deal of housing has been provided by housing associations. Again, that is something which is very useful in this field. However, one matter which has concerned us is that local authorities in their allocation policies have not paid as much attention as they might to the needs of families who are under-occupying

61
property, and of old people who are in a large flat, which they no longer require, and who would like to move to a smaller, centrally-heated flat which would meet their needs and would release their larger flat for a family with different needs. That is something which has not happened fully, and one can only wish that there were a more successful mechanism for bringing it about.
There is also the situation of the elderly owner-occupiers who cannot afford to keep up their own homes and who cannot afford to sell them or to buy smaller accommodation which would be suitable for them. That is another problem which needs to be tackled. I have the feeling that if there were better relationships between the housing and social service departments of local authorities some of those problems could, in fact, be solved.
Another special group is the severely disabled where the availability of suitable housing may help to make the difference between their having to go into an institution and being able to stay in the community with their families. My noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge has referred to this matter and to the vast increase in wheelchair and mobility housing which, as he knows, we all welcome. Mobility housing is, of course, really ordinary housing but without steps, and it can be put up at relatively little cost.
The housing needs of one-parent families also require special consideration. One-parent families do not generally require accommodation which is very different from that required by other families, but in housing matters they should receive effective parity of treatment with two-parent families. Both categories should benefit from the priority which is to be given to all families with dependent children. I was glad to hear that the Government indicated that they propose to produce a leaflet, to be available generally in public offices, giving advice to one-parent families on problems that they may unwittingly face and on whom to consult for help.
Another special problem arises as regards the needs of ethnic minority families. Their needs, of course, are fundamentally the same as those of indigenous families. The problem is to
62
ensure for all groups that there is effective equality of opportunity for access to decent housing. For that reason, care must be taken to ensure that the special difficulties faced by minority families, such as racial discrimination and language problems, are taken into account so that they receive their fair share. For example, local authorities, in areas where there are longer than average waiting lists for large dwellings, have been asked to consider increasing their stock of larger houses to meet the needs of larger families, many of whom may be Asian. Staff training in local housing departments is also important, to ensure that housing staff have a good understanding of the special difficulties and communication problems of minority families.
Having dealt with a number of special aspects of the housing problem one must say that wherever there is a housing problem it should be tackled. Therefore, I was glad to see—I think that reference was made to this earlier—that steps are under way possibly to do away with the need for residential or other qualifications for entry on to waiting lists. In the times in which we live, with a much more fluid society, it makes little sense to have stringent residence qualifications before somebody can be considered for housing. That, of course, as my noble friend Lord Donaldson said, refers particularly to elderly people who wish to live in the same area as their children, and who in fact do not have any form of residence qualification at all. Undoubtedly, if local authorities can help these elderly people who wish to live with or near their families, they can do so in a number of ways.
Surely, the underlying aim of Government policy must be to seek to ensure the provision of a balanced range of different types of accommodation to meet different needs and preferences which will enable old people to remain in homes of their own, within the community, for as long as possible, rather than to go into institutions. I could go on to talk about the whole range of urban programmes which are under way at present to deal specially with the problems of the inner city, Where we know that there are still some very acute difficulties. All that is being done we welcome, but I have tried to show in different ways how the role of the Government as regards housing has been supportive of the family.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him this: does he know how much I agree with him about residential qualifications? Does he know, further, that the London Borough of Hammersmith has, I believe, succeeded in abolishing them, even in London?
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am very pleased to hear what the noble Lord says.
5.27 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, like others who have spoken, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for initiating this debate on this most important subject. I should also like to apologise because at 6.30 I am to preside over another gathering in this Palace and therefore I shall not hear the noble Baroness wind up the debate. However, I shall certainly read attentively everything that she says.
The debate appears to have concentrated solely on the material benefits which hold the family together. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the Government have pointed out all the various material benefits which, under the Welfare State, have been given to individuals and the family. However, I think that they have rather missed the point. The important point about the family is that we must protect it as a cohesive independent whole. I do not want to bring Party politics into this debate, but if we study Socialist ideology the independent family as a unit is, of course, a danger to the all-embracing power of the State.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, before the noble Viscount elaborates on that point, will he explain that what he is talking about is Marxist philosophy and not Socialist philosophy, which springs from the same ethics as Christianity?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Baroness has said, and I am certainly not imputing any such remarks to her or anyone else in this House. However, the noble Baroness will be fully aware that there are many Marxists in this country, and there are some in politics. It is not just under a Marxist label that they follow this precept.
64
However, I shall not dwell on that matter any longer.
I agree, as have others, that the family is the most important basic social unit throughout the world. However, we must not think of it only in Christian terms. It is, as has been said, a bastion of stability responsibility and freedom of thought. but it is of vast importance to Western society. In some nations where family ties have been loosened dire consequences have usually resulted. For example, consider the Soviet Union before the last War, but after the Bolshevik revolution. For the first 10 or 12 years a person in the Soviet Union could marry just by going into the Post Office and paying a fee, and then he could go in the next day and be divorced. The result was that the whole country was overrun with bands of homeless children who were starving and stealing, although one could not blame them for that. Some time ago the Soviet Government returned to the proper marriage system. Another example can be found in Africa where, if the tribal system is broken down, the family as a unit is broken up and then follows dire trouble. I am trying to emphasise what has already been stated here today, namely, the extreme importance of the family as an independent unit.
We have heard about the decline in family life, of how tragic it has been and still is, with the resultant misery of broken homes and emotional stress on children. I heartily agree that this is absolutely tragic. We are told that every year produces 200,000 children of broken homes. That is an absolutely horrifying figure. I was interested to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester say that for every two marriages last year there is one divorce. I think that the right reverend Prelate said that 10 years ago for every 10 marriages there was only one divorce. Therefore, I support my noble friend Lord Lothian in asking for the setting up of a Royal Commission to consider the working of the present divorce legislation, which I well remember going through this House.
Some noble Lords may think that this subject is not my line of country, and they would be right. I am speaking on this subject because I have been extremely disturbed at the attitude of many young

65
people. I employ some young people; I am very fond of young people and often speak to them. I have met young people whose ideas are terrifying—I do not know where they have got them from. I have met well-educated young people who have said that they do not think it is wrong to steal if what is wanted cannot be obtained by other means. That is terrifying. We have an appalling record of crime—juvenile crime, every form of thuggery, vandalism, violence and promiscuity. What is disturbing is that the more we appear to give such people material benefits, the higher their standard of living becomes, but it does not cure the rise in the rate of crime or of viciousness. There is something very wrong in the State when we reach that situation.
One often hears it said—and I do not think it is completely a joke because it is very often true—that many men take more care of their cars than of their wives. I am sure that many men probably prefer their cars to their wives. Of course, we cannot do anything about that, but it serves to illustrate my point. What is the cause of all this? Some noble Lords have blamed the parents. However, I think it is rather unfair to blame the parents; after all, the parents are fighting an uphill battle against the temptations of the modern industrial society in which we live. The cultural and religious values on which we were brought up are constantly under attack by the mass media. My children are grown up and married, but the children of today's parents are subjjected to a stream of propaganda propagating sexual freedom and encouraging defiance of parental advice. It is very difficult for parents to fight against that.
Perhaps I should not say this, but I think it is wrong that mothers of young children should be encouraged and tempted to go out to work. My noble friend Lady Young may not agree with me on that. But I agree with her that there should be great tax incentives to keep such mothers at home. Although I am not keen on the State interfering too much in the family, I would go so far as to say that they should be paid by the State to stay at home to look after their children, at any rate until the children are out of infancy. If young mothers work, it must have some bearing on the children's future.
66
I also believe that over the last 30 years State education has a lot to answer for in not putting more emphasis on duties and responsibilities. When I was brought up I was told that I had no rights at all, that I had only duties and responsibilities. Some of the young people I meet have not been taught that; the whole emphasis of their education has been on their rights and not on their duties or responsibilities. I remember bringing to the attention of this House a character called Dr. Leach, who was the provost of King's college. He advocated the destruction of all family life. It is a serious matter when we get people like that in education; and we cannot blame young people for having these extraordinary ideas. I am very glad that Mrs. Shirley Williams has agreed to allow religious education to continue to be taught in schools. I am not a particularly religious person; I go to church perhaps twice a month, to please the vicar. However, I believe that religious education teaches children to be unselfish, which is very important. I am very pleased about that.
There may be a point in having a Minister for the Family, but it means more bureaucratic control. If we have such a Minister—and it might do some good—I should like him to emphasise the use of any material benefits to keep the children in the family, and not to emphasise taking children from the family I may not have expressed that very well but I think the meaning is clear. If we pump the wrong theories into tale young generation for quite some time—which is what I believe our State education has been doing—it will take a long time to eradicate them. I do not think that a Minister for the Family would be sufficient. The Bible says:
"As ye sow, so shall ye reap".
If a Minister for the Family is appointed, I hope that he redirects social policy towards helping families to meet the needs of their children.
I should like to see families made more self-reliant. The State is tending to take all the decision-making away from the individual, away from the parents. If you keep on doing that you will eventually destroy the pride of the parents; you will cow the parents. I should like parents to have more control of their families. I agree that there are some cases where

67
this cannot be allowed owing to a family's long record of alcoholism or cruelty. Then, I agree, it is the duty of the State to interfere.
I should like the parents to have more say in regard to schools. Why not have parents on the boards of governors? Most parents are rather scared of headmasters and teachers. Some teachers are rather arrogant with parents. They think, "You are only a parent. You don't require considering at all". Parents ought to have far more say in the education of their children. I should like to have answered the noble Lord who spoke last on housing, but as he left the Chamber I shall not bother to do so. It is usually the good manners of the House that a noble Lord does not do that; however, I shall not bother to answer him on housing.
I only say one thing: he spoke about the private housing side. The Rent Act is the cause of thousands of private houses remaining empty. If the Rent Act were altered then people would be only too pleased to rent their houses. But if they rent their houses, today, under the present Act, they cannot get the house back again; it is gone for life. I sum up by saying that the future of this country, I am quite sure, lies in the cohesion of the family and in the love of the family. This is a basic of civilisation, and I implore the Government to do everything to keep the family as an independent unit.
5.43 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Viscount and other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Phillips, for giving us the chance to debate this subject today. Incidentally, perhaps I ought to say that I share her historical view of May Day. I do not think that she needed to apologise at all for making any reference to May Day in a family debate. After all, I have always understood that the Festival of May Day was associated with fertility rites. Indeed, in truth, no doubt—if someone on this side of the House can join in the heresy of making such an admission—that is where the original association with the term "Labour" came from.
68
I want to deal in part with just one aspect of this subject, and that is recent reforms in family law. Perhaps I should go no further before declaring an interest as a practising member of the Bar, although I do not now normally practise in the family law sphere. In trying to see how much reform in family law there has been over these past few years, I confess I have been surprised and immensely encouraged to find what a sizeable amount of work has been done. I suppose the main sources of change can be divided into two: those which have come from the Law Commission's programme of family law reform and those which have come from elsewhere.
Before taking these in turn it might be as well, in a comprehensive and wide-ranging debate of this kind, if we perhaps record in passing that one of the most far-sighted and productive measures of recent years was the Act which set up the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. The Act was passed, I am happy to recall, in 1965, during an earlier period of Labour Government, though I hasten to say that I trust I am not going to be too partisan in this debate. It was back in 1968, as many of your Lordships will recall, that the Law Commission announced its second programme of law reform, Item 19 of which recommended a comprehensive examination of family law with a view to its systematic reform and eventual codification.
A great deal of progress seems to have been made, due not least, one might mention, to the late chairman, Sir Samuel Cooke, who took personal charge of the family law reform programme and who will be greatly missed. I think that he set sufficient guidelines for us to feel that he had done a great deal of work before he died. The Commission's early proposals on financial provision in matrimonial proceedings led to the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970, which was later consolidated into the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. This legislation gave the courts much wider and more flexible powers than before to see that financial provision for the parties, and the childdren, is as fair and practical as possible. It also led to less emphasis being placed on the conduct of the parties during the marriage, unless it is both what has been

69
described as obvious and gross. I am sure that this principle about conduct has helped a lot: it is quite wrong to dwell upon conduct unless it is absolutely necessary.
When I was practising in this sphere I spent a vast amount of time persuading clients, or trying to, that it really was best if at all possible to avoid a slanging match and a long-drawn-out court battle: for one simple reason if no other; namely, the distressing effect that it would have upon the children, with whom both parties would want continuing relations in the future. No doubt by doing this I did myself out of the nice fees that contested High Court actions would undoubtedly have involved. Perhaps the Royal Commission on Legal Services might bear that point in mind. It is also worth noting that the legislation on these matters these days is framed so as not to distinguish unfairly between the sexes, so that each spouse comes before the court on the basis of equality. I think recent case law shows that the courts will make orders against wives in favour of husbands in appropriate cases.
Again, this programme of law reform has also led to new rights for dependants to obtain family provision from the estate of a deceased. As a result of the Commission's 2nd Report on Family Property; Family Provision on Death, which came out in July 1974, substantial changes were made in the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, so that for instance, instead of the court being restricted under the previous legislation—which went back to 1938—to providing for the maintenance of a surviving spouse, it can now award a share of the deceased spouse's estate, or increase the share due to the surviving spouse under the deceased's will, or upon intestacy.
Further reforms on the ownership of the matrimonial home are clearly on the way, for the Commission has made provisional proposals for the beneficial interest in the matrimonial home to be shared equally. Under the scheme they are putting forward during the marriage the spouses would have the benefit of joint ownership of the matrimonial home unless they had specifically agreed otherwise. I gather that the Commission's report on co-ownership of the matrimonial home is
70
due very shortly, and I hope we can expect that Her Majesty's Government will view it sympathetically when it comes.
I believe we can also expect that, at about the same time as that report comes out, the Commission will be publishing its final report on the use and enjoyment of household goods, along the lines of provisional proposals already made in a working paper dealing with the situation where one spouse leaves the matrimonial home and strips it of its contents. It is encouraging to note that among the more important proposals are, first, a provision that would enable either spouse to apply to the court at any time for an order regulating the use and enjoyment of the household goods and, secondly, that the court would be given wide discretion to order one spouse to restore goods or compensate for loss of use where goods had been disposed of by the other one. Those are some of the main reforms stemming from the Law Commission.
Turning to some of the other reforms, as has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Phillips and, I think, by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 was first introduced in another place as a Private Member's Bill by my honourable friend Miss Richardson with Government support. In that, if she does not mind my saying so, I think that my noble friend Lady Phillips played a not inconsiderable hand in your Lordships' House. This was the reform which arose from recommendations of the Select Committee or Violence in Marriage: it provides for a spouse to obtain an injunction protecting him or her or a child in the household from violence by the other spouse, and indeed if need be to exclude that spouse from the matrimonial home. The measure applies also to an unmarried couple living as man and wife in the same household, and there are powers of arrest given to the police in serious cases. I understand that, in the first nine months of the operation of the Act, some 3,203 injunctions and 1,505 powers of arrest were granted. In one aspect, of course, that is sad, but, considered from the point of view of those who were previously suffering, it is very encouraging indeed that protection is now available, is being used and, as a result of that provision, is being used speedily.

71
Then, too, there have been the Adoption Act and the Legitimacy Act of 1976, consolidating the law on those two subjects, in which the Law Commission has also been involved, and I understand that work is also going ahead to consolidate the law on child care and foster children, and that the Government hope to introduce consolidation Bills dealing with the law on the protection of children and young persons. I think that the Government have also given an assurance that they will consider consolidating legislation on guardianship and custodianship as an interim measure pending the Law Commission's report on affiliation and legitimacy, which seems likely to touch on those subjects.
Another major reform with which your Lordships have been grappling only recently is the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Bill which has recently been sent to another place and is, I think, at the moment in Committee there. This Bill follows the report in 1976 of the Joint Working Party of the Law Commission and the Home Office which called for a new statute to bring the law on matrimonial matters in magistrates' courts more into harmony with that in the high court and the county courts. As your Lordships will recall, this Bill includes important reforms relating to the custody and maintenance of children and it will also eliminate unnecessary differences between the legislation relating to matrimonial proceedings and that relating to guardianship, affiliation proceedings and other types of proceedings in family matters. Magistrates' courts will also get stronger powers to protect a spouse and children subjected to domestic violence along similar, although somewhat less extensive, lines to those contained in the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976.
So far as reforms affecting children are concerned, I have only barely touched on this. Perhaps one of the most significant departures came with the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976, which was introduced as a Private Member's Bill with Government support and which removed the doubt in English law as to whether a child injured while in utero had sufficient independent legal personality at that stage to enable him, when born, to sue for his injuries. As we know, the Act gives him, once born, a plain statutory
72
right of action deriving from his mother so that if a wrongdoer owes a duty of care to the mother and was in breach of that duty the child can sue for the resulting damage to him, so any question of personality before birth is irrelevant.
Then, of course, there is the Children Act 1975. Quite apart from the major principles relating to adoption (the bringing of decisions on adoption cases into line with the decisions on custody and the upbringing of children and other major reforms in that Act) there are also what one feels are the tremendously helpful new provisions in Part II of that Act. In appropriate cases, as an alternative to adoption, these allow those looking after children on a long-term basis to apply for legal custody of the child, so involving the creation of the new legal relationship, custodianship—a most civilised way of helping to resolve what were very difficult problems indeed.
These remarks do not even approach what is also being done by the Government in the private international law sphere. Even a cursory glance at family law reform over the past few years will show that an enormous amount has already been done and that still more is on the way. It is not always that one can hand out praise to Governments and indeed it is not always that Governments can count on praise from their own Benches let alone from other parts of your Lordships' House. I trust that this praise will not come as too much of a shock or an embarrassment to them. Of course others share in some of the credit, most notably the Law Commission. But even in that context the Government have, I believe, done rather well. How often do we hear, with Governments of whatever complexion, that splendid reports recommending reforms have been published but that nothing has been done about them. Here, too, in the family law sphere, I venture to suggest that the record is good. The record on family law reform is a good one and the prospects for more are promising.
5.58 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for initiating this debate, may I take up her point on introduction that there are many happy families in this country and that we should not get the

