Sitting of 18 May 1978

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

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answers to the Addresses, as follows:
  I have received your Addresses, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Singapore) Order 1978 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Ghana) Order 1978 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.
  I have received your Address praying that on the ratification by the Hungarian People's Republic of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the draft Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Hungary) Order 1978, which draft was laid before your House, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.
  I will comply will your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  As amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Forestry
    Mr. Monroasked the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food what is the total acreage of land under silviculture in the United Kingdom.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): The total area of woodland in the United Kingdom is estimated at just over 5 million acres.
    Mr. Monro: Is the Minister aware that that is a small percentage in comparison with that of most European countries and that it is serious when regarded in the light of our known requirements in the future? What further encouragement can the Minister give to private woodland owners to plant small parcels of scrub and derelict land with trees, so as not to use up more good agricultural land for forestry?
    Mr. Strang: With particular respect to the hon. Member's concern about small areas of derelict land, I think that he will welcome the Government's introduction of the small woods scheme. Further, the increased rates of grant which came into operation last October should lead to some increase in private planting.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: Does the Minister appreciate that compared with countries of similar population and development, such as France and Germany, we have less than one-third of what they have in forestry? With a timber import bill now of over £2,000 million, surely something drastic must be done in relation to our forestry.
    Mr. Strang: Certainly we should like to see an increased acreage of forestry, but I think that the hon. Member will surely recognise that we have some very substantial areas of productive agricultural land which it would be quite inappropriate to plant with trees.
    Mr. Hardy: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the present Government are not pursuing the policy that was established

    751
    by the Conservative Government in 1972, which assumed that there was no economic future in forestry? Does he agree that the long-term interests of this country suggest that silviculture should be encouraged very strongly indeed?
    Mr. Strang: I agree with both of my hon. Friend's observations. In this connection, I know that he will welcome the long-term study which has been carried out by a group set up by the Forestry Commission and which is now being circulated as a consultative document for comments.
    Mr. Peyton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too defensive about this matter. He is not being attacked. But does he agree that for a nation such as ours to be content to produce less than 10 per cent. of its timber requirements is really very dangerous and quite unsatisfactory?
    Mr. Strang: I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for assuring me that neither he nor his colleagues are attacking me in any way. I certainly agree that we want to increase timber production. Indeed, leaving aside the planting programme, actual production ought to increase in the near future. But, of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that we still produce less than 10 per cent. of our total requirements of timber.
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the chairman of the Forestry Commission.
    Mr. Strang: Neither my right hon. Friend the Minister nor I have any plans at present to meet the chairman of the Forestry Commission.
    Mr. Costain: Will the Minister take the opportunity to read the recent report prepared by the Forestry Commission? Will he make it clear to the House what proposals in the report he intends to recommend to the Government? Does he want to keep the forestry industry as it is, or does he want to increase it by 1,000 hectares or 8,000 hectares? Will the Minister advise the House of the position?
    Mr. Strang: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to that
    752
    important report. He may be aware that the Forestry Commission is treating it as a consultative document and is inviting comments from all interested parties. It will then put the issue to Ministers.
    Mr. Jasper More: When the Minister meets the chairman of the Commission, will he discuss with him the Scotland Bill, in the light of the amendment made in another place to exclude forestry from the subjects to be devolved? Will he discuss with him shedding any political prejudices in the light of what will be in the best interests of Great Britain as a whole in future forestry policy?
    Mr. Strang: The Government have made clear that they will be giving careful consideration to all the amendments carried in another place.

    Fishing Industry (Statutory Bodies)
    Mr. Beithasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will set up a review of statutory and public bodies responsible for the regulation of the fishing industry and fishing grounds.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): A first round of consultation about the future of the White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board has been undertaken. The Expenditure Committee has recommended that the functions of Sea Fisheries Committees should be reviewed when the common fisheries policy has taken definite shape, and my right hon. Friend is considering the recommendation.
    Mr. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we may have to wait a long time for the common fisheries policy to take any logical shape and that there is a state of some confusion in the inshore fishing grounds? Is he aware that as well as his Department and the Scottish Office operating off the coast of my constituency there are three other public bodies, namely, the Sea Fisheries Committee, the Water Authority and the Tweed Commissioners; that all of them operate their own patrol vessels and all deal with the inshore section of waters? Is there not much scope for review even before a conclusion is reached on the common fisheries policy?
    Mr. Bishop: Knowing the hon. Gentleman's interest in the fisheries around his part of the coast, I think that he will be aware of the role of these authorities, especially the sea fisheries committees. Before knowing about the regulation and enforcement provisions of the revised CFP it would be premature to take any action. The revision of regulation and enforcement provisions is most important and must have priority, but I shall take the hon. Gentleman's comments into account.
    Mr. Watt: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the fishery protection service that comes under his jurisdiction and that of the Secretary of State for Defence is doing an adequate job of patrolling and ensuring that EEC boats are using nets with the right size of mesh?
    Mr. Bishop: I can repeat the assurance that has been given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and others about enforcement. At present we are satisfied. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is kept under review.
    Mr. Wall: If the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend went to Brussels and reached an agreement on the common fisheries policy which was later upset by a vote in this place, which agreement would remain valid, the Minister's or the decision reached by the House?
    Mr. Bishop: I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I told the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that we have to know what the policy is before we go into some of these aspects. I agree that the matter is urgent.

    Green Pound
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now propose a further devaluation of the green pound.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): No, Sir.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is it not vital for the safeguarding of the future of British agriculture that negotiations be speeded up to try to bring about an amelioration or an effective reduction in the monetary import subsidies? Does the right hon.
    754
    Gentleman agree that one of the most effective ways of promoting negotiations towards that end would be for the Government to propose a further devaluation of the green pound?
    Mr. Silkin: There are about three things wrong with the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. First, Governments do not propose green pound devaluations. I am not being pedantic. It is for the Commission to propose green pound devaluations. The Commissioner has said in the course of the very many days of recent meetings of the Council that only in the most exceptional circumstances would he propose green pound devaluations, apart from price fixings.
    Secondly, British agriculture, with the Budget concessions that Government after Government were asked to give for over 30 years and which the present Government have given—and bearing in mind the price negotiations and the 7½ per cent. devaluation—is in better shape to meet the challenges that it faces than it has been for many years.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Really?
    Mr. Silkin: The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) has knowledge of the weather. That does not come within my Department.
    Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend resist invitations endlessly to take steps to increase the price of food? Is it not the case that the 7½ per cent. green pound devaluation that was forced on the Government by the Conservative Opposition and other parties will be responsible for far more price increases than the price settlement that was recently negotiated? Is it not true that the Conservative Opposition's policy of abolishing the green pound could cost British families, on average, an extra £50 a year on their food bills?
    Mr. Silkin: As for price fixing, the 2·25 per cent. increase in average prices is the lowest since we joined the Community and represents an increase of one halfpenny in the pound on the retail food bill. The 7½ per cent. devaluation, even phased to protect the Community, worked out at a cost of about 1½p in the pound, about three times as much. The Opposition's most recent proposal was

    755
    that all MCAs should be equalised out. On the present wrong basis of accounting, that would lead to an increase of 10p in the pound.
    Mr. Peyton: Regardless of the partnership that the right hon. Gentleman may enjoy with his hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), does he accept that his hon. Friend is not the best spokesman on the Opposition's agricultural policy? Am I not right in thinking that the French pressed for and were quite readily granted a special concession on the devaluation of the green franc in respect of pigmeat? Why did the right hon. Gentleman not do the same here, knowing, as he does, the special difficulties of our pig industry and the pigmeat processors?
    Mr. Silkin: The French special concession followed the 7½ per cent. devaluation, especially for pigmeat, until August, that the United Kingdom was granted in January. I agree that part of its effect was deferred until after the price fixing. However, the concession to the French is more apparent than real. It involves the French having to catch up on every commodity within a given time—in other words, much what we did, but over a slightly longer period. Had we followed the French—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand me—we would have been committed to devaluing the green pound on every commodity up to whatever figure it might be, in 1979, not knowing what the circumstances might be at that time. That is what would have happened if we had followed the French. I do not think that that would have been a very good example to follow.

    Pigmeat Monetary Compensatory Amounts
    Mr. Waltersasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current level of pigmeat monetary compensation amounts.
    Mr. Newensasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest position adopted within the EEC towards his proposals for ensuring that the British pig industry does not continue to be subjected to unfair competition within the EEC.
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current state of negotiations with regard to the basis for the calculation of pigmeat monetary compensatory amounts.
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the progress being made towards a recalculation of pigmeat monetary compensatory amounts.
    Mr. John Silkin: The rate for bacon sides is now £256·30 per tonne. The change in the basis of calculation which I announced last week, which will be implemented once the Opinion of the European Assembly has been received, will cut the monetary compensatory amounts by a further 8 per cent. I have also secured an undertaking that the coefficients used for calculating MCAs on processed pigmeat will be reviewed in the coming months. This should mean further reductions.
    Mr. Walters: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the 16 per cent. MCA reductions still leave a £235-per-tonne competitive advantage to importers, which is £43 per tonne greater than in February? Given these figures, does he feel that he has achieved anything near the desperately needed and substantial drop required by United Kingdom producers and manufacturers?
    Mr. Silkin: If we are to consider these matters correctly, we shall have to review the position on Monday, when the new marketing year fully takes effect. On Monday, as the hon. Gentleman must be aware, the new marketing year comes in and all the effects will then have worked themselves through. I think that he will find that the position will be better. I had better not say by how much it will be better on Monday compared with the present position, as matters of speculation are involved. However, the position should be better than it is at present. I take the hon. Gentleman's general point that we have not succeeded in getting the full recalculation that we wished. In that respect I agree with him. The position will be helped by the promise to reassess the coefficients. In the first instance that will help the processors, or, as the hon. Gentleman called them, the manufacturers. I

    757
    think that that is right. As for the producers, the present price of pigmeat is firm. I hope that it will continue to be so for some time. However, I agree that we have a long way to go.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call first those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered.
    Mr. Newens: I applaud the efforts made by my right hon. Friend in this sphere, but is it not a fact that Danish farmers still enjoy a price advantage in the MCAs on bacon which is exported to this country? Does that not illustrate the totally unfair basis of the negotiations on the MCAs which still remain? Will he take note that there is considerable support among efficient pig farmers for any further action that he deems necessary on this issue?
    Mr. Silkin: I agree with everything said by my hon. Friend. This is a useful step in the direction of avoiding thoroughly distorted competition. I do not intend to let go of it. I was a little disappointed that the French and the Italians did not come all the way with me at the Council, but it does not matter. We are on the way, and I do not intend to let the matter go.
    Mr. Arnold: Why did the French and Italians suddenly reverse their earlier support for the Minister?
    Mr. Silkin: I am not qualified to speak for the French and the Italians, any more than my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) is qualified to speak for the Opposition. If I am asked why, I should say that it was because they have a slightly different problem from ours. Our problem is mainly concerned with Danish bacon. On the whole, very few Italians and Frenchmen eat bacon.
    Mr. Torney: In view of the disastrous effect that our entry into the Common Market has had not only on consumers, but on workers in the bacon curing industry, will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to copying the example of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and taking unilateral action in whichever way is best to protect
    758
    consumers, the industry and the jobs of workers in the industry?
    Mr. Silkin: I had not appreciated fully that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport took such an active interest in pigs, but if my hon. Friend tells me so, I shall certainly talk to him.
    My hon. Friend may recall that I took unilateral action last year. It had some effect, but not as great as I wanted. It is better—I think that my hon. Friend will agree—to get the whole basis of the pigmeat MCAs recalculated, and that I intend to keep on doing.
    Mr. Peyton: Will the Minister comment on those voices coming from Brussels which suggest that he failed to make common cause with the French and the Italians on the pigmeat MCAs and that he would have made a great deal more progress had he done so?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not know to what voices the right hon. Gentleman is referring. From the beginning to the end, I said that I required a minimum reduction—that was the Commissioner's original suggested proposal, but it never got to the table—of 15 percentage point. But when the French and the Italians decided to settle—after all, this is a package, and the Mediterranean is an important area for them, but not so important for us, except in payment, and they may have had their reasons—I insisted that the coefficients should be examined with a view to their being cut. If that is so, we can get exactly the same effect. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have not gone nearly far enough.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Whatever the Minister may say, we have to look at the track record of the Socialist Government on the pig industry, and the fact is that the industry is slowly dying. In fact, there has been less production and more people unemployed in the pig-meat industry. Will he redouble his efforts to ensure that the industry does not continue to die?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not think that pig producers are in a difficult position at the moment.
    Mr. Mills: They are.
    Mr. Silkin: They are not, because the price is firm at the moment. The pig cycle, which we are all aware exists in the pig industry from time to time, has been multiplied by our going into the Common Market. That has had an effect. The difficulty is that there is overproduction of pigs in Europe as a whole. The hon. Gentleman should know that. What I might have been able to do in other circumstances to protect our pig industry I am no longer able to do, and the hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.

    Carnations
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to assist carnation growers of the United Kingdom who are being forced out of business by the excessive importations of inferior products.
    Mr. Strang: Carnation imports have been much higher over the past winter than last year, but they were generally of a quality commanding a premium price. Our growers are already protected by a high tariff and are being helped to improve their efficiency, but bad weather has been holding back home supplies.
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to agree that imported carnations are superior to those grown in my constituency. Does he accept that the amount of land put under glass for carnations has decreased by nearly half over the past 10 years, that the returns to local growers have gone down by 4p per bloom this year, and that if it goes on like this—
    Mr. Jay: The EEC.
    Mr. Ross: Not the EEC. The situation is due to imports from Israel, Turkey and Columbia. Will the Minister deal with that problem? Will he also have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggest that he should take VAT off flowers?
    Mr. Strang: It is true that the increase is substantially accounted for by increased imports from Israel. It is also true—I hope that this will help to improve the situation—that from the beginning of next month there will be a significant increase in the tariff, because we are now coming into the summer season.
    Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that some carnations imported into Britain and on sale during the past week were priced at only four-sevenths of the break-even price of blooms produced in the Lea Valley? Is there not a strong argument for some action to be taken, at least during the main growing season from May to October, to protect our extremely good and efficient producers, who have much better conditions for their employees than prevail in some other countries?
    Mr. Strang: As I said, the higher tariff applies from June to October. I shall look into my hon. Friend's observations. My advice is that imports are commanding a higher price than home-produced carnations. I shall certainly pursue the point that he has made.
    Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister also consider the plight of the raspberry and soft fruit industry, which is faced with bulk subsidised East European—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We can go all round agriculture.

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the Council of Agriculture Ministers of the EEC.
    Mr. John Silkin: The Council will next meet on 19th and 20th June.
    Mr. Latham: Will the Minister discuss with his colleagues the level of FEOGA grants? Is it not necessary to get these useful grants reviewed, in view of the decision by the British Treasury that capital allowances in Britain should be reduced by an identical amount?
    Mr. Silkin: The question of FEOGA grants is almost certain to come up at the June meeting. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific point that he wants to make—it sounds to me as though he has—I shall be grateful if he will write to me about it.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: When my right hon. Friend meets his EEC counterparts, will he make clear to them his unalterable opposition to the importation of the sheepmeat regime in the EEC? Does he realise that if he does he will have the unqualified support of Mr. Muldoon, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who has

    761
    expressed grave misgivings about this matter? Does he also realise that most hon. Members would support his action in helping the British housewife and the New Zealander?
    Mr. Silkin: The sheepmeat regime is still, to my mind, rather premature. We have not yet got down to discussing it. My hon. Friend is right in saying that it appeared in the price negotiations, but it was not discussed. The real point is that, whether we have a regime or not, three essential factors must be maintained. First, we must protect New Zealand imports into this country—
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Silkin:—secondly we must safeguard the interests of our own producers. Thirdly, we must safeguard the interests of our consumers.
    We have a low-priced reasonably well paid sheepmeat trade in this country, and we are dependent on and look for many other reasons to New Zealand for those imports. Therefore, whether we have a regime or not, we must protect those three factors.
    Mr. Jopling: When the Minister next attends the meeting of the Council will he draw attention to the unprecendented confusion and uncertainty in the potato industry? Will he further draw attention to the fact that growers in this country, for the first time for a long time, have been planting potatoes having no idea of what the price will be? Very few contracts have been signed and, above all, there is no idea what is to be the future of the Potato Marketing Board. Will the Minister treat this as a matter of extreme urgency?
    Mr. Silkin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is a very difficult matter, especially for growers. We try to give what guidance we can, but the position is uncertain. The sooner we can settle the matter to the advantage of our potato industry, the better.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the matter of sheepmeat, it is vital to protect our interests and particularly the interests of ports such as Liverpool, which will be most badly affected by the drying up of the New Zealand trade? Ships would be put out of commission, dockers put out of work
    762
    and shipping workers of all kinds affected, apart from the effect on the imports of sheepmeat that we require.
    Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend is right. These are additional reasons, together with a natural kinship and affection for New Zealand and the interests of our own consumers, why we have to watch the matter, and I intend to do so.
    Mr. Wiggin: Although the Minister seems pleased with the results of the negotiations in Brussels last week, is it not a fact that the three products that received the largest amount of price increase, namely, beef, sugar and milk, are also the three products in greatest surplus in Europe? Will he say whether, at the next meeting of Ministers, the Government will produce constructive plans for reducing surpluses and for containing the structural difficulties without necessarily always reducing farmers' prices?
    Mr. Silkin: Milk, sugar and beef—in that order—are the commodities in greatest structural surplus in Europe, though the hon. Gentleman has forgotten cereals, perhaps intentionally. There was a very small increase in the price of cereals. If the hon. Gentleman considers the matter, he will realise that the increases in the support prices are not only very small but reflect a drop in real prices, to the extent that I have had some criticism from certain farming interests on the ground that I did not sufficiently increase the support prices. I believe that the House and the country were well satisfied with what is the lowest increase since we joined the Community.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he is making on the renegotiation of the Common Agricultural Policy.
    Mr. John Silkin: I refer my hon. Friend to my statement to the House on 12th May describing the outcome of the meetings of the Council of Ministers during last week.
    Mr. Jenkins: That was a widely welcomed statement. As the Minister said at the time, it marked an improvement in the CAP. He has just emphasised

    763
    that. Is it not still the case that the EEC prices for some of the commodities, to some of which he has referred, are several hundred per cent. above world prices? Therefore, with the growth of food mountains, not only on the Continent but in this country, we have passed beyond the stage at which there can be an improvement. Has not the time come for the Minister to denounce root and branch the whole idea of the common agricultural policy and prepare to get out?
    Mr. Silkin: The time has come—I have been working on this basis—so to change the CAP as to get away from the difficulties to which my hon. Friend has referred. Primary amongst these difficulties are the structural surpluses, which are a disgrace to the Community. One best tackles the problem at the price end. However, to expect one to be able to get an answer in one year, let alone in five weeks, is asking too much, even from my hon. Friend. Give us time and we shall do it.
    Mr. Welsh: As part of the Minister's renegotiation of the CAP, will he consider the plight of the raspberry and soft fruit industry and the problem of highly subsidised East European imports into the EEC? Will he reassure us that he is aware of the importance of these industries to Scotland and that he will closely watch the situation?
    Mr. Silkin: If I was not previously aware of the importance of the industries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I am now. I shall keep the matter well in mind and I shall be glad of any information that the hon. Gentleman can give me.
    Mr. Hoyle: The question that I want to put in congratulating my right hon. Friend for defending the interests of the British housewife and protecting the daily pinta is this: does he agree that it is time that the other Common Market Agriculture Ministers realised that as food prices in the EEC are so much higher than world prices the present policy cannot continue?
    Mr. Silkin: It will take some time fully to convince them of that, if only because I am the only Minister at the Council of Agriculture Ministers who is a Food Minister as well. However, I believe that
    764
    the other Agriculture Ministers are aware that there is some degree of British determination to get prices to a proper level, and that this degree of determination is something new and refreshing.
    Mr. Marten: Is the Minister aware that successive Ministers of Agriculture have been saying just what he said—"I have only been here a short time and have not had time to do much about it"? However, the desire to restructure the CAP has been prevalent for 11 years. Is not the truth of the matter that there are so many vested interests on the Continent that the policy will never be changed?
    Mr. Silkin: It is being changed, but not as dramatically or as quickly as I wish. Reductions in the price level from 9·6 per cent. to 7·7 per cent. and to 3·9 per cent. last year—which was the lowest until then—and now down to 2·25 per cent., illustrate a change. There is at least a reprieve of a number of British institutions, such as the Milk Marketing Board. We will, I hope, be able to preserve a certain amount of importations from third countries. However, that is not enough. We have to do a great deal more, and I am aware of it.
    Dr. McDonald: When considering changes in the CAP, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that any reduction in imports of sheepmeat from New Zealand will have serious effects on Tilbury, which contains the largest refrigerator/cold storage facility in the world, designed specifically for trade with New Zealand?
    Mr. Silkin: I will bear that in mind and bear in mind the effects on New Zealand, which I believe to be very important and near to our hearts.
    Mr. Peyton: Now that the Minister has got over his self-congratulatory phase, will he comment on statements made by Mr. Roy Jenkins and Mr. Gundelach that neither the Milk Marketing Boards nor the daily pinta were ever in the slightest danger during current negotiations?
    Mr. Silkin: I prefer self-congratulation to sour grapes. There is all the difference in the world between saying that we accept the principle of Milk Marketing Boards—for about 15 months I have told the House that the Commissioners said that—and introducing conditions which

    765
    make it impossible for the boards to continue. That is no different, in effect, from saying
    "Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive Officiously to keep alive".
    The right hon. Gentleman is apparently advocating, with the Commissioner concerned, that we should have had a reprieve until 1983. I was not satisfied with that. I wanted a permanent reprieve.

    Animals (Exports)
    Mr. Ron Thomasasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received calling for a ban on the export of live food animals; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Strang: Following publication of the report by officials, my right hon. Friend the Minister is having discussions with representatives of the welfare interests and with those of the producers and exporters. He hopes to make a statement when he has considered all representations.
    Mr. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that 102 Members on the Government Benches have immediately signed an Early-Day Motion asking
    "that the export of live farm animals for slaughter or further fattening should cease"?
    Will he bring whatever pressure he can to bear on the Leader of the House so that we can have an early debate on this matter and express in the Division Lobbies our complete opposition to this indefensible trade?
    Mr. Strang: I had noticed the striking indication of the strength of feeling on the part of Members on the Government Benches on this issue.
    Mr. Burden: Does the Minister agree that he produced the report because there was obviously a need for it? Does he also agree that because it has been produced and because of its importance, Government time should be allowed in the near future for a debate on the report? A debate is urgently needed. The report should not be left on the shelf for a considerable time.
    Mr. Strang: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of the report's being left on the shelf. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Leader
    766
    of the House is giving consideration to the question of a debate.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is pleasant to hear a voice from the other side of the Chamber agreeing with us on this matter? Does he also accept that we have immense pressures from farming communities, even on those hon. Members representing working-class areas in the cities? Is he aware that the feeling throughout this country runs far ahead of what the farmers feel? We want something to be done because we believe that the vast majority of people throughout the country feel deeply on this subject.
    Mr. Strang: It is because of this concern that my right hon. Friend set up the working group. He is giving careful consideration to all points of view, in-eluding those of the welfare interests and my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Can it be established clearly that there is nothing inherently cruel in the transportation of animals over the water?
    Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is a great divergence of opinion on the whole question of the appropriate safeguards and regulations in this matter and on the extent to which one can reasonably expect them to be applied throughout the Continent.

    National Dairy Herd
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current size of the national dairy herd.
    Mr. Bishop: The provisional result of the latest census undertaken by my Department indicates that the size of the United Kingdom dairy herd at December 1977 was 3,322,000 cows. The results of the March census conducted in England and Wales only will be published shortly.
    Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister of State agree that there is a worry about the size of the milk lake as a result of the intervention fund? What are he and his Department doing to make it more attractive to farmers to switch to beef production?
    Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman will realise that new confidence in the production of the dairy herd has been given in light of the future of the Milk Marketing Boards and because milk production is at record level, as are artificial inseminations. The prices for cows in milk are high and the future of the industry is one of increasing confidence and expansion of the herd size.
    Mr. Spearing: Despite the renewed confidence in milk production, can my hon. Friend tell me why, in a recent reply, he has stated that the EEC is willing to pay more than £23,000 to a farmer with a 70-head dairy herd to get out of milk, and to pay him even more if he transfers to beef production? Why has this regulation been made and how much does my right hon. Friend expect to pay out in this country?
    Mr. Bishop: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have always said that those countries in the Community which have efficient producers should be encouraged; and we have new encouragement for our milk industry in that respect.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 18th May.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to attend a reception being given by President Seretse Khama of Botswana.
    Mr. Ashley: If my right hon. Friend finds time to consider last night's televised tour of the archives by the Conservatives, will he agree that it was a lament for the past by a party which offers old, simple solutions for new, complex problems and that, although incentives may be important, there is a danger that if they are peddled as a panacea, as they are being peddled by the Opposition, the incentive society may become the insensitive society, as many of us have good reason to believe?
    The Prime Minister: I regret that I did not have the good fortune to watch this broadcast. I am not sure whether the commercialising and packaging of party political views is in the best interests of the party concerned, but that is for it to judge.
    Mrs. Thatcher: If the Prime Minister did not have time to see the broadcast last night, which I completely and totally accept, has he had time to look at the report issued by the Treasury yesterday, which shows that wages are going up faster here than elsewhere and that the growth in output has seldom been worse? Does he accept that this makes us much less competitive than similar industrial nations and that that is the result of his economic policies over the last four years?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is correct to call attention to these facts, some of which are good and some of which are not so good. It is good that earnings should be going up faster than prices, because that will improve the standard of life of our people. What is not so good is if production does not increase correspondingly. I am glad to say that there are signs of improvement there. I am told that the increase in industrial production in the first quarter of 1978 over the last quarter of 1977 was 1· per cent.
    However, I agree with the right hon. Lady that we should call attention to these factors. They are saying no more than I consistently say at the Dispatch Box. We shall endeavour to keep production, inflation and wage levels in line so that this country can be as competitive as anyone else.
    Mr. Arthur Latham: Does my right hon. Friend realise that some rents are going up much faster? Could he find time to look into his duties and responsibilities as an ex officio Church Commissioner? Does he realise that the Church Commissioners are inflicting unacceptable rent increases on many tenants in my constituency? Does he not find it embarrassing, as a nominal member of the Church Commissioners, that they should increasingly behave more like Freshwater and less like Christians?
    The Prime Minister: I fear that the duties of Church Commissioner do not take up as much of my time as perhaps they should. I shall certainly see that the matter is looked into, even though I am only ex officio.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to reflect today on his recent meeting with the President of Turkey? If so, will he give the House his view of the effect on NATO of the continued United States arms embargo on Turkey, which is our partner?
    The Prime Minister: No. I would not want to give my views about that because it is not the responsibility of the Government; it is the responsibility of the American Administration. The Turkish Government have asked whether it is possible for some European countries to assist them in their armaments programme, but most of the conversation between the President of Turkey and myself, which did not take place today, was concerned with the problems of Cyprus. I asked the President to be more flexible in his approach.
    Mr. Pardoe: Will the Prime Minister amplify his earlier remarks about keeping earnings in line with output? Does he accept that earnings are bound to rise by about 14 per cent. over this pay round, that output cannot possibly rise by more than 3 per cent., and that the balance must be paid either by inflation or unemployment? What will he do to bring the two things in line for phase 4?
    The Prime Minister: A little more help from the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) would not come amiss. What I intend to convey is that all these matters must bear a relation to each other, not that they should be strictly in line with each other, which, clearly would not be accurate. The hon. Member knows my views about this almost to the point of boredom.
    Mr. Heffer: I recognise that my right hon. Friend has little time to read the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, but could he find time to read the speech that she made in a church in the City of London recently, and an article which she wrote in The Daily Telegraph? Is it not clear from that speech and the article that the right hon. Lady and her friends intend to undermine the National Health
    770
    Service, to impose charges and to undermine the whole concept of the Welfare State as we understand it?
    The Prime Minister: It is not part of my responsibilty to read these speeches or article, but I did read the article in The Daily Telegraph. The right hon. Lady's emphasis on and concern for the welfare of the family was set out in that article and I found that I was largely in agreement with it. It is a theme that I have taken up because it is of great importance. For that reason I am deeply sorry that the Opposition should find it necessary to make a party matter of it.

    CBI
    Mr. Corbettasked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI.
    The Prime Minister: I met representatives of the CBI on 6th February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.
    Mr. Corbett: Against the background of rising industrial output and rising investment owing to the success of many of this Government's policies, what conversations will the Prime Minister be having with the CBI to get it on the side of making it easier for small businesses to be set up and for those in business to expand in order to provide many of the new jobs which are so urgently needed?
    The Prime Minister: The Government's policy towards small firms is well known. As the small firms recognise, the Budget made a number of improvements, including improvements in value added tax limitations, capital transfer tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax. All these have been of great assistance to small firms. I find that members of the CBI appreciate this.
    Mr. Crouch: Does the Prime Minister consider that his dinner with the CBI the night before last was a useful meeting? Does he remember that the president of the CBI then said that it was the CBI's aim to drop the phrase "the two sides of industry"? What is the Government's view of that initiative?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member was there and he enjoyed the dinner as much as I and many other hon. Members did. I thought that I gave an

    771
    adequate, full and acceptable reply on that occasion.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the CBI next week is due to receive a high powered trade delegation from the Soviet Union headed by Academician Kirillin? Will he express the deep disgust and distress of this House at the travesty of the trial of Yuri Orlov and the savage sentence imposed? Will he point out to the Russians that this is the worst possible way to achieve either detente or improved relations between our countries?
    The Prime Minister: The whole House will agree that if the sentence has been passed on Mr. Orlov in respect of his attempt to monitor the Helsinki agreement, there can be no justification for a sentence on that account. The Government's view has been and will be made entirely clear on that matter. Certainly I shall lose no opportunity of making it so.
    At the same time, I also wish to make clear, because there must be good State relations, that, whilst I am strongly in favour of individual groups and hon. Members such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) making their passionate distaste and dislike of this type of thing clear, we must not cut off relations with the Soviet Union. I know that my hon. Friend was not suggesting that. But, sometimes, not what my hon. Friend says but what others say seems to shade off into that. This is one of the two great States of the world. We either live with her or we die with her. State relations must be conducted on a different basis from that of hon. Members and individual citizens in this country, who properly express their disgust at what is taking place.
    Mr. Bulmer: When the Prime Minister next meets the CBI, will he explain to its members why he believes that it is in the interests of trade unions, let alone the nation, that neither the nationalised industries nor British companies should be allowed to compete in the international market with the best management available because of the high tax rates that rule in this country?
    The Prime Minister: The CBI has expressed its views to me abou this. We discuss it from time to time. I shall
    772
    consider whether it should be on the agenda at the next meeting.

    ABERDEEN
    Mr. Fairgrieveasked the Prime Minister when next he intends to visit the Aberdeen area.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to visit the Aberdeen area.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: I regret that the Prime Minister has no immediate plans to visit the oil capital of Europe which makes an inestimable contribution to our balance of payments. But, when he does visit the area, will he ensure that his staff route him by rail, air or sea from the central industrial belt of Scotland to Aberdeen so that he does not have to travel on the most congested and important single carriageway road remaining in the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I fully understand the import of that question. But I do not intend to walk; I can promise the hon. Member that. If he is saying that there is need for a substantial improvement in the road communications, that may well be so. With respect, I wish that Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), would not constantly press for additional public expenditure, on the one hand, and seek to reduce taxation on the other.
    Mr. David Steel: When the Prime Minister next goes to the Aberdeen area, will he try to find out what has happened to the declaration of Perth?
    The Prime Minister: I fear that the Conservative Party is losing itself in the Scottish mist over devolution. I think that they will suffer retribution for it.
    Mr. Ron Thomas: When my right hon. Friend visits the fair city of Aberdeen, will he make it clear to the people of Aberdeen that Members of the Scottish National Party went into the Lobby with Members of the Tory Party in order to give massive handouts to the wealthy people in our community at the expense of the sick and elderly and the mass of working people?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I have already noticed in my postbag and other

    773
    communications that it has not gone unnoticed in Scotland and elsewhere that the Scottish National Party voted with the Conservatives on that issue.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the Prime Minister aware that what has not gone unnoticed in Scotland, particularly in the North-East where the oil and gas is coming ashore, is that the local community is having to pay for the roads and services without adequate help from central Government? Will he reconsider this position and reprimand the Secretary of State for Scotland for failing to take action?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is not correct. A substantial sum of public expenditure has rightly been made available to Scotland for a great many functions, including the saving of jobs. That is well appreciated by the Scottish people.
    Mr. Flannery: When my right hon. Friend goes to Aberdeen, by whatever means other than Shanks' pony, will he ruminate on the fact that not only the people of Aberdeen and Scotland but the people of England, Northern Ireland and Wales will all suffer as a result of what happened this week when the Opposition tried to take £1,100 million from the ordinary people to give to their wealthy friends? Will he underline the message that if the Opposition had their way they would have a disastrous effect on the economy?
    The Prime Minister: There is a growing understanding in the country that there must be a balance between public expenditure and taxation. People understand that a great deal of public expenditure has helped to save jobs in industries which, although they are efficient, are suffering a temporary recession because of the world recession. I believe that the country understands that and that that is why there is growing support for our Government.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in addition to the real advantages brought to the North-East of Scotland by oil, there have been problems for indigenous industries which have emphasised the need to broaden the industrial base of the area in order to prepare for when the oil comes to an end? In those circumstances, was it
    774
    defensible to reduce the industrial development status of the area?
    The Prime Minister: The Aberdeen area unemployment rate has been well below the national average for some time, and it therefore seemed appropriate that the status should be altered. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis that we should use oil revenues not to reduce taxation, as his party wishes to do, but to provide the alternative sources of energy that will be required, and to regenerate Scottish and British industry. The Scottish Development Agency is engaged on that task now.

LORD SELWYN-LLOYD
Mr. Speaker: Right hon. and hon. Members have learned with deep sorrow of the death of Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, my immediate predecessor as Speaker of this House.
I wish on behalf of all parties and of each and every hon. and right hon. Member to pay tribute to the memory of one of the most outstanding parliamentarians of our generation.
Both in peace and in war, Selwyn Lloyd proved his utter devotion to our country. It fell to him to carry the burden of some of the highest offices of State and he never spared himself in fulfilling his responsibilities. When he became Leader of this House he very quickly earned both the unqualified respect and the abounding affection of hon. and right hon. Members in all parties. He was a doughty fighter for the rights of Back Benchers, and we shall always be in debt to him for the reforms he helped to initiate.
Selwyn Lloyd was a man incapable of malice. He enjoyed the remarkable blessing of never nursing a grudge. His patent integrity and his massive loyalty both to our country and to all with whom he worked marked him out as a man of noble quality. He was always the quintessence of courtesy in his dealings with those with whom he disagreed. His five years as Speaker of this House are fresh in our memory. His compassion, his patience, his humour and his strength of character ensured that he will always have an honoured place as one of the greatest Speakers in our history.

775
In saluting Selwyn Lloyd's memory, we thank God for his life of selfless service and extend to his family our heartfelt sympathy in their sorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President the business for next week, please?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22ND MAY—Supply [16th Allotted Day]: a debate on the pay of the Armed Forces, on a motion to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State.
Motion on the Financial Assistance for Industry (Increase of Limit) Order.
TUESDAY 23RD MAY—Remaining stages of the Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Bill.
Motion on the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 4) Order.
WEDNESDAY 24TH MAY—Motion on EEC document R/3245/77 on liner conferences.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
THURSDAY 25TH MAY—Supply [17th Allotted Day]: a debate on the Army, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order.
FRIDAY 26TH MAY—The House will adjourn for the Spring Holiday until Tuesday 6th June.
Mrs. Thatcher: I have two questions for the Lord President. First, he will know that there have been many developments in foreign affairs that the House would wish to discuss at some length. Will he therefore arrange for a debate soon after the recess? If he thinks fit to make it a two-day debate, we shall gladly give one of our days towards it.
776
Secondly, is the Leader of the House aware that it is not possible for us to ratify the international convention against pollution by oil from ships until we have had a new merchant shipping Act? That was promised in the Gracious Speech, but it has not yet been introduced. We can hardly criticise other nations for not observing these matters when we drag our feet on our own legislation. When does the Leader of the House expect to introduce that Bill?
Mr. Foot: On the first matter, I thank the right hon. Lady for her offer of a Supply Day and make clear our immediate acceptance of such generosity. Of course I agree that it would be a good idea for the House at an early stage soon after the recess to have a two-day debate in the light of that suggestion.
On the second point, we indicated that we wished to introduce a merchant shipping Bill in this Session if possible, or at any rate as soon as possible. As the House is well aware, a Bill is fully prepared for introduction as soon as we have the chance. However, we cannot bring it forward in this Session, but we shall bring it forward in the next Session.
Mr. Jay: Am I right in supposing that in Tuesday's business what my right hon. Friend called the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 4) Order amounts to the ratification of direct elections to the EEC? If it does, will my right hon. Friend say whether that is a motion which the House can debate and on which it can divide?
Mr. Foot: I doubt whether I would describe the order as a ratification, but it certainly carries further the procedure of direct elections following upon the passage of the European Assembly Elections Act.
There is an explanatory note on the schedule, although I must admit that the note is not as elaborate as some might wish. I am therefore making arrangements that an explanatory memorandum on the explanatory note is to be placed in the Library. I hope that that will assist my hon. Friends. The motion will be one to approve the order, and the House will therefore be able to give its decision on the matter.
Mr. Kilfedder: If, as I believe to be the case, all the major parties in the

777
House are in favour of increased representation for Northern Ireland, will the Government introduce immediately, as a matter of justice and fair play to the people of Northern Ireland, legislation to increase the representation before the next General Election?
Mr. Foot: The exchanges that have already taken place on this matter have made clear that I should like the Bill to be introduced. Whether that happened in this or the next Season, it could not be introduced before the next General Election in any case. Therefore I do not have anything to add to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, when he made the announcement about the acceptance of the principle of the Speaker's Conference.
Mrs. Jeger: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the three Early-Day Motions on the Order Paper—Nos. 315, 427 and 429—signed by hon. Members of all parties, about the proposal to close the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital? Will he try to arrange for a debate so that this deplorable decision can be further considered? Will he discuss with his right hon. Friends the possibility of a public inquiry?
[That this House welcomes the overwhelming support shown by national and local organisations including trade unions, during the consultative procedure on the future of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital; draws the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that his predecessor accepted the necessity for the continuation of this unique facility; therefore urges him to make resources available to enable this hospital to resume normal service on its present site, at least until such time as a satisfactory alternative arrangement can be made; and in view of the demoralising protracted delay in reaching a decision on this matter, urges the Secretary of State to make his views knows as early as possible.]
[That this House rejects the decision of the Secretary of State for Social Services to close Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital in July; and calls on him to reverse his action in the light of the needs of women patients as expressed by everyone who works and is treated in the Hospital, all the unions concerned, the patients themselves and the general
778
public, and the unanimous vote of the Labour Women's Conference at Southport that the Hospital should be kept open.]
[That this House notes with regret that the closure of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital was announced outside the House of Commons in direct breach of an undertaking given to the honourable Members for Camden, St. Pancras North, Camden, Holborn and St. Pancras South and Camden, Hampstead; and that notification of such closure was not given to the honourable Members mentioned beforehand and that such closure is in direct contradiction to the statement of the Secretary of State and his predecessor that no closure would take place until such a unit were to be satisfactorily situated within a district general hospital in the same area.]
Mr. Foot: I have taken note of the motions on the Order Paper on this matter, and in particular the question of the manner of the announcement. It appears that there is some serious misunderstanding in this matter. I shall make inquiries into that aspect of it. On the general question, I cannot promise a debate, but I recognise the strength of feeling in many parts of the House, and we shall have to see whether further discussion can take place on it.
Mr. Powell: Will the Leader of the House take the opportunity to correct what I think was a slip of the tongue in his reply to the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder)? He said "introduced" when I think he intended to say "effected".
Has he received any approach from the official Opposition with a view to arranging a debate at an early date upon the subject, of which he acknowledged the importance last week, of the past and future consequences of New Commonwealth immigration, or is the interest of the official Opposition in this subject to remain a brief and embarrassed interlude?
Mr. Foot: On the first matter, I must thank the right hon. Gentleman for his correction of my statement. He is quite right. On the second matter, I do not think that I or anyone else could improve on the language that he has used to describe the situation.
Mr. Faulds: Will the Leader of the House arrange a short debate on the European Communities working document No. R 497/77 concerning Community action in the cultural sector most of which is very good stuff. But is he aware that the section dealing with public lending right is quite unacceptable and that the House should have an opportunity to express its view on this matter and other matters touched upon in the document?
Mr. Foot: I shall look into the possibility of a debate on this matter. In doing so I shall take account of the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee.
On the general question of the Public Lending Rights Bill, we believe that the best way to proceed—certainly far better than anything proposed by the EEC—is to get through the House the Bill which the Government presented on this matter and which still remains our policy.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I return to the question raised by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger). I ask the Leader of the House to give more attention to the breach of faith that is represented by the closure of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital. Many hon. Members feel that they were deceived about this matter. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State comes to the House to answer questions instead of hiding behind a planted written Question?
Mr. Foot: I do not accept the term "breach of faith" and I would have thought that the answer that I have already given to the House indicates how seriously I take the motion on the Order Paper. I believe that we must examine this matter, and that it is better to aproach it in that way, rather than commenting upon the hon. Member's words.
Mr. Welsh: Will the Leader of the House give a date for further discussion in this House on the Scotland Bill so that we can repair the damage that has been done in another place?
Secondly, in view of the disgraceful decision to detrunk the A92 and the Government's failure to invest adequately in roads in Northern Scotland, will the right hon. Member allow us to debate this matter urgently in the near future?
Mr. Foot: I repudiate what the hon. Member says in the second part of his question.
On the first part, of course, when the Scotland Bill comes back to the House, the Government will examine all the amendments that were added in another place. We shall examine these most carefully and present our considered views to the House. I have no doubt that there are a considerable number of amendments that this House will not be prepared to accept.
Mr. Roper: In view of the fact that the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation on Community document No. R3245/77 on liner conferences has not yet been published, and is unlikely to be published until some time next week, will the Leader of the House look at the desirability of debating it on Wednesday? We took a great deal of evidence in the Select Committee and the House should have an opportunity to see that before coming to any conclusion.
Mr. Foot: I shall look into this. I hope that we shall make some progress with the document on Wednesday, but I shall look at all the considerations.
Sir Frederic Bennett: The Leader of the House will be aware of the answer to the Private Notice Question yesterday about the position of British subjects in Southern Zaire at present. The situation seems to have deteriorated since then. If the Leader of the House is not in a position to say something now, will he arrange for a statement by the Foreign Secretary early next week to assure us that we are in at least as good a position as the French, the Belgians and the Americans for evacuating British subjects who may be involved disastrously in events in Zaire?
Mr. Foot: The Foreign Secretary and the Government are very much concerned about the situation in Zaire and are doing everything they can to protect British citizens in this situation. I will consider whether a statement should be made at the beginning of next week.
Mr. Spearing: In view of the fact that the business on Tuesday night appears to be to ratify the Act of the Community of 20th September 1976 on direct elections, would it not be more appropriate

781
to lay this as a later order, after both the salaries of MPs to that Assembly are agreed and the boundaries, which have been announced provisionally, are finally agreed or published by the Boundary Commission?
Mr. Foot: I know that those matters were discussed in the House before, but that is not a reason for holding up this order. There will be a later stage when some of those other matters can be discussed.
Mr. Higgins: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that when we come to the Report stage of the House of Commons (Administration) Bill, hon. Members will not be inhibited in tabling amendments on matters that are strictly the concern of the House? An example is the scope of amendments on inclusion in the estimate provided by the House of Commons Commission on Members' secretaries' salaries.
Mr. Foot: That would carry the Bill considerably further. I shall look at that point, but I am doubtful whether that is the best way of dealing with it. The Services Committee report, which will be presented to the House very soon, is a better way to approach Members' secretaries' salaries. I am doubtful whether that further question could be introduced into the House of Commons (Administration) Bill.
Mr. Loyden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a full debate on unemployment as soon as possible? In view of the difficulties experienced in bringing industry to Merseyside, will he investigate the allegations of the Government's demand for a forward commitment to 1982 on pay policy, because this will discourage completely the establishment of industry and new jobs on Merseyside and in other areas?
Mr. Foot: I do not believe that my hon. Friend should jump to the conclusion that the second matter he raised will have the effect that he describes. Discussions are still proceeding and they could reach a conclusion beneficial to both Merseyside and the country as a whole.
On the first matter that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members from Liverpool have raised—that we should have a debate on unemployment in Merseyside
782
at an early stage—we are considering how best to approach a fairly early date for discussions on unemployment generally.
Mr. Luce: The Leader of the House will recall that last week I mentioned that recently it had been revealed that 40 Argentinians had been occupying Thule, a British territory in part of the Falkland Islands dependency. Last week, in a Written Answer, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that the British Government had known about this since December 1976. Surely it is the duty of any Foreign Secretary, when an infringement of British sovereignty takes place, to come to the House and inform us of the situation and tell us what action he will take.
Mr. Foot: The hon. Member has put this matter to me in a most reasonable manner. There are Oral Questions down to the Foreign Secretary on this subject next week. That is the best way to proceed. I understand the desire of the House to put questions on this issue, and I assure hon. Members that the Foreign Secretary has no desire to avoid them.
Miss Richardson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's undertaking that he will try to reopen discussions on the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital. I hope that he will not close his mind to the possibility of a debate on the Floor of the House to give us and the public an opportunity to hear the views of the unions, the staff, the patients and the public against the closure.
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future. There are other opportunities for raising such matters in a debate which some hon. Members may wish to take in the near future. I suggest that first of all I should carry out the undertaking that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras South (Mrs. Jeger) and see how we can proceed from there.
Mr. Montgomery: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why we are not to have a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Immigration and Race Relations before we rise for the Spring Recess? As the Home Secretary has made it clear that the Government are not prepared to accept that report, would he at some time explain to his new-found ally, the right hon. Member for Down,

783
South (Mr. Powell), that it is not from the Opposition Benches but from the Government Benches that the opposition to that report comes?
Mr. Foot: One reason that we are not having a debate on that subject is that the official Opposition have not asked for it.
Mr. Flannery: On the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition about a new merchant shipping Act, may I call my right hon. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 419 on the restriction of the size of oil tankers, signed by myself and some of my hon. Friends? Before further misery occurs and further destruction of the environment, may we have a debate on this whole subject so that people all over the country know that we feel deeply about it and are trying to rectify the situation? Will my right hon. Friend look very closely at the content of that Early-Day Motion?
[That this House, deeply aware of the recent horrific effects on both British and Northern French coasts of oil pollution from oil tanker disasters, calls on the British Government speedily to initiate a major campaign to bring about international agreement on restricting the size of oil tankers, to ensure that any future catastrophes will be correspondingly smaller and less dangerous to the environment.]
Mr. Foot: I certainly undertake to do exactly as my hon. Friend has asked and to consider that motion carefully. I entirely understand and share the concern expressed by all those who have signed the motion about the recent oil pollution on the coast of East Anglia. It is important not to exaggerate the scale of this incident—the extent of the pollution is in no way comparable with that resulting from some earlier disasters—but that is no reason for not paying the greatest possible attention to what has occurred. I promise that I shall do so.
Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) is entirely unsatisfactory? Does he not realise that one of the main points here in connection with the Falkland Islands is why the Government have kept this matter dark for 18 months? It is
784
not good enough to say that because they have kept it dark that long, it does not matter if it waits another week.
Mr. Foot: What I am saying to the hon. Gentleman, as I said to the House as a whole, is that I fully accept that the House has an interest in the matter. I said, as I think the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) accepted, that the best way to proceed now is with the Oral Questions which can be put to the Foreign Secretary next week. No doubt my right hon. Friend will give a considered reply to any hon. Member who raises that question then.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Has my right hon. Friend yet addressed himself to the unfortunate situation which arose last week, when six Members of this House were prevented from voting in the European Assembly because they had to be here? If he has so addressed himself, has he evolved any plan to obviate that situation in future?
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend not only raised the matter but came to discuss it with me in, as everyone would expect, a most courteous manner. As I had to explain to him, part of the difficulty arises from the fact that the House of Commons has decided that its Members for a considerable period shall operate in two different Assemblies. That gives rise to considerable difficulties. I am sure that we must seek to ensure as far as we can that the proper respect and supremacy of this House shall be sustained.
Mr. MacKay: Bearing in mind today's savage sentence of seven years' hard labour imposed by the Soviet authorities on Dr. Yuri Orlov and the fact that hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned about great abuses of human rights in the Soviet Union, is it not high time that the right hon. Gentleman arranged for the House to debate the problem of human rights in the Soviet Union and elsewhere?
Mr. Foot: I certainly share without qualification the horror at the individual case which the Prime Minister expressed earlier today. I am sure that is the feeling of the vast majority, if not the almost unanimous opinion, of people in this country. Of course this is an important aspect of foreign policy. The

785
Prime Minister put the matter in perspective. I think that it will figure in the debate on foreign policy which I expect we shall be having fairly soon after our return from the recess. It obviously enters into that debate.
Mr. John Mendelson: May I urge my right hon. Friend to give an early reply—possibly next week at Business Question Time—to the request for a debate on foreign affairs in general? Is it not becoming more and more obvious that, because of the many items concerning the Common Market that the House has to debate, the impression is given that Britain has almost no other international relations at all? Since we are now approaching the special United Nations session on disarmament, will my right hon. Friend make an announcement before we adjourn on this matter?
Mr. Foot: As I said in response to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, I think that there should be a debate on foreign affairs at an early stage. That, under the arrangements that we have been suggesting, would be a two-day debate, which would give plenty of opportunity for wide discussion. It is certainly not the Government's view that the important questions concerned are solely European affairs. There are great issues in Africa. There are great questions of our association with the United States. There are important questions, above all perhaps, about our approach to disarmament in different forms. That is one of the reasons that, at the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations, the British Government will be making a major statement on the subject.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. Gentleman elucidate his replies to the hon. and right hon. Members who sit for the county of Down? Do the Government intend, or do they not, to legislate in the present Session or in this Parliament to implement the recommendations of your Conference, Mr. Speaker, on increasing the representation of Northern Ireland in this House?
Mr. Foot: I certainly think that it is possible that we could have legislation on that subject in this Parliament, but what has already been indicated is that it would be extremely difficult to have that legislation in this Session.
Mr. Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend give time in the near future so that we may give further consideration to the Private Members' Bills introduced by our hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) and Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) to amend the Employment Protection Act? As my hon. Friend knows, this is of great concern to the TUC.
Mr. Foot: I certainly accept that those two of my hon. Friends and my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) have introduced Bills of considerable importance to the country as a whole. I should like to see all those Bills upon the statute book, but I do not have any fresh statement to make now about their progress. I believe that when we return after the recess those matters will have to be considered further.
Mr. Raison: Reverting to the Scotland Bill, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we may expect that rather bedraggled measure back again? Since many of the amendments made in the other place were on matters which were not properly debated in this House because of the guillotine, will the hon. Gentleman give an absolutely firm assurance that there will be proper time to debate them, and no guillotine?
Mr. Foot: The House must consider the Bill when it comes back from another place. I think that the House may also wish to take note of the fact that another place managed to discuss the whole Bill in slightly less time than this House took to discuss the Bill under the timetable motion. That is a factor which might be taken into account.
Some of the amendments made in the other place, I believe, would not be acceptable to this House, but we shall consider them all carefully. What the Government are determined to do is to see that that Bill gets through this House and on the statute book in this Session. We have no doubt that in doing so we are carrying out the pledge we made to the people of Scotland and are responding to the mood of the people of Scotland, which has been sustained consistently from that time to this.
Mr. Bidwell: Will my right hon. Friend accept that some of us are anxious

787
to debate the Select Committee report on immigration, from the Indian subcontinent in particular, precisely because it brings no consolation to the right hon. Member for Down, South, (Mr. Powell)—or, as we would try to show, to the Leader of the Opposition? In fact, it is not the case that the Home Secretary has replied to that report. He has replied to three parts of it, about one of which he was totally unclear, and the other two of which he seemed to reject. However, the Home Secretary himself believed that we should have a debate, so may we have it as soon as possible?
Mr. Foot: I understand my hon. Friend's desire and the desire of many other hon. Members that the House should debate this subject. I am not saying that such a debate would not be desirable, but there are many competitors for debate. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's comment about the statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I think that it was most valuable from the point of view of the community of this country and for good race relations that my right hon. Friend's statement was made at an early date so that some matters which seemed to be obscure could be clarified.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call only those hon. Members who have been rising to their feet.
Mr. Michael Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Secretary of State for the Environment to find out why he is sitting on the report of the review of the Rent Act, and will he bring forward to the House before the Summer Recess either a Green Paper or a White Paper—or certainly a report?
Mr. Foot: I shall certainly have a word with my right hon. Friend, but I cannot promise that I shall make a statement in the form which the hon. Gentleman seeks. I accept the invitation that I should have a conversation with my right hon. Friend on the subject.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 422, which calls for an inquiry into hormone pregnancy test drugs? The motion is signed by hon.
788
Members in all parts of the House, some of whom have constituents with children who have been born seriously deformed following the prescribing of pregnancy test drugs to their mothers. Does he agree that an urgent inquiry should take place into this matter? The Secretary of State for Social Services, for reasons best known to himself, has refused an inquiry. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of of the House provide time in the House for a debate so that we may discover why the right hon. Gentleman will not agree to such an inquiry? Failing that, perhaps in private conversation with the Secretary of State for Social Services the Leader of the House could persuade him to change his mind.
[That this House notes that children have been born with serious deformities due to hormone pregnancy test drugs; that no official warnings were issued about these drugs until eight years alter the first reports indicating the possible dangers; that some doctors continued to prescribe the drugs for pregnant women after official warnings of the Committee on Safety of Medicines; that the Department of Health and Social Security have continuously rejected requests for an inquiry into these matters; and now calls upon the Secretary of State to set up an independent public inquiry.]
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is aware that this matter has been fully discussed in parliamentary Questions and in correspondence with my hon. Friend and others. I am sure that the Ministers concerned are not withholding any of the relevant facts on the alleged connection between these tests and congenital abnormalities, nor in regard to the way the matter was handled from 1967 onwards.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is doubtful whether there would be any purpose in having such an inquiry as has been suggested, but I shall take account of what my hon. Friend said and see whether there is any other way in which further progress can be made. I cannot promise a debate at the moment.
Mr. Dykes: On the subject of the liner conference directive, does the right hon. Gentleman agree, as he has already half indicated, that it is impossible for hon. Members to undertake the necessary documentary preparation on this weighty and important matter? Will he give

789
earnest reconsideration to the point made by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper)? Does he agree that he still gives the impression that he wishes to deal with EEC items in a cavalier and haphazard way, not giving sufficient attention to the timing and preparation of such documents as they come forward from the Scrutiny Committee? Will he also guarantee that he will give adequate time to discuss the directive on doorstep selling when it is presented to the House, in a debate lasting at least three hours?
Mr. Foot: As I promised earlier, I shall examine the position on that document, although I still hope that we shall be able to have the debate at the time I have suggested. I think that we are in accord with the recommendation made by the Scrutiny Committee. I must inform the hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about these matters because he has accorded them special attention, that I repudiate the idea that the Government have dealt in a cavalier manner with these matters. I always acknowledge that there are difficulties in dealing with them, but on each occasion when the all-party Committee has examined the subject, so far from its Members saying that we have treated the matter in a cavalier manner, they have congratulated us on the consideration we have given to these matters. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we constantly give our attention to them. I do not say that we have by any means a perfect system, but that arises from the nature of the difficulty and not from any carelessness on our part.
Mr. Arthur Latham: Is there any possibility of a statement being made to explain how, without his previous knowledge or consent, my right hon. Friend's name was attached to a threat of legal action against me for defamation and how invoked in that threat were also the names of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London and many others, including you, Mr. Speaker? Is it not quite improper that attempts should be made, in the names of the Church Commissioners, to silence an hon. Member of this House in his criticism? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to achieve the dismissal of the employees responsible?
Mr. Foot: I shall examine the proposition made by my hon. Friend at the end of his remarks. As he is fully aware, there are a number of members of the Government who are ex officio Church Commissioners, but that does not mean that in any sense of the word they have had any responsibility for the operation of these matters. It may be that there should be a reorganisation of the whole way in which the Church Commissioners operate on their account and for other reasons. My hon. Friend is also aware—and I have had recent correspondence with him on the subject—that I hope that these maters can be dealt with without resort to legal action. I did not think that that was the right way to proceed, and I hope that the matter will not be dealt with in the courts. I think that these are matters for political debate.
Mr. Marten: Now that we have had a firm ruling from the Government that the salaries of directly elected Members of the European Assembly, if any, are subject to United Kingdom tax, before the debate on Tuesday night, whether or not the House ratifies the Bill, will the Government assure the House that they will resist in the Council of Ministers any proposal by the European Community that these salaries should be free of tax? We should like a firm assurance before ratification that the Government will oppose any such idea.
Mr. Foot: General indications have been given to the House on the subject of these salaries and how they should be settled. I very much doubt whether that question arises in the light of Tuesday's debate. The hon. Gentleman has given us due warning and we must take account of it.
Mr. Bulmer: When do the Government intend to publish their long-awaited and long-trailed White Paper on industrial democracy, and will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be debated before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Foot: I very much hope that there will be a statement to the House next week on publication of a White Paper on the subject. It is an important document, and the House will wish to consider how next it wants to proceed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  15TH ALLOTTED DAY—considered
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY
4.7 p.m.
Mr. James Prior: The subject of debate today is "Industrial relations in the newspaper industry". I think that it points to the wisdom of the Opposition that they have tabled this matter for debate on a Supply Day. This is emphasised by the spate of comment in the national Press and on radio and television since the announcement was made last week. I believe that the problems go much wider than simply those that beset Fleet Street, although I suspect that a large part of this debate will concentrate on Fleet Street's problems.
The loss of papers in 1976 amounted to 72 million and in 1977 to 101 million. In the first three months of this year we lost 32 million copies of national daily and Sunday papers, and in the first four months of this year we lost 60 million.
This is not only a problem for the capitalist Press, because I was interested to see that Tribune, in its special May Day edition, when it was hoping above all to be able to print large numbers of May Day greetings messages, found itself facing production difficulties. A notice in Tribune said:
"We very much regret that because of production difficulties at our printers, over which we have no control, this week's special May Day issue has to be severely curtailed."
This is a fairly widespread problem and is obviously a serious situation for the country. It is a situation that was unheard of a few years ago. It has always been one of the acceptable facts of British life that the papers were there on the breakfast table and that one could always rely on getting the paper of one's choice early in the morning. It is only in the last few years that people have come to realise that they now do not know
792
whether they will receive their paper. Therefore, it is right that the House should debate this subject today. I believe that it should be a considered debate and that we should try to reach the maximum degree of agreement in all parts of the House.
I begin by quoting something that the Leader of the House said in 1974 when he was Secretary of State for Employment. He said:
"I agree that disputes which lead to frequent and persistent stoppages in the newspaper industry have a special significance, in the sense that they touch upon the free flow of opinion. If such disputes were to persist in the way that some people forecast, they could drain away the life blood of democracy in this country."—[Official Report, 21st November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1531.]
That was said nearly four years ago, and the situation today is certainly a good deal more serious than it was then.
There is the whole question of the financial loss of those who work in the industry. There is a loss of the profits which could be put into new investment by management and companies and there is a loss of pay which could, in certain circumstances, have gone to the people who works in the industry. Secondly, there have been considerable losses for the wholesale and retail newsagents, commonly called the CTNs—confectionery, tobacco and newsagents. These have been going out of business, not entirely for these reasons but partly because of them, at the rate of about 200 a week. Their numbers in the past four to five years have fallen from around 34,000 to about 27,000.
The people who run those shops are important in our society. They open their shops at all hours of the day or night and they perform an extraordinarily useful service to the community. We must try in every way we can to help them run their businesses. They have made strong representations to me and, I have no doubt, to all hon. Members. There is an employment factor involved here, because if the CTNs go out of business at the present rate we shall be adding even further to our unemployment problems. That is something of which we must not lose sight.
There are also many implications for advertising. I have received a number of complaints over the past few days about the effect that the uncertainty over the