73
position of difficult families out of proportion. I speak with feeling because this weekend I attended a Ruby Wedding with 42 relatives of all generations from that particular family and I think personally that there is far more family stability in this country than we give the country credit for.
I have three questions to ask the Minister. First, may I take up the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in regard to housing. I should like to touch on the housing of young married couples. The noble Lord said that poor housing did not reflect the divorce rate for young couples in poor housing accommodation. I should be very interested to know where the figures came from because that is not my experience. I believe that young couples these days have an extraordinarily difficult time and this was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. In order to get on to a housing list one must be married, therefore a number of young couples hurry into marriage in order to get on to the housing list. Would it not be possible for young couples to be put on a housing list before they get married so that they do not get married just to get there?
I, too, read the item in the Sunday newspapers about the harmony and agreement between both the Minister for Housing, Mr. Freeson, and Mr. Hugh Rossi, the Conservative housing spokesman, in their support of the work of housing associations. But could we not be more imaginative and original in our housing policies? For example, would it not be possible for the housing associations to adopt a policy of providing mobile homes for young married people which they could buy and then sell back to councils when they move into council property? By that means young couples would have a home of their own in which to live. I should like, therefore, to know when the housing report will be coming out. That question has been asked many times in your Lordships' House and it would be helpful to have an answer.
Secondly, I should like to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is completely satisfied at the way in which children in schools are being brought up to understand the responsibilities of family life. I rather part company with the noble Viscount on the question of divorce.
74
We agree that the divorce rate has gone up, but if one looks at the figures one sees that divorces often occur because people have married at such an early stage that they have not been ready for marriage. Indeed, the figures show that the second marriage is often good and that it lasts.
My question, therefore, is whether in our schools we have home economic centres of the type which really teach children the reality of marriage. As I understand it—Lord Donaldson will correct me if I am wrong—tit emphasis on marriage in the schools is on sex and sex education. Obviously that is important, but it should be in the setting of the responsibility of marriage and, furthermore, perhaps most important, on the emotional, spiritual and physical needs of children.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I will answer now, my Lords, rather than leave that question to my colleague; in any event, the noble Baroness addressed her question to me. The answer of course is that I am not satisfied. I have never been satisfied by anything in education, nor has my Secretary of State and nor, as far as I know, has anybody else. We have a long way to go. When the noble Baroness says that the emphasis is officially on sex and sex in marriage, I do not think she is correct; it depends entirely on the headmaster in each case as to how these things are dealt with, and that is how it must remain owing to the partnership we have with the local authorities. I do not think they want us to start telling them, nor do the head teachers, how they should do it. However, I take the noble Baroness's point and I am glad she has raised it. It will be widely read, and in those cases where there is an over-emphasis on one side and an under-emphasis on the other, I think it will do something to help.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those comments. May we sum it up by saying that we travel hopefully, even if we have not arrived?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Certainly, my Lords.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, my third point is again directed to the noble Lord. Lord Donaldson, and is in connection with families with children under five years of age. A great deal of research has been done by the Tavistock Clinic, the National Children's Bureau and the Robertson Centre, and the deep need of children to be brought up by one person consistently has been established. Perhaps it is not always the mother, though it is obviously better if it is, but it has been established that this bonding should take place at any rate in the first three years of life. We then get to the stage of the three to five-year-olds, but in respect of the nought to three-year-olds, we have far to go.
It may be disturbing that the childminders system, which is a good system if well applied, is not always well applied, and here I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in that many women who would long to stay at home and look after their children are forced out of the home for economic reasons. We are in some difficulty over the whole question of mothers with children under five. When I was working in Islington before the war we did research—it was an extraordinary piece of research—to find out how many families would allow their children to have school dinners. While I cannot remember the exact figures, I know that 94 per cent. said they would not dream of allowing their children to have school dinners because it would break up the family; the wife and husband would not see each other and the father would not see the children.
Our social policies have travelled far from that situation. We are now in a dilemma, in that we have not laid the emphasis on marriage that I believe we should have laid; namely, that it is a career and a good one, a career which many women feel they are forced out of by public opinion feeling they should follow the career they took up when they went to university, college of further education and so on. My point is to stress that we must have facilities for children under five and that they must be wide-ranging. Like Lord Donaldson, I pay tribute to the Pre-School Playgroup Association and, in particular, the National Association of Nursery Matrons, because I was at a conference of that association when they were facing the fact
76
that what was important was parent participation and the involvement of parents. It is far easier to look after other people's children and get rid of the parents than it is to involve the parents, and that association was trying to involve the parents.
The Minister referred to the circular sent out jointly by the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Education on the needs of children under five, enjoining local authorities to look at the matter, to do a survey, and to see that the needs were met. When we in this House enjoin the country to do things, do we ever find out scientifically whether they have been done? I suggest that the disappointment in that circular lies in the fact that local authorities —I am sure they would have been prepared to agree—were not asked to submit back what the facilities were in their areas, what the gaps were and what the needs were. I am sure it would be found, for instance, that there are not enough staff, either on the health or social services side, to carry out the work, for example, of visiting child minders and seeing that there are adequate facilities. My third question to Lord Donaldson, therefore, is this: How will the two Ministries assess that there is an extended and good service?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I cannot answer this question for either Ministry without notice, but the noble Baroness's point is taken. A circular was sent out by the two Ministries, with an idea of getting something done, and the noble Baroness is asking me whether there is any monitoring to see that this is done. I am quite sure that there is, but I will write to the noble Baroness and tell her in relation to both Ministries what it is, and if I am wrong, I shall say so.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I thank the noble Lord.
6.10 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, the House will be thankful alike for the introduction of this theme today and the characteristic way in which the noble Baroness adorned that theme in her introductory speech. I should like to begin with three propositions, to me all of them are evident;

77
they may not be so evident to Members of this House. The first is that it would be quite churlish to withhold congratulation and encouragement to the Government in many areas in which they have proceeded to care for the family. I speak as a worker in the field of family relationships, and I am only too well aware of the way in which, over and over again, the family has been subserved and its conditions have neen improved, and indeed its hopes have been raised by the kind of measures for which this Government and previous Governments, have been responsible.
The second proposition is that this is not only a fact which is available to those who observe it but it is a confidence on the part of those who enjoy it. I have not heard hitherto in this debate today anybody say whether or not they feel that there has been an awareness on the part of people generally that the Government are on the right tack. I believe that to be true, and I could produce a certain amount of evidence to support it.
The third point may be more agreeable to those on the other side of the House. I am only too much aware that the provisions which hitherto have been made are by no means sufficient to meet the enormous task that confronts any community which endeavours to proceed in a civilised way of caring for and supporting the family. Therefore, I hope that this admiration for the Government, and this thanksgiving to the Government, may be a lively sense of further favours to come.
What has been fascinating about the debate hitherto is the association of the word "family" with something far more fundamental than the compassion which ought to be given to it and the necessity of measures applied to it. As a theological student I was made well aware—as my ecclesiastical friend will no doubt corroborate—that all revealed religion presupposes natural religion; and all good revealed legislation presupposes a foundation that is natural and not contrived. That is exactly what noble Lords have been saying about the place of the family in any ideology, in any concept, of what, after all, is the prime purpose of Government. To take the family as the norm is, I believe, the right way to proceed, and the vocabulary of the family is the most useful vocabulary if one is thinking in
78
terms of social justice—the father, the mother, the hearthfire, the family table.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, ventured—a little incautiously, I thought—into the realm of ideology and aspersed the relationship between the family and Socialism. Thrown as a missile, I would happily wear that as a decoration, for I feel that essentially the prime argument for the Socialist cause, which, it seems to me, is not often represented, even on this side of the House, in precise terms, is that that which is at the heart of the family is the prevailing reason and justification for the ultimate truths that we believe belong to the Socialist cause. However much that may be true, perhaps a little later on I will very briefly advert to it again.
I want to say something about the family, which has been, I think, all too easily assumed to be a fixed mark, and a permanent, and identifiable, reality in the community. I believe substantially that is true. But it is very important to remember that there are many kinds of families—patriarchal, matriarchal and with all the permutations between those two extremes; and that families Vary very much according to the prevailing religious beliefs in which the family is informed, and have suffered change, if lot decay, in our day and generation to such an extent that it is incautious to talk about the family without, at the same time, indicating the profound changes that have taken place in it. A Government who would endeavour to provide answers in relation to care for the family should, I think, be better informed than perhaps they are at the moment as to some of those changes.
Reference has already been made to the mobility provided for the modern family by the acquisition of the car. The American cynic said, "Home is the place where you hang around when somebody else has got the car". But the right reverend Prelate reminded us of something quite contrary to that, and which is on the whole a benefit; namely, by provision of the car it is possible to keep contact with families which might otherwise be incorrigibly divided. It is true—and nobody, I think, would want to dispute it—that the breakdown of many of the moral principles, to say nothing of the moral taboos, particularly those associated

79
with sex, has produced great changes in the thinking and the practice of the family. This is, in many cases, deplorable. It is deplorable because the sense of responsibility is eroded. It is deplorable because insecurity takes the place of security. It is deplorable because the overall moral principles do not obtrude.
But it is, on the other hand, not entirely a loss. For many years I was responsible for looking after a hostel in which we tried to care for pregnant girls who had been turned out in the snow. That hostel is no longer used, because the need for it has very largely disappeared. Alongside the permissive society has come an increase of charitableness in many of the relations that are sexual, an increase in the care, independent of the breakage of moral rules; and that has been an enhancement of the family, rather than a detriment to it.
These are evidences of change within the family relationships, but they do not minimise in any respect the need for a greater care for that family, because whatever may be the differences that divide and separate the various concepts of family life, there is one thing which belongs to every family life, and it has already been referred to obliquely in the debate. It is that there is an overall responsibility, a sense of belonging, a sense that the family relationship is predominant. Although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her emphasis upon the individual responsibilities, I believe that the family conserves those social responsibilities which are in many respects more important, and may indeed he the bellwethers for more individual responsibility in its turn.
The one thing that characterises every human family worth the name is the family table, and at that family table those who are members of the family have their food, not because they can buy it, or because they can get to the table quicker than anybody else, but because that is an integral part of the family life. That is the true Socialism. I have never been much impressed by the scientific basis of Socialism—it is not scientific, and it is not a basis—and I have never been particularly impressed by the utilitarian argument for Socialism which breaks down at the point
80
of moral grandeur, or at least of moral responsibility.
What attracts me, your Lordships may not be surprised to know, is the Sermon on the Mount, and that religious basis which is inherent in the concept of the family: that whatever may be the moral quality of those who belong to it, they are within the over-arching care of a circle which ought not to he broken; and within that circle they are entitled, whether they are good, bad, or indifferent, to the basic necessities of life. That is Socialism as I understand it, and that is the supreme need that the family expresses. It is the supreme need which, in so many respects, the family is now denied. It is the supreme need which should be cherished by those who, as a Labour Government, wish to serve, as they do, the true interests of family life.
It is for that reason that I would append one or two very obvious comments on the imperfections of the way in which the family is cared for; and not out of compassion only, but out of a sense that it is morally right that those who are without a home should have one, and those who are without food should have it. It would appear to me that in respect of food and clothing, we have already accepted, and largely discharged, our responsibility to those who have it not. It is housing which is still the poor relation, and I believe it is as imperative in a civilised society to give somebody somewhere to lay his head as it is to give him something for his belly and something to put across his shoulders.
These are principles which are at the moment attempted impartially, but at the same time by no means cover the whole field. There are 750,000 families at this moment which are homeless. I try to imagine what it would be like if I, even at my advanced age, had to make provision as best I could for a family with nowhere to go, and it was raining.
Of course you can say that there are means whereby the civilised community is trying to deal with it. All I am trying to say is that, in our respect and our care for the family, there is no limit to that which we are compelled to do in order to preserve that which lies at the heart of every family principle, and that is the mutual care whereby each member is given an adequate opportunity to share at

81
the common board and to pay his dues when he has received the benefits—to each according to his need, from each according to his power. That is not only a Christian belief; it is what I have observed for long enough to be a Socialist one, and it is the heart and substance, as I believe, of this debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
6.22 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I rise with some sense of humility, for two reasons. The first is that like the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, I can say that I have been happily married for many years—more years than he has—that my four children are married and have children of their own, and that in my belief they are happily married, too. At the same time, it is with great humility that I feel so deeply for the people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Soper, so touchingly referred when he asked, "What do you do if you have nowhere to go and it is raining?" My other feeling of humility is to follow a Peer with such famous oratorical powers as those which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, possesses, because I do not possess any such; and I hope that, after I have finished, he will not poke at me the same accusation as that which he poked at my noble friend Lord Massereene in suggesting that he was rather bold in what he said. I think it is fair to realise that, although one may not be an intellectual, one is entitled to ideals and is entitled to express them as best one can.
Another difficulty I am in is that I have such great respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for her work in this House, in the various tasks which she undertakes, has undertaken for years and I hope will undertake in the future, for the welfare of her fellow men and women; because, rather like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, I wondered what this enormous series of paeons of praise for the Government's action was really in aid of. Of course it is in aid of the Government, and of course one respects the Government for what they have done; but now I come to the main part of my speech, which will be followed by two minor matters.
The main part of my speech is that I am unable to agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness and her fellow speakers regard as the assessment of the situation.
82
Indeed, I think the very reverse is the case. While recognising all the Acts, the regulations and the steps which have been taken to help families, I believe that we must face the fact that, after a long period of a Socialist, so-called Labour, Government in power, there has been produced an alarming increase in the number of broken homes, divorces and children in care, the minimal parental control of education and a lot of upset in the situation of education generally In that respect, I was very interested in what was said by, I think, my noble Friend Lady Faithful, when she said how important it was that headmasters should make a point of being in touch with parents. That is difficult, but it is not impossible. Then, my Lords, there has been an alarming increase in juvenile deliquency, violence—violence, a great deal of the blame for which, I believe, must be laid on the television authorities, not only for the manner in which they never show a film, practically, except documentaries, which does not contain some measure of violence, but for the fact that when they run a trailer to say what is coming on it always contains some violent scene, which doubles the trouble, I think—pornography, and so on and so on.
All these are evils which feed on the break-up of the family, and hence, I think, indicate in a measure the failure of socialism to live up to the ideals which originally attracted so many sensible, sensitive people to its ranks. Indeed, these ideals—the ideals for which I stand, and the ideals for which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, stands—were the ideals of the original founders of the Labour movement. Under this Government, Socialism has in my view deteriorated into a free-for-all. The all-embracing mutual respect which stems from the family unit has deteriorated into a freedom to plunder the reserves of treasure and the reserves of moral fibre which have been built up by generations of our forebears. There is freedom to be divisive—always the working class versus the rest—freedom to brush aside respect for others; freedom to steer the ship of State away from the moral values upon which it was built. I know that I am not alone in blaming the Humanist doctrine, the Humanist movement, for much of this. The Humanist thinkers, who think like anything and whose thoughts ceserve the full respect of all others, are nevertheless

83
in my view misguided, and their example has provided the excuse for the indifferent, the lazy and even the malefactor to opt out of decent behaviour.
I picked out a sentence from a leader in The Times this morning which illustrates what I mean:
"There are also the good, idle, soft-minded people in Great Britain who prefer not to think of subjects which could only disturb them".
Then there is the dirty tricks department. I do not mean more recent events, but the inclination to strike—baggage handlers to strike the day before a holiday; that sort of thing. Surely that is quite foreign to the regard of ordinary decent British people for proper behaviour as we remember it in years gone by. My sympathies are with the good-going, decent labour folk who, because the Marxist creed is now using the Labour movement as a stalking horse in its attacks upon tradition, now find themselves being carried along.
So, my Lords, having nailed my colours to the mast, I should like to turn, as I said at the beginning, to two comparatively minor matters which relate to housing and, in a measure, to education. The first is a technical one which I do not propose to develop in view of the late hour and the length of the speeches. It is the problem of the tremendous burden on many families which, during this bitter winter, the high off-peak tariffs, as applied to night storage heaters, has brought about. The problems have been very serious, as will be confirmed by anybody who knows of whole areas where houses have been built with no chimneys and no ventilation adequate to contain gas heaters. These instruments were described by my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery in a debate the other day—I do not remember the subject, He said that the night storage heater was the swindle of the century. It is not the night storage heater; it is the off-peak tariff which is quite ridiculous. It is at least half, if not more than half, of the ordinary tariff and it produces costs for heating which have broken up many familes in the last winter. They could not keep the place warm. It is involving the country in enormous expense. I believe that the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Energy would be better employed in going into this matter
84
thoroughly rather than in some of his ploys.
There is talk in one place of raising the price of gas to the public for central heating in order to make sure that it is not too much cheaper than electricity. Surely there is something wrong with that. It requires very close and urgent attention. The whole matter, to my mind, of domestic space heating requires urgent and serious examination from the widest possible aspect in that the huge profits being made out of the sale of gas should be employed not in this and that but in enabling domestic space heating in the ordinary homes of the vast numbers of people who live in new building areas to obtain more economic power.
My Lords, from there, I go to another not entirely disconnected matter. It is a question of money, a question of good husbandry, which seems to me to be very lacking in a lot of what the Government are doing. I do not know how many of your Lordships saw what was to me that horrible scene on television, of bailiffs breaking into a recreation room while mothers with little children were herded out because the recreation room was required, I think, for a secondary classroom. It seemed to me to be quite terrifying. Why I say that is because it has come to my knowledge that there are areas where vast sums of money which should not be spent are being spent by Government on buildings, office building and the like; it should not be spent until such scenes as we saw in that recreation room have been removed for ever.
Take the £2 million building for the wealth tax office in Plymouth, unoccupied, which costs I do not know what a year. There is an establishment connected with the child welfare, an office in North-east England, where the child benefits section (I think it is called) of the Department of Social Security is being established in a building which I have reason to believe is quite monstrous in its unneccessary cost. I feel that that sort of thing needs to be very carefully looked at before we have such scenes as we had the other day.
So, my Lords, I again thank the noble Baroness for having introduced this subject. It is a most important one; and, realising as I do that, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull said, there are

85
far more happy families than the other thing in this country, I believe we must turn seriously to the problem of the wider ideals of what is the background of the Christian belief. I remember reading in Lord Home's book where he recounts having asked Sir Harold Macmillian whether he could put his finger on the point at which Britian's decline in standards could be seen to have started. He replied, "Yes, the day that Great Britain stopped going to church on Sunday mornings".
6.34 p.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, we are truly indebted to my noble friend Lady Phillips for introducing another debate on the family and for the moderate non-partisan way in which she spoke. I do not think your Lordships will expect me to follow the train of Lord Ferrier's thoughts. I wish I could say as much for the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mustered her arguments. There were in great contrast to the speech that she made when the most reverend Primate initiated his debate on the family on 14th June 1976. When I re-read her speech—and a good speech it was—and looked at the measures taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer today, I thought he had taken up many of the points that she made in that particular speech two years ago.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness so early in her speech, but she drew attention to what I had said. May I say that the Motion of the most reverend Primate was, in fact, a different one from that put down today by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I try not to repeat myself and to address my remarks to the question at hand—hence, a different speech.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Baroness. I do not believe that this debate is so different. I shall not go into the figures of the small measures taken today. A great many noble Lords have spoken quite widely in this debate and I shall go on doing so, I am afraid. Of course, I can understand the noble Baroness. The air today is full of election smoke, when the political Parties of the Opposition do not have to take the responsibility for the measures. That is all.
86
Whatever view you take of the Chancellor's Budget—and it has not received a joyous welcome from most quarters and from all those who are only interested in tax cuts—I, for one, think it is a good Budget. When one takes into account the prevailing international recession and the fact that there are 16 million people unemplcyed in the major industrial countries of the world today—a fact carefully omitted by the noble Baroness, Lady Young—and when one takes into account our difficulties, I think one can concede that the Budget is a family Budget; and both North Sea oil and a successful pay and prices policy have contributed to this. It was designed to be gently stimulating to the economy so as to increase family incomes and family living standards by tax cuts; and, again, the tax cuts were designed to encourage moderation in pay increases so as to keep inflation under control. The Opposition are quite blind to the fact that this is a further modest step towards a fairer society. The least that should be acknowledged is that the cuts in personal taxation such as the pension up-rating and increased child benefits, the additional public spending in priority areas and many of the other things that have been mentioned are all geared to helping the family.
In the "family" debate in June 1976, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that many people were concerned because the fabric of society today was breaking down—and the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, seems to have continued on that line—due to a steep increase in divorce and broken families. While divorce may have a certain impact on the family, there are many reasons for the fabric of society becoming torn here and there other than the increasing divorce rate among husbands and wives who can no longer bear to live with one another. Also, the question of the children needs a more profound approach altogether. In this fast-accelerating, technological and scientific age, both economic and social changes are taking place. More women wish to work, apart from the desire to increase the family budget. That is only one of the facts that bring problems into the family.
Using words which are part of what I call "UN jargon", there are many adverse consequences along the path of

87
economic and social change in the world today, and I should like to mention just a few at random. Hooliganism is a feature in child behaviour today which is very troublesome for the family. We dismiss it as just another horror in the world today—but for how many children is there a promise of success? They see on their television screens the ones who become successful and rich. Success is only a mirage for those disadvantaged youngsters, and there are very many of them. Surely, no one can blame the Government for ail of them, or for this. Therefore, I applaud the Government's serious endeavours towards giving school-leavers more training so they may have more opportunity to develop skills. By introducing systematic rather than just random training, the Government have announced their intention of giving priority to the vocational preparation of the 16 to 19-year-olds, among others. These are some of the young people who, because they lack education and opportunity, identify themselves so completely with their football teams that they are filled with rage when their team loses, and run amok. These are the reasons for some of the adverse consequences of "progress", in this world. Ail this is not just theory, because the Government's basic idea in training is that education must lead to work, and not to displacing people by machines.
I am afraid I have not tried to repeat what other speakers have said: I have limited myself to a few general remarks. I have only a few more sentences to add. With regard to the aged retired, I am greatly in favour of the "granny" residences mentioned by one speaker and rather against Hugh Faulkner's "extended family" idea. We are a free society, and those who enjoy this kind of family set-up are free to take part in it. However, I do not think that all grandparents want to live with their children and grandchildren. Furthermore, I think it is hard on young families to have what might be many years today in the "extended family". We all have a duty and obligation to look after the aged. There are many kind, happy and diverse ways of doing this, to the benefit of all three generations.
Finally, after these few fragmentary and random reflections on the subject of the family, I say: Long may it continue!—
88
so long as, in the end, we get more and more equality of opportunity.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise, also, to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, very much indeed for inaugurating this debate. Listening to the last two or three speeches, I feel we have rather got away from the feeling of co-operation which I believe is necessary if we are going to carry through a long and important period of legislation for the family. To me, it is not a Party political matter at all. All my life I have been engaged in social work. I have worked with people of every political view, one way or another, and I think we can all make a contribution, whether we speak from these Benches, from the Benches opposite or from the Liberal Benches. It is a long struggle to try to improve our legislation and the conditions of family life. That is something to be done not so much by arguing on a political basis but by actively doing things that will help in this connection.
I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and I think also the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, when they said that, although conditions in many ways are very disappointing today in connection with family life, we must not forget the thousands of millions of perfectly happy people in family life, because we are apt to get all the bad things reported in the Press and elsewhere through the media. We all know that good news is not news: news is only bad news. I am not suggesting, of course, that there is not a lot of bad news, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that it is not all bad and quite a lot of it is very good indeed.
On the question of figures and information I was sent a very interesting document by the Order of Christian Unity, the organisation to which the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, has referred. Like him, I do not belong to it, but I do follow its activities with very great interest indeed. I was extremely distressed to read of the following figures. There are 700,000 one-parent families, involving 1¼ million children. Of course, not all those children will be unhappy, but on the other hand that is a very large number of children for whom the responsibility rests on one

89
person. There are 5,000 children each year who are victims of cruelty; there are 1,000 who are seriously injured among those 5,000, and there are 100 who died from parental neglect.
These are really terrifying figures. There are 110,000 families, with 260,000 children—that is a quarter of a million or more—living below the supplementary benefit level; and there are 76,000 children taken into care each year. Those are figures about which we should ail be deeply concerned, and the speeches to which I have listened in your Lordships' House show how very concerned everybody is. We cannot generalise, because so many elements are concerned in these conditions, but there are some points which we might think about, many of which have been mentioned.
As we all know, there has been a great increase in the number of married women going to work. In 1951, 12 per cent. of married women went to work, and in 1976 the figure had risen to 25 per cent. In 1974, 9 per cent. of mothers with children under five were in work full-time, and 17 per cent. were in work part-time. I am not at all against married women working as long as they want to do so, and as long as the care of the children remains most important in their lives. But there are elements which weigh against the family, and possibly mean that more mothers have to go to out work than want to do so.
When a mother stays at home, the tax allowance is only £1,455 a year, as against the £2,400 for a family where both parents work. I do not know whether or not that position can be altered, but it seems a little hard and is no doubt a temptation for both parents to work, since they then get considerably greater allowances. The real value of a single person's tax allowance has risen by 53 per cent., while the tax allowance for a family with four children has risen by only 9 per cent. Again, it is hard to know whether or not these differences can be corrected but they weigh the facts towards encouraging women to go out to work.
As I said, I am not against them going out to work, provided that it does not make it impossible for them to care for smaller children. A real family policy
90
should help families to stay together, and allow parents more choice as to what they should do for their children. In that field of choice, I should like there to be a wider choice of education. I am not discussing comprehensive schools and other types of education. I am saying that it should be possible, with closer co-operation between schoolmasters, families and local authorities—because, after all, local authorities are the people most involved—to get a wider range of choice in education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has pointed to the deplorable vandalism, bad behaviour and so on, which is prevalent today and which is stressed far too much by the media. I should like to feel that there was a closer relationship between the people organising education and the families. I believe that that closer relationship is growing, and that there are more schools which encourage parents to go on to school governing bodies, but it should go a good deal further still.
I should like to support all those who have spoken about organisations for underfive-year-olds, such as play groups, nursery schools and bodies which help with the problem of mothers having to go out to work. There, again, I do not think that we do as much as we should. In the information that I have been looking at for this debate, I find that there is more provision for under-fives in other countries. In France and Italy, the figure is 15 per cent., but in Belgium it is 80 per cent. and in the United Kingdom it is 20 per cent. I feel that that is not a good comparison, and I hope that in the future we can encourage more care for the under-fives.
As I said earlier, encouragement of the family to be represented on the school board of governors is excellent. But should like to see closer relationships between schools and industry, for those 15- and 16-year-olds who are preparing to go out into the world. I share the anxiety about the lack of schemes for employment, but I know of some businesses which have a very close liaison with the schools. They help a child of 16 or 17 to train at a technical school of some kind, and then take him into the business. A number of companies do that, and I hope very much that this idea can be encouraged and spread further.

91
Some noble Lords may think that this is a reactionary view, but I know of a number of children who, in the last year of their schooling, are so bored by and uninterested in what is being provided for them that they very nearly become ineducable. I would encourage those children, particularly in the country where there is more opportunity for young people to go into agriculture and other country activities, to leave school a year early and go on to some kind of training which is recognised as part of education. As I said, it may be outside the school but it would obviate that year of boredom which so often overtakes those who are not intellectually-minded, and who are anxious to go out and work with their hands. That might do something to reduce the vandalism which we all know so well.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that it is splendid that the housing authorities have now decided that they have built enough high-rise flats, so we shall not see any more of them. Possibly, they were a necessity when they were first built, but they were not meant for families with children. They were meant for adult people, or people with children who were not young. Many of them were built without any community facilities, and, sometimes, without any youth clubs and so on. The position is now being improved, but it could be improved much further, and it is a thousand pities that the problems were not met when these places were being built.
I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who I see is not present. I remember very well that, in 1935 when the Pioneer Health Centre was first started, I went to help and Lord Donaldson was the prime mover. That was the first effective community organisation that I remember, and it was largely due to his enterprise. It is a pity that that pattern was not picked up more often, but the war came and the whole thing came to an end. We have health centres now, but there is not the same family spirit as in the Pioneer health centre. It was largely due to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that that centre was started.
Nobody has mentioned in this debate the subject of juvenile delinquency—not
92
because it is not in everybody's minds but it is a subject which has baffled a great many people. I believe that the practical way of dealing with juvenile delinquency is, as has been suggested, by involving young people in community work. This is being carried out in many areas. It is no good just preaching at the young; they will not pay any attention to preaching. It will help, however, if we can give to the young jobs to do, provided that they can see a purpose behind those jobs.
We face a tragic situation, with so many divided and unhappy families. Parents are not always responsible for their delinquent children, but they can influence their children. Very disturbing statistics show that at the age of 11 truancy in schools amounts to 1·2 per cent., and that by the age of 16 the truancy rate rises to 20 per cent. This shows a failure on our part to interest young people in either education or leisure pursuits. For this failure we must take part of the blame.
Noble Lords have spoken about the importance of the granny in the family, a view which I very strongly support. I am quite sure that all happy families contain people of all age groups. One should try to provide, if one can, independent accommodation for the elderly. On the other hand, I know many extremely happy families where all the generations live in the same house. We make much better provision now, both voluntary and statutory, for old people than we did in any other generation. I am a great supporter of day centres for old people to which they can go from 10 o'clock in the morning until 4 o'clock in the afternoon. There they can obtain a meal, chat with their friends, read the newspapers and so on. Day centres of this kind have sprung up all over the country under local authority guidance. They are provided by local authorities and they are very successful. I hope very much that we shall encourage day centres, whether for the handicapped or for old people. Such centres do not take old people away from their homes; they are just looked after during the day, and at the centres they meet their friends.
I am sure that we have made many mistakes in the past, but especially since I have been listening to this debate I have come to the conclusion that all of us are learning all the time and that our experience, whether in local government or in

93
Government Departments, will go towards helping to find a solution to this problem. It is not at all easy to find that solution; we go forward in one direction and then something desperate happens in another.
The tragedy of divorce is very serious. I hope very much that in some way or another we can manage to reduce the number of divorces. Although there are a great number of divorces, the number of marriages has trebled during the last 10 years or so. It is still a very popular way of life, but when one considers the number of marriage breakdowns it seems, somehow or other, to have gone wrong.
I hope very much, therefore, that all political Parties and all interests will concentrate upon helping to forward these new ideas and better ways of thinking, that all of us will learn from our mistakes, as well as from those of other people, and that we shall not despair but instead try to bring some good light into these rather dark and murky surroundings. For that reason, our debate today has certainly been very useful.
7.6 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, noble Lords may well wonder, and the noble Baroness may also well wonder, why somebody with primarily industrial experience has put down his name to speak in this debate. I myself am wondering a little! The reason is because I look at the family as the essential, basic economic unit for the welfare of this country. I am not, therefore, going to speak about the social problems of the most needy, regarding which other noble Lords are much more expert than I. Instead, I am going to try to make a few comments on the motivation of the average family for the common good. I believe that the morale, the health, the vigour of the average family is vital to the success of industry and the economy of this country. I believe that, because the natural desire of each family to improve both itself, and from generation to generation, is potentially the most powerful motivating force for growth that we have. If that force is used properly, wealth will be created and the social policies which are being discussed today will be able to be implemented. Without it, as we have also heard, all too little can be done.
94
How does one activate in the average family this desire to improve from generation to generation? I think that most of us, as parents, know that we achieve comparatively little by talking, but that we achieve quite a lot by example. There was a time—indeed, to a degree there still is—when self-improvement, harder work and recognition that those things brought (whether work in business or for the community and the rewards that those things brought which were used to improve the family) produced real respect in the majority of the households of this country. On the basis of a respected example, parental influence on such things as education and the activities of the next generation generally can be very considerable. The next generation can be encouraged to obtain the qualifications needed to fit an ever-changing world.
In both business and industry we also need very much indeed moral standards —conscientiousness, honesty, regard for property. As I see it, the family is the only basic unit that can maintain or improve moral standards. In the context in which I have spoken, I do not believe that any Government during the last decade can be very proud of their record in relation to the average family and its motivation. Have we encouraged Dad to work harder? Have we encouraged him to work at all? The noble Lord, Lord Banks, spoke of the poverty gap and quoted figures. Have we rewarded self-improvement, skills or qualifications, or extra responsibilities taken on? I think that the well-known trends of differentials, certainly after tax, show all too clearly that we have not; and the shortage of skilled workers required to match the needs of an industrial country and to maintain our standard of living today bears evidence to the fact that we have not. I am aware that one should labour and not to ask for any reward, but we mortals find a little reward a help and indeed the reward actually makes it possible to take on extra activities for the community.
Have we encouraged or are we encouraging, as a Government, the younger generation to obtain, through their education, qualifications and skills higher than our own to fit them for the daunting tasks that lie ahead? Do we encourage the most able and the most willing to make the full use of education to get on

95
or do we, in a natural desire to make sure that exact equality of treatment in terms of education is handed out to every individual, make this harder? Do we encourage parental influence, particularly in relation to education? Yes, we all want parental contact with school teachers but do we want it in terms of trying to encourage parental influence or are we asking for it just to gain the co-operation of parents with the superior wisdom of the State or of institutions? Have we encouraged the family as the basic unit for moral standards?
Today, there are many drives in the name of freedom of expression; for obscenity and blasphemy laws to be abandoned and for the attitude to pornography to be even more permissive. These efforts are made in the name of freedom of expression. I see that the Defence of Literature and the Arts Society, in the shape of their President, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, yesterday called for the abolition of the obscenity laws and for their replacement with laws to protect children while allowing completely free expression to adults.
I have been waiting for an opportunity to say that I do not believe the younger generation is any less ingenious than ours was and that if things are absolutely free for adults we shall not protect the children. To a degree, we have to deny ourselves the pleasures (if so they be) of being able to read, or to go to the theatre to view, certain kinds of the expression of the Arts if we are to protect the next generation.
I believe that the Christian religion must receive all the possible support that it can and that it must not be "knocked". I believe that parents cannot properly bring up their children without a law on blasphemy or if religion is knocked. For those who do not support the Christian religion, I would still say that, until the day when there is a codex Britannicus on moral standards upon which we all agree—and I do not believe that day will ever come—we must support the Christian religion in every possible way and hope that in normal families in this country each generation will be able and willing to bring its children up to those standards.
I noticed that in the speeches of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord
96
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, the emphasis was rather on the alleviation of the problems of the needy, of places where the family system has broken down, and I noticed that in many cases they would like to spend more money. I do not wish to debate the wisdom of how one should spend money on problems of these kinds, but I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said that money has to be very carefully talked about these days. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that it is easy to spend money when there is plenty about. We all know—and it has been mentioned many times in this debate—that we have too little money. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, pointed to the huge numbers of unemployed and thus to the world slump and the world recession behind which many of us today are hiding. But the world slump has not stopped countries in Europe which had a standard of living on half the level of ours in 1950 from having a standard of living at least 50 per cent. higher, and in some cases double ours today. It is not the world recession: it is because we have concentrated far too much on distributing the cake and far too little on making it and that is why we have inadequate money for social policies.
Of course other things, besides the disincentive to this family unit which I regard as so powerful, have contributed enormously in recent years to the fall in our standard of living, and I have spoken of some of them. But we do not want to underestimate the value of proud families striving to improve and what this could do, both directly and in regard to all the other evils which are holding back our productivity, our efficiency and our creation of new wealth. There is a tendency, I believe, for there to be a growth in the number of homes and families where cynicism and apathy are getting the upper hand, where dad, if he was a dad such as I have described, who acquired an extra skill and has worked hard, is regarded as a mug, where the children decide to live partly on State benefits, partly on part-time jobs, or—and I have to say it—to take a job and join a union with the greatest muscle even though the productivity record may be very low. There is another area in which dad can be regarded as a mug. He can be regarded as a mug if we over-emphasise the wisdom

97
of the State and the widsom of institutions in relation to the family, and make him feel that his is not the influence that really counts for the next generation.
I do not believe that either Party's record is perfect in respect of the family of which I have spoken, and I do not want to attribute particular blame on the points that I have criticised. But I think that I must in ending say this: I cannot accept the criticisms that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, made of my Party and the championship he made of Socialism as the Party which by definition cares for the family. In the terms in which I have spoken, which I believe come first—the need to build up wealth, the need to encourage proud and active and positive families, the need to encourage the family as an individual unit, sometimes even as a small business—I do not believethat these things lie easily with Socialism as it has been practised by Governments in this country since the war.
7.20 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, in this fascinating debate, which was introduced with such characteristic sympathy by my noble friend Lady Phillips, I want to talk mainly about the inner cities, and I hope that in at least the later part of my remarks I shall take with me the noble Viscount who has just spoken. But before I come to the inner cities may I say a word or two about rural areas. It is known that I am chairman of the Development Commission which has a wide rúle in supporting not only the economy but the social fabric of the rural areas. Our job is to try to arrest depopulation, to create more jobs, to support all the rural community councils and bodies doing work which supports the family and the elderly and the social fabric generally.
The point I want to make at the very outset of my remarks—and I hope my noble friend will allow me at least this compliment to the Government—is that I am very grateful to be able to say to them tonight that my fellow Commissioners and I are absolutely delighted that the Government this year have doubled our budget. At a time when other organisations are in some difficulty in these matters, we have had another £8 million, on top of our normal budget of £8 million. I think this means that we shall have a further enhanced rúle in the countryside
98
to stop depopulation, to support the family and to support the social fabric generally. Indeed, one of the things we have at this moment is a whole series of pilot studies to back up our attempts at economic revival by trying to identify what social measures, from all parts of the community, from all parts of government and local authorities, from independent agencies, are needed in order to make life tolerable for people in the remote countryside, and to get them to stay there and enjoy their family life there.
This is a new departure for us. It is very warming indeed to be able to say a word of thanks to the Government, at a time of national stringency, for doubling the budget to be spent on what I hope your Lordships will agree is a very worthwhile part of economic and social revival in our community. I offer particular thanks to my right honourable friend, my noble friend's right honourable friend Mr.Peter Shore who I am sure has had to fight hard for this share of the national cake in order to give it for the work of the Development Commission.
My Lords, I turn now to the question of the inner cities. One point that has struck me in this debate is that we have all been talking about the individual social support needed for the family, and I think we have perhaps not emphasised sufficiently the importance of the environment, in the way it eats away at the family, indeed at the stability of family life. It is, of course, in these inner city areas where the problems of family life are among the most acute and among the most concentrated, and where we find most of the problems. It is interesting for me, in my job of reviving the rural areas, to see that the problem is very similar and the method of cure is also the same as far as Government plans are concerned. The problem is depopulation, dereliction, waste of resources in that sense. I see, for example, that the population of Lambeth has declined from about half a million in the early 'thirties to about a quarter of a million now. The means of revival which the Government have hit on is the same as we in the Development Commission use and have been using for some years, namely, clear unequivocal partnership with the local authorities in planning total revival of the areas. I wish them well, but I want later on to point to a few of the dangers and difficulties in the way.

99
These areas of the inner cities, the worst of them, have higher unemployment than other parts of the cities; they have twice as many in poor housing; they have twice as many in overcrowded houses; they have twice as many one-parent families. No wonder they are the areas where family life breaks down! This is not due to waywardness in Government policy. It is simply that, as we know, the inner parts of our cities have collapsed. Firms have closed, firms have collapsed, they have contracted; dereliction has set in; hopelessness has permeated the whole community. Only a quarter of the jobs in London have really been lost by migration. It is not the case that that has been the main cause of collapse. Certainly it is not the new towns; they have only taken about 10 per cent. of the people migrating from London. It is simply inner collapse that has taken place and created social problems.
So you get problem areas, social dereliction, vandalism, problem communities, the breakdown of the family unit. I must say this hit me personally a few weeks ago when, in an area in Lambeth where I stayed temporarily—and this is the sort of problem that will be well known to my noble friend Lord Soper— as I was going down the street an elderly gentleman ran out of the door and said: "Could someone come to help me?" His wife, who had just been more or less delivered, as you might say, from hospital, just dumped there after a long stay in hospital, had fallen out of bed and he wanted somebody to come and help him lift her back. From that I got involved with a very sad case, of very elderly people, knowing nobody, the family having gone away, with nobody to support them except a home help provided by the local authority; but with no family within easy distance, and neighbours who did not really call on them very often. I am met, as I go in the door now, with the statement, "You are the first person I have seen for a couple of days". We have all had cases like that, and my noble friend has pioneered coping with them in huge parts of London. I must say that in an area like Lambeth one can see the whole breakdown reaching right down from the social and physical dereliction to the personal problems of the family, in many cases like that of
100
people who have very little hope left in the community in which they live.
In these circumstances, I want to suggest that there are no easy solutions. It is not fair to any Government for any Party to start saying that there are easy solutions to all these problems. This is a long period of decline bringing decay in its wake; we have to get renewal in every sense of the word. A second tribute I should like to pay to the Government is that they have realised the enormity of this problem by the amount of resources they are now putting into the inner cities. From about £30 million a year if we take the seven partnership authorities, the seven inner city areas chosen for main effort, the figure is going up to £125 million a year on the plans now made, starting, as the plans get into their stride next year, with a total commitment of about £1,000 million over 10 years.
We shall see next year whether these plans are going to be successful, because they should be ready by this summer. Indeed, I should like to know from my noble friend whether he feels that these plans are going ahead well, and whether we are going to see real revival, regeneration of the environment in these inner cities, on the basis of the plans that are now coming forward. Are they coming forward fast enough and complete enough? In this area of Lambeth I was absolutely delighted to have pushed through my door the Lambeth development plan published by the local authority, showing how they are going to use, if they can, their share of that money on employment, shopping, recreation, social services and education. The whole matter is set out in the consultation document. We are all asked to say what we think will be the best for this tough area of London, where the problems are so acute.
This money will have a great deal of effect: more nursery schools, more play areas and play leaders—delighting my noble friend Lady Phillips, I am sure—more advice centres, which delights me, and a real effort to draw back at least some industry by loans and grants towards derelict land clearance. There will be more help for teachers, as I see it, in the document and in the Government plans; a redeployment of social workers to bring more home helps and community and social workers into these totally