793
printing of newspapers has on the whole advertising industry. It is a lucky thing that at the moment the television companies are fairly full of advertising, otherwise, national newspapers would be suffering a great deal more than they are. The newspapers are suffering, and this in itself has a considerable effect on industry and commerce. If a company cannot plan an advertising campaign with the launching of a new product and be certain that the advertising will be available at the right time, this disrupts the selling of the new product and means that companies tend to go to the medium with which they can be certain of getting advertising space.
The position is even more damaging than that. People from overseas who have looked at this country and admired not only our free Press but the miraculous way in which we have distributed our newspapers over a long time see the present situation and regard it as symptomatic of our malaise. By inference, that damages the reputation of our country and its ability to compete. For all these reasons, it is right that we should debate this subject.
There is no shortage of analyses of the problems. Most of the problems are familiar. A leading trade unionist said to me this week "Fleet Street is in a mess because both sides have made it so. Bad management has been chiefly responsible, but the unions have lost control at national level and union leaders have been stripped of their authority." I put that statement to a leading manager in Fleet Street and he agreed with every word of it. This is not a situation in which we can say that there is a lack of analysis or diagnosis of the problem.
Is the present situation inevitable? Is it getting worse? Where will it end? I do not believe that the current position is inevitable. Other industries facing technological change are doing so without the trauma affecting Fleet Street. What is more—and we must be clear on this point—a lot of people are having to accept technological change who are a lot worse off and who have been offered much worse compensation than some of 'the Fleet Street printers.
I do not believe that it is inevitable that we should have got into this situation. Is the current position getting worse? I think that for the moment it is. It
794
is getting worse because, perhaps, management is at last starting to stand firm. Trade union leaders, trade unionists and Labour Members who know about this subject will know how important it is that when management has made a decision it should stick to it. I have had a good deal of evidence this week from trade union leaders to the effect that nothing has undermined their position so much as managers saying that they will do one thing and, 24 or 48 hours later, when they were frightened about losing circulation to some other newspaper, changing their mind and undercutting the position which the union leadership was trying to take in support of management.
When I say that the situation is getting worse and that we are losing a larger number of papers because management is starting to stand firm, I must make another point. One of the circumstances of union ill discipline has been the changing pattern of newspaper ownership. About 20 years ago newspapers were small companies run by private individuals, and even if a publicly owned company was involved it was usually narrowly based on newspapers and treated by the newspaper proprietors as a private company. Now, individual companies have been steadily eliminated. Kemsley, Cadbury, Aitken and Astor have gone and, instead, newspapers are small parts of large, in some cases multinational, companies. There are Trafalgar House, Atlantic Richfield, the Thomson Organisation, Reeds, Pearson and so on.
Because of the nature of control and because of the wealth of the parent companies, the top boards are not concerned so much either about ownership of newspapers or about the losses that standing up to strikes would involve for them. This will have the effect—it is already having such an effect—of more companies having the financial muscle to resist claims. The most obvious examples of this are The Observer and the Daily Express, where neither David Astor nor Max Aitken had the money to face strikes in the way that perhaps the present management is starting to do. This is an example of where union intransigence has brought its own reaction in terms of more powerful proprietors. Whether this is in the long-term interests of the Press is open to dispute. Whatever might be said about individual

795
proprietors, they knew all about the freedom of the Press. We shall have to wait and see whether the present proprietors know quite so much.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I accept entirely what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I find it absolutely fascinating that he should develop this vital point of view. Would he not agree that one of the central problems is the fact that in the Fleet Street papers a great number of casuals are employed? The question of casual employment has always bedevilled every industry and has led to serious problems. The people who really want to solve the difficulties in Fleet Street should be thinking seriously about how to get away from casual employment in the industry.
Mr. Prior: This is obviously an important point. The casuals are very much part of the Sunday newspaper scene. They are people who have earned a pretty good screw during the week and want to pick up an extra £50 on a Saturday night by working for the Sundays. This is a general point, too. One of the things that has happened is that people no longer have a loyalty towards their papers. As a result, regrettably, the sort of situation to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has referred tends to occur.
I draw the attention of the House to an extract from an excellent publication entitled "Programme for Action" which deals with the report of a body on which management and union leaders sit. There was full agreement on this report. Referring to the future of the industry and the programme's package, it says:
"To adopt this package is not therefore to accept the soft option. But rejection of it would result in titles continuing to fail as newspaper economies forced them out of business. The inevitable consequences would be compulsory redundancy with little or no advance warning to workers and unions. No Government aid would be available to workers and unions. New forms of printed communications utilising the new technology, if necessary, printed abroad, could compete more and more successfully with a diminishing range of British national newspapers."
That is the view of the joint standing committee for the national newspaper industry, which met to consider this problem.
796
What advice and help should the House give? We all have a deep interest in the maintenance of a competitive free Press, giving a wide choice in political attitudes, analysis of the state of the nation, highbrow or lowbrow, sport or entertainment—the whole gamut. We have a deep interest in all of that. Certainly this "Programme for Action," drawn up by the joint standing committee, points the way to the solution. I believe that a renewed effort should be made to gain its acceptance. Perhaps an attitude survey of shop-floor reaction, sponsored by management and unions, could show how better to get the message across.
I want to look at the management side for a minute. I believe that the management of newspapers has been subject to less influence in industrial relations than perhaps the editorial columns have exerted on nearly every other interest in the country. I cannot help thinking to myself sometimes that, if only the management of the newspapers had subjected themselves to such editorial advice as we have been subjected to in the House or industry generally has been subjected to on various matters, they might not be in quite the mess that they are.
There are one or two things that one can say. I believe that there is not enough involvement and participation at shop-floor level. There must be more down-the-line personnel involvement. It seems to me that too often when something goes wrong it is to the top man that people go, whereas in industry that sort of thing would not happen. There would be much more managerial content the whole way down the managerial line. There is nothing more damaging in industrial relations—I suppose that we all learn this the hard way—than strong words which are followed by weak action or sometimes by no action at all. That is a lesson that needs to be learnt by management too.
On the union side—
Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prior: Is not the hon. Gentleman going to take part in the debate? If he is, he had better make his own speech.
Union leaders must reassert their undoubted authority. They must use their

797
strength, and, if necessary, they must get together in order to do so. They cannot go on saying, as I think they are inclined to do at present, "We are so fed up with Fleet Street that we're washing our hands of what happens there", because it is far too important. What happens in Fleet Street is vital nationally. Therefore, they must take a personal interest in what happens.
I believe that union leaders have adopted a responsible attitude. I do not want to praise them, because if I did so I should do them no good. I think that they have adopted a responsible attitude, but I hope that they will exert all their pressures to make certain that they can achieve the necessary discipline. In this respect, what is absolutely vital is a proper disputes procedure. The disputes procedure laid down on pages 28 and 29 of the "Programme for Action" seems to me vital. It is a first-class document, one which should be followed.
We cannot afford the constant disruptions. I think it is true to say that there has not been an official dispute in Fleet Street for some while. All the disputes have been unofficial.
Next, I want to say a word to the workers and to quote to them words which were said to me the other day: "Unless there is an industry, there is nothing to fight about. If they go as they are at the moment, there will not be anything to fight about."
The vast majority of printers, as we all know them—we in this House probably know them better than most other people do—are decent people. What we see is the influence of the few being allowed to sway the many. It is not an unusual state of affairs where management has been weak. Those weaknesses can be exploited. There is no point in talking about holding pistols to the heads of these people or anything of that nature.
I have tried to analyse the various problems dispassionately. I hope that a message can go out from the House today that we do not like what is going on. We recognise how damaging it is from the point of view of the industry, those who work in it and a free Press. We expect to see authority restored and common sense prevail. We are telling the industry, all sections of it, to get round the table again and sort it out, and sort it out quickly.
798
I turn to another matter, which is much more a question for the provincial and magazine Press than for Fleet Street, but is also a matter of considerable concern. I refer to the whole question of the National Union of Journalists and the control it tries to exercise or might try to exercise were it to have a closed shop. I should like to put the matter in this way. One understands the problems of young journalists. One sees that in a number of provincial papers they have been badly paid. They see the much greater pay and much greater strength that perhaps the linotype operators have gathered for themselves, and they say to themselves "If they can do that as a result of a strong union, why can't we have the same?"
There is no doubt that in many respects a number of journalists in a number of newspapers have been badly paid, and they look to the closed shop as a means of giving them the collective strength that they feel they otherwise lack. I understand that, but there are too many examples now where a closed shop certainly could be used, and would be used, as a means of controlling what was published. In this respect I should like to quote from a leading article in The Times some months ago:
"Rigid application of the closed shop in journalism creates an unacceptable risk of restraint upon liberty. Effective control of what is or is not printed would be put in the hands of a single politically active organisation. The NUJ would be able to decide who wrote for the press and to require its members to write in a particular way on pain of effective exclusion from their trade. The union's present leaders may be fully determined never to exploit the powers that a closed shop would give them. But the political currents in the union are strong and it is impossible to be certain that the same will always be true."
That is why we on the Conservative Benches have stated that any Press charter should be firm about the right to join or not to join a union. What has happened to the Press charter? When does the Secretary of State expect to be able to bring a charter before the House?
I now have a further suggestions to make to the right hon. Gentleman. The Government have recently stated—at any rate, they have come out in the Press—the conditions for union membership agreements within certain Civil Service unions. I do not like closed shops, but if one is to have a closed shop the union membership agreement must be drawn in

799
a certain way to give freedom to individuals to decide whether they will pay union dues, pay to a charity or use some other means of paying.
It seems to me that the conditions that the Government are laying down for union membership agreements for their own employees in the Civil Service are perfectly reasonable and suitable for the conditions of a union membership agreement, for example, in the newspaper industry, because it would give that freedom for the individual journalist to decide whether he wished to join a union. If he did not wish to join, he would not be subject to the pressures of discipline which the union might try to exert if he was writing material with which it disagreed.
I believe, therefore, that the Government have another way out of this situation now, not just through the Press charter but through stating that they would support union membership agreements with the sorts of provision that they have discussed themselves and which we have been talking about for some time. That is another thing on which I believe that the Govenment should now give a lead.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me the source of the document from which he was quoting a few minutes ago?
Mr. Prior: I was quoting not from a TUC document but from the well-inspired sources last week on what conditions the Government were seeking—
Mr. Walker: I am sorry, but perhaps I misled the right hon. Gentleman. A few minutes ago he quoted someone about closed shops in journalism. I did not catch the source of the document.
Mr. Prior: I quoted a leader from The Times of some months ago.
I turn now from the question of preserving the freedom of the Press, which means a good deal more than ensuring that all journalists have access to the Press. I am sure that no one in this House would defend any newspaper which refused to publish a letter from one of its readers purely on the ground that it objected to his or her political or union affiliation. This would rightly be condemned
800
as a most dangerous form of censorship. As recently as 4th May, however, the editor of the Evening Standard found that he was unable to publish a drawing which a reader had submitted with a letter.
The editor was unable to publish the drawing because the Press and process workers' union, SLADE, refused to handle the picture. A joint SLADENGA directive forbids the processing of work other than that done by a trade union member. When the unions demanded to know whether the reader was a member of a union, the editor refused to answer. In that evening's edition he restated his paper's policy that the editorial columns should be kept open to any contributor irrespective of union or political affiliations.
Of course, the editor of the Evening Standard must surely be right. I defy anyone in this House, including those on the Government Benches, to say to the contrary. Yet, as a result of action by the members of SLADE, no picture appeared. If hon. Members are interested, I point out that on page 28 of that edition of the Evening Standard there is a blank space. The caption says:
"Wonderful Wapping—but this is a wasteland."
Perhaps it is as well that the picture was not in. But there is a blank space where it should have been.
SLADE members there demonstrated their ability and determination to censor a newspaper, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) has given me details of a circular send round by the NGA and the NUJ combined stating that members of those unions should not permit the publication of certain material which had racialist overtones.
I hold no more brief than they would for anyone who sought to stir up racialism in Britain, but I would defend to the last the right of a newspaper to print that material if that was what the editor wished to do. It is not for any part of the trade union movement, whether it be the NUJ, SLADE or whatever, to start saying what can or cannot be printed.
Other activities of SLADE have also—
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to

801
comment upon the employer or manufacturer who instructs his agency not to take space in a paper because he identifies that paper with a certain political view to which he or the person buying the space objects? Would the right hon. Gentleman condemn him equally in such a case concerning, for example, Tribune or Labour Weekly, in which certain agencies refuse to take space because they are political papers? Or does the right hon. Gentleman think that these freedoms should extend right across the board?
Mr. Prior: That is a totally separate case in every possible way. It bears no relation to the point I was making. In the case that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, presumably a commercial consideration is involved. It is an advertisement, and an advertiser has the right to decide in which papers he will advertise. There is no connection there at all. What I object to very strongly is the fact that the NUJ and the NGA or SLADE are in a position to say what should or should not be printed in a newspaper, and I believe that that is entirely a wrong use of union power and one that we should bring out into the open and resist to the last breath.
Mr. Corbett: Like the proprietors.
Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman says "Like the proprietors", but there is a wide variety of publications throughout the country. There is plenty of scope in the provincial Press and in the national Press for a wide variety of views to be expressed, and anyone who does not believe that does not know what goes on in journalism.
Other activities of SLADE have also given rise to considerable concern to many people in this House, in the country and throughout the trade union movement. Last June, we initiated a debate on the recruiting methods and techniques of SLADE because of this widespread concern. In particular we were concerned at SLADE's failure to consult workers when it wished to recruit and its frequent demands not only for recognition by the employer but for a closed shop. These activities were particularly serious in various art work studios and advertising agencies.
During that debate, the Minister of State expressed the hope that consultations
802
between representatives of the employers and SLADE, held through the good offices of the TUC printing industries committee, would help to improve matters, although only last month he stated, in reply to a Question that I put to him,
"I very much regret that as yet as I have seen little evidence that the situation has significantly changed."—[[Official Report, 3rd April 1978; Vol. 947, c. 51.]
I gather that further talks are planned, but our information is that SLADE's attitude has not changed all that much.
As a recent article in The Sunday Times by Eric Jacobs showed, several thousand people have effectively been coerced into membership of the SLADE Art Union. Why should these people now not be able to leave the union if they so wish, free from the threat of blacking or the secondary boycott? Indeed, at this moment members of the SLADE Art Union are demonstrating outside the SLADE annual delegate conference at Scarborough because, although the SAU comprises about one-third of the total SLADE membership, its members are not represented at conference. They are also worried that members of the SAU will not be able to vote in any ballot of SLADE members on the proposed merger between SLADE and the NUJ.
It is no wonder that they are worried. On the one hand, SLADE said that it would abide by the letter and spirit of the recent High Court judgment in which temporary injunctions were imposed on it, yet, on the other hand, its general secretary says that members of the Art Union are now in limbo. It is hardly surprising that the banners at Scarborough today say "Shame on SLADE" and refer to members of the Art Union as second-class citizens.
SLADE's attitude and behaviour has been quite inexcusable. It is not as if the union was driven to such extremes by an unreasonable approach on the part of the employers—not that the tactics used by SLADE could ever be justified in any circumstances. But, in an effort to reach a joint understanding, the employers are willing to recognise as appropriate unions any one of four unions, including SLADE. They are happy that representatives of the unions concerned should meet and put their point of view to their

803
employees, and they are ready to recognise a union for bargaining purposes where a substantial proportion of employees or groups of employees belong to one of those unions.
In return, all that is asked by the employers is that the individual employee has the right to choose whether to join a union, free from the threat of blacking or secondary boycott. I cannot believe that anyone in this House can take a different view from that. All this seems to me to be very fair and reasonable behaviour, and I am certain that that is the view that we all ought to take.
I suspect that that is the view with which many people in the trade union movement—in fact, nearly all the trade union movement—would agree, and even, perhaps, the majority of the NGA and SLADE as well. I hope that in any further talks on the principles involved a sensible accommodation can be reached. I very hope also that both SLADE and the NGA will be ready to renegotiate on the issue of the pre-entry closed shop when the new agreements are negotiated with employers this summer.
I hope that the message of this House today to Fleet Street will be to accept the "Programme for Action" and make it work. I hope that the message to the NUJ will be that the privilege of a free Press is of greater importance than a press-ganged union membership. I hope that the message to SLADE-NGA will be to stop bringing the whole of the trade union movement into disrepute. The greater the degree of unanimity we show, the more likely we are to succeed. A free Press and democracy go hand in hand. That is a stand that this House has to take.
4.42 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The newspaper industry has been responsible for the publication of a good deal of criticism of industrial relations in other sectors of the country. In fact, editorials on this subject are frequently excellent examples of the pan calling the kettle sooty-bottomed. It is therefore a little ironic that the Opposition have sought, in a Supply Day debate, to bring forward a subject that reflects adversely on industrial relations in newspapers.
804
Nevertheless, having said that, I very much appreciate the spirit in which the subject has been introduced by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). I agreed with a number of things that he said. Even where I disagreed with him, I felt that he introduced the matter in a constructive way, which can lead to a debate on the issue, which can serve a useful purpose.
The problems of industrial relations in the newspaper industry at this time are the more critical because they coincide with a period when the newspaper industry is facing one of the most significant periods of change in the history of printing. There may be a relationship between the two. It may be that the new technology of computerised photocomposition in place of the old hot-metal methods is the cause of part of the industrial relations problems.
It is not surprising that a change of this magnitude should give rise to differences between management and unions. But a newspaper industry, which thrives on reporting the conflicts and challenges in our society, must itself meet the challenge of new print technology and resolve the conflict that this produces in a way that does not bring the presses of this country to a halt.
The joint standing committee which emerged from talks between unions and management in the first half of 1976 published the proposals, designed to accommodate the introduction of this new technology, under the heading of the publication "Programme for Action"—the document to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
A great many of the recommendations of the ACAS report were embodied in the "Programme for Action". These proposals were commended by the printing unions but were rejected by their members in a ballot in the spring of 1977. I believe that the union leaders are the people best qualified to judge the reasons for this rejection by their membership, to reflect those reasons in further negotiations with management and proprietors on this issue, and to convey to their own membership the scope, the opportunities and the limitations which they believe that the new technology will bring to employment in the Press.

805
In the absence of agreement on new national machinery to deal more effectively with these issues, many newspaper publishers are now undertaking negotiations with trade unions to bring about the advance of the introduction of the new technology. The Mirror Group is probably the one which has made the most progress towards this goal, but even there it would seem that several problems still remain to be ironed out. Most other Fleet Street managements are already engaged in discussions of a similar kind, although some plans are more ambitious than others.
I believe that what has to be recognised is that unless these changes are introduced it is highly unlikely that the industry will be able to maintain reasonable employment levels, and the future of Fleet Street itself, with its present range of titles, will be at risk over this problem. There is no immutable law which requires national newspapers any longer to be printed in London. This is an issue, therefore, which is of concern not only to proprietors, to editors and to those who work in the industry, but rightly also—as the right hon. Gentleman said—to those who live by retailing newspapers. It is an issue that should properly concern this House and all who are concerned with the dissemination of news and opinion through the medium of the Press.
Any publicity that we give to disputes in Britain tends to sustain the myth of the "British disease". It is worth recollecting, therefore, just for a moment, that Press industrial relations problems are not by any means unique to this country. Recent major disputes in the Federal Republic of Germany and in Denmark have been very much rooted in exactly these problems in this kind of area. These countries have experienced difficulties in the introduction of new technology in the Press.
In West Germany, union resistance to certain employer proposals for the introduction of new technological developments led to an almost total shut-down of German presses during the middle of March, when the negotiations had broken down, and the employers instigated a lockout in retaliation for some selective strike action which took place at that time.
Within the last 12 months Denmark has also seen a major stoppage over
806
new technology and changed manpower requirements in the Press. It is relevant to point out, particularly in view of some things that have been said recently in industrial relations debates in the House, that in Denmark legal sanctions were used against those who took part in strike action in the Danish Press, and that this seems to have exacerbated the ill-feeling of the dispute to the point where it actually spilled over into violence.
For a long time in this country the number of days lost due to disputes in the newspaper industry compared very favourably indeed with the position in other industries. Statistics published by my Department for the number of days lost due to industrial disputes in the industry in 1976 show that the figure is below the average for all manufacturing industries. The statistics for the previous five years, which were published in the ACAS report, show that in most years the figures for the national newspaper industry were better than those for the paper, printing and publishing industries as a whole. Indeed, in some years the national newspaper industry had a lower figure for the number of days lost due to strikes than did the provincial newspapers.
Having said that, I nevertheless accept very much of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the nature of disputes in the newspaper industry at present. It is the case that in the early part of this year many more copies had been lost than previously. Judged by that criterion, industrial relations in the Press have worsened. I do not contend that the figures that we publish for days lost due to industrial disputes are necessarily the best criteria of the damage that is done in this industry as a result of bad industrial relations and forms of dispute.
Mr. Angus Maude: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that point. I hope that he will emphasise the fact that when one has a situation in which a handful of 10 or 20 men can stop a whole newspaper, or half an edition of a newspaper, the number of copies lost are overwhelmingly the indicator by which one has to judge the prosperity or prospects of the industry.
Mr. Booth: I fully accept that point. If it will help the House I shall develop it just a little. Our figures for days lost

807
at an establishment do not include the total days lost as a result of a dispute. That is particularly relevant in this industry. The printing process is such that a stoppage by even a few workers can result in a total loss of production. Therefore, I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in his contention that if we are to judge the effects of disputes in relation to the ability of the industry to perform its task, we must look at the losses of production which result, or the failure to deliver newspapers, possibly more than we look at the number of hours or days lost in actual dispute.
The reference to figures of publications lost, of more than 50 million, may not tally exactly with the various counts made, but that is not of importance. What is of importance, if we accept this way of judging it, is that there has been a massive loss of tens of millions of copies in the early part of this year. That is a serious matter.
Having said that, we must look more closely at the reasons for some disputes which are peculiar to Fleet Street. In doing so I feel obliged to say that many of the roots of Fleet Street's problems lie in the policy of management, or the absence of management policy, in industrial relations. Those managers who concede to unofficial demands things that they denied to official union representatives only a few days previously do nothing but undermine the authority of unions in an area where the authority of unions is of considerable importance if we are to have industrial peace.
Most disputes—in fact, almost all disputes—which have taken place in Fleet Street this year have been unofficial disputes. By definition, they are disputes that have been caused as a result of a failure to use procedures for the resolution of the problems that have arisen.
Mr. Max Madden: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what is the present situation regarding efforts being made to resolve the dispute at The Observer, which clearly has important implications? Can he say whether any approaches have been made to the Department or to ACAS to assist in that dispute. Can he say what efforts are being made to resolve it?
Mr. Booth: I shall try to get the very latest information so that it can be given by my hon. Friend when winding up the debate. The matter is not being dealt with directly by my Department, but ACAS is very interested in finding ways of solving problems in the industry. Of course, as a result of its report, it has a special concern to see how far its recommendations, if observed, would prevent the occurrence of a dispute such as that on The Observer.
Mr. Eric Moonman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the NGA, despite some of the harsh words said previously, is establishing its national council meeting tomorrow afternoon in Bedford to try to resolve some of the matters, including one of the sticking points with regard to The Observer, namely, the management's disciplining of the 25 men who went on unofficial action last Saturday night?
Mr. Booth: I understand that that is the case, but I do not want to be drawn into commenting too closely on this matter. I appreciate some of the problems that relate to a call upon unions to discipline members, such as that which exists in Fleet Street. I hope that as a result of the meeting to which my hon. Friend referred it will be possible to resolve the matter. But it needs some understanding and appreciation on both sides that what can be done by way of disciplining members now in Fleet Street may be something very much more limited than that which would be possible had the recommendations of ACAS, to which leaders of the unions and management subscribe, been implemented.
In fact, ACAS suggested that a model national procedure agreement might be worked out which could be adopted for use by the individual houses. The ACAS report on the national newspaper industry drew attention to the highly fragmented nature of collective bargaining in Fleet Street. It said that while negotiations on basic pay do take place at national level, very large scope was left for negotiations at house and departmental level between managements and individual chapels on a whole range of issues. The report noted that changes are necessary in areas of manning, demarcation, differentials and

809
related matters. One of the most significant conclusions contained in the ACAS report was that which said:
"Sectionalism has produced agreements that bear no strict relationship to each other, narrowly based productivity bargains, a high disputes potential, and short-term industrial relations policies by management".
That is a very damning indictment of an industrial relations situation. A number of recommendations made by ACAS, in fact, the majority, have been endorsed by the Royal Commission on the Press. I believe that there is now an absolute need for unions and management in the newspaper industry to make a fresh effort to bring about the implementation of those recommendations. We have to acknowledge that, so far, little has been done to bring about that implementation. To some extent the slow progress, or the lack of progress, is a measure of the complexity of the problems facing the industry. I think that I would be running away from a fair judgment if I did not also say that it reflects a reluctance on the part of some managements and union members to abandon old methods which have possibly prevailed in the industry for too long.
The recent decision of The Sun to leave the NPA is an illustration of the different approaches taken by individual managements within Fleet Street. Wide variations between product and market quite understandably lead to different newspapers attaching different priorities in those negotiations on the parts of the ACAS report which should be first implemented. I think that the industry needs a strong and effective management organisation which can give a clear management view on some of the major issues raised by the Royal Commission in its endorsement of the ACAS report.
I go along with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft in hoping that the unions will consider the ACAS recommendations very carefully indeed. I recognise that without an increase in effective communications between union officials at all levels and their memberships it is quite improbable that industrial relations in the industry can ever be put on a secure footing. I know that the national leadership of the printing unions accepts the need for some kind of positive action. I believe that it must play a major part in a fresh attempt to bring about that
810
which it has already agreed is desirable. I therefore join in an appeal to unions and management to accept the urgent need to examine how far those recommendations can be implemented.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft asked some questions relating to the Press charter. He pointed out quite fairly that this is a matter possibly of more relevance to industrial relations problems of the provincial Press rather than Fleet Street. Nevertheless, I think that this is a very important issue. It is so important that after my initial talks with Lord Pearce and others arrangements were made for a whole series of meetings conducted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. They have been aimed at producing the widest possible area of acceptance of the broad aim which I think this House sought to bring about when it laid upon me the obligation to produce a Press charter, if it could not be done by agreement within the industry.
As a result of the series of discussions and meetings, I think that I shall serve the House best if I can reduce to the minimum the number of issues in the charter on which I shall have to place a decision before the House, and expand to the maximum those sectors of the charter which reflect agreement within the industry. Therefore, I thought that it would be welcome to the House if I indicated to some extent the area in which agreement had been reached.
First, all the parties to the charter are prepared to declare their support for the freedom of the Press to collect and publish information and to publish comment and criticism, and they accept that it is their duty to defend that freedom as an essential part of a democratic society. They agree that the charter should apply within the United Kingdom to all newspapers, periodicals and news agencies.
We have got a considerable measure of agreement on the need to avoid improper pressures being placed upon editors. In fact, the parties to the charter have pledged themselves to abstain from the exercise of any improper pressure and to resist such improper pressures from any quarter, external or internal.
Under the same heading, they have agreed that any action or threat, of whatever kind, from whatever quarter, which

811
is calculated to induce an editor to distort news, comment or criticism, or, contrary to his or her judgment, to publish, suppress or modify news, comment or criticism, shall be deemed, ipso facto, to be an improper measure.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend say whether that includes improper pressures coming from those purchasers of newspaper space who make it a condition of their purchase that newspapers follow a particular line, and those buyers of space who exclude certain newspapers from their purchases because of the views held by particular newspapers?
Mr. Booth: The agreement is an agreement to resist improper pressure from any source, but those who are bound by the agreement are only the signatories to the agreement. Those who hire newspaper space are not necessarily parties to the Press charter.
Among the further issues agreed on this question of improper pressure is that the editor or, in appropriate cases, the editor-in-chief, shall accept and be accorded final responsibility for the content of his publication. Employers of editors shall recognise that responsibility and the independence of editorial judgment. The editor shall not, therefore, normally be subject to ad hoc interference from his employers but may be required by them to observe basic editorial policy and the practice that has been agreed between him and them.
In the difficult area of union membership agreements, it has been agreed that union membership agreements shall not require editors of news agencies to become or remain a member of any trade union or association, and shall not require a newspaper editor to become or remain a member of any trade union or association.
In the area of access to the Press, which I know is a matter of particular concern to many hon. Members, it has been agreed that access to the Press shall be free, and any person shall have a right to submit material for publication. The editor shall have the right to commission material from any contributor.
I think that this represents a fair measure of progress.
Mr. Maude: Would that include art work as well as written material?
Mr. Booth: I think that the area that we were discussing in the talks was one of the written word. Certainly the hon. Member has raised a very interesting question and I shall have to consider it rather carefully. I accept the importance of it. However, it is not a question to which I should give an immediate off-the-cuff reaction.
What I wish to urge the House to do is to appreciate that we have made considerable progress towards agreement. We have not yet covered all the areas that we are required to cover by the 1974 Act, but I believe that it is well worth while to spend the time necessary to get that broadest possible measure of agreement. I think that any legal enforcement of disagreed provisions would be a very poor alternative to getting the broad agreement of all the parties to the charter.
Mr. Julian Critchley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this charter, even were it to see the light of day—and that depends upon Liberal support, which it will not get—will be a voluntary charter without the sanction of law and will not, therefore, be worth the paper upon which it is written?
Mr. Booth: No. Whether there is total agreement to the charter or whether it is a combination of agreed provisions and those that I shall propose as the best possible cover in an area in which one cannot obtain agreement, the charter will have a certain legal standing. There will be three types of legal action in which reference can be made to the charter. It will be appropriate to consideration of unfair dismissal cases. I think that it will be appropriate in some cases of breach of contract. It could be appropriate in some cases of a union member bringing an action against his own union for, say, exclusion from membership.
The precise legal purpose of the charter is defined in the 1974 Act. But I urge that we should not be concerned about only the precise legal purpose. I am suggesting that we should be concerned, as Members of the House of Commons, about the value of a charter, which has the agreement of all signatory parties, in resolving the problem which caused the

813
House to insert those provisions in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act.
I very much regret that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft should again assert the importance of giving an absolute right not to belong to a trade union, in this context or in any wider context. I do not believe that that was the purpose of the Act. My view appears to have been shared by the Royal Commission on the Press when it considered that. The purpose of the Act was quite clearly to define the way in which it would be legal and proper to form membership agreements in particular circumstances and to consider what safeguards should attach to them.
I think that it behoves the right hon. Gentleman, if he really believes that we should have some legislative provision to establish an absolute right not to belong—to cut across the right of employer and union to form a union membership agreement—to enunciate the principle on which that can be based. If he is holding that it is right to do that in the case of the Press because a union membership agreement—in his view, not in mine—may lead to the stopping of the flow or dissemination of information, one cannot stop at journalists and editors in withholding that right. Printers also can stop the flow of information. Those who drive lorries carrying newspapers can also stop the flow of information. If that is the contention, one would have to put a legal bar or impediment in the way of the formation of union membership agreements over a much wider area.
I would also pose the question how it could be enforced in any case, and who would have to be locked up if someone proceeded to make an agreement in breach of that or continued to operate an agreement, as was done through the period of the Industrial Relations Act 1971.
Therefore, I believe that to raise this issue now does not help to achieve the main purpose of the House which caused the House to embody the Press charter requirement in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act.
Mr. Prior: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to comment on a union membership agreement which has written into it the sort of safeguards which it is proposed to write into the Civil Service union
814
membership agreement, because that would go a very long way to giving the protection which the individual journalist requires?
Mr. Booth: I am prepared to comment on that, but, by way of an additional comment, I should be interested to know whether the right hon. Gentleman approves of those conditions for union membership agreements for civil servants. That is the area for which they are designed, but he has not given the House that information.
The considerations that the Government have given to what would be appropriate conditions for union membership agreements for civil servants are in line with the spirit and intention of the House, which was that the conditions that attach to union membership agreements, apart from the narrow area covered within legislation, should be worked out between the employer and the unions concerned.
As regards the Civil Service, the Government stand in the role of the employer. Therefore, it is proper that the Government should, where there is a call made upon them by the civil servants' unions for union membership agreements, closed shop arrangements, to propose the safeguards that they think proper in the circumstances and to negotiate them with the unions concerned.
Mr. Prior: I quote from a handout that I issued last Friday, in which it is stated:
"We welcome this apparent concern of the Government's for the rights of individual employees. But why the double standards—why should the Government wish to afford this kind of protection solely to its own employees? Surely it is now time for the Government to act by taking the necessary step to provide adequate safeguards for all employees affected by closed shop agreements."
Mr. Booth: If I were feeling sensitive, I should resent the phrase "apparent concern". The Government's concern for the individual rights of those they employ is real and continuing. We expect employers, whether they be Ministers in Government, managements of newspapers, those who run nationalised industries or those who run great private concerns, to be concerned for the individual rights and position of those they employ. There is no duality of standard. What we are doing is what we expect and encourage others to do. As there is no duality of standard, we shall not insist on or seek to propose

815
legislation that for one section of the newspaper industry would deny the right of employers and unions to reach agreements where we believe that it is right that they should reach agreements in a whole other wide area of employment.
The issue of the Press charter is important and has industrial relations consequences, mainly in the provincial newspapers. However, I urge that the issue should not hold up the appeal that I and the right hon. Gentleman have jointly addressed to management and unions in the newspaper industry, again to try to implement the broad recommendations of ACAS, which we both believe will make a considerable contribution to the health, well-being and maintenance of an important industry.
When we think of the importance and the nature of the industry's product, the newspaper, the preparation of the day's news, there can be very few items that are more perishable. The day's news is prepared for printing in a newspaper. If the day's production is lost, it can never be regained. If it is produced and delivered on time, the printed word serves a vital function in the democratic process. If production is a day late, the sheet of paper on which the skill of journalists and printers has been lavished becomes inferior to a blank sheet of paper used for wrapping up fish and chips. Even if there were no other justification, that alone would warrant a much higher priority being given in the newspaper industry to the building of procedures for the determination of terms and conditions, for the avoidance of disputes, for the preservation of the service that the Press can uniquely perform, and for the maintenance of a sound livelihood for all those who work in it.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: I must declare an interest as a trustee of the Guardian and Manchester Evening News. I must make it clear that trustees receive no pay or profit. They play no part in either the editorial or general day-to-day management of the paper.
There has been so far a considerable measure of agreement in the debate, which I welcome. That is not surprising because the present problems of Fleet
816
Street, whatever the past may have shown, are well known and may be fairly clearly defined. The Secretary of State has given a clear warning to the disruptive elements in Fleet Street of what is the inevitable result if they continue with present practices.
The debate is really about industrial relations. Although the charter has featured in the debate, I do not intend to devote a great deal of time to it. However, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying something about it. There is considerable concern about the length of time that it is taking to produce the charter. That adds to the general uncertainty of the industry. We know that conversations have been taking place, and it was useful for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us his view of how far they have proceeded. In so far as they have made progress, the progress seems to be in the right direction.
It is good to know that freedom of the Press has been agreed upon. Surely that is the absolute minimum that could be expected. It may be that that does not carry us very much further forward.
Although the right hon. Gentleman's statement will have to be studied more carefully, I noticed that it contained certain weasel words such as "normal", which is always rather alarming. Those of us who are opposed to the closed shop have always had reservations about the effectiveness of any charter. When the charter is completed, it will have to be most carefully examined by the House. As has been said from the Conservative Benches, one of the most important points is what if any sanction it will have behind it.
In the course of the debate advertisers have been mentioned. If they are to be discussed, we had better have some evidence that advertisers nowadays attempt to influence editorial policy. Certainly they have the right to choose in which newspapers they will advertise. If there are any instances of advertisers attempting to write leading articles, so to speak, it would be a good thing if we knew of them.
I do not intend to go further into the charter. It will have to be closely examined. However, I hope that the Government will give us some indication of their idea of timing. I agree with the

817
right hon. Gentleman that there is everything to be said for conducting conversations at a pace that will give us some chance of reaching agreement. However, the years pass and the election is advancing, in spite of the Liberal Party, perhaps. It would be good if some indication could be given that the Government consider the charter as something that will not appear in the present Parliament.
I turn to industrial relations in the Press. Of course, the Press is not one industry but a great many. Fleet Street is only one part of it. The importance of the national Press, though great, is declining. It is declining partly through its own fault, partly because of the improvement in much of the local Press, and partly because of the competition of television and radio.
Most of the present trouble arises in Fleet Street. Most of the local Press is free from trouble and maintains a high standard. I read my local Press from cover to cover. I should do so even if I were not the local Member of Parliament. In Orkney and Shetland we now have local radio, which is making a considerable impact. The local Press is now, to my mind, better written and much better printed than most of the national Press. The early editions of the national Press that are received in my constituency frequently appear to be printed in a different language. The local Press gives a great deal of genuine and important news.
The operations within the Press are really different industries. There may come a time—I am not suggesting that it will be immediate—when printing and production are hived off from the editorial function. They might be carried on by co-operatives of printers. However, no one can be in any doubt about the gravity of the position in Fleet Street. The national Press has frequently cried "wolf". The whole point of the parable about the wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
That may yet happen in Fleet Street, as the Minister and the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) realise. The national Press suffers from a legacy of poor management by some of the old Press barons and a policy of appeasement. I wholly agree with the Minister that the business of the trade unions has
818
often been made much more difficult by management suddenly giving way after having told the official union representatives that it intended to stand firm. This is not the way to conduct good industrial relations.
The national Press has a long history of restrictive practices, excessive pay, and overmanning which has not made it easy to obtain good management and efficient working. However, management, though no doubt it has black spots, has greatly improved and those days are to some extent over. The present main danger lies in sudden strikes and breaches of agreements by often very small numbers within the industry and nearly always confined to Fleet Street. It is not generally a conflict between management and the trade union secretaries or leaders. As the Minister has said, none of the recent trouble has been official, and it is not about grievances which the unions support.
It is, therefore, unfair to blame the union secretaries. These troubles are often a sign of the inability of the unions to control some of their members. It may be that the process of dealing with these grievances is too slow. It is noticeable that usually these troubles stop papers or create difficulties for papers for three or four or five days. The reason for that is often that it takes that amount of time before the union secretaries and union officials can get round to dealing with the matter of bringing some sense into the situation.
There are agreements between the managements and the unions for settling grievances. There are the recommendations of the joint standing committee. The trouble is that these are far too often disregarded. The result is the loss of 55 million to 60 million copies of newspapers this year alone. I agree with what has been said that it is not only the total stoppage of newspapers which is making it difficult for the industry. It is the constant friction, the trouble with getting printing runs completed and the day-to-day anxiety as to whether we are able to produce the full newspaper which is intended.
Why do the small groups of workers behave as they do? It is partly because of lack of respect for the undertakings in which they work and partly because of a lack of loyalty to institutions and to

819
agreements. I am afraid that this is becoming a feature of many aspects of British life. It is not confined to the printing industry, nor to journalism in general. As the editorial of The Times today points out, there is also the extraordinary internal structure of the industry. This makes it all too easy for small groups to disrupt production. As in so much of the British industry, there is the incredible complication of wage rates and agreements and the number of chapels and unions involved. These complications make it difficult to negotiate and to run a sensible and fair operation.
There is the major issue of the change to new technology. Certain parts of the industry have successfully changed over, if not to the whole of the new technology, then to some of it. I do not speak for The Guardian, nor do I speak about The Guardian, but we have been fairly free from troubles. Therefore, it is not true that the industry is making no progress towards introducing new technology, because it is. However, progress is not fast enough. In the case of one newspaper there is £3 million worth of new investment which has never been used. It is not much use calling upon British industry to invest if, when the investment is put in, it is not used.
I sympathise with workers who are threatened with redundancy owing to changes in method, but some of the trouble has arisen from restrictive practices and huge wages. There are agreements by union leaders about the introduction of the new machinery and methods and there are redundancy payments. The difficulties will not be made easier by a Luddite attitude towards the introduction of this machinery. The only hope for the industry is that these agreements will be honoured.
There are one or two minor contributory factors. Some of the unions do not have their headquarters in London and are not primarily concerned with the London operations. That cuts both ways. It often means, however, that there is delay in the process of dealing with disputes.
I was once a director of The Guardian and had some responsibility for a paper. I found that for an industry which is
820
meant to be concerned with communications, the newspaper industry is extremely bad at communicating within itself. It has already been said that newspapers lecture everyone else in the world on how they ought to behave whilst setting an extremely bad example. I mention an obvious example of this. Occasionally I used to lunch with Mr. Cecil King. He spent much of lunch declaiming against the iniquities of British industry and particularly its monstrous inefficiency, over-manning and restrictive practices. On one occasion he asked whether I would like to go round the Daily Mirror building. I said that I would. There we looked down on people reading novels while Mr. King finished his lunch. That was a prime example of the very things against which he had been declaiming.
What can be done? There have been warnings that some papers will close. These warnings may have an effect. I expect that The Observer will be published this Sunday, but it is a terrible reflection of the anarchy in the industry that such warnings have to be given. It is no good if the warnings have only a temporary effect. I am afraid that if the trouble continues The Observer may ultimately close. I think that the proprietors of that newspaper probably mean what they say.
Whatever may be done about the long-term structure of the industry and whatever view is taken of trade union power, it is essential in the short term that the unions should be fully supported in their efforts to achieve some sense, orderliness and respect for agreements. The Government must not only make it crystal clear, as they have done in the debate, that this is their view, but they must maintain their attitude that they will not encourage the belief that if individual papers get into trouble simply because of anarchy by small numbers of their workers, the public will somehow bail them out.
There is the belief at the back of many people's minds that the Government will now allow papers to go to the wall and that the taxpayer ultimately will pay. This is a disastrous belief which undermines the authority of the unions and management. I do not suggest that the Government are in the least responsible for this belief. However, they must continue to make it clear that they will not

821
bail out individual papers which have got into trouble simply because of internal wrecking by their own work people. The future lies in agreements between management and labour which will be respected.
It has already been said that the Newspaper Publishers Association has a part to play. I agree that it has. However, at the moment the NPA is not very effective in this area. It has other uses. We cannot in the short term place much reliance upon it. This is a matter that has to be dealt with by the management of the newspapers.
The unions have won great privileges and have a special position under the law. They can hardly continue to claim these privileges and this special position if they are to wash their hands of the constant disruption caused by their members. I do not suggest that this is a matter which should be dealt with in the debate, but it will become an issue which at some time or other has to be tackled. I suspect that one answer must be that unions should be not compelled, but allowed, to enter into binding agreements to which, if they are broken, the ordinary sanctions applied to other agreements should apply.
It is sad that all this is happening now because, as far as we are concerned, in some ways the outlook is better than it was. Advertising is picking up and many papers which were unprofitable have become profitable in recent years. It is vital that the industry should not cut its own throat by practices which are the fault of tiny groups of people within it at a time when, with a little good fortune, it will be able to stand firmer on its feet than it has done for many years.
5.31 p.m.
Mr. Eric Moonman: Like the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I must declare an interest, having been a member of the National Graphical Association for 34 years and representing that union in this House.
I hope that some of the common ground that has filtered through the three speeches that we have so far heard will continue throughout the rest of the debate.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the problems of the newspaper industry—an industry whose well-being is fundamental
822
to our democracy. I hope that hon. Members in later speeches will resist the temptation to trivialise or to politicise the debate. It is all too easy, but not very realistic, to assign the roles of goodies and baddies. If we indulge in such simplifications, we shall miss the chance to identify and to explain those major areas of agreement which could be developed to maintain a viable and ever-expanding newspaper industry for the benefit of all.
I should like to mention three areas which I suspect go to the root of the present difficulties in Fleet Street. The first is the type of production. That point was commented upon by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The second is clearly communications within the industry. The third, which perhaps has not been touched upon as much as it should have been, is fear of the new technology.
At the heart of the first problem is the type of production. Those who have worked on newspapers know full well the tensions which quickly creep into that kind of production line. For a few hours each night the production line runs flat out to produce the next day's papers. The work is done under pressure and tension and in the knowledge that if the production line stops, that edition is lost for good. Other industries can in the main make good their losses, whatever the reason for the stoppage, but not the newspaper industry. There is no sale for yesterday's newspaper.
The practice of industrial relations in such circumstances demands real leadership from both management and trade unions. Without such leadership, a tense situation becomes inflammable and a minor irritant becomes a major dispute.
I make one comment on those who both here and elsewhere say that newspaper editorials are prone to suggest advice about how industry generally can handle its problems, yet do not seem to be able to succeed in dealing with their own difficulties. Those who make such criticism do not understand the difference between the newspaper management and the editorial function. It is not unusual for those doing the creative work—the newspaper editorial people—to see and identify problems in society, to comment upon them, and to have their views published. But

823
newspaper management is a different game altogether.
I know from experience on the management side of the industry that there is a poor, but slowly improving, quality of competence. It is with such weaknesses, together with irresponsible elements in some union sectors, that the basis of many disputes begins. It is thus not so unusual for those writing in the newspapers to comment on what goes on elsewhere and for their internal management to let them down by not taking their editorial advice.
This is a time of crisis on Fleet Street. That phrase has been used on many occasions. I think that I have attended all the debates in this House on this matter during the last 10 years or so and they have been rare. But now we have reached a particular dilemma. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that the industry was beginning to move up a bit because of increased advertising. That is true, but it makes it all the more difficult when we realise that the loss of 54 million copies of newspapers in the first four months of this year has been unprecedented. It is a loss which cannot be justified by anyone.
Those in Fleet Street who may be listening to this debate today should realise that those who fail to help to resolve the present dilemma will get no satisfaction from Members of this House nor the public. No one here would try to justify that scale of loss and damage. As has been pointed out, it is a question not merely of loss of production of papers but ultimately of the retention of papers in future.
I shall briefly catalogue the losses. They are very serious, but they are not confined to one type of paper. Within the past few months, the Daily Mirror has lost more than 5 million copipes, The Sun 23 million, the Daily Telegraph 7·6 million, The Times 3·l million and the Daily Express and the Daily Mail more than 2 million each. Only one dispute affected all newspapers. That was the distributors' warehousemen's overtime ban. All the other disputes were unconnected, involving different unions and companies. In the main, the disputes were unofficial stoppages.
Losses on this scale argue something organically wrong with the industry. One
824
thing that is wrong is the nature of the structure of ownership. That point was developed by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). I think that he was in order to do that, because the spirit and the feel of a newspaper is different in 1978 from what it was 20 or 25 years ago. It is difficult now to identify the ownership and its commitment to newspaper production. There was previously a feeling of common identity.
Three large corporations now produce 80 per cent. of all our national daily and Sunday newspapers, and the majority of papers are now produced by subsidiaries of groups which have no interest in news as such but only in newspapers as another commodity along with travel, television, oil or whatever other companies they own. That must have an impact on the way in which managements take their decisions when dealing with trade unions. The concentration of ownership has made the industry highly competitive, and management has reacted to the situation by encouraging bad habits in labour relations rather than seeking new understandings with the trade unions.
The disintegration of the Newspaper Publishers Association is a symptom of this situation. Some years ago, Mr. Laurence Scott. on his retirement as chairman of The Guardian and the Manchester Evening News, referred to the NPA as
"that necessary but ineffective body, which seldom seems to be able to agree on anything but which, by its existence, does nevertheless exert a considerable and helpful influence on our affairs".
Regrettably, even that modest criticism would not apply today, because the NPA role have proved even more ineffective. It is unable to tackle some of the structural problems.
It is odd that, at a time of such concern and anxiety, the present chairman serves only in a part-time capacity. I find that extraordinary because, with all the pressures of Fleet Street, I should have imagined the NPA would be justified in having a full-time chairman and proper back-up for its work. Nevertheless, it explains why the Mirror group got out. It restricted its flexibility in dealing with the unions. The News of the World group has also given notice of its withdrawal. Even when all Fleet Street newspapers were members, the

825
NPA proved incapable of operating as was intended. It rarely succeeded in preventing individual managements from buying off impending stoppages.
There are not many solutions to the problems of Fleet Street I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will use whatever influence he has, perhaps in the more distant future rather than in the next few days, to ensure that consideration is given to the whole concept and structure of the NPA, because it is not working at the moment.
Dog eat dog is not the climate in which to establish good industrial relations practices. The signs are that the situation has deteriorated when newspapers try to take advantage of another paper's stoppage by producing extra copies. This highlights the fact that there are few good human relationships between the companies, and the competitiveness was very much borne out by the Daily Express which, when another newspaper was unable to appear, went to considerable trouble to produce extra copies and went a long way to justify its action through the courts.
To understand the organic problems of Fleet Street we must resist the temptation to indulge in union bashing. The unions will stand up to the problems with which they are confronted. The NGA, NATSOPA and the other unions know the dilemmas and are dealing seriously with unofficial action. A meeting is to take place tomorrow of the full national council of the NGA over The Observer dispute. I am not as optimistic as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that it will succeed in producing a paper on Sunday, but a genuine attempt is being made.
The unions know that some elements of these matters need to be tackled. We must also look—and I hope that the Secretary of State will do this—not only at the NPA but at the way in which some papers have done their own thing to the ultimate detriment of good industrial relations.
A second factor that contributes to bad industrial relations is the poor communication within the newspapers. Despite the training and development of management, there are many people in the industry who feel that disputes escalate because no
826
one knows what is happening. Such feeling is generated when the unions argue that the other side is taking advantage of its control of the medium by publishing its version of a controversial dispute.
On occasion, this has led to a straightforward refusal to print the newspaper with the offending material in it—a refusal which provokes politicians into high-sounding polemics about the freedom of the Press. This is a highly volatile situation and everyone on both sides of the industry has been engaged in trying to contain it.
If industrial relations had been properly conducted in the first place, the communications system would have been set up to deal with these matters. An NGA officer, Mr. Bill Booroff, has attempted to overcome some of the difficulties that arise when an editorial attacks a union or goes far beyond a mere statement of a particular dispute without allowing a right of reply to those working in the industry.
Mr. Borooff's proposal is that if a newspaper wants publicly to attack a section of its work force, it should be prepared to delay that attack for 24 hours to ensure that an official of the union—not a shop floor representative, but the general secretary—should be invited to reply if he wishes. It would give him an opportunity to have his view alongside any statement put forward in an editorial. It would also help to cool things down. To people of another generation, this proposal would be something that they would wish to accept, but in a modern newspaper world it is at least a creative way out of the dilemma. Those who reject the suggestion will have to offer some alternative.
I was impressed with the way in which the right hon. Member for Lowestoft looked seriously at some of these difficulties, within the industry rather than going in for the bashing of unions and existing procedures.
The third point that is central to our analysis is the shadow and fear of new technology. So far, only one newspaper, the Daily Mirror, has moved towards the introduction of this new technology. It has been able to do so only because it took itself out of the straitjacket imposed by the NPA in order to be able to negotiate with the unions.

827
New printing technology means a total revolution in the organisation of newspaper printing, which cuts right across all traditional printing skills, enabling journalists to put their copy straight on to machines and "composing", in a very new form, to be done by anyone who can operate an ordinary typewriter. It is no wonder that craftsmen of the print unions are reacting fearfully to this new technology. Those who imagine that this is just an extension of the original typesetting and the original form of composition do not understand the industry.
It was said earlier that we have had new technologies and techniques in other industries without the same degree of reaction. However, the newspaper industry is a volatile industry where we are dealing with a considerable craft and long-established practices with long apprenticeships—my apprenticeship as a compositor lasted seven years. The industry has, on one side, a considerable craft content and, on the other, a very large number of casual workers. This mixture at the place of work in itself creates certain problems and demarcation difficulties.
It is because it is one of the oldest crafts and its practitioners take considerable pride in it—a pride that I share—that some of the problems of new technology cannnot be tackled easily. Natural wastage over the years will take care of reduced manning, retraining will ensure employment for those who remain, but nothing can replace a man's pride in his craft. This goes to the root of the technology.
The technology can be introduced and made to work and this is shown by the experience of the Mirror group, which is gradually introducing it into all its operations with the co-operation of the unions concerned. The experience of the United States—not always a good experience—shows what is possible with the new equipment. About 70 American newspapers already use di-litho added to the existing web-offset plants.
There are extremists on the shop floor who will want to make the work of both management and the trade union leadership rather difficult as they try to bring about some of the successes in
828
Fleet Street that we anticipate, but this is a matter for the trade unions to sort out for themselves. I believe that they are serious in their attempts to do so.
It would be unrealistic to expect this industry to be free of such extremists who seek to do damage wherever they are, but even these can be reduced if newspaper management gets down to the job of managing and starts to relate to its work force, rather than trying to solve every dispute with the cheque book, which was certainly the pattern a few years ago and is not likely to have changed much in the last two or three years.
Curiously enough, none of the Royal Commissions and working parties that have examined the industry has given sufficient attention to the problem of industrial relations. There are few solutions which we shall be able to offer to Fleet Street tonight, but it would be wrong for anyone in the newspaper industry to imagine that the House did not care or was not sufficiently anxious about the prospects for its future.
I offer these comments in a brief manner because of lack of time. The Tunes, in a fine editorial today, said:
"The central flaw in the system is not the malevolence of individuals or their incompetence. It is that the power to stop the papers has been split up into far too large a number of separate units. It would be possible to survive if trade union power were exercised either through whole unions"
and so on. This is an accurate description of the industrial relations scene and therefore one possible solution is the merging of trade unions. This is already going on at a pace. Comparing the number of unions in the printing industry today with the number 30 years ago, and one can see dramatic reduction in numbers. Yet the process cannot be rushed and we have had experiences where it has gone badly, but it is one of the positive ways in which the unions and the men will come to terms with some of the demarcation disputes. Mergers within the trade union movement are a powerful influence.
Secondly, we have a right to say to managements that we expect greater competence and communication from them within their works. We do not look kindly on the way in which the competitiveness and the indifference to the

829
industry have grown up over the last few years.
Finally, the "Programme for Action" is the basis for negotiation. It has been referred to by both Front Bench speakers. The programme shows how various problems have been tackled. The question of casualisation is a great dilemma. The whole basis of Saturday night and Sunday morning printing is tied up with casualisation. It was the problem of The Observer last weekend. It will be the problem for other Sunday newspapers. One solution suggested by the working party of trade union leaders and management was that there should be a register of bona fide casuals wholly employed on a national newspaper, and that they should determine the levels of the manning.
There is hope for Fleet Street and within the context of ensuring the survival of newspapers and a wide ranging series of newspapers. The problems that we have seen over the last few months will not simply go away if any one of the parties believes that it has all the answers and is wholly correct.
I shall try to be as fair as I can in mentioning some of the dilemmas. Just as the unions are beginning, through their senior officials, to take responsibility for what goes on through the work force, so management must do the same. It is a question not of being firm but of indicating good intentions for a period of time.
Some Opposition Members do not wish to see too close an involvement by the Department of Employment. I should welcome the interest of the Secretary of State and his successors in this matter. The Secretary of State has a critical responsibility. I hope that his colleague will be more positive about the dispute than was perhaps possible earlier.
It would be wrong and we should be failing in our responsibility if we did not hear from the Front Bench about The Observer dispute. This paper could go under. Many of us have fought for it. It would be a mistake if, because of protocol, we did no more than offer words of encouragement. The House tonight should say strongly to both sides of the industry that they must ensure that The Observer appears on Sunday.
5.51 p.m.
Mr. Julian Critchley: Why is the freedom of the Press so important? It is not because our newspapers invariably are literate, scrupulous and wise, save, conceivably when the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) and myself occasionally write for them. They are not. It is because newspapers exist to defend not themselves but the freedom of others.
Overseas, the freedom of the Press is a rarity. Less than one-fifth of States today have even the limited political freedom of the England of William and Mary. The majority of countries are single-party States in which the Press is more or less muzzled. At home, the freedom of the Press is threatened either by economic factors or by politics.
Mr. Moss Evans, who, for good or ill, is likely to be with us for some time, has called for a system of operators' licences for newspapers, monitored by a standing commission with wide powers. It is worth examining Mr. Moss Evans's proposals.
Besides issuing licences to publish, which were abolished in 1685—which perhaps makes Mr. Moss Evans the greatest reactionary in British politics—he would give his commission the following additional powers: to check ownership and control; to advise the Government on subsidies; to establish a finance corporation in order to subsidise new entrants such as the trade unions; to receive all advertising revenues, subtract a levy and then allocate moneys around the Press; and to control the proportion of advertising to editorial content.
That is not all. The commission which Mr. Moss Evans hankers after would replace the Press Council and adjudicate upon complaints. It would have the power to take full remedial action necessary to correct any misleading information and to redress any lack of balance. There woud also be a committee of employers and trade unionists charged with ensuring good industrial relations. This would mean
"the full recognition of trades union rights at all levels."
That, presumably, means the NUJ's closed shop.
The implications of so radical a change were a future majority Labour Government to prove sympathetic are profoundly

831
disturbing. It must mean at best a neutered Press which resembles the BBC and the ITV in that it could not take a view, or, at worst, a union-controlled Press.
A neutral television is acceptable precisely because we have an unfettered Press. An officially licensed Press such as that advocated by Mr. Moss Evans would be neutral because it would have lost its most important role—that of the scrutiny of what is happening in our country today.
Mr. Christopher Price: Is the hon. Member really saying that our national newspapers today are more efficient at scrutinising than the documentary and other programmes broadcast by the BBC and ITV?
Mr. Critchley: That is an interesting question which we could debate as a separate subject. The Times and The Sunday Times would no doubt assert that their inside columns are as good. A debate could go on indefinitely.
Mr. Moss Evans is not the only emasculator. A year or two ago, the Labour Party published a document called "The People and the Media". It has not yet been forgotten. Its main idea was that newspapers and broadcasters should be controlled by committees representing their editorial and production staffs and a number of interests such as the unions, the CBI and the main political parties. That might appear to be fine, but it would mean that newspapers and broadcasters would be controlled by the very people they should be reporting and discussing.
There are other threats to the freedom of the British Press. There is the greed of the Fleet Street unions, and the print unions in particular, with their insistence on overmanning and inflated wages, on the one hand, and the ambition of the National Union of Journalists to bring about a closed shop.
The print unions and their members, whose loyalty is not to their newspapers but to their unions, workshops and chapels, have increased the burdens on national newspapers, most of which run at a loss. They have done that by insisting on higher manning levels than those required outside London and on exorbitant
832
rates of pay. For example, on the Daily Express there are those who earn more than £300 for a less than a 30-hour week. No one on the Daily Express earns less than £140 a week. Such lavishness owes nothing to the laws of supply and demand. Entry to a Fleet Street union is a much-sought-after privilege.
Most union leaders have lost control over their unions. It would be an obvious advantage if there were one union and not seven, but it will be years before that is achieved. As we have seen, the really important unit is at house level—the chapel. The Times, for example, has 53 units, all of which are separate negotiating bodies.
How have the print workers achieved their powers? As Mr. David Astor has written, they have done so
"by the threat and use of sabotage".
Of that there can be no doubt. The NUJ, encouraged by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act is striving to achieve a closed shop, so far, thank God, without much success.
Is journalism just another industrial activity such as mining and engineering? Surely not. Journalism really belongs to politics and literature. Should there be a writers' union, as there is in the Soviet Union? The idea should be abhorrent to us. Should there be a politicians' union to which all parliamentary candidates should belong? The idea is obnoxious to any democrat.
Why, then, should there be a union of writers and journalists with the sole right to issue a licence to print and which would be the only body able to allow its members access to the public prints? The moderates of the NUJ say that they seek a closed shop to raise pay. They see the print unions and, not unreasonably, they are jealous. But there are extremists within the NUJ who would restrict writers' freedom to write and to comment.
They say that nothing should be written to offend the trade unions. They would discriminate against the National Front but not against the Socialist Workers' Party. Would there not be all sorts of dangers if all journalists were obliged to belong to the TUC, which is affiliated to the Labour movement and which has become to all intents the third House of Parliament?