101
deprived areas; hostels for vulnerable groups, day nurseries, day care for the elderly, open space for recreation. I could go on with a long list.
I wish to raise a few questions and conclusions. The Government are getting it right, in making this dramatic switch of resources into the inner cities, where so many of the problem families find their homes. From our experience in the Development Commission, the Government should not be faint-hearted at these partnership activities. In the seven inner cities there is to be the presence of the Government in the committees with the local authorities.
Our experience is that local authorities need to have their confidence rekindled. The Government have too often been the body that arrives and takes away our powers, or unduly interferes. First, we must go through a whole period, which we have been through in the Development Commission, of recreating confidence in the central Government's presence among us. When we have done that, when we have the local authorities up to that starting point of new confidence that the money really will be there, that the goods can be delivered, we must then, as a Government or Government agency, be fertile in pressing new ideas and in pressing for speed.
The real danger to the inner cities policy is not excessive idealism but the snail's pace at which the problems are solved. As we often find, it can take 18 months to acquire a piece of land. It will take another 18 months to get planning permission for something to be built. In the end, I say to my noble friend, hopelessness cannot be cured at that pace, given the dereliction of spirit that is now in our city areas. First, a good presence in these committees, good leadership in them, a fund of ideas to put to them when confidence has been rekindled, are essential. Secondly, I hope that all these committees will go straight away for partnership with private enterprise in restoring these inner city areas. The main point is to recreate confidence so that jobs begin to flow in, so that commerce comes back, so that a real life begins in these areas all over again. I am sure that can be done by creating the right conditions for private enterprise to come in and join the total revival.
102
Thirdly, I hope that there will be realistic views about the values of land. Much inner city land is worth ni1 nowadays —not the stupid prices put on it by people who bought it in years gone by. We must, as a community, face that. We must frankly face writing off much public investment in inner city land and say that it will be much better to use it for open spaces and parks. We cannot always hope to fill it out all over again with little Noddy houses, calling them modern communities. We have a real problem of creating a social pattern in these areas that may be rather different from the areas which they were years ago.
Last, I hope that if this pace of revival becomes too slow, the Goverment will give added powers to local authorities to be adventurous in attracting private enterprise. I should like to see such things as the ability of these local authorities to grant rating relief, completely, if they want, so as to attract industry and enterprise back into the areas. I should like to see them do anything they like. After all, what do we do with small islands in the Pacific? We make them into tax havens and free ports so that investors come in. We should have exactly that kind of adventure and spirit in reviving some of these islands of dereliction inside our own community. I do not mind what measures are used provided that they are ingenious and attract all kinds of people co come in and help the total problem of recreating the communities.
Baroness YOUNG: My Loris, while I welcome very much what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said, may I ask whether he is prepared to encourage local authorities, both Conservative and Labour, to sell freehold to industrialists land in the inner cities?
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I do not think that matters any more. From my experience as chairman of a new town, I know that everybody is becoming accustomed to accepting 99-year leases and 125-year leases. We are moving through a recreation of thought on this issue. I do not think that it is the issue that it was five years ago. I do not think it will be any issue at all in another five or 10 years. I cannot join the noble Baroness on that point. I

103
think that in matters like that a century is enough that anyone wants to look forward to in these days.
Finally, I plead for a spirit of adventure in approaching these problems of the inner cities. The start is very good. I repeat my compliments to my noble friend and to the Government. The resources they are using and the leadership they have given are very encouraging. The difficulty will come when they try to find whether they can get the right pace in this revival. I hope that they will find some room for the kind of ingenuity and departures from practice that I have been suggesting.
7.37 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, this debate has gone on for a considerable time. But, if a new understanding of the role of Government in shaping the lives of families in this country emerges from our discussion, our time will not have been altogether wasted, and we should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for giving us this opportunity with so much distinction.
I think we are all agreed upon the fundamental importance of the family, not only to its individual members but to our society as a whole. It is the principal way in which there is established in a child the sense of security and the ability to cope with his emotional environment for the rest of his life. Those who are fortunate enough to be brought up in a united family—and in a most moving passage the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester pointed out that they are a diminishing proportion—are at the centre of a miniature social system. In it, they can see at first hand, and close to, the balance of tension between the forces which tend to drive its members apart and those which combine to keep them together: they are self-interest, ambition, adolescent rivalry on the one hand, and, on the other, tolerance, loyalty and, of course, love. They can learn from these that it is in the bonds of unity that strength and wellbeing exist.
This is an important lesson and one which it behoves a society like that in Britain today to see well learnt. For, whether we look at the mounting toll of violent crime, at the primitive, nasty and
104
dangerous gospel of the National Front, at the disillusionment of the great army of unemployed or even at the principal legislation now before both Houses of Parliament, we cannot fail to recognise that the forces that tend to drive our national society apart are growing stronger by the day.
In these circumstances, the unifying influence of family life, quite apart from its contribution to the mental and physical health of the nation—which is an economic consideration of note that has not been mentioned today—is of paramount importance. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has therefore done well to draw our attention to it at this time. On the other hand, has she, I wonder, done equally well in choosing the terms of the Motion with which she does so and yet asking us not to be partisan? She is asking us, in effect, to share her view that the present Government have done rather well for the family, and she has undertaken this task, which might have daunted a lesser spirit, by advancing, a number of propositions. These, I hope, will emerge, together with others, in a brief résumé. But I do not, your Lordships will be pleased to hear, intend to pick up every chord that has been struck tonight.
The noble Baroness started early in her speech on comments on education, in which she referred to my right honourable friend the Leader of my Party in another place. She said that while my right honourable friend had done well to emphasise the importance of the primary school and the pre-school, she had noticed a sad falling off in the policy of our Party under subsequent Ministers. I entirely agree. I deplore this departure from the importance of the early and most formative years of the child. However, I draw her attention to the fact that there have been no Conservative Ministers since my right honourable friend was at the Ministry of Education and the trends which she detected were presided over by members of her own Party.
The two principal anxieties about the schools which parents now feel concern standards and, by that I mean both academic and social standards within the schools; and their own feeling of absolute powerlessness over what happens. It is true that the Minister has reacted to pressures about this and I think that she

105
deserves credit for the steps that she has taken to learn more about these factors and about the actual performance of schools. We should also be glad, belated though some of us feel it is, of her recognition of the crisis that has developed in such key subjects as mathemematics and her launching into a scheme to recruit specialists to repair damage which should, perhaps, never have arisen. It was a step your Lordships will recall—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge will recall—which was warmly urged upon her in debates in this House on the Education Act as it became in 1976.
One very narrow but important area in which she has indeed taken an entirely welcome step—the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has already referred to it—concerns Circular 15/77 requiring schools which do not otherwise do so, to inform parents about what sort of place their children NS ill be attending, how they should be equipped, how they will be looked after and how the parents can enquire of the staff about their progress.
None the less, I believe that her reactions to these pressures suffer from two principal defects. The first is that, whenever she is confronted with a problem, she quite understandably appoints a committee of inquiry to pursue it further. That may be laudable on a limited scale and is understandable prudence, but when we consider that it throws an ever-increasing burden on Her Majesty's Inspectorate and that one of the reasons advanced for terminating the service of the Inspectorate in inspecting private schools to give them recognition as efficient was the burdens already existing on the Inspectorate, one wonders whether this should be pursued too far. Secondly, apart from a speech to the National Convention of Parent Teacher Associations brimming with good intentions about the recognition of the importance of parents and of listening to their views on the part of staff, and apart from Circular 15/77, she seems to have gone no further and to be reluctant to go any further along any of the roads recommended by the Taylor Report which she has had now for six or eight months. However much of a curate's egg she may have found it, I should have hoped that she could have done a little more in that area to recognise parental anxiety throughout the nation and adopt at least those parts of the report which
106
give them an insight into, and a say about, the schools into which their offspring disappear for seven hours every day of every term.
I do not, because I have an interest in education, wish that matter to dominate my theme. I turn to the rural areas which might have escaped us were it not for the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. He raised the matter and, glad as I am for him to have his Budget increased in this area by £8 million, I must confess that I am none the less still less than enchanted by Her Majesty's Government. Some of your Lordships will be familiar with my view in this regard and I shall be brief. However, during the past decade or so, we have seen an increasing closure of village shops, partly as a result of taxation policy—value added tax, corporation tax, capital transfer tax and so on. We have seen a decline continued in most rural areas in rural transport and we have seen the amalgamation—which has nothing to do with the Government, I agree—of many parishes, thus removing yet another focal point in the community.
Once again, we come back to education. As long as we pursue a policy which means the closure of the small village school and the transportation of children to larger ones at a distance, that will be another focal point—a place at which mothers used to meet and gossip with other mothers in the village—gone and the village will be being gutted as a community and becoming a dormitory. As families are by nature inter-dependent because they are social creatures, just as the humans who compose them are social creatures, so the family is also threatened by this occurrence.
The principal theme of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, was, of course, the inner cities and I must say that I am reassured by the enthusiasm with which he greets the policies. I fear that, in my own view, the proof of this pudding will be in the eating—although it is some way off—but at least I am glad that he pursues the matter with such vigour.
Many speakers predictably referred to the child benefits and to the effects of the recent Budget. My noble friend Lady Young very succinctly pointed out that the Treasury tables of 11th April show that a married man with two children

107
will in fact still be some £2·80 a week behind the position that he was in five years ago. Families with children are worse off now than they were then, and, as my noble friend pointed out, the entrance to the poverty trap is, if anything, opened a little wider by the Budget, with marginal rates of tax still at 80 per cent. on the first additional pound. The tax incentive to mothers with small children to go to work is, I think, misplaced. It should be neutralised, especially when we have massive unemployment. It seems a pity to encourage those who ought perhaps to feel free not to work, to do so while those who desperately need to work are kept out of employment by that very pressure. My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood gave a vivid illustration of how the taxation system is biased in favour of mothers going out to work.
As regards housing, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, quoted the Homeless Persons Act of 1977. I am not sure whether the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, made clear the peculiar nature of this particular argument in favour of the Government's rúle—I am not sure whether the point went home. As I understand it, it was a Private Member's Bill introduced into the other place by a Liberal and heavily amended by Conservative votes there and here and although, of course, it had a Government wind behind it for which we should all be thankful, let us not think that they also spread the sails. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, did well to praise the work of housing associations and to welcome funds made available to them. I offer that in a spirit of reconciliation in case I seem to speak with too much asperity as regards his noble friends.
The noble Lord, Lord Soper, tended to arrogate to his Party's philosophy all the Christian virtues of caring for the poor and seeking to provide shelter for the homeless. He quoted incidentally a figure of 750,000 homeless families. If that is exact, is it scandalous and I should dearly like to know, when he returns to the Chamber, where it may have come from. I can assure him that many of us on this side of the House are Christians as well—perhaps not as good as he is—and that our difference with him and his Party is not about ends but about means. His philosophy and those of other noble
108
Lords have, for instance, given birth to the Community Land Act which, as we see it, will sterilise huge areas of the urban land in which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, hopes to do great things, whereas our view is that that land should be used for the building of houses by private enterprise for letting at reasonable rents.
It is of course important for the head of a family to earn an income and to do that he must be employed. We all know, do we not, how his chances of doing that have diminished under the present Government as, tragically, have those of the children in his family when they leave school. It is all very well to say that this is all the result of international circumstances beyond the Government's control. However, that is a very dangerous half-truth. If it were wholly true, we should be in no worse case than the rest of Europe, the rest of the West or the rest of the OECD countries.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, led us to suppose that that was indeed the case by, rebuking my noble friend Lady Young for omitting the figures on the facts. I am sorry that the noble Baroness is not present to hear me say so, but, when we look at the figures and find that, for the past six months, even Italy has a smaller percentage of unemployed than we have, we begin to detect the real truth that heavy taxation and a political bias against both individual success and private endeavour have caused private initiative and investment to wither so that jobs fall away from industry just as the leaves fall away from a tree when it is denied water.
Investment generates employment and employment brings prosperity to the families of the employed. All policies relate to the family. Investment, employment, prosperity and the family have all suffered in the last four years from the well-intentioned but misguided policies of the present Government. To that they have added the disincentive for employment embodied in the Employment Protection Act, to which many of my noble friends have alluded. At no stage and in no way do we on this side of the House call into question the motives, the intentions or the good faith of those opposite us in this House or in another place in framing their policies towards the family. But let us look at one aspect of it, as it bears on one aspect of the family.

109
A great many Members of this House, including my noble friend Lady Young and myself, spent a great deal of time in this Chamber—and so did the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who will follow me—on working on what was to become the Children Act 1975. Throughout the interminable debates, in which we all did our very best to assist the Government to make it the most effective instrument possible for its purpose, the Government modestly but audibly proclaimed the highest of motives, the loftiest of aims and the utmost dedication to improving the lot of the children to which this Act applied.
I mention this here because it seems to me that what followed was symptomatic of what is happening across the board. Considerable credit was reflected on the Government for an enlightened policy, but what very few people outside this House then seemed to realise was that what the Government had put before us was not intended, and could not hope to become, the law of the land straightaway—not, indeed, for a considerable time—as to many of its parts (and the whole of Part 2 for a start), but would be initiated by the Minister when he should choose to name the day for specified sections of the Act to come into force. In fact, the Act contains 109 sections and of those 34 have still not been implemented.
I do not question the good faith of the Government and it is not necessary for me to keep hammering that in, but what I do have to hammer in to the Government—and, indeed, to anyone who is prepared to listen—is that good faith and good intentions do not alone add up to good government. The rock upon which the Children Act has partially stuck is the same rock as has obstructed the course of Government policies right across the board, even including the Community Land Act. It is the total inadequancy of the resources at their command, even with the addition of the whole of the revenue from North Sea oil, to achieve the targets that they have set themselves.
We are now in danger of becoming accustomed to that inadequacy. We are in danger of greeting any narrowing of the gap between what we should by rights expect of them and what they actually deliver, not as an attempt to
110
catch up on a slipping programme—as with the earned income of the family to which I referred earlier—but as if it was a real and actual piece of progress. That is how the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and Her Majesty's Government can come to the House, point to the child benefit programme—which leaves the family significantly worse off in real terms than it was five years ago—and actually claim it as some sort of triumph for benevolent socialism. That is how Her Majesty's Government can come to this House in the knowledge that under their supervision unemployment has increased from just over half a million to just around 1·5 million—with all that that implies for both school-leavers and for those who should be the breadwinners—bringing it to a level at which in the second quarter of last year it was worse than that of Italy; and with that record writ large for all who run to read, they still proclaim that they have constructed an environment beneficial to the family.
In the past four years they have all but halved the purchasing power of the housewife's pound and reduced the personal disposable income per capita of the entire nation by over 1 per cent. They have produced a famine in rented accommodation, reducing many newly-wed and many not so newly-wed couples to desperation. While showering local education authorities with advice about giving parents some richly deserved say in the education of their children, they have none the less left the Taylor Report on one side.
It is not always necessary for an Opposition to damn the Government of the day; I do not damn them, though by faint praise it would be possible to do so. However, in considering the terns of this Motion, which invites noble Lords to praise what the Government have done, I ask your Lordships to consider that in terms of finance, in terms of accommodation, in terms of employment and in terms of parental control over their children's future, if this Government soon leave office—as I hope tf ey will—they will leave the family worse than they found it.
7.55 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that the best thing I can do is to forget completely what I was about to

111
say—I have left my notes on the seat beside me—and try to deal with some of the points that have been raised tonight. I am not so naive as to think that the Opposition would have found in their hearts a sufficient amount of charity to let one crumb drop from their table. I was not here when the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, spoke but my friends tell me that he blamed everything on the Labour Government. I can only say that he shows a profound lack of knowledge as to what has happened in the past four years. I would set aside time to educate him on this matter.
A noble Lord: It is too late.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think that it probably is too late. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the few crumbs that fell from the Liberal Benches. A number of noble Lords have commented on the date of this debate and seemed to think that it was a kind of celebration for Labour Day. As so many of your Lordships have professed some adherence to the Christian religion—as I do—if it offends them that we should have this debate as a kind of celebration for Labour Day, may I suggest that they adopt the ancient tradition of the Christian Church, which always celebrated St.Joseph the Worker on 1st May.
This debate has been far-ranging and I hope, to some extent, valuable if only for its cathartic value to enable a number of noble Lords opposite to get a good deal of (shall I say?) pent-up emotion off their chests. A number of very important points have been raised in connection with social security and I do not intend to deal with them, as I did when I came into the Chamber.
A wide range of other Government policies affect families and the Government fully accept the need to take account of what might be called a "family dimension" in these policies, whether they be in the field of health, the personal social services, social security, housing, education or any of the other areas that have been touched upon by noble Lords this evening. One of the biggest challenges that any Government must face is the enormous variety of personal and domestic circumstances in which people live. The traditional nuclear family,
112
with parents living together and providing a home for their children while helping their own parents in their old age, is a frequent pattern, and we must try to ensure that our policies do not damage it and, where necessary, give it support. However, it is by no means the only pattern of family life.
As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, there has been an upsurge in the number of divorces and remarriages in recent years, producing as they do more and more one-parent families and families with step-children. There have been equally dramatic changes since the last war in women's employment patterns, leading to new needs for flexible employment patterns and day-care facilities We have to face the fact that we can no longer assume that the vast majority of families will include a mother whose sole responsibility is the care of her children and home.
All this has implications for education, employment, social security, taxation and social policies. I do not think that we are sufficiently aware—or, if we are, we do not want to acknowledge it—of what has really happened in recent years. It is so easy to blame everything on the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to unemployment, as did his noble friend Lady Young. He instanced one country in Europe where the situation is better than it is in this country.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will let me interrupt. I mentioned only one because it was the most glaring example. I could stand here most of the night reeling off places where it is better.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we have to bear in mind that the problems from which we are suffering in this country at the present moment, be they problems of unemployment, of violence or of all sorts of other strongly anti-social behaviour, are to be found in a good many countries in Europe and also in the United States of America.
I want to come back to the changes which have taken place in recent years. Medical science continues year by year to prolong life to such an extent that, when at times I look at myself and look round your Lordships' Chamber, it would seem that

113
the Almighty is reluctant to have many of us. This has produced a tremendous number of problems—problems which are going to be costly. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, with whom I went part of the way, but only part of the way, down the road, made a statement which I do not understand, saying that we had distributed the cake too much, or words to that effect.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene if I did not make myself plain? What I was trying to say was that we have placed a great deal of emphasis on spending monies for socially desirable objectives. We have placed too little emphasis on the growth of the economy, to which I believe the family can contribute, and that is why the standard of living in many countries which in 1950 was half ours or thereabouts is now well ahead of our standard of living.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the words that the noble Viscount used were "distributing the cake too widely". I took them down.
Viscount TRENCHARD: I will read Hansard.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I was just going to make the same suggestion. If I am right, I hope that the noble Viscount will go away and think of the implications of this. To whom are we distributing the cake? In the vast majority of instances to people who produce the wealth in this country.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord in what context he is making this remark? It is not a set of words that I remember, but I shall check Hansard and, if I am wrong, I shall apologise to the noble Lord. What is the context?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I took it to mean that the noble Viscount was saying that we were paying out too much in social benefits when he talked about "distributing the cake too widely".
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I said that you had too little money to hand out, and that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble Baroness had mentioned that money was very short.
114
I did not say that you were handing it out too widely.
The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER: My Lords, would it help to reconcile everybody if I said that what I heard the noble Viscount say was that we had given too much attention to the distribution of the cake and not enough to its production.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I shall be prepared to argue along those lines. Have we given too much thought to the distribution of the cake? What do you do when you have something like 8 million people who are in receipt of retirement pensions who are living longer; not to 75, but a very substantial percentage of them to 85.
What I want to draw to your Lordships' attention are certain fundamental changes in our pattern of living which have largely produced the situation which we are facing today. As I said, medical science is one of them and that has thrown up a tremendous responsibility so far as the community is concerned. There has been the changing status of women, which has again brought in an entirely new situation. There are, as some noble Lords have argued, the evils which have stemmed from scientific contraception. It is perfectly true that changes in the law have brought about widespread divorce, and that all this has thrown the pattern of family life into chaos and confusion.
It is really doubtful whether we know enough of what is happening to the family even to begin to work out a policy for it. A good deal of our anxiety, arid a good deal of our worry on both sides of your Lordships' Chamber, is often based—and I say this quite kindly because I do not think any of us knows—on ignorance of the cause of the situation and what we can do about it. I know from my experience in my own Department that we set up committee after committee to investigate this, to investigate that. Suggestions have come from noble Lords opposite that we set up more committees. Why do we set up these committees? It is because we simply do not know what is happening. We do not know what is creating these difficulties. We do not know how to deal with them. We have a whole series of talking shops that really do not get us very far.

115
The noble Baroness referred to the Conservative Party policy document which I think—I cannot remember the title of it at the moment—is a consultative document on family policy. But I noticed that although she was anxious to say that the Government have no policy, she missed this magnificent opportunity of telling us something about the policy in relation to the family upon which this Conservative document on the family obviously has something to say. I have seen part of it. I think it will only mean the creation of more committees, of more dicussion, and I am not sure that it is going to produce a policy which is any different from some of the policies that we have had in the past.
We have to bear in mind that we are dealing with very difficult problems, and we really do not know—and I do not think that very many people do know—how to resolve them successfully. I said the other day that a good many of our social security benefits were really like ready-made clothes. They fitted where they touched. But, as the Government are accused of really not doing anything that seems to be worthwhile, let me say something about the new benefits which the Government have introduced since 1974: child benefit, which is paid for 13½ million children; non-contributory invalidity pension, which benefits 130,000 people; housewives' noncontributory invalidity pension, which affects another 37,000; mobility allowance which, at the moment, 72,000 people have —a number which will eventually rise to something like 125,000; invalid care allowance, which has another 5,400. We have brought in, in the last four years, benefits which affect 6½ million people. Is anybody going to say that that does not benefit the family? Is anybody going to say that that does not help the family? Of course it does.
These new benefits are going to cost something like £2,000 million. Together with the other benefits we are paying out, the cost must be in the region of £12,000 million. All right, we may be spending too much of the cake on benefits, but we have to look after the people who create the wealth in this country. I never have been a producer. I have never, from the time I was born to the moment of standing before your Lordships now, ever produced anything that has been
116
worth while that can be sold abroad or sold at home. I am, like a good number of other noble Lords, a parasite.
We are; let us face it. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, raised a number of matters, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Young. At present I cannot see any other way of assisting the family, which after all is a group of individuals, other than by looking at the needs of groups within society. I accept that this may not be a satisfactory way of doing it. Here are a number of people who are not mobile. We do something for others. So far as I can see, about the only way in which the Goverment can deal with the problems in the community is to look at each group and find out what they want and need, and then do their best to alleviate some of the distress and privation.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, raised the question of one-parent families with a single child, and the allowance and the supplementary benefits scale. As the noble Lord will know only too well, the requirements and resources of parents and children have to be taken together for supplementary benefit purposes, and the total child benefit and child benefit increase must be set against the needs of the family as a whole. Child benefit increase in particular is not geared to the needs of one child but is meant to go towards the needs of the family as a whole, and that does not mean that they suffer financially.
The noble Lord drew attention to the comments from the Personal Social Services Council on the DHSS document The Way Forward which followed our earlier consultative document on Health and Personal Social Service priorities in suggesting how targets in various fields of service provision might be met. I think the comments in question probably came from the Committee's secretariat rather than from the Council itself, and they cast doubt on whether the targets in The Way Forward—targets for the elderly as well as for other groups—could in fact be achieved within the public expenditure forecast. I think this is the point which the noble Lord was raising. I recognise that details of this are complex.
My Department has considered the comments of the Council's secretariat carefully, and we are sure that on a number

117
of points they rest on a misunderstanding. But no one can be complacent about the difficulties of achieving targets in the provision of health and personal social services for the elderly or other groups. We have never concealed the fact that great efforts and a considerable amount of careful planning and management will be required, but we are not shaken in our belief that in national terms the targets we have suggested are achievable. We think they are and that is the only answer I can give to the noble Lord.
I was interested in what the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, had to say about the divorce situation. It is serious. This is a field that I know very well. It is very difficult to know what Governments can do about this. I suppose that Parliament in its wisdom or stupidity—at times I do not know which—tries to reflect in some measure the views of the people at large. Consequently, there is no denying that the divorce law made divorce easier. But you have to measure it against (shall I say?) the unhappiness of two people who are forced, for one reason or another, to go on living together, particularly when there are children.
I do not know—or, having spent some years as a professional social worker, perhaps I do know—that it is less of a hell when the parties are not living together than when they are living together. It is all very well for people to say that children are resiliant and they can put up with anything. This is just not true. I am not defending the Divorce Act; I am not saying that divorce is a desirable social thing. I am saying that one has to realise that there can be greater hells if two people go on living together when in point of fact they would be better off apart. One does not always realise the misery behind the figures and I am grateful to the noble Marquess for bringing this out. It is not just 160,000 divorces. It means a great deal of misery, very often affecting two or three times that number.
I am not sure that an inquiry into the working of the Divorce Act is going to serve any useful purpose. I do not think it will. I do not think that one can go back on it. You cannot prevent society from having divorce. As the noble Marquess said, I think it puts a responsibility upon everybody in the community to come to the rescue and help in a
118
variety of ways. We have got to start thinking in our schools, not just of planning for parenthood but of planning for marriage. We have to get across what marriage is. We have to talk quite frankly in our schools about the various relationships within marriage. As we all know, there are other relationships apart from the sexual one, and we have to talk about the importance, particularly when the marriage becomes a parenthood relationship of the responsibility to a child and children. I think we have been bad about this in our schools. We have done a lot of preventive work in talking about how to cope with marriages that go wrong. Probably one of the most important relationships in life is that of marriage, and it is the only thing you do not have to be trained for. It seems to me that this is something that perhaps we ought to be looking at.
In the last analysis I suppose it means that education is the answer, and anyone who is connected with local authority education ought to be asking the local authority what they are doing in their schools. There are lots of very competent people in the community who have been selected and trained to do this very work, who are willing to do it if only they could get on the inside. It is not easy to get on the inside of our schools.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, mentioned a number of matters, and while I am not suggesting that she meant what I am about to say I want to use something as an example. She talked about bad housing and divorce. We are very apt to offer social evils as a cause of the breakdown of marriage and the breakdown of the family. If noble Lords took the trouble to have long conversations with professional social workers they would see that very often the complaint, "I am inadequately housed" or, "This is happening to me", is a symptom of a breakdown in a relationship and not the cause. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will know of the enormous efforts which some social workers have made, successfully, to get a couple rehoused, only to find that they are still trying to cut each other's throat. Do not always let us feel that the social problem is the cause; it is often a symptom but we have to look very much deeper.

119
I was interested in the point raised by Lady Faithfull about the monitoring circular on the under-fives. As she knows, local authorities are independent of central government, and obviously we cannot force authorities to make changes through some mechanistic procedure and against their better judgment. This is always the difficulty of the central and local government relationship. Apart from that, quite a number of the improvements suggested in the joint circular are improvements in quality and attitude which it would be difficult to monitor precisely. We must recognise, as the joint circular does, that local authorities have limited resources at the present time. We shall be watching progress on the subjects of the circular. Some of the personal social services matters will be covered in my Department's newly instituted series of planning exchanges with individual social service authorities. I cannot go beyond that now, because of the time, other than to say that we are alive to the matter and will want to do something to try to monitor the problems as best we can without causing any difficulties.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], then referred to housing and asked when the Government would be issuing a White Paper on housing policy. As the House may be aware, the Government issued last year a major consultative document on housing policy and the responses to that are being, and will continue to be, very carefully considered. There has been quite a response, and of course consideration takes time. The issues involved are very important, and I cannot at the moment give a specific time for the publication of the White Paper, though the House can be absolutely certain that the Government will follow up the Green Paper as soon as they appropriately can.
It was suggested that new legislation should be subject to scrutiny in its effect on the family and that that might result in the production of a family impact statement accompanying each Bill. If I say I found that an interesting suggestion, I hope that will not be taken as damning it with faint praise; indeed, the suggestion has already been made elsewhere. One needs to avoid complicating still further the process of legislation, unless one is absolutely certain that changes would give
120
practical benefit. As I say, we should not dismiss this suggestion out of hand.
Then we had the suggestion—it was made several times—that there should be some form of family council to advise Ministers on the impact of various policies on the family. It has not been altogether clear whether noble Lords who made that suggestion had in mind a membership comprised entirely of representatives of voluntary organisations or whether a wide range of other expertise—educational, legal, medical, fiscal and so on—would be needed. There may be a risk that such a council would have to cover such a wide range of interests that it would be so large and unwieldy an organisation that it would have difficulty in proving effective, and of course in these circumstances what we want is speedy action.
It is at least possible that more effective co-ordination of Government policies could be achieved through the existing machinery for inter-Departmental cooperation. Again, this is something we will not dismiss out of hand, but we must see that whatever organisation were set up is wieldy and that it would be possible for it to operate. It may be that in the last analysis something inter-Departmental with a revised function might meet the point.
In view of the time I have spoken and the lateness of the hour, I do not think I should continue. This has been a worthwhile and useful debate. I shall, as usual, read in tomorrow's Hansard all that has been said, and if I can pick up any other points I shall certainly do so. I am grateful to all who have taken part.
8.26 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I wish at the outset to thank all who have taken part in this debate. Perhaps I should say to the right reverend Prelate— I thought he chided me rather gently about my having tabled this Motion—that I am sure he would agree with me (a little earlier I was talking about prayer and my Catholic gathering) when I said that prayer was not used enough to say, "Thank you". We are always calling on the Almighty to do things for us, but how often do we say, "Thank you" when they are done? Today I managed to get a taxi in order to get to a religious

121
luncheon, so the Almighty obviously approved of my arriving there, whereas He makes me walk on other occasions.
I regarded this debate and Motion as a little "Thank you" to the Government. If we look at our Minutes of Proceedings we find a whole series of matters calling on the Government to do this, that and the next thing. We should remember that Governments are not separate from you and me; they are you and me. I recall once telling a large gathering who were calling on the Government to do all sorts of things, "The Government would like to do all those things, but you must find the money", whereupon about half of the resolutions were immediately withdrawn; that is, when they realised that the Government were not a figure on high who could wave a band and produce all the necessary money. I therefore thought there was a slight inconsistency in the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Young; on the one hand, she said we were not giving generous enough 'allowances and so on, and, on the other hand, she said taxation was too high. As I understand it, unless you put something into the pool you do not have anything to draw out.
I am always a little stunned by the fact that so many noble Lords still equate education for the under-fives with mothers working. I would say, as an ex-teacher, that it has nothing to do with mothers working; it is the social effect on the child—that is what I am concerned with—but unfortunately it has become to be correlated in the wrong way. If mothers have to work, that is one thing; but even if mothers are sitting at home doing nothing —which is not the lot of many mothers—then one must consider the social effect for the under-fives.
To those who appear to blame the Government for the divorce rate, I must repeat that if we are not, as a Government, to get the credit for the Homeless Persons Act, there is no reason why the Government should be held responsible for the divorce rate. It must be remembered that that measure started, like the abortion legislation and other measures, as a Private Member's Bill. Personally, I got heartily sick of hearing them all because we seemed to go through them each about four times. However, it was the tenacity of the private individuals who set things going and demonstrated their initiative in the matter.
122
It is Governments who, apparently, are having to bear the responsibility. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I almost changed the habit of a lifetime and was not going to withdraw the Motion, because I thought that we might have a nice pile of documents showing what the Government have done in support of the family. He seemed rather unconvinced.
Several noble Lords raised the question of closer co-operation between parents and teachers, and here I want to put in a little "plug" for religious education. I am chairman of governors of a religious school. We do have parent-teacher cooperation. We do have the parents brought into the school. We do have instruction on marriage, not purely sex education. So I feel either hat I am lucky in the school of which I am chairman of governors, or that we have a model which we can hand on to some others. But in either case I am going to get my little "plug" in, for which I am sure the Government will forgive me. My Lords, the hour is late, and we have another very important debate to come. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PERINATAL MORTALITY AND MORBIDITY
8.30 p.m.
Lord PARRY Lord PARRY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will publicise the connection, now medically provable, between perinatal mortality and perinatal morbidity and their close association with mental and physical handicap. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a tradition, it is an axiom, of politics, that one should never apologise, nor should one ever explain. Perhaps because I hope for an apolitical, rather than a political, debate, I apologise for the complex wording of the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. During the next 20 minutes I hope to explain both the wording of the Question and the need—almost a compulsive need—that I felt to bring this question before your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I should begin by asking an altogether simpler question. My Lords, do you know a handicapped child? Do you know the parents of tat child?

123
You probably do. The medical journal the Lancet featured in 1977 the problem of child handicap. It reported that there were 33,000 "very severely handicapped" children in Britain. It went further than that: there were 100,000 others who were "moderately severely handicapped". The two facts add up to 133,000 blighted lives. They embody heartbreak, difficulty, strain, for almost twice as many parents. They disguise as statistics the agonies of frustration, hopelessness, confusion and pain suffered by thousands among the handicapped.
Parents of most babies damaged in the womb, or immediately after birth, have no idea how the damage came about. Only now is medical science confident enough to analyse and to isolate the causes. Only now is it able to alert potential parents and the public to the dangers to the health of a new generation. We now know that we can avoid injury to thousands of babies. Doctors and their associates can tell us how. There is a traditional excuse for society:
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".
If we reject the warnings that we are being given by the medical profession, we will not be able to cite that excuse, nor will society have any excuse in the years that lie ahead.
I should like you to listen, my Lords, to Professor Paul Polani. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society. He is a director of the Spastics Society's Paediatric Research Unit at Guy's Hospital. This is what he says:
"It is clear that if all current knowledge were fully applied, at least 40 per cent. of cerebral palsy would be prevented".
What does that add up to in terms of children? Six spastic babies are born daily. Two, possibly three, of them could have been born free of handicap. So I ask again, my Lords: Do you know a handicapped child?
Britain has 1,500,000 physically handicapped people. Some people like to talk in terms of economics. The economics of the total cost of services for assistance and rehabilitation of disabled people —this featured briefly in the splendid debate that has just come to an end—was about £3,000 million in 1976–77. That figure includes mentally handicapped, but
124
excludes all those disabled retired pensioners who are not part of those statistics.
Your Lordships will not need any explanation of the aims of the Spastics Society, nor information about all that it has done since its formation in 1952. It has brought the needs of those who have been handicapped by cerebral palsy not only to the attention of this nation, but to the attention of the world. Your Lordships will allow me, I am sure, to pay tribute here to the society, to the internationally respected work of its director, Mr.James Loring, and to his staff, both in London and in the Provinces. The Spastics Society's campaign "Save a baby from being born a spastic" is wholly positive. It is aimed at meeting all those individuals who want to see babies given a good start in living. The organisation is recruiting, publicising, educating, petitioning, and rallying people, so as to focus attention upon the proven facts.
Last Sunday week there was a rally in Trafalgar Square. Following it, a group of spastics in wheelchairs visited 10 Downing Street. Earlier this week there was an interdenominational service at Llandaff Cathedral. It was conducted by the Dean, the Very Reverend A. R. Davies. He was assisted by the Very Reverend Father Edward Regan, V.F., and the Reverend Dennis Banfield was with him. They were all conducting that service in the presence of the Lord Bishop of Monmouth, uniting the Church in Wales, the Roman Catholic Church, the Free Church Council—all solidly behind the Spastics Society's campaign.
On Friday, 28th April, a medical seminar was held at the Welsh National School of Medicine at the Heath Park, Cardiff, where, under the leadership of Professor Peter Gray, eminent paediatricians, gynaecologists, obstetricians, and psychologists endorsed the contention of Professor Paul Polani that at least 40 per cent. of cerebral palsy cases could be prevented. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales was present, and in a lunchtime speech he also endorsed the campaign. He said:
"I offer my wholehearted support. I believe absolutely in the value of well-conceived and well-directed research, and I make resources for it available as freely as I can; but your efforts will secure much extra endeavour which will surely bring its rewards".

125
My Lords, if the Treasury would be half as forthcoming, we would be away to a fine start.
Here I should thank the noble Baroness who will respond to the debate for the help and encouragement she has given me personally in presenting the debate before your Lordships, and for the fact that the Government have encouraged my presenting this Question. I also wish to thank all those who will take part in the debate, and who have studied the subject in order to do so. If the noble Baroness were not such a good headmistress, and I were not such a good boy, I would now be trying to see what she has written in order to respond to the questions I am to ask.
For all its wordiness, this Question really asks whether the Government will publicise the connection between spasticity and the events occurring immediately before, and after, the birth of a spastic child. Infant deaths have been decreasing steadily over the past 10 years. But mortality is only a part of the problem. In fact, last Friday, one of the eminent contributors at the Cardiff seminar described mortality as the "tip of the iceberg". Because almost all infant deaths are known and their causes, generally identifiable, they tend to disguise, rather than to reveal, what he called the "great bulk of the problem lying underneath". There were 655,503 births in England, Scotland and Wales in 1976; 6,338 babies were still-born, and 11,764 died during the perinatal period. French figures show that for every baby who dies during that time, 2·5 per cent are damaged.
I should have said earlier that morbidity is another part of the problem. Doctors use this word to describe the proportion of disease to health in the births range. A morbid condition is a diseased condition, and there is a connection, that can be proved, between infant mortality and infant morbidity. The doctors also call the period around the time of birth the "perinatal period", and they measure that period as beginning at the 28th week of pregnancy and continuing through the seven days after birth.
As I said, French figures show that for every baby who dies during the perinatal period, 2·5 per cent. are damaged. Such a percentage applied to the United Kingdom would suggest 29,415 damaged
126
babies. Not all of them would be handicapped because some injury will be minimal, and some damage will clear but all will have suffered risk. As an illustration of the factors that put babies at risk, Professor Brian Hibbard, who is currently carrying out the major investigation into the detection of spina-bifida, told the Cardiff seminar:
"Fifteen hundred babies need not have died if their mothers had given up smoking during pregnancy".
Applying the same arithmetic, your Lordships will already have worked out how many lived, marred unnecessarily in the womb.
There are three main forms of cerebral palsy. There is spasticity, there is athetosis and there is ataxia. Sufferers from all three types are commonly called by the general term "spastic". I have to give thanks here for the research and the briefing that many of us have received for this debate from Mrs. Mary Holland, who is administrative officer and researcher to Mr. Loring. She quickly would explain for your Lordships, as she did for me, that spasticity is characterised by disordered control of movement, muscle weakness and often disturbances of growth and development. Damage to the cortex of the brain appears to be the cause of the true spastic condition. It may affect both limbs of one side of the body, hemiplegia; both the lower limbs, paraplegia or all four limbs, diplegia and quadriplegia. Athetosis results when the basal ganglia of the brain are affected. The main feature of the athetoid spastic is the frequent involuntary movements which mask and interfere with the normal movements of the whole body. Ataxia results from injury to the cerebellum and is characterised by an unsteady gait and difficulty in balancing.
So we know, then, that all forms of cerebral palsy result from injury to, or a development of anomaly in, the brain. The cause of spasticity is a malfunction of that part of the brain controlling movement. The brain does not send out the appropriate signals which enable the limbs to do what their owner requires of them. After a while the nervous and muscular structures of the limbs themselves deteriorate. My Lords, I have neither the time nor the expertise to talk about specific hazards which have been identified, such as neonatal jaundice, the failing