833
The closed shop is, according to one's point of view, either a denial of personal freedom or a legitimate form of organisation which makes for orderly bargaining and industrial peace. But a writer or journalist who expresses an opinion for public consumption may be placed more at risk than some others by a closed shop. Newspapers exist not to protect their own freedoms but to protect the freedoms of others. Could a journalist succeed in doing that and still hold on to his licence?
Today, an employee has little to fear from his boss. What he should fear is the arbitrary removal of his right to work by his union. What has happened to the Press charter? A voluntary charter without the sanction of law would not be worth the paper on which it was written. The Secretary of State knows that he would never be able to persuade this present House to accept a charter that did not have within it a clause allowing a journalist to be free of union membership. Would a majority Labour Government be so modest, however? The answer is clearly "No".
We have seen our freedoms eroded one by one. A closed shop in journalism would mean handing over one of our most fundamental liberties to one union. Were the NUJ to consist exclusively of saints, it would not be right to give so much power to so few. The freedom of the Press underwrites all our other freedoms. If we remove it, we shall all lose our liberty.
6.3 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) has a somewhat idealistic view of the Press. Its purpose, he says, is to protect the freedom of others. Some of us on the Labour Benches cannot feel that as at present constituted the Press carries out that purpose very well. As a Minister for a couple of years, my experience of the Press was that some parts of it seemed concerned more to persecute me than to do anything else. Therefore, the notion that the Press could always be regarded as looking after the interests of the individual is on closer examination one in which even the hon. Member for Aldershot might find a few flaws.
At present, and understandably, Conservative Members appear to take a different view of these matters from my right
834
hon. and hon. Friends and myself. The reason for that came home very sharply to me during the campaign on the referendum on the Common Market. At that time I discussed these matters with some Conservative Members who shared my view that Britain should come out of the Common Market. They were horrified to discover that they had no support in the Press. They had a deep sense of injustice and resentment at that fact. For a moment, I think, they realised that for Labour MPs that was the normal state of affairs. They understood that there was no newspaper to which we could turn with the sense of comfort that Conservative Members expect to experience on reading their newspapers.
The Conservatives expect on picking up their newspapers in the morning not to agree with every word in them but at least to derive some general comfort and support. For a moment those anti-Market Conservative Members, prepared to exercise a free and unlimited choice in purchasing an anti-Market newspaper, realised just how limited that choice was. In other words, the so-called freedom of the Press exists only as long as one can find within the national dailies a newspaper that will broadly cover one's own spectrum of political opinion.
What do Labour MPs do? We read The Times—
Mr. Critchley: Surely the hon. Member is being unfair to the Daily Express, which for years waged a strong campaign against the Market.
Mr. Jenkins: It did so for years, but at the crucial moment it funked the issue and dodged out. When I tried to approach the Evening Standard on this issue in the hope that it would carry on a nobler earlier Beaverbrook tradition, I got very short shrift from the newspaper, which made it clear that it had changed its mind completely and was wholly in favour of staying in the Market.
There is, therefore, no general comfort in the Press for Labour Members. So what do we do? We buy The Times because we know that we shall disagree with it, and at least it is pretty reliable. We graduate to The Guardian and read it for a few days in the hope of being comforted. Sometimes we read excellent

835
articles in The Guardian, but gradually we become disappointed with it and then we return to The Times because we know that we shall be disappointed with The Times. That eliminates the uncertainty that plagues our every day as a result of reading The Guardian.
I gather from the speeches of Conservative Members that they believe that everything in the garden is lovely and that we have to be very careful or we shall upset the ideal situation which at present exists. Some of them, however, have pointed to some dangers. I spent more years than I care to count associated with one or other trade union, and I believe that a trade union tends to reflect the nature of the industry in which its members are engaged. If one puts this litmus paper into most trade unions, one will find that the characteristics there are a reflection of the industry which employs its members. If there is chaos, therefore, in the print trade unions and in the unions which represent the people who work in the Press, that is to some extent a reflection of the chaos which exists in the Press itself.
The national Press is a declining industry. That is one of the saddest factors. The ideal picture painted by the Conservatives is totally fallacious, because in a perfect arrangement there should be a wide variety of choice so that anyone across a wide spectrum of opinion, possibly excluding the extreme edges, could find in a daily newspaper somewhere a reflection of his point of view. Such a state of affairs used to exist.
Many newspapers have gone now. An example was the old Daily Herald, upon which we could once rely to reflect the broad spectrum of Labour Party opinion. The News Chronicle has gone, too, as has the Sunday Citizen, or Reynolds News as it was known earlier. Some newspapers that I probably would not have liked very much have also disappeared. An example of that was the Empire News, but I believe that even the disappearance of a newspaper which I heartily dislike detracts from the Press.
The Press does not cater for the opinions of nearly half the nation. It is not surprising that it is in trouble when, broadly speaking, Tory employers are employing those who take a view more akin to that shared by the occupants of
836
the Labour Benches. There is not merely an economic difference of opinion between employer and employee. The difference of opinion is also a political one.
I do not believe that the proposals put forward by Mr. Moss Evans contain anything that is likely to come into effect. I have not studied them in detail, but if the summary that we have heard today is at all accurate these proposals are not ones that I want to see go any further. Conservative Members have pushed aside too quickly the proposals contained in the Labour Party's document "The People and the Media". But even that is not something that we can put easily and quickly into legislation.
What our document attempts to do is to look at the reality of the present situation and try to put forward some ideas to change it. Most of the ideas that I have heard from Conservatives suggest that the industry is basically sound and that if only those trade union fellows would put their house in order everything would be all right. Of course it would not. Even the Press charter is only a cosmetic operation—a papering over of a basically unsatisfactory situation.
If we take a more fundamental view, we see that we have refused to look at the media as a whole. We have a committee to examine broadcasting and a committee to look at the Press. In the world in which we live today, the media of public communications are a whole. They impact upon each other. There is a substantial degree of cross-ownership which, I regret to say, has been encouraged in recent years rather than discouraged as it should be. Local newspapers have been allowed to take shares in local radio. That was a mistake, because there should be a complete separation.
The debate so far has sought to improve or mitigate the evils of the present instead of seeking to improve the situation and creating a greater degree of variety. That is not easy. Why are we, on this side of the House, without a newspaper of our own? It costs a great deal of money to establish an effective newspaper, and broadly speaking the newspapers that we would produce would not attract the sort of advertising which goes to newspapers supported by the other side of the House.
Mr. Maude: In dealing with this problem, the hon. Member must realise that a newspaper attracts the advertising which its readership earns. Maybe it is the Labour Party's lack of ability to earn a readership that is wrong.
Mr. Jenkins: That may be the case. But the fact remains that most of the newspapers that are read by Conservatives are written by people who belong to trade unions and vote Labour. Some tell us in private that they are our friends and are on our side but that they have to put the story in a different way because they are not writing for a Labour newspaper.
Perhaps Labour supporters really do not operate in the market and, therefore, lacking the skills of the market, they are incapable of running a newspaper with quite the same sort of panache as the Conservatives. Even that panache is not saving them now. They are in an unfortunate and declining situation. Despite all the alleged skill and capacity to run newspapers of which they boast, their circulation is going down. This does not imply monopoly of genius in the Press.
It seems that some of the activities in the trade unions of the Press are aspects of the "unacceptable face of trade unionism." It is absurd to pretend—as I am sure nobody on this side of the House, or even on the Tory side, would—that capitalism does not have an ugly face. Similarly, it would be stupid to say that trade unionism does not have a pretty unpleasant face from time to time. However, Conservatives seem to suggest that it is possible to make that face look more attractive by legislation. Experience shows that this is not the way to work. There are other ways of improving the situation, but legislation is not one of them.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: If the hon. Member believes that, why did he support the Employment Protection Act?
Mr. Jenkins: It would be a very good Act if it served the purpose for which it exists. I fail to follow the hon. Member's argument. There is nothing inconsistent in supporting the Employment Protection Act on certain aspects of employment activity and being opposed to any attempt to control trade union activity by legislation. Trade unions should be
838
free to make their own rules, because those rules differ from industry to industry. The unions should not be told by the Conservatives what sort of rules and limitations they should follow.
A view has been expressed—and it is broadly true—that the local newspaper story is much more of a success story than that of the national dailies or weeklies. To that rule I would make an exception of the London local newspapers. There is something about living in the shadow of the capital which inhibits communications activity in some way. Just as local radio stations in London are not as local or as effective as those outside, local newspapers in London are not as good or effective as local newspapers outside London, many of which I have read with envy. They seem capable of very satisfactory comparison with national dailies.
No newspaper around the suburbs of London could be put in that category. From the point of view of high circulation and advertising, the Wandsworth Borough News is successful. It is the only local newspaper which circulates effectively in my area but its political attitude makes the Daily Express look like a Socialist rag. With our local newspapers we suffer from the inability to have an organ that represents a Socialist point of view, just as we suffer from it nationally.
Mr. Critchley: Does not the hon. Member agree that an MP complaining about the Press is rather like a ship's captain complaining about the sea?
Mr. Jenkins: Perhaps so, but we have only one ship and we are not the captain of it. We are just on board. To its credit, my local paper prints letters without cutting them. It prints letters from its own supporters and it prints letters from Labour supporters, including me. Therefore, the people of Wandsworth, by courtesy of the Wandsworth Borough News, can read what I think about certain matters. At least, we have a tiny means of getting our point of view over. But the fact remains that from our point of view the Press has not been generally satisfactory.
What is the answer if it is not the one that the Conservatives suggest? I think that it lies in an examination of the whole communications scene. Without being

839
diminished, controlled or limited, the media could support one another. Some areas of communications are highly profitable. The Treasury takes about £30 million a year from the industry in the levy on the independent television companies. Instead of being put back into the industry to support ailing newspapers or for some other connected purpose, that money goes into the Treasury's pouch.
Without creating any editorial control, it would be possible and desirable for the Government to set up an inquiry, not into the Press separately or broadcasting separately but into the whole media of communication, with a view to establishing a means by which the profitable sectors could support the needy ones. Unless additional money is inserted, how can one create variety?
The problem is how to insert the money without inserting control. Without more money going into communications, we shall not increase the variety of the Press nor achieve a satisfactory solution. I hope that the Minister will tell the House that this wider examination of possibilities is not excluded by the Government.
6.21 p.m.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) said in almost his opening sentence that he had a persecution complex about the Press—and it showed in his characteristically eccentric speech. I was glad that he said that the present goings-on in Fleet Street were the unacceptable face of trade unionism. It is on that theme that I want to speak out bluntly—not in any spirit of union-bashing but because this debate is not an internal Fleet Street seminar. It is also about the wider effects of the present troubles on people outside Fleet Street, like newsagents and readers, whose interests are being seriously affected.
The story of industrial relations in Fleet Street is rather like a Greek tragedy in which numerous abuses of greed and power have occurred but Nemesis has not yet arrived to restore sanity or equilibrium. In the past, in common with other hon. Members, I have inclined to the view that the roots of the tragedy went back to the strategic mistakes of the old-style proprietors, who were propagandists first and managers a very poor second.
840
Because of their attitudes, an environment of proprietorial permissiveness was created in which restrictive practices, extravagant pay scales and abuses like ghost working and overmanning were easily accepted. Naturally, the unions exploited that situation. One can hardly blame them for leaping on to the bandwagon and helping themselves to whatever the mutual competitiveness among the then proprietors allowed them to get.
Today, however, life in Fleet Street is rather different. With one exception, the proprietorial families—mine, alas, included—have either gone out of the newspaper business altogether or been swallowed up by conglomerates with wider interests and horizons and with more public responsibilities to their shareholders. As a result, there is a new breed of industrial managers in Fleet Street who are beginning, albeit hesitatingly, to exercise their professional skills and disciplines and actually to do their job of managing. Unfortunately, a manager's task today in Fleet Street is not unlike that impossible labour of Hercules when he was asked to clean the Augean stables.
Fleet Street workers have been for long accustomed to living in a fool's paradise of astronomical wages, good perks, extraordinary restrictive practices and shop-floor abuses, but they are today rather sadly earning themselves a reputation for being just about the greediest, most undisciplined, most selfish and most irresponsible group of trade unionists in the country. Those are harsh words but I believe them to be justified, particularly when nearly 60 million copies of newspapers have been lost this year alone.
Let us begin by looking at the built-in extravagance of the salary structure in Fleet Street, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) refered. Even an unskilled worker in Fleet Street today, such as a cleaner, earns in most unions a minimum of around £120 a week, while a top skilled man, such as a linotype operator on the Financial Times, regularly earns over £330 a week. These gold-plated salaries, ranging as I say from £6,000 to £16,000 a year, are pocketed by workers many of whom work only 28 hours a week. Then they still have the gall to put small newsagents out of business by stopping work in demand for even more money.

841
That brings me to criticise the selfishness of the Fleet Street unions. They seem to have no regard whatsoever to the consequences of their industrial action on those at the sharp end of the newspaper business. Every week this year, about 150 newsagents have been put out of business and their employees thrown on the dole queue.
In my constituency there are 86 newsagents' businesses, each of them usually employing about three or four people. In the last five months, nine have had to close down because of the stoppages in Fleet Street. Many of those still in existence are in a mood of black despair and on the verge of bankruptcy since their weekly takings are down by around 30 or 40 per cent. and still falling because the stoppages are still going on, and, of course, readers' loyalties tend to wane when production is disrupted.
If only these well-paid workers in Fleet Street realised the misery that their industrial action caused in terms of hardship, unemployment and bankruptcy to newsagents and their employees, perhaps a little more sanity might prevail. I hope that the TUC, which rightly shows great anxiety at the present unemployment figures, will try to use its good offices to stop these unemployment figures rising still higher as a result of newsagent closures.
However, the question has to be asked whether it is worth the time of the TUC or any other union leaders to discuss these problems with the Fleet Street unions. In Fleet Street, Lord Acton's famous aphorism about power has to be amended. While it may or may not be true that power generally corrupts, certainly among the Fleet Street unions it is lack of power which has corrupted absolutely.
The union leaders have today lost control of that tiny proportion of their members who work in Fleet Street. The tail is now wagging the dog. General secretaries and union officials have lost authority and individual chapels, fragmented as they are, are in control. Often, it is wildcat elements in individual chapels which are in control. As a result, as so many hon. Members have said, all stoppages are unofficial. Union rule books contain no proper disciplinary procedures, so, of course, anarchy rules.
842
It must be said that this unhappy situation is undoubtedly exacerbated by the activities of a relatively small but rather able and dedicated group of International Socialists and other Left-wing extremists, who, I believe, are operating a sinister conspiracy of industrial disruption in Fleet Street today. The evidence for this is abundant. I shall give a specific example. About 18 months ago, the International Socialists published a pamphlet for Fleet Street workers called "A Militant Chapel Guide". Much of this document, which can only be described as a blueprint for disruption, is devoted to launching an offensive against trade union officials. Indeed, in the section of the guide headed "First Steps", the task of defeating what is called "union bureaucracy" is said to be "inseparable" from industrial action against employers.
In that guide union officials who try to solve disputes by the usual procedures of negotiation and discussion are condemned. The document states:
"One victory as a result of a walkout or stoppage is worth a dozen round the negotiating table in terms of the morale and militancy of the chapel."
With this extraordinary doctrine in mind—that it is better to have a stoppage than to negotiate—it is not surprising that this militant chapel guide goes on to suggest a number of methods of causing maximum disruption, such as the calling of mandatory union meetings at crucial production times, the blacking of telephones and the physical occupation of computer rooms.
Of course I am not suggesting that the revolutionary extremism of the guide is representatives of all Fleet Street workers. It should, however, be required reading for the silent majority of trade unionists so that they can see for themselves what the enemy within the unions is trying to achieve by extremist methods.
Let us face the fact that a great deal of today's disruption is being caused by those so-called political methods. It is no secret, for example, that among the leaders of the 25 NGA men whose unofficial action shut down The Observer last Sunday there are a handful of International Socialist extremists whose revolutionary political motivations are a significant factor in the course that this dispute has so far taken. I very much

843
question whether all the rest of the workers on The Observer, whose jobs must now be threatened, feel that these political factors are a good reason for closing down a great newspaper.
Although I believe that the unions bear the lion's share of the blame for what has gone wrong in Fleet Street today, a fact which I think is borne out by the deafening lack of criticism directed at managements by union general secretaries, who know only too well that their own men are irresponsibly out of control, it is, of course, true that managements, too, could do much to put their side of the house in order.
For example, the handling of industrial relations and personnel matters must be far more professionalised in future. In British industry today many companies have a main board director exclusively dealing with industrial relations. Yet only two national newspaper companies have a main board director responsible for industrial relations. Secondly, the procedures for solving disputes should be maintained by both managements and unions. If they are breached, as they frequently are, both sides are condoning the breaching of these procedures. There is no need for managers to be quite so supine and pliable in meeting breaches of procedures by automatic appeasement.
But, whatever the managements do, it seems almost inevitable, given the current anarchy of the unions, that Fleet Street is in for a long period of aggravation. That aggravation will decline only when the unions have the strength to discipline their own wild men and when managements stand firm more often and have strengthened their own credibility as wage negotiators.
I began by saying that the story of Fleet Street was rather like a Greek tragedy. Yet, for quite understandable reasons, many of the most militant workers believe that the inevitable tragic dénouement of the final scene will never arrive, because unexpectedly out of the wings so far there invariably steps, when closure of a newspaper is imminent, a fairy godmother or a Father Christmas figure in the shape of a Miss Olga Deterding, Sir Jimmy Goldsmith, or some other wealthy personage eagerly brandishing a cheque book and anxious to buy off the closure yet again.
844
A Greek tragedy in which Father Christmas appears, giving it a happy ending, is an incredible scenario, so one must ask whether the present crisis is really just another rerun of the old and increasingly irrelevant story. I think that this time it will be different. Big public corporations such at Atlantic Richfield, Trafalgar House and the Thomson Organisation—which, as I said earlier, have responsibilities to their shareholders—are already close to losing patience with the prevailing anarchy and chaos. Sooner or later one of them will say "This dance shall no further go."
Maybe the crunch will come this week if Atlantic Richfield closes down The Observer indefinitely and does not sell the title to a Father Christmas. Maybe what the Fabian motto calls "the inevitability of gradualness" will prevail until the losses of copies and profit slide slowly into greater and greater decline, until there really will be no more Father Christmases coming forward, because there is nothing left except further prospects of mergers, closures and redundancies.
Therefore, one way or another, I feel in my bones that the Greek tragedy is moving towards its climax, unless the union militants pull back from the brink. I hope that they will, and I strongly advise them to do so. But, then, in the greatest of all Greek tragedies, Cassandra's advice was never listened to until it was too late.
6.36 p.m.
Mr. Max Madden: May I at the outset, like some other speakers, declare an interest, as a member of the National Union of Journalists? I had considerable sympathy with the remarks made at the beginning of the debate by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). They were in marked contrast to the contribution of the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken), which was very reminiscent of the words of Lord Thorneycroft, chairman of the Conservative Party, a few weeks ago when he gave sensational warnings to readers of the Sunday Express about the possibility of political sabotage of the Press during the next General Election.
Lord Thorneycroft was reported as saying that the Labour Party would not be

845
fighting on its record, which was indefensible, or on its programme, which was unprintable. He said:
"Deprived of these supports, I expect the Labour Party to fight a very rough campaign."
He added darkly:
"We must also expect every effort to be made to prevent the presentation of our case."
Though most senior Tories are well satisfied with the treatment they receive in the Press, Lord Thorneycroft foresaw a danger that things might suddenly change, and at a critical moment. He went on:
"The free Press has always up to now provided a solid base for democracy. This freedom was once thought to be threatened either by the possibility of Government interference or by the over-powerful oligarchic influence of great tycoons. The threat today comes from a quite different type of oligarchy. Looking at recent stoppages, introduced at a moment's notice upon almost any pretext, no one could rule out political sabotage during an election directed against newspapers who appear favourable to the Conservative cause."
One is tempted to ask the noble Lord which British newspapers appear unfavourable to the Conservative cause at any time. But it is more important to ask how such speculation about political sabotage of the Press during a General Election could be thought worthy of a front-page lead in the Sunday Express under the banner headline:
"Beware this threat to our liberty—Tory chief sees danger of sabotage at election".
I would suggest that the dangers exist primarily in the darker recesses of the noble Lord's mind.
It is certainly true that that is the message being peddled assiduously by the PR men of Tory Central Office and which flows inevitably through the sympathetic typewriters of the bevy of newspapers so favourable to the Conservative cause, and which to some extent has been echoed by Conservative Members in this debate.
Before the debate, I carried out a highly unscientific survey of the News of the World and the Sunday Express from February to early May. I thought that it would be interesting to take two mass-circulation Sunday newspapers as they have plenty of time to prepare reasoned and reflective articles for their readers. The News of the World, claiming the largest Sunday sale, publishes a centre-page political forum, an article devoted each week to a politician or a political commentator to talk to the nation on a
846
leading issue. Over 13 weeks the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and Mr. Paul Johnson, former editor of the New Statesman and professed Tory, had two articles each. There were four by Tory Members, one by a Liberal Member, two by white-collar trade union leaders, one concerning my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and a curiously untopical piece headlined:
"Private's progress—how Bob Brown became boss of the British Army."
Again, looking at those articles over the 13 weeks, one discovers that nine of the articles were devoted to authors who were certainly anti-Labour. I do not think that in anyone's estimate that would represent a fair presentation of political opinion or argument over that period.
Over at the Sunday Express—surely a short head in front of anyone else when wanting to appear favourable to the Conservative cause—political hysteria seems to be the order of the day. Over the same period, from February to May, no fewer than 13 Conservative MPs and three Conservative peers either penned articles or had their speeches prominently reported in the columns of the Sunday Express, invariably on the front page.
I quote a few headlines which give an inkling of the style:
"Are these MPs trying to do the Kremlin's dirty work?"
That was by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who, sadly, seems to have left the debate.
"How long must the West cringe before the Russians?"
That was from the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour).
"Haul down the Red Flag—Hoist the Union Jack"
That was the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind).
"Dare Dr. Owen still dance to the terrorists' tune?"
That was the hon. Member for Reigate again. The right hon. Member for Down, South was also given a show, as was Lord George-Brown. But I suppose that all the others were surpassed in their enthusiasm for the Conservative cause by Mr. Paul Johnson again with his stirring piece
"I salute the Amazing Margaret."

847
That insight into the political presentation of two very large Sunday newspapers and some of the comments in the debate so far must lead us to the conclusion that the claims of the Tory Party to uphold Press freedom must be regarded as highly selective. Press freedom is defended when it can be manipulated by the Conservatives in the interests of the Conservative Party. Press freedom when it impinges on major issues of personal liberty or conflict with the judiciary is quite another matter. That has been given to me by Mr. Ron. recent weeks in the matters concerning contempt and certain newspapers.
We must also look to other aspects of Press freedom over the years which have not met with any great onslaughts or attacks from the Conservative Party. I am grateful for some information that has been given to me by Mr. Ron Knowles, editor of the Journalist, the journal of the NUJ. We can recall certain events which concern Construction News in August 1971, owned by the Thomson Organisation.
That weekly newspaper had won a most respected reputation for its exposures of the seamier side of the construction industry, publishing among other things probing articles on Ronan Point and box girder bridge collapses and revelations that a huge steelworks contract had been awarded to McAlpine's despite a bid at £1 million lower by another firm. It was the kind of paper that the big interests which dominate the construction industry did not like.
Their displeasure was communicated to the Thomson management and the editor of Construction News was told to purge the paper of Left-wing elements on the staff. But the editor had a bit more spirit than the average Thomson editor, and he refused. He was then presented by the management with a most surprising list of requirements. He was told that no industrial relations stories should be carried on the front page, that industrial relations stories should be reported briefly and placed as far away as possible from the news section, that cartoons should be scrutinised for political slant, that headlines should be toned down and care should be taken to avoid anything suggestive of cynicism or sneering, and, finally, that care should
848
be taken to avoid knocking those who provided bread-and-butter advertising revenue.
Once again the editor stood firm and rejected these demands. He resigned in protest. NUJ members drew up their own code of journalistic freedom and presented it to the management, saying that if the employers would not agree to it the editorial staff would go on strike. The strike duly went ahead but was called off when the management agreed to negotiate. But, as the negotiations dragged on and a tame editor toned down an article on working conditions on a pipe-laying contract, the staff began leaving in disgust and another voice of honest inquiring journalism was silenced.
The management also produced a document which I think is a useful commentary on remarks made earlier by one of my hon. Friends. It summed up its attitude to journalism. It stated:
"In order to sustain and develop the paper, recognition must be given to the importance of that part of the readership market which has executive authority or buying influence in the industry.. The level and standard of reporting and general content of Construction News should reflect this recognition."
There are other examples.
The House should be reminded of the time when The Daily Telegraph was found to have a most interesting correspondent reporting the Vietnam war. It carried very often dispatches from its Saigon correspondent, a Mr. John Draw. Regular readers were not particularly surprised that the reports he filed were patently propaganda, but when it was revealed late in 1975 that he was none other than an officer on the general staff of the South Vietnamese army even Fleet Street's most cynical eyebrows lifted a little.
The John Draw deceit was uncovered by Mr. Chris Mullin, a talented broadcasting journalist who offered the story to The Times, The Guardian and the UK Press Gazette in view of their consuming interest in an honest and free Press. They all declined to use it, but shortly afterwards the UK Press Gazette published prominently and unblushingly the following statement by the editor of The Daily Telegraph, Mr. William Deedes, who told the Gazette:
"Disclosure is the main part of a newspaper's business".

849
The humbug about disclosure is compounded because in their own internal affairs newspapers are notoriously secretive and are at pains to conceal the fact that they have industrial malpractice in their industry.
Mr. Critchley: The hon. Gentleman is clearly not in favour of a free Press. Is he, therefore, in favour of a controlled one?
Mr. Madden: I am very much in favour of a free Press, but the people taking part in this debate and listening to it should understand that the most important question, when one considers a free Press is a free Press for whom? We must also be most concerned with truly free access to a free Press. As has been said many times in the debate, we do not have unqualified freedom of the Press or unqualified access.
Sir John Rodgers rose—
Mr. Madden: I am sorry, but I must get on.
Sir J. Rodgers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, before he resumes reading his speech, who wrote it?
Mr. Madden: I made it clear that the examples I was quoting had been provided by the editor of the Journalist, Mr. Ron Knowles. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the time, but I thought I had made it abundantly clear.
My next reference is to the Financial Times. I believe that it is highly relevant to the enormous difficulties lying at the centre of the debate, as many people who know the newspaper industry will confirm. On the morning following publication of the interim report of the Royal Commission on the Press in March 1976, the Financial Times failed to appear. I am sure that at that time its failure to appear was put down to the dastardly deeds of trade unionists who were again destroying the freedom of the Press by denying the Financial Times readers their morning newspaper.
The reason why the newspaper failed to appear, however, was that the editor of the Financial Times had sought to make some very important deletions from the copy concerning the report of
850
the Royal Commission. He had apparently ordered that figures of Fleet Street journalists' earnings should be deleted from the story while agreeing to printers' wages being published. The Commission's figures showed that senior editorial staff on the highest paid newspaper in Fleet Street were earning an average of £360·50 per week, or £18,750 a year, and that the highest paid production staff averaged £240 a week, or £12,500 a year. This sort of action is not unknown to people who work in the newspaper industry and, as I have said before, it creates many of the difficulties which lie at the heart of the problems that we are discussing today.
It is worth recalling a well-known matter relating to the long-standing difficulties which existed between the editor of the Financial Times and its most noted columnist of the Lombard column over many years, Mr. C. Gordon Tether. Over a period of two years he had enormous difficulty in getting much of his material for the column published, although under a previous editor he had experienced no such difficulty and, indeed, had been considered a most valuable and important member of the staff and an important asset to the Financial Times. But Mr. Tether was given a letter from the editor during the summer of 1974 which stated:
"The Lombard column should confine itself to … the general financial, economic and banking scene, and, since this is a subject on which you have written for many years, the EEC problem."
The letter went on, however, to say:
"I do not wish you to write about the EEC problem more than once a week, after specific consultation with me."
I think that that example again gives a very intersting indication of the sort of difficulty which people in the industry not infrequently experience. People in the newspaper industry, in whatever capacity, are for the most part trained and qualified. Some, particularly journalists and sections of production staff, are highly trained and highly qualified. They do their work invariably under extreme pressure of time. Many of them, especially in the provinces, do not receive considerable sums of money for what they do.
That is illustrated in the average annual salaries of journalists and clerical, management and production employees which

851
were published by the Royal Commission and followed a sample of 13 newspaper houses which was carried out by ACAS. This revealed that journalists were the second lowest paid group of workers within the 13 houses that were surveyed. That position has existed for many years, particularly in the provinces and in the London offices of provincial newspapers.
Journalists have recognised the need to improve their pay and conditions. Like many other workers, they have seen the need to negotiate closed shop arrangements, to maximise their negotiating power and to secure better pay and conditions.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Has my hon. Friend noticed that very few members of the Press appear to be interested in reporting the subject of their own industry?
Mr. Madden: Doubtless they know that the prospect of much of the debate seeing the light of day in the newspapers tomorrow is limited and are probably acting accordingly.
I remind the House that agreed closed shops for journalists exist and have existed in a number of newspaper offices for many years. The Daily Mirror, the Sunday Mirror, the Daily Record and the Sunday People have had closed shops for many years. Others are in existence at the Evening Standard, the Stratford Express Group and the Home Counties Group, although, incidentally, the company was expelled from the Newspaper Society for its audacity in agreeing a closed shop arrangement with its editorial staff. The closed shop is also present at the Daily Express and even the Sunday Express. As I have sought to show, that does not seem to have done anything to imperil the opportunity of Tory Members seeing their golden prose in print.
There are also understandings about closed shops at The Sun and the News of the World. There is virtually 100 per cent. membership of the NUJ at The Times and The Guardian.
Mr. Critchley: I thought I heard the hon. Gentleman say that there was almost 100 per cent. membership of the NUJ at The Times.
Mr. Madden: That is what I said. As journalists and, indeed, other newspaper
852
workers depend for their livelihood on the survival of their newspapers and the continuation of the newspaper industry, any claims that newspaper workers are plotting to wreck their own papers or the industry are very difficult to sustain. They are worried at the growing concentration of ownership of newspapers into fewer and fewer hands, both in London and in the provinces. They are anxious about newspapers becoming marginal activities of giant commercial conglomerates involved in every conceivable commercial enterprise in Britain and abroad.
They object to the money men and accountants dominating in positions of power and influence where once men with journalistic and commercial flair, courage and insight were in the ascendancy. They regret that it is now virtually impossible to tell the difference in format, style or content of popular newspapers which were once provocative, campaigning and highly individualistic. They despair that newspapers are the vehicles for sex, trivia and, all too frequently, third-rate opinion in between a mass of advertising material.
Of course there are exceptions, and one hopes that there will be a greater effort to achieve higher standards in the popular Press. These standards have certainly been in sharp decline over recent years. The newspaper industry faces severe challenges from newspaper technology, from new ways of transmitting news and information and from other sections of the media. These pressures of concentrating ownership, more aggressive management, worrying financial positions and the manning implications of new technology all create a response among those who work in the industry. The closed shop, a determination to secure reasonable pay and conditions, closer co-operation than hitherto between production workers and journalists and certainly union reorganisation are inevitable.
These developments ought not to be interpreted as sinister conspiracies but rather as industrial developments which are happening and will continue to happen in the newspaper industry, and, indeed, in other industries. For good or ill, the newspaper industry cannot be viewed in isolation, and certain of its workers, especially journalists working for provincial newspapers, cannot be

853
denied rights which are enjoyed by workers in many other industries.
I do not regard the challenges which face the industry as being matters of low importance. There are considerable problems which have to be overcome, and I am sure that they will not be overcome either by complacency or by seeking to shift the blame particularly on to production workers, and in some respects on to journalists. The blame for the plight of the industry can be laid at the door of all sections of the industry, and I think that a start is being made by the industry in trying to address itself to those problems.
If the debate has assisted in that process it is welcome, but I am sure that the problems of the industry will not be overcome—or, indeed, put behind it—by the comments made in the debate. I certainly believe that the House and the Government can do a great deal to assist the industry to come out of the difficulties which it has faced for many years. I hope that in replying to the debate the Minister of State will be able to indicate where the Government can actively assist the industry, because it needs particular help and assistance in some aspects of its problems. Above all, however, it requires the understanding both of the House and of the Government.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Sadly, I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), except in one idiom. That was in his hope that this debate would be of benefit to the newspaper industry. I believe that it was being just that until the hon. Gentleman got to his feet. I should like to applaud another stated action of the hon. Gentleman, which I hope has been followed by all hon. Members. That was the careful noting of Lord Thorneycroft's warnings about what might happen, through Press censorship for political reasons, come the next General Election. Let us hope that his Lordship will be proven wrong. But it is obviously absolutely correct that he should give the warnings now while they could be reported and appreciated by all.
I fear that the hon. Member for Sowerby laced his speech with condescension about the Press and sloppy thinking throughout. It turned out to be entirely a politically loaded diatribe. He questioned
854
what Press freedom was really about. I suggest that it is very simple in statement but difficult to achieve. It is to allow people to write and, if that writing is good enough, to be carried by the Press. The hon. Gentleman gave a very good example of the attempt by a management to choke Press freedom when he told the story about Construction News. I am in no position to tell whether or not that story is true, but if it is true as he described it he is giving the exact example of how it is impossible for management to influence editorial staff. That was what the hon. Gentleman previously suggested in an intervention.
Earlier, from a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman said that he would give examples of editorial intervention by advertisers. Presumably it was the example of Construction News to which he was referring. In fact, the very intervention that he illustrates was unsuccessful. That proves the point made by the hon. Member who was speaking at the time, as well as by the Royal Commission on the Press, that there is absolutely no relationship at all between advertising expenditure and editorial slant.
Mr. Madden: I find it very difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman in his argument. Clearly, from the information which I gave, it was self-evident that the requirements of advertisers solely dominated the mind of management in making the requirements that it made on the editor to design and ensure that the content of his newspaper met with the requirement and support of advertisers. The clear implication was that if it did not, advertising revenue would dry up.
Mr. Rathbone: The point is perfectly put. It was exactly the point I was making. It was because the management took that attitude that the editor walked out and the magazine folded. That is exactly what will happen in any instance where management tries to exert that sort of pressure upon the editorial staff. The case is made as clearly as it possibly could be.
Another point that I should like to correct in the hon. Gentleman's speech is his claim that almost 100 per cent. of writers on The Times are members of the NUJ. I cannot quote a precise percentage, but I think I am right in claiming that there are more members of the IOJ

855
on the editorial staff of The Times than there are members of the NUJ. If I am anywhere near right in that contention, I think that we must look upon the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech with considerable doubt.
Having got that introduction off my chest, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friends on raising this difficult problem. I could not quite understand the Secretary of State's comment that this was a peculiar subject to raise. I believe that it was an entirely appropriate subject to raise, because it is not only crucial to a particular industry in this country but is crucial to the operation of a free Press.
I must declare an interest as a director of an advertising agency which places more advertising in the national Press than any other advertising agency in the Kingdom. That has absolutely no bearing at all on what I intend to say in this debate. However, I should like to make two comments with regard to advertising. First, the Royal Commission on the Press found that there was no influence by advertisers on editorial reporting in the Press. That cannot be said too often, because it is too often misclaimed by Labour Members that the opposite is the case.
Secondly, I should like to express my own personal feeling that it is a tragedy when it is necessary to transfer advertising from one newspaper, which happens to go on strike, either to other newspapers or to other media, most often local radio. That is neither as cost efficient in terms of marketing and expenditure nor good for the company or for the economy in its own small way. It is not as useful for the potential purchaser, because the information is not as readily available. It is also bad for society to have the future viability of the publication which has lost the advertising put in jeopardy.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), I was concerned at the lack of visible advance on the Press charter. His concern was laced with doubt as to whether any charter would be acceptable to the NUJ if it had sufficient teeth to it. I noted the Secretary of State's description of the Press charter. I was concerned at the differentiation which he drew between what he described as "all-party support"—in this
856
instance all parties to the Press world, not political parties—for agreement that the charter should apply to all but only "considerable agreement" about resistance to pressures on editors. Perhaps when replying the Minister can elaborate on the difference between "all-party support" and the rather ambivalent description of "considerable agreement" about resistance to pressures on editors.
I should also like to add my own question to the one which has already been put. When can we expect the final charter? There has been an extremely long pregnancy. I hope that after four years we can expect it before the year ends. In turn, that may mean that we should be looking for it before a General Election comes. This bears upon one half of the immensely complex problem of the freedom of the Press and industrial relations within the industry.
Fundamentally, a journalistic post-entry closed shop means that no new journalists or photographers who are not NUJ members, or who are not prepared to join the NUJ, whether or not they are members of the IOJ, can work in journalism. This direction has been supported by the influential and very important print industries committee of the TUC. As other hon. Members have pointed out, it has obviously grown from a steadily eroded standard of living amongst journalists compared with the wages of those in the printing and distribution of newspapers, which have soared ahead. It must have been this, at least in part, that was at the core of the militancy which started 10 years ago and which has sadly led to an improvement in their wage scales. I say "sadly" not because of the improvement in wage scales but because of the actions that were necessary to achieve it.
I myself have great sympathy with those journalists, but linked with that sympathy I must deplore their attitude to the closed shop, particularly the closed shop brought about by the coercion that they have brought to bear.
Unfortunately, the NUJ has had more than its fair share of extremists coming to the fore recently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) pointed out, with that horrifyingly explicit "A Militant Chapel Guide" from which he quoted earlier in the debate. So a very real threat remains to

857
the Press, as I believe is appreciated also by many members of the NUJ, that political slant in journalism could be encouraged, could be pressurised and could even be imposed.
I fear that I have to suggest that the present Government, in their speeches and in some of their legislative actions, have done nothing to support those with such reasonable worries, and it could even be claimed that the Government have done everything to encourage those with the unreasonable threat in mind. Therefore, it is all the more welcome that Mr. Ken Morgan is now arguing a reasonable line in the Press Council and that his successor, Mr. Ashton, seems to be more aware than the Government of the threat to Press freedom which still remains.
At present, while we wait upon the advent of the Press charter, the far greater and more immediate threat is from the printers' unions, the threat that they can have in influencing editorial content by taking industrial action.
Mr. Booth: This is the second time that the hon. Member has referred to waiting for the Press charter. The first time he spoke of waiting four years. On what does he base this suggestion? The requirement to produce the Press charter did not fall to me, as Secretary of State, until March of last year. It was a requirement of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976, and then only if the parties did not reach agreement within a year. What is the basis of the hon. Member's suggestion of a four-year wait?
Mr. Rathbone: The very fact that the Labour Party has for a long time been supporting the whole contention of a closed shop for the NUJ leads me to expect the Labour Party, if it is at all concerned about the freedom of the Press, to have had some protection in mind as to how the Press would operate once the closed shop had come into operation. Therefore, as soon as the requirement was put upon the Secretary of State's shoulders for the preparation of a Press charter, it seems peculiar to me that it could not come off the stocks, as it were, as one would expect it to have been prepared even prior to the present Labour Government coming into office. It is from the moment that they came
858
into Government that I trace the four years, because even if they had not had it prepared before I presume that, with that in mind, they would have started preparation of it immediately afterwards.
The Minister of State is grumbling away to himself, but I wonder how the Government thought that Press freedom would be affected. If the Government were going to support the closed shop under the NUJ, how were they going to ensure that Press freedom existed? Perhaps later, when the Minister replies to the debate—
Mr. Harold Walker rose—
Mr. Rathbone: —he will elaborate on that.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Member has made a charge against me, so he ought to be prepared to give way.
Mr. Rathbone: I am.
Mr. Walker: Will the hon. Member give one scrap of evidence that the Government have supported the closed shop in journalism in the way in which he has just suggested?
Mr. David Crouch: Will they oppose it?
Mr. Rathbone: History is so much against the Minister that I am surprised that he even got to his feet to try to intervene, let alone to press his intervention. The Government have over and over again supported the closed shop in every aspect of British industry. To the best of my knowledge—and I should be interested if it is ever on record, because I and my hon. Friends would like to have it as a point of reference—no member of the Government has ever made one statement against the closed shop in journalism. If the Minister can demontrate the opposite, I should be only too pleased to eat my words, if not my hat.
Sir John Rodgers: Before my hon. Friend leaves this most important point about the closed shop in journalism, may I ask whether he is aware, and whether Ministers are aware, that in Western Europe there is only one other country that would ever contemplate a closed shop in journalism, and that is Denmark? In all the other countries, either there are laws to make it illegal to have a closed shop in journalism or the issue has never

859
arisen because they do not believe that anyone would be so foolish as to think about it.
Mr. Rathbone: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that important point. I only add before we move on that it may be that those countries feel themselves to be better and more committed members of the United Nations in applying that attitude, because, of course, it is under the United Nations that it is an equal right to belong to a union and not to belong to a union. That is a quite important point to draw back to the Government's notice now.
However, moving on from the operation of the closed shop in journalism, I suggest to the House that a far greater and more immediate threat now exists from the print unions' influence on editorial content. I have already mentioned the muzzling of the Hon. David Astor's remarks in The Times on 14th January 1977 as one example. That muzzling was roundly condemned by the NUJ at the time, and it is therefore in no way as a reference against the NUJ that I refer to that unfortunate incident.
However, I question, as others have questioned earlier in the debate, how much this is due to newspaper managements. I wonder how much newspaper managements have ensured that a well-understood procedure is established for employees' in the same way as one exists for the public, to comment on or to reply to statements or opinions in the newspaper which they help to produce but with which they disagree. I wonder whether managements are certain that fathers of their chapels really understand the true economics of their publication by telling the truth, and the whole truth. Too often the truth has become veiled in managements saying one thing—"This far and no further", as it were—and, then in the interests of getting the paper out, or, indeed, in the interests of anything else, proving that they are ready to go much further.
We see this, sadly in the example of The Observer right now, where the local chapel thinks that the manning levels should be established to meet union desires rather than to do the job that needs doing and to do the job which has been done very effectively indeed as the
860
newspaper has been getting properly on the road again.
I wonder whether newspaper managements are symbolic of management in United Kingdom industry as a whole. I believe that they may be so. There are too often examples of flabby management in newspapers. Too often they prove to be a soft touch, working to the principle of "print at all costs". It is management profligacy and a lack of management direction which have led to much of the expensive overmanning. I believe that it stems from too little perspective of the future costs of decisions taken today. In other words, for example, they should compare the costs of meeting any demand from suppliers, workers or distributors with business like analysis of what can or should be done for the long-term good of their newspaper, for the long-term good of the newspaper's readers and for the long-term good of those who produce it, and, having come to that decision, as my right hon. Friend said, standing firm by it.
I wonder how often middle management protects senior management and senior management protects top management from the troubles with which they struggle either out of fear of too strong a reaction from the next layer of management above them or because they would prefer to have peace at any price and they fear showing their own inadequacies. How often does top management refuse to support middle management in its daily and difficult task, and how often does management make an agreement with union leaders only to back down under a modicum of pressure from a few difficult union members to the detriment of management, of union leaders and eventually of union members?
I suggest that those who work in newspapers too often feel that they owe their loyalties to their unions rather than to the companies that employ them. It seems that that feeling stems from four aspects, all of which touch upon the subject of the debate. The first aspect is that unions always seem to be able to get more from the profligate management to which I have referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East mentioned the wage scales of production workers now being between £140 and £320 a week for a working week of as little as 28 hours. Even on that basis, the members

861
of the unions in those newspapers can expect their chapels to go to bat on their behalf to get even more.
Secondly, the unions can always threaten to take away what is in fact and in practice the ticket to a well-paid job. The link between the worker and his local chapel can only be enhanced if he is working within a closed shop. Thirdly, too often unions control not only who does what but how many should do it. That is one of the crimes of history in the operations of Fleet Street today, and most especially is it to be found on the delivery rounds of the London evening newspapers.
Fourthly, and perhaps underlying my first three points, the unions have yet to understand—it may be that it has not been explained to them properly—the real extent of the threat of the demise of the present mastheads. We all watch with nervousness as The Observer struggles this week with its present difficulties.
Is it surprising that new technology has not been introduced or that where it has been introduced it has not come on stream when tomorrow's newspaper is more important than next year's newspaper and the jobs that go with it? Is it surprising that newspapers such as The Daily Telegraph can go for months on end with hardly one day with no lost copies? How can manning levels be reduced without management commitment to substantial redundancy payments, especially to buffer the elderly who face a considerable gap between their present high earnings levels and their future retirement pensions?
It is interesting that it has been reported that of the 8,000 people now working at Express Newspapers only 1,000 are really necessary to produce those newspapers, and that of the 650 journalists working there only 50 to 70 are required. There may be exaggeration within those figures, but the fact that they can be quoted as a possibility is an illustration of the difficulty that I have been trying to portray. Surely the dead weight of too many employees and too little use of modern machinery and methods cannot continue for long. Inexpensive new machinery will enable new newspapers to start circumventing the dead weight and competing with the existing mastheads of Fleet Street, first with their circulation
862
and eventually, as circulation drops, with their jobs. New methods of communication, such as Viewdata and Ceefax, must be growing threats to the inefficient, costly and old-fashioned newspaper production.
Drawing upon the ACAS proposals and other thinking, I suggest five points that might be part of a plan for the rejuvenation of Fleet Street. They are extremely simple. My first point is to complete quickly the retirement on generous terms all of those working in Fleet Street over 65 years of age. The work force of over-65-year-olds in Fleet Street still accounts for over 5 per cent. of the total work force.
The second point is to reduce overmanning which, including the over-65-year-olds, still represents about one-third of the total work force in Fleet Street, agreeing generous redundancy payments on an investment basis in the same way as money is put into new bits of machinery or into a new printing press.
The present formula for redundancies is still not sufficiently generous, even though under that formula a 55-year-old man who has worked for 20 years and who now receives, for example, £180 weekly would receive 87 weeks' pay, which would produce a total of £15,660. However, if more money is needed to achieve the demanning that is needed, that must be a good investment for the newspapers concerned. Such redundancy payments would be made all the more valuable by the Government's plan to raise the ceiling of taxation from £5,000 to £10,000, that plan having been announced yesterday.
The third point is to invest in machinery or, where such investment has been made already but the machinery has never been introduced, to bring in new technology. That could make up to a 25 per cent. difference immediately in terms of cost and efficiency. The fourth point is to improve pension plans and to institute carefully thought-out compulsory retirement plans for the future, for discussion and agreement with the unions.
The fifth point—it is especially appropriate at present with the return of better days for newspapers—is to lay the groundwork, perhaps through the NPA, of a self-help plan for newspapers in distress in future, avoiding either distasteful Government interference one of these

863
days or the inevitable loss of jobs resulting from the collapse of another masthead.
Finally, I suggest that the public's right to receive news is matched by a newspaper's duty to give it. It is that duty that underlies our debate. It must not be shirked by newspaper management, journalists, producers, distributors or Members of Parliament.
7.28 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Price: I apologise for not having been in the Chamber throughout the debate. However, I have heard a great deal of it.
It is unfortunate that the House should have become used to something that would have been unthinkable when I first became a Member, namely, a succession of verbatim, written-out speeches, which now seems to be quite a tradition and which happens in debate after debate. Nothing kills the way in which debates should take place in the House as much as a long succession of speeches that are delivered with the use of verbatim notes.
I declare an interest. I am a member of the National Union of Journalists. I had to become a member when I was thrown out of the House in 1970. I had to earn my living as a freelance journalist. Having had to do that as an ex-Member of Parliament, I do not take kindly to the argument that journalists are paid too much. The payment that I received as a freelance journalist was some of the hardest earned money that I have ever received. I never had any position in the NUJ except as an ex-treasurer of the New Statesman chapel. I had so little money to disburse in that job that my duties were absolutely minimal.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) has left the Chamber, because I wanted to take up the distinction that he drew—a very revealing and educative distinction—between television channels, which he said were properly controlled with Government interference to ensure editorial impartiality, and what he called Press freedom which it would be utterly improper to control in the same way. The distinction that he drew was wholly and absolutely false. The hon. Gentleman made that
864
point because of the suggestion by Moss Evans and the Labour Party from time to time that we should have regulatory powers over newspapers as well as television.
I believe that there is only one distinction between the newspaper and television industries. The newspaper industry is overwhelmingly in the grip of Tory proprietors, whereas the television industry, by statute, in terms of political content, is as impartial as such an industry can be. To say that there is something inherently good for democracy about the British newspaper industry is to bend the meaning of the words.
The British daily papers are to a large extent an arm of the Conservative Party. Last week in Private Eye, which I think is an excellent and salutary addition to the British media, there was a story about David English instructing his senior Lobby correspondent with copy provided by his No. 3 Lobby correspondent on how to write up the Leader of the Opposition on the ground that the Daily Mail was a Tory paper. That story has not been denied. We hear stories of editors gagging their journalists. Not even a senior Lobby correspondent in this place is free from the kind of gross political pressure to which the Lobby correspondent of the Daily Mail is subject in this place.
I do not find the distinction drawn by the hon. Member for Aldershot at all real. I hope that we shall move towards the kind of regulatory powers—they will have to come slowly—that have been put forward by the Labour Party and the Transport and General Workers Union so that we may have a genuinely free Press in which it is possible for new papers and magazines to start more easily than today.
It is worth asking in passing—and, in passing, I promise not to trespass on anything that I ought not to say, since I am going to mention a certain incident—which papers are in danger today. It is not only The Observer. What happened when people tried to start The Leveller—a splendid new paper of the kind of which there were dozens in the nineteenth century—which, along with Time Out and Private Eye, stood alone in our modern regulated society? It was clobbered and threatened by the Government. The same applies to Peace News.

865
What happened to Time Out—one of the most interesting and successful ventures in journalism over the past few years? Its journalists were arrested and charged. Proceedings are taking place, so I do not want to say any more about that. But suppose the Government were to arrest and charge and to take away all the private notes of a journalist on The Times. What reaction would there be?
We hear about papers in danger. I find from my experience as an NUJ member that it is the investigative papers, which try to find out too many secrets, which are clobbered. The way for a newspaper to survive is to produce bland pap, like The Sun and the News of the World, and not to investigate anything worth investigating.
I still believe in Aneurin Bevan's judgment on the British Press—that it is the most prostituted in the world. If Aneurin Bevan were alive today, I do not think that he would come to any different judgment.
I might even plead guilty to this. I am not only a journalist, but a member of one of those famous cosy little groups—the education correspondents' group. One could not really accuse the education correspondents' group of anything very terrible. Yet, as a group, we attended teachers' and students' conferences with the desire not to investigate and find out what was happening, but, among Fleet Street correspondents, to make sure that they all agreed on the headline for the next morning. If there were any suggestion of the Daily Mail saying that one thing was the story for the following morning and the Daily Express saying something else, both would be bothered after 6 p.m. by their editors saying "What about this other story?" Of course, they prefer to spend the hours after 6 o'clock at night on activities other than journalism.
The education correspondents' group is a mild example. There is also the motoring correspondents' group, which is notorious for the way that it does not so much investigate motor cars as accept the patronage of the great, rich, manufacturing, advertising motor car companies. I could replicate that example time and again.
I appreciate that one must not refer to these matters, but it is significant that
866
the most senior cabal of this kind—there are few of them here, but the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) is a former member—is the parliamentary Lobby. In my view, that is immensely less investigative, brave and determined to find out exactly what is happening than it could be. It is far too addicted to ministerial briefings and taking what is happening from Ministers rather than trying to find out the truth of what is going on, because it is absolutely dependent on the flow of information from Ministers. Indeed, in my odd moment I often muse whether British journalists would have been capable of uncovering a Watergate if there were or, indeed, is anything like that going on in Britain.
Mr. John Mendelson: There would have been no need to do it. We would have done it.
Mr. Price: I am sure that we might have done it here. The action of myself and my soi-disants delinquent colleagues the other day was a small effort in that direction.
Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend recall that Mr. Tony Howard was appointed by The Sunday Times to carry investigations of Whitehall and had to cease those operations within weeks because he was regularly defective in this role? Is it not interesting to note that searching investigations of various consumer products are carried out by Which?, which has to rely on subscriptions to carry out that investigative work?
Mr. Price: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. This is not a party point. The Government which clamped the Civil Service down on Tony Howard when he was appointed by The Sunday Times was a Labour Government. It was a foolish action. It was slightly foolish of Mr. Howard to call himself the Whitehall correspondent. Had he simply called himself a reporter he might have got a little further for a little longer.
The British Government are the most secretive in the world. Instead of being combated by the most investigative group of journalists in the world, they are often confronted by the most complacent, and complaisant, sloppy group of

867
journalists that one could find anywhere in the West.
I have recently completed a year in the lush pastures of the European Parliament. It was a nice sort of sabbatical. I had a chance of reading every day the French, Belgian and British Press and comparing them. In reading the French and British Press, one is struck by the triviality of the British Press—the constant mixing of comment with so-called reporting and the complete lack of what any American journalist would consider journalistic ethics. By that I mean that either one comments on something or one reports it straight.
Almost every daily headline and the first five sentences in the Daily Express or the Daily Mail are twisted to try to bend the story in a particular way. Other papers copy them. It is a British tradition. It is nothing to be proud of. Conservative Members have been parroting what I might call the Levinist line. This great democrat, Bernard Levin, was mandated by my branch of the NUJ, the London freelance branch, at the annual conference to take a particular line about the Colonel B affair. The first thing that he did at the conference was to break his democratic mandate. That is the sort of character who purveys the line that we have heard from the Conservative Party.
We have the muzzling of David Astor. We are never told about the muzzling of Gordon Tether. It is always said to be the unions who are the problem and not the management.
Mr. George Reid: May I ask the hon. Member about his own London freelance branch? Is it not true that in the columns of The Journalist, the NUJ newspaper, the London freelance branch published a resolution against capitalist control and said:
"When the columns of the Press are open to the Labour movement we shall obviously reconsider the matter."?
Is not that frightening?
Mr. Price: Many frightening things are printed in many newspapers each day. I did not see that story. We have had a little quotation from it. I should have liked to read all of it before commenting on it. I agree that there are
868
many people in the journalist unions who are deeply dissatisfied with the sickening atmosphere in which they have grown up and with the example purveyed by their complacent superiors. If the comments of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) arise from this sort of dissatisfaction, it is only part of a fundamentally healthy movement that is attempting to bring to British journalism some of the decent standards which it has not had, with a few honourable exceptions, this century.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) admitted that management was not Simon-pure. The Sporting Life was the first of the Mirror group journals to introduce the revolutionary new processes. It had the co-operation of the unions and there were many discussions and preparations. On a Sunday just over a fortnight ago everybody was asked to come in at 7 o'clock in the morning to produce the Sporting Life for Monday. By 7 o'clock at night hardly half the paper was printed and it had to be abandoned. The same thing happened on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and then the men went back on the next day to the old hot-metal process because of the failure of a management which had been charged with organising something and which had had co-operation from the unions but had failed to move over to the new process.
Those who say that it is a black and white issue, that only the unions are to blame and that managements are hard done by, should remember stories of that kind. The journalists on The Sporting Life were anxious for the paper to get on to the new process because there was a great deal in it for them.
It would be a pity if all that came out of the debate was advice to and knocking against the print unions in the upper-class, complacent tones of the House of Commons. The trade unions and management have a difficult job to do and have had this job over the past years. For the first time they are tackling it with much more vigour. Side by side with this there is a completely new breed of young journalists, for many of whom Watergate was a new experience. Many of them were brought into journalism, not only in America but all over Western Europe, because they felt—just as some people went into politics to have an

869
influence on the world and other people went into the law—that they could find a newspaper in their country which would do what the Washington Post did in the United States and sweep away the lies and the deceit with which the country was being governed.
Carping criticism has been levelled at the NUJ in the hope that this new breed of journalists will somehow go away, that it is a temporary phenomenon and that if we can get Bernard Levin to bash the NUJ a bit harder everything will be all right. That is completely absurd and is a misreading of a new and healthy situation which I welcome.
7.50 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) cannot have had the privilege of hearing the whole of the debate, as I have. I cannot reconcile his commentary and judgment with the conduct of the rest of the debate.
We have been particularly fortunate to have had a series of extremely constructive speeches designed to analyse some of the problems of an important industry, to recognise their nature and to seek constructive solutions. It is therefore all the more regrettable that an opportunity should have been taken to denigrate people who are seeking to find answers that recognise the importance and nature of the problem.
The speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West reflected some of the observations of some of his hon. Friends. I am sorry that some of them have left the Chamber. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) pointed out the difficulties he had experienced in expressing himself in his local newspapers and, indeed, in newspapers generally.
That fact ties up with my observation of my constituents who always read the speeches of those who belong to another political party. They do not even recognise the existence of points of view that are similar to their own. They feed upon an opposite point of view. It is not surprising that people feel that an inadequate response is not as a result of their own efforts.
I am probably one of the most unreported hon. Members. That is an honourable score. My only claim to fame in the national Press was when I
870
expressed concern about the health and future of earthworms. That produced a gratifying response and the constituents concerned felt that I had achieved a notable success. It was a matter which produced a response, and that is the nature of the industry we are discussing. I do not complain about that.
I can think of another Labour Member, with whom I am closely associated, who has been extraordinarily successful in drawing attention to matters of national and local concern best illustrated by his answer to the question "Why did the chicken cross the road?" He replied:
"That is a matter which I have referred to my county planning authority in order to see that a crossing is erected at that point. It demonstrates the very unsatisfactory nature of the EEC regulations on this subject, and I am proposing to introduce a private Member's Bill to make sure that chickens of this nature have proper parental control."
That was a way of demonstrating, quite properly, that there are ways of bringing forward any political issue. It was successful on that occasion, but it was not reflected by a paranoid view of the Press of the neighbourhood. On the contrary, that hon. Member succeeds frequently in expressing a cogent party point of view which is recognised. I sometimes feel that there is an opposite representation, and that makes my point.
The hon. Member for Putney gave evidence to the Select Committee on Wealth Tax. I was a member of that Committee, and I am surprised that he should be concerned about his inability to obtain proper attention for matters that he regards as significant. I remember reading with great interest his general views before he gave evidence to the Committee and afterwards reading at great length about the evidence that he had given in his capacity as Minister for the arts.
When talking about different relationships with the Press, we have to look at the role of the Government. Government by Press release is a new phenomenon and we must recognise it. A most interesting recent book "The Abuse of Power" demonstrates that the struggle for the Press to present information in a cogent and open form is no new issue. The dimensions of the issue take a different form as time goes by, but the pressure of the Government in seeking to put their own case and the power of the Executive

871
seeking to control the media machine is nothing new. It has been happening throughout history. Newspaper proprietors have attempted it, and I am glad to say that they have been severely repulsed in the process.
Reference has been made to the weight of advertising. That is a force, but the most powerful force is the readership of the newspapers. People vote with their pennies each day and decide which newspapers will be sold and how.
I want to address myself to the relationship of trade unions in controlling the content of the material that goes into newspapers. I am concerned, and I believe that my concern is widely shared, that those organisations are developing into instruments of political power as opposed to industrial power.
I welcome the attitudes of industrial power and their position to negotiate for those they represent. That is a fine and excellent thing. We have to find new instruments to make the best possible use of those institutions and regulations. There is much to which we can address ourselves, but the presentation of material in newspapers is a different matter.
Improper pressure has been referred to in the debate. When pressure is exerted by sanctions, fines, expulsion or a withdrawal of labour, we have to think seriously about those sanctions in our capacity as trustees and guardians of freedom in this country. We all share that obligation. It is not a matter of party politics; it is an issue in which we have joint and mutual responsibility. We have to guard that jealously and with every great care.
We have the capacity in this House to do that, but we shall not do it by ignoring the problem or pretending that it does not exist. Some of the problems are realities, and I should like to refer to one problem and to urge that the trade union movement should attempt to redress it. It is not necessarily a problem that can be dealt with on a legislative basis, but it can be dealt with by persuasion, by information and by those inside the industry seeking to put right something that I believe is wrong.
Some constituents who were members of the NGA came to see me because they were extremely concerned about
872
some of the things they were being asked to do as a result of a joint circular that had been issued. One constituent wrote to me:
"There are widespread views on the racial problems in this country but for Trade Unions to say that they will not allow anything to be printed because they think it is prejudicial or biased is against all democracy. Come to that, don't all the unions appear to be antidemocratic these days? If the editors of newspapers have got to consult the unions concerned every time they want to print something concerning immigration and racial problems then it will be a sad day for the 'freedom of the press'."
That is not my view, it is the view of a constituent.
I could read more, but I shall confine myself to just two other extracts. He went on:
"Even 'Readers Letters' will be omitted because of this embargo and one will be reading just what the two unions want us to read on the subjects concerned … I have held a full union card now for thirty one years, unions were worthwhile then at the start. But now as a lot of us know, they are only instruments of political power".
This is the view of a member of a union and a long-term member of the Socialist Party. He goes on:
"Plus the fact that you now have to be a member of one of them to be able to have a job."
I have discussed this matter with that constituent and some of his colleagues. They are genuinely and earnestly concerned. They are not seeking a stick to beat anyone, but their concern is that this is not on and they do not want to be part of such a scheme. There is no such problem in their organisation. I do not suggest that there has been action that we should consider, but it reflects the unease of many people who feel that the interests of democracy and the freedom of the Press are threatened.
The circular was issued on 11th January 1978. Several items in that circular illustrate the situation. It is not a figment of the imagination. The first part of the circular expresses views about racialism and other matters, the sentiments of which none of us would object to. It is a joint circular from the NUJ and the NGA. They reaffirm their total opposition to censorship and their belief that Press freedom must be conditioned by responsibility. They say that there should be acknowledgment by all media workers that Press freedom should not

873
be abused to slander a section of the community or to promote the evil of racialism.
Paragraph 6 contains a more ominous and serious matter. It states:
"The NUJ and NGA recognise the right of the Press to withhold its labour on grounds of conscience because employers are providing a platform for racialist propaganda."
Who is to exercise that judgment? Who is to say that this material is of a racialist nature and that labour should be withdrawn? If that happens, the Press is stopped and the newspapers are not issued. That then becomes a political matter which could involve political timing. That action could occur during a General Election. One cannot say that it will be put right. A timetable is involved, and newspapers can be stopped in a particular area. I do not suggest that all the presses of the nation will be stopped, but that could happen in an area and a particular section of the industry could be brought to a halt. We shold not contemplate that possibility with ease.
A voluntary Press charter which merely indicates that it is important that we do not suppress information will not be sufficient. I do not claim to be an expert on industrial relations, but I am concerned that we have the freedom of expression.
The British Press is respected throughout the world. I do not share the view that we have a rotten, unstable and unsatisfactory Press. I have the greatest admiration for the journalists, editors and all those who produce our newspapers. They serve our nation well and the world recognises that, but we are moving into a new area of communications and activity. We must accommodate that in our legislation. We need more information and greater access to it. We want more freedom to express our views. Parliament cannot stand to one side.
Rule 2 in the NUJ handbook states:
"A member shall not act by commission or omission against the interests of the union or of the trade union movement."
The code of practice states that
"a journalist shall not originate material which encourages discrimination on grounds of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation".
There is a reference to the affairs of Southern Africa. We are developing a
874
code of censorship on information presented to the newspaper industry. I am sure that that is not a deliberate action, but that is the effect. It is likely to be utilised by a limited number in their own cause and interest. The vast majority who work in the newspaper industry will reject any form of sieving of what they wish to present.
The reality is there and we must be warned. We must be aware of the problem. The ordinary people do not expect us to leave the matter alone. They are also concerned. Moderate opinion asserts its view. We cannot allow extremists of any kind to take over and to demand action. The duty lies with the moderate people. This debate is the opportunity for presenting that view to the people.
8.5 p.m.
Mr. George Gardiner: Since it appears that the Government Back Benchers have dried up on this important subject and have no further contribution to make, it is my pleasure to speak immediately after a constructive speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth).
I worked in this place for a number of years as a political correspondent and a member of the Lobby. It would be tempting for me to rise to the bait of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), who attacked the Lobby institution and Lobby correspondents. Since that has nothing to do with the debate, I shall brush the temptation aside. If he imagines that the practice of political correspondents in gathering information in this building bears any resemblance to the obnoxious form of closed shop which he said that he joined when he was an education correspondent, he could not be worse informed.
If political correspondents relied on ministerial briefings for the news and stories that they gather, there would be precious little political news in our newspapers. My experience as a Lobby correspondent is that in political journalism every day is an exercise in investigatory journalism. Although I enjoy reading Private Eye as much as the hon. Member, he must not take every piece of gossip that he reads in that interesting journal as gospel.