127
placenta, prematurity, acquired cerebral palsies or infections, but for every 1,000 children two or three are spastics. They almost always suffer multiple handicaps. Nor are their handicaps always apparent at birth. Symptoms, although they are sometimes discernible during the first four or five days of life, usually develop later.
But, my Lords, I do have the time and the intention to return to the speech made by my right honourable friend Mr. John Morris at Cardiff on Friday. He then said:
"Many of you, having undertaken the somewhat daunting but highly rewarding exercise of reading the long Court Committee Report on the Child Health Services, Fit for the Future, will remember that a full chapter and some eleven recommendations were devoted to the unborn and newborn child. Not the least important of these is that further research is needed into the causes of handicapping conditions and into the regional and social class variations in perinatal mortality and perinatal morbidity".
It is to these socio-economic aspects that I would ask your Lordships to turn with me for a few moments. It is currently fashionable to "knock" Britain. I have no intention of doing that. We are all of us guilty, too, because we are all of us fairly comfortable, of assuming from time to time that the major social difficulties have been removed from the majority of people in Britain. I think that each statement is, alike, false. Britain's record of perinatal mortality does not compare so well with that of some other Western European nations that is true. This evening I was given a note on Spain. We tend to be a bit smug about some of our European neighbours. These figures are apparently from the Department of Health and Social Security on the state of the publichealth for the year 1976, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. The Spanish figure was only 13.8 for infant mortality England's was 16.3 It is a recent Spanish achievement, for in 1970 the figures were otherwise. Then, Spain had an infant mortality of 27.8, as compared with 17.9 for England and Wales. I do not intend to go into this in detail, although I would happily do that in answer to any question that anyone might wish to put to me.
But, my Lords, if our perinatal mortality does not compare quite so favourably as it once did with that of some of our West European neighbours, then there is also
128
cause for very grave concern about the wide variations which exist within Britain itself. These variations exemplify the disadvantages that arise from the socioeconomic differences among our population The British Births Survey in 1970 stated:
"There is nothing to contradict and everything to support the theory that social class differences are widening rather than diminishing".
We know that for ante-natal care to be effective it must begin as soon as pregancy is confirmed, and must continue on a regular basis. Statistics show that the woman who is late in booking is five times more likely to give birth to a dead baby than the woman who books early. And it is known that the late bookers and non-attenders are for the large part from the lower income groups. It has also been established that babies born into families of semi-skilled and unskilled workers— the fashion these days is to call them class IV or class V—are twice as likely to die (and that is not the fashion!) before the end of the first month of life as babies born to parents in the professional classes.
Maternal age is an important factor. Babies of very young mothers and babies of older mothers are at greatest risk. Again, the social differences show that women in social class V were considerably younger at the time of their first live birth than women in social class I; and I have a little note here which says, if any noble Lord is interested, that 20 to 29 seems to be the most advantageous age in the female population for child bearing. Low birth-weight, on the other hand, is the factor most closely related to mortality and to later morbidity. In 1974, 76 per cent. of first-day deaths and 58 per cent. of deaths within the first month of life occurred in low birthweight babies—babies weighing less than 2,500 grams; that is, the old-fashioned 5 lb. 8 oz. Low birthweight is not synonymous with either mortality or handicap—we do not wish to frighten anyone in this campaign—but babies of low birthweight are at highest risk. They are more easily damaged during delivery, and more readily succumb to infection Low birthweight carries an increased risk of cerebral palsy, epilepsy, autism, blindness, deafness and mental subnormality My Lords, 2,500 grams is the conventional threshold of low birthweight. The risks of death or handicap increase rapidly below this birthweight.
Again, the hazardous relationship of social class can be related to the distribution of low birthweight babies. I have statistics here, and I could go on giving the low birthweight by social class. For social groups I and II, the percentage of babies of 2,500 grams or less was 4·5; social group III, 5·6; social groups IV and V, 8·2; single, widowed and divorced mothers, et cetera, 9·5. There is an even more dramatic figure Percentages for 3,000 grams or less begin at 19, go to 23·7, to 27·3 and to the astonishing figure of 33·3.
Single mothers form an increasingly large part of the child-bearing population, and statistics show that babies born to single mothers are at very high risk of death or damage. The British Births Survey in 1970 showed that the perinatal mortality rate for babies born to mothers in social class I was 7·5 per cent.; for babies of mothers in social class V the rate rose to 27·6 per cent.; and for babies of single mothers it rose to the staggering proportion of 37·4 per cent. Mothers between 15 and 19 are at very great risk indeed, especially the single mother.
How do we ensure, then, that all women will receive high standards of ante-natal care? The National Health Service can work very well, and we are proud of it, even now but too often it does not work well for the very people who need it most The middle and upper classes—and I use these phrases as being handy, without any apology—are for the most part articulate and aware. They can express their health needs to professionals, and if these are not met they are able to demand to know why and to press regional authorities for better services. But for the lower income groups this is not the case. Historically, these groups are viewed by professionals as inarticulate, and indeed they view themselves as inarticulate They are less inclined to question authority and less inclined to ask for services.
The unwieldy bureaucracy of the National Health Service can be formidable. Unintelligible forms, long delays for appointments, lack of evening or weekend hours, impersonal treatment, lack of communication, non-availability of facilities for other children—all these act to dissuade the very woman who most needs to seek ante-natal care from seeking it
130
and, in fact, persuade her to stay at home Women today are increasingly pulled by conflicting commitments: more and more women work outside the home—financially, it may be necessary and socially it may be desirable. The health needs of these women are not met and it is imperative that the provision of health services be looked at in the context not of yesterday's woman or of tomorrows woman but today's woman.
Looking specifically at ante-natal services, there are some models which we may suggest: ante-natal clinics should be open on evenings and/or weekends. This is not a question of a great outlay of cash. It is simple common sense. Transport to and from rural areas must be readily available. I live in a rural area where many young women are imprisoned in their modern bungalows all day long because their husband has taken the car to work at the refinery, perhaps, 20 or 30 miles away Child minding facilities should be available at the clinic every effort should be made to ensure continuity of care to enable the women to build a close relationship with the persons responsible for her care during pregnancy and the birth of her child.
Ante-natal care is not only concerned with medical screening procedures. It can help the woman to establish sound health habits: to stop smoking, to improve diet, to get enough rest. But this kind of advice can be given only if a ling of communication is established. It may be that this can best be done by the community midwife—this has been the experience of some of our neighbouring countries—who can visit the woman in her home and who is willing and able to understand and discuss individual problems. It is known that many single, young women fail to attend ante-natal clinics because they feel frightened, ashamed and scared. This is tree of the single mother trying to disguise the fact that she is pregnant in the first three or four months of pregnancy.
The role of the community midwife is undervalued and under used. Between 1971 and 1975, the community midwifery staff in England was reduced from 5,501 to 3,220—a reduction of over 36 per cent. in four years. Yet both Sweden and Finland, whose perinatal mortality rates are better than Britain's, depend heavily on

131
midwifery ante-natal consultations. In Sweden, out of an average of 13·5 ante-natal consultations per woman, 9.5 are with midwives and four with doctors. In Finland, with an average of 14·5 consultations per woman, 11.8 are with midwives and 2·7 with doctors. There is no conflict here, with those doctors who do a massive job and faithfully discharge their duties but there is some conflict with the organisation of surgeries which make it impossible for women to get to them in time to be helped by them,
Education is the cornerstone of a healthy population. At an early age, children need to learn the basic facts of healthy living and they need to learn the reasons. They must learn to be responsible for their own bodies, to understand how it works—and how readily this debate runs from that debate on the family to which your Lordships have just listened!—and to know when and where to seek care and to speak out when they do not receive that care. I could go into regional variations in detail. I can quickly say that 2,762,000 people are fortunate enough to live in Wales. If the incidence is 2·5 per cent. of the population, the sad fact is that there could be 5,500 spastics born there next year. The Spastic Society records show a lesser figure, currently 1,200 but there are disguised cases of spasticity as well as open ones.
I have some figures about deaths for one-year-olds per 1,000 live births. For example, the lowest area is in Dyfed where there were 11·3 infant deaths and, again, in perinatal mortality, it was the lowest figure at 14·5. The highest, in West Glamorgan, gives cause for regionl and local concern there. Those figures were 16·3 for infant mortality and 23·1 for perinatal mortality. We must do more research into the causes of that regional variation. I am not going to go much further, except to say that in 1977 for perinatal mortality provisional rates the still-births and deaths under one week of age per 1,000 total births showed that the lowest areas in England were East Anglia at 13 and the North and West Midlands and the Mersey regions at 19. There are pages of figures that I could give.
Let me end by returning to the very responsible speech by a Minister of the
132
Government in Cardiff which I quoted earlier. The right honourable Mr. John Morris, the Secretary of State for Wales, said:
"There are, as we are only too well aware, many other handicapping conditions, some whose causes we do not even know. It must be our aim to press forward the frontiers of knowledge and understanding. But what distinguishes cerebral palsy from most other handicapping conditions of the young baby—and what lends such special importance to your efforts"—
the Spastics Society's—
"is the extent to which existing knowledge, properly applied, can prevent handicap and bring forth fine, healthy babies: and the conviction that if we work hard enough we shall gain new knowledge and so be able to ensure that more babies who might have been handicapped are saved".
My Lords, you have been very patient. I make no apology for the fact that I have run slightly over my time. We are talking about an under-privileged section of the population, those children who are not marred in the womb but they are marred by unfortunate accident or by ignorance. We are talking about the possibility of mounting a rescue operation, of phasing it properly. I am happy that in this debate the support comes from all sides of the House. I hope we shall be able to approach the Government (whatever the Government might be at any time) in the confidence that it is always possible to muster all-Party support in Britain for the priority of priorities: seeing that children that set out to be born good, strong and healthy, are not marred along the way because we place our priorities in the wrong direction.
8.57 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think that gratitude is more than usually due to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, for the Question which he is asking today because his Question is of such vital concern in so many ways. First, it is vital from what I deduce from the noble Lord's speech to the about 40,000 babies who either died or were damaged perinatally in 1976, the last year for which, I understand, figures are available. Doubtless, many of those children could not have been saved. Some of them will grow up to overcome the handicaps or will not be handicapped at all; but anything more which can be done to reduce those statistics which so often

133
represent sadness for the parents and tragedy for the child we simply have got to do.
Although infant mortality rates, as the noble Lord fairly said, have been falling steadily in this country, I think the noble Lord also said enough this evening to show that compared with some other countries we still have a very long way to go. I should like, also, to recognise the work which the Spastics Society is doing in order to draw public attention to this. One of the notable features of the care and education of the handicapped in this country is the work of the voluntary organizations. I think that it is particularly appropriate that the Spastics Society should be concerned especially with perinatal mortality and disease. Together with the other voluntary organisations, it is the Society's objective (which I know, finds support in this House) that, whenever possible the handicapped person should be cared for within the community. A Society which has that objective has the right to leave no stone unturned to try to reduce the number of children who may never have the opportunity of a life at home at all.
The noble Lord's Question is of vital concern also to the Government; because if I may confine what I am going to say to the last part of the noble Lord's Question only, clearly, if mental and physical handicap owing to damage before or soon after birth can be further reduced, so will the demand on the health, education and social services be lessened and more proportionately can be done for those who are going to have to suffer some handicap.
In the context of this debate, therefore, I should like to ask the Government some questions about the demands made upon these services at the present time. The first question is whether the noble Baroness who is to reply for the Government can tell us what is being done to meet the recommendations of the Court Report. This is not the occasion to embark on any detailed discussion of that report, and indeed your Lordships debated a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, just over a year ago. But, in their recommendations, Professor Court and his Committee were concerned specifically with handicapped children, and I should like to draw attention to three of the recommendations.
134
The first is the general one which runs through Chapter 8 of the report, to the effect that the ante-natal and maternity services must reach out to the people who will not reach out to those services. I realise that, over the years, a great deal has been done by the combined work of doctors, nurses, midwives and other professional workers to promote the health of unborn and new born babies; but the statistics of perinatal and infant mortality show a considerable discrepancy between different areas. One is driven to the conclusion, which was very much borne out by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Parry, that for some people in some places—those who are almost certainly most in need—the lines of communication between parents (sometimes a single parent) and the health and social services have to be strengthened still further.
I shall not select any particular recommendations of the report which would contribute to this objective because I think it is for the Government to say what they feel can be done in the present economic climate. But, although it is eight years ago, it is a sobering thought that in 1970 a study of families with cerebrally-palsied children was undertaken by Sheila Hewett in the Midlands and, out of the sample of families which she took, 40 per cent. had not known that their child was spastic until after the ago of two and 17 per cent. had never been told of their child's condition at all.
The second recommendation, which is not unique to the Court Report, is the need for better education for parents. Again, I realise that a great deal has been done in this respect but, if other countries as widely dispersed as Finland and Japan, Sweden and France, Canada and Switzerland can outstrip us in our attempt to reduce infant mortality, then clearly a great deal remains to be done in communicating with mothers whose babies may be in danger.
In this, I must say that I feel the schools have an important part to play. Although I have always very much supported the line which in recent years the Health Education Council has been taking in fostering discussion in schools about personal relationships, I am by no means convinced that within the programmes of

135
health education it is made clear enough to girls and boys what dangers can await a new-born child and to whom one might turn for advice and help. Imagine just for a moment, my Lords, having a group of pupils who may not be very good at expressing themselves and who may, not unnaturally, have a resistance to authority: surely it is crucial for such a group to be made aware that one day their own children are going to depend upon them and upon their ability, as parents, to seek help from the medical and social services.
This must involve far more than mere discussion in a classroom. It needs visits from and to people working in the relevant services. It needs the opportunity, at any rate for some pupils, to work with the handicapped—something which I think is always to be supported—and absolutely clear warnings of the causes and the dangers of possible damage to a child during and after pregnancy. I repeat that I think one further condition needs to be met: young people need to know who to turn to for help.
Your Lordships who know so much more about this subject than I do may remember that the Younghusband Report in 1970 emphasised the absence of a single agency to which parents could turn for advice. Although I realise that the structure of the Health Service has changed very much in the last eight years, I think there is enough evidence for us to suspect that people do not always know who to approach when they need advice, particularly when they have a handicapped child and when they feel diffident about making an approach at all.
What an imaginative idea has been the maternity book which, I understand from the briefing which has kindly been sent out by the Spastics Society, has been introduced in France, and the incentive payments to get mothers to attend ante-natal and referral centres. Although it occurs to me that these payments may miss out some of the particularly difficult cases of women who simply refuse to contact the medical services, this method of attracting people to the services and the information in the maternity book must have had their effect, because the fact is that the French mortality rate has dropped well below ours.
136
The third recommendation of the Court Report which I think is perhaps relevant is the need for the increase in the number of therapists working with handicapped children. Again, many of your Lordships will know better than I the value, for instance, of physiotherapy not only directly to the child but also to the parents, who can learn through physiotherapy or from the physiotherapists the possibilities for and limitations of their own child. I should like simply to ask the Government how far towards the target of 2,500 speech therapists set by the Quirk Report in 1972 we have reached and whether the numbers of physiotherapists, occupational therapists and remedial gymnasts working with children show a shortfall and, if so, what steps are being taken to remedy that.
I apologise for appearing, to have moved right away from the central Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Parry, but I do not think I have done so in reality. Because these three recommendations which I have selected will cost money and because many of the services for the handicapped which we all wish to see expanded need more money, we would perhaps agree that one way of finding that extra money is, to use the jargon, "to save it" by reducing the problem of handicap which starts before or immediately after birth.
With others of your Lordships speaking this evening, I have deliberately not embarked upon the central theme of the noble Lord's Question, namely the special need for obstetric and paediatric work in order to save life at birth. I must say, however, that I should just like to mention that I would very much support anything the Government can do to provide maternity units of a really viable size, with good follow-up facilities, as well as a continuing reappraisal of the research on the needs of different areas so that resources can always be brought to the areas of greatest need.
Finally, may I just ask for some information about the education of handicapped children? Since 1970, local education authorities have been responsible for the education of all handicapped children in Great Britain, and eight years ago many severely subnormal children were in long-stay hospitals, to some of which were attached hospital special schools. Many

137
of these schools had been given a low priority in hospital capital building programmes. Can the noble Baroness give me any information this evening about the progress which has been made in replacing or modernising hospital schools? To what extent has it been possible to remove severely subnormal children from longstay wards, and provide other facilities for them? I should be interested to know what is the total capital expenditure for special education, and what has been the increase in capital expenditure in real terms over the last three years.
I have little doubt that the answers to those questions will reveal that increased resources continue to be needed, and this provides another aspect of the same case in support of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Parry, today. I hope—indeed, I know—that the Government will take very seriously what is being said in the debate this evening, for upon the health of newly born children so much ultimately depends.
9.9 p.m.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, it is now 15 months since the Court Report, Fit for the Future, the Report of the Committee on Child Health Services, was published. Though we have had a mini-debate on it in this House, the report has never been debated in the other place, which has caused great disappointment to the many doctors who contributed their time and energies to it.
This report criticised child health care provisions generally, and stressed that better care of the mother, beginning as soon as pregnancy was confirmed, and certainly not later than the sixteenth week of pregnancy, and continuing for her and the baby until the fourth week of postnatal life, would reduce the risk of brain damage and the number of mentally handicapped children born, as well as reduce the number of those whose brain is damaged at or shortly after birth.
This claim has been borne out in other countries, too. In Sweden, for example, improved care during the perinatal period has resulted in a reduction both in infant deaths and in infant handicap. Six years ago, the French Government, too, instigated a series of perinatal programmes which have been most successful, resulting in a dramatic
138
reduction of babies born handicapped. Bearing in mind that caring for just one severely handicapped person from birth to the age of 65 can cost the community as much as £250,000, surely money spent on prevention makes sound economic sense, apart from the other factors involved.
We must have an effective programme of public health education, emphasising the responsibility of pregnant women to attend for periodic examinations and the need for them to follow the advice of their doctors Much more publicity needs to be given to the value of regularly attending ante-natal clinics. This is not always easy. Some people—those living in rural areas, for example, or those with other young children who cannot be left—may find it impossible to get to a clinic, and here the rôle of the community midwife is all-important.
It was rather worrying to read, in the Commons Hansard of 14th March this year, a statement from Mr. Roland Moyle, the Minister of State, that progressive cuts in the maternity services are now planned for the next five years. The latest available figures on the number of community midwives working in Britain show a reduction from 5,000 to 3,200 between 1971 and 1975—a reduction of over 36 per cent. in four years. Can the Minister give me more up-to-date figures?
Great strides have been made in this century in reducing the number of deaths of mothers and babies. In the decade from 1910 to 1920, about 100 children in every 1,000 live births died curing the first year of life, usually during the first few weeks. By 1976, that figure had been reduced to 14 per 1,000 live births. This is an impressive improvement, but it is still not possible to predict with complete accuracy the outcome of a pregnancy, or to prevent the occurrence of handicap. I only wish it was.
9.13 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I too, think that we owe special thanks to my noble friend Lord Parry for initiating this debate. Its subject is one of tremendous importance to us today and to the unborn children who can be saved from death and damage In the past—in what are often ludicrously referred to as "the good old days"—when families were

139
large, it was common expectation that some of the children might be sickly or might die in infancy. As a child myself, I remember an old lady who was always talking about the children she had lost. At the time I remember thinking that it was very careless of her.
The situation has changed, and with it the expectation of parents. Families are small; medicine has advanced; the parents of today expect their children to survive and to be healthy and well. So what can be done to meet that expectation and to improve our record so far as producing healthy children is concerned? I am going to concentrate on just one aspect of what we can do. It is quite simple. We can make sure that care is given to the mother in the months before she gives birth.
Recently, the Department of Health and Social Security published a booklet called Reducing the Risk. Safer Pregnancy and Childbirth. In it, the case is made for ante-natal care and it emphasises the relationship between the health and behaviour of the mother before the birth and the survival and health of her baby. It contains some startling facts. One of them has been quoted by my noble friend Lord Parry: that the perinatal death rate is nearly five times higher in the children of mothers who are late in "booking" than in those who are early. And why? One of the reasons is given five lines later, where it reads:
"Some women are simply unaware of the availability and importance of antenatal care"
That is where we could begin—by making sure that everyone understands the importance of getting ante-natal care, as the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, has just said.
If we want healthy children, then pregnant women need to be in contact with the health services, preferably in the first three months of their pregnancy. It is estimated that about 20 per cent. of women in Britain still fail to seek or are not actively offered relevant care in this period. Twenty per cent. is an appalling figure, of which we should be ashamed, because one of the very worrying aspects of our antenatal services is simply that a proportion of pregnant women do not attend a doctor or a clinic until their baby is nearly due. As a society, I think we should be asking
140
ourselves whether we can do something generally throughout the country to encourage pregnant women to seek contact with the health service.
I shall deal with the question of financial incentive in a moment, but first let us look at the possibility of creating the kind of atmosphere in which pregnant women would always be encouraged by everyone around them to go to a doctor or to a clinic. Health education campaigns are the obvious suggestion, and the Health Education Council will certainly reply that if they get the resources they will mount a campaign. Well, all right; if we believe in the prevention of handicap and disease, that is one area where we should be putting our money, but I think there is more to it than that.
The sort of campaign that is most effective, and possibly most inexpensive, does not depend solely on posters and newspaper advertisements. After all, consider the cigarette manufacturers. Their printed exhortations to kill yourself by smoking always carry—and in the context it almost seems to add to the inducement to smoke—the Government warning that it can damage your health No, the sort of campaign I should like to see is one which is much more persuasive. For example, "The Archers" is a radio programme that is renowned for putting across useful information, particularly for farmers. What I should like to see is a campaign which encouraged radio series like that, or local radio with its enormous listening figures, or television series such as "Crossroads" and "Coronation Street" to project situations where the pregnant girl is shown going to a doctor and taking his advice on how to produce a healthy baby. I know from my own experience—anyone involved in the business of communication knows—that there are many ways in which we could raise the general awareness of the importance of ante-natal care.
In saying this, I should like to join other noble Lords in acknowledging the magnificent work being done by the Spastics Society in publicising the situation as it affects the incidence of cerebral palsy. Evidence suggests that most expectant mothers do in fact want the best for their children, but there remains the percentage who do not come into contact with a doctor until their baby is nearly

141
due. I believe that we should be looking very carefully at why this is before we consider adopting a blanket solution, such as financial incentives—or penalties!—as has been suggested.
Ante-natal care involves attendance at a clinic or an early visit to a doctor so that certain medically important conditions can be identified. The clinic is also an important source of advice about behaviour—about control of weight and diet, the avoidance of cigarettes, alcohol and unprescribed drugs. Recently, research by Hilary Graham and Lorna McKee at York University, financed by the Health Education Council, has been conducted into problems in ante-natal care. The studies, based on interviews with mothers during pregnancy and six months after birth, have not yet been written up and completed, but preliminary findings permit some conclusions on the take-up of services. One of them is that under-utilisation of antenatal and child health services results from inadequacies in the services themselves.
Many of the inadequacies are apparent to most women who have used the antenatal services. My noble friend Lord Parry has referred to some of them. Clinics are often difficult to get to, and they are not held at hours which are convenient for working women or women with several children. There is often a long wait; there are no play facilities for children accompanying their mothers or places for other relatives to wait. One of the major criticisms of the ante-natal services, made at a Department of Health and Social Services Child Poverty Action Group Conference, on reaching the consumer in the ante-natal and child health services, concerned the lack of sensitivity on the part of the staff. Too many clinics treat an expectant mother as a component of a production line—urine testing here, blood pressure there—passing through the hands of a confusing mass of professionals who are hardly interested in the person at all.
There is the story of one expectant mother who lay on the examination couch in the clinic and when the doctor removed the blanket covering her large belly he found the word, "Hello" written across it. "What's this?", he said. "Well", she said, "that's the only part of my anatomy to which you address yourself
142
—you never look at my face". Unfortunately, not all women would discover such a witty way of pointing out their objection to being treated as an object in this way. So I think that the professionals and administrators in the Health Services should think carefully about the quality of care offered to women who attend clinics. If a neighbour tells you that you are not going to be particularly well-treated when you get to the clinic—if you are going to come away more confused and worried than when you went in—then there is not much point in making an effort to get there. Given the degree of inconvenience and insensitivity that exists, perhaps the surprising thing is that ante-natal clinics have as many customers as they do.
As we have already heard, some parts of the country have much lower rates of perinatal mortality than others. For example, on average from 1974 to 1976, in the figures to which my noble friend Lord Parry was referring, there was a variation from 12·6 deaths per 1,000 births in Oxford to 24.2 in Liverpool and 27·6 in Wolverhampton. In short, a baby born in Liverpool or Wolverhampton rather than Oxford was twice as likely to die at birth or in the first week of its life. That is a fact—an appalling fact.
There is no doubt that it would be possible, for example, to reduce the incidence of cerebral palsy very substantially if we were able to put into practice, in all maternity units, policies already in use in the best. Evidence in support of this view comes not only from Sweden but from changes in the incidence of handicap and in the development of vulnerable children who have been adequately treated in maternity and neonatal units in the best of our university teaching hospitals.
What I am saying is that we are able to provide the quality of care in some places, and one area of research which I think is worth encouraging would aim at determining whether it is possible to analyse the shortcomings and the possibilities in services at local level and to follow such subjects by demonstraticn projects designed explicitly to correct the unsatisfactory features. We have the knowledge to save more children from death and handicap; we need to find ways of applying that knowledge.