875
I declare an interest. For many years I have been a member of the NUJ. Unlike the hon. Member for Lewisham, West I joined not because I had to but because I wanted to. Over recent years I have regretted seeing other members of my union relying on coercion rather than persuasion in order to strengthen the ranks of that trade union. I also declare an interest because I am under contract to a national newspaper.
The bulk of my years in journalism were spent in serving the regional Press, which is not without its problems. I do not believe that what the Secretary of State had to say about the Press charter will allay the many anxieties in the industry.
Rightly, today's debate has concentrated on the problems of Fleet Street because that is where the crisis is at its worst. At the moment, Fleet Street is a jungle where even the law of the jungle does not obtain. The beasts in it no longer kill off each other but slowly strangle themselves. Hon. Members have given examples which show how critical the situation is.
We have seen how small numbers of workers are able to halt the printing presses, costing our national newspapers millions of copies. I was very glad that the Secretary of State amended or qualified his comparison over days lost because there is no meaningful basis for comparison between Fleet Street and other industries. One hour lost at the critical point of the evening can mean the loss of the entire main edition. That loss can never be made up. Some industries are able after a strike or dispute to carry on meeting their orders. That is not so in Fleet Street. Once a day's print has been lost it can never be regained.
The most disturbing feature is that most of the recent disputes have been unofficial. Very often these days it is questionable whether the leaders particularly of some of the print unions have much control over their members.
As was illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken), there are malpractices in Fleet Street, the kind of which would not be tolerated in almost any other industry. There are ghost workers, which is a mechanism by which one man collects two pay packets for allegedly doing two indentical jobs at the same time.
876
"Gordon Richards of Tattenham Corner" is apparently well known the length of Fleet Street. He has served in his time on most national newspapers and at times has worked simultaneously for two or three of them.
There is the abuse of so-called bingo nights where a man is given full pay but is nevertheless told to stay away from the place of work. There is the abuse of the concept of casual working. There are many casuals in Fleet Street who are so permanent as to be in pension schemes. I do not solely blame unions, nor, in all honesty, have most of my hon. Friends who have spoken this evening. Management bears a heavy responsibility. The situation is a product of boom years in the past when all sorts of easy mechanisms were sought to gain a march over one's competitors or when management gave in easily and quickly to a particular kind of blackmail knowing that it had the resources to do that when some of its competitors might not. Much of this is management's fault, and for that reason management today is living with its own legacy and is incapable of making many of the adjustments which are so badly required.
One of the virtues of a debate of this kind is that it helps to bring the situation out into the open. The initial speeches at least from the Labour side were highly constructive. Alas, the most recent speeches from those Benches have been nothing but an airing of the familiar resentments and persecution mania that elements on the Left have about our free British Press. Now, fortunately, those speeches seem to have dried up.
A debate such as this concentrates public attention on these issues. There are a number of things that the public should know. For example, many national newspapers would never appear on the breakfast table if management was not paying out what amounts to a kind of protection money to groups of workers in Fleet Street. The public should know that there is a real danger of well known papers ceasing production altogether. There is the danger, too, that over a period the remaining national newspapers will become much more of a luxury product and, in the process, being fewer in number much more vulnerable to monopoly control. Those in the industry should be fully aware, too, that before

877
this point is reached many managements will have to consider the possibility of printing outside London. Where would Fleet Street be then?
As a background to this, there is a whole new technology waiting to be developed for the benefit of the newspaper industry and its readers, new techniques enabling it to produce better and what should be cheaper newspapers. North America and Japan are years ahead of us in developing these processes and techniques. But, alas, all our current practices are a bar to these ever being developed in this country.
Let me quote an important point that the chief executive and managing director of Times Newspapers Ltd., Mr. Hussey, made in his recent letter to the unions. He said:
"It is not an exaggeration that almost the total working hours of our board and senior managers are now occupied with trying to prevent disputes, solving disputes, and repairing the damage they caused. Virtually no effort"—
he means management effort—
"is going into improving the turnover and profitability of the company."
So managements are now too overwhelmed by their problems with industrial relations and with getting out the next day's issue to take any of the long term decisions that are necessary for the future of a strong national Press.
What is the justification for a newspaper? What is the justification for Fleet Street at all? It is to provide a service for the readers. Yet in the first four months of this year 54 million copies have been lost. That means 54 million occasions on which a member of the public has not been able to buy the newspaper he or she wanted. What will be the effect of that not simply on the finances of Fleet Street but upon the readers and readership patterns? We heard earlier in the debate of the effect on the advertising industry.
A great deal of our commercial life depends not only upon advertisements but upon the information contained each day in the national Press. I can give an example not from the national Press but from one of the regional newspapers that I used to serve. There was a dispute lasting a few days which meant that undertakers in the city in question were facing
878
a dire crisis since nobody could be buried until the funerals had been properly announced in the local newspaper. The corpses were piling up.
That is not a very serious example, but large sections of our commercial life are dependent on advertisements and news of an industrial nature. When that ceases to appear the efficiency of those commercial enterprises is affected.
What will be the effect on readers if this pattern by which millions of copies are lost over a month or two continues? People will ask if there is any point in placing a regular order for a newspaper if that does not give some guarantee of regular delivery. If the pattern continues, I fear that there will be a pattern of diminishing reliance upon the printed word by a wide cross section of the public. That would be bad for everyone concerned with newspapers. Therefore, to the problems within Fleet Street must be added this threat of a diminishing market should these practices continue for much longer.
The conclusion from all this is that in Fleet Street there are many printers' devils—I use this old-fashioned term to describe the things that go wrong in the newspaper industry—and very few angels. I have acknowledged freely that management has a great deal of responsibility for this situation as a result of having connived in the past at various arrangements to keep the presses running at the supposed expense of opponents and competitors. In the long term, it has been at the expense of everybody. These problems are deep rooted in the history of Fleet Street.
The fact that earnings are now so high creates a great reluctance to change at all. This is one of the major barriers that we are up against. I am still convinced that it can be done, however. The Mirror group has shown that the task is by no means impossible. It has begun the process of getting rid of so-called casual jobs that have been such a bane to the industry. Other employers are now beginning to stand up and be counted in the face of some of the threats, particularly some of the disputes which are organised on an entirely unofficial basis. Some employers and managers in Fleet Street are beginning to dig in their heels, take a stand and state realities.

879
In this context, one must commend and applaud the statement agreed by Victor Matthews with the engineers at the Daily Express. In the statement it was asserted and accepted that the authority of the chief engineer, his deputy and overseers would be recognised at all levels and that the overseers must be allowed full freedom to carry out their duties. Here was a case of management insisting that it must be allowed to perform its proper functions. Management is beginning to defend its rights and indeed its necessity to manage newspapers if they are to survive.
When a debate of this kind is initiated, naturally the question is what is to be done and what are we telling the Government Front Bench to do. I would be the first to criticise the Government for their general pattern of trade union legislation and its spin-off effect on the current situation. I do not believe and would never say that the solution lies with the Government in such matters. The solution can lie only with the newspaper industry itself—both sides of it. ACAS may be able to help here and there, but I do not believe that subsidies should be given to keep particular newspapers in existence or that more generalised subsidies should be provided to enable Fleet Street to shed some of its manpower.
Fleet Street has got itself into this mess and it must get itself out of it. The great responsibility rests on managers and I hope that when management do stand up for the essential things in Fleet Street they will have the Government's full support and that there will not be any offorts to deride and knock them as if they were bad, old-fashioned employers.
Also, a great deal of responsibility falls on the shoulders of union leaders in getting the collective interest of all their members established among all the constituent parts. I would not underestimate the magnitude of the task. It is very easy to criticise management for poor industrial relations within newspapers. But let us also cast a critical eye upon the communications pattern within some trade unions and ask why some of these situations are allowed to come to a head before official union leadership takes an active part.
The tragedy is that the 1976 "Programme for Action" was rejected by
880
those working in the industry. This programme offered a great deal of hope for the industry. But the fact that it was rejected then does not mean that all its ideas and concepts have been lost or discarded. Since 1976 the situation has got worse and it gets worse daily. More newspapers are now near to death than in 1976. Are any more newspapers to die before common sense dawns, even within the small sub-groups within the Fleet Street unions? I hope not. The day we witness the funeral of Fleet Street it will be too late for any repentence.
8.27 p.m.
Mr. George Reid: I am old-fashioned enough to believe that the freedom of the Press is a public freedom. It is not the plaything of newspaper proprietors or the perk or prerogative of those working in the industry. Western European democracy means pluralism and diversity of viewpoint being put before the public, and the public knowing that what they read in print is the product of free minds, not constrained by exterior forces.
Like the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), I speak as a member of the National Union of Journalists, but I do not wish to speak from a factional or sectional viewpoint. What is wrong with the British Press is the story of British industry writ large. There has not been the investment required to take printing out of the Victorian age. There has been a blind funk on both sides in facing the fact that the new technology means that people are frightened by the threat of job loss. There is a lack of realism in coming to terms with the fact that photo printing means that new manning levels are necessary, as are new disputes procedures.
Some managements, against that background, have blown terribly hot one morning and gone frightened fast the next day. Decent trade union leaders have seen their own position eroded by factional groups with the power to close down everything, and all the time basic costs are going up and up.
That situation simply cannot go on. We are now close to a situation in which the British newspaper industry looks like committing hara-kiri. With almost 60 million copies lost since the start of this year, something will shortly have to give somewhere. The sad thing is that the

881
public divisions in the newspaper industry are the very mirror image of the divisions in this House. The Left-Right clash here reflects the management-union clash in Fleet Street.
For me at least Thatcherism as presented in some of the British newspapers means head-on confrontation with the trade unions. The Marxism of the far Left—waiting discreetly of course in the Labour wings this side of the General Election—means turning the United Kingdom into something like a Comecon country. The language of this House, in other words, is in itself the very negotiating language of Fleet Street.
Since there is no one on the Government Back Benches now, perhaps I can enlarge that point a little more than I had intended. For example, in Scottish terms, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind) a couple of years ago criticised The Scotsman, the Scottish Daily Express and the Daily Record by saying:
"There is abysmal lack of proper editorial control."
I know that Poujadism is the mood of the Tory Party in Scotland these days, but that in itself is an attempt to achieve a closed shop on the Tory side of the fence.
Likewise, on the Government side, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) chaired an internal Labour Party committee a few years ago whose remit was
"to seek to develop the structures of democratic accountability"—
whatever that means—and also
"to allow greater influence to be exercised by those who work in the media."
By all the decent people in the Labour Party that will be intepreted reasonably, but for one or two of the Trotskyites who are moving in from the fringes it will be given a very different meaning, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) indicated. In terms of his own London freelance branch resolution, the hon. Gentleman talked of "capitalist control" and said:
"When the columns of the Press are open to the Labour Movement, we shall obviously reconsider the matter."
That is frightening talk. That is almost the language of Czechoslovakia in 1947 and 1948. It is not the language of reasonable men.
882
Of course, the profoundly sad thing is that all reasonable people know that in this difficult Press situation we must pull together. Obviously, newspaper trade unionists have the same right to band together as any other industrial workers. Management has the absolute right to point out that its papers will go to the wall if tiny sectional groups continue to act like petty anarchists in Fleet Street.
So what do we do? First, the interests of management and unionists are broadly the same. The separate power of tiny chapels factionalised across Fleet Street is busting the papers and removing any real authority from the union bosses. For example, the 25 men who stopped The Observer last Sunday are destroying not just their own jobs but those of all their colleagues.
Therefore, there has to be an end to unofficial action. There has to be negotiation on a rapid and effective disputes procedure. There has to be general wage restructuring, based on the new technology, and there have to be efficient manning levels. This is not very pleasant but it is a straight fact of life.
Once that is achieved, of course, the fathers of chapels and the management can get on with their real business of negotiating and reconciling their own specific interests with the interests of the industry at large, with—I hope—workers participation.
Second, we have to look at the root of the problem in European terms. The freedom of expression, as contained in Article 10(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights,
"carriers with it duties and responsibilities".
State intervention may be necessary in the United Kingdom to guarantee that freedom.
The Press, in a democratic society, discharges a public task. The State has obviously an essential interest in the continued operation, on an economically sound basis, of as many newspapers as possible. Naturally, there should be no interference with editorial control. The real problem therefore is how to put money into the pockets of the Press without putting the Press in the pockets of the politicians.
For that reason, I and my party favour assistance on a general rather than a selective basis. Despite the reservations

883
of the Royal Commission on the Press, it is time that we had another look at the possibility of an advertising revenue board to redistribute the profits of advertising, particularly in a small country such as Scotland. In that way, small newspapers of independent views can be kept in being, and, of course, some of the jobs pressure is thereby taken off the unions.
I should like to say a final word about the situation north of the border. It would be wrong for me, a member of the SNP. not to touch on this matter. Mr. Fred Johnston, the president of the Scottish Newspaper Proprietors Association, said last week:
"Loss of their separate Scots identity has made trade union leaders north of the border less aware of their responsibility than they were in the past"
That is broadly true. It is equally true of course of management in Scotland.
The majority of our national dailies—using the word "national" in the Scottish sense—are now controlled out of Fleet Street.
I do not want particularly to labour this point, but there are only two courses that a nationalist can follow. One is the course followed by De Valéra in Ireland, who insisted that English papers appearing in the Republic contained, at the risk of prosecution, no reference to contraception or abortion. Those words had to be expurgated before the newspapers crossed the Irish Sea. Indeed, as a young journalist sitting in Manchester I knew the great sweat involved in resetting type to accommodate that diktat. It was nothing to do with morals. It was simply to do with English papers thereby becoming economically unviable and the building up of a native Irish Press. I should not, in Scottish terms, want to go down that road.
I think that in Scotland we should look alternatively at the sort of generalised Press assistance of which I have spoken. I regard that as more appropriate for small countries. I think that it would be useful to have such help for small publications such as M Publications of Arbroath, whose journalists—there are about 15 of them—during the past week have refused to accept redundancy, who have been backed by the NEC of the NUJ, and who are carrying on producing their own local newspapers.
884
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) has fought long and hard for those journalists. The Minister of State for the Scottish Office has expressed his concern, and perhaps the Government Front Bench, if the Scottish Office has informed it of this problem, can say tonight whether the Government can do anything for those journalists in M Publications of Arbroath. Those of us on the SNP Bench who have repeatedly raised the matter hope that they both can and will.
At the end of the day the freedom of the Press—by which I mean the free publication of genuinely alternative points of view—is every bit as important in Arbroath, in Forfar, in Carnoustie and in Kirriemuir as it is in Fleet Street.
8.36 p.m.
Mr. David Crouch: I liked that last remark of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid), who speaks solitarily for his party tonight, but he is not alone in being solitary, if that is not a joke. I liked the hon. Gentleman's reference to the fact that we need, and will always need, within the United Kingdom—I hope that the hon. Gentleman is thinking in terms of the United Kingdom—the individual expression of view in the regional parts of the kingdom. I should have thought of Scotland as Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given us this extra dimension which those of us who do not live in Scotland and do not know it so well may not realise. It was good to hear from the hon. Gentleman that there are other parts of the country where it is essential to have this freedom of expression of a regional view. I applaud the hon. Gentleman and would always defend that viewpoint.
I have always hoped that the time would come that, having risen to my feet in this place and being somewhat daunted by the crowds of empty Benches opposite, after I had been on my feet for a little while those Benches would gradually fill up, and after I had been on my feet for 10 minutes they would be completely filled. That moment has yet to arrive. I know that Members who are crowding the Committee Rooms at this moment and those in other places where they have to be at this very hour are looking

885
anxiously at the annunciator screen to see who is speaking. I hope that I have learnt the lesson from the great David Lloyd George that one must say nothing for the first 10 minutes, because that will bring in the Members, and one then makes one's points when the place has filled up.
I do not want to dismay my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), who is to wind up the debate for the Opposition, or the Secretary of State. I want to get straight down to the point. I believe that, notwithstanding the emptiness of the Benches as we near the end of the day, this has been an important debate. If the emptiness of the Chamber demonstrates that perhaps the debate is not important to us, that is not a matter of such great consequence. What is important is that the sickness that we are discussing in one of our great industries—the newspaper industry—is one of the most serious things that we have to face today in our free democratic society. There is something sick in the state of this country. There is something wrong in the state of Britain today. It exists not only in Fleet Street but in the newspaper publishing industry.
I have a great concern about what appears to be a death wish by some of those who work in the industry. Is it a conscious death wish or is it something unconscious that prompts people to rush like lemmings to the edge of the cliff until it is too late to stop?
I have never been in the newspaper industry. I have never been a journalist, although I have at times had articles published. I was concerned in another side of the industry, in advertising, but I no longer am. At one time I was the controller of a large amount of advertising. That was my first glimpse of the industry, through the commercial side.
But I am misleading the House. My first glimpse of the industry was when, as a small boy, I learnt to read and saw my first newspaper. I realised that a newspaper was something I would live with for the rest of my life and would long and hope never to be denied. I hoped that I should never be denied the great opportunity, which we take for granted, of having the free and unfettered expression of views delivered to our doorstep or bought off the street. This is a precious
886
freedom, and I pray God that we never lose it.
I do not exaggerate when I say that if democracy were to weaken in this country I should be prepared to see this place decline before the decline of the free Press in Britain. Parliament would always emerge again, but I should not be so sure of the re-emergence of a free Press once it had died. Parliaments would emerge. There could be a one-party State system. That would not be freedom. A free Press would never be allowed to emerge again under such a system if—God forbid—it ever trespassed on to our splendid freedom.
I said that my introduction to the industry was when I learnt to read. It was only later that I learn what a remarkable miracle happened every day with the production of a daily newspaper. This achievement mirrors almost every aspect of life that is seen and picked up around the world and delivered to our breakfast tables or bought for reading on our commuter trains or at our place of work, in the canteen or wherever. Every day is a new day. Every day is different.
The industry depends on an input—a loathsome word—on the concentration of people's minds, skills and professionalism as journalists—as feature writers, sub-editors, news editors, features editors, editors themselves—printers, typesetters in all their special categories of very high skill, using or not using new techniques, delivery men and men selling the papers at the news kiosk or the news stand.
Let us not forget that the newspaper industry is the whole panoply of those people, from the owner at the top down to the newsman whom one has got to know over so many years at the corner of the street, in sunshine or in rain. This is the miracle, and it happens every day. It is a precious freedom, and we must never lose it.
As I have said, the industry calls for great skills in all those various disciplines. But it is not enough to have hard work, good management, professionalism and skill. Above all, it demands that all these people be brought together as a great team, right down to the boy who sells the newspaper in the street, who is prepared to collect it from the van as it whizzes by, with a hundred copies of the morning or evening paper being thrown

887
out to serve the public with the news of the day from around the world.
It calls for team work. But that is what seems to be lacking. It was that point that I put to the Prime Minister at Question time today when I asked him whether he had some response to make to the innovative and imaginative phrase put forward by the president of the CBI earlier this week—that it is the intention on the employers' side at least to get rid of that awful phrase "the two sides of industry" and to proceed instead to speak of a team working together to achieve the common end.
Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend and I have constituencies in the same part of Kent. Does he not agree that the local newspapers which serve us so well in East Kent—the East Kent Times, the Thanet Times, the Kent Messenger and others—have the team spirit to which he is referring and that it is shown by the enthusiasm with which members of the staff will take over one another's jobs at short notice? Surely there is a lesson there for Fleet Street, where there are such sharp demarcation lines and unrealistic attitudes to co-operation and team work.
Mr. Crouch: I am grateful for that intervention, because it should not go unsaid that there is team work. I have seen it as an observer from outside. I have seen it on these local newspapers which we as politicians get to know, which at times we get to love as well as to fear.
But I have seen something else as well as team work, something else that is lacking in Fleet Street and the other great centres of national publications. I have seen the most modern equipment and the most modern techniques in typesetting in the small presses that produce our local weekly and twice-weekly newspapers. I toured my own local Press only the other day. The owner proudly told me that in his opinion the Daily Express was not yet able to run, because of limitations, machinery and techniques which are so modern and so advanced.
I went over the great press in Cairo of Al Ahram some two or three years ago. I saw there the most modern machinery at work with the most modern techniques, without, of course, the
888
restraints put on by what I would call the fragmented units within the labour force which are holding things back, unfortunately, in Fleet Street.
I am very concerned about the lack of team work. I do not think that it is a lack of team work between management and the unions and their general secretaries. As the Minister of State knows, I have always sought, in my years in this House, to produce a better understanding, a better harmony, between management and the official unions and their separate tiers of organisation. Where we are seeing this lack of team work is, in my opinion, between management and men on the shop floor in the newspaper industry.
Is there this lack of team work at that stage and at that level in those areas because the conditions of work are so unsatisfactory, because the pay is inadequate? I would say "No". We know that that is not the case. The unions themselves can tell us that that is not the answer. I suggest that it is due in part, and only in part, to the vulnerability of management and owners of our great national newspapers.
They are vulnerable. They produce this miracle every day. They lose a great deal of money, and a great deal is at stake, if they do not produce it. They are held over a barrel. They can so easily respond if a gun is pointed at their head. It does not need a genius to appreciate the vulnerability of the producer of a national newspaper—and, of course, it is not one man, it is that whole team that is vulnerable. It is everyone's job that is at stake.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) spoke about militancy in the industry. He said it had been shown that militancy paid off. We have seen this, and we all regret it, on each side of the House. What sort of militancy is this? I was terribly shocked and disturbed to read the leader in The Times this morning in which it was stated that in four months this year 55 million copies of our great national newspapers have been lost. That is one for every person in this country. Why? As that very important leader states
"fragmented loyalties allow each of a number of small minorities to stop the presses, without consulting their unions or their workmates, and entitle them to call on everyone

889
else to respect their right to stop the whole undertaking."
There is not much teamwork there. As The Times says, "That is anarchy".
We do not need reminding what anarchy is. We should be students of it. We should be studiously on guard for any sign of anarchy showing itself anywhere in our society. As The Times goes on to state,
"it is the anarchy of the separate power of small groups in precisely the same way as the Wars of the Roses were the anarchy of separate and petty powers. Throughout history such anarchic structures have always proved disastrous."
Mr. Madden: I am sure that many of us would agree with the main burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but would he not also accept that there are responsibilities on management which are equally important? Does he not remember the closure of the News Chronicle? Journalists came into the newsroom very late at night to find messages on their typewriters telling them that the management was very sorry but there would be no News Chronicle next day and they had lost their jobs.
Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am developing my speech and I shall certainly be referring to management responsibility, and even to management deficiency. Nothing depressed me more than what went wrong with the News Chronicle. I had started with the old Daily Mirror and progressed to the old Daily Telegraph. In my formative years, as many of my hon. Friends must know, it was the News Chronicle which shaped my first thoughts in politics. That is not strange, I am sure. Of course, my thoughts have been shaped and reshaped and go on being shaped all the time. I am an avid reader of newspapers. My wife has often criticised me for having newsprint running through my veins. We can be criticised for many things by our wives, but that is when a politician is in perhaps one of his less alternative moods.
Newspapers cannot afford to stand up for long to unreasonable demands. They cannot stop publishing for long, because they lose too much money. There is always the spectre of ceasing publication altogether. One of the greatest tragedies in modern industrial societies is the death of a newspaper.
890
When I used to visit the United States of America regularly, I went to New York more than to any other city and the paper that I loved best of all in the United States was the New York Herald-Tribune. It died. It is published today in Europe, it is true, and it is still a good newspaper, beautifully made up and very readable. It is delightful reading. It is serious, it is fun to read, it is beautifully presented and altogether very professional. But it died. It was killed. It died at the hands of those who in America seem to have a death wish.
I am worried now about The Observer. We must not let The Observer go down. There should be a clarion call, not just from this House but from Fleet Street itself, that The Observer must be sustained. It cannot fall back on great television interests or other great daily newspaper interests to sustain it. It has no other great publishing strengths. It stands on its own. It has always been on its own. It is significant, distinct and different—also irritating at times—and it must not be allowed to die.
What happens when there is the death of a newspaper? It is not a question of the owners retiring to Monte Carlo for a good life and doing nothing. It means a loss of jobs to all concerned, to journalists, printers, salesmen, managers and everyone. Above all, it means the loss of an opportunity for our freedom of expression. I believe that such a loss would be the greatest loss which society could sustain.
A flourishing newspaper industry is the healthy heart of democracy itself. The free Press can succeed only so long as it flourishes. We can talk of a free Press or of the freedom of expression, but that expression has to be seen and read across the length and breadth of the country. We must do everything we can to prevent this industry from moving into a decline. I fear that there are too many signs that that is just what is happening. It is happening not only in Britain but in France and other countries on the Continent as well as in the United States of America.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), as he has so often done, gave the right note to this debate. He expressed a responsible warning and a concern rather than rash criticism and ill-thought-out views. We should be grateful to him. My right hon. Friend's mood

891
was echoed by the Secretary of State, and we should be grateful to him as well. Almost every hon. Member who has spoken has sought to dampen the fires that seem to be starting up in Fleet Street and elsewhere. Almost everyone has sought to put out those fires rather than to fan the flames. Hon. Members have sought to be constructive in order that the industry can have a chance to put itself right. My hon Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) spoke as one of the professionals about whom I am talking. As he rightly said, it is a question of "Physician heal thyself". Fleet Street in general terms—Fleet Street in Aberdeen, Forfar or wherever—must heal itself.
The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) reminded me that I had not said something about management. I am one of those who have never ceased to criticise management for not being sufficiently professional about the very business of managing men and women. They are the most important commodity in industry. When something is wrong, it is the duty of management to know why it is wrong and to resolve it by team work. Management must manage right down the line. It must know what is going on at the very lowest level of management. It must know what is upsetting a man at any stage.
Of course, if management comes across anarchy in any form—unconsidered anarchy or anarchy by error and mistake, as distinct from anarchy by intent—it must be strong enough to deal with it. Above all, this industry needs strong management. It is not enough for the industry to think that it can get away with flabby management. That will not help the industry, either the owners or all those who work in it.
I have worked in industry for a long time. I have done so, in the words of that dreadful phrase, on both sides of the shop floor. I did so not to learn the trade but to earn my living. It is a very salutary experience to learn what it is like to be managed. I am a great believer in going through the ranks and getting promoted only because one has the necessary ability. I am a great believer in that, because when one goes up the line a bit in management one knows the pressures, anxieties, concerns and dismays that
892
people may feel lower down. Only by knowing them can one put them right.
As I tried to say to the Prime Minister this afternoon, there are no longer two sides of industry. There is a total responsibility. The whole team is involved.
In the newspaper industry there is much to be done. We should wish the team well. If, however, any message—that phrase has been used—has to go out from this place, we should be saying to this industry "You, the newspaper publishing industry, are one of the most vital cores, the centre, of democracy itself. We will do everything to sustain you. Let the public sustain you too. But you should show, too, that by your good management on the employers' side, and good management, too, on the union side, you can heal yourselves while there is still time."
9.1 p.m.
Mr. Angus Maude: Perhaps I should start by congratulating the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) on being the only Labour Back Bencher who has made a speech in the debate and who has bothered to stay around for the end of the debate. It is a great credit to him that he has done that.
Perhaps there is need for some explanation why the Opposition decided to ask for this debate today. It is not because we expect the Government to take some great initiative or, indeed, that we think that there is any very direct ministerial responsibility or ministerial action which can do much about the situation that has been analysed in so many speeches today but because we believe that the situation now is at least frightening enough to deserve to be debated in the House of Commons. Indeed, we would have hoped that more hon. Members would think it important enough to take part in or at least listen to the debate. There can be no doubt that the situation is alarming.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) talked about the number of newspapers that have died. Other newspapers will die unless a solution to the present industrial disputes can be found. Every time a newspaper dies, there is never simply a straight transfer of readership to another newspaper. There is a diminution in the total readership of newspapers. What is worse, one loses the

893
variety of choice for the reader, the variety of type of newspaper, of policy and of editorial style, which made the British Press among the best in the world.
We do not expect that the Government, by themselves, can do anything to improve the situation, but we believe that the members of the Government and members of the Labour Party have some contacts in the union movement and have some influence on the union leadership which might enable them to be helpful. Clearly, among the leadership of the major unions there is no lack of willingness to be helpful at this time. It is not among the leaders of the great unions that the trouble lies.
One has only to look at some of the reactions of the union leaders to the demarche by Times Newspapers Limited a few weeks ago. Let us take just a few of them.
Mr. William Keys, general secretary of SOGAT, who is also the chairman of the TUC printing industries committee, said:
"There is no doubt that industry cannot support the losses much longer and there is a dangerous challenge from other media.
I welcome this move by Times Newspapers if it is a catalyst to bring order into Fleet Street."
Mr. Owen O'Brien, the general secretary of NATSOPA, said:
"We must ask the silent majority of our members … to start to exert themselves before it is too late."
Mr. Leslie Dickson, the president of the NGA, said:
"for our part we accept that there has to be change in the face of threats from the rest of the media. It is time something was done about Fleet Street and we are all opposed to unofficial stoppages."
There is no lack of good will and moderation among the top leadership of the great unions in the industry. As has been said, they have lost, to a great extent, control of their rank and file membership. That membership has become so fragmented in our great newspapers that it is now possible for 10 men to hold up a complete issue of a newspaper and to produce a dispute that may lose more than one evening's copies.
We have already had the figures given to us for the number of copies that have been lost both in 1977 and, at an increasing rate, during the first four and a half months of 1978. I think that we would
894
all agree with the Secretary of State—the point was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley)—that management has a great deal to answer for in getting to the state of near anarchy with which we are now confronted.
The right hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend and, I think, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said that the worst influence has been the tendency of managements to make concessions in the face of industrial action in unofficial stoppages and to refuse to negotiate with the accredited leadership of the unions through the proper negotiation procedures. One of the results of that attitude was that unofficial stoppages and direct action appeared to produce results, and such action became the recognised method of procedure. To that extent, the influence and repute of the top union leaders were diminished. That influence has to be restored. We believe that the Government are in a position to do something that will be helpful.
The Secretary of State and hon. Members have said that a diminution of a number of competing unions is clearly necessary if we are to get some order into negotiations. There are two ways of doing that. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman), who has some unofficial connection with the NGA, is not present to hear what I am about to say as regards SLADE and the SLADE Art Union.
If we are talking about union mergers, I hope that the way in which the NGA and SLADE have been proceeding towards their merger will be taken as an ugly warning, and that some influence may be brought to bear in favour of the members of the SLADE Art Union. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has said repeatedly in the House, they have been treated extraordinarily badly and, by any standards, denied nature justice.
As I think everybody who knows the industry is aware, the traditional SLADE trades, such as process engraving, are dying out in the face of new technologies. SLADE has little hold in the newspaper world. The new technologies are either passing it by or increasing the membership of the SLADE Art Union. The offices of

895
SLADE, having acquired, if that is the word, about 8,000 more members by press-gang methods, want to be able to present those members, who are equivalent to about £80,000 a year in subscriptions, to the NGA when the unions merge. But they have to do this before the SLADE Art Union succeeds in gaining over 50 per cent. of the total membership of SLADE. At the moment, it is about one-third. They appear to have no scruples about how they go about this. If this is to be an indication of the way in which mergers between unions are to be encouraged, it does not look a helpful precedent.
We have said before, and say again, that a Labour Government who believe in the trade union movement and should, and rightly do, cherish their reputation, ought to be able to exert their influence in a matter of this kind where not only are proper union procedures and even the law being called into question, but natural justice is being denied to many freelance workers who are more in line with the march of technology than some of the traditional SLADE members.
The economic problem facing Fleet Street has been graphically described by a number of hon. Members. There is no doubt about the real threat. I do not want to go over this ground again, but I want to deal with the question of the closed shop, political censorship and political sabotage. It is important that we should at least recognise that this is a threat not only to the freedom of the Press but to democracy and to many workers in the industry.
I know that it is easy to say that these threats are unreal and that they are improbable scares dreamt up by nervous Tories and even more nervous journalists. For example, the hon. Member for Sowerby made a great fuss about my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft's warning that it was possible, to put it no higher, that direct industrial action, organised by extremists for political motives, might be brought to bear against newspapers favourable to the Conservative cause at the time of a General Election. He said that that was a scare to get a good headline on the front page of the Sunday Express. But the management of The Sun, for example, has had certain experiences over the last
896
year or so which have led it to suppose that somebody—probably from outside—had it marked down as a possible victim.
The hon. Member for Putney talked about the difficulties of Labour Members in finding any newspaper which would support the Labour Party or its cause. He said that the Daily Herald, the News Chronicle and one or two Sunday newspapers had died. I noticed that he did not mention the Daily Mirror and the Sunday Mirror which, because of their larger circulation, have probably been responsible for influencing more votes in the direction of the Labour Party than any other newspaper has influenced votes in the direction of the Conservative Party. It is probably true that the notorious Daily Mirror front page with the
"Whose Finger on the Trigger?"
headline and picture won the Labour Party the 1950 election, which is more than we are able to say for any newspaper on any occasion when the Conservative Party has won a General Election.
The fact that The Sun, which has taken a fairly robust anti-Socialist line recently, has now succeeded in overhauling the Daily Mirror in circulation has caused a certain amount of political alarm on the Left. The Sun lost 40 million copies last year and had lost 25 million copies—about 6 per cent. of its total—up to 8th May this year.
The Sun has had one or two peculiar experiences. On one occasion a large wholesaler was telephoned one evening and informed that The Sun would lose a number of copies that night and that certain warehouses would get no deliveries. The wholesaler rang the management of The Sun and asked whether this was true. The management truthfully replied that it knew of no dispute and that, as far as it knew, there would be a full print that night. But The Sun lost 85,000 copies that night and precisely the warehouses mentioned by the anonymous telephone caller failed to receive their deliveries.
It is well known in Fleet Street that on one occasion a member of the staff of The Sun newspaper found a spanner on a conveyor belt and got it off just before it caused many thousands of pounds worth of damage. The spanner was found not to fit and was not used on any

897
machine in The Sun building. One cannot wonder if newspapers at least begin to feel that somebody, for political rather than industrial reasons, is getting at them.
Political censorship has been coming to the fore in a number of cases in recent years to an extent that suggests that direct action against a newspaper which is favourably inclined to the Right is at least a possibility. The newspaper industry is not just another industry producing a product in a commercial way like any other manufacturing industry. It is the means of communication without which opinion, argument, political discussion and the freedom to express dissentient views or views which are unpopular with certain power groups cannot be continued.
This makes the freedom of access to the Press and the freedom of editors and journalists to act without coercion so important. One can think of the old days of the newspaper tycoons and the times when proprietorial pressures were brought to bear on editors and say that in a sense the Press has never been free. This is the wrong way to look at the matter.
I have been a newspaper editor. I never had any doubt about the proper editorial function of an editor. I knew before I accepted the job what was the general political stance and the general policy line of the proprietor of the newspaper. I did not have to take the job if I disagreed with the policy. If I had disagreed with it, I should not have taken the job. Having taken the job on those terms, it was clear that what went into the leader columns on any morning was my responsibility. I did not think it necessary to ring up a director or talk to the proprietor before I decided what to say about a particular political issue in a leader.
If an editor has pressures brought upon him that he regards as unsupportable, he can resign. In the past he would be unlucky if he did not find some other newspaper which would employ him. The danger that arises from the emerging closed shop is that people will find that the pressures come from other directions and that if those pressures are found to be unsupportable the individual will not be able to find a job anywhere in journalism where he can follow his profession. There have been cases of the NUJ blacking certain professional
898
journalists and bringing considerable pressure to bear on editors.
This has spread even beyond the Press. It is interesting, as a possible warning of what may happen, to look at the case of a Penguin publication. Penguin Books has never been regarded as a particularly Right-wing or reactionary organisation, but not long ago it decided to publish a paperback book by an Israeli soldier who took part in the Entebbe raid after the Palestinian hijack. The copy editors at Penguin, all NUJ members, refused to handle the copy of that book unless certain parts of it were deleted or a Palestinian representative was given space at the end of the book to state the anti-Israeli case. Penguin naturally refused, saying rightly that its contract with the author did not permit this. In the end, a non-NUJ copy editor had to be found to handle the book.
That was all right because Penguin managed to find someone, but if all newspapers and book publishing were in the hands of one union that was able to black publications, whether in journalism or books, free expression of opinion and access to opinion and information by the public would be seriously curtailed.
We shall never agree with the Secretary of State about the closed shop anywhere, but we believe that he has taken an excessively dégagé line about the dangers of a closed shop in journalism. We believe that the threat of the union post-entry closed shop in journalism is a very real one and that the threat has been brought very much nearer by legislation introduced by the Government. We believe that it is the responsibility of the Government, in the interests of the public and of democracy, to ensure that the least possible damage is done by that legislation by ensuring that ample safeguards are provided in newspapers, journalism and publishing.
We feel that we ought to press the right hon. Gentleman about the timing of the publication of the charter. From what he was able to tell us about the present area of agreement, we have some doubt whether it will provide adequate safeguards because the things that were omitted from what he said were much more important than what was included. It cannot be left very much longer. Some progress must be made, if not by agreement, at least through a lead given by

899
the Government. I was a little alarmed to find that the Secretary of State had apparently not addressed his mind to the question whether free access to the columns of newspapers would apply to art work as well as to written material. Members of the SLADE Art Union would very much like to know what safeguards will be provided for freelances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) was right when he said that Fleet Street has got itself into this mess and Fleet Street will have to get itself out of it. That is true. No direct intervention by the Government will solve this deep-seated malaise. The last thing that any hon. Member would want is direct financial intervention from the Government to bail out newspapers which have got themselves into difficulties.
Mr. Moonman: The hon. Member should not assume that there is that degree of unanimity in the House. The debate in the last five or six years has involved the circulation of newspapers. The matter to which he is referring was part of the evidence given by the Labour Party to the Royal Commission on the Press.
Mr. Maude: I am aware of that. But the dangers of Government subsidies to particular newspapers must be obvious. What is more dangerous than a subsidy to a particular newspaper? There would be a direct incentive to anyone who wanted a nationalised newspaper to achieve that by industrial action. That would bring more newspapers to the economic state in which they had to ask for subsidies in order to survive. This is a recipe not only for anarchy but for the corporate state. We have seen in the Scottish Daily Express what can happen through ill-considered attempts to support a basically non-viable undertaking which is made non-viable by the industrial action of the workers in it.
The possibility of increasing Government interference, whether directly through finance or indirectly through political pressure, is one of which the House should take notice. The words of the Lord President of the Council which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft quoted at the beginning of his
900
speech were undoubtedly true. In 1974 the right hon. Gentleman said:
"If such disputes were to persist in the way that some people forecast, they could drain away the life blood of democracy in this country."—[Official Report, 21st November 1974; Vol. 881. c. 153.]
The disputes have proceeded in precisely the way that we forecast in 1974, and are producing the effect that the Lord President foresaw.
On the other hand, the Secretary of State for Energy, in his unregenerate days, gave a lead to political pressure in journalism which perhaps has been forgotten but which should be remembered. Speaking at a Labour Party conference in Blackpool in October 1972, in an exhortation to workers in the media, he said that they
"should remember that they too are members of our working class movement"—
I like the words "working class movement" coming from the Secretary of State for Energy—
"and have a responsibility to see that what is said about us is true."
We come to the fundamental nub of the whole problem when we talk about the dangers of political interference, censorship and industrial action for political purposes. Who is to decide what is true? Is it to be the International Socialists, the Socialist Workers Party or whatever splinter group happens to be in control of one small chapel in one newspaper at one particular time? Is it to be the editor or the proprietor? Of course, there will always be people who will say that what the proprietors decide to print or what the leader writer writes about the Labour Party or the Conservative Party is not true and not fair. If there were not people who said that at some time there would be something wrong with the Press as a whole.
If it is accepted that the printers, the journalists, the reporters and the subeditors have a right to halt a newspaper because they dislike what has been written in one particular article, at a particular time and in a particular issue and can at a moment's notice bring that newspaper to a halt, we are on the edge of anarchy. It will be impossible to have an efficient Press that will serve any party in this House that believes in democracy or serve the people of this country in the way that a free Press should.

901
We are entitled to ask for a clear statement from the Government tonight that neither the Government nor any of their members will ever give the slightest encouragement to the internal censorship of newspapers by direct industrial action for political purposes. We all ought unanimously to express our alarm at this trend and our determination that it shall never be allowed to succeed.
9.31 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): On the whole we have had a serious, thoughtful and constructive debate. For the most part it has been marked by a real concern for the well-being of the Press. Speeches have been characterised by a frank and blunt expression of views, and the debate has been better and richer for that.
I hope that I do not offend the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) if I say that I found myself in agreement with much of what he said. I welcomed his sensible and restrained approach to these issues. His speech was in marked contrast to the more strident, provocative and bellicose comments of the Leader of the Opposition on industrial relations.
I cannot adopt the same attitude to the speech of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). I am sad that his contribution should have been characterised by so many smears and innuendoes, backed up by not a jot of evidence, designed to malign the workers in the newspaper industry—particularly The Sun. His lack of supporting evidence was an abuse of the debate.
Mr. Maude: If the Minister of State does not believe what I said about The Sun, may I suggest that he gets in touch with the management of that newspaper and asks it to confirm what I said?
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman said that a spanner had been found on a machine. He went on to draw from that the conclusion that it had been deliberately placed there by some worker as an act of political sabotage. He has no right to draw that conclusion.
Mr. Maude rose—
Mr. Walker: I do not doubt that there could have been a spanner on a machine, but to draw the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman drew is wholly unwarranted.
902
For him repeatedly to suggest that people in the newspaper industry are motivated—
Mr. Maude rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's speech was characterised by frequent suggestions that there were people in the newspaper industry who were motivated by political ideas and who deliberately aimed to sabotage the industry. He has no evidence to prove that. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene to give us the evidence, I shall be happy to give way.
Mr. Maude: One does not require any evidence except the evidence from the management of the newspaper. That management said that a spanner was found on the production line. I did not say who put it there—in fact, there is considerable doubt about whether it was put there by a worker on The Sun staff. All I said was that when incidents of this kind occur the management of The Sun has every reason to believe that it is at risk.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Member has made half a step back from what he said originally. I am content to leave it there and let the House and readers of Hansard draw their own conclusions.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) is not in his place. He must have misheard or misunderstood the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Member said he thought that my right hon. Friend said that this was a peculiar choice of subject. Actually, he said that it was an ironic choice of subject. He thought it was ironic that the newspapers which are so ready to tell us how to conduct our affairs, and so ready to tell industry what is wrong with it, should now be the subject of a debate exposing their own weaknesses and vulnerability. This point was also made by other hon. Members on both sides. It was made particularly well by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) when he said it was a case "Physician heal thyself".
This debate has centred on three main topics. The first has been the general state of industrial relations within the

903
newspaper industry in general and Fleet Street in particular. In view of all the declarations of interest that have been made tonight, I shall declare my tenuous interest in that I live in Fleet Street and have done so for some years.
The second issue has been the recruiting tactics of SLADE and the relationship between that organisation and its colony—the SLADE Art Union. The third issue has been the closed shop in journalism and the related matter of the Press charter, on which Conservative Members have tended to concentrate.
Before I deal with those three issues, there are some specific points on which I have been asked to comment. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) asked whether we would consider undertaking a wide-ranging review of the whole of the Press. The fact is that the industry has been analysed very thoroughly, and its ills have been diagnosed. We have had the ACAS report to the Royal Commission and the Royal Commission report itself. That was preceded by the thorough study of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
The Government are studying the report of the Royal Commission and in due course we will respond. This debate will be helpful to the Government and to my Department particularly because we shall have to consider the parts of the report that affect industrial relations in the Press and the closed shop in particular.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I quite understand that the Government do not wish to go any further at this stage. I was simply trying to suggest that at some time in the future it would be worth while having a survey of the entire communications industry. However, I did not mean that it should be done immediately.
Mr. Walker: We shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. However, the repeated establishment of committees and commissions is all too often a way of facing up to the need for action. Very often this stands in the way of doing the necessary things to help the situation.
A great deal of anxiety has been expressed about The Observer dispute. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman)
904
showed the enormous advantages of firsthand experience in the industry. He appealed to us to do all we could to ensure the publication and life of this great newspaper.
Unless the House wishes me to do so, I shall not go into the details of the dispute, except to say that it has been referred to the joint disputes procedure agreed with the Newspaper Publishers Association. But the NGA representatives have withdrawn. The union last week instructed the men to work normally. Because of their refusal, those men may now face disciplinary action by the NGA. The management has warned that it will close the paper unless it gets a union guarantee of uninterrupted production. Dismal though it is, the prospect for publication next Sunday, 21st May, is bleak. It is understood that, because of the unsettled position, no permanent printing staff are working and no copy is being produced for that issue.
At talks with the union yesterday, management repeated its threat to discontinue publication and to issue notices of termination unless there was normal working by the NGA men and said that there would be no special redundancy pay provisions. An emergency meeting of the NGA national council is to be held tomorrow.
We have been in touch with ACAS during the debate, and it has told us that it is making an offer to make its services available in the morning. We in the Department have had no direct approach from either the company or the unions, and I understand that up to this stage neither has ACAS. The House will readily understand the difficulty—that ACAS must, as we must, wait until invited before taking an initiative to be involved in the dispute.
In view of the talks tomorrow, it might be unwise for us to seek to intervene at this stage. However, I earnestly ask all the parties seriously to contemplate the grave consequences for the paper, for those who depend on it for their livelihood and for the newspaper industry if this conflict is allowed to degenerate further. Blood-letting is something that Fleet Street can no longer afford.
Mr. Moonman: My hon. Friend has given a great deal of information on this difficult industrial dispute and one does

905
not want to add too much at this late hour. Assuming, however, that the meeting tomorrow produces a positive response and that there is some hope there, would it not then be almost impossible, since no preparatory work has been done over the last two or three days, for The Observer to come out on Sunday? Can my hon. Friend say whether even a reduced edition might be possible, assuming that some agreement is reached by a reasonable hour—say, mid-afternoon or even early evening—tomorrow?
Mr. Walker: I cannot do that. I have said that no copy is being prepared, so the prospect is bleak. But, speaking purely for myself—I think that I would reflect the feelings of many of its regular readers—I would say that, if The Observer were able to rush out a truncated edition on Sunday, I am sure its readers would respond and would seek to support the newspaper and thereby those whose livelihoods depend on it.
Having dealt, I hope, with specific points, I should like to come on to more general issues—first, industrial relations in this area. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) rightly said, the ills of this industry have been pretty thoroughly diagnosed. When he commented on the NPA—echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon—I quickly made a note of one point which up to then seemed to have been overlooked—that in Fleet Street collective bargaining suffers from not being collective enough.
On the one side we have too many unions. When new technology is replacing old skills and gobbling up jobs, the plurality of unions will inevitably cause competition for the available jobs and lead to conflict and friction. There is a powerful case now for the unions to seek to eliminate conflict between them by moving more closely together.
Equally, the employers, as we have seen and as I have learnt while conducting discussions in trying to evolve a Press charter, are unable to speak with a common voice. They behave in a dog-eats-dog fashion. But those matters were touched on, either directly or indirectly in the ACAS report, and I hope that the industry will take full account of the criticisms which, understandably and
906
rightly, have been expressed on that score during today's debate.
I said that hon. Members concentrated upon three issues during the debate. The second one is the vexed question of SLADE. We debated this matter fully in June of last year. I doubt whether I can usefully add to what I said then, but for the sake of getting it on the record in this debate I shall, if the House will forgive me, repeat what I said.
We had been talking about the closed shop, and I said:
"We must have regard for the views of the majority as well as those of the minority. If the majority in an establishment wants to work in a 100 per cent. closed shop, that must be weighed against the views of dissenting individuals."
I went on to say, I think that this is as relevant and appropriate now as it was then:
"However, to attempt through external pressure to impose closed shop agreements on establishments in which the great bulk of the work force does not wish to join the union in question, and still less to be subject to a closed shop agreement, is a different matter.
Throughout all my years in the trade union movement, many of them served as a shop steward, I have always believed that for the overwhelming majority of workers the case for trade union membership was so compelling as to need no coercion. Persuasion and explanation of the benefits and obligations of membership are much more likely to bring the laggards into effective and positive participation in a union than any amount of stick. However, that implies the opportunity to persuade, and access, which is recognised in SLADE's Executive Committee declaration."
I went on to quote Geoffrey Goodman, the industrial editor of the Daily Mirror, who had said that same day:
"The union case should always stand on its own feet. It should be achieved by persuasion. Though that persuasion has to be based on an equal right and power to be able to persuade."
I shared that view then, and I do now.
I went on to say:
"I hope that SLADE will be prepared to consider a more tolerant and patient approach to the recruitment of new members in the advertising and publishing industries. In saying that, I am sure that I reflect the view of the TUC."—[Official Report, 29th June 1977; Vol. 934, c. 478–9.]
I am confident that that view is still held by the TUC, and I very much hope that SLADE will take full account of the criticisms that have justly been levelled

907
at it. I do not agree with the intemperate way in which some of the criticisms have been made, but I think that the House will agree with the generality of the criticisms.
I was asked whether ACAS had been involved in the SLADE dispute. I understand that there has been some degree of involvement, but only in situations where SLADE's activities have given rise to difficulties. It would be difficult for ACAS to be involved in the general situation. The Service can become involved only when it is so asked by the parties, but I am sure that its services will, as always, be available if it is called upon to provide them.
Mr. Prior: One of the problems is that the SLADE Art Union members, of whom there are about 9,000, are effectively disfranchised. It must mean that the union rules are ineffective if about one-third of the union can be disfranchised in this way. Have the Government no powers to call for an inquiry into union rules in cases such as this? It is not good enough for members of the Government to make speeches and to take no action in a case where people are being badly treated and the union movement is being brought into disrepute.
Mr. Walker: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about the effect on the credibility and good name of the trade union movement. As a trade unionist, I am anxious that something should be done about this. But I must not mislead the right hon. Gentleman or the House. I am sure he knows that we have no powers at present in respect of a trade union's rules. At least, I doubt it. What we can do is to ensure that the views which have been expressed are made known to the TUC.
More than one hon. Member, including, I think, the right hon. Gentleman, suggested that because of our historic and close relationship with the TUC the Government might be in a position to talk to it. I am not sure that we should ever find ourselves getting into a position of trying to lean on the unions, but I shall be seeking to convey the anxieties which have been expressed on both sides of the House about the position.
In the limited time that is left I come to the main issue, one that we have discussed
908
before but to which we shall be returning again in the fullness of time—the vexed issue of the closed shop in journalism and the Press charter. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked me to say something about the timetable and the progress on the production of the Press charter. He said that the length of time that had elapsed so far was a matter for concern.
The provision for the charter appears in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976. It allowed 12 months for the parties interested and involved to draw up a charter voluntarily. It also provided that if by March 1977 they had not been able to agree a charter the duty should devolve on the Secretary of State. While the parties to what became known as the Pearce talks were able to agree on some matters, they were not able to agree on others. Therefore, the responsibility is now with my right hon. Friend.
But it seemed to us appropriate at the time to delay the consultation that we are required by the statute to undertake until the parties and we had the benefit of the Royal Commission's report. It was known that the Royal Commission would be making its own comments on the matter. We delayed action until it had reported, though we did not entirely stand still.
The Royal Commission reported in June and from then on, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I have been involved in a lengthy series of consultations. Since then I have had 21 meetings with individuals and groups representative of the various interests. There have been difficulties about fitting them into their programme.
I shall not weary the House by going through the list, except to repeat that my task would have been made a little easier if the Fleet Street employers had been able to speak with a single voice through, for example, the NPA rather than having to come separately and severally, as they have done. Some would not come at all, saying that they wished to have nothing to do with a Press charter.
We have completed the round of consultations. I have now reported to my right hon. Friend, and in the light of his response to my report we shall now seek meetings with the TUC and the CBI.

909
I think that the House would consider it right that we should have further consultation with them preparatory to having the meeting that we are required by the Act to have with the Press Council. In the light of what emerges from there, we may then wish, before coming to the House with our draft, to have further consultation with the principal parties in the industry, such as the NUJ, the Newspaper Society and the Press Council.
I hope that that is felt by the right hon. Gentleman and the House to be something by way of a progress report. Any idea that we are deliberately dragging our feet and avoiding bringing a Press charter before the House is mistaken. My right hon. Friend has every intention of bringing a draft Press charter before the House.
I turn briefly to one or two of the provisions which have been agreed upon by the parties and which, therefore, the Act will require my right hon. Friend to seek to give expression to in the charter when he lays it before the House. I do so because the hon. Member for Lewes seemed to misunderstand what my right hon. Friend was saying about some of the matters that have been the subject of agreement by all the parties.
It seems to me that the matters that have been agreed would of themselves provide for the charter the foundations that we should all welcome. For example, all the parties at the Pearce talks have agreed that the Press should be free from the exercise of any improper pressure. I will read the passage:
"The parties to this charter pledge themselves to abstain from the exercise of any improper pressure and to resist such improper pressure from any quarter, internal or external. Any action or threat of whatever kind from whatever quarter calculated to induce an editor to distort news, comment or criticism, or, contrary to his or her judgment, to publish or to suppress or to modify news, comment or criticism shall be deemed ipso facto to be improper pressure."
I am laying emphasis on these articles because it seems to me that in them we have the safeguards sought by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. If his fears are justified that these attempts at political sabotage and political pressure are latent and likely to become stronger in the future, and, therefore, he wants to safeguard the freedom of the Press in these respects, the provision is there.
910
I shall not go further and read other passages that bolster my case.
What I am concerned about is that the Conservative Opposition want to follow their ideological obsession, so damaging to them in the past, with the banning of the closed shop. They are or may well be throwing away, according to whatever provision we may bring before the House, these essential safeguards.
We say that it would be inequitable to deny to one group of workers the industrial strength that will be accorded to others in the right to pursue a closed shop. We are neutral, but we say that it would be wrong and foolish, in the light of historical experience, to try to deny to groups of workers their right to pursue a higher degree of organisation that would strengthen them in their negotiations with their employers. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft and others, notwithstanding their experience of the consequences of trying to do this in the past, are seeking to do it again for this one group of workers. But the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon says "We want it to apply not only to journalists, which is what the Act requires, but to SLADE as well". But, if it applies to SLADE, does the hon. Gentleman want to apply it to the print unions also?
Mr. Maude indicated assent.
Mr. Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman want—because this is the logic—therefore, first, the journalists, next SLADE, next the print unions, next the engineers and next the electricians? Once having tried to say to the electricians and the engineers in one industry that they cannot have a closed shop, how could the Opposition logically permit it to another? The Opposition are seeking to put the clock back to the disastrous situation of 1971, which in 1972 led to the loss of 24 million working days because of strikes.
Mr. Maude rose—
Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, but it is two minutes to 10.
The last thing I want to do is to seek to defend or condone the actions of those who seem to me to be the kamikaze minority of militants. It seems to me that the blood spilt from self-inflicted wounds in Fleet Street spills on to all those who

911
depend for their livelihood on this industy and on to the people of our society, which is culturally, socially and economically dependent on having vigorous, lively and flourishing Press. Such is our dependence in the twentieth century that a malaise in the newspaper industry soon becomes a malady of sickness of society as a whole.
The Press charter will be proceeded with as speedily as possible, but it will be speed consistent with the need to get the maximum consensus, at the same time consistent with the equitable application of the industrial relations philosophy of the Goverment and the provisions of the parent statute.
I hope that management and the unions will seek to make the maximum
912
use of the powers we have and the machinery of ACAS, and that all the parties will seek eagerly the application of the recommendations of the ACAS report to the Royal Commission, in particular those contained in the programme of action of the joint standing committee to which reference has been made in the debate.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Motion relating to the Bread Prices (No. 2) Order 1976 (Amendment) (No. 5) Order 1978 may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Tinn.]

BREAD PRICES
10.1 p.m.
Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Bread Prices (No. 2) Order 1976 (Amendment) (No. 5) Order 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 516), dated 31st March 1978, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st March.
We turn from the problems of Fleet Street and industrial relations at a fairly late hour at night to discuss another problem which is in no way related to it, namely, the maximum price orders for bread. We make no apology for seeking to have a debate on this matter. As the House will observe, it is not a Prayer but a motion to take note that we are debating.
There are, we believe, very good reasons why we should set aside a little time to discuss questions concerning the pricing of bread and the methods under which the pricing is currently administered. Let me say at the outset that what we are not debating tonight is a motion which could result in a change in the bread price. This is not a debate to affect prices in the shops, as might be the case if we were to find ourselves asking the Government to tear up the order and reduce the price of bread by 2p, 3p or 4p.
I suspect that hon. Members on each side of the House know full well that there is a substantial gap in the relationship between the maximum price order that we are debating and the prices which are charged for bread in the shops. This has nearly always been the case, so that we have to admit straight away that the maximum price order permits a range of prices in the standard loaf between 28½p and 31½p, according to the area of the country.
We are not debating what the consumer should be charged for bread. We are debating the method by which the Government are using a maximum price order under the Prices Act 1974 to seek to influence that price. The maximum price order has been operating for some time. It came into effect, according to Statutory Instrument No. 516, on 3rd April 1978, so that any views we may seek to express about it now must be essentially retrospective. This is another
914
reason why we are not talking here about suddenly reducing overnight the price of bread in shops.
There are, in my view, important reasons why we should have a discussion about the order and why we should question the wisdom and, indeed, the desirability of orders of this kind. I think it could be reasonably said that they seem to be sadly irrelevant to the real problems of the baking industry and the distribution, the pricing and selling of bread today.
I think it right that I should remind the House of some of the actions which the Government have taken in recent years in the name of affecting the price of bread. There was the initial period of substantial subsidy, followed by the steady withdrawal of subsidy. After that came the maximum price orders, one of which we are now debating. Then we had the imposition of discount controls, which were subsequently removed. Then we had the price check scheme, involving a wide range of household foods. Then we had the implementation of changes in the Price Code. This was admittedly a code which had existed for some time back. The Price Code system was then replaced by the operation of the Prices Commission under the new legislation introduced by the Conservative Government.
There have been frequent investigations by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the operation of the bread industry. It has considered the steadily reducing number of large bakers and whether they were operating within or without the public interest. I doubt whether there is an industry in the country which has been examined by the Commission as frequently as the baking industry.
It is not surprising, therefore, that one could say about bread prices and the baking industry that there has been virtually no agency of the Government, no method of intervention or piece of legislation which involves pricing or regulation which has not been applied at some time, and in some strength, to the operations of the baking industry with particular reference to the price of bread. Our colleagues in the baking industry would say

915
that these various devices which Governments have introduced have been operated with great frequency.
It is not just a matter of taking a quick dip-stick here and there. It is a matter of regularly examining in depth the way in which the industry operates and the prices for bread which it charges to the consumer. It is not surprising that in recent years the baking industry has been in some state of turmoil. It is also not surprising that many of those who work in the industry should feel that the scale of intervention and examination and the number of restraints placed upon the marketing operations for bread have contributed in large measure to the decline of certain sectors of the bread industry and to a general air of lack of confidence in the way in which the industry operates.
As the Monopolies and Mergers Commission pointed out in its report last year, Government interference has played a major part in creating the industry's present problems. Tonight we are discussing a maximum price order for the 28-ounce loaf which in area 1 involves a recommended price of 28½p. I should correct myself. It is not even a recommended price, it is a statutorily imposed maximum price. No loaf in area I should be sold at a price higher than 28½p. Within the area of variations the scale rises to 31½p in area 4. The standard recommended price, therefore, ranges from 28½p to 31½p. What a far cry that is from the 1974 General Election campaign when there were charges and counter-charges across the hustings of the possibility and threat of the "three bob loaf". That was the way in which bread prices were talked about in the not-so-distant past. Now we are talking about bread prices reaching a figure double that operating at the time of the 1974 General Election. That reason alone justifies the opportunity to debate the pricing of bread in this House.
A lot of howling took place when the threat of 15p per loaf was suggested. Indeed, from then on the price of bread has escalated rapidly in line with the general rate of inflation and with the hideous increase in costs which manufacturers have incurred. In my view the price of bread has probably for far too long been the talisman by which the cost of living is measured. One can understand
916
that. There has been the old concept of bread being the staff of life. It has been the diet of the English, Scots, Welsh or Irish for so long that it has become a traditional form of measuring the daily diet and the traditional way of describing the impact of prices or costs on the individual family.
On would not deny that bread is an extremely important component in the housewife's budget. But one of the penalties of being a talisman by which we wish to measure costs or prices in general as they affect the family is that Governments cannot leave the price alone. It has been one of the things which magnetically have attracted them to seek to influence the price, to subsidise it, to stabilise it, to control it, to regulate it or to offer, as we have in this order tonight, a means by which a maximum price, area by area, can be established. Yet, for the most part, in recent times the consumer has not been as besotted with the price of bread as perhaps Governments have. Let us face it—there has been a steady, consistent and long-term trend away from the consumption of bread.
Since the war, the basic consumption has fallen from some 50 ounces per head per week—I make no apology for using the old Imperial measures, which now the Government have blessed—to 30 ounces per head per week. It is estimated that in April 1978, consumption was running at some 3 per cent. below what it was in April 1977. Frankly, there appears to be little expectation that this trend will alter.
Therefore, I think that one can conclude that the days of an increasing bread market are now over and the days in which the consumer was, as it were, wedded to that particular form of nutrient are also over. There is too much competition in processed foods. There are too many other alternatives on offer to consumers in forms and at prices which they find attractive.
Let us not deceive the House. Bread continues to be a very important commodity. But the trend of consumer expenditure and consumption of bread has clearly shifted, and in my view it has probably shifted permanently. Therefore, consumption has been affected, and therefore, the importance and the capacity of the industry have been affected.

917
On 8th April there was an article in The Times entitled
"Britain's shrinking stomach for bread."
No doubt the Under-Secretary has read it with some care. It contains this sentence:
"If people did not turn back to eating bread in the lean years of economic recession, they are hardly likely to start eating more of it when they have more money in their pockets."
Therefore, I think that one could turn to the prospects for the bread market and say that it is almost certain that the days of heavy or higher consumption of standard forms of bread will probably not return if what we hope is achieved—namely, an increase in the standard of living, with more money available for expenditure on the whole range of foodstuffs. The consumption pattern has probably moved on and moved down.
However, given that particular climate of how the consumer behaves towards bread, Government policies on price regulations and profit control have been operating in entirely the other direction. In fact, Government policies in this area have been pretty disastrous. Can anyone really deny that if Spillers Company had been earning adequate profits on its baking of bread and bread products, 8,000 jobs would be available today which, alas, are not available, and presumably 14 or more of the 23 plants would now be available for work when they are now threatened with closure?
Surely this is a sad commentary on the ways in which Governments have sought to intervene in the marketing of bread and the profitability of baking, to a point at which one-third of the industry, in terms of the three major plant bakers, has been forced to close. It is a very odd commentary on the Government's attitude to this problem that the Secretary of State did not see fit to refer a change in the industry's marketing potential, from three manufacturers to but two manufacturers, to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Obviously, the Secretary of State took the view at the time that what was more important in the general interest, as he saw it, was the preservation of the maximum number of jobs rather than the preservation of optimum variety and availability to the consumer. We must take note that in relation to competition policy,
918
however strident the Secretary of State may be, when it comes to the crunch of decision, his decision clearly lies as it did in the case of suger refining, in favour of maintaining the optimum number of jobs, even if this means that the consumer is put at risk of a reduced variety and a reduced availability of products. That is something to which we ought to return on another occasion.
However, with the prices charged for bread and the costs incurred in the baking of bread, all of our major United Kingdom bakers are operating at unprofitable levels. Associated British Foods and Rank Hovis McDougal have made no secret of the fact that the baking operations of their groups are unprofitable.
We are debating a maximum price order for the products of an industry in which at this time a year ago there were three major plant bakers. There are now two. That reduction has taken place with the blessing of the Secretary of State. The baking and the production of the product are unprofitable for each of the two remaining plant bakers.
We have to hope that the so-called rationalisation, which is the polite word for what is now happening, will result in an improvement in the utilisation of capacity and in a reduction of overheads per ton of bread produced, which might help profit margins in baking. What we cannot accept is that maximum pricing is a sensible and relevant system of handling a market when the unprofitability of the lines on which we are seeking to impose prices has been so clearly demonstrated and has been taken to such inordinate lengths that major closures have occurred.
Mr. Douglas Jay: If the hon. Gentleman's main complaint is the unprofitability of the industry, will he at least mention that wheat imports into the EEC are now bearing a 100 per cent. levy? Is it not natural that if the main raw material of the industry is artificially increased in price by 100 per cent., the industry will become less profitable for that reason?
Mr. Shaw: I think that that is so, but, as the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree, even under the restrictions pertaining now under the Price Commission, the recovery of those raw material prices is admissible by the Price Commission as

919
costs. Under the Price Code, which operated for most of the period under discussion, such recovery was freely admissible.
Mr. Jay: But that would mean passing on the 100 per cent. levy on the import price to the consumer, would it not?
Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. The argument that I adduce is that the price of bread has been held down for so long to a level that is clearly unprofitable that there is an inability to recover costs. The consumer has been encouraged to believe that there is a low and acceptable price for bread. That is not so.
Only two policies can emerge from that situation. We either drive people out of work because the industry is operating unprofitably, or we seek to contain prices through subsidy and taxation. The Government have achieved some progress in that latter course—namely, their decision to reduce the subsidy and the level of taxation. However, they still seek to impose some control on the price of bread by means of maximum price orders. That is entirely artificial. It distorts the market for the buying and selling of bread.
It has been long held on the Opposition Benches that, however skilfully we design intervention in the market place in pricing policy, the distortions that we create will inevitably come back in one form or another to rebound to the discredit of those who intervened. It comes back either in the unpalatable form of increased prices or in decreased jobs. It does not seem that there is any other way in which we can adequately have an effect on supply and demand of a product as sensitive as bread to import costs
Mr. Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that at least one of the factors that has produced the distortion is the import levy that is now having to be paid?
Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman is probably quite right. Import levies have helped to increase the costs that the manufacturers have had to face. However, I do not think there is a food manufacturer who would say now that he would willingly withdraw from the Community. The food industry was totally in favour of entering the Community.
920
It has readily sought to alter its operating practices to compete effectively within the Community. I know of no influence in the bread baking industry, parlous though its state has been, that suggests that it would be materially helped if the industry were to come out of the Community and were to operate outside it.
It may be that we are moving a little far from the maximum price order that we are debating. However, the lesson that I seek to draw has been satisfactorily put. We are talking about an intervention operation that has had a fairly miserable history for the baking industry. The fact that the bread industry is unprofitable today is almost sufficient reason in itself for objecting to the passage of the order.
But there are other reasons why we think it right to have a debate on this issue and to offer the House an opportunity to discuss the system which is used. The use of maximum price orders is a hangover from the Prices Act 1974, which gave power to the Secretary of State to operate maximum pricing for those products—in particular, food products—which enjoyed subsidy. At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) made it clear, with some reluctance I think, that maximum price orders should be accepted for subsidised products. We concede that, where the taxpayer is involved in paying an element in the price in order to restrict it, his contribution should not be pocketed for other purposes and the consumer should have the benefit clearly transferred in terms of a lower maximum price. Therefore, maximum price orders came about as an integral part of the food subsidy system, and we accept that.
The fact now is that food subsidies have, with one exception, been phased out. Subsidy is no longer paid on bread. Indeed, the subsidy has not been paid since the spring of last year. Why do the Government seek to continue a regulatory system of maximum pricing for bread when no subsidy is being paid?
I remind the House of the Committee stage of the Prices Act 1975 when the Under-Secretary of State, confirming the position, said:
"The orders under Section 2 are necessary to ensure that the benefit of the subsidies is

921
passed on to retail prices. They will be required so long as any food on which subsidy has been paid is available for retail sale."
So far, so good. But later the hon. Gentleman went on to say:
"The position, however, on the use of the powers outside the area is that the subsidised food remains the same as it was when the powers were taken last year. It is necessary to have them available for use if required, so that we are in a position to take action if there has been extraordinary inflationary pressure in a particular area. We have no intention at the moment of using the powers other than in the matter of subsidised foods, but we intend them to be kept as a reserve power if necessary to regulate prices in the shops for a limited number of products."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 25th February 1975; c. 224.]
That was the expression of policy that the Under-Secretary of State gave to the Prices Bill Committee in 1975, and that broadly resulted in an extension of the regulatory powers ad infinitum. Indeed, the Secretary of State now has powers for use of the regulation on any foodstuff or, as I interpret it, any other product if he deems it to be right.
Therefore, we must ask the Under-Secretary to tell us why the Government are continuing to operate maximum price orders for bread when the subsidies have been removed. Is he using the regulatory powers which he obtained under the Prices Act 1975, for which, as I see it, there is no closing date? If so, we should have a statement on the Government's policy on price regulation. If he feels that it is necessary for bread, there is no doubt in my mind that he may feel it necessary for many other products.
The Minister may say that the Government intend to use this regulatory power on foodstuffs or, indeed, on other products or services in this election year as we come up to a decision. The hon. Gentleman owes it to the House, if he wishes to continue with maximum pricing on bread, to explain the policy under which he is operating, because it is clearly no longer related to food subsidy. The first serious question is what is the policy under which the Minister is operating, and why.
The Under-Secretary will argue in the second place that it is necessary for him to have these price regulatory powers in order to control retailers' profits. This is not an argument that can be adduced. Under the Price Commission's operation, the retail trade has margin controls which
922
operate at the gross and net levels. There is no way in which one can adduce the necessity for a regulatory price power such as the one we are discussing in order to control retail margins. That is already available under the Price Commission.
It is not just a matter of the way in which we are issuing price orders. There are other aspects of the old subsidy system which are continuing. The retailer has still to keep records of sales, even though there is no subsidy element involved in those sales. Therefore, the small shopkeeper is involved in an administrative load which is unnecessary.
I put it to the Under-Secretary firmly that if he seeks to demonstrate that he recognises the problems of small shopkeepers and traders—or large ones, for that matter—to reduce the administrative burden of an operation such as maximum pricing and the maintenance of records would be simple. He could do it without fear of any consequence to the consumer, but in the knowledge that there would be a lifting of the load that is on the retailer—and that is something sensible and long overdue.
One might argue that a maximum price order was a sensible form of consumer protection. I consider it to be a fatuous form of consumer protection. Originally these orders were all to be displayed, no doubt prominently, in shops. After various altercations with the Opposition on the Prices Bill, the Government eventually very grudgingly agreed that the maximum prices notices may be kept for reference and may be asked to be inspected rather than displayed, though the requirement for display is still in the Act. We now have the alternative of availability of them on request.
The maximum prices notices are of no consumer value. No self-respecting housewife will go into a shop and ask to see the maximum prices order for bread before making her purchase. We have no right to expect her to work in that way. If the notices have no relevance to the consumer, what relevance have they to anybody?
The maintenance of the regulation is in the hands of the hard-pressed weights and measures inspectors or the trading standards officers. They will have the right to

923
ask to see that retailers have these maximum prices orders available on request on their premises. But if we are merely producing orders in the House through the whole panoply of Government machinery in order to allow them to be examined when the occasional trading standards officer calls, we are not making a sensible contribution to the consumer or the retailer of bread. The matter has got out of hand and is ludicrous.
Another reason for objecting to the maximum prices orders is that they get out of date so easily. The order that we are debating, which is order No. 516, is virtually already superseded by order No. 545, which, although it has not been discussed in the House, was laid on 11th April and came into operation on 2nd May.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the numbers that he has quoted are related not to bread orders but to Statutory Instruments made in 1978?
Mr. Shaw: The Statutory Instruments are related to the general parliamentary process, but both orders Nos. 516 and 545 are related to bread prices, as I am sure the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) recognises. The order that was laid before the House on 11th April and came into force on 2nd May relates to the metrication of loaves of bread.
We are bound to ask whether the Minister expects that order to be withdrawn. If the Government are proceeding with an order that, as the explanatory note makes clear, withdraws the prescribed Imperial quantities in which certain whole loaves may be made for sale and replaces them with a net weight of 400 grams or multiples of 400 grams, how is that consistent with the new posture that the Secretary of State has taken up in regard to metrication? I hope that the Under-Secretary can give us a clean, crisp and definitive answer.
It is self-evident that these orders get out of date quickly because prices and costs in the baking of bread continue to rise as general costs rise. Therefore, though there may be a holding of the price for a matter of months, there is no doubt that maximum price orders will have to be reviewed, probably several times a year as the price of a standard
924
loaf will rise. If that is the case, how valuable is the system to the consumer?
We must recognise that for every order there is an administrative cost. Someone somewhere is preparing it, someone is printing it and someone is distributing it. Just how costly is this operation? How much money is tied up from public funds in the administration of such orders? The House would be interested to know.
Without the element of subsidy in the bread price, the orders are nothing more than a disguised form of retail price maintenance. This is a new principle for the Government to adopt. Happily, the competitive nature of the industry is such that much lower prices than the maximum are available to the widest range of consumers, but if we are operating a maximum price system, that at least is a containment of the retail level and if it is an unprofitable level, it is a stupid level at which to contain the price. Again, it seems an absurd way of operating.
I contend that it is no part of sensible Government policy to apply maximum price orders for a whole range of foodstuffs or other goods. Why should bread be singled out in this way? The only reason is that bread is a talisman, has a special place and is a magnetic field in which the Government seek to intervene.
I think that we are discussing merely the tip of the iceberg of bureaucratic incompetence that is handling our affairs. I do not believe that it has any relevance to the consumer or an effective part to play in the Government's total pricing policy. It is an unnecessary piece of bureaucracy, an irritant to the shopkeeper and another wretched chore to weights and measures and trading standards officers. It should be taken away and torn up. It is a piece of intervention which has long since outlived its usefulness.
We take note of the order because that is the parliamentary parlance, but we take note of it because it is an order that is scarcely worth ignoring.
10.34 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) addressed the House for 35 minutes in his usual urbane, civil and reasonably pleasant manner—but that is the end of my praise.

925
The whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech was oriented around the convenience of the producer and distributor. There were references to the consumer, but the hon. Gentleman claimed that the order had no relevance to the consumer. No doubt the Minister will deal with that claim. I can think of one way in which it could be helpful.
I can imagine someone who lives a long way from a bakery, perhaps in the Highlands of Scotland who, but for a maximum price order such as this, would have to pay a much higher price. I see the hon. Member for Pudsey nodding his head. He did not quote any of the figures in the order. The maximum price for a 28oz. standard wrapped or unwrapped loaf is between 28p and 30½p. I notice that the same sized wholemeal loaf or milk bread has a maximum price in most areas of 36p. I agree that for certain reasons—perhaps good reasons—prices might be below that. We welcome that. But what change will one get out of 50p if one has to pay 36p for a loaf of wholemeal bread?
Bread is now becoming expensive. It ill behoves a party which supported the increase in bread prices when a century ago it was entwined by the Corn Laws to criticise an effort by a Government to keep bread prices down.
Mr. Giles Shaw: I understand the hon. Member's deep anxiety to associate us with the Corn Laws, which are as relevant to this debate as the other matters that he will raise. He must address himself to a simple proposition: if the costs involved in the baking and distribution of bread go up, would he wish to see the price subsidised through taxation?
Mr. Spearing: We are not dealing with subsidies. I turn to the question of prices. The hon. Member for Pudsey mentioned the 1976 Price Commission report. I refer to table 4 of its 13th report. It shows that in 1976 the bakers paid about £413 million for flour and that the cost of flour was a high proportion of the total baking cost. In Great Britain the cost of flour was 7.3p for a 28oz loaf compared with a total production cost of 15.35p. A more up-to-date figure appears in the figures for September 1977. This shows that flour was 9.24p, out of a 21.21p cost of producing the same loaf.
926
Unlike many processed foods and other food commodities, the cost of flour is relatively high. This is where we return to the Corn Laws. Flour comes from grain, which, in common parlance, is wheat or corn. The cost of wheat will to some extent determine the cost of flour.
In his desire to deal with the order in his own way the hon. Member for Pudsey omitted one of the great mysteries of the bread market. I hope that the Minister will say something about it. There might be narrow margins and sometimes losses involved in the baking of bread. But we should like to hear about the millers' margin—the difference between the cost of grain and the equivalent flour, making allowance for the side extractions of germ. Are the millers' costs reasonable? Do they tie up? Is there, as many people suspect, a great deal of profit made by the millers because of the difference between the costs of grain and flour? That might offset some of the alleged losses involved in baking and distribution. The figures in the Price Commission report unfortunately do not show that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to cast some light on that point—if not tonight, then in due course.
I wish to draw attention to the cost of wheat. The cost of the raw material is a very high proportion of the cost of bread. The hon. Member for Pudsey may laugh off the idea of the Corn Laws, but he and his party, like many other hon. Members, alas, voted for the taxation of imported wheat. Wheat from the rest of the EEC does not bear a tax, but wheat from North America and our other traditional suppliers of bread wheats certainly is taxed. That fact is not as well known as it might be. I put a Question to the Minister of Agricluture on this matter on 19th April. He told me:
"During 1977 1·5 million tonnes of common wheat mainly of breadmaking quality were imported into the United Kingdom from outside the EEC. The value of these imports before payment of levies was £117·6 million. The net revenue derived from import levies on common wheat during the same period was £45·1 million."
I do not know what the gross revenue was, but the buyers of wheat and, ultimately, the people who consume it paid

927
over £45 million in levies. We may surmise that a very high proportion of that money, if not all of it, went on the cost of bread.
But that is not the end of the story. In past years a very high proportion of bread wheats consisted of American Northern Spring, or its equivalent Australian varieties. Millers were able to add a small proportion of soft British wheats. There is, however, a surplus of wheat in the EEC and it has been found desirable to increase the proportion of soft wheat in bread flour, thus reducing the amount needed to be imported. The resulting flour requires different processes and different mixes and probably adds to the problems of baking and of maintaining quality. But that change does not necessarily decrease the price of the flour. The EEC wheat which is used is much more expensive than the hard wheats that would otherwise be imported.
I hope that the Minister will tell us, broadly, the proportion of EEC wheat as compared with non-EEC wheat used to make bread. If it is half-and-half, it means that we are paying about £90 million a year more than we need to for our bread grain. Perhaps the proportion is less or more than that. But, whatever the proportion, the ultimate additional cost has to be met by the consumer whom the hon. Member for Pudsey pretends to want to help, but in truth does not. If he did he would have mentioned some of the matters I have raised.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to confirm the broad outline of the points that I have made, and that if the figures that I have produced are not correct he will send me a letter correcting them because I am sure that this is something that the other hon. Members will wish to follow up and that people who buy and eat bread will want to know the facts.
Not only may we be spending between £40 million and £90 million a year more than we need to on our bread because of the new corn laws voted in by the Conservatives; the EEC is overflowing with wheat. In a Written Answer on 11th May—column 596 of Hansard—the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, told me that in 1975–76 the EEC exported 9 million
928
tonnes of wheat, with a provisional figure of 4½ million tonnes for 1976–77, and that it was having to pay out about £158 million in the process for dumping it on world markets. Not only do we have to pay more in tax for our bread, but some of that tax is apparently going to help to dump wheat on a world market that does not necessarily require it.
I hope that in taking note of this order we shall not only note the high maximum prices—although I welcome the limits, for the reasons that I have mentioned—but that in due course the Government, or the Price Commission, will disgorge the figures that will illustrate just some of the reasons why we are having to pay more.
10.47 p.m.
Mr. Tim Smith: Two facets of the working of the House of Commons are illustrated by this debate. The first is that it is possible, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) showed, for three-quarters of a speech to be relevant to the subject that is being debated. We are debating an order about the maximum price of bread. The price of wheat is irrelevant to that. The hon. Gentleman advanced only one argument in favour of maximum prices, which was that on the Celtic fringe it might just be that the price of bread will exceed the prices shown in table 1 of the order. That might be so, but I think we are all agreed that the prices charged for bread in the shops are well below the prices stipulated in the order. The reason for that has nothing to do with Government controls but is the result of the effect of market forces and competition.
The second facet of the working of this place that is illustrated by this debate is the amount of legislation that is churned out. The hon. Gentleman said that this was not the 516th order on bread this year—
Mr. Spearing: No.
Mr. Smith: An astute observation, I thought. This is the 516th Statutory Instrument this year, which means that we generate them at the rate of 100 a month, which is still the most extraordinary rate at which to produce legislation.
This measure is called the Bread Prices (No. 2) Order 1976 (Amendment) (No. 5) Order 1978, which is a pretty good bit of

929
mumbo-jumbo for a start. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) said, this order has been superseded by another order. This order is almost out of date already, because we are just about to be overtaken by metric bread, with no doubt a completely new set of figures in a new table 1. We are well on the way to that at any rate.
The order is made under the Prices Act 1974. The object of that Act was to authorise the payment of food subsidies, but those have been phased out. The Government tried providing food subsidies but they had very little effect on the price of any food. Food prices went up inexorably, as all prices have done under this Government. Section 2 of that Act, under which this order is made, refers to subsidised food. Bread is no longer a subsidised food, yet it has been found necessary to introduce this order.
During the period of this Labour Government, the period in which we have had the various kinds of controls, the price of bread has probably risen more than ever before, like the price of food generally. So the Government gave up food subsidies, which had little or no observable effect on food prices, and thought they would then try the opposite tack of trying to introduce a little competition into the price of bread. In January 1977 they moved away from regulation to a degree of competition and market forces, introducing a discount scheme.
When the Secretary of State, who, I believe, was then fairly new to his position, introduced the scheme, he said that he hoped it would have a positive effect on the price of bread, that the price of a loaf would be reduced or at any rate would be lower than it would otherwise have been—one of those hypothetical situations the effect of which is impossible to assess.
Not surprisingly, the bakery firms became very heated over the whole question of the price of bread. Because of the way in which they have been kicked around, that is not very surprising. Last November I asked the Minister how much the price of bread had gone up since the Secretary of State had said that it would go down. I was told that it was not a fair question, because it had never been said that the price would go down. All that was to happen was that it would
930
not go up as much as it would have. I did not find that a satisfactory answer. I was no clearer than before I asked the Question.
The Secretary of State presumably thinks that he is the best thing since sliced bread. The Times said of him in an article last November:
"Mr. Hattersley has not yet reappeared from the wings, but he will surely do so, perhaps in the House of Commons, to announce like Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado that his object all sublime, which he will achieve in time, is to make the price of a loaf lower than it would otherwise have been."
Nothing much has happend since then, except that as a result of the interference with bread prices the bread industry has finally collapsed.
One thing that I have observed over this period is the effect that this has had on small bakers. I am very concerned about them. They play a very important part in the industry. They give people a great degree of choice. There is no money for small bakers in the production of standard loaves. Non-standard loaves are not affected, so the small bakers have had to increase the number of their product lines in order to stay in business. Government regulation has made life for the small bakers very difficult. The administrative burden to which my hon. Friend has referred has also created more work, more bureaucracy, more regulation for them.
Therefore, it seems to me that there is no reason why we should be discussing the price of bread at all tonight, except for the fact that that price is apparently regarded as a politically very sensitive subject, although the consumption of bread now represents quite a small proportion of the family budget.
We have heard quite a lot of arguments from the Labour Benches, but we have heard only one on the question why the order should be supported. That was that in certain circumstances—they are very limited—the maximum prices might be exceeded. Therefore, it seems to me that on balance there is no need for any further control in this area.
10.55 p.m.
The Under-Secretary a State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): The amendment to the Bread Prices (No. 2) Order 1976, which is the formal subject of this debate, is

931
simple to describe. It takes account of the fact that the Price Commission, having been notified of intended price increases by a number of bakers, has chosen not to investigate them.
The Government, reflecting this decision to the full, have increased the statutory maximum price of a loaf by the full 2p notified by the bakers. The statutory maximum price now rises to 28½p. In making this order amending the maximum price, we are reflecting the facts put before the Commission and the Commission's decision not to investigate. I imagine that the Opposition would have complained bitterly if we had not taken this action and had not reflected these facts in the order.
The order is, however, only the occasion and not the cause of the debate. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) has made it clear that the Opposition wish to examine the Bread Prices (No. 2) Order and its implications for and effects on the baking industry, but I must tell him that the purpose of the order remains quite unaffected by the amendment that we are discussing tonight, and that many of the questions he raised in the 35 minutes of his speech might well have been more pertinently raised by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) when she initiated the comparable debate last year. Perhaps they would have been more germane to that debate than to this one.
My right hon. Friend described the purposes of the order in last year's debate when he said that the Government no longer control the wholesale price of bread [Interruption.] It might be sensible for me to make this comment at this stage in my speech. Although the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Smith) patiently accepted the chattering of the hon. Member for Gloucester throughout his speech without comment, I do not propose to be quite so patient. If the hon. Lady wishes to intervene, perhaps she will do so properly and not from a sedentary position, with her usual discourtesy.
Mr. Giles Shaw: It is a good thing that the hon. Gentleman gave way at that juncture, because he will now have a little time to recover his normal poise. Will he address himself to the question: under what statutory authority is the Secretary
932
of State regulating the maximum price of bread now that it is no longer subsidised?
Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman will find that I shall develop my speech and answer the points that are germane.
There is no longer a legal maximum above which retailers are not allowed to negotiate discounts on their purchases from bakers. That is the point that my right hon. Friend made last year. The Government are no longer keeping the price of bread at the wholesale stage artificially high. Nothing that has been done since the Bread Prices (No. 2) Order was introduced affects its main purpose. It continues to allow retailers and bakers to negotiate on the price of bread, as on other commodities. It ensures, however, that, if high discounts are made available to the retailer, he must pass the benefits of those discounts through to the consumer.
Mr. Shaw rose—
Mr. Maclennan: No. I gave way earlier to the hon. Gentleman, before I had been on my feet for three minutes.
Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman should address himself to the order.
Mr. Maclennan: I shall address myself precisely to the order, which is more than the hon. Gentleman did in his 35 minutes. If I fail to answer some of the points that he made, he will realise that it is in obedience to the rubric that he has laid down, that I should stick closely to the order.
As I was saying, the order ensures that if high discounts are available to the retailer he must pass the benefits of those discounts through to the consumer. It is clear that this is in fact happening. The hon. Member might reasonably have expressed some welcome of that on behalf of the consumer, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) so aptly pointed out, Opposition Members display on this occasion, as on most occasions when prices matters are being considered, no concern whatever for the interests of the consumer.
Bread in supermarkets is widely available at prices considerably below the statutory maximum price. The overall price in supermarkets in cities at the end

933
of April was almost 6p below the statutory maximum price. Bread is therefore available in important outlets at prices below that at which it would otherwise be available to the consumer.
If the Opposition believe that that is wrong or undesirable, they should have taken the opportunity provided by this debate to say so. They must make clear whether they believe in competition when it brings benefits to the consumer. They must make clear whether they believe that a higher price for bread is their aim. The speech of the hon. Member for Pudsey was far from clear on this point. He made far from clear whether he wanted sharpened competition among bakers for the benefit of the consumer or not.
Mr. Shaw: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Maclennan: Not now. I have many points to make, and the hon. Member spoke for 35 minutes.
I have described what the order achieves. It think it right to describe what it does not do and has not done. The Bread Prices (No. 2) Order is not the fundamental cause of the problems of the baking industry.
The hon. Member for Ashfield exaggerated when he suggested that regulation of the industry had had a damaging consequence on its profitability. The point was also made by the hon. Member for Pudsey, although it is fair to him to admit that he recognised that the industry faced an acute problem of over-capacity caused by falling demand. That is true, but it is misleading for him to suggest that it is the regulation of the industry that has brought about the structural problem that the industry faces.
In saying that, the hon. Member is at odds with the industry itself, for, as he knows, the Federation of Bakers has not asked us to withdraw from regulation of the industry; it has constantly asked the Government to strengthen its discount control. Mr. Theo Curtis made that point, as did Mr. Sam Maddox, of the Bakers' Union, so the Conservative Party is expressing neither the view of the federation, nor the view of the members on the shop floor, as represented by their union leaders.
The Monopolies Commission report that was published referred to a period of control introduced by the Conservative
934
Party. The operation of the Price Code, I am bound to say, was damaging to the industry, and we, at the earliest opportunity, modified it by the introduction of the Price Commission Act. That has removed the most burdensome regulatory control for which the hon. Member for Pudsey's party was responsible.
The problem of the industry—
Mr. Shaw: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Maclennan: No. Not at this point. The problem of the industry is the declining consumption of bread. That is the basic problem. One can speculate on the reasons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South asked some questions which he thinks may be relevant. He gave me a barrage of figures, which. I would be foolhardy to comment on tonight, but I shall look at them and see whether I can provide a suitable answer at length, later.
In 1956 each one of us ate more than 50 oz. of bread a week. The figure this year is just on 30 oz. The real cause of the industry's problem is to be found in that decline in demand. Although I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman mentioned this, he confused the issue in suggesting that it was the regulation of the industry which was bringing about the difficulties which the industry faced.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has repeatedly made clear that he neither could nor would continue discount control. He could not, because discount control was linked to the bread subsidy, which was ending. He would not, because discount control was essentially irrelevant to the central structural problems of the industry. Both he and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture encouraged the industry to continue discussions on how the necessary structural changes could be made. That was, I believe, undoubtedly the right way forward.
The ending of discount control is not responsible for Spillers' withdrawal from the industry, and I think that the hon. Gentleman was less than fair in his implication that there was any connection whatever between this order, or its predecessor, and the difficulties of the company. The hon. Gentleman made that clear implication, and if he wishes now

935
to withdraw it I shall happily give way to him.
Mr. Giles Shaw: I am grateful that the Minister should allow me, at long last, the opportunity of setting the record straight. I unreservedly withdraw the impression that I appear to have given him—and, I suspect, him alone—that I suggested that the discount operation, about which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State managed to create such a name for himself, was responsible for the demise of Spillers. But will the Minister please address himself to the clear comment of the Monopolies Commission, that the disarray in the baking industry and the problems over profits and margins were due largely to continual Government intervention, of which the maximum price order is a tiny part?
Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman had not been talking to his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester he would have heard me say that the Monopolies Commission was plainly referring to the regulation of the industry which was initiated by the hon. Gentleman's own party and Government. We had withdrawn from it, admittedly under heavy opposition from the Conservative Party.
The Bread Prices (No. 2) Order came into operation on 4th January 1977. Spillers had made a loss on its baking activities in each year since 1972. In 1972 the losses were 2½ per cent. of its sales. In 1973 the losses were 8 per cent. of its sales. Over the last six years its losses on bread baking have amounted to £28 million, and the losses have continued during periods when discounts were controlled. They did not start, as some would have us believe, with the Bread Prices (No. 2) Order at the start of last year. In logic it is impossible to claim that discounts have undermined its business and are responsible for its withdrawal. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has now made clear his assent to that proposition.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear the circumstances in which the Government were informed of Spillers' difficulties and the reasons that we believe it necessary not to make a merger reference. I therefore need not repeat that consideration tonight. It was clearly unsatisfactory that the Government
936
should have been placed in the position of having, at very short notice, to make the choice that they did.
The benefits of the order which we have been debating tonight can be seen from the figures which have been quoted by the hon. Gentleman of the difference between the maximum price and the average price of bread which prevails in the shops. In the circumstances in which the baking industry finds itself at this time, the Government think that it is right to maintain the control which ensures that the discounts negotiated by the retailers are passed on for the benefit of the consumers in accordance with the abatement table.
The purpose of the order is not to interfere in any way with the principle that was established in the Bread Prices (No. 2) Order but simply to alter the maximum prices for the straightforward reason that the price of bread has been increased as a result of the decision of the Price Commission not to investigate the company's applications. This is a simple matter, one which no amount of obfuscation from the hon. Gentleman or the Conservative Party will successfully obscure.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Bread Prices (No. 2) Order 1976 (Amendment) (No 5) Order 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 516), dated 31st March 1978, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st March.

COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS (WALES)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Bates.]
11.10 p.m.
Mr. Donald Anderson: I am glad of the opportunity to raise the question of the relationship between the community health councils in Wales and the Welsh Office. Community health councils were established to provide a new means of representing the local community's interests in the health services to those responsible for managing those services.
In the reorganised NHS, management of the services and representation of local opinion were said to be distinct but complimentary functions entrusted to

937
separate bodies working in a close relationship. Successful administration of the services depended upon a continuing and constructive exchange of views between the health authorities and the community health councils. It was said that
"Membership of the Councils will give a worthwhile and satisfying role to many of the public spirited people who take a particular interest in the quality of their local Health Services".
Thus, the CHCs were envisaged as the public watchdog, a democratic element, within the reorganised NHS. My submission is that that aim has not been fully realised.
Over the three and a half years of their existence the CHCs have attempted to develop their role to provide an effective means for the public to have a voice in the NHS. However, their early rapid development appears to have caused some reaction among the other bodies involved in the NHS which have not in the past been used to such close monitoring. In my view there has been a counter-attack by the professionals over the past year. This counter-attack is reflected particularly in the attitudes of some of the area health authorities and also, I regret to say, to some extent in policies and decisions made by the Welsh Office.
There is evidence of discontent among the members of the community health councils. It has reached such a peak in some of the CHCs that there is talk of resignations. That discontent is not unique to my own CHC in the Swansea and Lliw Valley but has been discussed by many CHCs, particularly within the meetings of the Welsh Association of CHCs. In particular, the discontent centres around the contractural relationship between the councils and their staff. I understand that a deputation from the Welsh Association will meet my hon. Friend on 25th of this month.
What are the major areas of discontent? I give only some illustrations of these. First, there is the inadequate budget which is allowed to the CHCs. My own CHC received a sum of £18,765 in the last financial year. I concede that that was a fairly substantial increase over the previous year. But, because of the fixed and inevitable costs of accommodation and salaries, this left a sum of only £3,500 for any initiatives which the CHC might be inclined to promote on behalf
938
of local opinion. My own CHC, even within these constraints, has launched initiatives on fluoride and eraldin. Yet the small sum which is allowed to it must be a severe constraint on its activities.
Similarly, there is the problem of inadequate staffing. Although a staffing adviser from the DHSS recommended an additional member of staff, following the council's official application in November 1975, the Welsh Office refused to authorise an additional appointment. Therefore, there is but the secretary and his own personal assistant. In this David and Goliath situation, this can hardly give strength to the CHCs when they face the serried ranks of the professionals in the AHAs or the DHAs. For that reason, they are unable to make a really effective contribution. Indeed, my own CHC learnt only today that the Welsh Office has yet again refused a third member of staff.
Then there is the inadequate accommodation. Plainly, if the CHCs are to do their job clearly in consultation with the public, there must be opportunities for the public to visit the offices. Ideally, there should be a shop window approach, such as that of the jobcentres in Wales, encouraging the public to contact the CHCs.
In Wales the Welsh Office has been wholly unwilling to approve the rents for such premises. Indeed, the Vale of Glamorgan CHC is still trying to find accommodation within the Welsh Office cost guidelines three and a half years after its inception. The Swansea and Lliw Valley CHC has not even applied for this form of shop accommodation because the Welsh Office has made it clear that it could not hope to find accommodation within the approved cost. The present location is wholly inadequate. It is on the second floor of a block of buildings, and the CHC is likely shortly to be given notice in that building.
A further bone of contention is the inappropriate gradings of the saff. It has proved necessary for secretaries to submit applications for regional appeals due to the Welsh Office's refusal to honour what certainly the secretaries believed to have been a previous commitment at the time of the setting up of the CHCs.
It is also alleged by a number of CHCs throughout South Wales that some

939
recent rulings by the Welsh Office demote the CHCs' status in an attempt to clip the wings of this democratic element. They think in particular of representation on other bodies. Over a number of years the Welsh Office has assured CHCs that it is doing its best to encourage the health authorities to involve the CHCs in their deliberations, but this is denied by a number of actual decisions. I shall cite but a few.
The Welsh Office recently set up a working party on standards of patient care for mentally handicapped and mentally ill patients. When the CHC requested an explanation why there was no CHC representation on the working party and asked for representation, the Welsh Office said that it was inappropriate and that it would mean intermeddling in management functions. This response is hardly compatible with an aim of full involvement of the CHCs in local medical decisions.
Again, concerning the family practitioner committees, the Welsh Office seems unwilling to ensure that FPCs provide observer status on their committees for CHC representatives, which could easily be done by regulation. The Cardiff CHC has been particularly vociferous against the Welsh Office attitude on this matter. In England the Secretary of State has taken far more positive steps in formally asking FPCs to consider inviting CHC representatives to attend as observers, and a number have already done so. The Welsh Office has taken a far more timid step in having experimental schemes in three areas.
Concerning the joint consultative committees, one of the 12 functions allocated to the CHCs was to monitor.
"the effectiveness of co-operation between the health services and the related local authority services."
It has proved totally impossible in practice to carry out this duty as CHCs are being denied membership of the appropriate joint consultative committees between the AHAs and the corresponding local authorities. When the Welsh Office was asked for assistance to ensure that at least observer status was granted to CHCs, the assistance was not forthcoming—merely an assurance that the Welsh Office had no objection to such participation.
940
There are complaints about reports of health advisory services being denied to CHCs on the ground that such reports should be confidential, as if the Welsh Office does not have trust in the willingness of CHC members to keep confidential material to themselves.
There is a belief, fostered by many decisions taken by the Welsh Office, that the Welsh Office wishes CHCs to be very much under the wing of and not independent of the area health authorities. That was put in most blunt terms a few days ago by a member of the CHC in my area when he said "We have not even got our own expense forms". More fundamentally, the Welsh Office now suggests that secretaries of CHCs should formally be employed by the AHAs. Three CHCs and the Welsh Association have written to protest as there will be a danger of divided loyalties with such employment. One CHC chairman was recently told by his AHA chairman that he must not make Press statements in conflict with AHA policies.
The whole concept of CHCs being democratic elements within the NHS structure is being thwarted. The original intention of Parliament is being thwarted by the complete lack of support by higher civil servants within the Welsh Office. The CHCs are being reduced to ineffectiveness. Their members are becoming increasingly discontented by the unwillingness to recognise what should be their true role.
I ask my hon. Friend to be more resolute in giving substance to previous declarations of support for the concept of greater participation for CHCs. Even though they may be considered "trouble makers", the best part of democracy comes from those who raise complaints honestly, realistically and forcibly on behalf of those whom they represent.
I ask my hon. Friend actively to encourage CHCs. I am sure that he will seek to do so if he is not constrained by some of the advice that he is receiving. I ask him to give CHC members a worthwhile role and an independence of the AHAs and to ensure that everyone of the decision-makers in the Welsh Office has a notice on his desk stating that "The buck stops here" but that CHCs should be brought into full consultation and their members given a worthwhile role.
11.23 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): I have listened carefully to the submissions of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). They began as submissions, but, because of the lateness of the hour, they became something more than that. I appreciate the extremely late hours that each of us has been keeping these past few days, and I understand the testy nature of some of his declarations.
I say immediately that there is no thwarting of Parliament's will and no conspiracy on the part of senior civil servants. It may be that my hon. Friend has taken too pessimistic a view at this late hour. The CHCs in Wales get every ministerial support. They are actively encouraged.
I regard the National Health Service as one of my paramount responsibilities. I am conscious of the important role that is played by CHCs in providing a bridge between the providers of the service and the general public. As a Minister I feel that in some ways I have a similiar role. I try to make myself as accessible as I can to those who manage, run and use the Service. For example, it may be of interest to my hon. Friend to know that I have made 27 official visits to hospitals and other health premises. In addition to my monthly meetings with the AHA chairman, over the past few years I have regular meetings with the chairmen of CHCs and family practitioner committees.
Some 18 months ago I had special meetings with groups of CHC members in various parts of Wales. My hon. Friend will realise that I am not unfamiliar with the work and aspirations of the CHCs and I am well aware of the difficulties which they see confronting them.
I think that my hon. Friend will agree that we were very unhappy with the Conservative Government's proposals for reorganisation. Indeed, we warned the then Government, when we debated those proposals in the Welsh Grand Committee, of the disastrous consequences which would result. Nevertheless, the decision to set up community health councils in every health district in Wales to act as watchdogs for the consumers was one of the few redeeming features.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the community health council is the voice
942
of the consumer within the NHS. It exists to ensure that the consumer does not lose out. However, this does not mean that each CHC can get everything at once. If each CHC were to retain and obtain for its community everything it wants, this would be prohibitive within any framework of health expenditure that can be envisaged. I think it would be fair to say that the CHCs have undertaken their role of monitoring the NHS conscientiously and, on the whole, in Wales, successfully.
It is not the prime object of CHCs to badger the area health authorities indiscriminately, but, in their proper appraisal and criticism of health care arrangements and plans for development and change, the CHCs have made their presence felt in no uncertain manner. I am sure that the AHAs would readily acknowledge that their own attitudes have been sharpened by the constructive criticisms of the CHCs. At the same time, the CHCs in Wales themselves are becoming more aware that at a time of national economic difficulty, they have to be realistic in their expectations.
The CHCs are very conscious that their image is not as clearly defined in the public mind as they would like. This is partly a reflection of their own slight uncertainty at the start in establishing their role in the scheme of things, but it is also due to the general lack of appreciation of the value of consumer organisations and, sadly, the willingness of a vast majority of our population to accept their lot, whatever their misfortunes, without seeking the help of those institutions which are specifically designed to assist and advise them. It is perhaps in this area that CHCs in Wales are most aware that much still needs to be done.
My hon. Friend referred to the inadequate budget. I want to refer briefly to finance. Sadly, the early years of the CHCs have coincided with a period, to put it mildly, of most severe constraint in the deployment of resources, and this has made it extremely difficult for us to help them as much as they and we and civil servants in the Department would have liked. Nevertheless, we have made a very special effort on their behalf and, so far as has been practicable, we have met their demands for financial resources to widen and publicise their activities. I

943
do not accept, therefore, the charge that we have restricted their budgets unduly. The strength of our effort can be judged from the fact that CHC expenditure in Wales in 1975–76 was £150,000 and that it increased successively to £191,000 and then to £240,000 by 1977–78. We have provisionally allocated £262,000 to CHCs for the current year, and extra money is available for any new accommodation needed, special projects and research. I do not think we can justly be accused of being niggardly towards them.
My hon. Friend mentioned accommodation and the need, in effect, for a shop window. Some councils have a real problem. When they were first established, lack of finance demanded that, where-ever possible, CHC offices should make use of NHS accommodation. As a result, few of them have been situated in places readily accessible to the public, and some have been unsatisfactory in other respects, too. Nevertheless, we have made progress on this score and we have enabled eight CHCs in Wales to move to improved premises in the last year or so and other moves are under consideration. I would not want the matter to get out of perspective by dealing with only one council's attitudes and problems.
Ideally, in order to display themselves fully in the public eye, CHCs should have High Street premises, but high costs are involved and this objective will not be easily attained. However, I was pleased last October formally to open the new Cardiff CHC premises which are attractively situated near the central station, and I very much hope that all CHCs will be able to have similarly convenient and attractive accommodation in the not-too-distant future.
With regard to Swansea and Lliw Valley CHC, I can only say to my hon. Friend that I have had no indication from it that its present accommodation is unsatisfactory but, if it wishes to come forward with any specific proposals for a move, the case will be considered on its merits.
In recognition of the understandable desire of the councils to improve their public image, I have made available a special allocation of £6,000 to be used for publicity purposes. They have decided
944
to use this to finance the production of a publicity film.
My hon. Friend referred to inadequate staffing. I am well aware that CHCs feel that their activities are to some extent constrained by lack of staff resources. It was difficult to anticipate at the outset what the potential workload was. This is why in 1976 I arranged a review of CHC posts by the staffing advisory service. The work was undertaken by a very experienced officer who had undertaken similar reviews in England and was thus able to make direct comparisons. A number of changes were agreed including the upgrading of 12 secretary posts and a comparable number of supporting posts. Naturally, those secretaries whose posts were not upgraded were disappointed, but they have a right of appeal if they feel that they have a strong case. We have to cut our coat to suit our cloth. This is not a time when we can encourage any great expansion of administrative and clerical staff. My hon. Friend will know that AHAs themselves are at present subject to an exercise, that they find difficult, involving a 5 per cent. reduction in management costs by the end of 1979–80.
I want to defend my Department from charges of a negative attitude, because that was implied in my hon. Friend's speech. I am very sorry indeed if some CHCs think we are negative in our attitude, but this presupposes that we should say "Yes" to every request that is put to us. Clearly, this cannot be so because we have to balance demands and arguments from all quarters before we arrive at what we consider to be the right decision in the interests of the NHS as a whole. We have shown that we are amenable to any reasonable request which does not involve unacceptable disadvantages elsewhere and I and my officials try to be accessible as we can to the CHCs. My hon. Friend may like to know that I shall be meeting CHC chairmen on 22nd June and I shall be addressing the annual conference of the Association of Welsh CHCs on 30th June.
My hon. Friend referred to the "counter-attack" of AHAs. With regard to the attitude of AHAs, there is very real danger of a them and us situation arising in the liaison with the CHCs. It can be said that CHCs have the task of helping the AHAs to develop the

945
Health Service to meet local needs. I get the impression at times that some CHCs see their role in a somewhat different light, possibly as a purely negative, critical one while, on the other hand, some AHAs fail fully to recognise that CHCs have a constructive role to play. I think all would benefit from more self-appraisal and a close examination of the contribution each makes in the liaison process.
In some cases relations are good, in others there is something to be desired and, while I would not wish to defend any unco-operative AHA, I think that there is an onus on CHCs to demonstrate that they are responsible bodies and that they recognise that AHAs cannot possibly satisfy all the demands made on them.
I would particularly commend the attitude of those CHCs which, being dissatisfied with some aspects of the Service in their areas, were not content just to voice their criticisms but took the positive step of investigating the problems themselves and prepared reports which, although contentious in some respects, made a constructive—and I emphasise that—contribution the totality of knowledge available to the AHAs. I recall particularly—and was glad of it—the survey of minor casualty services, the report on services for the mentally handicapped undertaken by the Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan CHCs and the survey of visiting arrangements and facilities at Neath General Hospital undertaken by the Neath-Afan CHC. They are excellent examples of constructive, positive contributions.
My hon. Friend said some hard words about family practitioners. I refute his strictures. CHCs wish to send observers to family practitioner committee meetings in the same way as they attend AHA meetings. I frequently encourage closer working relationships between CHCs and FPCs. Subject to adequate safeguards on the question of confidentiality I think there would be advantage in FPCs admitting observers.
To seek to impose a particular pattern of co-operation by regulation might not be helpful because this would not engender good relationships nor would it be good for the service as a whole. My right hon.
946
Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has expressed similar views.
At my request the Powys FPC is admitting CHC observers for a trial period. If this proves successful, I hope that it will encourage other FPCs to follow suit. In any case I shall be raising this matter again with FPC chairmen when I meet them next in the near future.
I have given a good deal of thought to the question of the availability to CHCs of health advisory service reports. I have concluded that it would be unwise to alter the present arrangement whereby the AHAs provide CHCs with summaries of the reports rather than the complete documents. The effectiveness of the detailed investigations carried out by the HAS into services for the mentally infirm depends very much on what is learned from staff at all levels.
The staff are encouraged to speak freely to the investigating teams in the confident knowledge that what they have to say will not be widely disseminated and possibly become the subject of distorted publicity.
I cannot ignore the danger that the knowledge that the reports might be subject to a wider circulation than at present might unduly inhibit staff in their responses to HAS teams and consequently greatly reduce the value of the reports. CHCs rightly have a keen interest in the work of the advisory service and areas are given every encouragement to make the report summaries as helpful as possible.
My hon. Friend also referred to the employment of staff. In Wales there was a straight choice between direct Welsh Office employment or an agency arrangement through the AHAs. We opted for the second course because it seemed a more convenient way of dealing with local salaries and so forth. I recognise that a point of principle is involved and, consequently, I have arranged for my officials to receive a deputation from the Association of Welsh CHCs next Wednesday to enable the case to be explained in detail.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (BIRMINGHAM)
  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (BIRMINGHAM)
SCOTLAND
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Emigration
  Emigration
  Fishing Regulations (Net Attachments)
  Fishing Regulations (Net Attachments)
  Household Incomes
  Household Incomes
  Teachers (Strathclyde)
  Teachers (Strathclyde)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Badgers
  Badgers
  Green Pound
  Green Pound
  Farmers
  Farmers
  National Farmers' Union
  National Farmers' Union
  European Community
  European Community
  Wheat
  Wheat
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Food Manufacturers' Federation
  Food Manufacturers' Federation
  Bacon and Meat Manufacturers Association
  Bacon and Meat Manufacturers Association
  Milk Marketing Board
  Milk Marketing Board
  Irish Beef (Imports)
  Irish Beef (Imports)
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
  Potato Marketing Board
  Potato Marketing Board
  Milk
  Milk
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  Live Cattle and Carcases
  Live Cattle and Carcases
  Fisheries Policy
  Fisheries Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Animals (Exports)
  Animals (Exports)
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
  Fishing Agreements (Third Countries)
  Fishing Agreements (Third Countries)
TRADE
  Footwear (Imports)
  Footwear (Imports)
  Oil Pollution (East Anglian Coast)
  Oil Pollution (East Anglian Coast)
  Fish (Import Duties)
  Fish (Import Duties)
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Motor Vehicle Imports
  Motor Vehicle Imports
  Portugal (Textiles)
  Portugal (Textiles)
ENVIRONMENT
  Dog Wardens
  Dog Wardens
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Park Hall, Oswestry
  Park Hall, Oswestry
  New Town Dwellings
  New Town Dwellings
  Bailiffs
  Bailiffs
  Wessex Water Board
  Wessex Water Board
  Fibre Glass
  Fibre Glass
CIVIL SERVICE
  Management by Objectives
  Management by Objectives
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police (Derbyshire)
  Police (Derbyshire)
  Havering (Election Candidate's Death)
  Havering (Election Candidate's Death)
  Birching (Isle of Man)
  Birching (Isle of Man)
  Drug Addicts
  Drug Addicts
  Prisoner—Warder Ratios
  Prisoner—Warder Ratios
  Drug Convictions
  Drug Convictions
  Shot-gun Licences
  Shot-gun Licences
  Cypriot Refugees
  Cypriot Refugees
  Community Service
  Community Service
EMPLOYMENT
  Wrongful Dismissal Cases
  Wrongful Dismissal Cases
  Television Licences (Retirement Pensioners)
  Television Licences (Retirement Pensioners)
  London Transport Staff (Assaults)
  London Transport Staff (Assaults)
  Her Majesty's Dockyards (Semi-skilled Workers)
  Her Majesty's Dockyards (Semi-skilled Workers)
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
INDUSTRY
  Ferrous Foundries
  Ferrous Foundries
  Redundant Steelworkers (Wales)
  Redundant Steelworkers (Wales)
  British Steel Corporation (Shotton)
  British Steel Corporation (Shotton)
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  National Research Development Corporation
  National Research Development Corporation
  Industry Act Grants
  Industry Act Grants
  Planning Agreements
  Planning Agreements
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Finance Bill Amendments
  Finance Bill Amendments
  NEDC Committee on Finance for Industry
  NEDC Committee on Finance for Industry
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Income Tax Debts (Pensioners)
  Income Tax Debts (Pensioners)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Civil List
  Civil List
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Insurance Fund
  National Insurance Fund
  1981 Census
  1981 Census
  Geriatric Beds
  Geriatric Beds
  Cigarettes (Health Warnings)
  Cigarettes (Health Warnings)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Cystic Fibrosis
  Cystic Fibrosis
  Kidney Machines
  Kidney Machines
  Ex-Service Men (Pensions)
  Ex-Service Men (Pensions)
  Disabled Persons (Equipment Proposals)
  Disabled Persons (Equipment Proposals)
  Defibrillation Unit
  Defibrillation Unit
  Disabled Persons (Services)
  Disabled Persons (Services)
  Vaccine and Drug Damage (Compensation)
  Vaccine and Drug Damage (Compensation)
  International Year of the Child
  International Year of the Child
  Children (Respiratory Conditions)
  Children (Respiratory Conditions)
  Homoeopathy
  Homoeopathy
  Scientology
  Scientology
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Buildings (Safety)
  School Buildings (Safety)
  Retinitis Pigmentosa
  Retinitis Pigmentosa
  Higher Education (Student Costs)
  Higher Education (Student Costs)
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  University Students
  University Students
  Independent Schools
  Independent Schools
  BAILIFFS
  BAILIFFS
  WESTCLIFF ON SEA
  WESTCLIFF ON SEA
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING
  HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING
  MOSCOW
  MOSCOW
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  CHINA
  CHINA
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE
  BRADFORD
  BRADFORD
  KABUL
  KABUL
  GAINSBOROUGH
  GAINSBOROUGH
  CUERDEN
  CUERDEN
ENERGY
  Oil Refining (Consultation Document)
  Oil Refining (Consultation Document)
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
NORTHERN IRELAND
  11-plus Examination
  11-plus Examination
WALES
  Urban Programme Grant
  Urban Programme Grant
  British Steel Corporation (Port Talbot and Briton Ferry Works)
  British Steel Corporation (Port Talbot and Briton Ferry Works)
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Briton Ferry (Advance Factories)
  Briton Ferry (Advance Factories)
  Steelmaking (Shotton)
  Steelmaking (Shotton)
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Employment (Married Women)
  Employment (Married Women)
  Area Health Authorities
  Area Health Authorities
  OPEN GOVERNMENT
  OPEN GOVERNMENT
DEFENCE
  Chieftain Tanks
  Chieftain Tanks
  Service Personnel (Social Benefits)
  Service Personnel (Social Benefits)
  RAF Greenham Common
  RAF Greenham Common
  Army Equipment Exhibition
  Army Equipment Exhibition
  Civilian Employment
  Civilian Employment
TRANSPORT
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Avon)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Avon)
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Metropolitan Passenger Transport Authorities (Reports)
  Metropolitan Passenger Transport Authorities (Reports)
  Specialised Vehicles
  Specialised Vehicles
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Repayment Claims)
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Repayment Claims)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough):
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Chorley The Lord Chorley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TAXATION: PERSONAL INQUIRIES
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ask the Inland Revenue to refrain from questioning husbands about the tax liability of their wives; and to address queries about taxation liability directly to the taxpayer concerned whether husband or wife.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, since at present a husband is legally responsible for his wife's tax affairs, inquiries about the couple's liability are normally sent to him. However, the Inland Revenue have recently instructed their offices to reply direct to a married woman about her tax affairs. If, exceptionally, the matter raised involves her husband's tax and can be resolved only by writing to him, tax offices have been asked to write to the wife explaining this.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for an Answer which I really could not hear because I think there is something wrong with the amplification system, may I say that I hope I received a satisfactory Answer. If not, I shall have to raise the Question again. At any rate, I shall read it in Hansard tomorrow and
474
I am sure I cannot do more than that. I thank her and I hope that I have had an effective and good Answer.

MEDICAL INSPECTION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN
3.2 p.m.
The Earl of SWINTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they intend to introduce compulsory medical inspection for school children as recommended by the Court Committee.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the comments which we have received on the Court Report did not suggest that there would be universal support for the introduction of new powers for the compulsory medical examination of school children. The Government will reach decisions in the light of consultations now in progress.
The Earl of SWINTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that in certain parts of the country there is increasing anxiety among school medical officers at the number of parents who are opting out of this routine medical inspection? I should also like to ask whether the noble Lord thinks it is highly likely that the children of those parents who are opting out are those most at risk in our society?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for calling my attention to this matter. If he is personally aware of any serious problems in any particular area, I hope that he will not hesitate to write and let me know. The other point that I should like to make is that there is a long-established practice—as I am sure he knows—on the part of the school health service to examine children, either just before they start school or immediately after. This is widespread throughout the country, but there may well be parts where this is not so, to which the noble Earl has referred. In certain circumstances, it may well be

475
that parents prefer to take their children to the family doctor, and we would not object to that.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, following the noble Earl's supplementary question, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware that often the reason why children are not taken for the medical examination is not a voluntary one but is because so many parents, including mothers, are now working and it is expensive for them to be absent from their jobs to take children for medical inspection? I am sure that if an analysis were made that would be part of the answer to this problem.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I wonder whether it is really a problem. It has again been long-established practice in this country—I know this from personal experience—that where a mother or a father is unable to take a child to a medical inspection, she or he can usually arrange for either a neighbour or some other member of the family to take the child. This has been going on for years.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that most medical inspections of school children take place in schools and that it is not necessary for parents to take children for these medical inspections? Would he not agree that for the child to have the benefit of best education, the school should be aware whether that child has any illness or eyesight defects, so that these may be dealt with speedily? I support my noble friend Lord Swinton in his Question.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would not disagree with what the noble Baroness has said. It is desirable, when a child is being medically examined in school, that, so far as possible, one or other of the parents should accompany the child. Parents are informed of the date, time and place of the examination. They are asked to complete a very simple form which requests information on what complaints the child has had, inoculations, and so on. If parents can be at the examination, then it is highly desirable that they should do so.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether
476
another recommendation of the Court Committee is being implemented, namely, that all secondary schools should have a school nurse attached to them and all primary schools have a designated nurse which they share with other primary schools?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I understand the Court Report, it was suggested that medical examination should be carried out on a selective basis and that all children should have an annual interview with a nurse. The Government do not disagree with this in principle and they are at the present moment preparing a draft on good practice and prevention and child health services, including medical examinations of children. I hope that that will be sent out fairly soon.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that when there were routine statutory medical inspections in schools at the age of five, seven, 11 and before leaving school, these were enormously helpful to the child, to the teacher, to the parent and, what is more, to the GPs? Would the noble Lord agree that at the moment there is not sufficient liaison between the GPs, the schools and the school teachers?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I suggest that these routine examinations go on. I said a moment or two ago that there is a long-established practice for children to be examined, either just before they commence school or immediately afterwards. It is a routine matter. What some noble Lords are asking for is that the Government should take steps to make it compulsory, and when one starts introducing the compulsory element it gives rise to a lot of difficulties, often counter-productive.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, is it not a fact that the routine to which the noble Lord refers which obtained successfully until 1974, has substantially weakened since the alteration of the arrangements relating to the school medical service? My information is that what previously occurred does not now occur, and this is the problem.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I know this view is held by a number of

477
people, but I have no evidence to believe that there has been the marked change that certain noble Lords have indicated.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the representations that have been made from all sides of the House present a strong case against any reduction of medical entry for training in the medical schools? May I ask for an answer to that question and add this one: is it contemplated that there should be any reduction in the number of medical students?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that is rather wide of the Question, but I did say to your Lordships—I cannot remember whether I said it yesterday or the day before—that it is the intention of the Government to see that there are somewhere in the region of 4,000 medical students each year from the early 1980s.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE
3.10 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: 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 have seriously explored the conclusion of the Layfield Committee Report (Cmnd. 6453) that the only serious suggestion for a new source of local revenue that could give a substantial yield and at the same time maintain or enhance accountability, is that of a local income tax on personal incomes.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as indicated in our Green Paper Local Government Finance (Cmnd. 6813), the Government gave very careful and detailed consideration to the Committee's report and its various proposals and suggestions, including the possibility of establishing a local income tax. We concluded however that the case for the introduction of a local income tax had not been made out for the reasons set out in Chapter 6 of the Green Paper.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that
478
kindly, contralto and ambiguous Answer, may I ask her when the Government made this decision and also whether they made it after both Houses of Parliament had had a chance to discuss this report?— which was on the first thorough investigation of local government finance since 1914. Also, is my noble friend aware that Sweden, Canada, the United States of America and other countries find no difficulty in collecting local income tax? Finally, is my noble friend aware that an income tax rate of 4·5p in the pound would raise a domestic rate of £1,700 million and might bring in some of the yobboes who spoil some of the local property throughout Britain, even in Wales and Scotland? May this House and another place have a chance of discussing this question?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, to take the last point first, this House can, if it wants to have a longer discussion on the Layfield Report and its proposals, arrange that through the usual channels. I would have thought, however, in view of the time at our disposal, that it might be rather unlikely for such a debate to be held before the end of this Parliamentary Session.
A Statement was made in both Houses when the Layfield Report was received, and from time to time there have been various Statements and Questions about the matter. Also discussions have arisen from passing on various debates and Questions that we have had in this House concerning local government and taxation matters. Referring to a local income tax, there are problems about its collection and how it should work—whether it should be on the pay-as-you-earn system or assessed at the end of a year; who would assess it and how it would be collected; how much it would cost to collect and how many more civil servants or local government officers we would need to administer it. Referring to the noble Lord's statement that it works adequately in Canada, the USA and Sweden, the Layfield Committee did, of course, carry out investigations as to how it worked there. The Government themselves have had no consultations with those countries as to how the tax works, but have relied upon the evidence submitted to them by the Layfield Committee. Both Parties seem to have had reservations about whether we should

479
have a local income tax and whether that is the way to deal with the subject which has been raised.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the great difficulties associated with this proposal, which is one I have had to study in great detail for many years, is the question of which borough shall benefit from the tax collected? Might I ask her whether, if she took the chairmen of Tesco and Marks and Spencer, for instance, the revenue from their businesses would go to the borough where they have a two-roomed flat, perhaps, or whether it would go to the dozens of towns where they have branches?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that is precisely the problem that faces anyone who tries to administer a local income tax. Do you collect it at the source where the person works and then pay it into the borough where he or she earns the money? Do you have some system whereby some of it or all of it is transferred to the borough in which the taxpayer lives? All those kinds of complication arise when one tries to administer a local tax.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that answer is not good enough? The Layfield Committee went into all these questions—many of us over the years have had experience of being on committees and nothing happens with the magnificent work that has been done. They are not insurmountable and at least Parliament should have a chance of a discussion in depth on the financing of local government, because it is getting out of hand.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that is a matter for the noble Lord to pursue through the usual channels.

DEVOLUTION: CIVIL SERVANTS
3.15 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
480
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the estimate of additional civil servants required in Wales, given in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Wales Bill, is greater than the estimate of additional civil servants required in Scotland, together with the staff of the proposed Scottish Assembly, predicted in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Scotland Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, many civil servants at present in Scotland and Wales and now employed on work to be devolved will undertake that same work on devolution. But because of the already greater degree of decentralisation of central Government activities to Scotland than is the case in Wales, a greater number of additional staff will be required in Wales. This accounts for the difference in the memoranda.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply, which was on the lines I have been expecting. While there are some strange proposals in both Bills, which should cause us no further surprise, is it not very odd that there should be 750 extra civil servants in Scotland and 1,150 in Wales?—considering that the extent of further devolution is supposed to be less in Wales than in Scotland.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have already given an explanation of the difference. The noble Lord has not taken into account the 240 additional staff which will be needed to serve the Scottish Assembly. I have given the explanation. I can only admire the enthusiasm of the noble Lord—after thirteen days in Committee on the Scotland Bill, having the energy once more to return to it at Question Time.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, in anticipation of a similar performance on the Bill to which the noble Lord has just alluded, may I ask him whether the costing that appears in the same document as this £9 million is correct and, if it is, what is the adult population of Wales and how much per head per week will be needed to pay these people?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these are absolutely fascinating

481
questions, about which there will be abundant opportunity to give answers during the forthcoming discussions on the Wales Bill.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I satisfy the anticipation of the noble and learned Lord by saying that I make it 10p per head per week?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not yet know, not having the information readily before me, whether the noble Lord has exaggerated or underestimated.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am again grateful for the compliment which the noble and learned Lord has paid. Of course, he, as a Welshman, is as interested in this matter as I am, as a Scot. May I ask, however, whether the noble and learned Lord noticed that in my original Question I had taken into account in the wording the proposed staff of the new Assembly?

ORKNEY ISLANDS COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.

TUVALU BILL [H.L.]
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—[Lord Goronwy-Roberts].
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1978
3.19 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Army, Air
482
Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1978, laid before the House on 24th April, be approved. The purpose of this order is to continue in force the Service Acts for a further year; that is, until 31st August 1979. As I explained in moving the continuation order last year, it was decided that in future the order should be taken at this time of year rather than in the autumn so that its consideration could be linked with the general debates on defence matters which normally take place in the spring.
As your Lordships are aware, the Service Discipline Acts—that is, the Army and Air Force Acts of 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act of 1957—provide, among other things, the basis for discipline in the three Services. Although the principal topic for discussion this afternoon is Armed Forces pay, noble Lords may, of course, also wish to take the opportunity of discussing Service discipline. By way of introduction, I should perhaps say a few words about the implementation of the 1976 Armed Forces Act.
As I said last year, the main changes introduced by the 1976 Act were the extension of the powers of summary punishment available to commanding officers in the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Marines; the establishment of standing civilian courts to deal with civilians who are subject to the Army and Air Force Acts while serving overseas; and the introduction of new powers of punishment, primarily intended to deal with juveniles, for civilians under the jurisdiction of all three Service Discipline Acts. I do not think I need repeat all the details again this year.
These new provisions came into force on 1st July 1977, and so far the new arrangements appear to be working smoothly. It was anticipated that the increase in summary powers would lead to a reduction in the number of courts-martial, and during the limited period in which the provisions have been in operation there has, in fact, been a reduction. However, it would be unwise to come to any firm conclusions on the basis of such a short period. So far there have been fewer than 20 cases referred to the standing civilian courts, and we need a good deal

483
more experience of their workings before they can be properly evaluated. We should be in a much better position to assess the new arrangements by this time next year.
I now turn to the subject of Services pay. I should like to remind the House briefly of the basis for assessing the pay of the Armed Forces, as it is important to understand the somewhat complicated processes and principles involved. The independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body recommends to the Government what they regard as the appropriate comparable levels of pay for the Armed Forces, up to and including the rank of brigadier or equivalent. To these rates are added the X-factor, to cover the balance of advantages and disadvantages between employment in the Armed Forces and in civilian life. The comparable rates plus the X-factor give the military salary. The Review Body is also responsible for recommending charges for food and accommodation, since the military salary concept requires the Serviceman to pay for food and accommodation, as he would expect to do in civilian life.
The normal arrangements have inevitably been disturbed during the period of pay restraint, as the Review Body itself has emphasised in its Seventh Report (Cmnd. 7177). Although the Armed Forces received the maximum pay increase allowed under Rounds 1 and 2, the Review Body has pointed out that the pay policy has borne more heavily on the Armed Forces than on their civilian comparators. The Review Body has calculated that it would now require a 32 per cent. increase, on average, to restore the military salary to full comparability, although the figures vary from rank to rank. The Government accept their recommendations on the levels of the military salary appropriate to April 1978. The Review Body also emphasised that Servicemen should be treated no less favourably in the current round of pay restraint measures than other members of the community, to ensure that their pay did not fall further behind in the coming 12 months.
The Government have been concerned to ensure that the Armed Forces are given a fair deal, taking into account, on the one hand, the Review Body's recommendations and, on the other, the wider
484
national interest reflected in our economic policies. The pay award which the Prime Minister announced on 25th April is exactly that. It gave the Armed Forces an immediate 10 per cent. pay increase, together with an increase in the X-factor within the percentage recommended by the Review Body, which will add a further 3 per cent. in total. This includes a 50 per cent. increase in flying pay, submarine pay, parachute pay, hydrographic pay and diving pay. There were also increases in certain allowances, including a doubling of Northern Ireland pay from 50p to £1 a day, and an increase of about two-thirds in separation pay. Together with a standstill in accommodation charges, the award represents an overall increase of 14 per cent. of the total Forces pay bill.
However, perhaps the most important feature of the award is the firm commitment by the Government to restore the full military salary in two stages by April 1980. I will spell out these two stages carefully, because several noble Lords expressed concern about this in the House on 25th April, and it is important to get it right. On 1st April 1979, the Armed Forces will receive a pay increase which will consist broadly of half the amount required to bring them up to the full military salary for April this year (as detailed in the Review Body's Seventh Report), together—and this is the important point—with whatever amount is required to update the award to April 1979. This will, of course, be the subject of further recommendations in the Review Body's 1979 report.
On 1st April 1980, they will receive the remaining half to bring them up to the full military salary assessed for April this year, together with the appropriate updating between April 1979 and April 1980. The result will be that in April 1980 the Armed Forces will have the full military salary fully updated to the then current levels.
As I have said, this firm forward commitment is perhaps the most important part of the award. But noble Lords should not just dismiss this year's pay increase as trifling, as the following examples will show. Privates will receive from £5.08 to £8.47 extra a week; corporals between £8.10 and £9.45 extra a

485
week, and warrant officers between £10.10 and £14.08 a week. The pay of majors will go up by between £673 and £841 a year, and that of colonels will go up by between £1,057 and £1,325 a year. A naval lieutenant with 6 years' seniority, who is a Sea King observer, will receive a total increase in military salary and flying pay of £1,046, which is 17 per cent. A submarine commander with two years' seniority will receive £1,309 extra a year. All these increases must be looked at against the background that accommodation charges—covering married quarters and single accommodation—are not being increased while the Review Body looks at the basis on which they are calculated.
In conclusion, I repeat that the 14 per cent. pay award this year, plus the firm commitment to restore comparability in two equal stages, to the then current levels, on 1st April 1979 and 1st April 1980, represents a very fair deal for the Armed Forces in the current circumstances, and I am sure that the majority of the people in this country, and the Armed Forces themselves, will recognise it as such.
There have, I know, been disturbing trends in the numbers seeking to leave the Services, and the Government recognise that one of the reasons has been dissatisfaction over pay. I hope—and I know that noble Lords will share this hope—that the immediate pay award and the firm commitment for comparability by 1980 will stop and reverse this trend. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1978, laid before the House on 24th April, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
3.29 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, when we are discussing defence, I think that we are specially fortunate in this House in having many Peers who have served as head of our Armed Forces, or even as Chief of the Defence Staff, and many other Peers who have been Ministers of Defence, such as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, my noble friends Lord Duncan-Sandys, Lord Thorneycroft, Lord Watkinson and Lord Carrington and, of course, until his sad death yesterday, Lord
486
Selwyn-Lloyd. I hope that the House will forgive me if I pay a small tribute to a very remarkable man. Because we are discussing defence, I thought that it was appropriate to say a word about a man who has served in almost every high office in political life, not least as a very distinguished Speaker in another place. I am sure that other people will take the opportunity to pay full justice to someone with such an outstanding Parliamentary record.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord ORR-EWING: When we had our defence debate on 20th April, the Prime Minister had not then announced whether the Government accepted the assessment and recommendation of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. In 1977, the review board seemed to have been leaned on by the Government. The Review Body seemed to have forgotten that their main duty was to report how true comparability might be achieved. On that occasion, the Government gave to the Serviceman something of an Irishman's rise; he had to pay back almost as much in terms of increased rent and food costs as he had received from that rise. This year's report was better and more objective. It recognised that 32 per cent. was now needed to restore full comparability.
In our last debate we asked for an opportunity to debate the award thoroughly and in depth. We have now only five Parliamentary days left before the Whitsun Parliamentary Recess, and there is much legislation still to be considered. This is one of the reasons why we are having a shorter debate today than is justified. On Monday, the Commons will have a vote of censure on the conduct of the Government's defence policy as administered by Mr. Mulley, so our debate today is something of an overture to theirs.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that a short debate demands short speeches, and a fine example has been set by the Government Front Bench. However, the speeches which are made this afternoon will be hard hitting, because the urgency and seriousness of the subject demand exactly that treatment. We on these Benches will greatly miss the presence of

487
the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who had intended to open the debate. We had even considered putting down a Motion and voting upon it. However, as noble Lords will know, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has very close ties with Australia and Sir Robert Menzies. This has meant that he has had to fly to Australia to attend the State funeral of that great man.
In our first debate we pointed out once again that in the face of the growing threat from the USSR and her satellites, the Government were continuing to cut back on defence expenditure, training, equipment and men. We quoted Mr. Mulley—that this year's defence budget was, in real terms, the lowest ever introduced by a Labour Government; these cuts were continuing at a time when our NATO Allies, seeing the same menace, have increased and are increasing their defence expenditure in every field. Now we want to probe, with a series of arguments and questions, why the Government have felt able to give only the 10 per cent. basic, plus 3 per cent. for the X factor and an extra 1 per cent. for rent and food subsidies. To restore fairness, 32 per cent. was needed, but only 14 per cent. has been given. Mr. Callaghan promised that the extra 18 per cent. would be made up by April 1980, in two slices. We have heard today in the opening speech that this is to be made up: presumably by 9 per cent. on 1st April 1979 and the balance on 1st April 1980.
I am still anxious to know, as I think everybody must be, whether the Government will be able fully to honour these plans or whether they have it in mind to find excuses. I should like to know how far behind, unless it is fully indexed—and we have had some assurances about that this afternoon, for which I am grateful—the pay of Servicemen will be by April 1979.
Yesterday it was announced that civilian earnings had increased in the eight months since the start of Phase 3—that is to say, from last August—by 10 per cent. This means that civilian earnings are going up at an annual rate of 15 per cent.; so if one postpones a pay rise for one year, one probably
488
sacrifices 15 per cent. If this rise continues at the same rate, by next April the Serviceman will not be 18 per cent. behind; he will then be 33 per cent. behind—just before the award. On those figures, at that stage and before he receives the award, the Serviceman will be 18 per cent. behind, plus the inflation which has happened, and I have suggested that that 15 per cent. rate of inflation will probably continue until next April.
The Serviceman sees this clearly. That is why there are, so far, no signs of the flow from the Services being staunched. We have received some degree of assurance on this matter, and I hope that we shall receive an even firmer assurance in the winding-up speech.
As the review body has said, it is not possible to judge productivity in the Services. But clearly productivity must have increased, since there are about 10,000 fewer Servicemen; and their task is no less so far as the defence of our country and the commitment to our allies is concerned. Therefore, they are working much longer hours to accomplish the same result, which means that their productivity must have increased. It is sad that they cannot be compensated for this extra work. Much longer, unsocial hours are now having to be worked by our Servicemen.
The House will be interested to compare Servicemen's earnings with miners' earnings. The miners received 10 per cent. overall, and individual productivity deals were then negotiated. We now have the figures relating to their increase in earnings. They are 36½ per cent. Overall—that is, 10 per cent. and 26½ per cent. on productivity. The productivity deal is slightly suspect, because the miners reduced their expected output by something like 20 per cent. before starting to earn the productivity bonus. It is rumoured in the Press that when Lord Edmund-Davies's Committee, which is sitting on the pay and other conditions of service in the police force, reports it will recommend a 30 per cent. pay rise for our police. I very much hope that they get it. I hope that they do not also have to wait for an increase which is phased over two or more years.
We believe that the military threat to Western Europe—and, incidentally, to the

489
breakdown of law and order in our own land—is such that we should make these two vital services—our Armed Forces and our police—special cases which are worthy of quicker, prompter and fairer treatment than they are currently receiving. May I ask the Minister whether we can be told anything more about these settlements? Are these settlements copper-bottomed and insured against every contingency? Whatever Governments may say, new economic difficulties may arise. There may be new phases of the prices and incomes policy. I recall that after the university teachers were awarded a pay rise in 1975 the incomes policy began and that they were caught by this Government. Only very recently have they been given a 12 per cent. increase, which again is to be phased over a period of time.
Once again, I urge that if this Government do not feel that they can do justice more quickly to the Services they should make way for a Conservative Government which will do it for them. Margaret Thatcher has said that we shall set this matter right. "The Iron Lady", as the USSR call her, will do it, and she will do it more quickly.
3.38 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, to the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd. One of the most remarkable tributes which has been paid is that of Mrs. Barbara Castle. She pointed out that, after being a controversial Party politician, he became Speaker of the House of Commons, and in a very short space of time became one of the most respected Speakers among many respected Speakers of recent times. This was a remarkable achievement and shows the genuine quality of the man.
If I may turn to the subject of our debate, I shall certainly keep to time because what I have to say can be said very shortly. First, much of the trouble arises from the attitude prevailing in or forced upon the Labour Party. When defence is treated in exactly the same way as everything else, with a Party maintaining that defence must be cut as well as other forms of spending, it seems to me that a fallacy is involved which brings with it great danger. I believe that our defence expenditure should be cut to what
490
is necessary and no more. Nevertheless, having fixed the level of expenditure which is necessary for the defence of the Realm, one cannot say that it can withstand cuts along with all other forms of Government spending. Either it is necessary to have that level of defence or it is not.
This egalitarian cutting all round by the Labour Party brings with it immense dangers. There are some things you cannot cut in other fields: you cannot cut the maintenance of the fabric of your transport system in a country—you must keep it up. You cannot buy less raw material for manufacturing. One could give a whole lot of other instances, but the most important of all is that if your defence spending is set at the right level for the defence of the Realm then it cannot be cut without doing tremendous damage. I said in the last debate, but it will bear repeating, that one of the things we must realise is that our defence policy in the West has been very successful. We are certainly not out of danger and we never shall be, but we have had more than 30 years without a major war, without the catastrophe which could have been confidently predicted from the situation which we were in at the end of the last war.
Having said that, one then comes simply to what is the most important factor about defence. The most important thing about defence, without a doubt, is the soldiers, sailors and airmen who will be required to fight and to stand firm in the event of a war, and their morale and their respect for Parliament and the Government is of enormous importance. If they are always treated as the weak, if they are always subjected to cuts when we have a financial crisis, then they will develop a much understood cynicism about the way the Government regard them.
I think the Government are very much at fault in allowing the Forces' pay to fall so far behind. I am not underestimating the danger of inflation to us all. Of course, it is absolutely essential that we overcome the appalling inflation, and the Government deserve great credit for the degree to which they have overcome it. But in this case we have induced in the Service a degree of cynicism and a degree of strife between the senior officers

491
and the War Office and the Government which we have not seen for a long time. We have had unprecedented demands for interviews with the Prime Minister by the Chiefs of Staff, and when we look at the fact that they are 33 per cent. behind comparability with equivalent jobs in industry one can see why this is. I think the question is as much the attitude which the Serviceman feels the Government have as the actual loss of money.
When we consider the settlement which we have had I think it is not really satisfactory. Perhaps we should accept that it is as far as we could expect the Government to go at this moment, with a tricky inflationary situation. It is not enough, but the promise of comparability by the 1st April 1980 is a tremendous step forward. I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, that in our last debate he indicated that no Government could possibly index Service pay; that it was not a thing that could happen. But that in fact is what the Prime Minister has promised to do at the 1st April 1980. I am very glad to have the assurance that at that date not only will the faults of the past be rectified but any inflation in between will be taken care of and the full award by the Review Body will be implemented.
That is all very well up to 1980, but what we are really talking about is morale in the Services. The Services will view this with considerable misgivings, and in my view what is needed is long-term indexation. The Government must say that Service pay will be treated as being on an exact level, as it has been, with the civilian pay for the equivalent job and it will be indexed in that way. This is totally necessary and I do not think that it is too expensive. The Government are always "that-a-way" the strong, the well unionised miners or power workers, or whoever it may be. They are always in the lead and they do not fall behind. But if you regard the Services as being essentially important then I think this award would be accepted. I think it would restore morale, provided that we say that this policy will be permanent after 1st April 1980.
3.46 p.m.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, we have lost a towering
492
Parliamentary figure in Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, and if he had been the holder of high office while a Member of this House no doubt official tributes would have been paid to him. This not being so, I, for one, would like to associate myself with the remarks made already by the two noble Lords who have preceded me, in sadness at his demise. The House will have noted also with sadness and perhaps a sense of shock the passing of that great statesman, Sir Robert Menzies.
In the matter of the Pay Review Body's report I find coming into my head a story that used to be told in India at one time about a British officer who went on leave to Kashmir with his wife and they took a houseboat on the Dal Lake in Srinagar. It was very romantic and beautiful. At the end of his leave he went down the hill by car, leaving his wife behind. Of course that was the usual thing in India then. Before he had gone very far he found a landslide had washed the road away and so he had to return unexpectedly. He found his wife in the arms of a lover who, with great presence of mind, sprang to his feet, dived head-first out of the window and struck out for the distant Himalayas. Afterwards he complained with some indignation at the unfairness and unsporting conduct of the offended husband of shooting at him with a revolver while he was in the water.
The Government seem to be doing precisely that—saying, "Don't shoot at us. We are in the water". Or perhaps not so much in the water as, "Our hands are tied". What they are tied by is the guidelines. Where did these guidelines and this pay policy come from? Was it whispered into the ear of the Prime Minister out of the stillness of the heart of a whirlwind? Was it handed down from Mount Ararat? Did it come by ouija board, perhaps, or automatic writing into the occult intelligence department of the Cabinet Office? The Government themselves are responsible for this policy and it is an axiom of all law that a grown man of right mind is responsible for his actions and that he can foresee their results.
The result of these actions and this policy must have been foreseen by the Government and the corollary axiom then comes into force that they must have intended the result. There is no accident

493
about the fact that the Forces have fallen behind in their pay, and it is a great relief to me, at any rate, and I think to many others, that the Pay Review Body—as has been remarked upon by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing—has come out very strongly on this subject; far more strongly than it did a year ago, when it produced a somewhat wishy-washy report. On this occasion it produced words of considerable strength. For example, it referred to its inability to sec any shadow of justification for treating the Armed Forces any less favourably then firemen. It says:
"the Armed Forces find it increasingly difficult—and we do also—to accept a situation in which the shortfall continues to increase during the operation of restraint measures that are intended to apply equally to everyone".
Undoubtedly the Government have taken these strictures somewhat to heart. But how much? If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, aright, he is of the opinion that they have given a firm promise that in two years' time comparability will have been restored; that the Armed Forces pay will be indexed—the Prime Minister has given that assurance—and that other increases in pay outside the Services will be taken into account in assessing the new rates of pay. Is this really so? I confess that I am a little less than totally convinced. After the Statement on the report, questions were put to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. He was asked, for example, by my noble friend, Lord Drumalbyn, about the question of comparability or equality with other pay rises outside the Services, and he said:
"I have assumed that it will go up in stages. However, if there is any doubt about this I shall certainly look at it carefully, but that is my impression and that is the advice I have been given. I am certain that there should be no worry on this at all".—[Official Report, 25/4/78; col. 1639.]
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if the noble Earl would forgive me, I feel bound to say that I received a letter subsequently from the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirming that it would be indexed.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that from my noble friend, and I am delighted not to have to pursue that line any further. But there was another question
494
and perhaps I could get a similar reassurance from someone on this. This was a question by my noble friend Lord Hail-sham on the question of indexing. This time the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said:
"I cannot give a firm assurance on that. It will have to take note of this, and this is something which the Review Body, which will still be sitting, will have to consider".—[col. 1640.]
Am I to understand—I hope that I am—from the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, that we ignore it now; that is, it is taken out of the hands of the Review Body and the Prime Minister has in fact given an assurance that the pay will go up to take account not only of pay increases outside the Services but also the rising rate of inflation? If those things are so, I am to some extent reassured, but not entirely, because I know very well that the Armed Forces have been treated in a way in which they would not have been treated if they had had anything like the muscle to deploy which is enjoyed by the trade unions. I do not think anybody on any side of the House will argue with me on that.
I am bound to echo still the words spoken by my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal in the debate on the Statement, when he said:
"I can only say that the Statement leaves us, on this side of the House, with a profound sense of alarm and despondency, allied to a feeling of shame that Parliament is failing those from whom it demands both devotion and trust".—[Col. 1635.]
Therefore:
"It's Tommy this, an' Tommy that,
an' Tommy fall be'ind,
But it's 'Please to walk in front, sir',
when there's trouble in the wind.
There's trouble in the wind, my lords,
there is trouble in the wind.
Oh it's Please to walk in front, sir',
when there's trouble in the wind".
My Lords, there is trouble in the wind. It is howling in the radar aerials of all the world.
3.53 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, it is my intention in the few observations I have to make to exclude anything in the nature of rhetoric or oratory. Only a few weeks ago, in the course of a defence debate on the normal annual White Paper, the subject of pay in the Forces was raised. That could have been avoided if the proposition I made some time ago had been adopted; that is, that we might have two debates, one on the strategy of

495
defence and the other on pay for members of the Forces. However, in the course of the debate to which I have referred the subject of pay was ventilated, and I ventured to make a few observations at that time myself. It is customary when the Forces Discipline Acts come before either House of Parliament, another place and your Lordships' House, to ventilate a variety of topics affecting Servicemen and women. That is hardly necessary nowadays, because substantial changes have occurred as the years have passed by, largely because of the intervention in another place of my noble friend Lord Wigg, who is an authority on that aspect of the subject, and other Members. Very few complaints are made about discipline and the conditions of those in the Services. So we need not trouble very much about that—at least I think not—at this stage.
I have no hesitation in saying—I naturally speak for myself; I wish I could speak for every member of the Party to which I belong—that the utmost effort should be made by the Government of the day, whichever Government of whatever complexion, to provide for our men and women in the Forces the highest range of remuneration and the very best conditions, in accommodation and (this is really a defence observation) equipment. But we have to take into account—we cannot ignore it, much as some people have tried to do —the economic and financial condition in which we find ourselves. Consequently, those of us who are concerned—and I believe that consists of a majority of Members of your Lordships' House and even a majority of those in another place—believe that everything possible should be done, financially and otherwise, to satisfy those in the Forces.
There is another reason why it is essential that this should be done. When we discuss defence in general we have been inclined in recent years, ever since 1957 and the production of the Defence White Paper on that occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, to introduce the subject of the use of nuclear weapons. In my judgment—this may not be accepted by everybody—I consider that manpower is far more important that the possession of nuclear weapons.
The USSR, which is a possible—I will not say probable—enemy capable of
496
aggression, has vast manpower at its disposal. The West also has potentially vast numbers of Servicemen and Servicewomen at its disposal. Unfortunately, we have not taken advantage of that, and consequently in the realm of manpower we have to accept inferiority. If unfortunately a conflict occurred in the West or in the Pacific or elsewhere, it is obvious that manpower would be a primary consideration—not the nuclear weapon or the possible use of the nuclear weapon. We have realised recently, from the dissatisfaction among those in the Forces about their remuneration and conditions and because far too many resignations have taken place, that recruitment in the near and the distant future may be adversely affected and we cannot ignore this subject of pay in the Forces.
I agree with almost every word which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, have said. But we have to consider where the money comes from. For example, if we were to accept comparability as between those in the Forces and those in the mining industry or any other section of industry, what is it going to cost—£400 million more? That is a very low estimate. In my opinion to do the job thoroughly and provide satisfaction it would require about £1,000 million. I wish we had the money at our disposal. I must confess that I expressed doubts whether in the course of the next couple of years for which promises have been made we shall be able to afford as large a sum as I have mentioned. I wish we could provide for those in the Forces and guarantee that the money would be available so that they would be satisfied and we should have the requisite manpower in the unfortunate event of some untoward occurrence. So Members of your Lordships' House can understand that as far as I am personally concerned—and I am sure I speak for every member of the Party to which I belong—I am anxious to do the best that is possible for people in the Forces. There can be no question about that.
I come to the machinery at the Government's disposal. If I had my way I would never have appointed a Review Body. When I was at the War Office and at the Ministry of Defence it was brought to my notice that there was some dissatisfaction among those in the Forces. It is true that

497
at that time we still had a vast number of National Service men at our disposal. The number of men and women in the Army itself was over 300,000, consisting of regulars and long service men and women and also the National Servicemen. But on that occasion we had no Review Body. It was the responsibility of the Minister, the head of that Department, to decide what could be done for those in the Forces. I remember the occasion. The advice was placed on my desk; I submitted it to the three Chiefs of Staff and asked their opinion; civil servants were also asked to express an opinion, and naturally the Treasury came into the discussion. One could not possibly ignore the Treasury. Eventually a proposition was made to me that £60 million would be required in order to provide what the people in the Forces would regard as satisfactory. That included also an increase in pensions—the two were combined, pay and pensions.
Because of my previous association with the War Office, not only as Secretary for War but as Financial Secretary to the War Office, when it came before me I cut it down by £5 million or £6 million. What remained?—£55 million. When the Treasury got to know about this they complained at once that it was impossible, and I can remember Hugh Gaitskell, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, coming to see me at the Ministry. Why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer come to see the Minister of Defence? He was of higher rank, but it so happened that previously he had been a Parliamentary Secretary when I was a Cabinet Minister in my Department, and out of courtesy he came to see me instead of asking me to go to see him. He offered £30 million. I had to reject it at once and I suggested that I take the matter to the Cabinet. It was taken to the Cabinet and the Cabinet decided in favour of the £55 million, largely because of the influence in particular of the late Dr. Addison. I believe his son is a member of this Assembly. Anyhow, that was the decision, and the Treasury had to accept it. I believe it to be the responsibility of the Minister to decide. Naturally he must consult.
But what happened? It was thought better to be in possession of a decision by a review board, an independent board. What happens at the end of the day?
498
The board comes to a decision—it is called a recommendation. It is sent to the Government and the Government, taking into account all the circumstances, decide that they cannot go beyond a certain figure. That is the situation. I do not suggest that we can return to the previous method of ministerial decision, but I do suggest that if there are some doubts and suspicions, which have already been ventilated by the three noble Lords who have spoken, that the Government may either not be willing to provide comparability or be unable to provide it, what is required? I suggest vigilance on the part of those of us—and I hope a large section of the general public—who believe that it is our duty as well as our responsibility to provide the best possible conditions in remuneration and other matters for those in the Services. I think that is all that can be said.
We have argued this matter over and over again and we could go on arguing about it. I hope there will be no more regulations. I should like to add just this. When we had the Defence Debate I ventured to make a suggestion that we might have to return to National Service. As a result of that I have had a great deal of correspondence, some very critical, some in condemnation, some suggesting that I appear to have changed my mind. I have not changed my mind at all. I have never departed from the view that I have held for many years that defence is essential and obviously manpower is required, and the more we have the better. However, I admit that a return to National Service would be unacceptable.
There is a possible alternative. In addition to the regular forces we could build up our reserves. What do we have? We have 6,000 in the TAVR. We have the regular Servicemen with very inadequate training. It is perfunctory, and we accept that. However, I do not believe that that is enough. I stand by what I have said more than once, and I repeat it this afternoon: we must not trouble too much about the nuclear weapons. I do not believe that the Russians care very much about what we want to do as regards the neutron bomb or any other kind of nuclear weapon. They are concerned about manpower. We in the West must not allow ourselves to be in a condition of inferiority.

499
I utter this warning, based on a careful strategic study of the situation. This is not my own view but the view of those who understand this problem thoroughly, and the books on the strategy are there for noble Lords if they want to avail themselves of them. I am convinced that if war broke out it would not be a nuclear war; it would be a conventional war. If such a war should occur, manpower would be of the highest importance. I hope that those in authority will take note of the observations that I have ventured to make this afternoon.
4.12 p.m.
Viscount BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I begin by resisting two temptations. The first is to take up the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and talk about the connection between discipline and pay. The second is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in all the points that he raised, beyond returning the compliment, as I hope I may, and saying that just as he has said that he has agreed with two previous speakers from these Benches, I have found a great measure of agreement, not for the first time, with what the noble Lord himself has said. I should also like to add to the tributes to my noble friend Lord Selwyn-Lloyd and to Sir Robert Menzies, whom I had the privilege of knowing personally.
In the time which I have been allowed I should like to spend a short while trying to see what steps we should take to avoid all of this happening again, because that is really the object that we want to achieve by this debate. After all, it is the last straw that breaks the camel's back, and the last straw is about to break it. However, is it not worth while looking to see what happened when the first straw went on? To do that, we must go back almost to the ages of folklore.
There has always been some idea that the calling of the Serviceman has been as much a vocation as an employment. I heard that view expressed to me in a conversation by so great a man as the late Ernest Bevin. It may have been true at one time, because in the early days when officers did not have to live on their pay and there was no unemployment insurance, troops enlisted just as much to
500
get a roof over their heads and a square meal as for the pay, and so there was some substance in it. The troops would sing on line of march:
"We are but little children weak,
We only get seven bob a week,
The more we do the more we may,
It makes no difference to our pay".
However, the whole subject is very complex and in my experience—and for 18 months I held a position in the War Office with responsibility for pay—it is very difficult, not only for the Army staffs connected with matters of this sort but also for Ministers, to keep in touch with the complexities which arise and which only a small group of civil servants in the Departments and the Treasury understand.
One can and does blame Ministers. As the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell said, Ministers are responsible. However, one can also sympathise with them, because it takes a great deal of knowledge and a certain amount of courage to know enough about the job in hand to take the line that they should. There is really no excuse for all of this, because we are just now having the second round of the same trouble with the police. It starts by giving way on small matters. Then, later on, when the small matters become big ones the gap is so great that people say, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, did: "What a tremendous bill we have to pay!". It would never have happened if people had watched the small things at the start. The case history of allowances is just as bad, and that is why so much trouble arises when the military salary and the allowances come in.
I wish to refer to the 1957 White Paper which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has also mentioned. There were three courses which could have been taken after the decision to do away with voluntary service. One was to do everything one could to see that the demand for manpower was met by inducements. Another was to supplement voluntary manpower by some form of National Service or national training. The third, which has been largely followed by the present Government, was to pretend that we have the manpower, when everyone knows that we have not.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I must protest at what the noble Viscount has said. If ever there was a criticism to be made

501
of the 1957 White Paper—and I have made it—it is that the facts and the figures that were given were phoney. They were not related to the manpower that was needed; they were related to a decision by the civil servants or by the statisticians as regards the numbers they could recruit.
Viscount BRIDGEMAN: I am grateful for that intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. In fact, I omitted part of my speech, which was to say that I was looking forward with great interest to the remarks that I knew the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, would make.
Time is short and I move on to the military salary and the Pay Review Board. Here again I do not think that the Prices and Incomes Board realised the one major factor why Army pay and Army conditions can never be made comparable with those in civil life. That factor is that the Army and the other Forces might at any moment have to go to war, whereas civilian people do not. That is very largely at the root of the trouble and that is why it is impossible, however hard the Pay Board tries—and it has tried in this last Report—to relate conditions for the Services close enough to conditions in civil life, bearing in mind that those conditions must operate whether we are at peace or at war.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, fairly said, the Pay Board is there to recommend. It is not there to negotiate. Have we not reached the time when the Forces must be allowed to appoint their own negotiators? If we think in terms of the Agricultural Wages Board, what would happen if it were suggested that the National Union of Agricultural Workers should be represented by people appointed by the Government and not by themselves? I shall leave the matter there. It is complex and there is no time to discuss it during this debate. I wish that I knew the answer. It is possible that something might be done by allowing the principal personnel officers to appoint their own people to negotiate, so that they do not have to sit back while people appointed by the Government make recommendations. I will close my remarks now because the clock has struck seven minutes and that was my bargain with the usual channels.
Lord WESTBURY: My Lords, I believe that every man and woman in the Armed Forces is still reeling under the insult given to them by the Prime Minister in declining to see the three Chiefs of Staff of the Navy, Army and Air Force to discuss the report of the Pay Review Body prior to its publication. It seems to me that the Government are actively pursuing a policy designed to weaken our Armed Forces. Successive cuts in defence spending have meant that the Army, Navy and Air Force are now equipped with second-rate weapons, establishments have been reduced, reserves have been virtually eliminated and thousands of highly-trained men are leaving the Services because they have been, and still are underpaid and over-stretched.
It is no good the Prime Minister announcing a pay rise of 14 per cent. when, in the same breath, he concedes that it should be 32 per cent. Until our Servicemen are paid a fair wage they will continue to leave—maybe some people want them to leave. Last week the Government gave them further encouragement to go. The Government announced that from 1st April this year retiring Servicemen will be given a 30 per cent. increase in their pensions. Gratuities will also rise by 30 per cent. Quite clearly, it is now to a Serviceman's advantage to leave. If the Government could afford to increase the pensions of those who are leaving by 30 per cent., why cannot they do the same for the pay of those who continue to serve?
Already too many Servicemen have left the Forces. Reductions in establishments, caused by defence cuts, have seriously undermined the strength of the Services. What is more, while the Forces get smaller, their commitments increase. Strike-breaking has been added to the list of duties which we expect our Servicemen to perform. All this has led to overstretch. It has existed for some years now and is getting worse and worse. Frequent tours in Northern Ireland and the months spent fire-fighting have seriously affected training and, therefore, efficiency. But, even worse, the continual disruptions have put appalling strains on the Serviceman's family. Is it surprising that so many middle-rank officers and non-commissioned officers are leaving? So often these are men with specialist skills, who are difficult to replace but who are sought after by

503
industry. Yet the Government's policy encourages them to go.
While we reduce our Forces the threat goes on growing. The Russian Army, Navy and Air Force have never been more powerful then they are today. On the borders of the free world the Soviet Union has massed 20,000 tanks. These tanks are constantly modernised; some are equipped with armour which makes them impervious to anti-tank weapons at present in service in the West. This type of armour was invented in Britain, but it has never been fitted on our tanks. Why not? Chieftains, protected by Chobham armour have been sold abroad.
We should give our Servicemen the best possible equipment that money can buy and we should pay them the wages that the Government themselves admit are fair. To do anything less is to endanger the security of our nation. I cannot believe that the Government wish to undermine our own defences, but they are playing a dangerous game when they try to obtain security so cheaply. I say "God save the Queen and the United Kingdom", because, as sure as day follows night, if the Government continue to pursue this mad policy, our Armed Forces will not be able to.
4.24 p.m.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, there are two "musts" in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. One is weapons, which must be of the very best, and the other is morale, which must be high. About a year ago the House of Commons Expenditure Committee reported that our trucks, artillery and that sort of thing were out-of-date. If the RAF do not have the latest machine they will be shot out of the skies; those machines need to be constantly replaced. As regards the Navy, we always say that our naval contribution is the best and the biggest in NATO. I should jolly well hope so. But the fact remains that our building programme includes only two major ships—need I say more?
It is dreadful when married Servicemen of all three Services find their quarters too expensive to live in. I have heard mention of a figure of 18,000 houses being empty because of this. In my opinion, it is dreadful that when a battalion is
504
moved back from Northern Ireland to carry out fire duties and protect our homes, it has to work 100 hours or 110 hours for no overtime whatever. A CO—and I happen to have a paper about this—reckoned that a rifleman with a wife and one child was worst off; he only had £30·74, which is impossible to live on. Surely it must be wrong when 35 per cent. of a battalion is drawing a rent rebate.
Those are the simple reasons why the pay of the Forces should be raised. As I said in the recent debate on defence, we have been a bad ally in NATO these last few years. We have not only weakened the flanks of NATO—Supremo General Haig has said so in his many speeches—but we have cut our own forces wickedly to the point of suffering an outflow of skilled men. It is said that as many as 1,000 officers in the Army and 500 in the RAF are leaving—I could not find the figure for the Navy—and possibly 10,000 men altogether are leaving. Therefore, let us see whether the increase of 14 per cent. will do the trick.
I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that the report of the Review Body should be more representative of the workers themselves. The report is coloured by paragraph 23 which says:
"We also have to consider the evidence that has been put to us on the application to armed forces' pay of the current guidelines with which the Government has asked us to comply in making our recommendations".
That colours the whole report. I believe that that quotation is very unfair to the Review Board itself. Paragraph 19 of the report says:
"It will be obvious that, whether they are implemented in full … or staged, the levels … will soon become out of date".
Perhaps I should quote paragraph 38, which says that up-to-date rates of pay:
"ought to be introduced with effect from that date",
and the date they refer to is 1st April 1978. No wonder we are still behind the pay in civilian life.
Observing that the TUC is now discussing free collective bargaining, I fear that the pay of the Armed Forces will automatically drop behind. Quite apart from whether the Government do or do not keep their promises—they have already broken them once; I am not saying there were not very good reasons, but

505
the fact remains that from the Services' point of view they did so—I believe that the Armed Forces will inevitably drop behind, with bad consequences. We shall see in a few months whether the outflow to which I have referred will be stopped.
The question I should like to ask the Government is this. Will the Government, if the 14 per cent. rise fails to staunch the outflow from the Armed Forces, raise their pay, irrespective of other groups, from 14 per cent. to an average of 32 per cent. on 1st April 1979? I ought to explain that in the Army, Navy, and Air Force you do not get your pay until you have served, so the figures of 1st April 1980 is a phoney figure. If the Government raise the pay it will show that they are interested in the future of the Armed Forces. If they do not, it shows that they are not.
4.31 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I am very proud indeed to have an opportunity of contributing to this important debate. Many important points have been made by people with real knowledge of the Services and their requirements in relation to equipment, about which I probably know nothing at all. However, I am very glad in particular to support the speech made by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, and also that of my Leader, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, who has given a very good reply regarding what is required by our Services and what they do so admirably and so nobly to protect our country. Indeed, our country does need protecting.
I should like to pay my own tribute to Selwyn Lloyd. I was very honoured and proud when, in another place, he asked me whether I would move his adoption as Speaker. He was a great man. That he should have died is a terrible loss to this country and to your Lordships' House. I felt that I must enter this tribute to him in the short speech that I have undertaken to make today.
When the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, comes to reply I think that he will be in great difficulty. I am looking forward not so much to what he says today, but, when he has reported to the Cabinet, to finding out whether the Cabinet will alter their views with regard to our Services and their equipment.
506
I hope that it will not be too long before we have another debate when we can more forcibly develop the points that we have made.
I promised that I would make a very short speech, and that promise I shall keep. However, there is one thing I really must say. I say thank God! that we have such magnificent Service chiefs, who have the courage to speak out regardless of their own position. I think that they are absolutely magnificent. I support every word they said. I never really like criticising individual people in Parliamentary life, because all of us of course have problems and all of us make mistakes, or have lack of knowledge. But for the Secretary of State for Defence to take the action that he took and say what he said! Well, perhaps I must restrain my language, but honestly, I was simply furious.
I was more furious when I heard that what he said was also supported by the Prime Minister. I have always liked the Prime Minister. I think he is a man of integrity. I do not support his political views, but I think that he is a man of integrity. But on this occasion that he should have supported such a ridiculous speech as was made by the Defence Secretary! Nothing would give me greater pleasure—of course it will not happen because the Government will not do it—than to hear that the Defence Secretary will be asked to resign. If we could get him to resign, we might get on a hit better. Therefore, I hope that it will not be long before we do what we know we ought to do for the Services and, I should like to add, for the police. I am very honoured that this House has listened to me for the short time I have spoken. I look forward to the future when we can do what we ought to do for the Services and for the police.
4.37 p.m.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, it is especially appropriate that, in debating this Motion to approve the annual Discipline Acts of the three Services, we should discuss in particular the pay and conditions of the Armed Forces, since these important subjects are connected so closely with the morale and well-being of our Servicemen. Indeed, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that every

507
report of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body deserves a special debate in your Lordships' House quite separate from our annual debate on Defence Estimates, when we normally discuss strategy, detente, equipment and the like.
The Seventh Report of the Review Body is certainly the most comprehensive that they have so far produced. The report clearly identifies that since 1975 Forces' pay has fallen by 32 per cent. behind equivalent earnings in civilian occupations. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has already acknowledged that point quite clearly. I do not believe that the military salary is well understood by the general public as a whole. Indeed, I am often surprised how many people among friends I am talking to still do not realise that an unmarried soldier is required to pay rent for his barrack room bedspace, and pay for all his meals that he gets in the cookhouse. This was of course an essential part of the military salary when it was introduced, but it is largely overlooked and forgotten.
It was most unfortunate, in my opinion, that within 18 months of the military salary being introduced in 1971, it found itself operating under conditions of raging inflation; the very worst conditions under which to get the military salary established and understood. However, in dealing with the Armed Forces' military salaries since 1974, I believe that this Government have committed three serious errors of judgment. The first was by allowing Forces' pay to fall behind that of their civilian counterparts by as much as 32 per cent.
As a result of the massive wage increases in 1974 and 1975 and the resulting inflationary scramble for more wages, the Government have had to impose a statutory pay policy with rigorously applied restraints. I do not believe that under pay restraint measures, which are designed specifically for an industrial situation, the Armed Forces are ever likely to receive a square deal. The Government should have realised that and should not have allowed Forces pay to lag so far behind during the past three years. In the last 12 months of the life of this Government they have undertaken to put the matter right by 1980.
508
The second error, in my opinion, was not to regard the Armed Forces as a special case, and I would include, as did my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, our police force in that category too. Of course, a group of wage-earners who, like the Armed Forces, cannot earn overtime and who cannot be awarded productivity deals is bound to fall behind unless the Government of the day protect the fair and just comparability of its take-home pay.
As for the award of 14 per cent. this year, I am afraid it is too little and too late, and I am doubtful if we shall ever catch up with full comparability, even by 1980. And taking into account civilian pay rises and productivity deals, 14 per cent. barely makes any inroads into the 32 per cent. which both the Government and the Pay Review Body acknowledge is required. I should have preferred to see a bigger initial slice into that 32 per cent. made this time as the result of the recommendations in the report, because that would have given a far greater upsurge of that confidence about their pay and conditions which is so badly needed in the Armed Forces.
It means, of course, that if full comparability is to be achieved by 1980, as the Prime Minister has promised, and if at the same time Forces pay is to keep pace with civilian pay rises and inflation between now and then—the indexing which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has assured us will take place—the Armed Forces will have to receive rises considerably in excess of 14 per cent. both in 1979 and 1980. But on this occasion, the very day after the Prime Minister had announced the 14 per cent. rise, on 25th April, a certain newspaper splashed the headline, "Armed Forces Shatter Pay Policy"; that showed how completely they had misunderstood the military salary and the position into which the Armed Forces had been put, and how totally that newspaper had misunderstood the X-factor and the part that the X-factor must play in the military salary.
If the Prime Minister's assurance means anything, the Services will, as I said, have to receive considerable pay rises each year for the next two years in order to restore comparability. What worries me is whether this situation will continue to be appreciated by the general public, the trade unions and the Press. I am

509
inclined to think that, as we approach 1980, the situation we are discussing today will be forgotten, will lapse, and that unless the Government and the Minister of Defence himself do something about it to keep the need for the restoration of comparability in front of the public, the Government, with the best intentions in the world, will find themselves facing ill-informed opposition.
I have a question for the Minister on a matter which is not the concern of the Pay Review Body and about which I have given him previous notice. My question concerns the local overseas allowance for our Forces in Germany. This is an important allowance which is calculated on the basis of a comparison between the cost of living and the rise in inflation in Germany and that pertaining in this country. It represents 40 per cent. of the take-home pay of a private soldier stationed in Germany; it ensures that while serving in Germany he does not suffer from the very high cost of living in that country and the relatively poor exchange value of the British pound.
At about this time last year it was proposed that because the standards of living of Servicemen in this country, as indeed with all of us, had fallen, Servicemen in Germany should suffer a similar fate, a clear indication of the policy of equal misery for all. The proposal was to reduce the local overseas allowance by 40 per cent. so that it would then represent only 14 per cent. of his take-home pay. Naturally that proposal caused great anxiety to those serving in Germany and in particular to those with hire purchase commitments which they would have to continue paying off for a very considerable period.
As a result of representations, the Minister of Defence undertook that there would be no cut in the local overseas allowance pending further enquiries and discussions. There is still great anxiety on this question in the Services—in the Royal Air Force in Germany and in the British Army of the Rhine—and I should be most grateful if the Minister would say how those enquiries and discussions have proceeded and what is the final decision in this matter.
4.47 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I wish at the outset to join with those who have
510
paid tribute and expressed their sorrow at the passing of the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd. He was an old opponent of mine but an opponent whom I respected and I am indeed sorry that his life has come to an end.
I was glad that the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, reminded the House that what we are debating is the Continuation Order for 1978 of the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts. It might be useful to remind noble Lords of the circumstances in which this procedure was adopted. In 1952—and people may say, "That was a long time ago; forget that and bring yourself up to date", but defence policies and defence procedures take a long time to work out, so 20 years is but the flick of a finger—the situation which then faced the Labour Opposition to the new Conservative Government was the realisation by some of us (certainly by me), that the Army Act, which had to be passed by 1st April each year, presented a first-class opportunity to a vigilant Opposition.
One of the things we had to do, and I certainly played some part in it, was to convince our leaders of the Opposition—which was done by a mixture of a little arm-twisting, a few meetings and some speeches, coupled with the fact that whether they liked it or not it was going to be done—that the occasion presented an opportunity to table large numbers of Amendments. The Act was no less than 100 years out of date. It had survived two wars and it contained such provisions as that making it mandatory for any civilian to take into his home any given number of soldiers, provide them with a couple of pounds of beef, three pounds of bread, four quarts of beer and change the sheets in the morning. That was mandatory under the billeting provisions and there were numerous provisions of that kind. Eventually, the Government succumbed; I remember discussions with the late Mr. Anthony Eden, as he then was, who accepted that the way out was to have a Select Committee.
The Select Committee was born of Party conflict, and it met under the chairmanship of a very wise and good man, who was a Member of this House until his death—the late Lord Spens. As soon as the doors closed, all the Party differences were forgotten. We spent two and half

511
years, labouring through all the Recesses. It was quite a job—with no pleasant visits, but only hard graft—to go through the Army Act, and produce another one which your Lordships would debate each year for five years. Then there would be another Select Committee. When the matter came back to the House on the first debate, there was a great discussion.
I was a very humble participant in the discussion, and I put the formula that I had worked out and that I had come to know as a very humble member of the Armed Regular Forces—lance-corporal, or something like that. We had enough "G" problems. We did not want any more "G" scenarios. What the Army needed was discussion of its "A" and "Q" problems, because whenever the Army had failed, it had never done so because it was short of plans; it was short of jerry calls, short of ammunition, and short of grub. That was what had gone wrong. It had gone wrong ill the Crimea, it had gone wrong in the Boer War, and it had gone wrong at Mons. The troops were all right, but they had no barbed wire. They had no HE. There was no mechanical transport. That was what was wrong. The reason for that was that the Army was run by the aristocratic part of the community, who did not think that providing the rations, or getting the washing done, was a job for gentlemen who had been to Eton. That was left to the products of the "secondary mods"—but there were no "secondary mods" in those days. The idea was that on debates of this kind we would discuss "A" and "Q" problems, and there was no truer "A" problem than that of pay.
The Opposition have decided to have this debate. I would not take part in your Lordships' last Defence debate, because the debate was rubbish. The White Paper is rubbish. The whole defence policy is rubbish, because there is no matching needs with means. I shall try to demonstrate that, as well as what the consequences have been in the past. Your Lordships normally take this kind of matter on the nod, but this time it is to be delayed a little. I am quite willing to come on at the end of the queue. I have been working on my speech for a considerable time, and I intend to make it. Having listened to the debate this afternoon, I should like to refer to some words
512
of Adlai Stevenson. The trouble is that "I am too old to cry, and it hurts too much to laugh". Most of the speeches should have been prefaced by the words "Once upon a time."
The pay of the Armed Forces cannot be discussed in isolation. I should like to remind your Lordships of one or two very simple facts. Let us start with fact number one, which relates to the problem of expenditure on the Armed Forces. Here I have not relied upon my own researches. I do not ask questions of the Defence Department unless I know, roughly, the answers—I am too old a hand for that. However, I wanted to ascertain what was voted on defence expenditure in accurate figures since the end of the last war. Remember, my Lords, that every single penny spent on defence must, by its very nature, be inflationary—and it is inflationary in a particularly vicious way. If there is enough of this money it preempts on scarce skills, and on scarce raw materials, and if it does not involve the modern products of a technological age the consequences are indeed serious.
What have we spent? The figure is £75,687 million since the end of the war. That kind of figure could make the economic situation look a little healthier, could it not? Consider this in relation to North Sea oil revenues. The total sums realised from North Sea oil, at the maximum, will not equal our defence expenditure. So we are dealing here with vast sums. I should like to give one other basic figure. This, too, is a Ministry of Defence figure; not one of mine. The total number of men in the Armed Forces at at 1st January was 323,600.
Think for a moment of the days when manpower and the conditions of service were planned, and planned ahead; when, for example, the old Regular engagement used to be 12 years, partly with the Colours, partly with the reserve. When one wanted a considerable number of men engagements had low Colour service and long reserve service. For example, in the Guards engagements were three years with the Colours, nine with the reserves. Infantry who were to serve abroad would be seven years with the Colours, and five with the reserves. They could be held for an extra year if necessary. That was where the flexibility was contained, within the terms of service.

513
An officer could not marry and get allowances before he was 30. But of course most of the officers did not need the allowances, because the Army in particular was organised on an aristocratic basis. Most of the officers could not live on their pay. There was no attempt whatever that pay for all ranks should in any way comprise an income. It would not be the act of a gentleman to have to live on his pay; to do so he would be an outsider. That situation had another very serious effect. This was worked out by a Conservative Member of Parliament, who gave his life for his country in the last war. He spotted something. Why, he asked, was it that in the First World War it was not until the end that the men of great ability—the Harringtons and their like; or, in the last war, the Montgomeries—got through? Why do we have to start by being commanded by aristocratic nincompoops, whose major ability is to ride horses? Why?—because in the cavalry, and in the Guards, the average age of the commanding officer was of the order of 39. They were men of great wealth, and the thing was to serve for a few years. They were concerned with the aristocratic cliché of having served in or around London at the good stations. They then retired to manage their estates. In the infantry the average age was 43 or 44. So this meant the same situation; namely, that the senior positions were occupied on the basis of the mere application of the age principle. This involved the cavalrymen, the guardsmen, and the artillery men. The infantry men broke through only after a long period.
Let us look not only at the terms of service as they were operating in 1952, but also at the rates of pay, and see the effect. In 1914 the pay of an infantry man was a shilling a day. It had not changed for 60 years. But what had been added was something of very great importance, and I should think that this possibly involved a member of the Liberal Administration. I say that because there was occasionally a Liberal who had great ability: one was Lord Haldane. His ability was marked by his leaving the Liberal Party and joining the Labour Party. He certainly was not a Tory. The Tory Party has an unblemished and unbroken record of failure in all the Service Departments. If noble Lords doubt that, I should say that it was high-lighted by a
514
very remarkable experience during the war, when they ran through all the Tory Benches in the House of Commons and they appointed a Permanent Secretary, because there was no one else to appoint.
What had been done in 1914 was to introduce a form of proficiency pay—and a quite high rate of proficiency pay. It was sixpence a day Class 1; threepence a day Class 2. But to qualify one had to have not less than three years' service. One must have had a three-year engagement, and must not have served for less than two years, and one must have been able to shoot. Even lance-corporals and bombardiers had to be marksmen, or first-class shots, to be able to get that extra sixpence a day.
What happened? Do not listen to me, my Lords. Read that remarkable book Old Soldiers Never Die. If noble Lords have not read it, they should. It is written by the only ranker Regular soldier Private Frank Richards, of the second battalion The Royal Welch Fusiliers, who went from Mons hack to Mons again without a scratch. His style is that of an Army signaller. He had the good fortune to serve with Robert Graves; this produced a book of enormous merit. On page after page, Richards says that we outshot the Germans. Alternatively, if one wants a more erudite description, one can turn to Correlli Barnett, one of the greatest military historians. He tells in Britain and Her Army that at Mons when von Kluck attacked piecemeal, it was the musketry of the British infantry that stopped the Germans in their tracks. It was the old proficiency pay. I might say that the boys had not been taught to shoot birds on the wing. They knew nothing about shooting pheasant or partridge, except when they did a bit of poaching. But what they did know is that if they became marksmen or first-class shots they got sixpence a day—and that mattered.
Now, the 1914–18 war had not been going for five minutes before a glaring example became very evident. Of course, our aristocratic Army was wedded to the horse, but horse transport had long since been passed by modern armies which had kept themselves up to date. So what happened? The Liberal Administration produced a remarkable jump in pay. They did a staggering thing. They intro-

515
duced pay of six shillings a day for MT drivers; and the effect of this was felt throughout the war. Nothing did more to produce bitterness than that six-bob a day, because there was the ASC driver, living in a comfortable billet with three meals a day and a bed when he got back, driving up to the front line, and the infantry he carried went on and got shot up for a shilling a day. Indeed, there were innumerable law actions after the war by men who thought that they had been "done", who thought they had joined for six shillings a day only to find that they had not.
Then, at the end of the war we had another remarkable occurrence. Again, a Conservative Government had learned a lesson. Army Order 325 was introduced. It introduced a new concept of pay—a tradesman's rate of pay and a non-tradesman's rate of pay. For the non-tradesman, for the first time, proficiency pay was split; that is, the soldier who was dismissed his drill and who had a certificate of education could get threepence a day—therefore the qualification—and he could get another threepence if he became a marksman and was physically efficient. Here, again, there was built into this gift another complete lack of thought. The experience of the First World War and its deficiency of MT drivers caused Army Order 325 to include within it a provision for the giving to a mechanical transport driver of a tradesman's rate of pay. But, of course, in the days when the Army had got few MT drivers and paid six shillings a day, the situation had been transformed. So in fact the mechanisation of the Army was hung up from 1919 onwards because there had been written in this provision for tradesmen, when virtually it meant that any infantrymen who passed an MT test qualified as a tradesman. Again, a form of bitterness because the restrictions were imposed on an establishment basis.
Now we move on. We move on again, if I may say so, to a marvellous happening. All the speakers on the other side of the House talked about equity. In 1925—perhaps we might get the figures exactly right—there was Army Order 367. That was a real red-letter day. What did the Tory Government do? Because of its ossified class nature, the pay of the Armed Forces was linked to that of an
516
agricultural labourer. The rates of pay given by Army Order 325 were, to a Government which was returning to the gold standard, impossible to sustain. They were impossible politically to sustain to the diehard, blue-eyed Tories in another place—and I expect there were a few here. So what did they do? They reduced the rates of pay. We have not heard a word of that today, about that reduction in pay. That brought about the introduction into the Armed Forces of another source of intense bitterness, because in the barrack room you had men sleeping bed by bed, one getting 10 per cent. more than the other. So you had exactly two rates of pay introduced by a Tory Government.
Then, as if that was not enough—and here I speak with great personal feeling—there was something else. I noticed some words of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, about the Armed Forces and the way a Labour Government treats them. In 1931, those who were on the higher rates of pay—and I was one of them—not only found their pay reduced from the old rate to the new but also found their allowances reduced. Our marriage allowance they reduced; our ration allowance they reduced. What did it do? It caused something to happen which has not happened today. It caused a mutiny in the Navy. Why was it done? Was it because there was a shortage of money in the City of London? Not on your nellie! The reason it was done was because a Conservative Government wanted to stay on the gold standard. And Tories come along today and talk about sacrifice in the interests of the Armed Forces. Here again, you had this in the Army. You had rates of pay for those before 1925, and you had rates of pay for those after 1925. You then combined the joint misery in 1931, then you restored it in two dollops of 10 per cent., and then it came back again. Let me move up to the outbreak of the last war. Again, the mismanagement of this problem was crystal clear, as plain as a pikestaff; because the further you were from danger the more you got. That was the working out of Army Order 325; so after the war was over they introduced a star system. Personally, I think that was a tremendous improvement.
The Marquess of LINLITHGOW: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive

517
my interrupting him. I am very grateful. I have been listening to his speech with great interest. I did not mean to intervene in this debate, and am in fact doing so only as a civilian who fought in the war and many of whose friends, who were not professional soldiers, also fought in the war, a number of them being killed. I think it is most ungenerous of the noble Lord, if I may say so, in the name of those who, like myself, fought in the war—and, as I say, many of them, non-soldiers, were killed and wounded—to try to persuade the House (which, so far as I can see, is what he is trying to do) that the war was won by the noble Lord, the Lance-Corporal Wigg, and his friends and that the Conservatives basically "ducked" the war and had nothing whatsoever to do with helping to win the war. Now, this is not a point that I should like to make in your Lordships' House, but I have in fact been tempted to make it beyond my power to resist by the noble Lord; and it is certainly not a point that I would ever make otherwise. I should like the noble Lord to look up the statistics of the Members of Parliament in the House of Commons between 1945 and 1952 and see who, on the Socialist side, had seen action and who, on the Conservative side, had seen action.
Lord WIGG: I do not mind if the noble Marquess wants to do that piece of research, to bring it out, but what has that to do with the argument? He may be right; he may be absolutely right, and that every single one in the House of Commons was on the Conservative side. Let us take it that that is so. But that is not my case.
The Marquess of LINLITHGOW: My Lords, I am terribly sorry; I have not made my point clear. I really do not think that sacrifice in war is a political point at all and I would just wish that the noble Lord would not make such statements in this House.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, if it is a political point I am going to make it. I do not apologise to anybody for making the speech that I want to make. If anybody does not want to listen, I am sorry; I will go on speaking to myself. I do not mind that; I have not the slightest objection. But I am going to make my speech in my own way, and I am going to
518
say that pay and the handling of pay in the Armed Forces is something very much more than a subjective matter. It is linked with the organisation of the Forces; it is linked with their fighting efficiency; it is linked with the total amount that you spend on defence.
I go further, and I say this to the House, that, whether or not they like it, the Armed Forces of any State is an extension of the society it seeks to serve. It is an extension in the sense that it projects, or should project if it is to be efficient, all the forces that are within the State, and it serves the objects of policy that the State may lay down; and if there is any tension or any error in the formulation of the policies framed upon those principles, it will reveal itself. They did for the Americans in Vietnam; they did for the French in Indo-China, they did for the French in Algeria; and for the French and ourselves at Suez. I am quite prepared to be as generous as any human being; and even if I did not want to be generous, the service of Conservatives in the war and all the rest of it is irrelevant to my argument.
What I am saying now is that the money being spent following the introduction of the 1957 White Paper, which Mr. Macmillan introduced as a political document to save him from the consequences of the Suez disaster, carried with it the consequence that the expenditure that has to be undertaken—which takes between 55 per cent. and 60 per cent. of the whole defence Budget—is of such magnitude that, at the end of the day, you cannot afford to pay for and provide the equipment which is essential to the men in all three Services. Those are the facts.
May I remind your Lordships of the recent utterance by the Chief of the Defence Staff in China which received some notice in the Press? The Soviet Government commented upon it and their representative in London was interviewed by the BBC. I never saw a full report in any newspaper. I got a report myself from the BBC on what this gentleman said right at the end. He said:
"All the gentlemen in England can sell their trousers and give it to defence but there is nothing you can do ever again to become a first-class military power".
That is the fact. If you indulge in expenditure of this magnitude without

519
regard to the consequences, without seeing that the terms of service are such (or that the money is spent in such a way) as to meet the actual needs, then, sooner or later, the consequence, as sure as night follows day, will be that it is going to end in military defeat. It cannot be otherwise as the failures of policy and the means and overwhelming might of the USA were brought to naught in Vietnam, or, again, I repeat, the strength of the French Empire was brought to nothing in Algeria. The resources, never mind how great, did not match up to the need.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord only one question: does he not realise that between 1925 and 1935 we were operating under what was called the "Ten-year rule"—which said that no war was to be expected for 10 years—laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1925? That was Mr. Churchill. During those 10 years, not only the pay of our Armed Forces but the strength of all the Armed Forces, the Navy, the Air Force and the Army, were steadily reduced.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I entirely agree. I think I have written to this effect. One of the most disastrous decisions taken was the Churchill doctrine of the 10 years. He himself subsequently built his career around the complaints he made about failure to re-arm; whereas, in fact, our weakness had been brought about by Mr. Churchill himself.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will appreciate the point I am making—and I have made it and passed from it—that the Armed Forces of the Crown of this country as in any society—and it is true of the United States—are and must be an extension of the society they serve. The great tragedy has been that between the two wars—and I think it was probably accidental—Britain was, perhaps, the only example in history where a great industrial power, the most (if I may say so) sophisticated democracy in the world, went into the Second World War after suffering decline as a consequence of the First World War and one million casualties, with an army of peasants led by an aristocratic class whose strength was based on the ownership of land—a concept that was dying at the end of the
520
19th century. That is the basic fact. It was a society that valued spurs above sprockets and it was no accident, therefore, that it could not handle the tank when it came up against a society which had renounced the horse and was utterly utilitarian in its concepts and was prepared to dedicate everything in the State to the strength of its Armed Forces. In a democratic society you cannot behave like that. It is one or the strengths and virtues of democracy: that you are accountable for your actions.
I am saying—and this is what I wanted to lead up to—that all my political life I have said, and I repeat it again today most dogmatically, that I believe the demands of this country need conscription. The abolition of conscription was a political act. Only through the imposition of conscription can you have the kind of Armed Forces you want, and for a very special reason: because the Armed Forces are, again I repeat, an extension of the society they serve. They must therefore have access to the scarce skills which they cannot pay for, never mind how much money is on the table. The only way to get access to those scarce skills is through the organisation of (and it is implicit in) national service. In my judgment, it is no accident that all the EEC countries except ourselves have conscription for the very reason that you cannot get balanced forces. If you try to buy them as they are being bought now, you will fail; whether it is Mrs. Thatcher who does it, Sir Ian Gilmour, or whoever you like. This is one of the reasons why I take no active interest in defence. It is absolute nonsense. The more we spend, the weaker we become economically and we do not correspondingly increase our military power.
My Lords, I do not apologise in the least for having kept you. If I bored anyone, I am sorry. What I have in mind is that at some stage in this country's proceedings, somebody ought to say what I have said—even if it is not popular and even if it makes me unpopular. For that I care very little. I am speaking the truth which is in me. I know this to be the truth; I worked over it, I fought over it; I believe it.
5.18 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, no-one can say that one is bored by a speech

521
by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, but on the other hand I think it was inappropriate for him to spend all the time that he has on this. If he really wanted to bring in all this historical knowledge, he could have put down an Unstarred Question and discussed it. And he has been so inaccurate. One must remember 1916, before conscription was brought in, and the number of people who held the front until that time. If he goes on to want conscription now, then he must remember that he has already complained about cost; and conscription is extremely costly, especially with training young people for temporary periods in the very highly delicate equipment of today. When he compares the difference in wages, he will remember that when he and I were in the other place we got only £600 a year. He linked his remarks with the agricultural workers. Frankly, some people in the Services would be very pleased to have their pay linked with that of the agricultural workers at the present time, for the Services get less than many agricultural workers.
I can perhaps take an independent line because I have never been in the Armed Forces and have never been a Minister; so I can speak more frankly than some noble Lords. I am appalled—and I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, said in regard to the attitude of the Government. If you read the SSAFA reports, you will see that it is Service families who are now in the poverty trap. This is very unfortunate. I think that the Chiefs of Staff ought to be thanked for warning the Government and not rebuked. I read the headlines in the Press saying,
"Jim's mischief-makers named";
this was very unfortunate indeed. If he were going to reprove the Chiefs of Staff, surely he could have done so privately and discussed the matter with them. To me that is an unfortunate business and I hope it will not stop the Chiefs of Staffs from speaking their minds, if necessary, in the future.
What I want to discuss is the question of the formation of the Forces Wives' Association. The wives doubt whether Government will keep their promise in regard to pay, and I believe it has been calculated that pay in the Services is 32 per cent. below civilian pay today.
522
So when civilian wages go up, Services' wages will again be left behind when the time comes for the last payment. On 6th June there is to be a rally at Speakers' Corner and the wives will then go to the House of Commons to lobby their MPs. The Association is about 30,000 strong. I feel that it is very unfortunate that the wives are being forced to take this action. I must say I support them in doing so. I hope that the Government will treat them with respect and heed their requests.
In regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, I agree with him that the Review Body's hands were tied, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said, the Government's hands were not tied and they need not accept the recommendations in their entirety. This Review Body has been active since 1971 and it is now 1978. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that other methods should be found.
Since the introduction of the military salary, it would appear that the Services are considered as a homogeneous whole. In fact, of course, the Services are very different indeed. At the present time 1,000 Army officers and 500 RAF officers have resigned. What I want to point out in regard to the differences is that the RAF, for example, have to operate very superior and difficult technological equipment. It needs tremendous training and costs over half a million pounds to train a pilot. Some leave after a short time and take up civilian occupations. So what has happened in the RAF? They have put an embargo on some people's leaving and I know that one person has an embargo of eight years. This is not going to make for a happy service. RAF stations are mostly in remote areas and civilian housing is not available. Service families have to move because they cannot afford rents. They are much more willing to pay mortgages—and in some cases the payments are less than rent—and buy a house of their own There are 6,000 empty RAF houses at the present time. This means, unfortunately, that families live apart, because the husbands have to be on call at the RAF stations and there is severe overwork. This would not be allowed if they were civilians because their trade unions would sec that they were not overworked.
The Royal Navy, for example, is having difficulty in manning ships. I should be

523
interested to know—and perhaps the noble Lord will tell me when he replies—how HMS "Bulwark", if it is brought out of mothballs, is going to be manned anyhow until they have retired HMS "Ark Royal". It is rumoured in the Navy that it may be necessary to pay off some of the crews of the smaller ships and put them into the larger ones.
I was down in Portsmouth the other day, and previously when I was there I had lunch with the Admiral at the dockyard. This time he said to me, "This is not my house now; we have had to turn it into a naval mess. My wife is allowed to come and sleep with me so many days a month." This is quite absurd. These problems are very unfortunate, because previously wives did a great deal of work for the Navy. There was what was known as a Friendly Wives' Association. They did quite a lot among the Services for charity, ran bazaars and so on. Now this has had to be dropped and so the friendship is disappearing, too. The RAF is the hardest hit at the present time because they cannot get enough pilots or engineers for the next few years. The Royal Navy is not quite so hard hit; it is down 14 per cent. on recruitments, and the Army is down 7 per cent. The Royal Marines come off best with only approximately 20 people fewer than last time. I hope that the noble Lord will look into these points.
May I take this opportunity to thank him for the reply that I have just received following the Defence debate of some months ago. I had inquired about the medical services. He says that categories of personnel have for some time been difficult to recruit into the medical services. This continues to be the case. He adds that it is hoped, however, to see some improvement in the near future. It is over a year since I originally raised this subject, and I should like to know what "the near future" means and what action is actually being taken.
I hope that I have said enough to convince the Government that senior officers will not be debarred by Queen's Regulations from criticising for fear of ruining their own careers. One hopes that after reading this debate the Prime Minister may reconsider and perhaps change his Defence policy. Otherwise
524
my Lords, the "Silent Services" will not be able, because of the need to safeguard this country, to be as silent as they have been in the past.
5.27 p.m.
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, I should like to add my own humble tribute to Lord Selwyn-Lloyd. I was happy to couple him and Sir Robert Menzies as personal friends and friends of my family. I shall value that all my life.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, quoted the TAVR figure as being 6,000. He quoted the same figure in the Defence debate. If I may put the record right, it should be 60,000. I remain unconvinced that the Government's implementation of the Review Body's recommendations by 1st April 1980 will halt the flow from the Armed Services and, perhaps more important, will create a climate where people will wish to join the Services. As another noble Lord said, time will tell.
The two facts which interest me in particular are how the present situation was allowed to happen and what steps are being taken to ensure that a similar situation does not occur again. Like the noble Baroness, I would join the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in querying the use of the Army Forces Pay Review Body. Would the Government be prepared to consider a change in its composition and terms of reference? Their report of 1977 must take some blame for the present situation. The current report makes much better reading.
The problem, as I see it, is that the Review Body have in the past taken into consideration the Government's restraint measures and have adapted their solution to meet Government policy. A pay review body, I believe, should present the case of their protégés to safeguard their protégés. While unions and business communities are twisting and turning in every way to circumvent the restraints—they have increased the "perks", given more overtime, changed their job descriptions, increased their insurance benefits—what happens to the Armed Forces? Their rents have been increased and "ducks and drakes" are played with their ration allowances.
There is an illuminating paragraph in this last review. Paragraph 9 says:

525
"The unsatisfactory pay position is made still less tolerable by minor irritations created by the relative deterioration in some of the conditions of service. A simple example illustrates the point: baggage allowances for Servicemen posted overseas on accompanied tours are effectively frozen in cash terms because to increase them would (we have been told) be interpreted as a non-wage benefit which would have to be offset against pay increase".
Cannot the Government do something about this? Who has told the Review Body this? Cannot the Prime Minister be told by the Review Body to reverse this decision?
After all, it has been said that the Government are committed to accept the Review Body's recommendations unless there are "clear and compelling reasons" not to do so. Bearing this in mind, and having said already that the Review Body's 1977 report must take some blame for the present situation, I believe that so too must the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence take their fair share. The Government, under the present Prime Minister, seem to have drifted into antagonism against the people in uniform: first the police, then the firemen and now the Armed Forces. As for the Minister of Defence, did he not see that the 1977 report was inadequate? Did he make any representation to the Cabinet for some more leeway in pay? Was he not warned that the terms contained in the report would damage morale? Surely here was a clear and compelling reason for a re-think. I suspect that none of this happened and that ministerial responsibility has hidden under the skirts of the Pay Review Body.
For that reason alone, I should like to see the body's terms of reference changed so that the Minister and his Department, who have the responsibility for the Services, can make representations about conditions, recruiting, morale and so on, and even come up with lively suggestions; for example, tax-free bonuses on reenlistment, a new approach to married quarters and help for mortgages for soldiers who buy houses within 10 miles of their depots. We need some lively initiative, not a heavy analysis of equations. How do you equate a luncheon voucher with having a meal of stew in the field? It must be very difficult!
So much for the references. Regarding its composition, the body acknowledged after its 1977 report that the Armed
526
Services were "disenchanted" with it. I think that perhaps the Armed Services might have used a stronger word. To give confidence to the Serviceman and to produce some of these lively thoughts, could the Board be joined by, say, eight Service personnel—an equal number—with people drawn from each Service, each representing a different rank, from a married airman to an infantry corporal and a bachelor lieutenant in the Navy, with perhaps an Army pay expert there too? They might not get on and they might even produce a minority report; but I am sure that is a suggestion worth persevering with. The Review Body might then become less independent perhaps, but in my view that would be no bad idea. It is too independent at the moment and it needs a closer relationship with the people it is meant to be safeguarding. I think this is essential if it is to be effective in the future.
5.33 p.m.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: My Lords, first I must apologise for not having been in your Lordships' House at the start of the debate—I was earning my living—and, secondly, I may not be able to stay until the end, for the same reason. May I revert to the question of the alleged "rocket" received by the Chiefs of Staff for having revealed the number of officers putting in their papers or asking so to do. I think it is a bit unfair, when it had already been tabled as a Question in this House in December—a Question to which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, gave me the Answer today. As we have had the Answer today, and everybody knows that this was a Question asked in Parliament, it does seem rather hard to blame someone because the information was leaked, if it was; it certainly was not leaked to me by the Chiefs of Staff.
Perhaps I might remind the noble Lord that I did ask another question in the very last debate on this subject—I hope the answer will not be leaked, because I would rather have it before it is leaked; that is, how many officers and soldiers are being deferred in their applications for premature retirement? It is not because I hope there are a lot—I pray there are not—but it is a very unhappy unit if people in it are being deferred when they want to leave. In my day

527
there was a system: if you really wanted to keep a key man you went to the Brigadier, and if he was more than "key" you went to the General. Each had the power of delaying his release, but he was not a happy man when his release was delayed.
The points made by my noble friend Lord Avon are extremely relevant on the minor matters of pay, which really hurt people. I do not know whether your Lordships realise that when a soldier goes out into the field on training, the bachelor does not get charged for his rations and, still less, for his accommodation. The married soldier does; and at the same time as there was this minor advance in pay for the Forces the cost of rations went up 20 per cent. I think a lot of people have missed that point: it has gone up from 91 pence to £1.15, but at any rate it is a rise of 20 per cent. And that rise in rations is paid by the married man when he is training in the field. The result is that the single soldier lives for the day he is going to go out on training—as most of us always did—but the married man is no longer so keen or so happy when he is in the field. It is minor irritants of this kind which could easily be put right, I should have thought, without any great hurt being done to the Government's pay policy.
The question of quarters, which was raised by my noble friend Lady Vickers, is also important. The situation referred to is occurring in a very big way, and I hope that the question will be answered. Just take Southern Command. I believe that between 2,000 and 2,500 quarters are empty—I repeat, empty—because it is cheaper for a soldier to take a mortgage, live 200 miles away and commute in to work. This means that men such as the technical quartermaster, the adjutant and the serjeant-major—the key men in a unit—are living well away from barracks and, in the event of an emergency, have to be got in by devious means, because they cannot afford to live in the quarters provided. There are wasted quarters all around the Service stations in the British Isles. Again, I should have thought that was something which could be looked at. Incidentally, they then get paid separation allowance because they are not living, in quarters, so the cost is headed back the other way there.
528
The Servicemen really, to be honest, do not think they are going to get a fair deal, now or later. They accept what they have got. They cannot believe they are going to get comparability in one or two years' time because they do not think account will be taken of the inflation which will take place during that one or two years. So I hope that this will be looked at. I do not know whether your Lordships read Private Eye but, if so, you will see there this week a cartoon which is relevant. It shows how genuinely this is felt by the Servicemen. There is a picture of a soldier, with an IRA man next to him, saying: "Short of money? Come and do a bit of part-time in the IRA!" It is a pretty nasty joke, but it does show you what the general public think—or at least what Private Eye thinks—and I suppose it is now part of the Establishment. That is what they think about soldiers' pay.
Other minor things are also happening. The 16-year-olds in the Navy who used to be treated in a rather special way, I am told, and were given extra milk and less physical work to do so that their growing would not be stunted, are now doing the full job of an Able Seaman because of shortages. Technicians in all three Services are leaving to join the Civil Service, to do precisely the same job as they were doing in the Armed Services. This seems a hit of a nonsense, when we want to keep those key technicians.
I have been destructive so far, my Lords. I do not mean to be. I believe we must try to persuade people to stay on now rather than push them out, and I should like to know from my own Front Bench what the Conservative policy is for pay in the Forces. Let us hope that I shall hear next week during the debate in another place. Meanwhile, let all of us do our best to make the Servicemen happy and to keep them happy so that they will stay to serve the Crown.
5.38 p.m.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, I should like to join in the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Selwyn-Lloyd. He was a very great and kind statesman who will obviously be missed greatly in this House. I did not myself know him but I always had a great admiration for him.

529
We have had some very good speeches this afternoon, probably some of the best we ever have are on defence. Part of the discipline that is enacted in this House while we talk about discipline often means that defence debates are fairly brief. Perhaps we did have one exception this afternoon, but in my regiment we have always had good barrack-room lawyers who were lance-corporals or below.
The Armed Forces Pay Review Body Report, in my opinion, was an open door for the Government. They had an opportunity to give the Forces a fair deal and bring their pay into comparability with that of civilians. In this they have failed miserably. The Forces, pay has lagged behind that of their counterparts for several years, but if the Government do what they say they will do by 1980 they may have caught up. But I must say that this lagging behind in pay must never, ever be allowed to happen again. It is quite iniquitous. The flow of Servicemen leaving the Forces is ever-increasing. It is increasing rapidly, but the Government plumber seems to have the wrong tools, the wrong fittings and the wrong knowledge. Their only answer is that they might mend the tap in two years' time. My Lords, it is too little and too late. The Government plumber is obviously only an odd job man who will probably be on welfare before the end of this year.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he thinks we are truly and honestly keeping our promises to NATO. Ask Servicemen at any level in the Services and you will get a very firm answer that we are not and that they cannot do the job properly.
May I continue briefly along the same theme? There are the leaks of information about the numbers leaving the Forces, which were raised by several noble Lords this afternoon. These would never have happened if the Government had been more open and frank in their dealings with the Forces. My noble friend Lord Avon mentioned the word "confidence", and I agree entirely with his views. There is a distinct lack of confidence in the Government by the Services, and I, personally, am very glad indeed that the Service chiefs agreed to release the information—which they had every right to do—about the numbers leaving the Forces. The
530
public had a definite right to know. It should not be a matter of politics. As my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery said, there is something in the wind. My noble friend Lady Ward also made this point. No wonder that, with such a terrific lack of confidence and an inability to get their points across, the bogey of trade unions often arises. Some time ago in your Lordships' House I mentioned what the German Forces do. They have a federation which looks after their interests. It is not a union, and the Services do not want one, but they need something better than the strained relations with the present Minister. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, suggested that a remedy was required, and perhaps that should be looked into more deeply.
The confidence that one needs stems from actions taken over a long period of time. The manner of dealing with pay problems is, perhaps, only one matter Lack of equipment, cannibalisation of vehicles and severe restriction on the use of tanks, ships and 'planes certainly never instils confidence in the people who are training to defend their country. Two years ago, I visited our Forces in Germany and I have recently been fortunate enough to visit NATO in order to be updated in their views. I talked to many of the Servicemen, who said then that they felt they were second-class soldiers on NATO exercises, because most of our allies had better equipment and some of it was British made. Obviously, the position is considerably worse now.
It does not help confidence if wives are told not to speak to the Press; and my noble friend Lady Vickers spoke about the part that the wives are playing. It was surely very poor judgment to try to shut them up, which can only incite them to speak out more loudly, as they will do. They are doing an excellent job. The Service chiefs, also, should be able to speak to politicians, and perhaps the House of Lords Defence Study Group has helped to break down the communications barrier in the past two years by getting Army, Navy and Air Force people to speak to politicians. Because of insufficient pay, the men in the Forces are leaving and applying to leave the Services in droves. The Navy is worried about how to man its ships, the Royal Air Force is worried about how to fly and service its 'planes, and the Army is worried

531
about how to drive its tanks, so it puts them in mothballs.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, mentioned manpower, and I agree wholeheartedly with what he said. But numbers alone tell only half the story. Many of those leaving are technicians and experts, who have taken many years to train. This is something which the Government should do something about right now. These men can probably earn almost double in civilian life. My noble friend Lord Westbury mentioned the loss of manpower, and my noble friend Lord Monckton of Brenchley talked about the deferments, which is a very worrying point indeed. I wonder who has been advising the Minister of Defence about feelings in the Services. Normally, a wink is as good as a nod on these occasions; that is all that is required. But for all the winking that is being done, the Minister has only nodded. Perhaps he needs a little bell on his hat, so that he will wake up to what is going on in the Forces at the present time.
Look, my Lords, at the 18 per cent. which the power workers are getting. In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, mentioned the scale of pay of a private soldier. But a private soldier on Scale A, Class 4, Band 1, now gets an increase of only £1·77 a week, which will not stop him from leaving. A captain of two years—a man with considerable experience—will now get an increase of only £5·65 a week. That is ridiculous, and it certainly will not stop him from applying to leave. The latest figures of Servicemen leaving are quite horrific and show a marked increase on the already gloomy figures.
We all know about the productivity deals that are going on in civilian life in order to give workers more money. To my mind, many of them appear to be totally bogus. The Forces cannot get a productivity deal. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. In an armoured regiment which has recently been restructured, the old establishment was 47 tanks. The new establishment is 74 tanks. The manpower in that regiment has decreased by one man and, with tank numbers going up by 27, the same men handle 55 per cent. more equipment. This is surely worthy of a productivity
532
deal, but they cannot get one; it is not allowed. That kind of thing is not catered for in the new pay deal. My noble friend Lord Cathcart mentioned this, along with the injustices of the local overseas allowance, which is a very sore point in Germany, and I totally ally myself with him in his question to the Government.
Various charges have been mentioned this afternoon. Accommodation charges may have been frozen, but the food charges increased again on 1st May and have gone up 243 per cent. since 1973—a most enormous increase. The recent cost of living figures show that the increase is 10 per cent. over the last eight months, which is equal to 15 per cent. over a year. This immediately wipes out the 14 per cent. increase for the Forces and, once again, they fall way behind until April 1979, when something may happen. The chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body said on 26th April that pay restraint measures designed for industry could not be fairly applied to the Armed Forces, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, reiterated this point. Parity with their civilian counterparts in 1980 is ludicrous and much too late, and will not prevent Servicemen from leaving. The final date should be 1979, and a much larger increase should have been given this year. Full parity should be achieved by April 1979.
The Government know that, at best, they may have a 50/50 chance of winning the next Election, but I do not think that they will be governing in 1980. They are passing the buck. No doubt, the Forces will be very glad, but some of them cannot wait and are leaving, and that is what we have to face. Comparability has not been restored and the Government know this. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord who speaks for the Government whether he agrees that comparability has not been restored, and, if he does agree, will he say why it has not been restored? The Forces all feel that they are being asked to provide their services on the "never-never"—never catch up, and never get a fair deal. The Conservatives will certainly give the Forces a fair deal. They recognise, as the public does, that the Services do a tremendous job, often under great hardship, and they need the backing of their

533
leaders in Government. As Mrs. Thatcher has often said, they will get the backing of the Conservative Party.
5.48 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am glad that the House has taken the opportunity of using our annual debate on the Armed Forces Discipline Order to discuss a problem which concerns us all very deeply. Perhaps this annual event provides an opportunity for exercising the vigilance which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Wigg. I am certain that the debate has been valuable, and it has underlined once again, with the facts available, the fears expressed by noble Lords in our earlier debate in April. This debate is of particular value, because we are not talking on the basis of hypotheses; we are talking on the basis of facts as we know them and as they have been put before us by the Pay Review Body.
Of the speeches that have been made, I think that the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, really asked the key question in our discussion: how can we avoid this situation arising again? We cannot solve it by fighting a Party war or a class war. We can solve it only by applying our intelligence to the solution of problems which we all know exist and which we all believe must he solved. To that end, today's debate is of substantial value.
Various noble Lords questioned the role and value of the Pay Body. I would not. I think that they have done a remarkable job. In their first report they achieved comparability, but then—I am not making a Party political point but am just stating the problem—inflation and economic difficulties occurred. The Conservative Administration of the day introduced a pay policy and, because of the inflexibility of the system, the pay of the Armed Forces dropped behind, as usual, in 1973–74. Comparability was restored in 1975, but again, because of inflexibility, the pay of the Armed Forces slipped behind civilian pay awards. However, that is not the fault of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. As the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, pointed out, the slippage is mainly the result of a combination of inflation and inflexibility as to the way in which the pay of the Armed Forces is calculated, presented and carried out.
534
An interesting point was made—again by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and touched upon also by the noble Lord, Lord Newall, who spoke from the Conservative Front Bench—as to whether the negotiations should be left to the Government alone. The independent body proposes; the Government disposes. If I understood correctly the point made by the noble Viscount, he suggested that professional negotiators might he appointed.
Viscount BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I did not suggest that professional negotiators should be appointed, although it is quite likely that that might be the right course. I said that I thought the principal personnel officers might have the task of appointing the negotiators.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is an interesting point: it may be one way whereby greater flexibility could be achieved. It is also another way whereby the minor irritants which were mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and other speakers might be more rapidly removed. As was rightly said, compared with the total expenditure the sums of money relating to baggage allowance are so minuscule that a more rapid method to solve these problems ought to be available to us.
Having said that, may I answer one or two of the questions which were put to me, one of the most important relating to the local overseas allowance. As the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, said, this is causing very severe worry, particularly in BAOR. The position is that speculation existed about a possible reduction in the rates of local overseas allowance payable in Germany, but the Ministry of Defence made it clear in a message to BAOR and the Royal Air Force in Germany last October that there would be no change in the rates payable of LOA, except those arising from fluctuations in the exchange rates, for the next 12 months—that is to say, until October of this year.
The situation is being looked at. Noble Lords may wish to question whoever may be sitting on the Front Bench, as time passes, on this subject. I know that there is a wish that the local overseas allowance should bear a greater similarity to the foreign service allowance of the Foreign Office, but the role of the two allowances is different and I believe that the harmonisation of the two is not easy.

535
Although I cannot give a satisfactory answer, may I also refer to the growth in the number of requests for premature voluntary release. It is interesting to note that the number of people requesting release does not bear any relationship to the number of people leaving. Applications for premature voluntary release are made, but they do not tie individuals; and if circumstances improve the request for premature voluntary release is, in many cases, withdrawn. If we look at the figures for 1977–78, which are the best that I can provide today for your Lordships, we see that 334 trained officers in the Royal Navy applied for premature release but that only 265 left; that in the Army, 908 applied for premature release and 689 left; and that in the Royal Air Force, 778 applied for premature release and 414 left. Let us hope that the Government have got their sums right. The suggestion has been made that in response to the Pay Body's proposals we have given too little and too late.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the Minister how many have had an embargo placed upon them?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if I may, I shall write to the noble Baroness or will deal with this point in a Written Answer. I have put this question today to my advisers, but it has been difficult to obtain figures in such a short time. I know that it is a matter of importance and I shall ensure that the facts are made known to the House. We are in a position to watch what is happening by means of the vigilance which has been mentioned by noble Lords.
All that I can do with firmness is to repeat what I said earlier. On 1st April 1979, the Armed Forces will receive a pay increase which will consist, broadly, of half the amount required to bring them up to the full military salary at April of this year, together with whatever amount is required to update the award to April 1979. This will be subject to the recommendations of the Pay Review Body. On 1st April 1980, again I repeat that the Armed Forces will receive the remaining half to bring them up to the full military salary, assessed for April of this year, together with the appropriate upgradings.
536
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, suggested that the sums required might be so great that they would not be available. To achieve 14 per cent., the figure for this year is approximately £167 million, which is a substantial sum. When it is compared, however, with the total military budget the sum is not large. Therefore, the fear expressed by at least one noble Lord that the resources will not be available and that the Government's undertakings are therefore suspect is not correct. This is a firm undertaking, and the resources required are not so great that the undertaking will be broken. I am not making a Party political point when I refer to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley: that he hopes that his own Party, on the assumption that they win the General Election, will give a clear statement of their policy. I expect that we shall hear what that policy is when a major debate takes place on the subject next week in the other place.
I cannot bring to mind any other major point which has been made by noble Lords. However, if I find that I have missed any important point, naturally I shall write to the noble Lord in question. May I take the opportunity that this debate gives—it is customary to do so but it is no less deeply felt—to pay a tribute to the Armed Forces who, despite the situation which concerns noble Lords, have continued to serve their country with the firmness of purpose which we expect of them. They undertake many diverse and varied rôles—often very dangerous—and I am sure that the House will join with me in recording our gratitude for their professionalism and dedication to duty.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN BILL
6 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Faithfull.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Indecent photographs and films of children]:
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich) moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause—
Indecent photographs of children.
("1.—(1) It is an offence for a person—

(a) to take, or permit to be taken, any indecent photograph of a child (meaning in this Act a person under the age of 16); or

(b) to distribute or show such indecent photographs; or

(c) to have in his possession such indecent photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or

(d) to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs, or intends to do so.

(2) For purposes of this Act, a person is to be regarded as distributing an indecent photograph if he parts with possession of it to, or exposes or offers it for acquisition by, another person.
(3) Proceedings for an offence under this Act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
(4) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) or (c), it shall be a defence for him to prove—

(a) that he had a legitimate reason for distributing or showing the photographs or (as the case may be) having them in his possession; or

(b) that he had not himself seen the photographs and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, them to be indecent.

(5) References in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (except in sections 15 and 99) to the offences mentioned in Schedule 1 to that Act shall include an offence under subsection (1)(a) above.
(6) Offences under this Act shall be included—

(a) in the list of extradition crimes contained in Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1870; and

(b) among the descriptions of offences set out in Schedule 1 to the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967;

and sections 17 and 22 of the 1870 Act and sections 16 and 17 of the 1967 Act (application to Channel Islands, Isle of Man and United Kingdom dependencies) extend to this subsection.
(7) In paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (offences against the person in the case of which a member of a visiting force is in certain circumstances not liable to be tried by a United Kingdom court), after sub-paragraph (b)(viii) (inserted by the
538
Sexual Offences Act 1956) there shall be added—
"(ix) section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978".").
The noble Lord said: In moving the first Amendment in my name, and indeed that of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, perhaps I may say a few words about the Government's proposals in relation to this Bill. As the Committee will recall, I dealt with this particular question during our Second Reading debate, when I indicated that the Government accepted the principle of the Bill and did not wish to alter its effect in any significant respect. But we think that the Bill can be improved and made more effective, and to this end we have tabled a series of Amendments which rewrite most of the provisions of the Bill, although very often the words used are virtually the same. We have had a whole series of meetings with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who introduced the Bill, and I am glad to say that as a result the Amendments which we have put before the Committee this afternoon are agreed between the Government and the noble Baroness. In fact that is why both our names appear on the Marshalled List. With that substantial measure of agreement about the objectives of the Bill and the means of securing them, I hope that these Amendments will meet with the approval of the Committee.
I should now like to turn to the first Amendment, new Clause 1 which, together with the new clause after Clause 1, replaces Clause 1 of the Bill and presents in slightly different fashion the central provisions of the Bill defining the actions which will amount to an offence and setting out certain supplementary provisions as to the prosecution and the trial of the offence. The basis of the offence remains a photograph or film which is indecent and which is of a person under the age of 16. Although the offences are otherwise expressed in different terms, they cover virtually the same ground as those in the Bill as published.
The clause also contains the requirement for the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions and introduces a defence in more general terms than that of the original Bill. The clause reproduces the test of indecent as the means of deciding whether a photograph or film contravenes the law. Pending the conclusions of the Williams Committee on Obscenity and

539
Film Censorship, the Government are prepared to accept that it is a reasonable solution of the widespread desire to deal firmly with those who exploit children for pornographic purposes, that while the test of obscenity is retained for pornography generally, the threshold of criminality should be lowered to indecency where children are involved.
The offences in relation to indecent photographs or films of those under 16 will be of taking them or permitting them to he taken, distributing or showing them (whether or not for gain), possessing them with a view to distributing or showing them, and advertising them. In effect, these offences are practically identical with those in the Bill as published, but their terms more clearly express what they are aimed at. As in the Bill as published, the Government think it desirable, in view of the potential width of the offences and the differing views which may be taken of what is indecent, that a prosecution should be brought only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and this is secured by subsection (3).
Again, it is necessary to allow for those kinds of distribution or showing, or of possession for such purposes, which are perfectly proper or which are genuinely inadvertent. The Bill as published sought to do this in Clause 4, but the Government were satisfied that the exemptions provided there were in some respects inadequate and subsection (4) of the new clause provides instead a general defence of legitimate reason. This is a matter which has given rise to a certain amount of discussion and some people have expressed misgivings that a defence in these terms might be liable to abuse. But I think that where they are faced with indecent photographs of children, the courts can be relied upon to take a sensible view of what is or is not legitimate, and I am glad that the noble Baroness now feels able to support this provision. The defence, I might add, applies only in respect of the offences of distributing or showing or of possession for such purposes: under the Bill as amended, there could never be a legitimate reason for the taking of an indecent photograph of a child. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): There follow a number of Amend-
540
ments to this Amendment which we will take before we revert to the original Amendment.
Lord WIGODER Lord WIGODER moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2:
Line 1, after ("person") insert ("without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him").
The noble Lord said: I have tabled altogether some six Amendments to the clause to be proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, but I will indicate straight away that with one possible exception they are intended to be drafting Amendments. I ask nothing more than that the noble Lord and his advisers might look at them in due course and possibly comment upon them either now or at a later stage. I have no intention of pressing any of these Amendments at any time during the course of the proceedings on this Bill.
The other observation that I wish to make particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is that, although I was not perhaps the most enthusiastic advocate of this Bill at Second Reading, I indicated then, as I do now, that I am entirely content that it should go on the Statute Book, and the only purpose of the Amendments which I desire to move is that it should go on the Statute Book in the most workable form possible.
In dealing with Amendment No. 2, I wish at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 6. The reason is that Amendment No. 6 seeks to remove the statutory defence in the new Clause 1 at Clause 1(4)(a). Amendment No. 2 seeks to replace it in a slightly different form and at a different place in the Bill. I have no intention whatever of seeking to remove the statutory defence altogether. If I may say so, I am a little surprised that the Daily Telegraph, for example, this morning should have sought to suggest that there should be no statutory defence in this Bill. As I read this Bill, without such a statutory defence the Lord Chief Justice would be committing a criminal offence if, during the course of a trial, he handed indecent photographs to the members of the jury for them to look at. It is therefore perfectly clear that some form of statutory defence is necessary.
Amendment No. 2, in fact, alters the statutory defence proposed by the

541
noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in two respects. First, instead of using the words,
"… that he had a legitimate reason",
I have ventured to suggest that there ought instead to be the words,
"without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him".
In other words, leaving the burden of proof on the defendant, as it would he under the new proposed draft of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. The reasons for preferring the expression "lawful authority or reasonable excuse" to the expression "legitimate reason" is simply that the term "lawful authority or reasonable excuse" is well known to the law; it appears in a number of statutes, for example in the Offensive Weapons Act and various other Acts of Parliament. It is clearly understood, whereas, so far as I know, the defence that is suggested at the moment of a legitimate reason is a new departure in the criminal law.
If one looks in the dictionary, one finds that the word "legitimate" is open to a vast variety of quite different meanings. I am anxious that, in what I think will be the rather limited number of prosecutions that will be brought under this Bill, we should not invite every single defendant to go to the Court of Appeal and then perhaps to the Appellate Committee in order to argue the meaning of the term "legitimate reason" which has not been used on previous occasions. Therefore, I suggest that the term "lawful authority or reasonable excuse" might be preferable for that reason.
The second effect of these two Amendments is to transfer the defence from subsection (4) of the new Clause 1 right to the beginning. Under subsection (4) as it stands, the statutory defence is only made available, as your Lordships will see from lines 19 and 20, "Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) or (c)". I would suggest that it would be much more logical to make the statutory defence available not only in the case of subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) hut in the case of subsections (1)(a) and (1)(d) as well.
The reason is simply that the new clause begins by saying that "It is an offence for a person" to take an indecent photograph of a child. It cannot be—though it
542
would be, without a statutory defence—that a police photographer, for example, who takes a close-up of a child's private parts in order that it may be used as evidence in an indecent assault case in the courts should find himself having apparently committed an offence with no sort of defence available to him. It cannot be that a photographer who takes a picture of a child suffering from some sort of venereal disease for a medical periodical should find he has committed an offence with no possibility of any defence. It cannot be—if I may take a rather more improbable set of circumstances, though the improbable does tend to happen in criminal cases—that if a person on the beach is happily photographing his wife in her bikini, and just as he presses the camera trigger some naked child happens to wander in front of the lens, with the result that what he gets is a photograph of a close-up of a child's private parts, he should then be found guilty of taking an indecent photograph without any sort of defence open to him.
The Earl of LONGFORD: May I ask the noble Lord whether he seriously suggests that in that case the person would be found guilty? We are not talking, after all, of nude photographs; we are talking of indecent photographs. Lady Faithfull quoted Lord Reid on the last occasion as saying that indecency
"includes anything which an ordinary, decent man or woman would find to be shocking, disgusting, and revolting".
Taking that sort of test, the kind of pictures the noble Lord mentions could hardly be found by any jury in their senses to be indecent.
Lord WIGODER: I think it may well be that the jury would find the photograph to be not indecent, but I do not see why a person who in all common sense has not committed a criminal offence at all should be at risk of being charged, as he would be, because it would be a matter for the jury whether the photograph was indecent. There have been observations, as the noble Earl will remember of distinguished judges who have gone so far as to say that any photograph of the naked body is in itself indecent. I, therefore, suggest no more than this, that some form of statutory defence ought to be provided for the person who under subsection (1)(a) takes a photograph which might be regarded as indecent but does so in

543
circumstances which make it clear that no person could conceivably say as a matter of common sense that that person had committed an offence. I know, of course, that there is the provision that proceedings shall not be instituted except with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but again I do not think, as a matter of public policy, that it is right that people should be put in the position of finding that they have quite inadvertently and innocently committed criminal offences and should have to rely on the goodwill of the Director of Public Prosecutions in order to avoid prosecution. So much for (1)(a).
So far as Clause 1(1)(d) is concerned, for which at the moment no defence is available, again it seems that, without any form of defence, it does go a little bit far. It makes it an offence,
"to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes … indecent photographs, or intends to do so."
Anybody can without very much difficulty get an indecent advertisement into the personal columns of The Times. It has happened over and over again. One uses certain words which are understood by certain people and which get past the little girl secretary who happens to be taking the advertisement at the other end of the telephone. Is it seriously to be said that not only the publisher of The Times—and that must, I think, include the editor and it must include the proprietor—but every newsagent who happens to sell a copy of The Times (I believe he would be publishing it, too, under these circumstances) should find himself open to prosecution without any form of defence open to him?
I assure noble Lords, and perhaps particularly the noble Earl because he ventured to intervene at an earlier stage, that I am not seeking in any sense unreasonably to extend defences. I am not seeking to create work for the criminal Bar; there is plenty of work available without any assistance in this regard. But I suggest that it is obviously possible that under (1)(a) and (1)(b) a wholly innocent person might find himself in grave jeopardy unless we provide some form of sensible defence which he can put forward in an appropriate case. I therefore beg to move.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will forgive me if I go back for a moment to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. At this Committee stage of the Bill I hope your Lordships will appreciate the refreshing and not very usual experience of finding Amendments being tabled jointly in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, the Minister for the Home Office on the Government Front Bench in this House, and of myself from the Conservative Back Benches. It is encouraging that these two sides of the House go hand over hand over this Bill.
As your Lordships know, the Government Amendments were not discussed in another place. Since the Second Reading in your Lordships' House on 5th May last there have been discussions between the Home Office advisers and myself and my legal adviser on the Government Amendments. These do not substantially, I would submit, alter the purposes or the principle of the Bill; rather they are a matter of presentation and drafting. I must confess that, in my view, there is no great difference between the Bill as originally presented and the Amendments listed in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and myself. However, in the interests of a safe, unhurried, but undelayed, Committee stage, agreement has been reached on the Amendments tabled by Lord Harris and myself. I would at this stage like to express my indebtedness to the Home Office officials who have helped me, and to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his co-operation.
May I now come on to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. We have had very real difficulties over the defence clause—subsection (4) of the proposed new clause. If the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, were passed, subsection (4)(a) would fall. At first I favoured the Bill and the definition and formula used. In fact I think one might call it the shopping list formula where everything is detailed individually. I then came to think that, good as this was, the circumstances of life and living might change; there might be new inventions, and the words would then not apply. I then moved towards the formula, as has the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse", having read the

545
case of Regina v. Jura. It seemed to me that that was rather wide. I then moved on to another case, Wong Pooh Yin, on lawful excuse, and again that seemed rather wide. Then I asked myself whether the formula in the present Amendment was not, after all, the best one. I realise there is a very fine legal point here which some of us lay people may not fully understand. But in all the considerations we have had we have not been able to come up with an alternative. If your Lordships are not in favour of the clause's "legitimate" defence, it would be extremely interesting, either here or in another place, to hear what would be the alternative.
6.20 p.m.
Lord SCARMAN: I would address my remarks solely to the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, which suggests that the words "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse" would be better as a statutory defence than the words "a legitimate reason". I wholly agree with the noble Lord that a statutory defence is necessary and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that it is really a legal, almost just a drafting, question as to whether one accedes to the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, or remains with the draft as proposed in the Government Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is absolutely right when he says that the phrase "without lawful excuse or reasonable authority" has a certain familiarity to lawyers. The phrase "a legitimate reason" has a certain originality about it, and it is the originality about it which commends it to my mind.
The danger of using the phrase "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse" as the statutory defence in this Bill is to be found in the words "reasonable excuse". I would suggest, with respect, to the Committee that those words might be construed more widely than would be considered appropriate in a Bill with this object. They are also inappropriate. There will be parents and others who have no lawful authority—if that phrase means anything in that context—to have in their possession indecent photographs, and yet they do have a legitimate reason—one need not speculate what it is—for having them. Is it right that such a
546
parent should have to say by way of defence, "I have no lawful authority—I do not even know what those words mean—but I have an excuse and it is reasonable." The parent may say, "I have a legitimate reason for having that photograph of my child in my hands". Why should a parent be forced on to the defensive, talking about excuse, reasonable or otherwise? It is a dignified thing for such a person to say, "I have a legitimate reason".
I think basically that is why I would respectfully suggest to your Lordships' Committee that this new phrase carries with it two advantages. First, it is less wide than "reasonable excuse" and therefore confines the defence to the sort of cases in which I believe your Lordships' House would wish the defence to be available. Secondly, when it is available it is a highly respectable and dignified defence, the sort of defence one would wish to take if one had in one's possession for legitimate reasons an indecent photograph.
Do not be frightened of introducing new and original, but simple and understandable, language into our statute law. Welcome the opportunity. Get away from the old, hackneyed phrases and use a phrase which means something to ordinary people, and bear in mind that this phrase, "a legitimate reason" really embraces a question of fact on which courts and juries are well able to reach a sensible decision in determining the meaning. I therefore would suggest to the Committee that we stand by the Government clause as drafted in this respect. Upon the other Amendments, I think it inappropriate for me to make any comment.
Lord REDESDALE: I shall be very brief. Obviously, as was said on Second Reading, we support this Bill and support the Amendment as put down by the noble Lord. I would just say that there are a number of people who have made representations about their worries on the word "legitimate", mainly on the basis that with a really good barrister the word "legitimate" perhaps could be stretched. I know that the noble Lord covered this point, but perhaps in his reply to the points which have been raised he might also give consideration to the fact that "legitimate" could be construed

547
as going a little wide. However, as I hope this Bill will be passed by 1979—which happens to be the Year of the Child, rather appropriately—I think that all the defence should be there. In the original Bill where it was laid down, there was, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], said, a shopping basket list of defences, and this perhaps seemed to the layman rather more neat and tidy than the rather wider sense of "legitimate". I look forward to hearing the noble Lord's views on this point.
The Earl of LONGFORD: I should like to express great concern about the proposed new Clause 1(4)(a). I am not dealing with a narrow legal point but with quite a broad point. Some of your Lordships may have read what Mrs. Whitehouse wrote in The Times this morning. After all, she has some standing in this matter because she and our organisation were the initiators of a campaign against child pornography. She would regard the inclusion of this word "legitimate" as seriously undermining the whole point of the Bill. Your Lordships may or may not agree with Mrs. Whitehouse, but, as I say, she has some standing in this matter and that is the considered view of those who come forward with her. Coming to it quite independently—and I do not take my orders from her though she is a very good friend of mine—I share that opinion. If one takes the arguments we have had today about the need for protecting people who distribute child pornography, one starts, after all, from the assumption that the photographs have done harm to the children. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said clearly that the production of child pornography could never be justified, so we can assume that this pornography has come into existence in some deplorable fashion.
In any case it seems that one could argue that there were legitimate reasons, but in anything we have heard yet—and we may have some more reasons spelt out—the only reason given is that those concerned with suppressing it might need to distribute it either in the courts or as police officers. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was fair as always, though I thought he was rather more misguided than usual at a certain point. He was very fair in indicating what had not been said earlier and what I do
548
not think even Mrs. Whitehouse has brought out previously—that the Director of Public Prosecutions has to give permission for a prosecution to be launched. So the idea that these people are going to be put at risk, that there might be some slightly erratic judge who took the view that all nude photographs are indecent, is a completely unreal hypothesis.
Where the noble Lord, having brought out that point so well, seemed to depart for a few seconds from his own standard was in suggesting that we should now be dependent on what he called the goodwill of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Surely, we are not dependent on his goodwill—one might almost say his mercy—for the exercise of a reasonable amount of wisdom in the course of his duties. I think we can take it that any police or judges or any such people involved with the suppression of child pornography are never going to be prosecuted because permission is never going to be given by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I am not seeking to divide the House this afternoon but unless this Bill can be improved in this respect, if I find any substantial body of opinion I shall divide the House on the next occasion. If anyone asks me whether I think there should be any statute of defence I would say that there might be cases where it is necessary but it has to be spelt out a great deal more clearly and cogently. The whole argument for the defence must be put in a much more sensible way than we have heard up till now.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: On a previous occasion I said that I had no legal knowledge or experience. Therefore what I say represents the perfectly ordinary reaction of someone who believes very strongly that the Bill is extremely important and that it will stop a disgusting and revolting traffic in pornography which is extremely harmful to children.
Having said that, I wonder which of the two legal opinions to which we have listened with great interest is the strongest or the most powerful. I should like to be sure that the words contained in the Bill could not be misinterpreted in a way which we all know sometimes happens—a way by which someone indulging in this

549
horrible traffic would be able to get away with it on some legal grounds on the basis not so much of ordinary common sense, but of the interpretation of a word.
I am much impressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who is a great authority on this subject and also by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, because they both want to do the same thing. They are not in any way opposed to each other but they have been discussing what is the most effective way of dealing with the situation. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that if there is any feeling in anyone's mind that the word "legitimate" is not sufficiently strong and powerful then some other phrase should be used.
The Earl of LONGFORD: It is not that I fear that it will not be strong or powerful enough: I fear that it will be too strong and too powerful—indeed, unnecessarily and dangerously strong and powerful.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: The noble Earl means from the point of view of the defence?
The Earl of LONGFORD: Yes.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I agree with the noble Earl. I am sorry, it is my fault. I entirely agree with the noble Earl. I do not want to see any way in which any of these offending people can get away with it. However, our two judges seem to have different interpretations and from the point of view of the people who are backing the Bill we want the interpretation which will help to get these people convicted. That is what I should like to see.
Lord SCARMAN: The difference between "excuse" and "legitimate reason" is that an excuse can be put forward by a guilty mind. A "legitimate reason" means a legitimate reason—that is to say that someone has done something which is legitimate. Words as simple as "legitimate" are, as Lord Reid once said in this House, questions of fact which are perfectly well understood by judges and juries.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I feel reassured by what the noble and
550
learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has said and I am sure that the Committee will feel the same. I like to think that the matter will be further discussed and considered by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when the Committee stage has finished. My own view is that I want the Bill made stronger and more powerful. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, is right then I think that we should stick to his discipline. I should like to feel that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would definitely consider the two points of view which have been put forward.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Before I deal with the actual words which would be changed if the Amendments moved by the noble Lord Lord Wigoder, were to be carried into effect, I should like to refer to the effect of moving the defence provision from subsection (4) of the new Clause I tabled in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, to subsection (1). Subsection (4) is framed so as to refer to offences under paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1), which are those of distributing or showing indecent photographs of children or possessing them with a view to distribution or showing.
The defences do not apply to offences under paragraph (a); namely, those of taking indecent photographs, because we take the view that although there are legitimate reasons for handling indecent photographs—when they are in the possession of the law enforcement agencies, for instance—the same reasons cannot apply to the taking of indecent photographs. I think that there is a distinction to be drawn here. We consider that it would be wrong for Parliament to suggest, in framing this measure, that there are circumstances in which the use of children for the purposes of indecent photography could ever be a proper activity. The exclusion of offences under paragraph (d) from the new clause raises a less substantial issue, but we still consider that a defence of this kind would be inappropriate in relation to the publication of advertisements.
The widening of the defence to cover these other offences is, perhaps, the most important objection to the noble Lord's Amendment. This brings me to the second question to which we have devoted most of our attention in the Committee this

551
afternoon. I do not think that the substitution of "lawful authority or reasonable excuse" in place of "legitimate reason" raises considerations of the same substance as the ones which I was endeavouring to advance a few moments ago. It may well be that the courts would interpret the words in very much the same way. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that I suspect that the speech to which we have just listened from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has had a fairly significant influence on the Committee. It is a difficult question of balance as to precisely what form the words should take. It is, I repeat, possible to argue that whichever form of words we adopt the result will not be all that much different. However, I think that on the balance of the argument it is right to stay where we are.
I repeat that it is a difficult question. I cannot pretend that we feel passionately opposed to every detail of this aspect of the noble Lord's Amendment, because we do not. Nevertheless, on balance we prefer the existing form of words, which brings me to the question of whether there should be a statutory defence at all. It would be very remarkable were we to decide that there should be no statutory defence. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, gave one example of the position of judges. What about the position of the police? What about the fact that the police may feel it appropriate, in certain circumstances, to keep certain photographs for training purposes? Those are substantial questions.
With great respect to my noble friend Lord Longford, one cannot deal with this problem by simply saying that the stop-gap of the Director of Public Prosecutions is there. Policemen cannot do things which they know to be unlawful. It is as simple as that. Therefore, I believe that there must be a clear and explicit statutory defence. Of course, there is a statutory defence in the Bill that we are now discussing. It is not as though we are saying that it is necessary to have one while the sponsors of the Bill are in fact resisting it. As we are all well aware, an exemption was provided in Clause 4(b) of the Bill for possession, display or dissemination,
"solely in the course of justice or of scientific or learned study."
552
The problem with those particular words was that in some respects they appeared to go too wide, creating exactly the problem to which my noble friend Lord Longford addressed himself a few moments ago when he was discussing the terms of the Government Amendment. For those reasons, we came to the conclusion that it was desirable to tighten the matter up to some degree. That is, in fact, what we have done by the use of the words "legitimate reason".
The Earl of LONGFORD: As the noble Lord referred to me perhaps I could comment. I am not saying that the old wording was perfect; I certainly do not agree that the new words are very good. I believe that some fresh words have to be found, which have not yet been laid before the Committee, no doubt in time for the next stage.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I hope that I would not be so arrogant as to say that under no circumstances would we look at other forms of words. That would be an absurd proposition. Of course, if any form of words is put down, we shall examine it carefully. But with great respect to my noble friend Lord Longford, I do not believe it is an easy matter, as I am sure he would agree. One has to strike a delicate balance here. One cannot put those involved in the very difficult job of law enforcement at the very best into an extremely ambiguous position when they are carrying out their lawful duties. We cannot possibly put the police in such a situation. I could give many other examples.
I have spoken perhaps a little too long on this matter, but I repeat that at the moment we are certainly of the view—for the reasons which have been so very persuasively put before the Committee this afternoon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman—that the existing form of words is preferable to any alternative about which we have so far heard. Certainly if other forms of words are put before the Committee, we shall, of course examine them.
The Earl of HALSBURY: With the permission of the Committee may I say that I am a little uneasy at the way in which the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich,

553
is developing because of his dichotomy of the defences as between paragraphs (a) and (d) of subsection (1), on the one hand, and paragraphs (b) and (c) on the other. I should like to illustrate this with something taken from medical science. For example, the editor of a journal in which the photograph of a syphilitic child's private parts were published would have two defences: first, that the photograph was not indecent and, alternatively, that he had a legitimate reason for distributing it: to wit, the advancement of medical education. That gives him two defences. However, the photographer who took the photograph has only one defence. To me that seems to be a rather unfortunate state of affairs. I ask the Minister to consider this point before the matter comes up again on Report.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, I take the point. This is a difficult matter, which I have in fact been considering this afternoon. At the moment we are not persuaded that it would be right to move in the direction that he suggests, but obviously we shall consider what he has said.
Lord SCARMAN: I should like to support what the noble Earl has just said and suggest that when the Government are considering his point in respect of paragraphs (a) and (d) they should bear in mind that there is a real difference between the (a) offence and the (d) offence; that it might be reasonable to provide a statutory defence, in whatever words are ultimately decided to be appropriate, to subsection (1)(a), without allowing any such defence to subsection (1)(d).
Lord SOMERS: Perhaps I may say a few words, although not much remains to be said. I listened very carefully to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. To accept his Amendments would seriously weaken the Bill. One must remember that if the words which he proposes are inserted, the people with whom we are dealing are not fools and will find some means of having a reasonable excuse for having their photographs. Only too often have we found it impossible to prosecute a person who we know perfectly well is guilty, simply
554
because of certain wording in the Act which concerns them. I think that this would greatly weaken the Bill.
We must also remember that we are inclined to be very frightened of the fact that unless the defence is there, one is likely to he prosecuted; but people do not carry out accusations of crimes of this sort unless there is some serious expectation that they are true. For instance, if I carry a photograph of my own child naked in my pocketbook, I do not expect someone suddenly to come rushing up to me saying, "Open your pocketbook. Let me see. Oh, you've got a photograph of a naked child. Let me have your name and address". That sort of thing does not happen. It is only if there is a serious supposition that one possesses something that is indecent that that situation arises. I think that it was the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who said that a naked child of itself is not indecent.
Lord WIGODER: Two separate issues have been raised. One is whether "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse" is or is not better wording than "legitimate reason". On that I have no very strong views. I have listened with great interest, particularly to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, had to say. I slightly prefer a traditional formula; he slightly prefers a new one. If we adhere to the new formula of "legitimate reason", I shall have much pleasure in reminding the noble and learned Lord of his words after the first case has been heard in the Appellate Committee in which four of his colleagues and the noble and learned Lord will have delivered not entirely harmonious judgments as to the meaning of the expression.
Rather more important is the question whether a defence should be extended to subsection (1)(a) and (d). So far the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has not indicated that he proposes to offer any protection to the police photographer or the officer in charge of the case who asks the photographer to take the photograph. I am sure that he would not want to leave the police in the position in which, prima facie, they might be committing an offence. I also find some difficulty with paragraph (d) as to who exactly is the publisher of the newspaper which contains an advertisement. I am

555
sure that the noble Lord would be willing to look at these points in the light of the debate. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.47 p.m.
Lord WIGODER Lord WIGODER moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 3:
Line 3, after ("person") insert ("who is or appears to be").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 3 goes with Amendment No. 8 and is, I hope a very much less controversial matter. As your Lordships will see, Amendment No. 8 seeks to leave out the five lines that appear just before Amendment No. 8 on the Marshalled List; and Amendment No. 3 seeks to replace them in a slightly different form. My objections to what is, in fact, subsection (3) of the new clause which is proposed in the five lines at the bottom of page 3 on the Marshalled List are really twofold.
They are simply that the wording is somewhat inelegant and unhelpful. They read:
"On a charge of an offence … the defendant may be convicted without proof that a person photographed, or shown in a photograph, was under the age of 16 at any time, if it appears to the court from the evidence as a whole that he was then under that age.").
I venture to think that to put into an Act of Parliament the words:
"the defendant may be convicted without proof"
on the face of it is a little strange and may be liable to give rise to some misunderstanding, particularly when one is directing a jury that it is, of course, for the prosecution to prove its case in one way or another.
I should like to mention one very small point. In the same subsection the words,
"a person photographed … was under the age of 16 at any time"
strike me as being a little odd and as being an irrebutable presumption that all of us were at some time. I venture to suggest to the noble Lord two purely drafting alternatives. One is in the form of Amendment No. 3, and would simply go right back to the beginning of Clause 1, to the bracket in Clause 1(1)(a) where a child is defined as:
556
"meaning in this Act a person under the age of 16".
I have suggested that it might be possible to achieve the same effect as the clause to which I am objecting by saying:
"a child (meaning in this Act a person who is or appears to be under the age of 16)".
I hope that that would have the same effect, but it would do it in a form which if I may say so, is a little more elegant. One would then be able to direct a jury that it is sufficient, if it is proved to them that the child is under the age of 16 or appeared to be under the age of 16.
I should like to make another alternative suggestion, which is that if that does not meet the approval of the noble Lord and his advisers, the wording of Section 80 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 should be followed, suitable adapted; and it should simply read then that:
"the age at the material time of a person photographed shall be deemed to be that which appears to the court after considering any available evidence to have been his age".
That would then keep it in line with similar legislation that is already on the Statute Book, rather than to depart in the way that is at the moment proposed in subsection (3) of the new clause. In those circumstances, I beg to move this Amendment.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has moved this Amendment and spoken to Amendment No. 8; and they are, as he recognises, largely, though not exclusively, on drafting points. I should like to have a look at the particular proposals that he has made. If he would care to withdraw this Amendment I shall look at them both before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord WIGODER: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 3.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.51 p.m.
Lord WIGODER Lord WIGODER moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 4:
Line 10, leave out ("likely to be understood as").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 is again a short point. In new

557
Clause 1(1)(d) at the moment there appear the words:
"to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes …"
and so forth. I wondered what the significance was of the words "likely to be understood as", and whether the subsection would read just as well if it was "to publish or cause to be published any advertisement conveying that …". If the words remain in, there is a yet further ingredient about which a jury have to be directed—namely, they have to be directed not only that it was published, not only that it conveyed, but that it was likely to be understood as conveying. This would give rise to all sorts of questions as to what is meant by "likely", who is to do the understanding, and so forth. It might be possible to miss out that stage without in any way affecting the substance of the subsection. I beg to move.
Lord MONSON: I should like to support this Amendment. It seems to me that the words "likely to be understood as" are far too sweeping and all-embracing particularly as there is to be no statutory defence so far as Clause 1 (1)(d) is concerned. It would cause great difficulty for newspapers who already have to spend quite enough time worrying about whether they ought to substitute the word "person" for "man" or "woman" in job advertisements, without having this further burden heaped on their shoulders.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Lord's short intervention reminded me of many pleasant exchanges we had during the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act. I shall look at these points, if I may, between now and the next stage of the Bill.
Lord WIGODER: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.53 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 5:
Line 15, at end insert—
("(2A) For purposes of this Act, a photograph or film shall not be considered indecent—
558

(a) by reason only that one or more of the persons appearing in it is in a state of undress (whether complete or partial); or

(b) unless it is proved or is to be inferred from the photograph or film that the making of the photograph or film caused or might reasonably be expected to have caused any child appearing therein physical harm or psychological or emotional disorder.").

The noble Lord said: The more one looks at this Bill, the more one sees that it is difficult to produce anything by Amendment, or indeed by leaving it as it is, which is highly satisfactory. We are taking an enormous hammer to crack what everyone who has spoken at Second Reading and who knows anything about sexual legislation admits is a very small nut. As a result, we are all led into a number of illogicalities. I am not casting any blame on the people who drew up this Bill, and particularly not the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, whose handling of it at Second Reading and now is beyond praise.
I am sure that the object of the Bill is right, and that it should be achieved, but for some reason, which it would take too long to go into now, I suspect that this is very unamenable to the processes of law. It is by its nature a very big hammer that we are using for the nut; on the other hand, in all sorts of ways the proponents of this Bill have, quite rightly, left out some things which would logically fit in with what they are trying to do.
For instance, a matter which I shall come to in a moment is that it will be illegal after this Bill to publish an indecent photograph of a child, but it will not be illegal to publish an indecent painting of a child, even if the child has had to go through the same processes of posing—and indeed probably for longer than for a photograph. I am not complaining about this, and I know what the proponents are trying to do. I understand and I sympathise with them. They are relying heavily on the DPP clause. I put it to your Lordships that if the DPP clause was not there, we should none of us let this Bill go through at all. It is only because it is there that we can.
I think we can rely on the DPP. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that we shall be able to rely on the DPP; nevertheless, as much as possible we should not put people into the position of breaking

559
the law and relying on the DPP not prosecuting. Law breaking, as such, is neither to be encouraged or made much more rampant in totally innocent cases by Acts of Parliament.
The whole area is a very complex one, as we know. Obscenity is a very difficult concept indeed. If there is one thing about which I should think almost everyone in this House is united, it is that the present law on obscenity is a muddle. There are people who want to change it in one way, and there are people who want to change it in other ways. People occasionally get up and say. "Well, one knows what is obscene; one can define it in certain ways". One cannot. May I take one narrow example before passing on to the main point, which is indecency, and that is the example of bestiality. You would think that it would be easy to say "Reproductions of bestiality are obscene", but it is not so. Probably 98 per cent. or 99 per cent. of reproductions of bestiality are obscene, but noble Lords, noble Baronesses, even right reverend Prelates, pass pictures of Leda and the Swan I should think once or twice a year without batting an eyelid and without a blush rising to the cheek. It is difficult to decide this matter.
When you get into indecency, it becomes even more difficult. We have the concept of indecency in the Post Office Act, and the Customs and Excise legislation. I do not think that we can say that the results of this legislation have been entirely satisfactory. We had the famous occasion of Sir Dingle Foot—a former and highly respected Solicitor-General of the British Government—buying a copy of the Kama Sutra at the bookstall at Heathrow Airport on his way out of the country, and having it confiscated by the Customs and Excise at Heathrow Airport when he returned. This is the kind of nonsense you can have when you bring indecency into the field.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "indecent" among its definitions as "obscene and unbecoming"—and how wide a spread can you get in that? In the Oz trial, where Lord Parker gave some definition of "indecent", he said:
"Indecent means unbecoming and immodest, and indecent is at the bottom end of the scale. If you are on the beach with your children and a woman takes off her clothes, that is indecent."
560
Lord Parker continued:
"We just do not do that sort of thing in this country."
Well, there might be various arguments about that, but nevertheless one understands what he means. It was doing something which was not fitting at that particular point.
But, if that is an indecent act, then indeed a photograph of it is presumably an indecent photograph; and it is an indecent photograph with children on it, because Lord Parker said that it was a case where there were children on the beach. Presumably that comes within the purview of this Bill, which, I submit to your Lordships, is absurd.
However, it is not just that we are straying on to very difficult ground on the question of indecency; there is a step further about which I fear I must trespass on your Lordships' patience because it is at the heart of my Amendment. We are attempting to use a court definition of "indecency" to stop damage, psychological and otherwise, to children. That is admitted and that is the purpose of the Bill; it is not a Bill to extend censorship in any way. It is a Bill to protect children.
However, we are doing it by a judgment of what judges and juries think is indecent in the pictures they see, and there are pictures taken of children which undoubtedly may have done psychological harm and damage to them but which are in no sense of the word indecent; say, pictures of children in absurd situations, spread through their schools, could do harm to children. There are also pictures which may be thought to be indecent which probably do no psychological harm to the child at all. Thus, the main object of the Amendment is to try to narrow down the guilt to something which has actually caused or could be thought to have caused harm to the child.
I do not think that will be difficult to prove. If the noble Lords who are sponsoring the Bill have the evidence which they say they have—and I do not doubt that for one second—about psychological damage done to children taking part in poses of this nature, then it will be quite easy to show that certain kinds of picture, photograph or film are likely to cause psychological damage to the child.
The second aspect with which the Amendment tries to deal is the area of artists—painting, depicting or photographing—and there is no real borderline here, as we all now know in the realms of art, but it is quite obvious in this case. Pubescent or pre-pubescent children are, in a way which they think, right for their art without doing the children much harm, it would seem to me. There are today in this country in a great many shops which sell postcard—I refer to the respectable ones and the highly respectable ones as well as the others—photographs by David Hamilton. As noble Lords no doubt know, David Hamiltion is a very well-known photographer of young girls, probably many of whom fall into the category of 14 to 16 about whom we are particularly talking. No obscenity of any kind comes into it, but that there is a real sensuality, a real eroticism, nobody can possibly doubt; nor, frankly, can their sales be ascribed to anything else.
There are other artists who I will not name but who are dealing with the same situation, and I will take two examples from the past because the Victorian age, and the most respectable parts of that age, were absolutely rampant with this awareness of the sexuality and eroticism of children. If one looks at photographs by Lewis Carroll, the Reverend Charles Dodgson, of small girls, whom he preferred photographing naked, there can be absolutely no doubt whatever that, whether or not he realised it, they were strongly erotic actions. There is no evidence, so far as I know, that it ever did any of the children any harm, although one or two mammas got alarmed and suggested that the children were getting a little old for that, but that was all right because, when they got too old for that, Lewis Carroll thought they had got too old for that, too. Then Henry Tuke, a noted RA, who painted and exhibited in the Royal Academy every year; he painted naked boys bathing in practically every one of his pictures, and again they contain a strong eroticism.
There may be Members of your Lordships' House (there probably are) who would like to catch that kind of picture, who think it is indecent and who think that if it went to the DPP—and I suggest that it might well pass some DPPs, because this is an area of considerable
562
doubt—it would be right for such pictures to be caught under this measure. I do not believe that, and I believe that my Amendment would, on the one side, protect the legitimate artist and photographer who nevertheless is aware, as all your Lordships may be aware, of the sexuality of young children; and at the same time it would put the attack, the prosecution, into the position of really prosecuting what matters, which is whether the children are likely to be harmed. It is not whether this or that picture looks indecent to you or to me or to noble and learned Lords or to members of a jury. What this Bill is about, as its proponents have said, is the protection of children, and that is what my Amendment is geared to do.
My Amendment may be extremely imperfect and I am prepared to believe it is. I am certainly not going to pursue the matter any further beyond this stage, but I believe it is a matter worth putting before your Lordships in case the Committee should see fit to accept the Amendment. But even if that is not the case, it is worth putting on the record because it seems to me that this is very much a stop-gap of a Bill and that at some time within the next five, six or seven years we shall have to do a major job on legislation dealing with obscenity and indecency. Perhaps it is not a bad thing to face up to some of the problems as we go along.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The Amendment raises two issues about the present effect of the Government's new clause, indeed of the original Bill, and about the effect of the legislation if the Amendment were carried. I will deal with both issues in turn. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said, indecency is the test in various existing parts of the law. In none of the provisions is the word defined or qualified or limited in any way, in a similar manner to what is proposed here.
"Indecent" or "obscene" is the test laid down under the Customs legislation for prohibited imports, and under the Post Office Act 1953 for prohibited matter in the post. Public displays and advertisements are illegal if they are indecent under various 19th century enactments, and indecency is also the test under certain offences at common law, such as that of

563
indecent exhibition which applied to the exhibition of films until the autumn of last year. There is, therefore, nothing new in the concept so far as the courts are concerned and, as has been said, it has been held that indecency refers to matter which offends against recognised standards of propriety.
The concept of indecency is, accordingly, linked to contemporary public standards and is a matter to be decided by the court in each case in the light of what those standards are perceived to be. What is indecent is a matter of fact, rather than a matter of law, and even if an observation of a former Lord Chief Justice a number of years ago can be taken as an indication of a view that the naked human body is indecent, that in no way binds a present-day court, or indeed affects the way in which it reaches its decision.
There is indeed much evidence that the courts do not follow such a view. Let me cite one particular example. It concerns a decision in the High Court in a customs case; that of The Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. Sun and Health Ltd., in 1973. In that case the judge specifically said that photographs of naked boys as such would not offend against recognised standards of propriety. Some of the photographs before him were, he said, patently inoffensive, and he went on to consider in relation to the remainder, whether there were ingredients besides simple nakedness which would make them indecent. That is exactly how I would expect the issue under the Bill to be decided. What this amounts to is that, taking account of the age in which we live, and evidence of the decisions of the courts in cases involving the meaning of indecency, I think, frankly, that there is no danger that ordinary family snapshots, or legitimate sex education material, would be caught by the terms of the Bill.
I should now like to turn to the effect of the second part of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I must say that it seems to place an altogether unreasonable burden upon the prosecution. If the Amendment were to be carried, a prosecution would succeed only if the court was satisfied that a child was harmed physically or mentally by the photography; and this seems to leave to the courts a broad area of policy
564
which I think should more properly be decided by the Legislature. Although the Amendment would preserve the word "indecency"—it certainly does that—the issue before the court would in effect no longer be the simple one of indecency at all, but an altogether more difficult one of actual, or presumed, effects upon the child. In effect, Parliament would be saying to the courts, by passing the Amendment, that child pornography may or may not be a bad thing, depending on whether proof of harm can be adduced.
I am sure that this is not the intention of the noble Lord, but I believe that it would be an invitation to those who think that children are unlikely to be harmed by indecent photography to come forward to argue their case in court. There would clearly be difficulties for the prosecuting authorities in producing evidence of harm; and one obvious example here would be where the material concerned is imported from abroad. That in itself seems to be a fatal defect in the Amendment. There is the difficulty that when we have indications of the problems being experienced by some young people who have become involved in pornography, it would surely only add to those problems to have the effects on the particular individual as an issue to be discussed at length, and argued about, in a court. That seems to me to be going altogether too far. It appears to be a trauma that we should do our very best to spare children. I recognise that what I mention here is not the intention of the noble Lord, but it would I believe be the consequence of carrying the Amendment. For the reasons I have given I would not commend the Amendment to the Committee—
Lord NORTHFIELD: I wonder whether my noble friend, before sitting down, could go a little further in giving a reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. He said that, given the background of current standards in these matters, the interpretation of the clause by the courts would not in any sense do harm to the family photograph. That was the term he used and I think he used another example, too. Can he not go at least one stage further—I believe that it would be true to say this—and say that in this context the work of, for example, David Hamilton, as well as some photo-

565
graphs, drawings and paintings which showed sexuality to a reasonable extent, and eroticism to a certain extent, would not be harmed? I hope that my noble friend will go that much further, otherwise he would not be doing justice to the case put forward by the noble Lord.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I have dealt with this issue—which has constantly been argued—in relation to what is known as the family snapshot argument. It was a central feature of the debate on Second Reading. It has been argued by some, indeed by many—and it has been argued in the Press—that there is a real risk here. What I am saying is that I do not believe that this is a serious problem; indeed, I do not believe that it is a problem at all. With regard to the other matter, I believe that only the indecent photograph will be caught. Obviously that is my position. I made it quite clear when I spoke on the Amendment.
Lord HALE: I do not think that it is necessary for me to say, "Before the noble Lord sits down"—and certainly I shall sit down myself in one or two minutes. I agree with almost every word of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I passionately agree with him in many of the things he said, hut I also agree with almost every word that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about the Amendment. I do not think that there can be a test of active harm. I recall what has happened in many cases of indecent assaults on young children. I realise that, strictly speaking, we are not talking about assaults—yet by implication we are. In such cases, children's officers of great experience have told me that serious psychological symptoms can develop after a fairly long interval. I think that that is generally borne out by medicine. At any rate, this is not the kind of criterion that can be applied as a test.
We have been facing the force of public opinion. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, with a degree of either low cunning or high statesmanship, has, with the Home Office, amalgamated an eminently sensible procedure. I consider that the results are eminently desirable, and this is greatly to her credit. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont,
566
that we are taking rather more risks than one likes to take in a criminal case. On the other hand, I do not feel any passion for people who really want defending on these matters. I agree also with what has been said regarding the proposal relating to the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is an excellent proposal; it is the kind of thing which may enable the Bill to go through. I was thinking of opening a debate in the near future on the Director of Public Prosecutions, and to say that his power is growing and expanding, developing and spreading, almost like a tentacle. One would like to know how many people there are to make decisions, and how many decisions the Director of Public Prosecutions himself can possibly make. It cannot be many.
I believe that all of this falls into perspective. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, have tried their best to define the matter. I dislike very much the word "indecent". The noble Lord, Lord Harris, slipped a little lightly over the ice of advertisements and so on. If I remember rightly, in the Indecent Advertisements Act 1889 advertisements about cures for gonorrhea and other veneral diseases are specifically cited as the definition of indecent advertisements which are prohibited from being exhibited over a vast terrain—that sounds almost like the Department of the Environment.
Everyone has done his very best, and I think that we ought to be grateful to the noble Baroness who has made so many efforts in relation to the Bill. I had my pocket picked about 12 months ago, and had I had in my pocket any photographs of a certain kind I might have got into trouble from the chap who picked my pocket. A noble Lord said that these things never happen, but the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, thinks that they do. Only the truth can teach us on that, and the future may show.
I myself suspect there may not be any prosecutions under this Bill. I know people used to thunder and say, "You should not pass laws unless you intend to enforce them or expect to enforce them". I have long held the view, and have often expressed it, that in these matters there is a great deal to be said for passing a law which will act as a strong deterrent against the publication of photographs of this kind, against the publication of what

567
for the moment we are calling indecent photographs of young children, which is a highly disagreeable activity. I can say that I have been to the Royal Academy this morning, and although I saw quite a number of nudes I do not think Britain is in grave moral danger from that source.
Viscount HANWORTH: I think we might consider just for one moment why people wish to view these sort of photographs when they are produced. To some, obviously, it gives a certain satisfaction in itself, and that may be sufficient; but I think that one must conclude that to a number of others it is fuel to the fire, and we might as well consider the possibility that by producing these photographs freely one will in fact increase the danger of sexual assault and undesirable sexual practices on the young.
I think this is a very important point when considering this Amendment, and I am sure that one really ought to take a line where it is possible to enforce the law. The old, old story that if you cannot enforce a law you therefore should not make it is simply not true. A vast majority of our laws are only partially enforceable. What matters, I submit, is that the law should be what people want. It is no good producing a law which people do not want and which they despise. That has absolutely nothing to do with enforcement.
Lord MONSON: I have considerable sympathy with paragraph (a) of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, but I believe there is a great flaw in paragraph (b), quite apart from that cited by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. Suppose an unscrupulous individual were to take a conventional photograph of a baby or small child lying naked on a rug, but were then later to retouch it or overprint it so as to turn it into an obscene photograph. Would it not cause great psychological harm to the parents of the child concerned if it fell into their hands, and are not the feelings of the parents also important?
Lord DE CLIFFORD: May I say that I am, as I was on Second Reading, getting slightly confused. The difficulty which faces me is this. There appears to
568
be an enormous amount of legal argument going backwards and forwards. I know that ultimately the matter will have to end up in the courts, but there are two things that I want to happen. The parents of children must have a very clear understanding of what the noble Baroness is trying to do to protect their children, and we must not confuse this more than we have to. The second thing which strikes my mind very strongly is the question of intent. What is the intent of people publishing these things and offering them around? Somebody who takes a family photograph and offers it around has no intention of being indecent, but somebody who takes a family photograph, touches it up and then offers it around for money has a grave intent of indecency. Could we not, somewhere here, get this matter of intent quite clearly into this Bill?
Lord ROBERTSON of OAKRIDGE: I feel that the Committee should indeed be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for emphasising the pitfalls which we could fall into by making the Bill too restrictive. On the other hand, I am reassured by the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and I hope that this is indeed not the case. On the question of pitfalls, I believe that the 1959 Act gives us warning of one particular pitfall, which is the danger of defining a particular term too closely. Having defined what is obscene in a particular way, we have, I believe, caused an unsatisfactory sitution in regard to that law, and I hope we shall not repeat the mistake in connection with this Bill.
I have one other brief point on the second part of the Amendment, where it refers to the making of a film causing harm. I should like to put it on record that one of the objects of the Bill as I see it is to prevent distress being caused to children and their families by the publication of indecent photographs that may have been taken, possibly even without their knowledge.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, because I think it is right and proper that an opposite point of view, or an extended point of view, should be expressed; and I think your Lordships' Committee is indeed grateful to the noble Lord for having put forward this point of view. At the same time, I think that at

569
Report stage in another place we tried to say that there is a difference in the case of such photographs taken of children. I accept the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont: we are a human race, and in everything there is a sense of eroticism, but it is the level at which that eroticism takes place that matters. If I can be very ordinary, if one takes a photograph of the person one loves it means that one has a sense of feeling towards that person. This Bill is not intended to cover anything involving the normal feelings in normal families which indicate love, feeling and affection. What this Bill is intended to cover is anything which an ordinary man or woman would find to be shocking, disgusting or revolting. I really think that there is a difference, that that difference can be seen and that it will he understood by both the police and the courts. Therefore, while I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I am afraid I cannot agree with his Amendment.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I am most grateful for the way in which the Committee has received and discussed this Amendment, and I freely admit that there are major flaws in it. The point about material from abroad, I entirely accept; the point about the effects on the child of the matter having to be tested in court, I grant to be an overwhelming reason against the Amendment as it is drafted. I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord who spoke from the Benches opposite about the effect on the child, not only of the making of the film but also of the showing and the publishing of it, and it is an absolutely worthy part of the Bill that it is trying to stop that harm.
Nevertheless, I still have my doubts in two areas. One of them is in what I might call "the David Hamilton syndrome", which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, raised. I am still not at all clear what the situation would be there, for, as I say, there is no doubt that in the products of a number of respectable artists and respectable photographers there is a sensuality which a great many people, particularly those who repress their own sexuality, find intensely disturbing—not disgusting or depraved but disturbing. I do not know whether the products of such people, such professional photographers, are covered by
570
this Bill. Nor, I suspect, does anyone else. I think this is a very bad situation. It could he decided only by a jury. We could only make an intelligent guess as to what a jury would decide. I do not know in these circumstances what juries would decide. But I think we ought to be fairly clear in our own minds as to what we are actually saying and doing and whether some of these cases come within the ambit or not. This is quite apart from the peculiar anomaly that, for instance, some of Graham Ovenden's paintings could not possibly be subject to prosecution under this Bill because they are paintings; but if someone photographed them, they could be. That seems a weird situation to find ourselves in, and one which is difficult to deal with.
I do not intend to take up the time of your Lordships any further except to make one last comment. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, skated a little quickly over the difficulty of a definition of indecency. I have no doubt that he, too, has been reminding himself of the proceedings of the Committee stage in another place of the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill and the thorough knots that they tied themselves into as to how one could or could not define "indecency", and of the fact that at the end it was considered right to abandon the whole enterprise. It is very complex and full of hazards, quite often for reasonably innocent people. I agree entirely that the whole thing is saved by our having in the Director of Public Prosecutions clause; although I still maintain that that is not totally satisfactory. I thank noble Lords for the consideration that has been given to what I have said, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment 6 (as an Amendment to Amendment No. 1) not moved.]
On Question, Amendment (No. 1) agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause— Evidence.
(".—(1) On a charge of an offence under section 1(1)(a) of this Act, the wife or husband

571
of the accused shall be competent to give evidence at every stage of the proceedings, whether for the defence or for the prosecution, and whether the accused is charged solely or jointly with any other person:
Provided that—

(a) the wife or husband shall not be compellable either to give evidence or, in giving evidence, to disclose any communication made to her or him during the marriage by the accused; and

(b) the failure of a wife or husband of the accused to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by the prosecution.

This subsection shall not affect section 1 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 (competency of witnesses in criminal cases), or any case where the wife or husband of the accused may at common law be called as a witness without the consent of the accused.
(2) In section 27(4) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (definition of "sexual offence" for purposes of provisions of that section about calling children's evidence) after "the Indecency with Children Act 1960" there shall be inserted "or section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978".
(3) On a charge of an offence under section 1(1)(a), (b) or (c) of this Act, the defendant may be convicted without proof that a person photographed, or shown in a photograph, was under the age of 16 at any time, if it appears to the court from the evidence as a whole that he was then under that age.")
The noble Lord said: Of the three subsections of the second new clause, which deals with various aspects of evidence concerning the offences in new Clause 1, the first two are common form which treat the offence of taking indecent photographs of children as akin to other kinds of sexual misbehaviour with children. Subsection (3), on the other hand, is important to one of the central problems of this legislation, which is of determining whether an indecent photograph is of someone under or over the age of sixteen. The provision we are proposing adopts a more straightforward approach to this problem than the version it replaces.
[Amendment No. 8 (as an amendment to Amendment No. 7) not moved.]
On Question, Amendment (No. 7) agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Powers of seizure and destruction]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 9:
572
Leave out Clause 3 and insert the following new clause:
Entry, search and seizure.
(" 3.—(1) The following applies where a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath, laid by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions or by a constable, that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that, in any premises in the petty sessions area for which he acts, there are indecent photographs of children and that such photographs—

(a) are or have been taken there; or

(b) are or have been shown there, or are kept there with a view to their being distributed or shown.

(2) The justice may issue a warrant under his hand authorising any constable to enter (if need be by force) and search the premises within fourteen days from the date of the warrant, and to seize and remove any articles which he believes (with reasonable cause) to be or include indecent photographs of children taken or shown on the premises, or kept there with a view to their being distributed or shown.
(3) Articles seized under the authority of the warrant, and not returned to the occupier of the premises, shall be brought before a justice of the peace acting for the same petty sessions area as the justice who issued the warrant.
(4) This section and section (Forfeiture) below apply in relation to any stall or vehicle, as they apply in relation to premises, with the necessary modifications of references to premises and the substitution of references to use for references to occupation.")
The noble Lord said: Clause 3 of the Bill as introduced raised a number of questions about how it was intended to work, and new Clause 3 which, together with new Clause 4, is intended to replace it, offers instead a more detailed scheme for search, seizure and forfeiture in which the police and the courts will be able to draw on experience of the familiar procedures already adopted under the Obscene Publications Acts. I beg to move.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: May I suggest one question to the noble Lord, Lord Harris? Under Clause 3(4) the search area is confined to a "stall or vehicle". Might I ask why this will not apply to boats and also perhaps to aircraft and hovercraft? In the Rabies Act, this area was covered in exactly the same way so that the powers of search when required would apply to these areas.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Lord will not be astonished to hear that I have not the faintest idea of what is the answer to that question. I will

573
endeavour to find the answer before we get to the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Defence]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 10:
Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new clause:
Forfeiture
("4.—(1) The justice before whom any articles are brought in pursuance of section (Entry, search and seizure) above may issue a summons to the occupier of the premises to appear on a day specified in the summons before a magistrates' court for that petty sessions area to show cause why they should not be forfeited.
(2) If the court is satisfied that the articles are in fact indecent photographs of children, taken on the premises or shown there or kept there with a view to their being distributed or shown, the court shall order them to be forfeited; but if the person summoned does not appear, the court shall not make an order unless service of the summons is proved.
(3) In addition to the persons summoned, any other person being the owner of the articles brought before the court, or the persons who made them, or any other person through whose hands they had passed before being seized, shall be entitled to appear before the court on the day specified in the summons to show cause why they should not be forfeited.
(4) Where any of the articles are ordered to he forfeited under subsection (2), any person who appears, or was entitled to appear, to show cause against the making of the order may appeal to the Crown Court.
(5) If as respects any articles brought before it the court does not order forfeiture, the court may if it thinks fit order the person on whose information the warrant for their seizure was issued to pay such costs as the court thinks reasonable to any person who has appeared before it to show cause why the photographs should not be forfeited; and costs ordered to be paid under this subsection shall be recoverable as a civil debt.
(6) Where indecent photographs of children are seized under section (Entry, search and seizure) above, and a person is convicted under section 1(1) of offences in respect of those photographs, the court shall order them to be forfeited.
(7) An order made under subsection (4) or (6) above (including an order made on appeal) shall not take effect until the expiration of the ordinary time within which an appeal may be instituted or, where such an appeal is duly instituted, until the appeal is finally decided or abandoned; and for this purpose—

(a) an application for a case to be stated or for leave to appeal shall be treated as the institution of an appeal; and

574

(b) where a decision on appeal is subject to a further appeal, the appeal is not finally decided until the expiration of the ordinary time within which a further appeal may be instituted or, where a further appeal is duly instituted, until the further appeal is finally decided or abandoned.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 10. This Amendment first deletes the clause of the Bill which contained the defence provisions, since they are now included in subsection (4) of the first new clause that we considered. The new clause to be inserted in place of Clause 4 is not related to it, but instead completes the procedure in respect of articles seized under new Clause 3, which I referred to a moment ago.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Restriction on proceedings]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: This clause falls in view of the similar provision requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions which we have inserted in the Bill in new Clause 1(3) and, therefore, we should reject this clause.
Clause 5 disagreed to.
Clause 6 [Punishments]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 15, leave out from ("to") to ("or") in line 16, and insert ("imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to a fine").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which simply provides that instead of the limit of £10,000 on the amount of the fine which may be imposed on conviction on indictment, the fine shall be without limit. The Amendment secures that the provision conforms to normal modern practice and I hope that it will commend itself to the Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Interpretation]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 12:

575
Leave out Clause 7 and insert the following new clause—
Interpretation.
("7.—(1) The following subsections apply for the interpretation of this Act.
(2) References to an indecent photograph include an indecent film, a copy of an indecent photograph or film, and an indecent photograph comprised in a film.
(3) Photographs (including those comprised in a film) shall, if they show children and are indecent, be treated for all purposes of this Act as indecent photographs of children.
(4) References to a photograph include the negative as well as the positive version.
(5) "Film" includes video-tape.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 12. New Clause 7 contains various provisions which help to remove possible doubts about the scope of the word "photograph". In particular, films, negatives, videotape and reproductions of photographs are all brought clearly within the application of the Bill. The other terms defined in the original Clause 7 are either defined elsewhere in the revised clauses or no longer need to be defined.
7.40 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, Amendment No. 13:
Line 6, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My noble friend and I put this Amendment down on the Marshalled List because we are not entirely happy about the phraseology of subsection (3). Again, we have no intention of pressing this in any way. The only object of the exercise is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Baroness if they will take this away and look at one or two of the problems that we see arising. There can be photographs which are of an indecent nature and which have children in them where the two are totally unconnected. It is obviously not the intention of this Act to catch them. We go back to saying that it is not the intention of this Act to spread the law of indecency further just by itself.
Two cases come to mind. My noble friend Lord Wigoder, if he had not unfortunately had to leave the Committee, was going to put the case to your Lordships of where a couple are photographed. In these days of Polaroid cameras people
576
may photograph themselves making love —in no way probably obscene but certainly indecent within the meanings of the word—and with a sleeping infant in a cot behind. There can be medical and Freudian arguments about whether that should happen, but that is not what concerns us; what concerns us is the photograph itself.
Another example can stem from the point that I raised earlier about the indecent act on the beach. If there is a photograph of an indecent act on the beach, and in the background there are a large number of children playing happily and, so far as they are concerned, unable to witness in any way what is going on, it is clear that a photograph of this kind should not he included in the scope of the Bill. We entirely recognise the real purpose behind this: that what you must do is exclude photographs which just have the child witnessing indecent acts by others. That may well be more indecent in a way than some of the other things that we have been considering. Therefore, in moving that we leave out this subsection I am merely asking the noble Lord if he will consider this problem and see if there is any way where we can exclude what is not meant to be included, and include what is. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The purpose of subsection (3) of new Clause 7 is to extend the protection of the Bill to the case where a child is involved in indecent photography but where the resulting photograph might not be held to be an indecent photograph of a child. This might happen if the child is only one of a group, otherwise adults, and where the photograph might therefore be held to be not "of a child". More particularly, it might be that the child himself is not photographed in any kind of indecent pose—he might perhaps be fully dressed—but he is shown in the presence of indecent acts between adults.
From the point of view of the mischief at which the Bill is aimed, it seems equally undesirable that children should be involved in this kind of photography. Indeed, it was the kind of photography touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Subsection (3) therefore makes it clear that if a photograph shows a child and is indecent it is

577
for the purposes of the Bill an indecent photograph of a child. I think it would be undesirable for there to be any doubt about this, and I hope that the Committee will agree that the subsection should be retained in the new clause. I will gladly look at the particular point put to me by the noble Lord. To be absolutely frank, I am not at the moment persuaded that it is going to be very easy to find a way out of this particular difficulty.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: That is why I was leaving it to the noble Lord. With that assurance, I am more than content and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
7.45 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: This is a simple Amendment to make this Bill applicable throughout the United Kingdom to both Scotland and Northern Ireland. I have had some communications with the Chief Constables of Edinburgh, the Lothians and Glasgow to find out whether they knew of any behaviour which came within this Bill. I have had interesting letters from them. I asked in my letter whether they would agree that the Bill should apply to the United Kingdom? In the replies I received from two important people engaged in protection from crime, they made the same point. In the case of the Lothian and Borders police, they said:
"Should the proposed Bill not apply to Scotland, persons indulging in this practice for personal gratification might he encouraged to enter this field on a professional basis and persons from other parts of the United Kingdom might also use Scotland as a base for the production of such articles. I would therefore strongly support your recommendation that the proposed Bill should also apply to Scotland."
From the Chief Constable of the Strathclyde police, the letter said:
578
"The existing legal powers available could certainly be extended under the Scottish system but I would consider it preferable to have the legislation made applicable to the United Kingdom as a whole, provided the parliamentary draughtsmen take note of existing Scottish aspects and terminology."
It is therefore important that this Bill should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. The reasons are obvious. One would be very disappointed and sad if the people whom we are trying to stop carrying on this disgusting business found it possible to carry on in some other part of the United Kingdom; I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will agree about this. I hope very much that he will agree to this Amendment. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount Simon): I have to inform the Committee that, if this Amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 15.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: May I deal with Scotland first—appropriately in view of the fact that the noble Baroness moved this Amendment—and then I will come to the situation in Northern Ireland. The two cases are different for reasons which I will explain. I am advised that the law in Scotland is already different and I am assured by my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate that there is no need for legislation to outlaw the production and distribution of pornographic material in Scotland. There is no abuse at which this Bill strikes which is not already an offence under the Scottish criminal law. Indeed, the common law of Scotland and the powers of the courts under it are more extensive than the provision made by the Bill. That is the situation so far as Scotland is concerned. I will gladly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Baroness has said.
May I now come to the situation in Northern Ireland, which is a different matter for a number of fairly obvious reasons. So far as this Bill is concerned, the Governenmt's view remains that as described by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office in another place on 21st April; namely, that it is our intention that the law in Northern Ireland

579
should provide equal protection for the children of Northern Ireland, and that it should also provide no less assistance to the police than does the law in England and Wales. However, the Northern Ireland law, on both obscenity and child protection, differs very considerably from that in England and Wales. There would in consequence be serious difficulties in extending this Bill to Northern Ireland by the means proposed by the noble Baroness.
For example, a number of further Amendments to the Bill would be necessary if confusion was not to be introduced into the criminal law in the Province. Moreover, Northern Ireland law relating to pornography and child protection is all contained at present in the Northern Ireland Statute Book. This would no longer be the case if the Bill were to be simply extended in the way which has been suggested. In the view of the Government, therefore, the simple extension of the Bill would lead to a variety of unnecessary complications and would do nothing whatever to serve the interests of the children of the Province. We therefore propose to ensure that equivalent provision for Northern Ireland is made by an Order in Council, which would be free from the kinds of difficulties I have just mentioned. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her Amendment.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for giving us that information and also very glad that my fears have been calmed on this one matter. I think it is important that the people in Scotland should know, although their name does not appear in the Bill, that it applies to them, and no doubt the Secretary of State will see to it that this does happen. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 7, after ("Act") insert ("except section (Indecent photographs of children) (6)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, which is a minor technical one. It extends to Scotland and Northern Ireland the application of the provisions making offences under the Bill extraditable. The Extradition Act of 1870 and the
580
Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 both apply throughout the United Kingdom and therefore that subsection of this Bill which amends those Acts must itself extend throughout the United Kingdom.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 16:
Line 1, leave out from ("by") to end of line 3 and insert ("making indecent photographs of them; and to penalise the distribution, showing and advertisement of such indecent photographs")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, which changes the Long Title of the Bill to reflect more closely what the effect of the legislation will be. The Title at present refers only to production and material of an obscene or pornographic character. The new form of words refers instead to the making, distribution, showing and advertisement of indecent photographs of children. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

THE NUCLEAR DETERRENT
7.53 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for the future of the British nuclear deterrent. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Question that I am raising tonight is not one about which I am optimistic of getting an answer one way or the other, but if it could serve as a starter towards reaching a decision at some time in the near future, so much the better. I fully realise that the decision which has to be made does not have to be made immediately; nevertheless, it is a decision, or a problem, which is not going to disappear. It will have to be faced by us at some time in the comparatively near future—perhaps in something like 18 months.
No matter how much the present Government or any future Government

581
may wish, this problem will remain and will not go away. Without a crystal ball it is very difficult to foresee what the situation of the world, and indeed of Europe, may be in the 1990s. However, one can make various assumptions. They may not necessarily be correct, but that does not really matter. For instance, NATO may not exist or it may exist in a modified form. The United States may no longer be in Europe. It is even possible that there will be some form of federal European defence. But there is one thing that I think is reasonably certain, and that is that France will still have its own nuclear deterrent. In the likely, or unlikely, event that the SALT talks will have achieved nuclear disarmament, on a smaller or larger scale, all well and good—though I myself very much doubt whether the Russians really will ever agree to that sort of thing.
So, if the situation is rather uncertain, where does the United Kingdom stand? I think we should be prepared for the worst, and therefore we need to be in a position where France certainly will not be the undisputed leader in the defence of Europe. Therefore it follows that we probably should have our own nuclear deterrent, because if we do not look after ourselves nobody else is going to bother to.
Again, there is the possibility—Heaven forbid it!—that we shall have an extreme Left-Wing Government in the United Kingdom; and if that should be the case then the question we are discussing tonight really will not arise because we shall have lost all the things that we, as freedom-loving people, believe in. However, if we assume that this unhappy state of affairs does not arise, I think we must be in a position of strength, because it is only from a position of strength that we can establish our leadership of European defence and, simultaneously, be a voice which is not only heard but listened to and which is capable of exerting much influence on world politics.
I have said in this Chamber on numerous occasions that it is quite impossible to have detente unless you have reasonable parity of strength between the opposing sides. My noble friend Lord Gladwyn raised this question of the British nuclear deterrent in our Defence debate on 20th April and I am very happy to know
582
that he is going to take part in this Unstarred Question tonight. I know that the answer he received—which was not in the debate itself—was not at all satisfactory: at least not to my way of thinking. I was going to read out the Answer but it would probably be better if my noble friend did that. The basis of it was that there are no plans for a successor to Polaris. My Lords, I do not think that that is a good enough Answer. I believe that at this time our present Polaris force is still very largely dependent on the United States for testing, for the material for the propulsion unit reactors, for the missiles themselves and for the propellants of the missiles. These propellants, even with refrigerated storage, have a limited shelf-life. Our present force is also largely, if not entirely, dependent on United States satellites and beacons for its navigational fixes, which are, of course, absolutely vital to the launching of a missile.
I should like briefly to mention the communications that we have. I am led to understand that these are carried out by very low frequency radio and that the British transmitter is at Rugby. There are, or were, two other transmitters: one at Halifax in Canada and the other at Simonstown in South Africa. I should very much like to know whether those other two transmitters are still in operation because, if the worse came to the worst, Rugby is extremly vulnerable and virtually indefensible against a first nuclear strike from an adversary. So I should very much like to be assured by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, that if, by chance, the United States decided to pull out of Europe, our Polaris force would still be completely effective for the next 10 years.
I shall not go into details as to what type, or types, of future nuclear deterrent we should have, whether it be gravity bombs, Cruise missiles or ballistic missiles. I shall similarly not go into the type of launching platform that there should be, whether land, air, surface ships or submarines. I am sure that one of the questions that would be raised by Her Majesty's Government, if we were to go ahead with our own deterrent, is the cost. But I have always been a firm believer that where there is a will, there is a way. For instance, we had a small discussion yesterday about exporting more defence

583
equipment to friendly countries, and such exports could help to pay for our deterrent; and, of course, if we chose a submarine force it would provide a lot of extra work, which is sorely needed in our shipyards.
I shall conclude by stating that, even with the most optimistic assumptions, a new force of submarines—which, on the face of it, seems most suitable—armed with Cruise missiles would probably not be ready till 1993, even if it was started in 1980, and that is only 18 months away. While an equivalent submarine force, fitted with a Polaris type of ballistic missile, would be in service very little earlier. So I should like tonight to try to get not a promise, but a consideration that this Government, or any future Government—whether it changes in the immediate future, or in the distant future—will, for the sake of the British people, and to keep them in the picture and informed, produce a Green Paper on the subject, because we do not have very much time in which to decide.
8.2 p.m.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, we are indeed very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for giving us an opportunity to discuss this very important question this evening. We have now had our own effective nuclear deterrent, in the shape of the Polaris submarines, for just under 10 years. But for 30 years, British Governments of both major political Parties have continuously taken the view that a strategic nuclear deterrent is an essential part of Britain's defences. As Ian Smart put it recently, in a report from the Royal Institute of International Affairs:
"There is now approaching one of these rare moments at which that view must either be positively reaffirmed or drastically revised. Inertia alone will not suffice."
Our nuclear deterrent serves a very useful purpose not because it provides a minor element in the array of nuclear devices open to NATO, but because it is a totally independent one and a British one. We can justifiably feel very proud of the part that many of our scientists have played in the development, at various stages, of our nuclear deterrent. It must be maintained and the Conservative Party's conviction was very clearly expressed by my right honourable friend
584
Sir Ian Gilmour, at the Kiel Security Forum in West Germany in January this year.
There is no doubt that replacement of Britain's Polaris missile will be one of the most urgent decisions to be taken by the next Conservative Government. Because of President Carter's rather weak and dangerous see-sawing act in postponing the manufacture of the neutron bomb, and a continuing massive Soviet build-up of their military strength, Britain cannot possibly renege on her commitment to NATO. Western civilisation is threatened by the highly intolerant eye of the Kremlin which can, in the end, recognise only strength and power.
NATO is certainly a more than useful group of fighting forces, supported by their respective Governments, and without it those countries would have to form other, and probably more complicated, alliances. With good management, NATO will go on for years, with or without any hiccoughs or indigestion from consuming such things as Turkish delight. But different countries are bound to have occasional internal problems, and we hope that none of them is sufficient to lead to the break-up of NATO. Nevertheless, like good Boy Scouts we must be prepared for all eventualities and plan to see what would happen if NATO became weak or ineffective.
In this, I hope, unlikely instance an independent nuclear deterrent would stand us in very good stead. But when we think of whether to replace some of our ageing equipment, there are many different aspects to consider. One is the cost and our ability to pay for replacements that we want, and that is a prime factor which has to be carefully weighed up. Without a good defence force, all else that we strive for can be lost all too quickly, as history has shown many times. We can certainly kiss goodbye to all our welfare services, holidays and other trappings of material life if an invader overpowers us.
As a Party, the Conservatives have always believed in spending money on defence, but a replacement for Polaris would certainly not be cheap and any large expenditure such as this would have to be very carefully costed, as it would inevitably place a strain on our resources.

585
I am confident that the next Conservative Government will boost the economy sufficiently to provide greater individual stimulus, so that the general wellbeing of this country improves radically. It therefore stands to reason that a Conservative Government would have an easier task than the present Government in finding money for useful purposes and avoiding needless waste. Some facts relating to this were put quite well in Monday's debate in your Lordships' House, on international arbitration. While talking of needless waste, I must admit that I wish I had been paid to stay on at school.
But in financial terms, it is reasonable to suppose that there would be a ceiling on what could be spent, so that we can almost certainly afford only one technical option; an option on our current nuclear deterrent, which is known publicly to be four submarines, which is probably the absolute minimum needed to keep a permanent and consistent ability to use these weapons at any time. Let us hope that they never have to be used, but their life of usefulness is estimated at 20 to 25 years, and the time estimated to build up a replacement could easily be 13 years.
If we say that 1993 will be the last year in which we can keep our present submarines going, as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, suggested, we have only one clear year before we have to make a major decision on the Polaris replacement. It is not very far away, so what should we choose and do we buy from a friend or make our own? Do we need more submarines or manned aircraft or surface ships or, perhaps, land-based weapons? We can afford only one type, so which will be the most reliable and the most accurate?
I certainly hope that all those who are privy to the highly secret information, upon which a decision is to be based, will take the very best advice and will take it in time; not only that, but do what is difficult for a Government, which is to implement its decision so that future generations and leaders are left with a good and worthy inheritance, and not a millstone around their necks. I can only treat with great scorn the answer given by the Government on 8th November in both Houses, that they have no plans for a successor to the Polaris force,
"which has many years of effective life ahead of it."—[Official Report, 8/11/77; col. 27.]
586
As I have just tried to explain, it may take 13 years to provide a replacement, so it is madness to make a statement like that. The Government's attitude leaves an enormous vacuum and does not show any leadership whatsoever. Who knows what will be happening in 13 years' time? Crystal gazing, as the noble Earl also said, has been described as having a 50–50 chance of being right or wrong. Correct forecasting should be easier with the marvels of modern science in this computer-linked age. But so much for the financial aspect.
There is also a political argument which has very strong implications. Our contribution to NATO is partly our deterrent, and any decision on its replacement must be in keeping with our existing commitment to NATO. We have also had a bilateral agreement with the United States. These relations will be affected by our decision. Our relationship with Europe will also be affected on a political plane, but there is one fact that we must never forget: that the essential purpose of a nuclear deterrent is not to fight a war but to provide a permanent political message. We must never forget the factor of wider international collaboration in achieving a replacement for Polaris and the even wider issue of arms control throughout the world. If we as a country give up all ideas of having our own nuclear deterrent, as the Labour Party would have us do, the decision would undoubtedly affect NATO —perhaps only marginally, but it would certainly leave us open to the ultimate threat from a potential enemy.
Here I must pour some cold water on all the fuss about the recent comments which were made by the Chief of the Defence Staff. Of course, we must try to sort out our political differences with the Warsaw Pact. From that, we may, if we are successful, reduce any military tension. However, of all the critics of Sir Neil Cameron I would ask only this: who have all their nuclear missiles pointing at the Western world, and what targets do they think our own weapons are pointed at? There is no argument about this, so why do we have to try to play charades all the time?
Facts are facts. My Leader, Mrs. Thatcher, has always made it clear that the Conservative Party regards the relentless growth in Russian military strength

587
as more significant than any purely verbal gestures in favour of détente on the part of Mr. Brezhnev or other leaders. In an era of so-called détente, the whole emphasis of the Soviets' enormous military expansion has shifted to attack rather than defence. On land, on the sea and in the air, their forces are certainly geared for offensive action. Military Balance, which was published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, concludes:
"In general, the pattern is one of military balance having moved steadily against the West. In tanks, combat aircraft and artillery, the Warsaw Pact has an advantage of two or three to one".
I shall not labour this point, but it is a rather major point which has been frequently missed recently.
If we were to give up our Polaris missiles, we would still have other weapons, such as those carried in aircraft. If we gave up all our nuclear weapons, we would still have the technical knowledge to take up a nuclear programme at any time that we wanted. We have got the know-how and the skill, but there are many questions still to be answered regarding the SALT talks and the nonproliferation treaty. If agreement on limiting the range of weapons is reached, then our new generation of nuclear weapons would have to be in line with these agreements. If we decided not to go ahead with replacements for Polaris, there is no doubt that this would almost certainly not influence France, as she would then be the only strategic nuclear power in Western Europe.
One thing, however, is certain: that the Government of the day must by 1980 have looked most carefully into all the aspects, consulted all the right people and had enough time to discuss all the relevant issues about the replacement of our Polaris fleet. But let us ensure that, when the decision is made, it is made in good time and for the right reasons. It must not be a political football but a careful judgment after intense deliberation which should be started very soon indeed.
I think that the people of this country will refuse to pay the price of this Government's slavish reliance upon appeasement and the pacifist pleadings of their Left wing. The next Conservative Government
588
will honour the British people's determined commitment to safeguard the freedom for which so many have died, and we shall certainly maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent.
8.14 p.m.
Lord NOEL-BAKER: My Lords, I cannot rise to speak in this debate without paying my respectful tribute to the memory of the late and much lamented Lord Selwyn-Lloyd. He had an astonishing career of public office. What I remember are the signal services which he rendered by acts of high courage and high statesmanship to the United Nations. If the Special Session of the United Nation's General Assembly on Disarmament, which is to meet next week, reaches a practical result, it will be not least because of break-throughs which Lord Selwyn-Lloyd achieved in the long drawn debate which will be resumed on Tuesday next.
I do not follow the noble Lords who have spoken. They will forgive me; they will think that what I say is irrelevant to the purpose which they have in mind. I believe, with all respect, that it goes to the very heart of the problem they have raised. No one respects more than I the independence of the BBC. They take orders from no one, not even from the Government themselves, and that is why they have a position of unique prestige throughout the world. The fact that they take no orders from the Government does not mean that the Government cannot make suggestions to the Director-General and his colleagues.
I am going to ask the noble Lord who will reply to this debate to suggest to the Director-General that the Government would view with favour a showing of the film, "The War Game". "The War Game" was commissioned by the BBC 10 years ago for general showing. It depicts what would happen if a nuclear bomb, one megaton in yield, should fall in Kent. It was commissioned for general showing, but when it was completed the BBC decided not to use it. When I asked them why, they told me it was because if fathers saw it on their screens they would kill their children, mothers would commit suicide by jumping out of windows, and other horrible things would happen. If nuclear war is really like that, I believe that the more the British people

589
know about it the better for all concerned. The BBC were adamant that it should not be shown. They released it, however, for private showing. There are three films extant, booked up for three months to come. After 10 years the film is still making a great impact upon the audiences which see it.
I believe that the Government should now suggest to the BBC that on the eve of the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly it would be appropriate that, at long last, the British public should see this film. Why do I say this? Twenty years and 20 weeks ago Doctor Isidor Rabi, the Chairman of President Eisenhower's Committee of Scientists on Nuclear War, said, in a speech which he thought was unreported, that
"the facts of atomic warfare have just not penetrated. That goes for the Heads of States; otherwise they would ponder these facts every day as their number one daily problem".
In the same year, Mr. Gordon Dean, a former Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, wrote a book, Report on the Atom. He had produced vast stocks of weapons for the United States Army, Navy and Air Force, but he lost his job because he had asked the question, "When is enough enough?" In his book, Mr. Gordon Dean said as follows:
"Atomic energy has brought something new in international affairs. Hitherto the question was always peace or war but now the question is peace or oblivion"—
and by "oblivion" he meant the final disappearance of the human race. He said,
"Men have not yet decided for peace or for oblivion and they seem to think that they can go on indefinitely without deciding for the one or for the other. Perhaps they can, but the risks are enormous".
He proposed in his book—it was the purpose of the book—a vast, worldwide campaign by every organ of every Government to make the peoples understand what nuclear war would mean.
Some years later, our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, wrote a book, Scientists and War, in which he poured scorn on the writings of the so-called strategic analysts of the United States of America. He said that the only yardstick by which we could measure the effects of a nuclear war was our actual
590
experience of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His words sent me to Hiroshima to find out, if I could, what the bomb had really meant to the people of that city and to the people of Japan. Four times I have made the journey; four times I have seen the pictures of the city as it was on the day the bomb was dropped, the mutilated victims, the hideous mutilations of the victims who were present on that occasion but who remained alive.
Last August I stood with a vast concourse of the citizens of Hiroshima beside the cenotaph in the Peace Park and I relived with them what had happened so many years before. Greatly daring, I want to make your Lordships relive it, too.
Sixth August, 1945, 8.15 a.m. A lovely summer day, sunshine, gentle breezes, blue sky. Blue sky is for happiness in Japan. The streets are full of people: people going to work, people going to shop, people—smaller people, going to school. The air raid siren sounds. No one pays attention; no-one goes to shelter. In this enemy raid there is only a single aircraft in the sky. The aircraft steers a course across the city. Above the centre, something falls. It looks very small but in fact it weighs four tons. The weight is in the iron casing; the bomb itself is tiny —2 kg or less than five lb. in weight—a little larger than a cricket ball.
It falls—and falls—and falls. Ten seconds, 20, 25. Then there is a sudden searing flash of light, brighter and hotter than a thousand suns. Those who are looking directly at it have their eyes burnt in their sockets. They will never look on men or things again. There are people walking in the open street below. A business man in charge of great affairs, a lady as beautiful as she is elegant, a brilliant student—the leader of his class, a little girl laughing as she runs. They are in the open street below. And then suddenly they are not there. They have simply vanished from the surface of the earth, utterly consumed by the furnace of the flash. Nothing of them remains. There is no dust even on the pavement, no ashes. Only their black shadows on the stones.
Then comes the blast. Blast like nothing ever known before. Thousands of miles an hour. For two kilometres

591
every house and every structure is levelled to the ground. Lorries, cars, men and women, babies; prams are picked up and hurled like lethal projectiles through the sky, a hundred metres before they fall. The blast piles up its victims in heaps of bodies in the corners of the streets. I know a man and woman whose little boy was going to school when the bomb exploded. For seven days they hunted for him in the city. At last they found him —one layer down in a heap of corpses; he was still breathing, but not all the doctors in Hiroshima could save his life.
Then the fire ball of the bomb touched the earth. Scores of conflagrations fanned by tornado winds were swept into a single fire storm. Countless thousands of men and women and children, trapped on every side by walls of flame, swiftly or in longer agony were burned to death. Then everything went black. The mushroom cloud rose to 40,000 feet, blotting out the sun. It was the writing on the wall of Heaven; "by this the race of men may die". It carried with it the poison dust, the deadly fall-out. The fall-out came back to earth and covered everything in Hiroshima not already rendered lethal with its poison dust. So those who escaped the flash, the river, the blast, the fire, would die of radioactive sickness in a shorter or a longer time.
"On that fatal morning 30 years ago",
wrote the Science Editor of The Times on 6th August 1975,
"the immediate death of 240,000 people was only the first scene in the tragedy of the original atomic bomb. Thousands of others were severely injured by the heat, the blast, the radiation of an explosion equivalent to 12,000 tons of TNT"—
by today's standards a nuclear midget. And the Science Editor went on:
"Thirty years later the incidence of leukaemia among young adults who were only embryos in their mothers' wombs when the bomb exploded is very high".
He also said:
"The nuclear powers have in their missile and bomb silos enough destructive might to wipe all life from earth many times over".
The Science Editor gave his article the title, "Why does nobody take the growing nuclear peril seriously?" Why does no one understand that a bomb of little less than Sibs in weight, a little larger than a cricket ball in size, killed a quarter of a
592
million people 30 years ago and is still killing them in Hiroshima today? Why does nobody understand this? Because, as Rabi said so long ago, the facts of nuclear war have just not penetrated. They have not penetrated yet. But I believe, my Lords, that the first of all the duties of the Government is to make it certain that they do.
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE: My Lords, with due respect, there is one thing the noble Lord has forgotten in that speech. That is the fact that that bomb saved a quarter of a million lives of American, British and Commonwealth prisoners of war.
8.33 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, it is very difficult to follow my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker. It is a moving picture which he gave us. I should like to reply to the last intervention. I think noble Lords will find, if they look at history, that it is not quite true, and the debate in history is not on the basis of that argument. That is an argument that is used, but it is not sustainable. The fact was that the war was over before Hiroshima. I cannot, even with all my admiration and devotion to Philip Noel-Baker, achieve anything like his eloquence on this subject. I might have anticipated what the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, was going to raise, but I did hope when I read the Question—
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for the future of the British nuclear deterrent"—
that perhaps from my noble friends on the Front Bench we might have got the proper answer, which is "None".
I had hoped, and I still hope, that when the British delegation, the Prime Minister of this country and my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker, go to the Disarmament Conference which is coming on, we, Britain, at last would say, "We at least know and understand what Lord Noel-Baker has been talking about." We might have done, and we might still do, what we should have done 25 years ago. We should have disowned the bomb and never had any part of it. It was a cheat, a snare and a delusion. When Britain got itself into the whole bomb situation I personally was a reporter at a Press Conference after

593
the Prime Minister of Great Britain went for his discussions in Washington with President Truman and Mackenzie King. They were to settle the sacred trust by which they were to take responsibility for what had been released in atomic energy. When he came back he had in fact recovered for Britain the right to go ahead with the peaceful uses, which in fact Mr. Winston Churchill—and this is historical truth—ceded to the Americans in the Hyde Park agreement; at least we had the right to develop, if we wanted to, the peaceful uses.
But we were assured—I assure your Lordships here and now, as one who was present—by the Government at that time that we were not embarking on a nuclear bomb programme. Mr. Churchill, when he became Prime Minister, expressed his gratitude to Mr. Attlee for having presented him with the bomb; nobody, certainly not the House of Commons or the Select Committee on Expenditure or anyone else, had ever known what was going on. That is a burden which I, as a member of my Party, carry with, I hope, the rest of the people in my Party. We are not denying that we went ahead and created this. But we did try, some of us at least, to make the people realise, as my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker has been telling us, what this meant. We did try.
I personally, and many of my colleagues, some of them in this House, were very active in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmanent. What were we trying to do? We could not in fact disarm the world. We might hope to have some influence, and indeed we did, on American thinking. We might hope that we might even discourage the Russians from going ahead, as they eventually did. The one thing we did know was that we had a right and a duty to influence our own people and our own Government. At least we were going to ask and require that we would abandon the nuclear bomb.
Since then we have gone on and on. Four years ago I was with two very distinguished friends, Gunnar Myrdal, the Nobel Prize Winner, and Mrs.Alva Myrdal, the Chairman of the United Nations Disarmament Conference, at a time when the British Government, the Labour Government, was in sore distress, terrible
594
distress, economically and looking for savings. We sent a message to the Prime Minister suggesting that obviously and manifestly the cheapest thing and the proper thing to do was at least to get rid of our British deterrent. It is not worth what we are committing to it and what is being proposed. It is unbelievable that we should be talking this way.
What are we going to throw into the kitty? As Lord Noel-Baker was saying, the first bomb was no bigger than a cricket ball, and what we have got in terms of the nuclear deployment is in fact like a small boy with a ball saying, "If I have a ball can I join the game, and can I use your bat?"—the U.S. bat, because that is the important point. We are not independent. Whatever the French may think, their force de frappe is not a significant thing in deterrence. How can it be? What we are talking about is a fantastic situation, a situation which is unbelievable when we listen to the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, explaining what this means.
There is now deployed in the world 8,500 U.S. strategic weapons. We have got worse than that; we have a nuclear minefield in Europe. We have 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, and my friends—and I sympathise with them—who are concerned about radiation risks and the Windscale inquiry, are worried about the radiation risks from the refinery. We have already 10,000 fabricated—ready to use—nuclear weapons in Europe. What are we going to contribute to that? I am talking in hard terms. The question about the cost was raised by noble Lords opposite. The cost is not significant because it does not mean anything. It is not even a contribution. What we are facing here is an absurdity.
If 25 years ago we had said, "We are not going to have any part in this", we could have said, "and we can do it". We would have set an example which would have been more important in nonproliferation than anything anyone can suggest now. We could have set an example. We might have set an example when we realised we could not afford it. It would not have been very strong; some people might have suspected that we could not afford it. Today everybody knows that we cannot afford it. Everybody knows that what we have in the kitty is a

595
pittance and meaningless. Cannot we now at this hour, before the disarmament conference, persuade the Government to make a gesture which might still enhance us? We could say now that we are abandoning the so-called nuclear deterrent, and I hope my noble friend will assure us that there is a possibility of doing so.
8.42 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, first I should like to add my own modest tribute to the late Lord Selwyn-Lloyd with whom I worked very closely in the United Nations and the Foreign Office. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, that he was a very great influence for good on all disarmament matters. Certainly he was effective at the United Nations. For instance, at the time of Suez, if he had been left to himself perhaps he might even have produced a United Nations solution for that awful problem which might have saved us from a disastrous war. Therefore, again I pay tribute to his memory.
I am sure we have all been deeply moved by the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, of the horrors of nuclear war. I think we all realise what these horrors are—at least I hope we do. If there was general war today it would not be like Hiroshima; it would be tens of thousands times worse and it might well be the end of the human race as we know it. There is no doubt about that. The question is what we do about it. I am not sure but I rather think that the moral of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, was that we could not go on like this and that we might ourselves make an example by not having any nuclear deterrent, in fact that we might go in for what is ordinarily called unilateral disarmament. That is always a possibility, but even if we did that it is very doubtful whether it would end the great future struggle between the two super Powers and it is questionable therefore whether it would be desirable to do as the noble Lord seems to suggest.
I intervene at the end of this little debate to make a very few remarks. Your Lordships may remember that I asked a few questions in the speech which I made when we had a debate on defence generally, which were not answered at the time by the Government but the
596
noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has very kindly now given me answers in writing. I do not think they are very satisfactory but, still, he has replied. On this particular matter which we are now discussing I am sure your Lordships will not mind if I read out the short answer which the noble Lord gave me. It is labelled "The Future of Polaris", and reads:
"As you are aware, all our Forces are dedicated to NATO, including the Polaris Force, which is a valuable contribution to NATO's strategic forces. Nothing has happened to make us change our policy on Polaris, which has been stated many times. We shall maintain the effectiveness of the Polaris force along with our other Forces.
"Some commentators are talking about the need to decide on a successor to Polaris; but it has many years of effective life ahead of it. There is no doubt that it will remain a potent deterrent for many years to come, and there is no occasion for a decision to be taken about what may or may not happen thereafter. We have no plans for a successor to Polaris ".
In just a few minutes I should like to comment briefly on that statement. First, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, says that the Polaris force is a valuable contribution to NATO's strategic Forces. At the risk of appearing to be defeatist I would ask—and I think the question was implicit in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder—how valuable is this contribution in practice? Surely the huge nuclear forces, strategic and tactical, of the United States are a sufficient deterrent in themselves. What can our own rather small, though no doubt very efficient, deterrent in Europe add to this general deterrent? Could our own deterrent ever be used or even threatened individually? I am sure that if your Lordships ponder over this question at all you will come to the conclusion that that is in practice impossible.
Short, therefore, of general disarmament, nuclear disarmament particularly, which we are all anxious to achieve if we possibly can, NATO is our only defence and of course NATO in practice depends entirely on the so-called nuclear shield of the United States. Surely, therefore, if you accept that thesis, and I think you cannot reject it, our so-called deterrent is only valuable in case we are left without United States support in Europe and France therefore, not necessarily but possibly, becomes the only European nuclear Power. That would be a rather grim situation for all of us.

597
The idea that we could effectively defend Europe by setting up some joint Franco-British nuclear deterrent is, I suppose, conceivable but most unlikely. It could probably be done only with the Germans but you must consider the effect of doing that with the Germans or the possibility of general nuclear war.
The next point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, was:
"There is no doubt that it [our force] will remain a potent deterrent for many years to come".
Even if its power to inflict great damage on the Soviet Union continues to exist in some form, some experts—and they are not negligible experts—maintain that by 1990 in all probability we shall only he able to maintain one submarine on duty, if that. So, if we are going to remain a nuclear Power at all, a decision as to possible renewal must come up quite soon.
The Government cannot go on burying their head in the sand. They must face this in the near future. Perhaps they will not be in power very much longer and in that case it will be for the Tory Party to face this decision. It is a very difficult decision to take. Why therefore cannot we have in the near future, as I think was suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, a Green Paper discussing the whole matter quite dispassionately and integrating a possible alternative? It could include the possibility—some people might think it a real alternative—of letting our nuclear deterrent be phased out and, pending an end to the confrontation which is still going on in Central Europe, using the money saved on any replacement to strengthen our conventional forces in Europe, which would among other things please our American allies more than anything else in the world?
Anyhow, whatever the Government may say, efficient though our nuclear deterrent is at the moment, it will be phased out quite soon—effectively, in the next few years. There is therefore a real decision that the Government must contemplate taking. Why, I repeat, cannot they let us have a paper plainly setting out the alternatives? It is surely not too much to ask.
Lord NOEL-BAKER: My Lords, I hesitate to inflict myself again on your Lordships, but in view of what the noble
598
Lord, Lord Gladwyn has just said I should like to clarify my position. I believe that, at present, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves the case for unilateral nuclear disarmament is extremely strong.
Many years ago in another place the Secretary of State for Defence confirmed the suggestion I made that with our stock of nuclear weapons as it then was we could inflict enormous damage on the Soviet Union. However, I do not readily conceive the circumstances in which a British Government—any British Government—would decide to make first use of nuclear weapons.
The plan in which I believe is the plan which Lord Attlee put to the First Assembly of the United Nations as its first Resolution taken here in London. It proposed the abolition of all nuclear weapons, the elimination of atomic weapons from national armouries and the use of nuclear energy for pacific purposes alone. That seems Utopian to many noble Lords, but our Government have advocated that course and still stand by it. Moreover, with President Carter himself a nuclear engineer who understands better than any other statesman in the world what a nuclear war would mean, I believe that the chances for success are better now than they have ever been.
8.52 p.m.
Lord W1NTERBOTTOM: My Lords, like other noble Lords I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for putting down this Question as it now enables me to state the Government's policy on this issue, for I did not have time to cover this topic during the debate on the Statement on the Defence Estimates on 20th April.
Nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence are subjects of the highest importance. Discussion of them tends to generate a good deal of heat as well as light, as the long debate over the proposal to introduce the enhanced radiation warhead—the so-called neutron bomb—showed. But that issue encouraged many people to examine the doctrines of deterrence and the issues which affect our security, which all too often are left to a small circle of professional strategists. Debate on these matters is much to be welcomed. But although I welcome a debate of this kind, your Lordships will appreciate the constraints

599
the Government must observe in responding to it. We are dealing with the ultimate level of our defences. We must inevitably he guarded about what we say both on security grounds and because of the obvious sensitivities for our relations with other countries. I hope, therefore, I shall be forgiven for not dealing point by point with all the issues raised—much as I would like to have done; nor can I give undertakings.
I should, first, like to examine briefly how the rôle of our strategic nuclear weapons has changed over the last two decades, in order to help us to maintain the deterrent effect of our forces as a whole. In the 1950s and early 1960s, we, with the Alliance, relied on the tripwire strategy. This policy clearly stated that any aggression would be met with immediate retaliation on a massive scale from strategic nuclear weapons. Today the drawbacks of such a policy appear obvious, in that minor incidents or accidents could precipitate a nuclear attack; such a prospect is horrifying. Further, this policy became untenable as the strategic arsenals of the nuclear super Powers grew and achieved rough equivalence, with the ability to inflict massive retaliation after a first strike—the chilling spectre of mutually assured destruction.
As the drawbacks of the tripwire strategy became more marked, the Alliance moved to its present strategy of flexible response. I have no need to explain this concept in any detail to your Lordships; we debated the question of strategy at length some months ago. There is no alternative to this strategy of flexible response. The Atlantic Alliance needs to maintain a spectrum of defensive options to demonstrate its ability to respond to aggression at whatever level it could occur. We must maintain robust conventional forces, but we do not attempt to match the ever-growing conventional forces of the Warsaw Pact. To do so we should have to devote so many more of our resources to defence, subordinating many other needs, that our society would no longer be the one we know today.
The Alliance also needs theatre nuclear weapons to deter the use of these weapons by the other side, while in addition they support the conventional defence, and provide the link to strategic forces. The
600
strategic forces, while also serving to deter a strategic nuclear attack, remain the ultimate threat to deter any aggression. We are talking of a policy of deterrence.
Yet we cannot single out any category of forces for special consideration; it is necessary to strike the right balance between the types of forces—the conventional, theatre nuclear and strategic nuclear forces. None of these forces can stand on their own; they all strengthen and support each other. The Question tabled by the noble Earl speaks of the "British nuclear deterrent". But the Polaris force is committed to the Alliance as a whole. This is an important point. The fundamental principle of the North Atlantic Treaty is that an attack on any member of the Alliance is an attack on all. Although the Polaris submarines, like all our neclear forces, are assigned to NATO, they remain under the ultimate control of the British Government. Nothing detracts from this authority over their use. The Polaris force forms part of NATO's strategic forces, and deterrence extends to cover the whole Alliance; nuclear Powers and non-nuclear Powers alike. This principle strengthens the Alliance and in the past has helped limit nuclear proliferation.
Polaris makes a valuable contribution to NATO's nuclear forces, and there is a continuing need for this contribution into the foreseeable future. It is for these reasons that the Government intend to maintain the effectiveness of the Polaris force. The system will remain fully operational into the 1990s. We are taking appropriate steps to ensure that the system can be satisfactorily maintained once the United States Navy phases out its Polaris submarines. We are also taking steps to ensure that the system continues to represent an effective deterrent. There has been a good deal of speculation about what these steps might be, much of it inaccurate. We are concerned to maintain the effectiveness of an existing capability, not to replace it with a new system.
Some commentators have been talking about the urgent necessity of beginning to discuss how Polaris might be replaced when it is ultimately taken out of service, and that was one of the themes of our debate. I believe that this heightened discussion stems in part from interesting papers produced by the Royal United

601
Services Institute and the Royal Institute for International Affairs, which reviewed the issue. We must keep this matter in perspective. As I said earlier, the Polaris fleet has many years of effective life ahead of it. There is no need for a decision to be taken about what may happen thereafter, there are no plans for a successor to Polaris; that is, no plans for any new generation of strategic nuclear weapons.
There has been great interest in the Cruise missile which is currently under development in the United States. As has been said in the past, we are conducting limited studies on the defence potential of this weapon. There is nothing sinister in this. We would conduct studies on any weapon system which had such significant potential applications. In the case of Cruise missiles there is also the important point that they are a matter of great concern in that they have implications for arms control. We need to inform ourselves so as to play an appropriate part in Alliance discussion on this subject. Our studies, which are limited research studies and which do not involve any development at all, have been seen as indicating an interest in a new strategic system. This is perhaps because the United States propose to develop Cruise missiles for use in a strategic nuclear role. There are, however, a number of possible uses for which these versatile systems could be developed, and our own studies should be seen in terms of the potential range of applications of these missiles for the Alliance as a whole.
602
I have dealt at length with abstract ideas and hypothetical concepts. I should like to end by coming back to reality. Twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, in our Polaris submarines there are men of the Royal Navy. There are generally two, and there is at all times at least one submarine on patrol to provide continuous deterrent coverage. These submarines, with their crews, remain submerged for most of their patrol. Such operating conditions demand a special dedication which is perhaps insufficiently recognised. I think that we should pay tribute to that dedication shown by past and present crews of the Polaris force throughout the years. That is my contribution to this evening's discussion.

COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL [H.L.]
Petition against, from the Right Honourable Edward John, Earl of Derby, withdrawn.

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Petition against, from the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association, the Camping Club of Great Britain and Ireland Limited, the Caravan Club Limited and the National Caravan Council, withdrawn.
House adjourned at one minute past nine o'clock.