143
As the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, the services must reach out to those whom they seek to help. At the time when we are looking at quality of care, at the examples of good take-up of services and we are trying to learn from them, we should also be paying attention to the reasons why different groups of women do not come into contact with the services. For example, we must ask ourselves whether the introduction of an overall financial incentive would encourage those groups to seek ante-natal care.
There are the teenage mothers, the ones who do not even want to admit that they are pregnant and who need a totally different approach from the woman with so many children that she just cannot fit in a visit to a clinic and still fulfil her responsibilities to the rest of the family And what about the difficulties of immigrant groups, where women have different cultural patterns or do not understand enough English to benefit from a clinic visit? What about people who never want to approach anything that seems official, where people are in uniform? Again, there are those who are frightened by doctors and nurses, or simply too disorganised to be able to take up appointments. Is a financial incentive going to attract them?
The maternity grant at the moment is £25 paid on a husband or wife's National Insurance contribution; but many of our most vulnerable groups are women who do not qualify anyway. The figure paid in France is more than five times as much and it is paid in three instalments. The first third is forfeited if it is not claimed in the first three months after contact with the doctor or clinic. If we are going to introduce a maternity grant payable only to those who register early with a doctor, we have to be very sure that contact with the Health Service is more than just a brief and perhaps unsatisfactory encounter We have also to be sure that the financial incentive is not simply a penalty and that the already deprived are not made even more deprived. To be effective financial incentives will have to involve large sums of money, and there may be better ways of spending it. Skilful use of publicity, based on research into these target groups, is very important.
144
So, my Lords, to sum up briefly, I have suggested that steps be taken to raise the level of awareness of the importance of ante-natal care. I, too, am asking that services be examined in the light of the use that is made of them; that the DHSS should look into the reasons why in some places ante-natal services have a higher take-up rate and see whether there are lessons which can be learned and applied to other localities. Meanwhile, any health district which has not reason to feel proud of its record in perinatal mortality and morbidity should see if the women who remain untouched by its services could not be reached and helped if a conscious effort were made to look at the service from the woman's point of view. These steps alone could help to reduce the number of damaged babies, who often ultimately become helpless adults, we needlessly bring into our society as year succeeds year, at a cost in terms of human suffering and misery that is, and should be, unacceptable.
9.28 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, in asking his Unstarred Question the noble Lord, Lord Parry, has highlighted what is a very worrying and sad aspect of life today. The French estimate that for every baby who dies perinatally 2·5 babies survive who are perinatally damaged. It is estimated from these figures that over 29,000 babies were perinatally damaged in greater or lesser degree in England, Scotland and Wales in 1976. Some will not be permanently damaged. Taking this as an average over four years, in simple terms that means that in each four years the number of perinatally damaged babies born is roughly equivalent to the population of the City of York or the City of Oxford. Of course, this damage may clear up and can vary in its degree of severity. But, all the same, each year there is this substantial number of cases of perinatally damaged that must be cared for.
The doctors have been far from idle. After years of patient research it is now possible that 40 per cent. of the babies born with cerebral palsy, the commonest perinatal morbid condition, could be prevented from having it if it was possible for them to be reached by treatment in time. It is precisely here that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, deserves our gratitude for asking this Question tonight, because

145
no amount of medical knowledge can prevail without the active co-operation of expectant mothers, especially their cooperation in looking after themselves and their diet, which I understand to be of the utmost importance.
The National Council for One-Parent Families is, quite rightly, concerned in particular with teenage mothers. These young girls produce a very high rate of damaged or still-born babies. They themselves have been able to conceive, but their bodies have not yet reached the full maturity desirable for healthy motherhood. Very many of these young girls are unmarried. Statistics show that illegitimate babies are half as likely again to die within one year of birth as legitimate ones. In many cases the mothers will have had a recent injection against rubella a short time before conception and thus stand a greater risk of bearing a brain-damaged child. For quite obvious social reasons, these girls are less likely to attend a clinic for ante-natal care until later on in their pregnancies. They suffer an embarrassment that must first be overcome. The girl may be either afraid to tell her family or have no near relative to whom she can turn for help.
The problem, therefore, is to a great extent that of the unsupported mother. But not all of these unsupported mothers are unmarried. Would the noble Baroness who is to reply feel able to ask the Government to look again into the problems of the unsupported mother? It makes no difference whether she has been widowed or divorced during pregnancy, or whether she is unmarried. These mothers all have similar problems, and they are not all simply monetary ones.
There is the problem of non-attendance at clinics. Maybe an expectant mother already has young children whom she cannot leave during the day; or the unsupported or unmarried girl may not be able to afford time off from work to attend Perhaps evening clinics could be introduced to help all expectant mothers with problems of attending clinics during the day, when perhaps their husbands are at home to look after any other children there may be. I understand that family planning clinics are often held in the evenings. Perhaps some ante-natal clinics could take place at similar times.
146
It is an interesting but sad fact that babies born to unmarried mothers are twice as likely to die within one week of birth as babies born to mothers with husbands. Our partner in the EEC, France, has provided us with a particularly interesting example. They have drawn up a seven-point plan, of which two points are of immediate interest. The first is a maternity record book. The second is a substantial maternity grant. I think an especially good idea is the maternity book. It is the property of the mother. In it is recorded a full record of the pregnancy and its history. If the mother moves she takes this book with her, so that everything is known to the medical staff in the new district. There are special referral centres for any special problems. Not least it tells her what tests she should have and why she should have them. It also gives her a small amount of advice.
The second point is the maternity grant of three instalments paid over the nine months, conditional upon her regular attendance at ante-natal clinics, and for any special problems, at referral centres. These attendances at the ante-natal clinics have the effect of greatly reducing perinatal morbidity and mortality. In plain language it means fewer damaged babies. Quite apart from any humanitarian questions, which of course one cannot forget, it is estimated that it costs up to a quarter of a million pounds to look after a disabled person from 16 to 65. In terms of human suffering, we cannot measure it in money. Far better to prevent suffering than to alleviate it. Here we can offer the Government a chance actually to save money while helping others.
9.34 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, before I add my contribution may I, on behalf of Baroness Robson of Kiddington, offer her apologies for not being here tonight? She has sent me her contribution, which I shall try to weave into my own speech, if I may.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, for initiating this debate. As vice-chairman of the Council of Dr. Barnado's I am involved, through the Barnado organisation, in the care of handicapped children who cannot be

147
cared for full time in their own homes. Likewise, as an ex-director of social services, I know the anguish and constant toil which parents of handicapped children experience and, as chairman of the Adoption Resource Exchange, I know the number of handicapped children whose parents seek adoption for their children, feeling unable to cope themselves. Therefore, I see, as it were, the end product.
The human tragedy is beyond calculation. The cost in terms of finance is something which this country cannot, and indeed should not have to, afford. Prevention is surely less greedy as regards resources than long-term care and treatment I shall not quote the figures that other noble Lords have quoted, but perhaps the greatest tragedy of all—this has already been mentioned—is to think that of the cases of cerebral palsy 40 per cent. could have been prevented. I do not want to appear dramatic, particularly on a subject such as this, but we, as a society, should be shocked when we learn of a case of a battered baby by his or her parent. Moreover, we should be as equally shocked to think that, as a society, we have allowed that to happen to 40 per cent. of these children.
Other noble Lords have mentioned the differences and variations in local areas. Perhaps I may again quote some figures. In 1975—these are the latest figures available—the perinatal mortality rate, that is, still-births and deaths under one week of age, per 1,000 total births varied, as has already been said, from 15·.6 in the Oxford Area Health Authority to 22·1 in Merseyside and 33 in Wolverhampton I am not a doctor and I think that I am right in saying that no doctor is taking part in the debate. However, we have of course, a doctor in the House.
Lord STONE: My Lords, yes, and I am listening avidly.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, the doctor may be able to correct me if I am wrong. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, telephoned me to say that, according to the report of the Working Party on Infants and Perinatal Mortality, at least 1,000 surviving babies
148
are born severely mentally impaired each year whose condition might have been prevented by the full application of modern technology. She has also written and wishes me to quote the following statement from Professor Curzen of the Westminster Medical School and Queen Mary's, Roehampton. He writes:
"The relationship between perinatal morbidity and subsequent impairment of physical and mental development has been scientifically established. It has shown that pre-term and light-for-date babies remained disadvantaged into childhood on account of reduced physical and intellectual development. Many of the causes of premature labour such as hypertension are amenable to treatment in pregnancy and, moreover, premature labour can often be inhibited by drugs. The light-for-date baby is due to impaired placental function. Ninety per cent. of these babies could be correctly diagnosed at the beginning of the third months of pregnancy by the use of diagnostic ultrasound".
I should like to ask the Minister, if I may, about the present allocation of resources and priorities. In the document issued two years ago by the Department of Health and Social Security and entitled Priorities in the Health and Social Services, and in the document issued, I think, last year by that Department entitled The Way Ahead, priorities were given to the care of the elderly, the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill.
The cruel dilemma which faces the country is: where do we put our money? I find it hard to say this because we know that the geriatric and the mental health services require money but, if we must have priorities, and if we had put money in the maternity services, would that not have prevented us spending so much money later on? I recognise that the Government have a very difficult decision to make on the question of priorities. But we are asked—and I quote from my noble friend Lady Robson of Kiddington—
"to economise on the maternity services in order to spend money on the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped".
By doing this;
"We are perpetuating the situation. The reason we need more money in the maternity services is that there is a great shortage of radiological experts in ultrasound, and there is a great shortage of skilled people in the cyto-genetic units of this country".
Both my noble friend Lady Robson and I come from Oxford and we are proud that

149
Oxford has such a low rate. However, we must ask ourselves why.
At this stage, I must pay tribute, first, to the old Radcliffe Infirmary and certainly to the John Radcliffe Hospital, with its very good nurses and doctors and its very good back-up services, but particularly to the very great happiness that exists which relieves tension and makes for the happiness of the mothers. We feel sad and sorrowful that this does not apply in every part of the country. Given thought and planning, I am sure that it could. It is extremely sad and disastrous that these figures are not reduced, as they could be, given more resources and perhaps more thought.
I had several more points to make but they have already been made, so I should like to raise one other matter, to which reference has not been made—namely, the question of personal consultation during pregnancy. So often these days we have set up community clinics and community centres on a managerial basis. However, we are no longer visiting in the homes and giving personal consultations to those who are nervous, fearful and afraid. That runs throughout the whole of our public life. Policemen are no longer on the beat; I regret to say that social workers are not doing casework and visiting in the homes as much as they used to. There are some pregnant mothers who will never go to the clinic and who need to be followed up in their homes so that they can have a one-to-one relationship with a midwife who understands their problems.
I turn to the question of the health visitor and the midwife. Both these professions are outstanding, but in some areas there is only one health visitor to 17,000 people. Are we using our midwives as we should and are we helping them to visit the individual homes of those who most need such visits?
9.45 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Parry, for bringing to your Lordships' notice this evening the Question that mental and physical handicaps are associated with the causes of perinatal morbidity and perinatal mortality. I
150
should like to tell your Lordships that it is not only the Spastics Society who are concerned; it is many people throughout the country. But I hope that this debate will help to make even more people aware of a situation which, with public support and pressure, I hope will be improved.
If a baby dies within the first few days of birth there is great sadness and emptiness for the family for some time, and if a baby, through nobody's fault, is born handicapped that is tragic but acceptable in the terms that everything had been done that could be. But, my Lords, if a baby lives and becomes mentally or physically handicapped through lack of skill or attention, that must be by far the worst situation for a family to live with. When a mother or father has to look at a twisting, dribbling child struggling with life and compares it with a lovely, healthy baby, and the cause could have been avoided, that situation is surely the most difficult to accept.
This Question is ideally placed as an extension of the previous debate,
"To call attention to the steps taken by the Government in support of the family".
A handicapped child can mean a handicapped family. I hope, when the Minister sums up today, she will tell us that the Government are very concerned about our bad record of perinatal mortality and perinatal morbidity, and our handicapped children who are born disabled unnecessarily, and that they are going to do something about it.
Perhaps we can take some lessons from the French. The incentives given during pregnancy to French mothers, which seem highly effective, must be worth exploring; at least so say all of us in this debate apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, but I am sure that she will agree with us, also. In a country like ours, which is becoming a geriatric problem, are not our healthy babies the best investment we have?
I quote from a newsletter I have received from Huddersfield.
"Could it be the reason for the heavy incidence of disabled children among the poorer classes that babies are being horn in such inadequately equipped conditions? Can it be allowed that penny-pinching at the scene of birth can be

151
adding to the tragic numbers of handicapped persons? This is something that needs investigating now. I would hope as many of our members as possible write to their MPs requesting that some very searching questions be asked in Westminster".
I am a member of a community health council, and our children's group are looking into this matter with great concern. In 1976 in the Yorkshire region there were 644 infant deaths. It is difficult to find out how many of these could have been avoided. I hope that every community health council will study and get published the figures of infant and perinatal mortality rates and will also study the incidence of handicap in their districts.
Research tells us—and the noble Lord, Lord Parry, has already said—that seven babies out of every 1,000 born to women in what is medically termed Social Class I died But for women in Social Class 5, 27 babies died in every 1,000 The perinatal mortality rate rose to 37.4 deaths per 1,000 births to single mothers. In the deprived areas of Northern Ireland the problems are even worse. There are many different reasons for these differences, such as education, diet, violence, and so forth. But one of the prime reasons for the lower death rate in Social Class I, I think, is that the women select their own gynaecologist. They generally choose one through recommendation from their friends. If they do not like and trust their doctor they can go to another one. They are free to do this because they pay for his services.
Confidence in one's gynaecologist is most important, and if there are complications, continuity is vital. So often it is lack of personal continuity of medical treatment and the fact that the National Health Service patient has to take pot luck as to who she gets which causes numerous problems. In some health districts this is not so. The National Health Service is excellent, but I am afraid that the service is not the same throughout the country.
In the last two months, I have received many letters from worried midwives over the proposed Briggs legislation. These dedicated people feel that there might be a lowering of standards. Many midwives are worried about changes. Perhaps this
152
is lack of confidence in the National Health Service and, because of the complicated channels and tiers of administration and committees, information gets lost on its way to the vital workers who are the people dealing with patients. The status and training of midwives varies throughout the Member States of the EEC. I hope that the Government will look very carefully into this serious problem and that the highest standards will be promoted and second best will not be made a compromise in this situation of training midwives.
In recent years, much has been said about sex education in schools, but would it not be a splendid idea to spend at least as much energy on education for motherhood and the importance of bringing happy, healthy babies into the world? It is encouraging to find an increase of research units working on so many problems relating to disability. It is necessary to find the cause of spina bifida, cot deaths and the perinatal problems. Your Lordships' House is full of experts from all sorts of professions. In a debate like this it would have been of great benefit to have a paediatrician speaking, but, unfortunately this is one important speciality which your Lordships' House does not include.
Our local hospital and the little maternity home which are situated about a mile apart are divided by a railway line with two level crossing gates. If a caesarian operation has to be performed the patient in labour has to be bundled into an ambulance and transported across to the hospital, where the operating theatre and blood supplies are. If the gates are closed, the emergency has to wait until the trains shunt backwards and forwards. There must be many outdated hospitals such as this in our country. The facilities for maternity services must be of the highest standards. I think many local hospitals want to hold on to their own little homely kingdom, and local support for this can be very strong. I hope that the Government will take a positive stand and will sell the need for maternity units which are all fully equipped and up to date.
9.55 p.m.
Baroness DARCY DE KNAYTH: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord,

153
Lord Parry, for bringing this important subject before your Lordships' House. I hope very much that the Government will publicise the link between mortality and morbidity in the perinatal period and the link between this and mental and physical handicap and that, as a result, a programme to improve the pre- and post-natal services will be initiated.
We have heard today much of the examples of France and Sweden and of the remarkable reduction in handicapped births that has resulted. A programme such as that followed in France would of course be expensive, but not compared with the cost of caring for the handicapped person for a lifetime. I shall concentrate on this aspect, which has already been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and try to see just how costly and far-reaching in both human and financial terms the effect of handicap can be.
As my noble friends Lady Loudoun and Lady Kinloss have said, the estimated cost of keeping a handicapped person in care from birth to the age of 65 can be £250,000, and I stress that that is at today's prices. Of course it costs far less where it is possible to keep the handicapped person at home, but it is still expensive. For the State it is expensive in terms of aid, equipment, adaptations, attendance allowance and mobility allowance. For the family, whose costs are not fully offset by those benefits, there are also abnormally high clothing expenses because clothes wear out faster if one uses crutches, calipers or a wheelchair. Even if one's child is so severely handicapped as to be immobile one still must buy dearer clothes because cheap clothes have hard seams which create pressure sores; nylon makes a child sweat more than does the more expensive cotton; and there can be very large laundry bills where incontinence is involved.
A Bristol survey of 103 mothers of mentally or physically handicapped children showed that 43 per cent. said that their children were either singly or doubly incontinent which added greatly to the cost of extra washing, and 37 per cent. of those mothers with incontinent children received no financial help at all.
154
There are also the problems of knowing where to go, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, mentioned. In a 1976 study of 255 families with disabled children, the mothers were asked if they knew who to approach for financial help and 30 per cent. of those mothers said they had no idea whom to approach.
Adaptations to the home are often necessary and of 123 families who made modifications to their housing because of their handicapped children, 75 per cent. had completely financed those adaptations themselves, and nearly one-third of those who paid for their own adaptations said they were in financial difficulty because of that. To give some idea of the costs of installations— these prices are for May 1977—the cost of installing a ramp was between £120 and £140 and the cost of an additional bathroom was between £1,800 and £2,400.
What happens to the handicapped child who has been able to live at home but is so severely mentally or physically handicapped that when he grows up he is as an adult unable to cope on his own? If he outlives his parents, he too will have to go into care, which can be a traumatic experience for somebody who has been able to live at home all his life, and the fear of this can create an added strain for the parents and the handicapped person alike. Technology has done much to increase the independence and improve the quality of life for many disabled people. Again, however, it is expensive, and of course there is much brain damage for which, sadly, no technology can compensate.
What of the costs of the handicapped in human terms? Alf Morris coined the expression" the disabled family", and my noble friend on the "mobile bench" beside me has already said today that when one member of a family is disabled the whole family in fact becomes handicapped. In socially and economically deprived families where the: incidence of handicap is high the strain is enormous. If the handicapped child has a disruptive influence, the other children may suffer, and one brave mother in a magazine article recently admitted that she came literally to hate her handicapped child because of the effect it had on the other members of the family.

155
The middle class and upper middle class family suffers too, but for different reasons; there is more feeling of guilt and social embarrassment. This can create a vicious circle; for example, if a child has a speech defect, its emotional condition greatly affects its speech and if the family's anxiety and embarrassment is communicated to the child, his speech in consequence deteriorates and this creates further embarrassment for the family, and so it goes on and on.
What of the handicapped child himself? Cerebral palsy is one of the gravest handicaps from the social point of view. Spastics speak of feeling rejected, not only by society, but also by people of other disabilities. I have a friend who is relatively mildly handicapped by cerebral palsy. She has problems with coordination and, through hard work, what is only a mild speech defect. She has no mental handicap; in fact, she has a very good brain. To illustrate this point I should say that she went to a special school until the age of 15, where there were few facilities and very little was expected of her. Her only saving grace was the travelling library, which she read through avidly, and at 15 she persuaded her family to send her to a normal school. When she arrived she was bottom in everything, except English—thanks to the travelling library—and a year later she was top in all subjects except maths. She subsequently trained as a shorthandtypist, but she encountered enormous prejudice, she said, when she was applying for jobs.
This is a very intelligent girl, with only a mild handicap. What must it be like for those who are more gravely physically handicapped, or who have a mental handicap? This girl says that she took 10 years to accept herself. So what chance had society of accepting her? She feels that very early counselling is essential for the parents and for the child, and that the latter should be taught self-respect at a very early age; but you have to acknowledge and to understand your disability before you can accept it, and only when you have accepted yourself will you be accepted by others.
Happily, much more is being done in this field than when this girl was growing
156
up. But we still have a long way to go in educating those directly involved and, I think, the community in general. As the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said, where possible it is preferable and cheaper to enable a handicapped person to live at home. We must give the disabled family all possible assistance with both education and counselling, and practical help to alleviate the strain. A consultant paediatrician who is very experienced in this field, says that there is great need for more community-based care and support. He sees the need for an increase in counselling services for children of pre-school age, and for an increase in assessment centres because early, and I would stress continuous, assessment and advice are vital in minimising the effects of handicap. More social service relief hostels are needed. These are very important and invaluable for providing a short-term stay. Such a hostel gives the family a break. It helps the family in that they can have a holiday with the other, non-disabled, children; or it may simply provide rest and relief from strain for a mother who has been staying up night after night with a child screaming with cerebral irritation.
I think it is important to have more provision of home helps to provide relief in the home. I would remind your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that reduction in demand also means better services for those who need them. Being able to leave the handicapped child for a brief, short-term stay may mean the difference between being able to keep him in the family and putting him into permanent care. So it is extremely important to have this. Some mothers feel reluctant to do this because they feel that if they make use of shortterm care it may lead to the child being taken permanently into care. I feel that more advice and reassurance is needed on this subject to make the mother realise that it is her right to be able to be away from the child for a time, as it is with any mother of any child. Thus, we may lessen the feelings of guilt and fear.
All this stress, unhappiness, and wear and tear on the family has, I believe, very far-reaching and, I suggest, ultimately very expensive effects. May I just briefly give your Lordships a few sets of figures?

157
I will not bore your Lordships for long, because I know the hour is very late. These are results from a 1976 survey of 255 families, all with severely mentally or physically handicapped children. Half the mothers reported that their own social activities were severely curtailed. Sixtythree per cent. reported that they had problems with their other children, particularly interference with homework when the handicapped child was around; problems with their own possessions; problems with entertaining their friends; and problems of jealousy. Forty-one per cent. had problems doing their housework. Only 14 per cent. of mothers of handicapped children were without symptoms of stress, compared with 39 per cent. of a sample of Bristol housewives.
In a 1967 study of behaviour problems among children with cerebral palsy by Maureen Oswin it was shown that the incidence of breakdowns and emotional stress among the parents of cerebral palsy children is high. Among 26 of the children whose families were studied, there were five cases of mental breakdown in one or other of the parents; five of the families could not manage their child at home; eight of the marriages were broken; and one child had no parents at all, being a foundling child.
I should like to ask one or two questions of the noble Baroness who is to reply for the Government—and I must say that I have not given her notice of these questions because they occurred to me only when I was thinking in detail over the week-end, but I would be very grateful if she would let me know the answers later. I wonder whether there are any figures for the percentage of nervous breakdowns of mothers of disabled families in relation to the national average. Similarly, the percentage of broken homes; and the percentage of children who are disturbed or delinquent who have a handicapped child in the family. Are these figures known; and, if not, should they not be discovered? Because they might give us a fuller picture of how wide the effects of handicap spread.
If they are higher than the national average, when the costs to the State in terms of hospital care for nervous breakdowns; of social security for the
158
abandoned parent who has to leave work to look after the family, the children; or of keeping other children in care because of the break-up of the marriage or because of disturbed or disruptive children—when these costs are added to the scales, the total cost of handicap might become much heavier than that of simply caring for the disabled people themselves. The effects may continue into the next generation. If the normal children of these homes are disturbed, how stable will their future families be? Surely, research into cause and prevention of handicap is of prime importance.
As a Roman Catholic, I think it is very relevant to emphasise that we are in no way advocating abortion. In the case of cerebral palsy, it cannot be detected before birth, anyway. We must identify mothers at risk and take all possible steps to minimise brain damage, or in many cases avert it altogether. The aim is to avoid impairment, not to prevent birth. A paediatrician on the radio at the weekend said that Britain's record in his field used to be good in relation to Europe, and that now we are not in the top ten. Are we to continue to lag behind? With research we can go some way to prevent other handicaps and perhaps to eliminate cerebral palsy altogether. That is an ambition for the future, but not, I think, an idle dream. But from the French and the Swedish example we know that it is within our power to prevent up to 40 per cent. of cerebral palsy births now. There are over 2,000 cerebral palsy births a year. That in effect means that annually 800 children are born handicapped unnecessarily. I would ask your Lordships: In both human and financial terms, can we afford to ignore the evidence before us?
10.8 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, it is perfectly clear from the reception that my noble friend Lord Parry has had that we wish to give him more than the simple courteous gratitude for asking this Question. Our gratitude is really very deep to him for his most powerful and moving speech, and for giving us this opportunity to look at this question. It is indeed right for noble Lords to press the Government to outstanding

159
effort on this most important matter—something potentially so tragic, and one with the greatest appeal to our deepest compassionate instincts. It has been a most important and moving debate. We all of us, I think, have our particular priorities on social and health questions, and, as a former board member of both paediatric and mental hospitals, this comes very high with me.
I must say that I am going to find it extremely difficult to answer all the questions which have been put to me tonight, but I should like to begin by saying that of course the Government have a great deal of positive thinking and positive action to report. I will try to answer the points which have been put to me as well as I can, of some of which noble Lords have been kind enough to give me notice in advance.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, if I may start with him, has given me notice of most of his points. I was glad that he mentioned the Court report. I have known and admired the work of Professor Court at Newcastle for many years. His report is far-reaching and, in my view, a most disturbing document. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's decisions on the report's recommendations last January and they have been sent out in a circular to health and local authorities for their guidance. Among other things, the circular specially asked them, through their joint consultative committees, to organise district handicap teams for the assessment and support of severely handicapped children and their families. I hope that this will meet some of the reaching-out points which were made, many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and many of the points that other noble Lords have made.
For the future, there will be further guidance to the authorities on prevention in the child health services, which is so important. We accept the need for a basic programme of health surveillance for all children from birth right through school age and onwards; and we are trying everything we know to encourage its development. Of course, as everybody knows, this is not very easy. On the
160
question of education it is quite easy to take a horse, or even a foal, to water but very difficult to make it drink Nevertheless, the Government are trying with all the effort they can bring to bear to get this across.
The noble Lord stressed the importance of professional training. In this, we very much agree with him and we are holding discussions with all the relevant nursing and medical bodies. So no one speaking for the Government would try to be complacent about this. We are improving all the time in the light of further knowledge. One of the things which concern me most is that noble Lords are undoubtedly right when they say that the rates of infant and perinatal mortality vary so widely in different parts of the country. The social and political implications of this are a particular worry for us on these Benches. We are all agreed, I think, on all sides of the House that at least part of the reason for this is a failure in communications and contact between parents or potential parents and the services available to them.
I am very hopeful that the follow-up to the recent conference that we had in reaching the consumer in the ante-natal and child health services will help tackle this problem. As noble Lords know, and as I was saying, education is always difficult, but our hope for a general programme is not just a pious hope. We have had close liaison between the health and education authorities for many years and the health visitors, of course, provide an important link between the services. We are continuing actively to give priority to health education.
I very much take the noble Lord's point about the necessity for a single agency. This is very difficult to arrange. There are all sorts of different people who can be approached: school nurses, health visitors, social workers, youth advisory clinics—and I particularly put faith in those—but there is a long way to go. I do not deny it for a moment. I would not want anybody to think that the Government are not aware of it.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the Quirk report. I can give a positive success story here. This recommended a figure of 2,500 speech therapists to be employed in the NHS within

161
20 years and, therefore, an increase in the number of training places at schools to 350 places by 1982—that is, per annum. Your Lordships will be glad to know that this figure has already been exceeded. Since 1972, when the report was published, the number of speech therapists employed has risen from about 800 whole-time equivalents to about 1,430. That is something hopeful. Of course, we realise that there are still widespread shortages and an ever-increasing demand. Officials are discussing with authorities means to increase the output of physiotherapy schools and are looking at the manpower requirements of those concerned with occupational therapy, both of which the noble Lord inquired about.
One or two noble Lords referred to special schools and the position in mental handicap hospitals. Of course, we place a very high priority on the replacement or modernisation of hospital special schools. Your Lordships know, I think, that the special education building programme unfortunately had to be severely curtailed in our time of economic distress, and I must honestly tell the noble Lord that there has been no growth in real terms over the last three years; but he will be glad to know that for 1978–79 roughly £11 million has been made available for all special school projects, of which about £1.5 million is for the replacement or improvement of hospital special schools.
Best of all, for me, the number of children under 15 in such hospitals has fallen by over one-third. This is really heartening, especially for those of us used to working in these hospitals. In the old days, one of the most distressing things that happened to me was visiting children in mental hospitals in one's ordinary clothes and being crowded round by the children, holding one's clothes and calling out "Mummy!" This is something which is really unbearable to go through, and I am so glad that the number of children in these hospitals is decreasing. It really is good to know that this is true.
In this connection, of course, I should like to say that we have taken special note of what the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, said about the difficulties of children who are at home. We know there are these difficulties and that there is a need for real help as well as advice. We hope there will be progress
162
in the future. Of course, there are still children in hospital for whom alternative forms of care are necessary and would be very much more appropriate. But my right honourable friend is reviewing, jointly with health and social services, the needs of these children and, above all, is setting dates from which no further inappropriate hospital admissions will take place. That is of vital importance.
Because I understand the general anxiety inside as well as outside your Lordships' House, I should like to outline something of what the Government's approach has been, although I know that many of your Lordships are aware of it, and what it will be. Noble Lords will know that we have already given substantial publicity to the connection between perinatal mortality and perinatal morbidity in various publications—just to name one or two: Everybody's Business in 1971 and, in much greater depth last year, Reducing the Risk, which I commend to your Lordships. We all accept that the medical background to the connection is that many factors are responsible for perinatal mortality and also for morbidity. I will not go into a list but there are such things as hypoxia (poor oxygen for the baby), birth trauma, congenital defects, and low birth weight, as my noble friend specifically mentioned.
As many noble Lords, and most movingly my noble friend, have said, medical findings are not the only connection. An area with a high perinatal mortality rate is also likely to have a high incidence of perinatal morbidity. In a most thoughtful speech, if I may say so, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], surveyed the whole question of community care and, in particular, midwives. She quoted what had been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. I think it was her suggestion that if mere money was spent on maternity services there would be a reduction of the number of handicapped children. But it is not just a matter of increasing funds for paternity services alone. It is not only the quality of health services provided but also, as we all know, environmental, social and nutritional factors which are equally important. That, again, has been brought out by my noble friend Lord Parry.
On the midwifery situation, I think it might be easier if perhaps we had a word

163
outside, because it really is very complicated. But we are very well aware of it, and a lot of the community services do in fact visit outside, and we can talk about that perhaps in more detail.
In connection with environmental and social factors being of such importance, I should particularly like to emphasise that the White Paper, Policy for Inner Cities, published by my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing, stresses that these programmes are specially designed with full recognition of the interrelationship between social conditions and health standards. That is most important, and should have far-reaching effects in these particularly deprived areas. I shall bring my noble friend's most interesting comments on rural areas to the particular attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Those of us who have been in this kind of work over the years have always perceived this inter-relationship, but there is now a general expert recognition of it and the Government are specifically directing their policies towards it. This is positive. Of course, this involves not only the professions but the voluntary organisations, about which we have quite rightly heard such a lot tonight. I echo everything that my noble friend has said about the Spastics Society and about other voluntary organisations, and we are doing everything we can to encourage them. I must say, on a personal note, that when I was doing this work myself, 15 or 20 years ago, I could have done with less praise and more money. But I must add that Government grants now add up to a very considerable sum, details of which I can, of course, send to noble Lords if they would like them.
It has nowadays become almost platitudinous, though it used not to be, to say that where maternal and child health are concerned the mother herself is all important. As my noble friend Lord Parry pointed out, her personal actions, such as when exactly she goes to ask for care, the use she makes of the health services for herself and her baby, even her smoking habits and, of course, the psychological approach of the very young mother, are all-important for the baby. That was echoed by my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis, the noble Lady, Lady
164
Kinloss, and others. The Government have made great efforts to stimulate discussion and action on these problems. We know that the women most in need are the very ones who are not always able to use the available facilities.
I should just like to refer to our pamphlet Reducing the Risk, because it is a really good pamphlet and is concerned entirely with safer pregnancy and childbirth, and with identifying ways in which the chance of perinatal mortality and morbidity and associated handicaps may be reduced. We know that it has already helped to focus attention on some of the main issues. Last month we organised a conference with the Child Poverty Action Group on these vital issues, particularly on how to reach women in need and to persuade them to attend clinics as early as possible. That, as we all know, is the really difficult problem. Some very useful ideas arose and we are now considering what best follow-up action there should be.
I will bring the special attention of the Department of Health to my noble friend's very thoughtful comments on the need for evening and weekend clinics. This is not always as easy as it looks, because if a mother goes to an evening clinic she often has to be referred, especially if she has special difficulties, to a day clinic where more sophisticated equipment is available. So it is not as easy as it looks, but the suggestion is undoubtedly valuable. My noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis referred to the fact that we need friendlier clinics. Yes, my Lords, we are very much aware of this, too, and we are doing all we can to help. I particularly liked his reference to child minding. I think that that is of special importance. We have an expert group actually looking into this matter at the moment.
My noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis asked me about cerebral palsy, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. We are going into this in depth all the time. We accept the tragedies that it causes to the patient and, above all, to the family, but we know that where mothers attend early and take advantage of the full facilities of obstetric neo-natal care the figures of handicaps are falling and, what is important, falling significantly. Officials

165
have had preliminary discussions with the voluntary organisations, and we are trying to co-ordinate still further effort. But I must stress that in this field nothing is simple and that specific targets, whether in years or in numbers, may not be the right approach. Nevertheless, we are taking it very seriously.
I completely accept noble Lords' concern with this and with comparisons with other countries, but in general international comparisons can be very misleading because of the difficulty of matching one country's methods of defining and collecting statistics with another's and because of the very wide range of cultural, environmental and other factors which contribute to the different results. For example, many noble Lords have rightly referred to the French programme which has caused tremendous interest everywhere. As it is rather late at night, may I explain our view in rather simple language, and shortly. Our rate of reduction of perinatal mortality has been consistently steady. The French had a commendably rapid fall between 1971 and 1974. The figures show that they have levelled off, and they are now of the same order as ours. However, we welcome knowledge from every source, and advice of every kind, and rejoice when any success is reported from any country.
At this hour of the night I shall not go too deeply into the question of the maternity book. It is a fascinating question. It does not in itself resolve the problem of non-attendance at clinics. Only about 10 per cent. of people did not take up the first examination, although they forfeited £40 by so doing. So it is not a complete answer. We are interested in it, however. We have a maternity co-operation card which a mother can carry with her, and many health authorities use it. We are prepared to learn about this from every country and every organisation where we can.
Perhaps the most important practical, as opposed to educational, development has been the Government's policy of concentrating births in well-equipped, consultant units of district general hospitals where the full range of obstetric and paediatric facilities is available. That is a point which the Spastics Society has rightly emphasized. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, gave a very clear descrip
166
tion of this. It is not a popular view to put forward, because inevitably it means closing down isolated, ill-equipped and under-used units. That is not popular. Sometimes we are reproached for a too great an economy approach in the National Health Service. However, this is a case where greater economy and improved services go hand in hand—that is, the overall standards of care for new-born babies and better prospects for babies who need special and immediate attention.
If I can very briefly turn to the community, the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, who I see has gone, raised the question of the falling number of community midwives. Again I could go into that question in detail, but as the noble Countess is not here perhaps I may do so when she is. Her figures do not reflect the true position, but I can explain to her later why that is so.
All noble Lords have mentioned the overwhelming importance of the question of screening during pregnancy. Our pamphlet, Reducing the Risk, recommended that there were strong arguments for giving women at risk of having babies with Down's Syndrome, which we used to call Mongolism, the opportunity of having amniocentesis, which simply means withdrawing some of the fluid surrounding the baby. Also, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, the Government have underlined their commitment to the introduction of a prenatal screening service for spina bifida and other neural tube defects as soon as its safety and effectiveness can be assured. This is most important and we have a Working Group under Sir Douglas Black looking into these problems, and your Lordships will be glad to know that their first meeting will be in a fortnight's time.
We have emphasised the importance of special care for certain new-born babies for a very long time, and we can claim that provision for their effective management has grown, particularly in recent years. No one attempts to minimise the problems that face us all, but the Department has taken the whole subject very responsibly and this is shown by its continued guidance to all the authorities concerned. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, covered an immense canvas and as she said that I could answer

167
her more detailed questions by correspondence, I will do so. It is also very clear from the debate that noble Lords are particularly concerned about research. At this hour I will not go into details of our research projects, but I would mention that we have agreed to finance the establishment of a national perinatal epidemiology unit at Oxford University, and that will look at some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton.
Over the years we have paid close attention to the connection between perinatal mortality and morbidity and their close association with mental and physical handicap, and I hope I have shown that we have taken great steps forward, not only in giving information to those most concerned. In this connection, I was most taken with the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis about using specific programmes on television, and I will bring that to the attention of my right honourable friend We have also made major efforts in encouraging health authorities to rationalise and improve their services for mothers and babies.
My Lords, we cannot be complacent; we must press on with our efforts, including research, and must by every means in our power effectively use the services which exist now and which we know can save life and prevent handicapped babies. No effort can possibly be too great, or perhaps even be considered adequate, when we relate it to the physical and mental anguish of families; but I know the House can be assured of our deep, active and continuing concern.

  BRITISH GAS CORPORATION EXPENDITURE
  BRITISH GAS CORPORATION EXPENDITURE
  LOW-LEVEL AIR CONTROL AND UNCLOS
  LOW-LEVEL AIR CONTROL AND UNCLOS
  TERRITORIAL SEAS: JURISDICTION
  TERRITORIAL SEAS: JURISDICTION
  UNITED KINGDOM TERRITORIAL SEA
  UNITED KINGDOM TERRITORIAL SEA
  BOOKS: EXPORT REVENUE
  BOOKS: EXPORT REVENUE
  THE ARTS: EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS
  THE ARTS: EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS